« February 2004 | Main | April 2004 »

March 31, 2004

Suggested Army Recruiting photos (graphic)

Warning graphic images from Getty Images of events in Falluja. You have heard the propaganda, but very rarely do we see the truth. Consider that burned bodies like this have been manufactured on an almost daily basis in Iraq for a year now. Are they Americans? It's hard to tell. All burned up bodies look pretty much the same don't they?

Posted by David Wiggins at 01:28 PM | Comments (101) | TrackBack

March 30, 2004

Who Are the Real Utopians?

All of us here at STR have surely been called utopians at some point or another for our belief that government should be eliminated. Butler Shaffer says:

Utopians are those who believe they can allow others to have coercive power over their lives and property and, at the same time, limit the exercise of such power. Please tell me: what are the dynamics of human character that would attract some people to coercively dominate others, while allowing the others to be dominated? What kinds of people, in other words, would such a system be expected to produce? Would it be anything other than the assemblage of moral slugs who now hold high office? Would those who go to places like Washington, D.C., in order to further their business interests, resemble anything so much as leeches and vampires who are incapable of surviving other than on the lifeblood of others?

Read the whole column; it's a dandy.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 10:12 AM | Comments (218)

March 29, 2004

Neocononialism

Call me a masochist ("You're a masochist!"), but for some reason I felt compelled today to skim through National Review's blog, "The Corner." Most of it was the usual neocon blather, with nothing particularly interesting. However, one item--and a single comment from that item--stuck out. Here's Andrew Stuttaford writing about a website that grades the flags of the world:

"Betsy Ross wouldn’t be happy with these findings, and there are many other misjudgments (for instance, what’s so wrong with “colonial nonsense”) . . . ."

"Colonial nonsense" refers to one of the methods the site used to grade flags: "Used for countries that have the flags of their colonial masters as a part of their flag. The colonial master in question is nearly always the UK, but that's just because French territories all use the French flag, and US external territories all use something the local military commander has created using Microsoft Frontpage."

Thus, we see the true feelings of the neocons when it comes to colonialism: It's a good thing. Can we expect to see a newly designed Microsoft FrontPage Iraqi flag, complete with a morph of Jonah Goldberg, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh, soon?

P.S. Might we refer to Iraq, which is being treated so poorly by its colonial masters, as our "new dissed colony"?

Posted by Mike Tennant at 04:54 PM | Comments (229)

The Only Way to Fly (Into Space)

Many people, conservatives included, would argue that no entity but the government could possibly have the resources to send humans into space and that, therefore, NASA is a necessity. Here is proof to the contrary:

The reward is high, but so is the risk as some of the 27 teams pursuing a $10 million prize for the first privately funded manned spaceflight near a goal that once seemed outlandish.

Organizers of the X Prize believe that teams could attempt the space trip as early as this summer.

One of the interesting things about this contest is the variety of approaches that those vying for the prize are taking. No government bureaucracy could possibly be this innovative and creative.

Of course, the best part is that no one is forced to fund any of these projects.

In fact, the only place government shows up in this story is to throw a regulatory barrier into the way of private space flight. Now there's a shocker!

Posted by Mike Tennant at 03:43 PM | Comments (287)

Operation Iraqi Infoganda

Everyone pays the price for government lies except government liars. Using taxpayer loot to shore up their lies, they are doing quite well. Read the NY Times article.

Posted by George F. Smith at 11:00 AM | Comments (201) | TrackBack

March 28, 2004

So THIS Is What Liberation Looks Like!

Told ya that the free press in Iraq, which has always been in a tenuous position at best, wouldn't be allowed to last.

From the Associated Press: "The U.S.-led coalition on Sunday shut down a weekly newspaper run by followers of a hardline Shiite Muslim cleric, saying its articles were increasing the threat of violence against occupation forces."

The article nowhere states that this paper has actually called for "violence against occupation forces." Of course, there's no reason that calling for violence against violent invaders should be cause for alarm, anyway--unless you are the violent invaders. Furthermore, the U.S. government was not in the least concerned about--in fact, it aided, abetted, and applauded--all the neocons in the U.S. press who called for, and continue to call for, the complete annihilation of Arabs and, especially, Palestinians. Apparently, incitement to violence is in the eye of the beheader.

From the U.K. Guardian: "The U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, with less than 100 days left running the country, set up a $6 million commission to regulate the news media, a senior coalition officials [sic] said on Saturday."

So much for the "freedom of expression" supposedly guaranteed by the new Iraqi constitution; but then, [Shameless Plug Alert] who really took that entire document seriously?

Posted by Mike Tennant at 08:15 PM | Comments (265)

A Spanish Inquisition for Bush, Perhaps?

"Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian linked to Al Qaeda and suspected of heading a terrorist network in Iraq, is now believed to have been the brains behind the deadly Madrid railway attacks, a French investigator said today."

It is a known fact that the Bush administration had three prime opportunities to get Zarqawi prior to the takeover of Iraq but deliberately avoided doing so in order to be able to maintain the fiction that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with al-Qaeda (despite the fact that Zarqawi's camp was in the northern part of Iraq, which Saddam did not control but which the U.S. protected).

Thus, George W. Bush is doubly to blame for the murder of nearly 200 Spaniards and the injury of another 1,800: first, for convincing the Spanish government to join in his foolish crusade in Iraq; and second, for keeping Zarqawi on the loose to begin with, leaving him free to coordinate the attacks.

The Spaniards recognized that their head of state was their enemy and voted him out of office. Too bad they can't vote here in November.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 08:01 PM | Comments (305)

Life, Liberty, and Broadband

Remind almost any standard-issue conservative that Bush has not done much that could reasonably qualify as conservative, and you can expect to hear this: "Would you rather have had Al Gore as president?"

For just one example of why it would have made no difference had Gore won, cite this article:

"Reaching back to revive an idea promoted by the man he beat for the White House, President Bush urged Friday that affordable high-speed Internet access be available to all Americans by 2007, saying it was essential to the nation’s economic growth." (Emphasis mine.)

Conveniently, like Algore, Bush "did not say how high-speed access could be extended to all the nation’s homes and businesses" because to do so would mean revealing that he wants yet another government program, which would alienate his already loosely attached base (which would be truly hanging by a thread had he not taken over Iraq, a move mistakenly perceived as conservative).

Maybe Bush should call in Gore to assist with this proposal. After all, who better to help design a plan for universal broadband (dial-up's not good enough anymore, it appears) than the man who invented the Internet?

Posted by Mike Tennant at 07:26 PM | Comments (453)

March 26, 2004

The Power of Envy

In 1967 there were 71.7 million U.S. taxpayers. Of those filing returns, 155 reported incomes over $200,000 and paid no income tax. Those 155 represented 0.00022 percent of taxpayers.

According to the Joint Economic Committee, "in 1969, more people had written to Congress to complain about the 155 people who paid no income tax than had written about the Vietnam War."

Seeing an opportunity, the government "did something." Since government is coercion, what it did was pass something called an Alternative Minimum Tax. Did the ATM catch those trying to keep their private property (income)?

No. "In 1976, Treasury reported that 244 taxpayers who earned over $200,000 in 1974 had owed no income tax."

The ATM disallows many standard deductions and is not indexed for inflation. By 2010 it's projected to affect 32 million taxpayers with incomes under $100,000. Like the original income tax of 1913, the ATM was heartily approved by voters because it would "soak the rich" and force them to pay their "fair share" of Leviathan.

That the solution is to dump Leviathan and all its taxes apparently doesn't occur to most people. Or maybe it does and is rejected as too "impractical." Better to ensure that no slaves escape than to abolish slavery.

See Terence Jeffrey's article.

Posted by George F. Smith at 12:04 PM | Comments (93) | TrackBack

March 25, 2004

Dick Cheney: Man of a Thousand About-Faces

Poor Dick Cheney. Every time he makes a public statement, someone else has to correct him. First it's George Tenet; now it's Condi Rice:

Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, took exception to Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that Richard A. Clarke, the administration's former counterterrorism chief, was "out of the loop."

On the contrary, Rice said, Clarke was very much involved in the administration's fight against terrorism.

Anyway, it seems to me that the administration is spending most of its time trying to cast doubt on Clarke's credibility rather than disputing his claims. Clarke says that the administration didn't have a plan to deal with terrorism and went after Iraq to the detriment of the War on Terror. If Clarke is lying, why not release some documents to prove it? Surely there are some presidential directives and National Security Council memos that detail the administration's anti-terrorism plans, along with evidence that going into Iraq was an integral part of the War on Terror. That would seem to be more effective than merely attempting to destroy his credibility. On the other hand, if he's telling the truth, what other weapon does the administration have?

Posted by Mike Tennant at 01:16 PM | Comments (86)

Big Government Breeds Religious Conflict

So, the Supreme Court is now hearing arguments on whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance is Constitutional in virtue of containing those two little words “under God.”

Now, my temptation here is to say “a pox on both your houses.” The Pledge boosters are upholding a statist loyalty oath, written by a utopian socialist no less, that I find repugnant. Not to mention, to anyone who takes their religion seriously, the conflation of the state’s authority with God is one of the worst manifestations of civil religion, bordering on idolatry.

On the other hand, this Newdow guy seems like a crank and a whining victimologist. He represents another aggrieved minority demanding that the rest of us bend over backwards to accommodate his oh-so-tender sensibilities.

The problem, it seems to me, is that when the Framers wrote the First Amendment, they had no idea that the federal government would be as large and intrusive as it is now. So, if you take the strict “separationist” line, then you threaten to expel religion from virtually every area of life that government touches on, which nowadays is…virtually every area of life, period. Religious people are understandably alarmed at this prospect.

“Separation of church and state” is a fine concept as far as it goes, but better would be separation of state from as much of life as possible, so as to render these arguments pointless. (I discussed this more here, in my very first STR column!)

Posted by Lee McCracken at 10:22 AM | Comments (93) | TrackBack

Did You Hear the One About the Naive Dolts Who Believed in Iraq's WMDs?

President Bush poked fun at his staff, his Democratic challenger and himself Wednesday night at a black-tie dinner where he hobnobbed with the news media.

Bush put on a slide show, calling it the "White House Election-Year Album" at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association 60th annual dinner, showing himself and his staff in some decidedly unflattering poses.

There was Bush looking under furniture in a fruitless, frustrating search. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," he said.

You know, it's one thing if Saturday Night Live mocks the president for his pronouncements about, and later inability to find, Iraq's WMD. It's quite another for the president to joke about it. I have as good a sense of humor as the next guy, but it seems to me that this is akin to Tony Soprano's joking about some guy he had whacked. "Sure, I lied about all those weapons just to get y'all to go along with my war," says Bush figuratively, "but I think we can all laugh about it now in retrospect."

Imagine the outrage if Clinton had joked about his line, "I never had sexual relations with that woman," or about any of his other lies. As big a liar as Clinton was, and as much as he clearly enjoyed pulling the wool over people's eyes, he was never so bold as to, in essense, publicly mock those who fell for his whoppers.

By doing this, Bush is proving that he doesn't take his lies, or his job, seriously and is rubbing the collective nose of the American public in his triumph via their gullibility. A lot of Americans may deserve this, but they're also the same people who will laugh along with Bush rather than recognize that they're the ones being ridiculed.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:32 AM | Comments (93)

A Gruesome Taste Test

This is a very powerful piece by a Vietnam combat vet on when he can support a war.

(link via antiwar.com)

Posted by Lee McCracken at 09:16 AM | Comments (136) | TrackBack

March 24, 2004

Power

TLD QUOTE OF THE MONTH. "The contrast between
government and business power is striking. The largest company
cannot tax you; the smallest unit of government can. The most
profitable corporation cannot throw you in jail; the smallest
municipality can." -- Murray Weidenbaum, "The Awesome Powers of Government," The Freeman, March 2004, page 13

Reposted by permission from The Last Ditch at www.thornwalker.com/ditch © 2004 WTM Enterprises. All rights reserved.

Posted by Rob at 12:23 AM | Comments (90) | TrackBack

March 23, 2004

Flamingo: the Other Red Meat

Here's a way to get the Left on board with the democracy-spreading Bush administration's policy of undermining Venezuela's elected president, Hugo Chavez, and supporting efforts to unseat him. (Reminder: Venezuela is the fourth-largest oil supplier for the U.S., a fact that has nothing at all to do with the administration's policy.)

Posted by Mike Tennant at 02:26 PM | Comments (95)

Utopia, Here We Come!

There's a reason Alan Caruba runs the National Anxiety Center: He's a major reason people need it.

Today he has a column at CNSNews.com in which he wholeheartedly endorses a book by former U.S. Ambassador Mark Palmer, the title of which is the ever so humble Breaking the Real Axis of Evil: How to Oust the World's Last Dictatorships by 2025.

Yes, folks, even though autocrats have run most of the world from time immemorial, Caruba believes that they can all be run out of office in two decades:

Ambassador Palmer states that the "removal of dictators is first and foremost a domestic political matter, undertaken by the people living under tyranny." That said, he outlines the steps the United States and other free nations can take to support such efforts. Nor does he rule out military intervention such as that undertaken in Iraq.

The reason for eliminating the remaining dictators is the simple proof of history that "by attempting to base US security in other parts of the world, the practitioners of foreign policy common wisdom not only failed, but also undermined American credibility worldwide."

This is what passes for conservatism these days. Where, oh, where have the conservatives of yore gone? Where are the men who don't believe in this silly Wilsonian utopianism but in hard-headed realism? Where are those who recognize that trying to run the world will mean the death of freedom at home?

Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:06 AM | Comments (113)

March 22, 2004

Dick Clarke's American Backstab?

Richard Clarke, career government employee (I know that's not something to recommend him, but it's significant here) who has served under more Republican presidents than Democrat presidents, has his own book out on the subject of the Bush administration's obsession with Iraq at the expense of the war on al-Qaeda.

According to administration spokesman Rush Limbaugh, Clarke is nothing more than a "Clinton administration holdover" trying to bolster Clinton's sorry legacy when it comes to fighting terrorism. Clinton certainly has a sorry legacy all the way around, but what matters to Limbaugh is that Clarke makes Bush look bad. It's obviously all a political maneuver, as far as Rush is concerned, timed to coincide with John Kerry's vacation, which took place at the unfortunate moment of the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Whether Clarke's allegations are true or not is irrelevant; he's daring to criticize "our president," Limbaugh said, "during wartime."

Want to know what really to think about the Clarke allegations? Check out Justin Raimondo's thrice-weekly column at Antiwar.com.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 02:00 PM | Comments (96)

March 19, 2004

"Ask the Imperial Palace" Alert

I know I said I wouldn't keep writing about my "Ask the White House" adventures, but this time I thought y'all might like an alert about one. Coming up at 3:30 EST today, Jim Wilkinson, Deputy National Security Advisor for Communications, is going to be taking questions on "progress in Iraq," a subject which is presumed to be occurring. I suppose it all depends on one's definition of progress.

Anyway, this isn't much warning, but I think the guy deserves a good grilling; so go for it, gang!

Posted by Mike Tennant at 02:28 PM | Comments (163)

The History of the Statist Pledge

It's not just anti-religious zealots who've opposed this statist loyalty oath. The Nation has a good article on the controversy the pledge has caused throughout its existence:

"Bellamy's Pledge offended various groups from the start: Jehovah's Witnesses and Mennonites, among others, objected, as any of us might, to the idolatrous worship of the symbols of state power, and believed, as any religious person might, that saluting the flag contradicted their declared fidelity to God alone, a spiritual commitment that the First Amendment's 'free exercise' clause protects."

Read the whole thing, as they say.

Posted by Lee McCracken at 12:33 PM | Comments (110) | TrackBack

What a Free Press Really Looks Like--And Why It Won't Be Allowed to Last

Can you imagine our "free" press ever forgoing an opportunity to talk to those in power? Well, that's just what over 30 Iraqi journalists did today when Colin Powell showed up for a surprise visit to his vassal state. The journalists were protesting U.S. troops' murder of two reporters from Al Arabiya, one of the outlets the new regime in Iraq doesn't like because it tells the truth.

Powell's response: "But let's be clear who is responsible for this."

It seems obvious; does it not? The people who shot the journalists are responsible. Right?

Wrong. "Those individuals left over from the old regime do not want to see the Iraqi people live in peace. They do not want to see democracy take root," quoth the Secretary of Empire.

The story is that another car tried to run one of the the military's checkpoints (sounds like Nazi or Communist territory, huh?) but that the soldiers shot the journalists instead.

"Powell said he regretted the loss of life of the journalists, and all loss of life in Iraq." However, nobody is really responsible for this. Added Powell: "mistakes happen, tragedies occur."

It's good to be king!

(Thanks to Antiwar.com for the link.)

Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:22 AM | Comments (87)

With Socialists Like These...

The Socialist Party that just won the elections in Spain, in addition to rejecting global interventionism, also appears to have rejected its own discredited economic doctrines.

Here's Chris Suellentrop at Slate:

"If the old libel against American liberals is that they're socialists, the new European libel against socialists is that they're liberals—classical ones. Here are some of the economic promises on which Zapatero's Socialist Workers Party campaigned: lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 30 percent, cutting income taxes, and reducing the value-added tax. Oh, and they're going to balance the budget and control inflation. The man expected to be the Socialist finance minister, Miguel Sebastian, is a U.S.-educated economist with a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. He's promising to put his faith in the Invisible Hand. 'There will be a strict separation between politics and business,' he told the Financial Times. 'We will be a market-friendly government.' These are socialists?"

So, let me get this straight, these "socialists" are anti-interventionist in both foreign and economic policy? If that's socialism, then I say ¡Viva el socialismo!

Posted by Lee McCracken at 09:32 AM | Comments (92) | TrackBack

One Drop of Government

Remember the "one drop of blood" rule for determining whether someone was "colored"? Well, Brad Edmonds says the same rule applies to government: One drop of government in one area of life implies that government should control everything. Says Edmonds:

"It is inescapable that government is an all-or-nothing proposition. Examine your own reasons for believing government should or should not do a particular thing, and you will find that those reasons shouldn't apply only to that thing, but apply equally to everything. . . .

"If you believe government should exist to do any particular thing, your reasons for believing so are applicable to everything we do in our lives. If you believe government should get out of your industry, your reasons for believing this apply to everything else government does. Government is an all-or-none proposition. Pay your money and take your choice."

Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:14 AM | Comments (134)

March 18, 2004

Coulter's Heresy

I ususally avoid the ravings of warmongering harpie Ann Coulter, but this column is breathtaking in its arrogance. After excoriating the "cowardly" Spanish for opting out of George Bush's ill-conceived Iraqi adventure (which, incidentally, has nothing to do with going after al-Qaeda!), Coulter waxes theological:

"No matter how many of our European allies may surrender to the terrorists, America will never be alone. This is a country founded in a covenant with God by people who had to flee Europe to do it.

"Sailing to the New World in 1630 on the ship Arabella, the Puritans' leader and governor, John Winthrop, said Americans were entering into a covenant with God to create a 'city upon a hill.' We would be judged by all the world if we ever broke that covenant. But if we walked with God, 'We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when 10 of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies.' He has intervened in our affairs before, such as in 1776, 1861 and 1980."

It's scarcely conceivable that the Puritans thought of themselves as "Americans," much less would they regard the present day American nation-state as the legitimate heir to whatever covenant they beleived they had entered into. The Puritans thought of themselves as a cadre of saints, a remnant seceding from the corrupt state church establishment. The "shining city on a hill" they sought to build was a community of believers, not another empire.

Unfortunately, American civil religion long ago appropriated this motif to justify all kinds of nationalist aggression. The idea of America as a divinely favored nation is one of the uglier aspects of this civil religion, tailor-made for jingoistic pundits like Coulter.

(link courtesy Lew Rockwell)

Posted by Lee McCracken at 04:13 PM | Comments (95) | TrackBack

Successful Strategic Bombing

The Madrid bombings brought the war home to Spanish soil, which suddenly made Spain’s participation in it issue number one. Why was Spain in Iraq? The government had no answer, because there really was none.

Read William Lind's full article.

Posted by George F. Smith at 02:04 PM | Comments (224) | TrackBack

The Rat in Bureaucrat

On February 23, the Arizona Republic printed a fascinating story about how Christian Alf set up his own after-school business rat-proofing his neighbors' houses. Two days later that same newspaper printed a follow-up: the state of Arizona had put young Mr. Alf out of business, citing him with two separate violations of state law.

Read the Paul Jacob column.

Posted by George F. Smith at 08:59 AM | Comments (111) | TrackBack

March 17, 2004

Indicting Ham Sandwiches

Section 1001 of the U.S. Code "arms Government agents with authority not simply to apprehend lawbreakers, but to generate felonies, crimes of a kind that only a Government officer could prompt.”

What does this mean?

For Martha Stewart, it meant "the jurors took a nonexistent crime of insider trading along with anecdotes about Stewart’s alleged bad character, and along with her wealth and relationship with her company, and came out with a string of guilty verdicts."

Indictments under Section 1001 are a snap. One government punk once bragged he could "indict a ham sandwich" if he wanted.

Read the article by William Anderson and Candice Jackson.

Posted by George F. Smith at 09:19 PM | Comments (115) | TrackBack

Divided We Stand

One of the criticisms most frequently leveled at the Bush administration by liberals and Democrats is that its recklessly unilateralist foreign policy has been damaging relations with the U.S.A.’s traditional allies. The recent Spanish elections would seem to confirm this charge. But radical historian Gabriel Kolko has a counterintuitive take on this situation, arguing, essentially, that an America bereft of allies is actually good for world peace:

“Critics of the existing foreign or domestic order will not take over Washington this November. As dangerous as it is, Bush's reelection may be a lesser evil because he is much more likely to continue the destruction of the alliance system that is so crucial to American power. One does not have to believe that the worse the better but we have to consider candidly the foreign policy consequences of a renewal of Bush's mandate.”

Strong alliances among the great powers, it could be argued, only hasten the movement toward an over-arching global power structure able to impose its will wherever and whenever it desires. If, as some libertarians have recently argued, divided government is our best bet for checking runaway power domestically, is it possible that the same reasoning applies to the world stage?

Posted by Lee McCracken at 12:25 PM | Comments (111) | TrackBack

Big Mother Watches What Her Children Eat

Think you know what "low-carb" or "reduced-carb" means? Think again. You're too stupid to read labels for yourself and figure out whether something that says it's low in carbohydrates really is, so our wise masters at the FDA are going to rule on "just how many carbohydrates are allowed for a food to advertise itself as low- or reduced-carb, and exactly how manufacturers should count the grams."

Our friends at the Center for Science in the Public (read: Government's) Interest are, naturally, pushing this initiative.

As usual, no one is quoted in the article questioning whether this is the government's domain, and few Americans will question it, either. But imagine telling James Madison that the federal government would one day be ruling on whether or not products could be labeled as "low-carb". He would rightly wonder why he was bothering to write a constitution--and why the colonists had bothered to fight for independence--in the first place.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:51 AM | Comments (138)

Non-Crime Doesn't Pay

A woman flips off a police car, and the sheriff interprets it as "road rage" and stops the woman for this non-crime. Then he runs a check on the license plate and finds that the woman and her husband are guilty of another non-crime, being "illegally registered," which, conveniently, triggers an "automatic search." The search turns up two more non-crimes, possession of marijuana and possession of "paraphernalia."

According to the sheriff, "I guess the moral of the story is, if you have warrants against you, you shouldn't flip off the police."

A better moral is: If we criminalize enough behavior, we can nail anyone who ticks off the State.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 10:04 AM | Comments (228)

Retirement Dreams Dashed Again

(By Ronn Neff): WE HEARD AN AWFUL LOT about the stockholders whose retirement dreams were dashed by Enron's crash.

When are we going to start hearing about the stockholders whose retirement dreams were dashed because of the conviction of Martha Stewart and the collapse of the value of her company?

And who caused the latter?

Reposted by permission from The Last Ditch at www.thornwalker.com/ditch © 2004 WTM Enterprises. All rights reserved.

Posted by Rob at 12:16 AM | Comments (92) | TrackBack

March 16, 2004

Homeland Security Just a Photo Op for Bush

From Time magazine: "As the Bush team sorts out its internal mechanics, it will press the advantage of incumbency. Administration sources tell TIME that employees at the Department of Homeland Security have been asked to keep their eyes open for opportunities to pose the President in settings that might highlight the Administration's efforts to make the nation safer. The goal, they are being told, is to provide Bush with one homeland-security photo-op a month."

Posted by Rob at 11:42 PM | Comments (374) | TrackBack

Cutting Through El Toro on the Spanish Election

Courtesy of the blog at Antiwar.com, here's a link to an excellent dissection of the American pseudo-Right's reaction to the Spanish elections. Just to whet your appetite:

"A lot of people have a vested interest in convincing everyone that Iraq was both a necessary and effective tactic in the broader war on terror. And if you disagree with them, they’ll say you’re soft on terror or that you think this is a law enforcement operation. What they won’t admit is what the Spanish election showed all too clearly – that opposition to Bush’s tactics is not necessarily opposition to fighting terror."

Posted by Mike Tennant at 01:46 PM | Comments (137)

March 15, 2004

What's in a Name?

Seen recently: A business advertising itself as Liberty Tax Service. Placing “liberty” and “tax” in the same business name is a shameless exhibition of vernacular gymnastics. Perhaps these folks should share space with the following misnamed businesses:

Flood Plumbing
Short Electrical Service
Underexposed Photography
Toothless Dentistry
Stone-Blind Opticians
Snake in the Grass Lawn Service
Salmonella Chicken Filets
Crash Computers
Dead Line Bell Telephone
Brotherhood Church of Jesus and Satan
Dirty Hands Caterers
Lost Highway Taxi

Posted by Roger Young at 05:57 PM | Comments (105) | TrackBack

"This is Your Country"

Seen recently at a local middle school library:
Perched on the shelves of a display cabinet were ten small books; all part of a series titled, “Understanding Issues.” The individual books each looked at a specific, depressing issue:
Understanding Eating Disorders
Understanding Child Abuse
Understanding Divorce
Understanding Death
Understanding Racism
Understanding Terrorism
Understanding Censorship
Understanding Poverty
Understanding Equal Opportunities
Understanding Refugees
A quick perusal of a few of the books found them to be written from a typical leftist, statist point of view. Immediately above the display cabinet was a poster showing the words to the Pledge of Allegiance and a small Yankee War Flag. Coincidence?

Posted by Roger Young at 05:30 PM | Comments (167) | TrackBack

March 14, 2004

Thank God for China

"The case for China-bashing stems largely from the angst about jobless recoveries in the world's wealthy industrial nations. In particular, U.S. jobs are increasingly perceived as being exported to China - an erroneous perception that has tempted politicians to flirt with dangerous protectionist 'remedies.'"

"China accounted for the largest portion of America 's record $540 billion trade deficit in 2003. But this deficit was not made in Beijing - it was made in Washington . That's right - courtesy of a runaway federal budget deficit, America has all but depleted its national savings."

The complete article makes some excellent points, even if it's not libertarian in outlook.

Posted by George F. Smith at 09:38 AM | Comments (94) | TrackBack

March 12, 2004

Bill Kauffman on the Duopoly

Bill Kauffman dissects the dismal scene over at Counterpunch:

"As an old-fashioned decentralist antiwar patriot, my dream ticket would consist of Gore Vidal and Texas Congressman Ron Paul, noble lions of the Old Republic, of the America before MTV and WMD and ABC and all those acronyms buried my sweet USA, but they aren't going to be on the ballot."

Posted by Lee McCracken at 10:39 AM | Comments (95) | TrackBack

March 11, 2004

A Reasoned Exercise in Imperial Illogic

"Fears and anxieties about American empire don't need to be rooted in any perceived fever swamp, where only openly sinister and nakedly pecuniary motives push American foreign policy. ... It is easy enough to believe that the administration's foreign policy actions are driven by a very sincere belief that the world would be a safer, freer, more orderly place under the suzerainty of the United States government, and that this goal is worth pursuing at almost any cost.

"But just because the goals of the imperialists aren't nakedly evil doesn't mean their path is wisest for the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the United States' citizens—you know, those old-fashioned goals for which governments are instituted among men. Immanentizing the Eschaton is not in the current U.S. Constitution, though the Bush men (calling them conservatives or men of the right seems inappropriate) might contemplate adding it by amendment after they are through roadblocking gay marriage."

So says Brian Doherty of Reason, which makes for a good way to combat war fever among your conservative friends and acquaintances who have been misled by the standard-bearers of the Right (Limbaugh, Hannity, Buckley, Coulter, etc.) into believing that an American empire is a good thing and who wouldn't even consider the possibility that a Republican administration would undertake any policy for naked political or financial gain (though they'll be the first to believe a Democrat administration would).

(Thanks to Antiwar.com for the link.)

Posted by Mike Tennant at 04:31 PM | Comments (95)

Social Power vs. State Power

Jesse Walker has a very good post on, among other things, the futility of political strategies for acheiving a libertarian society.

"What annoys me is the belief, widespread among libertarians, that the way you make the world freer is:

"(a) map out in detail just how the society you'd like to see will look,

"(b) persuade as many people as possible that your model is both practical and desirable, then

"(c) wait til a magic number of people has been converted to your philosophy, at which point they'll vote you into office, rise up against the powers that be, or otherwise blink your beliefs into reality."

He continues:

"In the 1970s, libertarians debated the "gradualist" and "abolitionist" approaches to liberty. Advocates of the second course declared that, if they could push a magic button, they would eliminate the state (or 99% of it) overnight. Advocates of the first preferred to dismantle the government piecemeal. Neither approach made sense unless you imagined the speaker was somehow put into a position of power, so he could either push that button or pull all those levers in succession. It wasn't clear which was less realistic: the idea that the abolitionist could find his magic button, or the idea that a series of moderate reforms could someday add up to radical change."

Walker goes on to discuss Albert Jay Nock's concept of social power vs. state power and how such a decentralized bottom-up model provides a more realistic strategy for change. Well worth your time.

Posted by Lee McCracken at 09:30 AM | Comments (108) | TrackBack

March 10, 2004

Take My President--Please!

Need a good laugh? Check out this column, "13 reasons to vote for Bush," at WorldNetDaily.com. It's so juvenile and pathetic, it looks like it could have come from the crayon of Jonah Goldberg, but it's actually by some guy named Doug Powers.

The "13 reasons" are:

1. Pride in the United States Armed Forces
2. Laura
3. The "dumb" factor
4. Iraq
5. Hollywood
6. Al Gore
7. Canuck contempt
8. Physical conditioning
9. United Nations
10. Jimmy Carter
11. Ketchup cash
12. Cool stunts
13. Traditional marriage

Even without reading the specifics of the column, it's pretty easy to see that hardly any of these is relevant, let alone a good reason to vote for Bush. (Yes, I realize some of these are attempts at humor, but they're pretty pathetic even at that.)

If this is the best the neocons have, John Kerry has nothing to fear.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:40 AM | Comments (98)

Free to worship, or not

Paul Jacob's Common Sense email update, 3-10-04:

"Free to Worship, or Not"

"A wall of separation between church and state."

These words of Thomas Jefferson's have guided
America's conscience for centuries. Religion and
government keep changing, but that wall is always
there.

Some people don't care for it much. They'd like to
tear it down, or climb over it. Jefferson described
the wall, but we're the ones who have to build and
maintain it, every day. We've done pretty well. Ours
is one of the most vibrantly religious nations on
earth because people are free to worship -- or not --
as they choose.

Now Alabama's two Senators are pushing a bill to
"protect public religious displays." They say they
want to make it "legal" for children to pray in
school or public officials to invoke God while
speaking "on the clock." Last time I checked, both
things were already "legal." Something tells me this
is more about the Ten Commandments statue in
Alabama's Supreme Court building than anything else.

Their bill takes a little chunk out of the wall. That
concerns me. Many Christians see the wall as an
attack on their beliefs. I regard it as something
that protects us all as we practice our own beliefs,
on our own property and time, reaching those around
us gently.

Wanna know how someone really feels about "protecting
public religious displays?" Ask them about reading
the Quran aloud at their kids' schools, or maybe
having the football team cast a Wiccan circle on the
field before Homecoming.

If good fences make good neighbors, good walls make
free countries.

Posted by George F. Smith at 11:30 AM | Comments (129) | TrackBack

Government "Justice"

Paul Craig Roberts writes on the Martha Stewart case:

Whenever a company announces good or bad news, SEC regulators and prosecutors look to see who sold or bought stock in the period immediately preceding the news. If they find company executives, or anyone whom they can connect to company executives, buying or selling prior to news, they bring a case of insider trading.

Insider trading is a creation of regulatory bureaucrats, not of statutory law. It is an undefined crime. Bureaucrats have refused to define the crime on the grounds that it is easier to convict people of undefined crimes.

Martha's real offense was being hugely successful and thumbing her nose at government henchmen.

Posted by George F. Smith at 09:37 AM | Comments (91) | TrackBack

March 09, 2004

If Only This Woman Were Running for President ...

While preparing for tomorrow's Ask the White House session, the subject of which will be the the fourth meeting of the U.S.-Afghan Women's Council, I came across this article on Counterpunch (via Antiwar.com). The essence of the article is that nothing much has changed since the fall of the Taliban. Interestingly enough, tucked into this article is the following paragraph, spoken by a member of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan:

RAWA does not ask the foreign powers to come and "liberate" us. As an Afghan saying goes, "if you can't do something good for us, please don't do us any bad." We strongly believe that no foreign power can or would want to liberate us unless we ourselves fight for freedom and democracy. Foreign support can only facilitate this process. Also, when we ask the world community for help, we mainly count on people everywhere to put pressure on their respective governments to stop meddling in our country's affairs. We have always maintained that there is a huge difference between people and governments of countries. For instance, while we have suffered from the pro-fundamentalists policies of the U.S. government for several decades, we have received generous moral and material support from the U.S. people for which we are always thankful.

Wow! Here's someone who actually understands how things should be done, in contrast to Ahmed Chalabi and others who like to get the U.S. to do their dirty work for them. She's obviously an anti-American sort who's "with the terrorists."

Posted by Mike Tennant at 04:21 PM | Comments (85)

News Flash: Deeds More Important Than Words

The headline of this CNN story is the seemingly contradictory "Teen abstinence no help to later STD rates." The impression one gets, of course, is that abstaining from sex has no effect on whether one will contract an STD, which is akin to saying abstaining from drinking has no effect on whether one will get drunk.

Reading further into the story, it emerges that the issue isn't abstinence itself but whether one keeps his pledge of abstinence. In other words, it's a non-story being used for the purpose of making any attempt to control oneself appear pointless. The simple fact of the matter is that a person who upholds his vow of abstinence before marriage won't get an STD (unless his spouse has one), whereas a person who fails to uphold his vow has roughly the same chance of getting an STD as someone who never pledged in the first place. What a surprise! That's like saying that, because someone who pledges not to play Russian roulette but then goes ahead and plays has the same chance of dying as someone who plays without having pledged, trying to avoid pulling the trigger is useless.

Really, the whole purpose of the story can be summed up in this one sentence: "Critics of abstinance-only[sic] education saw the findings as evidence that adolescents benefit from sex education."

How's this for an idea? Let the parents decide what, when, and how much to tell their children, and let the kids pay the consequences of their behavior. Naw, this is America. Parents have no role in bringing up their children, and nobody is responsible for his own behavior.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 01:17 PM | Comments (96)

100 More Martha Stewarts

Insider trading is a crime against the state, which means private citizens like Martha Stewart can be prosecuted but not members of the Washington aristocracy. According to a report on WND,

A study of U.S. senators' personal stock portfolios has found they outperformed the market by an average of 12 percent a year in the five years to 1998.

"The results clearly support the notion that members of the Senate trade with a substantial informational advantage over ordinary investors," said Alan Ziobrowski of the Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University, who wrote the report.

His findings were based on 6,000 financial disclosure filings and are due to be published in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis.

"The results suggest senators knew when to buy their common stocks and when to sell," concluded Ziobrowski.

If you want to do well in the stock market, hang around one of our public servants.

Posted by George F. Smith at 09:17 AM | Comments (84) | TrackBack

March 08, 2004

Throw Martha's Prosecutors in Jail

If a crime is supposed to have victims, then Martha Stewart is the injured party and her prosecutors should be sent up. The verdict against Stewart isn't merely wrong, it's an outrage.

Posted by George F. Smith at 08:15 AM | Comments (88) | TrackBack

Secession in Vermont

Located in the middle of Vermont, the 1,100-resident town of Killington voted last Tuesday to become part of New Hampshire so it could lower its taxes by $10 million.

The "Live Free or Die" state, New Hampshire could become an asylum for tax-burdened towns across the country, says writer Bernadette Malone.

Posted by George F. Smith at 07:55 AM | Comments (124) | TrackBack

March 07, 2004

Worst is yet to come

Are happy days here again, economically -- or are we headed for disaster? Economist Hans Sennholz offers his view.

After the stock market crashed on October 24, 1929, it rallied thereafter, just as it did after the 2002 decline. Investors were bullish in early 1930, just as they are now.

At the moment, the U.S. is being kept afloat by Asian central banks, primarily in China and Japan, that invest their inflow of dollars in U.S. Treasury securities. But how long will they be willing to trade goods for American paper?

The Great Depression of the 1930s could have been avoided by letting markets readjust. Hoover, then Roosevelt, decided to keep this from happening with a torrent of government intervention.

Most economists today don't realize this. They credit Roosevelt for saving capitalism with his New Deal.

Will Bush or Kerry force this country into a similar "deal" when financial reckoning day arrives?

You can count on it.

Posted by George F. Smith at 07:57 PM | Comments (98) | TrackBack

March 05, 2004

When to Participate in the System

In light of the Martha Stewart decision, it strikes me that the one place that we can participate in the system is on juries. The arguments on this site against voting do have some moral bases, though as a Black American, I'll show up at the polls even if I decide not to vote in appreciation to those people who took a beating to get me there. But I'm convinced sitting on a jury and freeing people from unjust jury verdicts is unequivocal moral behavior. I haven't come across the topic here at Strike-The-Root. If there is another side, I invite you to let me know what it is.

Posted by Robert Jackson at 07:31 PM | Comments (135) | TrackBack

President Wen Jibao?

"China's premier has vowed to rein in the country's booming economy and lift millions of farmers out of poverty at the opening of the nation's annual session of parliament," according to CNN.

"'We must take more direct and effective policies ... to strengthen, support and protect agriculture and increase rural incomes in line with the needs to balance urban and rural development,' Wen said."

Premier of China? Heck, this guy could be president of the United States!

Posted by Mike Tennant at 02:13 PM | Comments (82)

One More Time. . .

Today's target was Margaret Spellings, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy. I had submitted a couple of domestic policy questions related to Medicare and government spending before the website announced that she'd only be taking questions on education policy.

At that point I figured there was only one really relevant question: "Could you please cite the article, section, and clause of the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the federal government to pass legislation or otherwise set policy related to education?" After all, if there's no good answer to that, then all the haggling over specific policy differences is irrelevant. (As expected, my question wasn't answered.)

They took a few combative questions from the left again. Here are my picks for the most inane of the questions answered:

1. Who on the TV show "West Wing" plays you? Do you find the show accurate? What has been the most memorable experience for you working for President Bush?

2. Do you get your own special MandM's. I have a box of air force 1 MandM's from Clinton and wanted to know if you had some to.

3. Dear Ms Spellings, A couple of day ago I was listening to Glenn Beck on the radio and he was giving some statistics about the high school drop outs in NY city and in some other cities. He said that in NY city hispanics and blacks have a 70 drop out rate, if this is true I do not understand how Democrats complain about companies exporting jobs to other countries and only blame the schools and that there is not enough money for education when private schools spend about half than what public schools spend per student and make a profit. I believe the problem begins when we let this kids drop out of high school at age 16 to go to the streets and make a living stealing and joining gangs, why don't we force this kids that do not like school, to go into tech schools until they turn 18? I am pretty sure that some of them will love to learn how to fix cars and airplane engines, some will be very interested in learning how to create computer games, others will love to learn about space and space craft, and list goes on. Lets not leave this decision to them and to some irresponsible parents who don't care about their kids future. [Emphasis, of course, mine.]

4. Who is running for Pesident in the next election? (Ms. Spellings's answer: "President George W. Bush is the only one I'm aware of. : )" Ha-ha.)

I think I'll stop posting my "Ask the White House" stories now. You all get the picture of how it works. I will keep asking the tough questions, though. They don't get off that easily.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 01:48 PM | Comments (94)

Hail, Caesar!

Yikes! Alan Caruba writes a paean to the Iraq war and the American Empire in general on CNSNews.com.

At least he admits that he likes the idea of running the world ("What Operation Iraqi Freedom told everyone was that the United States of America is now in charge of events and intends to stay that way for a long time to come"); and he even admits, in essence, that the Iraq war was "inevitable," regardless of 9/11 or terrorism or anything else. "Having destroyed al Qaeda's base of operations in Afghanistan, it was fairly obvious to people like myself that President Bush would find a reason to invade Iraq." (Emphasis mine.)

Of course, he thinks the American Empire is "about spreading democracy," not acquiring territory, although he does admit that oil is a central factor. He also says that the "combined intelligence services of many nations ALL believed Saddam was sitting on a pile of WMDs and would not hesitate to use them." I'd like to know which nations are among those "many" who believed in Saddam's WMDs. I can think of four: the U.S., Great Britain, Australia, and Israel. Plenty of others had evidence to the contrary.

The whole article is absolutely unbelievable in its naked arrogance, belligerence, and downright stupidity. On the other hand, if you're suffering from low blood pressure, it's a guaranteed cure.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:58 AM | Comments (98)

Birthday Wishes from W.

Greeting card found last night at Target (but not bought, so this is a paraphrase):

Front: George W. Bush, saying, "The information I was given tells me that it's your birthday, and you haven't aged a bit."

Inside: "Whether it's true or not doesn't matter. What matters is that everyone believes it!"

Somebody worked fast to get that one turned out.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:27 AM | Comments (112)

March 04, 2004

Government Corrupts; and Absolute Government Corrupts Absolutely

"Don't make Dave Cohen angry.

"Dave is a New Jersey tax attorney. His clients pay their bills or they suffer the hell of an IRS civil and criminal investigation. What Dave does is clearly unethical (that's why we can't use his real name), but he can't be caught. Dave is a snitch for the IRS.

"Dave had a client who was a restaurant owner. He gave Dave a $1,000 cash deposit, but refused to pay the balance of his bill. The restaurant owner was pocketing lots of cash income that never made it to his tax return -- a clear civil and criminal violation. As an attorney, Dave couldn't publicly violate attorney-client privilege, so he had a friend call the IRS with enough information to start an investigation."

Yes, folks, you can collect up to 15% of the money the IRS "recovers" from the (soon-to-be former) friends and neighbors you turn in for tax evasion. Of course, were you to tell a known burglar where your neighbor keeps his valuables and then accept a portion of the burglar's take after he robs your neighbor, both the burglar and you would be arrested and thrown in jail--the burglar for robbing your neighbor and you for accepting stolen property. When you get the IRS to do your dirty work for you, it's all perfectly legal and above board, and you are hailed as a great patriot and hero because--as this article from MSN Money points out--you're saving the honest taxpayers (read: victims of legalized theft) $1,000 each per year.

Note, however, that "all rewards are discretionary, not mandatory. The IRS is never obligated to pay a reward ... ." As always (and especially when dealing with the government), there is no honor among thieves.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 10:01 PM | Comments (99)

A Few Words for My Secretary

Here are today's unanswered questions posed to the Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton:

1. Can you please cite the article, section, and clause of the United States Constitution that authorizes the federal government to create the EPA or to pass legislation to protect the environment?

2. The WASHINGTON TIMES in 1993 estimated that approximately 3,900 Americans die annually as a result of the CAFE standards, which force automobile manufacturers to use more lightweight materials and make smaller cars in order to achieve the required gas mileage. According to the White House website, the administration has raised the CAFE standards on SUVs, vans, and pickups. Do you believe that raising the standards in pursuit of just slightly cleaner air (since our air is already among the cleanest in the industrialized world) is worth the price in human lives?

3. Global warming is by no means a settled fact; in fact, its existence is very much in dispute among the scientific community. Furthermore, if global warming is occurring, even more in dispute is the notion that so-called greenhouse gases are causing it. (It's more likely to be a cyclical climate change caused by the sun and other natural factors.) Why is the president pushing a reduction in "greenhouse gases" when they may or may not be contributing to a climactic change that may or may not be occurring?

4. Could you please cite for me the constitutional authorization for the federal government to spend money in the following ways: $38 billion to restore wetlands and make other environmental improvements in the Farm Bill; $130 million to improve the environment in the Cooperative Conservation Initiative; $4.1 billion for "renewable energy and hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles"; $238 million for the Climate Change Research Initiative; $1 billion to "create the world's first coal-based, zero-emissions...power plant"; $1.7 billion to "develop hydrogen-powered fuel cells, a hydrogen infrastructure, and advanced automobile technologies that emit no greenhouse gases"; $45 million for the Great Lakes Legacy Program; and $21 million to deal with the problem of a "finite water supply" (which, of course, has been the situation throughout human history)?

I'll give them credit for taking some combative questions today; but, naturally, the combative questions only came from those who thought the government wasn't doing enough to regulate our lives in the interest of protecting the environment, which gave the administration the opportunity to appear more moderate.

Here are my picks from the session:

1. Why do you continue to allow people to have such a little concequence for littering. Our grass and trees is what makes our community look half way decient, not to mention the harm its causing our environment.

2. Honorable Mrs. Norton, What a challenging job you have Thank you for serving. Does the interior have plans to help manage the bark beetle in Southern California mountains?

Tomorrow's poor, unfortunate soul is Margaret Spellings, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy. What fun we shall have!

Posted by Mike Tennant at 04:38 PM | Comments (544)

Calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard

"Prisoners receive free medical care. Shouldn't . . . all Americans expect the same thing?" asks William L. Anderson at the Mises Institute.

His conclusion is, essentially, that if you want the free medical care prisoners get, (a) you're nuts and (b) you're going to end up a prisoner yourself.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 03:04 PM | Comments (241)

Maureen Dowd on Shrub's new TV ads

"The president doesn't hesitate to exploit 9/11 in his ads, even as he tries to keep 9/11 orphans and widows in the dark about what really happened.
Mr. Bush's ad flashes a shot of firefighters removing some flag-draped remains of a victim from the wreckage at ground zero even as he prohibits the filming of flag-draped remains of soldiers coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan."

Posted by Rob at 02:19 AM | Comments (105) | TrackBack

March 03, 2004

John Stossel Speaks

Let’s look at it in the area of drugs, legal and illegal. Illegal first. I have two teenage kids. Intuitively, again, I am pleased that heroin, cocaine, and ecstasy are illegal; they can’t zip down to the neighborhood pharmacy and go get high. But does that really deter them? It’s not like the drug laws are keeping the stuff out of the country. We can’t even keep it out of prisons. How do we think we’re keeping it out of the country? . . . .

Almost nobody gets high on these drugs and goes out and commits crimes because they’re high. The crime happens because it’s illegal, because the gangs can’t rely on police protection for their private property, so they form gangs and arm themselves. The buyers have to choose to steal to pay the high prices. Nicotine and heroin, according to the government, are roughly equally addictive, yet no one’s knocking over 7-Elevens to get Marlboros. It’s the law that causes all this violent crime.

Read Stossel's complete transcript.

Posted by George F. Smith at 05:29 PM | Comments (87) | TrackBack

Green Reading

I noticed that some of the links on the pages I linked to in today's article were broken, so I thought I'd direct interested readers to more information on some of the "Green anarchists" I mentioned.

Kirkpatrick Sale's book Human Scale is a magisterial defense of decentralization in all areas of human life. Many readers might find his ideas too granola-crunchy for their taste, but I found many of them quite useful. E.F. Schumacher's classic Small Is Beautiful is well worth a read, though many readers will take issue with his economic ideas.

Also see this interesting article.

Posted by Lee McCracken at 03:03 PM | Comments (162) | TrackBack

Fat Is Dead

This is just brilliant.

Posted by Lee McCracken at 10:57 AM | Comments (165) | TrackBack

March 02, 2004

The NYPD's "Passionate" Assignment

"The cops at the NYPD's Hate Crimes Unit [yes, they actually have one of these!] are passionate about their work - and they've all been told to watch Mel Gibson's controversial new movie about the last hours of Jesus," says the New York Post.

"Aware of those concerns [about anti-Semitism], the Hate Crimes Unit supervisor, Inspector Dennis Blackman, ordered the 20 detectives under his command to see the film after it opened last week.

"Sources said about half the cops in the unit have done so so far, viewing the movie during work hours. But brass softened the order to a request - that cops see the movie on their own time - after The Post began asking questions about the 'Passionate' new assignment."

The Catholic League president fired off a letter to the police commissioner asking, among other things, if it's "common practice for detectives of the NYPD to watch movies during working hours." At least somebody isn't taking this lying down.

(Thanks to the LewRockwell.com blog for the second link and the idea to pursue this.)

Posted by Mike Tennant at 01:53 PM | Comments (210)

Is John Kerry an Anti-Interventionist?

Fat chance, says William Blum.

Posted by Lee McCracken at 01:43 PM | Comments (500) | TrackBack

The Further Adventures of Mike, the Anti-American Troublemaker

Today's "Ask the White House" session featured Admiral James Loy, Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security.

I asked the following questions, which, of course, went unanswered:

1. The administration claims that the takeover of Iraq, the capture of Saddam Hussein, and the capture or killing of numerous al-Qaeda operatives have made us significantly safer from the threat of terrorism. If this is so, then why does the terror alert level remain at "elevated" (yellow)? Do you foresee any time in the near future (say, the next decade) in which the terror alert level will drop below yellow? (CIA Director Tenet does not, saying recently that "a serious threat will remain for the foreseeable future.") If not, does this imply that we will just have to learn to live with the warrantless searches, sneak-and-peek operations, indefinite detentions, and other "temporary" constitutional violations being perpetrated by the DHS and other federal agencies?

2. It was recently disclosed that the FBI for over 20 years shielded mob informants from prosecution for various crimes, including murder. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the U.S. House of Representatives reported in 1996 that certain divisions of the CIA were responsible for committing "highly illegal activities" "easily 100,000 times a year."

This is just a sampling of the serious crimes that have been perpetrated by two of the agencies now under the aegis of DHS. Given this history, why should Americans feel confident that the agencies of the DHS will not be more of a threat to us than, say, al-Qaeda? It would probably take al-Qaeda, after all, a decade or more to commit over 100,000 crimes.

On the other hand, the admiral did find time to answer such toughies as:

1. What accomplishments can the U.S. tout on the one year anniversary of DHS? Do you really think our country is safer?

2. What is the greatest challenge that the Department of Homeland Security faces right now?

3. Where were you on September 11, 2001? Did this day solidify your commitment to public service?

4. [My favorite, and, I'm sure, by no means an administration plant] I and the rest of my family are so pleased to finally have a President who is truly concerned with putting national defense first and foremost. Absolutely the top priority for us all should be protecting our country from terrorists and evildoers, and it is clear President Bush knows this. Do you share the feeling that the dramatic increase in our safety here at home is due in great part to specific efforts on his part?

Not to forget yourself and the many who serve with you thanks from this

American family for making sure we can sleep safe

Ugh.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 01:11 PM | Comments (513)

March 01, 2004

Winning the Hispaniola Vote

The Iraqi Governing Council is working so well in our Middle Eastern colony that our government is now trying to set up "an interim 'council of elders' that would run Haiti, organize early elections and disarm rebels." The U.S. Marines are likely to be used in this disarming process as well. In other words, the U.S. is going to run Haiti and make more enemies for us by sending in the Marines to rob any dissenters of their weapons. Sounds vaguely familiar.

Remember when Clinton was criticized for intervening in Haiti, as well he should have been? Let's see how many conservatives rake Bush over the coals for doing the same thing. We all know that won't happen; what they'll say is that finally somebody did it right.

It reminds me of all the leftists who insist that communism could work if only the right people tried it. To the official Right, government intervention, whether at home or abroad, works, too--when Republicans are in charge of it.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:24 AM | Comments (203)

Fighting an Uphill Battle for Downhill Fun

The ski resort town of Killington, Vermont, wants to secede from the state and join New Hampshire because Howard Dean's state bleeds "property wealthy" communities dry via property taxes, whereas New Hampshire has lower property taxes and no sales or income taxes. (Of course, they'd be better off seceding and not joining any other state, but joining New Hampshire would still be a vast improvement.)

Anyone who thinks Vermont is going to let a cash cow like Killington go its own way has another think coming. Plus, even if Vermont were to let the town go, would New Hampshire be willing or able to take on a town which is firmly in the center of another state? It could be interesting.

Let's hope they succeed in seceding.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:12 AM | Comments (221)