« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »
October 31, 2005
What Goes Around, Comes Around
Christopher Hitchens the Conservative Leftist writes on the Wall Street Journal website that the imbroglio over the Valerie Plame business was all set in place years ago by Republicans trying to protect the CIA.
My notion is that this kind of law can't possibly be constitutional. While I didn't go to Yale Law School, the first amendment says people can print or speak on the affairs of government. Even an anti-statist can see that. So why the mudfight? Poltics, it's all politics. Sheesh.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 10:30 AM | Comments (0)
October 30, 2005
Can Student Loans Come Back to Haunt You?
Indeed they can! Especially so if you don’t pay ‘em back. Read on:
“James Lockhart was surviving on $874 a month in Social Security disability payments plus $10 in food stamps when his student loans from nearly 20 years earlier caught up with him.
He was told his Social Security checks would be cut by 15 percent, an offset to pay more than $80,000 in delinquent student loans. The next day, he started legal action that has led to a hearing Wednesday before the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Sheesh. WTF did you expect Mr. Lockhart? What government gives you it can take back when it wants to, eh?
This is one more sad example of why anyone with any sense avoids being part of the dependency class. The state is a so-so servant (at best), but is always a terrible master.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 03:43 PM | Comments (0)
October 29, 2005
Military Shares the Public's Declining Support for Bush, War
According to a recent poll in the Fayettville, NC area which is the home base for Ft. Bragg, the XVIII Airborne Corps, 82d Airborne Division, Green Beret HQ, and tons of military families and retirees.
If Bush can’t hold their support it makes me wonder whose support he can maintain. Other than the usual gang of neo-cons, chickenhawk pundits, and Victor Davis Hanson of course.
I think it may have to do with the 2000 dead and 15,400 plus wounded (so far) and the endless deployments and lack of progress in pacifying people who chafe at occupation and in fact want to fight rather than vote. Without any progress on that end the soldiers no doubt feel as if they’re being slowly fed into a meat grinder for a mistaken anti-terror strategy that is well on the way to being wholly discredited.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 03:14 PM | Comments (0)
October 28, 2005
The Wild, Wild, West
With the chaotic (not anarchic) conditions that prevail in the border regions of the US-Mexico state entities you’d think the Feds (on both sides) would have higher priorities than nabbing a “fugitive porn mogul”.
His crime was highjacking the sex.com domain by fraud and redirecting the web traffic to his alternate site. OK, now if I owned that domain I’d want the cops to shut down this crook’s operation and lock him up too. But even so I’d have a hard time justifying the resources they’d need to spend to bag this guy compared with what they really need to spend them on.
Now the Feds say they need to have tight control of the borders in order to keep illegal people, drugs, terrorists and such out of the US. So why the big deal about picking up a small time con man and porn entrepreneur? Who knows?
Our tax dollars at work.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 11:43 PM | Comments (0)
Who Pays for Health Insurance?
There is a very good short article by MIT educated economist and journalist Arnold Kling on the topic of health insurance. Particularly employer paid health insurance. Which is a topic dear to my heart since I pay the tab for a group plan for some 25 people, including myself.
“American firms will not become more competitive by shedding health care costs,” Kling says, “unless in the process they can reduce the net compensation paid to workers. Cutting health insurance benefits and raising take-home pay or payroll taxes by an equivalent amount is a wash.”
With all respect to Kling I seriously doubt that is true and I’d like to see his evidence for that claim. If I could jettison the cost of health coverage it would make my company more profitable and more competitive as I could then increase wages, buy more and better equipment and do other good things that all show on the bottom line.
However without health insurance coverage I doubt that I would be able to attract and retain the expert crew I have assembled over the past four years. Most of my guys are married and/or have dependents and strongly desire health insurance coverage. And most of them would resign in a second to seek employers elsewhere who did if I dropped this benefit. Work force turnover was the principle reason the previous owner wasn’t able to maximize his revenue.
So I am at a loss as to how Kling thinks this cost to the company is “washable”? Who pays for health insurance? I do Dr. Kling.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 10:55 AM | Comments (7)
Echoing Off the Wal-Mart
Well, either I was channeling Lew Rockwell yesterday, or he is channeling me today. As if to flesh out my argument about Wal-Mart's CEO and his call for a higher minimum wage, here's Lew's column on the subject, "Wal-Mart Warms to the State."
Posted by Mike Tennant at 10:09 AM | Comments (0)
October 27, 2005
A Photo Can Say So Much
A lot can be read just by viewing these photos, courtesy of Yahoo News Photos. Here we see American Filth (known to some as U.S. troops) performing another “necessary evil” to spread their perverted version of freedom to Iraqis.
I seem to remember something in the U.S. Constitution (that long discarded document) called Amendment III. It states:
“No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
Yes, this is in Iraq, not the U.S. But are not Iraqis deserving of the same respect, as to their privacy and property rights?
You can argue that this is a time of war, but of course, Iraq was at peace until the legions of the American Empire started their destruction. What is the “law” is than determined by whomever the biggest bully is at the time. This is a great example of the Orwellian view of freedom held by the U.S. Government- sometimes you must free people by taking away some of their freedom.
Be sure to have your bug spray and shotguns handy. These cockroaches may soon be oozing through the cracks in the wall of YOUR home.
Posted by Roger Young at 06:19 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Always Low Tactics. Always
The Wal-Mart CEO who's stumping for a minimum-wage increase may or may not be economically ignorant. It could be that he's making those statements to win the support of the economically ignorant masses, but meanwhile his plan is to raise everyone's labor costs. Wal-Mart can easily bear a minimum-wage increase, but its competitors might not be able to bear it so well. Voila! The competitors are out of business, and Wal-Mart gains market share.
It wouldn't be the first time an established business or profession has used to its benefit government laws that at first appear contrary to its interests. After all, most licensing laws and regulations are enacted at the behest of those already established to keep out upstart competitors, but they are always sold to the general public as means of protecting the little guy. Why not tell the public you're trying to help them out by getting them higher wages while privately hoping that doing so will eliminate your competition?
Posted by Mike Tennant at 01:58 PM | Comments (1)
October 26, 2005
"All that time. This is all we get?"
One of the main things that the Reagan and Clinton administrations had in common was a superb understanding of how the media works to form public opinion. Opinions which in turn are reflected in opinion poll numbers, which are in turn reported by the news media as news. If the administration's poll numbers are high the administration has way more clout with Congress, party leaders, and pretty much anyone else who matters in American society. And the just reverse if those poll numbers are low.
With that in mind I saw today that local government types in Florida are now bitching about FEMA screw-ups in the wake of hurricane Wilma. Ever since Bush took the low road and abased himself for FEMA trouble with hurricane Katrina two months ago this is a growing trend. One that I expect to grow in velocity and size much as a snowball rolling down hill does.
What Bush should have done was remind everyone that local issues about preparedness for emergencies are for local authorities to deal with for the most part. It isn't like Florida or the Gulf of Mexico states have never heard of hurricanes before is it?
Most local officials in these places are partisan hacks of the Democrat variety. So by bashing Bush they'll push his poll numbers down even further and/or get more funds from Washington to boot. Either way they win, eh?
It would have been hugely unpopular (at first anyhow) for Bush to have to reminded the mayors and governors out there of this unpleasant fact. And further, such experts at emergency relief operations as Kanye West would have no doubt hammered the President in the media, but hey, he should have done it for the good of the country. Or at least for the good of his poll numbers and us tax donors out here in the rest of America as well.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 05:02 PM | Comments (0)
October 25, 2005
When Is a Liberal Not a Liberal? When He's a Conservative
Rush Limbaugh, "America's Truth Detector," explains how George W. Bush can govern like a liberal but still be a conservative:
The problem here is that not being ideological cost him . . . . Not being a true, down in-his-bones conservative. And don't misunderstand that, by the way. He's conservative. But he's not an ideologue in the sense that he doesn't view the presidency as an opportunity to lead and build a movement. Yeah, he'll do conservative things on policy. He'll have tax cuts and he'll beat the hell out of the enemy in the war on terror and the war on Iraq, but he'll also get together with the Democrats and let 'em write the education bill. He'll go along with Senator McCain's campaign finance reform. He'll do a number of these kind of things. A conservative ideologue would not do that. But he doesn't view ideology as having a role in the presidency, in the White House. . . .
(Big speech about the greatness of Ronald Reagan snipped.)
That's what's been missing here, and I think part of that quite simply is born of this notion that, "Well, you know, I know these liberals hate us but I think we can make them like us. We can get along with them. We need to work together anyway to move the country forward, blah, blah." An ideologue doesn't think that. An ideologue will look at the liberals and say they are the primary obstacle to this country's future and we've got to defeat them, in a political sense. That's what's been missing here. I mean, you can't possibly want to defeat the left if you're letting them write the education bill with you. For whatever reason, I mean, if you're trying to promote goodwill. . . . Sometimes you get [conservative ideas] in policy, like tax cuts and this, that, and the other thing. And there have been quite a few of them, so don't misunderstand me. On balance this has been a far more conservative presidency than not, by any stretch of the imagination. (Emphasis mine.)
Got it. Bush is a conservative, but he's not so conservative as actually to implement any of his conservatism. (Note, too, that "beat[ing] the hell out of the enemy" is defined as a conservative policy.) That's like saying, "Bob is right-handed, but he's not so dogmatic about it that he won't use his left hand 98 percent of the time."
Someone has been drinking deeply from the GOP's bucket of Bull-Aid.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 04:28 PM | Comments (2)
"Wherever We Went, They Loved Us"
Jaime Weinman at the "Something Old, Nothing New" blog digs up this gem of a song from a flop musical called The Golden Apple, which takes place in the wake of America's first big imperial adventure, the Spanish-American War. It's called "Wherever We Went, They Loved Us."
It was a glad adventure,
The Philippine scene was so sweet.
Them wee eager roots
In their birthday suits
Made life just a Sunday School treat.
Wherever we went, they loved us,
So dazzled they were with our charms.
The folks in them lands
Ate right out of our hands,
But why do they chew off the arms?
Oh, why do they chew off the arms?
The same held true in Cuba,
When gaily we bombshelled a port.
Though harsh blows were dealt
By Ted Roosevelt,
They knew it was only in sport.
Wherever we went, they loved us,
They tucked us in rose-petal beds.
They welcomed our troops
With their dances and whoops,
But why do they shrink our heads?
Oh, why do they shrink our heads?
Oh, Theodore, oh, Theodore,
The Roosevelt that we adore!
Wherever we went, they loved us,
They cheered when they saw us arrive.
They loved us so much,
Their affection was such
We're lucky to get home alive.
Oh, we're lucky to get home alive.
One might think that Dick Cheney had written this were it not for the fact that the musical premiered (and closed) in 1954.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:51 AM | Comments (0)
Today's Arrest Warrant Is Brought to You by the Letters "Q" and "W"
Is there anything the state won't attempt to regulate? Apparently not.
DIYARBAKIR, Turkey (Reuters) -- A Turkish court has fined 20 people for using the letters Q and W on placards at a Kurdish new year celebration, under a law that bans use of characters not in the Turkish alphabet, rights campaigners said.
The court in the southeastern city of Siirt fined each of the 20 people 100 new lira ($75.53) for holding up the placards, written in Kurdish, at the event last year. The letters Q and W do not exist in the Turkish alphabet.
Under pressure from the European Union, Turkey has improved language and human rights for its Kurdish minority, but the EU says implementation has been patchy and loopholes remain.
The 1928 Law on the Adoption and Application of Turkish Letters changed the Turkish alphabet from the Arabic script to a modified Latin script and required all signs, advertising, newspapers and official documents to only use Turkish letters.
More than 30,000 people have been killed, most of them Kurds, since the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) rebels began an armed campaign for Kurdish self-rule in the mainly Kurdish southeast of Turkey.
Turkey, of course, is one of our government's allies in that part of the world. It's easy to see why.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:14 AM | Comments (1)
October 24, 2005
Brazilians Vote Down Proposed Gun Ban
From Claire Wolfe at Wolfesblog:
"The articles mostly don't say it, but Brazilians are not only well aware that their government won't protect them. They also live under corrupt, vicious police gangs who are often more feared than the freelance criminal gangs."
The people have spoken eh, you guys? Hoist on their own petards! Now that the average Brazilian has had their say, do you suppose the Brazilian state (and the elites that run it), the UN and all the rest will now let this issue go? We can all hope so anyhow.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 01:06 PM | Comments (0)
October 23, 2005
Our Sense of What's Boring
The idea that because someone is an accomplished athlete or Oscar winning actor that their opinions about other topics matter one whit is self-evidently absurd. Consider this observation from the LA Times:
“The problem is, when you're used to people listening attentively to everything you say, you start to lose any sense of what's boring. Which makes it all the more cruel that publishers are always asking actors to write their autobiographies. It's like putting Iowa voters on the national news during the caucuses. After five minutes of Scooter babbling about ethanol, you're praying that Brian Williams throws to an in-depth report on identity theft.”
Ain’t that the truth! This explains why celebs yap on and on at great length, but why do we listen?
Posted by Ali Massoud at 11:34 AM | Comments (0)
October 22, 2005
Where I Stand
I was perusing the internet as I usually do a few times a day for news and this article about what to do if the draft is re-instated caught my eye and got me to thinking.
If the government does re-institute the overt and obvious practice of slavery combined with a death lottery (as the actual practice is), I will return every decoration and medal that I received for my (voluntary) service in the United States Army. Further I will publicly burn my letter resigning my commission and my honorable discharge as well. I mean it too.
My ancestors on both sides did not come to America in order to be part of a “New World Order” or empire or any of this other business the state is involving us in today. They came here to live free and only have to fight to repel aggression from others.
So here is where I draw the line. And people can say whatever the hell they want about it too.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 03:29 PM | Comments (2)
October 21, 2005
Congress OKs Gun Industry Lawsuit Shield
From Capitol Hill this news:
"Bush has said he supports the bill, which would prohibit lawsuits against the firearms industry for damages resulting from the unlawful use of a firearm or ammunition. Gun makers and dealers still would be subject to product liability, negligence or breach of contract suits, the bill's authors say.”
This is how the law should be for all products, not just guns. The law shouldn’t be a minefield for gun owners, sellers, makers, or importers filled with activist judges, partisan and/or greedy trial lawyers, Sarah Brady types, or the various nutty city councils and mayors out there.
And so I must give credit where it’s due and bestow my approval on Mr.Bush and the members of Congress who voted for this. Hear, hear! (Now was that so hard you guys?)
Posted by Ali Massoud at 09:23 AM | Comments (1)
October 20, 2005
An Example of Why International Law is Mainly Bullsh*t
Talk about activist judges! It seems an “Investigational Magistrate” in Spain (who acts as a combination of cop, prosecutor, grand jury, as well as a judge) has indicted three US Army soldiers.
The IM believes that the three soldiers are responsible for the death of a Spanish journalist…in Iraq! How did this IM manage to obtain jurisdiction over a case involving military forces from another nation whose alleged crime occurred in a place other than Spain? By treaty or from the UN you ask? No, this judge just decided to take jurisdiction on his own volition “in the interest of justice”. No, really.
Ah Spain, the land of Don Quixote. And about as practical too. Remember it was a Spanish IM who ordered the arrest in England of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet for the kidnapping and murder of Spanish citizens resident in Chile a few years back. Ultimately the UK government released Pinochet, but you get the idea. These guys fancy themselves as international police for any and all crimes and injustices against Spanish citizens anywhere and at anytime apparently.
You statists and international law advocates out there think about this the next time you “demand justice” for your pet peeves and issues. Why shouldn’t the Chinese state demand ex-President Bill Clinton be arrested for the US Air Force accidentally bombing their Belgrade embassy back during the 1999 Balkan War?
Funny stuff, eh? Not to me folks. Somewhere in the world you may find some prosecutor and/or judge who has issues with you or some of your past conduct and so has you indicted. These guys seem to know no bounds or limitations at all. And they’re growing bolder all the time as well. Just like the state entities whose creatures they are. And it’s time they both learned some too.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 10:35 AM | Comments (0)
October 18, 2005
Given the Bum's Rush From the EIB Airwaves
In the world of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et.al., there are only the good war supporters and the evil, left-wing war opponents.
Take, for example, this call from yesterday's Rush Limbaugh Show (reproduced in full here because it will be removed from the free side of the website later today):
CALLER: Hello, Rush. I just have one question for you.
RUSH: Yes, sir.
CALLER: Would you be willing to live under the constitution that they voted for Saturday in Iraq?
RUSH: John, the question is formed on a premise that is deeply flawed.
CALLER: And that is? What's my premise that's flawed, Rush?
RUSH: The flawed premise is that they're not electing a constitution for Americans to live under, and we are not forcing an American-style democracy on them. I thought when this all started that what everybody was upset about was that we were pushing an American-style democracy on a bunch of Arabs and Iranians or Iraqis and Islamic people, and that was unfair. Now they're coming up with their own constitution --
CALLER: So in fact -- okay, well, I'll get to the point of my question then is you think that that constitution represents something that you can call democracy?
RUSH: Uh, yes.
CALLER: All right, because I call it the opposite.
RUSH: Wait a second. Now, wait a second. See, you've got to be very careful with the words you use when you ask me a question, because what is democracy?
CALLER: What is democracy?
RUSH: Yeah, define it very simply, in the simplest terms you can.
CALLER: Mob rule. That's what democracy is, mob rule.
RUSH: No, majority rule, and it could lead to mob rule without any morality --
CALLER: I just happen to agree with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and James Madison on that. So if you want to disagree with us that's fine, Rush, but democracy is mob rule.
RUSH: Whoa, there you go now. Slow down. You're presuming I'm going to say and think things that you can't yet know. Now, what I would call happening in Iraq yesterday, at this stage of the game, yep, it's a democracy.
CALLER: Why, because they voted?
RUSH: Majority rule.
CALLER: Mob rule. That's what I said, Rush: "Mob rule."
RUSH: No, no, no. Majority rule. You get into mob rule later. The mob over there is the insurgency that didn't vote.
CALLER: No. The mob is the ones who vote themselves goodies of the public treasury. Mob rule, that's what we've got here, Rush. You can't recognize it?
RUSH: Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot we were talking about the United States mob rule. I thought you started out asking me if I would like to live under the Iraqi constitution, and now you want to talk about the mob rule of the Republicans in Washington. Sir, do not try to trick this host. We're too shifty; we're too smart, and we've heard from you. I know where you're going to go before you go there. I know what you're going to say before you say it. I know what's in your warped mind before you do. Let me just me just get to the nub of this with you, sir. Was that Ronnie Earle on the phone? Was his name Ronnie Earle? That was John in Austin, okay. All roads lead to Travis County. I thought it sounded like Ronnie Earle. I have a cochlear implant. I sometimes confuse voices. I thought it might have been Ronnie Earle. But he asked me this question and, of course, didn't let me answer it because they're afraid of the answer. Would you want to live under this constitution with Islamic rule and this and that, and my answer to that is, let me ask you people on the left a question. If this constitution is so bad and if this constitution establishes the kind of Islamic government that we have in Iraq or we see in Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, then tell me: why is it that Zarqawi and Zawahiri didn't vote for it? Tell me why they're trying to blow it up? If this Iraqi constitution establishes the kind of militant regime that they want, why are they trying to stop this? Why aren't they running for president and getting the votes of the people? You people on the left are intellectually embarrassing. You are beneath contempt at times. You just continue to amaze me. Your rage and your hatred has clouded your ability to be reasonable and to see things as they are -- and, I might add, to stay on track when you call this program. I mean, I can veer off with you whenever you go because as I say I know where you're going before you do, but you just don't sound good when you call here.
Now I can't say for certain whether or not the caller is a leftist, but he certainly didn't sound like one to me. If anything, he sounded like a libertarian or paleoconservative trying to make some reasonable points about the flaws of democracy and the Iraqi constitution. However, in Limbaugh Land there are no right-wing opponents of the Iraq misadventure. Therefore, the guy had to be a left-wing wacko who deserved abrupt banishment from Limbaugh Land in preparation for a longwinded speech about how great democracy in Iraq will be.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 02:41 PM | Comments (4)
October 17, 2005
This Guy Really Doesn't Get It
"Catholic High School Teacher Forced Out over Flag", said the breathless story headline! It seems a teacher employed at a Catholic high school in Connecticut was disciplined for refusing to have a US flag in “his” classroom.
As a private institution the school has every right to include or deny whatever flags it desires. The aggrieved teacher is an employee who can either suck it up or resign. So why is this story being reported as if were a modern day Kristalnacht and an eerie foreshadowing of a new period of McCarthyism?
I think it’s because the writer doesn’t understand the proper relation between employer and employee. Or perhaps in the teacher’s muddled thought process the separation of Church and State applies to private entities too. Maybe it’s just because he’s an asshole? Hmmm.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 11:32 PM | Comments (0)
WARNING: The US Constitution Doesn't Say You Don't Have to Pay Income Tax!
Hallelujah! I have been in innumerable arguments, received flames, and been the target of many attacks and insults on web forums, blogs, and letters to the editor from all kinds of people who seem to think that their reading of the USC absolves them from paying. Well, bullshit! Read on:
“Many people know, or know of, someone who thinks he doesn't have to pay federal income taxes. It’s not that this person doesn’t earn any income, or has a lot of deductions, or keeps his money offshore. Instead, this person thinks he has discovered the ultimate loophole in the tax code and the income tax just doesn’t apply to him, period.”
Article link here.
If you don’t file or pay (and IRS finds out), you’ll go to prison and have your property and wealth confiscated to cover what you “owe” them. Sad but true. So pay up, avoid, or evade, but don’t kid yourself, eh?
Posted by Ali Massoud at 12:19 PM | Comments (0)
October 15, 2005
An Imperial Super Power Can't Even Secure A Road?
In reviewing the American Conservatives’ article Money for Nothing I was struck by (among other things) this passage.
“Bremer escaped Baghdad by helicopter two days before his proconsulship expired to avoid a possible ambush on the road leading to the airport, which he had been unable to secure. He has recently been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, an honor he shares with ex-CIA Director George “Slam-dunk” Tenet.”
As a former Infantry officer I would consider it a disgrace that simple movement within a defined area under my command wasn’t reasonably safe. Not perfectly safe, mind you. Guerilla war is a stealthy and ever shifting affair I concede, but this?
Have US Army standards sunk so low or are they so incompetent or undermanned that just safe movement along a road is too hard for them to achieve? Apparently so, and at a billion dollars a day too. This nation-building scheme is such a swindle that even the Pork Meister King of the US Senate would blanche at it.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 11:27 AM | Comments (0)
October 14, 2005
I Agree Mike, but ...
Mike,
Right-wingers like those at NRO "get it" all right. They desire the appointment of SCOTUS and lesser judges to be predictable partisan advocates of their agenda. So as the law cases about creationism, end of life issues, gay marriage, reproductive rights, Internet porn, drug laws, jailing without trial, asset forfeiture, and other items dear to their hearts come up they receive a proper and doctrinaire right-wing response. Legal scholarship and experience isn’t needed for this. Monkeys could do it really.
NRO is bastion of right-wing chickenhawks, neo-cons, and repressive social conservatives. They may "get it" but who cares? They are uber statists too. The Left (we’re told by the NRO types) desire sympathetic judges because they can’t enact their programs through legislatures and or the ballots box. A valid criticism to be sure. However the right wishes the same result: They too are unable to muster a coalition to roll back Leviathan either legislatively or at the ballot box. So they too turn to the courts to help them implement their agenda. They’ve been battling Roe v. Wade for 32 YEARS! Despite the fact that since Roe (1973) Republican presidents have been in power for all but 12 of those 32 years. More than enough time to put a SCOTUS majority favorable to their views in place, eh? So why haven’t they been able to overturn Roe in court or by legislation then?
Because it’s all a shell game, that's why. The Right instead only wishes to organize, propagandize, and fund raise over Roe. Rich Lowery and the rest of his ilk would probably shit in their pants if the Congress or SCOTUS actually did overturn Roe. Then what would the social conservatives and religious fundys organizing meme be? They desire as Orwell put it in 1984 "perpetual war for perpetual peace".
The Left is no different in their modus operandi either only in their agenda.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 11:36 AM | Comments (0)
October 13, 2005
What Did You Expect?
Mike Tennant wrote of how he is amazed by the hypocrisy and cynicism of the SCOTUS confirmation process.
Ah, Mike what did you expect? What worked for one vacancy won't necessarily work again. Especially since on the ideological scoreboard Roberts = Rehnquist. A zero sum replacement that presumably changes nothing. Harriet Miers is a whole 'nother thing.
The confirmation process is now more partisan and ideological than ever before in modern history. Further, starting with the Warren Court of the 1960's the federal courts are now the ultimate arbitrators of every single aspect of American society too.
Unless something changes the legal scholars, expert trial lawyers, experienced judges, and people of private sector accomplishment will not be "confirmable". And so we end up with this situation.
I’d suggest structural reform to remedy this, but my heart's just not in it. I hope Leviathan does collapse right along with its tyrannical and obsolete legal infrastructure.
Posted by Ali Massoud at 04:52 PM | Comments (2)
We'll Leave the Light on For You . . . at Taxpayers' Expense
Reports the New York Times (registration required, but . . .):
Straining to meet President Bush's mid-October deadline to clear out shelters, the federal government has moved hundreds of thousands of evacuees from Hurricane Katrina into hotel rooms at a cost of about $11 million a night, a strategy local officials and some members of Congress criticize as incoherent and wasteful. . . .
The reliance on hotels has been necessary, housing advocates say, because the Federal Emergency and Management Agency has had problems installing mobile homes and travel trailers for evacuees and has been slow to place victims in apartments that real estate executives say are available throughout the southeast.
Hotel costs are expected to grow to as much as $425 million by Oct. 24, a large expense never anticipated by the FEMA, which is footing the bill. While the agency cannot say how that number will affect overall spending for storm relief, critics point out that hotel rooms, at an average cost of $59 a night, are significantly more expensive than apartments and are not suitable for months-long stays. . . .
The hotel program was intended to last a couple of weeks but has twice been extended by FEMA. Now Red Cross officials are saying there is no end to the initiative, which pays for 192,424 rooms in 9,606 hotels across the United States, in a range of cities as diverse as Casper, Wyo., and Anchorage, Alaska.
There is much more deplorable news in this article. You really have to read it all to see just what a mess FEMA has made (and continues to make) . . . and you're paying for it.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 01:51 PM | Comments (0)
Bush's "Hypocrisy, Double Standards, and Contradictions"
Who wrote this:
The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is foundering, but President Bush is confident that she will be confirmed. Bush thus displays a touching faith in the power of hypocrisy, double standards, and contradictions to see his nominee through. The case for Miers is an unholy mess, an opportunistic collection of whatever rhetorical flotsam happens to be at hand.
Clearly it must be some left-wing, Bush-hating pinko. No one else would write such downright nasty things about our Commander-in-Chief.
Au contraire, mi ami. The author of the above paragraph is none other than Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, one of the greatest bastions of Bush support to be found.
Lowry goes on to cite all the "hypocrisy, double standards, and contradictions" being put forth by the Bush White House to sell Miers to a skeptical public, to wit:
- John Roberts's faith was irrelevant, but Miers's faith is her biggest asset.
- Roberts's work in the Reagan administration did not represent his own views, but Miers's work in the Bush administration does represent her own views.
- Roberts's opinions on abortion were off-limits, but Miers's opinions on the same subject are also an asset.
- Roberts's Ivy League pedigree was one of his biggest assets, but Miers's lack thereof is not a drawback.
- And on and on and on . . .
It's a good read, and it's nice to see more folks are catching on. Too bad the election was last year.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 01:39 PM | Comments (1)
October 12, 2005
WorldNetDaily Hacked?
Something is seriously wrong over on the commentary page of WorldNetDaily. Today there are three columns I never expected to see on WND.
First up is Joseph Farah's "What to do now?", in which he regrets his support of Bush in the last election and vows to dump the GOP for good. Farah writes:
It's time for every "conservative" in America to realize you've been played for the fool.
It's time to wake up.
It's time to acknowledge you will not save America from ruin by supporting people like Bush and his Republican-majority band of co-conspirators in the House and Senate.
It's time to play hardball.
It's time to hold politicians to higher standards.
It's time to stop looking to Washington to solve the problems that have been created in Washington.
It's time, in short, to stop thinking and acting like "conservatives."
It's time to get radical. It's time to fight on offense. It's time to begin emulating men like Washington, Jefferson and Madison, not Bush, Cheney and Rove.
The next column, right below Farah's, is Dave Daubenmire's "Why I Can't Trust the President." Daubenmire exhorts Christians to stop blindly supporting Bush and the GOP because both have betrayed them.
Finally, there's a link to a column by some (commie, left-wing, anti-American) guy named Lew Rockwell, in which Rockwell utterly destroys the government's claim to be able to centrally plan for disasters (though they can centrally plan disasters) and takes our Dear Leader to task for his blunders related to Hurricane Katrina as well.
If I didn't know better, I'd think some libertarian/anarchist type had hacked WND, but we all have too much respect for private property rights to do that. What, then, explains this sudden appearance of animosity toward the greatest president we've ever had?
Posted by Mike Tennant at 03:21 PM | Comments (4)
To Reform the CIA Just "get rid of the clowns"?
That is the advice we are given here. No, really.
I am the first to admit the world is a dangerous place and we need to know who and what is going on out there. However that stipulated, I see no real need to maintain this huge "intelligence" agency (as in data and information, not common sense or IQ points) that in the end is merely another bureaucracy like the Post Office or Department of Agriculture.
All the CIA's sneaking around, snooping, and spying didn't catch Osama bin-Laden, predict the North Korean nukes issue, or hell even the Pakistan-India nukes problem back in the 90's. So how much good is really being accomplished here? And at what price?
Answer me that you minimalist state types, and we can discuss it more "intelligently" (as in making sense.)
Posted by Ali Massoud at 12:26 AM | Comments (0)
October 10, 2005
"Our" Fundys versus Their Fundys
As an American whose ancestry is Arab I am on the receiving end of a lot bad noise about those "nutty backward Arabs" who believe all sorts of nonsense based on their religious scripture (the Qu’ran).
So imagine how I feel when I see this stuff from a leading frontman for the Christian fundy movement in America:
"This weekend's catastrophic earthquake in South Asia in the wake of recent U.S. hurricanes and December's tsunami is catching the eye of televangelist Pat Robertson, who says we ‘might be’ in the End Times described in the Bible.’ "
Lest you dismiss the Right Reverend Robertson as a marginal player in American society, let me remind you that about one in four American adults is a Christian fundy who believes daily events both natural and social are " God directed". That equals about forty million people.
Let’s make a deal with the rest of the world’s societies: You keep an eye on your fundys and so will we. I wonder how many people have been killed, injured, or made homeless refugees by the American state acting on the advice and direction of people like Robertson? Probably as many as the number killed by the Islamists that’s for sure. We should denounce this. God isn’t on anyone’s side. Either we’re all His children or we aren’t. As a humanist that is my fundamental belief.