republicanrebellion

Further thought on Islamic emasculation...

2007-03-02T16:27:00.000-08:00

The first Crusades were successful for the Western powers, but were not especially significant in the scope of the Islamic world of the day. The Islamic culture had established the largest empire the world had ever seen, though it was not centrally run, as the Roman, or the Greek, or the Persian, so in that sense, it was not a unified empire. The fact of brittle and separate Muslim fiefdoms was primary in the Western Crusaders success in taking Jerusalem.

The Crusaders took a critical city, to be sure. Jerusalem was one of the key centers of Muslim culture of the day, along with Baghdad, Mecca, Cordoba, but it was merely one city, merely one fiefdom. The rest of the Muslim world was aware of the atrocity in Jerusalem, but was largely unaffected, and life went on. I suppose a parallel could be drawn with the current occupation of Baghdad: significant, to be sure, but not especially affecting on a day to day basis for the average Muslim in Jakarta.

The Muslim empire was established by conquest in some parts, but by ideological spread combined with ossified imperial dynasties on others (the Byzantines, Sasanian Iranians, etc). In general (though certainly not universally) the Muslim empire spread by the willingness of populations to be joined to the philosophy or imperical master; it was not generally foisted upon people. By and large, the average peasant of the Muslim empire was perfectly content with Islamic rule, and was not necessarily chomping at the bit for release. It was a liberal empire in the truest sense: people were free to worship as they wished (though frequently taxed for being non-Muslims); trade was not just promoted, but was held in high regard (Muhammed was a trader); science was preeminent. The Muslim empire was atypical as compared to most early empires in that it was not founded upon military prowess alone. The Muslims laid seige to Constantinople long after the empire owned Cordoba. At this point in history, they were young, and not especially tough.

Because the Muslims were fractured, and weren't the greatest military power in the world, the Crusaders bit hard, and deeply into the Muslim world, and took Jerusalem. The Crusaders came after Al-Hakim, the sheikh of Jerusalem burned the Church of the Holy Sepulcher to the ground, without cause. The Muslims had no idea there was a Western Europe that was so pissed off (even though Al-Hakim's successor rebuilt the Church), and they were unprepared for an onslaught far greater than the Byzantines could muster. So the Crusaders slaughtered men women and children in the streets of Jerusalem, and held the city for over 100 years, until Sala Huddin.

The Crusades weren't as significant in its own time as they seem in modern world culture, and that is for a good reason... The greatest violation of the Islamic empire was to be struck by the Mongols from the East. The Mongols took the entire eastern Muslim empire, including Baghdad, and took Islam to the brink of extinction. That would have been the great catastrophe spoken of today and shouted from rooftops, were it not for one unexpected development: after conquering the Muslims, the Mongols converted to Islam. After the invasion, the Ottoman Turks established themselves as regional lords, and eventually the imperical power.

The Ottomans brought true military prowess to the Muslims, and that is the great and unified Muslim empire we think of today. Until the Ottomans, the Muslims were primarily statesman and scientists, now they were warriors too.

Why the history lesson? The emasculation of the Arab Muslims of today is far more significant when one realizes the scale of the tragedy. In the 13th century, Muslims were the most advanced, sophisticated, dominant population on the planet, today, they are mostly poor, mostly ignorant, mostly backwards. The Muslims of the 13th century planted the seeds of the European Rennaisance that would eventually lift the West so far above the Arabs and Turks.

What a loss to see their own culture and populace so devoid of influance and education.

I'll continue later, when I've got some time...

//

Sadly, I'm back on Blogger.

2007-02-12T10:41:00.000-08:00

Morning ya'll, I'm back blogging.

Too much news to single anything out, other than to say that we're looking at a possible incursion into Iran, a crackdown in Iraq, an attempt by the Saudis to replace Iran as the primary funding source of Hamas in order to create a new Israeli/Palestinian peace accord, a new electoral system in Bangladesh, the collapse of Equador's new Presidency and a return to leftists populism, and Hugo Chaves sans check or balance.

An excting time! I'll be examining each of these developments and what they mean in a braoder context. All coming soon, so please come on back!

Are we starting to actually win the war?

2006-11-28T11:57:00.000-08:00

A first hand account of the battle for Ramadi would indicate that, at least from one man's educated POV, the Iraq war is winnable. Long article, must read...

Upside to losing.

2006-11-09T15:18:00.000-08:00

George Allen has conceded, so it's official, the Dems run both houses. Regular readers know that I'm pretty pleased we lost. There may even be a silver lining for GWB... Immigration.

GWB, by all accounts, was pretty pissed at congressional reps for refusing a good immigration plan, one of the few good plans (along with Social Security) put forward by GWB. Recent news has higlighted GWB's meetings with incoming Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

Could Bush and Calderon put together a good immigration plan along the lines put forward by GWB earlier in the year, and then get enough Democratic congressional support to puch it through congress? This could be the upside to losing for GWB. Keep your eyes open for it!

//

Emasculation of the Arabs

2006-10-13T18:16:00.000-07:00

New theory: the problem in Arab countries is one of emasculation and humiliation.

Not entirely new, I understand, but I think looking at the problem through the lens of emasculation can offer a resolution to the problem not only of Iraq, but of the Arab middle east as well.

What we've seen is increasing identification with a religion that was originally designed as a method of bonding a disparate group of infighting tribes. We've seen a longing for the strongman from Saddam to Osama; characters that exude male violence and strength. We've seen an increasing use of the hijab and other forms of the headscarf, possibly as a sign of further identification with the culture and as a sign of pride and subservience to men who feel emasculated.

The desire to reclaim the manhood of the fomerly great culture is bred from not just the loss of the dominance of the 12th-14th centuries, but also to the regional loss of dominance. For 200 years, the Jews were a regional afterthought; the Jews were never dominant, and were always servile to the regional power of the day, most recently the Ottoman Turks and Arabs. Now, the Jews are the regional military power. The loss of both the 1948 and 1967 wars (along with arguably the 1973 war) has brought the realization of weakness and decay home to the Arabs. It was okay not to be the strongest in the world, so long as they could run their own homes, but when they found themselves unable to rule even their own neighborhoods, their humiliation was impossible to mask.

The Arabs are now looking for the shortest path to the reestablishment of their dignity and power. That path is perceived to be meaningless wars of attrition against the great powers of the world, merely to show they can fight. Losing isn't important, so long as they are perceived to fight valiently. This is the reson behind the adoration of hirribly violent men, worth nothing but good in a brawl.

The Arab world is in the throws of adolesence. The Muslim faith is now 1374 years old. In the year 1374, the Byzantine Empire was in its death throws and Europe languished in the violence of the dark ages. Now, the Muslims are struggling with their emergence into adulthood, and are deciding whether they will be an educated, decent society striving for betterment, or an ignorant, brooding loser dreaming of what could have been.

The Arabs must choose the long road of respectibility, rather than the short road of respect through destructiveness. It's college v. ghetto king. Let's hope they choose wisely.

In the short term, what can we do to ameliorate the situation in Iraq and the region in general while the Arabs choose their path? Well, disengagement is probably wise. Let the Arabs show their muscle against one another rather than against us. A civil war in Iraq would eventually include sunni money from the Saudis and Egyptians, and Shi'i money from the Iranians. This would allow the Arabs (and Persians, and maybe the Turks) to set their own house in order. The problem is that once their house was set straight, the first order of business would be to rid the region of the Israelis. This is why it is a good idea for the Israelis to keep their nukes. Only mutually assured destruction can settle that situation.

The path of disengagement would allow the Arabs to claim a victory, reclaiming some self respect. Allowing the Arabs (and Persians + Turks) to fight it out might give rise to a reevaluation of their political systems (though let's not hold our breath).

Anyhow, just a theory.

//

Our man in charge!

2006-09-30T08:36:00.000-07:00

Schwarzenegger is kicking ass. Angelides is down by somewhere between 10 and 15 points and is flailing.

This points towards two key trends that if they hold steady, will mean President McCain in '08 and a renaissance of reasonable politics. This trends are:

1. A reassertion of the business wing of the Republican party along with a reevaluation of the value of reason.

2. The continuing self-destructiveness of the Democrats.

Let's remember that Schwarzenegger is whooping a Democrat in a highly Dem state. This highlights the power of the center, even for Republicans. If a Republican can take California, there is almost no purpose in running a campaign for a Democrat. This will become clear even to the theocratic wing of the Republican party. A reasonable centrist Republican can waltz to a victory if point number two stays firm.

The Democrats are idiots right now. You've heard me bemoan that fact many times recently. I believe in two strong parties, and the Democrats, though stronger than the Reps right now, are a weak party. The best thing for the Republicans is if the Dems whoop ass in November with a bunch of half-wit lefties at the helm. In 2008, the Dems would then think they can win by running left and put up Feingold or someone rediculous like that (I think that Gore or Clinton could win, and Biden could lose with respect), the Reps then put forward McCain or someone perceived as honest, and then trounce the Dems.

//

Maybe Nasrallah has won, with the aid of the UN.

2006-08-27T21:36:00.000-07:00

According to Debka, Kofi Annan, the prince of peace, is refusing to honor the UN resolution insisting upon the disarming of Hizbullah. Let the war reignite. It looks as if the "force" won't be ready until mid Septenber at the earliest, so the Israelis will attack before then.

Thank you UN. You've saved us again.

It is time to can Kofi, and kick the UN out of New York. The UN has single handedly assured the world that Hizbullah will rearm with a UN shield, and reignite the Lebanese war.

The double tragedy is that the "international community" (read: leftist victimology practitioners) has been scolding Bush for his horrible ignorance and callousness in not calling for an immediate ceasefire from day one of the conflict. His reasoning was that any ceasefire would not hold because Hizbullah wouldn't abide by its terms. Now, the UN has assured that Bush was absolutely right. Hizbullah is rearming via Lebanese ports in the North, and the UN has bought time for them to rearm, assuring more death and destruction for the Lebanese people.

Another job well done by the UN.

//

The Economist: Nasrallah won.

2006-08-22T15:13:00.000-07:00

It's not just the Economist. It seems everyone is on the Hizbullah bandwagon. I think it is far to early to declare a winner in this conflict for two reasons:

1. This conflict may burst open again at any moment, especially if people keep looking to the French to help in any situation under any circumstance.
2. This war is about the future, not the present, and only the future will tell who won.

I will grant that I haven't read The Economist article yet... just got it in the mail, and I will update this post if it goes contrary to the headline, however... The reason Israel invaded Lebanon was not because two soldiers were taken hostage, it was an attempt to cripple the Iranian vanguard of foreign policy in the middle East.

This war was an attempt to remove or limit to functionality of Hizbullah as a thorn in the side of anyone who would limit the hegemony of Iran, and to limit the ability of Iran to dissuade seriousness in the attempt to stop a militant theocracy from obtaining nuclear weapons. With that in mind, it is next to impossible to determine who has won this engagement.

The true battle is taking place right now in the debate and effort to disarm Hizbullah. If the attempt fails, Nasrallah and Iran have won, if it succeeds, Israel and the non-dark age world has won.

Many talking heads assert that the political capital won by Nasrallah has shown Hizbullah to be the winner of the confrontation, but to my mind, a swing toward Nasrallah is only valuable to him if the overall power-pie increases within the Iran/anti-Israeli block. If Iran loses Hizbullah as an effective tool, a swing toward Nasrallah has hurt Iran and the Arabs.

For a more nuanced view from the Iranian perspective, look at this Debka article.

//

Update on what's wrong with the Dems.

2006-08-12T10:28:00.000-07:00

So the Dems voted for Ned Lamont, a man about whom they know nothing, but at least he has never agreed with GWB... yet. In so doing, they have ditched one of the three or four most powerful Democrats in Washington, and that Democrat is now running an independent campaign for the Senate. People that I respect, such as David Brooks, have said that this shows the power of the anti-war left, and that the Dems could win on that passion. I suppose it's possible, but the fact of the matter is taht there are more self-defined Conservatives than Liberals in this country. What that means is that unless the Dems can get a hugely disproportionate turnout, they cannot win by running left.

I'm glad there is an anti-war lobby. It's good to have policy debates. The problem for the Dems is that in order to win, they will have to convert moderate anti-war voters to their list. So long as the winners are flanked by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (as Ned Lamont was in this hilarious picture on his own site... note Jackson and Sharpton peeking out from behind him. Eerie view of things to come.), the Dems will not convert moderates. Most moderates think Sharpton is a cartton character based upon the corrupt victimology espoused by lefties and Euros.

What does all this mean? Well, it means that the Dems could ride to a victory in '06 if they get good turnout while GWB is still in office. It also means that the party will tilt seriously leftward, and if it fails to right itself, the Dems have no shot at winning against a decent Republican in '08.

It's a shame really. Great that you've got an anti-war lobby. Heart-breaking that it has become stupid and populist, and merely a proxy vote against GWB. Run to the left and doom your party.

Need evidence (usually you folks on the left don't require it, but here ya go...)? This week, VP Cheney came out of self-imposed recluse in WY, and bemoaned the loss of Liberman as support for Al-Qaeda. Say what you will about Cheney, he is not stupid. Note that the link is to a leftists screed that has taken this bait hook, line, and brown bobbing material that floats. Man extremeists are suckers. The lefties need to learn to bait the righties this well.

What Cheney knows that "think progress" and other lefty crazies don't is that Americans, by and large, like moderation. We like a guy that says "I see your argument and respect it, but I disagree for the following reasons..." What the lefties forget is that the first time GWB was elected, that is what he did, but behind the scenes whispered sweet nothings to the Ralph Reeds and Jerry Falwells of the world. Cheney has succesfully baited the far left to the vanguard of the Democratic party. What the country sees as the mouthpiece of the party is Ned Lamont, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and only the rediculous portion of John Murtha. The point is that GWB has tricked the Dems into running left (well much of it they did to themselves, but some portion has been encouraged by the Bushies). The Dems are now yelling what they should be whispering and whispering what they should be yelling.

All this means that the Dems only win in '06 if the Bush strategy is too late. It is no coincidence that top generals are putting together pullout plans if a civil war strts in Iraq. That is the Republican withdrawl strategy, and you'll be seeing more of it. It is the moderate alternative to the Dems. If it catches hold, the Dems can't win in '06, and they are likely to lose in '08.

The most interesting possibility: Liberman wins in the general election. Laughing? Don't. Read this from Dick Morris, a former consultant to Ned Lamont. What would an independent Liberman do in the Senate? well, probably continue to to be Joe: be a hawkish Democrat, and a guy most moderates can support. Look out Democrats. an independent Liberman could really stick it to you in interesting ways... imagine him exposing your secrets for programatic benefit. Imagine a Liberman free to support McCain for president... Interesting.

Pull it together lefties!

//

Why the Democrats will lose in 2008, and why they may even lose in 2006.

2006-07-06T12:02:00.000-07:00

The Democrats love a loser. Rather than gathering their strength in the center, the only place they can win, they toss their few remaining centrists to the wind. Ditching Joe Lieberman? Rediculous. He is one of the few Democrats that Americans outside of New York and San Francisco like.

The Guardian rightly points out that this election and perhaps the 2008 election are the Democrat's to lose. And lose it they may. Why do I bemoan the ailments of the Democrats? Well, I believe in having strong parties that fight out ideas, not just political strategems. If the Democrats are mindless bunglers, as they have proven, the Republicans can keep on ignoring conservative ideals and good policy without accountability.

Democrats, please, nominate Hillary, Joe Biden, or someone in the center with equally well-considered ideas, and bask in the White House. Nominate Russ Feingold, give heed to Cindy Sheehan, and continue to cry from the corner.

//

Why Europeans Suck.

2006-06-09T13:12:00.000-07:00

This week, the UN undersecretary for douchebaggery, Mark Malloch Brown, essentially told American conservatives to suck it, and the European press lost their hair by nodding so damn hard.

Am I the only one who gets sick and tired of people and organizations coming to our shores with their hands out for our cash, and their mouths open to tell us we're idiots?

Brown essentially said that the UN is an incompetent crap-hole, and it is the fault of the US because we're constantly saying what an incompetent crap-hole it is. Also, everyone in middle America is an idiot.

Thanks Mark.

It's not that he doesn't have a point. To some extent, he does. The truth is that we attempt to use the UN when it is convenient, and bash it at all other times. One of the many problems with Brown's commentary is that he is trying to get us to engage MORE, but reform LESS.

Perhaps I'm too stupid to understand because I didn't go to a suave European college (only three of which are on the world's top 20, while the US has 15, according to a Chinese university), but isn't that a bit self-defeating? The US is supposed to give our share to the UN this month, so this statement seems focused on making us look stupid so that we feel forced to give money and stop insisting upon reform.

At some point, we as a country need to respectfully insist that if the UN doesn't start representing democracies worldwide, rather than appointing the biggest offending autocracies to its boards, we would rather just start a club for democracies, and the rest can start their own club. We'll just go back to the mindset of NATO v. Warsaw Pact. That is what we're trying to do, we're trying to shame the UN into changing, and they're trying to shame us for not being elitist enough to simply trust that they'll do a good job, despite all evidence.

The UN does some things well. It's doing a good job in Haiti, after the US cleared out the big guns. It's doing a passable job in the Balkans, after NATO cleared out all the big guns. It generally does a pretty good maintenance job after the heavy lifting is done. It is also a decent job of diplomatic mediation, which is a valuable service.

The problem is that the UN thinks it is a world government in practice. The UN seems to believe it is uniquely placed to do most every job in the world, just like a good socialist government should. The inconvenient fact is that they have a shabby track record. All the US wants is for the bureaucratic corruption to end, for representative governments to hold more weight than autocracies, and for the UN to stick to what it does well rather than what it does poorly.

These all seem like good goals to me. If Mr. Brown disagrees, let him say so, but to bash the US for not being an effective PR department for the UN, is to act a bit grandiloquently. We are not a sub-directorate of the UN, we are a sovereign nation, and if the UN feels put upon by its largest donor country demanding performance over rhetoric, we must just apologize for not being French.

//

Immigration and Chavez.

2006-05-28T10:51:00.000-07:00

Two immigration bills will enter the Congressional caucus for compromise this week. If the House version (security and felony status) rules over the Senate version (security + worker program), Mexico is likely to join Chavez, Castro, and Morales, in the populist, leftist, anti-American surge in Latin America. If the Senate version rules, and illegals are given a path to legalization, the pro-American PAN party of Vicente Fox is likely to win, and the insane Chavistas may be stopped, and reversed.

Is it that dramatic? Absolutely. Enrique Calderon, the PAN candidate has just passed the crazy Chavista candidate, Manuel Lopez-Obrador, in the polls. Obrador led in the polling for two straight years. The reason for the surge is a smart campaign linking Obrador to Chavez, who most non-Venezuelans despise.

If the Senate version of the bill rules, Vicente Fox and the PAN party will take credit. If the House version rules, the PAN will take the blame. Considering this is the most talked about political topic in a political country (Mexico), this will absolutely tilt the polls.

Bottom line: the House version is a silly, idealistic, pipe-dream. The Senate version is unworkable, but great rhetoric. As I've said many times, the biggest problem with Republicans is a lack of rhetorical flair (i.e. sweet nothings to people who don't care about facts anyway... most voters). If we can push this Senate version through, a rational enforcement and legalization regime may emerge. Either way, it would be a significant turning point as per the authoritarianism and anti-Americanism of Chavez, Castro, and Morales.

The polling data in Mexico and Peru are beginning to turn in our direction. Let's not ruin it by passing a stupid, angry, racists bill that won't work and will piss off most of our neighbors needlessly. Call your congressman and tell her/him that you support the Senate version.

//

Teddy Kennedy's son continues to live in his father's shadow...

2006-05-04T18:00:00.000-07:00

Patrick Kennedy nearly hit a police car, then crashed into a barrier at 2 am. He then proceeded to tell the police that he was "late for a vote." The House was not in session. A supervisor arrived, prevented the police from giving a sobriety test to the schwerving youngster, and drove him home without punishment.

ah, we should all get permanent get out fo jail free cards.

When reached for comment, Teddy Kennedy said "It's embarrasing. I mean, when I crash, I kill. This kid has been half-assing it for years." Ignorant Kennedy worshippers worldwide were heard to exclaim: "The curse is alive! Ah the tragedy of rich kids who never had to work for anything, then nearly killing cops while drunk driving. Those poor Kennedys. Such horrible things happen to them." The officer who was nearly run over by Mr. Kennedy agreed, while rolling his eyes "Yes, that poor drunk bastard missed me by an inch."

Oil "crisis"

2006-04-30T20:01:00.000-07:00

Congress should be shot, starting with the "conservatives", for calling for windfall taxes and tax rebates, and all other stupid, harmful pandering ideas. The oil companies are making a 10% margin. Microsoft makes a 35% margin. This is just supply and demand.

BTW, aren't we supposed to be FOR high gas prices, as it should stimulate alternative energy sources? I can't even write about this I'm so disgusted.

More Afghan insite from Mark Steyn

2006-03-26T20:34:00.000-08:00

Everyone ought to be reading Mark Steyn. Love him or hate him, he is one of those few acute minds that can encapsulate a widely-held POV in a short, well informed article. Read this.

Iran: the Europeans are "idiots".

2006-03-05T14:02:00.000-08:00

Two pieces of insider information have been inadvertently leaked from the depths of the fundamentalist pseudo-Islamic control center of Iran which highlight not only Iran's problems, but ours as well.

When a 27-4 UN IAEA vote threatened to send Iran to the Security Council, President Amedinejad was quoted as saying "We thank God our enemies are idiots." He went on to imply that there is nothing the outside world can do to stop Iran going nuclear because Iranians are simply too clever. Saddam thought so too. The sad truth is that now that Bill Buckley, the grand old man of the conservative movement, has said of our intervention in Iraq: "It didn't work", we are not going to perform a rebuilding in any unfriendly nation for decades to come. The miscalculation the Iranians may make is simply that because we won't rebuild a hostile nation, doesn't mean we won't just attack it and leave it unstable.

So who are the idiots to whom Amedinejad was referring? The Americans? Likely he was referring to all Westerners, however, in another leak, former Iranian nuclear negotiator Rowhani has given us more of an insight as to who the Iranians think are idiots and why. They believe the Europeans can be played against the Americans (who the Iranians regard as right, but impotent due to Iraq) for an indefinite period, until the Iranian nuclear capability is in place.

What is that capability? Most informed people seem to think that the goal is to have a "nuclear ready" capability. In other words, the ability to go nuclear rapidly, in response to any provocation, which the Iranians think will come from Israel. The Israelis, the only power over the past ten years who have been right, self-interested, and successful, agree with that assertion, and have increased the speed with which their unilateral withdrawals are taking place, and have sped up the building of their separation wall. Why? Can't a missile go over a 30 foot high wall? Of course, but what the Israelis are attempting to stop is Iranian sponsored terrorists (Hizbullah and Hamas) from mounting suicide attacks within Israel. The Israelis will put up with crude Hamas/Islamic Jihad projectiles over the wall, but anything more significant could easily be tagged as an Iranian attack.

In essence, an Israeli wall will make any Iranian attack obviously Iranian, rather than a proxy attack. This is advantageous to Israel because when the price of oil goes down (Hopefully as a result of a President McCain Manhattan Project on renewable power) Iran will be susceptible to outside sanctions, and unwilling to attack Israel when the sanctions that result will crush Iran.

what does all of this mean? Firstly, that the Europeans are naive by nature. Secondly, that Americans are so aggressive that nobody takes them seriously anymore. Thirdly, the Iranians, and Arab regimes, are taking short-term advantage (oil price, Hamas victory, Iraq quagmire) as an opportunity to ratchet themselves up a notch in world power.

Long term, unless Arabs and Persians make actual improvements to their economic structures, especially property law, government detachment from the private sector, and global integration this is ONLY a short-term advantage. America has learned its lesson in spreading democracy (even if the president hasn't), Europe is on the verge of learning its lesson on "soft power" as an exclusive remedy, and the Atlantic rift is closing (as evidenced by the Iranian situation itself).

Muslim power is rising, but it will only rise permanently in Indonesia, Malaysia, and portions of India. The use of this short-term advantage for short-term goals, will end in long term misery for the Arabs and Persians (with the notable exception of the UAE, Morocco, and to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia who are all reforming their economies to join the modern world). The permanent rise is due to wise modernization, not deeper fundamentalism.

Boehner (no, bane-er) wins!

2006-02-06T18:16:00.000-08:00

So John Boehner wins, mostly just to spite my prediction of a Shaddegg second to a Blunt first. Fine.

Prediction: likely to be biz as youzh (figure it out). One interesting piece of inspiration for RR fans... In 15 years as a House member, Boehner has NEVER inserted an earmark. As we've said before: reform K street all you want. They're not the problem. So long as the Constitution assures the right for the redress of grievances (as it should), the only reform that will matter is a reform of earmarking.

The reform ought to be simple: tag the member's name onto every single earmark. Allow two weeks for debate and approval, allow line item veto for every earmark. simple. Won't happen.

Neither party is pushing very hard for true reform. Both prefer window dressing. Every time the Dems claim to be the party of lily-white, cherry-tree, honesty, remember that their "reform" plan is nearly exactly the same as the Reps they accuse of corruption.

The correct reform is simple to design. Getting the crack-heads off the earmark wagon is more of a challenge.

//

Hamas = honesty over corrupt but pleasing rhetoric

2006-01-29T14:59:00.000-08:00

The latest polling numbers show that the Palestinians voted for less corruption, rather than ideology. Two thirds of Palestinians completely disagree with Hamas on their two main foreign policy goals: the destruction of Israel and Islamization.

While the average Palestinian agrees with the goals of Fatah, the fact that Fatah has stolen 90.5% of the $7 billion in aid given to it since 1993, means that the Palestinians had given up on Fatah structurally, not ideologically.

Going forward, Hamas will likely focus on domestic issues and on the Israeli impact on those domestic issues: healthcare, jobs, and schooling. So what does this mean for the future? It depends on Hamas' pragmatism.

They will likely do well on healthcare, as there is no real idological demension to it. The cloud on the horizon is that with so many nations saying they will no longer offer aid to a government led by a party who advocates the destruction of Israel via terrorist attacks on civilians, combined with Hamas' refusal to change their charter advocation the destruction of Israel, means Hamas may not have enough money to provide decent healthcare. Likely outcome: donors will step forward to offer funds for healthcare and Hamas will be more successful than Fatah.

In jobs, there isn't a heck of a lot they can do. Israel won't even speak to a Hamas led government (why? Just because they like to kill Israeli babies?). Joblessness in the Palestinian territories was caused largely by the second Intifada, and the resulting border closures to Israel, where many Palestinians work. The only other option would be to open more trade with other Muslim countries, but the Palestinians don't have much to offer and with less discretionary aid in the government, they can't buy much. Their homeland of Jordan doesn't offer much in the way of economic opportunity.

In education lies the most volitile possibility. Hamas is an Islamic fundamentalist organization. They like religion more than education, and, like so many other Arab-Muslim countries, they think the two are interchangeable. Look for more madrassas than schools. Look for the separation of male and female students. Look for pissed-off Palestinian moderates (i.e. 66% of the country).

In general, we can expect a more competent, less corrput government that will throughly piss off the country as it tries to turn Palestine into Talabania.

I predict two years of Hamas rule which teaches Fatah to can it's aging revolutionary thieves, and brings in a new generation of well-educated tecnocrats with the moderate outlook favored by the populace. If Hamas doesn't try to entrench themselves like despots, Fatah will be back and better than ever in two years.

//

Alito deserves his spot.

2006-01-24T23:25:00.000-08:00

I'll keep this as painlessly short as I can. Much doggy doo has been flung about Alito, a right of center judge, nominated by a socially conservative, and fiscally liberal President. So the debate begins on the Senate floor.

Alito got out of conference 10-8, with every one of the Democrats voting against. Our own genius Senator Feinstein said that the only reason she's voting against is because in her heart of hearts, she knows Alito will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade... This begs for a couple of comments, the first most accurately posed by Lindsey Graham:

1. Justice Ginsberg, a Clinton appointee, replaced Justice White, a man who voted AGAINST Roe. Ginsberg said explicitly during her hearings that she would uphold Roe. Only two Republicans voted against her. Graham voted for her.

2. If Roe is overturned, abortion is NOT illegal. The decision is simply shifted to state legislatures.

3. If the Dems uniformly vote against a nominee even they admit is well-qualified (except Feingold, who is SPRINTING to Hillary's left), what do they expect the Reps to do to the next Dem nominee? Are we to the point where "advise and consent" means that the Senate will hold every nominee hostage if the nominating president isn't of the Senate's controlling party?

The Dems should bite the bullet, vote for Alito since they're going to lose anyway, defuse that issue, and focus their fire on Abramoff. Learn something from the Canadian Conservatives.

//

This is what RR is all about.

2006-01-21T18:14:00.000-08:00

Rational, well-considered, small-government solutions. Peggy Noonan gets it right on... Please read!

Bush administration: not conservative; far smarter than the Dems.

2006-01-21T17:23:00.000-08:00

So Karl Rove has gotten the fight he wanted... the Democrats took the bait. Next week, Rove and the Bush political machine will begin the defense of their eavesdropping program. Will the Democrats abandon all political intelligence and fight it out? I hope so. I don't want the Dems to be beaten in this case, but they will be.

"Let me be as clear as I can be: President Bush believes if al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interests to know who they're calling and why." That was Karl Rove's comment the other day. He will paint a picture of: well, we may have over-stepped, but we did it not for political purposes, but to protect your children. The Dems will likely respond with: well, okay, but you don't have that right, and this is truly a slippery slope toward a police state.

The Dems will be right, and they will look soft on defense (which they are) again. This is the best thing that could happen to the beleaguered Republicans up for reelection this year. This will distract from the rampant corruption scandals, and put the focus back on the War Against Terrorism, and how weak the Dems (with the notable exceptions of Lieberman and Clinton) are.

On "This Week", George Will has made the point several times that this scandal which will affect both Reps and Dems, but will disproportionately smack the Reps, not just because we house most of the corruption, but because Reps are supposed to be above this kind of thing. The Dems are FOR big government and a gov't solution for all social ills, so if they expand their own power, it's corrupt, but ideologically consistent. When Reps accept lobbyist cash in order to expand regulation, legislate morality, and gov't power, it is corrupt and ideologically inconsistent. George Will is right. This is the basis of this blog...

We rebel against the idea that Reps can be conservative, but either for or against big government. If you are for big government and the legislation of morality, you are not a conservative, you are a borderline fascist. Conservatives are for constrained government, expanded personal liberty, and the application of private sector solutions whenever possible.

The battle for Rep leadership...

In the struggle for Republican leadership, it sometimes seems as if RR has no horse in the race. Well, we will likely lose, but we may have a horse or two in the race after all. David Drier of California, and John Shadegg of Arizona would both represent the reform movement, both are centrists, both are for ideas over political power. Roy Blunt will still probably win, but the rise of moderates continues.

With Frist stepping down this year for his run for the Presidency, which he will lose, hopefully to McCain/Rice (oh please, God), or Giuliani/Rice, RR sees Roy Blunt winning the leadership struggle in the House, and Mitch McConnell as the new Majority Leader. This is more or less an orderly succession of similarly-minded people from the social conservative wing of the party (McConnell is so bad, but still socially obsessive). The next generation is almost entirely moderate (Drier, Shadegg, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, Rice). If the Republicans take a thumping in '06 or '08, you'll see the new generation of moderates come to the fore. Let that day come ASAP.

//

Chriac's brass ones: update 1

2006-01-20T12:15:00.000-08:00

The French have begun to react to their President's nuclear threat towards Iran. Seems like the analysts agree with my thoughts yeaterday, though they are far more learned and insiteful than I. I am intrigued with the possibility that this may signal a reemergence of the Atlantic alliance, and that angle has not yet gotten too much coverage, but look for it over the next few days as the leading analysts broaden their view of this event.

If the Iranians succeed in getting nuclear arms, the fact that they may drive the West back into alliance will have been worth it. The Pakistanis and N. Koreans have nukes. The Iranians are in between those two countries in terms of the loopy-reckless index. It will be an extrodinarily bad thing, but the Iranians are clever, they will not outfit Hizbullah with one of their few nukes. They intend to use their nukes much as the Koreans are: as insurance for their regime and as a bargaining chip in any sort of trade and support negotiations; they do not intend to use it as an actual weapon, as that would be national suicide.

If we assume an Iranian nuke will be used only in retaliation (not positive, but a solid guess), and we assume that the realization both that bad things happen in the world when we are not willing to be aggressive, and that good things happen when we all put our differences aside and form a united front, we can see a scenario wherein the West is reunited on a broad range of issues: trade, military intervention, and diplomacy.

I assert that a nuclear Iran is worth a reunion of the Western alliance.

//

Chirac has big brass ones.

2006-01-19T10:27:00.000-08:00

French president Chirac has said that a state-sponsored terrorist attack could provoke a nuclear response from the French. Though RR is generally against nuclear attacks, the French seem to remember what nukes are for, deterrence. I've always said that the French are superior negotiators and diplomats, and here is a case in point.

One week after the Iranians, the supporters of Hizbullah, removed the UN seals from their Uranium processing equipment, Chirac is essentially saying: give a nuke to a terrorist, and you sacrifice every military base in your country, and possibly a good chunk of Tehran.

Takes some of the shine off the Iranian-North Korean-Pakistani nuclear project (of which only Iran now lacks a nuke).

Bravo, Chirac. Well played. If we could get Bush to support that statement with one of his own, we'd go a long way toward mending the military rift across the Atlantic, and get back to the only thing good about the cold war (other than that we won), cooperation of modern democracies on toward a common goal: the continued delay of nuclear proliferation until we can come up with an effective detection and protection device.

I'll be interested to see whether the acquisition of a nuke by a non-conventional (read reckless and semi-suicidal) state nudges the EU toward cooperation in the nuclear shield. No rational state = no nuclear deterrence, no M.A.D., and the eventual necessity of a defense.

//

Happy 300th Birthday, Benjamin Franklin.

2006-01-17T23:20:00.000-08:00

The greatest of the Founding Fathers turns 300 today. Arguably one of the most accomplished humans of the past millenium. Benjamin Franklin ran away from home in Boston at the age of 17 and came to Philadelphia, penniless, to make his fortune. By the time he died at the age of 87, Benjamin Franklin had discovered the fluid theory of electricity, ran a hugely successful printing company, been one of the three primary drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, almost single-handedly convinced the French to fund the American Revolution, been the governor of Pennsylvania, invented the lightining rod (which saved the lives of more people in the 18th century than perhaps any other invention) and the pot-belly stove, not to mention bifocal lenses, the step-stool, and many other inventions which are still in use and not much improved almost 300 years later.

I am now 32 and am unable to balance my checkbook. I believe he'd be proud.

Another installment of "people are stupid"

2006-01-11T13:16:00.000-08:00

Evo Morales has decided to seize gas assets from international oil companies and renationalize. How many times must this happen before people realize socialism and nationalization of assets impoverishes people?

Morales has openly allied himself with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. There's a winning team.

Chavez has strong support among the under-educated in Venezuela (and was elected when 75% of the populace boycotted the polls as a sham), and Morales will for a time as well. Of course, since Chavez took power, oil (the largest export item in the Venezuelan economy) has increased in price by about 300% and yet, by most estimates, the poor have grown poorer. Of course some say that figure fails to capture the increase in wealth accumulated by government food handouts and services. As even the most ignorant of college educated economists would have to agree, a recipient cannot capitalize food handouts or health services, so while some living standards may be lifted via a temporary increase in the oil price, the underlying wealth figure is the more significant, since as oil deflates, the handouts and services will become unsustainable, and the failure of economic growth in the country will become evident.

Fidel Castro locks up dissenters, refuses to allow rival political parties, and oppresses the entire populace. He produces some decent doctors though. Anybody who defends this man, I invite you to live there. If it's not good enough for you, why would you assume it's good enough for them? 'nuff said.

Now we've got Morales and Bolivia.

It is no coincidence that these men are all populists who count the most ignorant members of their societies as their key supporters. It is also no coincidence that those who receive decent education and members of societies who have experienced this kind of enlightened dictatorship are the quickest to reject this utopian idiocy. This current resurgence of utopian dictatorship is fueled by anti-Americanism and anti-semitism (especially of Chavez). Blaming the failure of previous leftism on the obvious fascism and manipulation of the Ameri-Jew conpiracy is old hat to these enlightened socialists. Still suprising to me that people believe it, no matter how uneducated.

How many times must people be subjegated by utopian ideology? How long until oppresive ultra-leftism is rejected forever, like it's cousin, Hispano-Fascism?

Morales, Chavez, and Castro are enjoying a temporary resurgence. They will be popular for another two years, and then their economies will collapse... Wonder how they'll blame us for it this time?

//

Turns out Muslim Autocrats Don't Like Being Bombed

2005-12-08T13:21:00.000-08:00

So the OIC has issued an edict saying that OIC member states should stop the financing of terrorism, and change their children's textbooks to stop teaching extremism. I'm sure it's a pure coincidence that they issue this edict after two years of terrorism against their own regimes.

These are the same autocrats who blamed America for terrorism for the past 20 years. So do they mean it? Maybe. The only way anything in the Arab world changes is when one of the regimes is directly threatened. Today, only Syria is near collapse, and Bashar Assad didn't show up for the OIC conference.

If this can be perceived as an admission that homemade terror threatens the regimes, then things will change, if the regimes feel insulated, they will spew rhetoric and change nothing (see: Europe). I hope it's the former, and I suspect that it is.

I have said that I don't believe the Jordanian bombings will affect the fight against extremism in the Arab world, but I could be wrong. It may be that the Jordanian bombings may be the straw that breaks the camels back. I continue to think that is not yet true, but we could be close.

Keep your eyes on whether the OIC signatories actually start changing anything. That will speak volumes.

//

The French Suck, I'm Sorry.

2005-11-29T21:21:00.000-08:00

So the French have passed and upheld a law that makes schoolbooks focus on the "positive influance" France had on its former colonies. I imagine that probably doesn't include the several hundred thousand they killed trying to maintain their iron grip on Algieria.

Please read my past post entitled "With friends like these, who needs an uninhabited bomb testing range?" Again, why the hell do people like the French? It's because they have mastered the art of empty rhetoric that the bulk of the world's populace seems to prefer to actual progress...

Okay, I'll leave them alone now...

//

Why my fellow Californians are idiots.

2005-11-14T20:41:00.000-08:00

Um, you voted against independent redistricting of legislative districts? Seriously?

C'mon, what the hell is wrong with us? After being put billions in debt by our genius legislators in all 153 districts, and then not a SINGLE ONE of those district seats changed hands, we just voted to allow the same people to decide whether or not to keep their jobs.

I'm sure it's because we all admire their work so much.

If you voted against that measure, you are one of two things:

1. The victim of a horrible head injury
2. A bad person, and one who is never again allowed to complain about Bush's cronyism.

There you have it. I've heard the argument that it was poorly drafted because it allowed political appointment of the independent judges who were to decide upon the districts... Okay, small point, but: More politically appointed than the politicians themselves who are currently drawing their own district lines? No good answer to that one yet.

//

Is the Arab culture becoming rational?

2005-11-12T16:47:00.000-08:00

After the most recent terrorist blood orgy, Islamic Jihad and Hamas have condemned al Qaeda's methods, and Zarkawi has been forced to post a quasi-apology.

What the hell is going on here?

Is the Arab culture finally insisting upon decent behavior in it's cultural waste product? I doubt it. Perhaps I'm a cynic, but as has been so frequently said, Arab governments never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. My doubt springs from the fact that there is just nothing especially notable about this most recent attack that it ought to be the tipping point.

97 people were killed in the bombing in Egypt, mostly Arabs. There was a small protest in Egypt that lasted for about 30 seconds, and yes, people were pissed. So why all the Arab excitement this time? It may be that this attack blasted away most of an Arab wedding party, and those that survived have been making the Arab interview circuit and are very sympathetic people. Could this be the beginning of the end for Zarkawi? Maybe, and I doubt it.

I think Arab culture is much like Democrat culture; rhetoric is highly valued, and action is not required. There will be a series of speeches denouncing the atrocities, and probably some more protesting, but in the end, I suspect that no permanent realignment will take place. Al Qaeda may change some of its tactics, as they did with the backlash over the public beheadings, but the totality of our experience with this culture seems to suggest that the status quo will reign.

It may be my prejudice, but my feeling for the Arab culture is that continuity is a very highly valued commodity. Change is not a natural phenomenon within the culture which is why so many within the culture seem to prefer the continuity and stability provided by authoriatarianism, rather than the unpredictability of a freer political situation. That value placed upon continuity predicts the continuation of the hero worship bestowed on terrorists, and the continuation of random murder, just with a new justification procedure.

I hope I'm wrong....

//

With friends like these, who needs an uninhabited bomb testing range?

2005-10-25T22:59:00.000-07:00

The French planted the Niger Uranium forged documents, used as part of the administration's case for war. Apparently they did it so that we'd make the case for war, then discover the documents were fake, thereby undermining the case for war.

In true French fashion, when we didn't discover it in time, they promptly and honorably disclosed the fact that they forged the documents and thereby saved us from invading Iraq, which could have been a disaster.

Oh, wait...

Why do we pretend as if these cowardly, lying, back-stabbing people are our allies? They plant these documents in order to stop the war, and then when we don't go along with their brilliant Cluseau-ian plan, they turn their heads and pretend they didn't do it, and let us tromp into Baghdad. I guess they were only opposed to the war in as much as it could make us look silly, not so much concerned about the thousands of people that would die.

So far, the French have not acknowledged this story sent to me by my news-junkie uncle. I will be interested to see how they attempt to turn this into another opportunity for self-righteousness.

On a serious note, the French are helping on Syria, but of course the murdered Hariri was a close personal friend of Jacque Chirac. They have single handedly scuppered the Doha round of world trade talks by refusing the U.S. proposal to lower farm subsidies (agreed for negotiations by the British presidency of the EU) thereby keeping the poorest people in the world safely in starvation so that they can continue to bilk the EU for farm subsidies.

Hyperbole aside, how is it that America has such an awful reputation, while people by and large admire the French? Superior diplomacy. Culture which smiles at niceities, and does not require strength or machismo. There is something to be learned here. This is the same reason why Clinton was so popular: feel-good rhetoric. Republicans are very bad at it, as are conservatives in general.

Look to the race for Tory leadership in the U.K. The conservatives have learned from the Blair dominance, see Gordon Brown as weak in the charm department, and just may pick David Cameron to be their leader. Very smart. He is sharp enough, but completely untested. His advantage? Charisma. He knows how to say nice things that people will believe.

The truth is that if you can merely convince people that you can turn the air into cotton candy, they will like you. If the sugar puffs don't appear, convince them that it is someone else's fault. This is diplomacy French style. This is the secret to leftist populism (as opposed to doom and xenophobia of rightist populism).

The American right could use some French lessons.

//

Withdraw Miers

2005-10-16T12:02:00.000-07:00

I hesitantly post this, not because I'm wishy washy on the Miers nomination, but because it has been so heavily covered, I have little to add.

She is the wrong candidate, obviously. It's not that she couldn't do the job, or that she is an intellectual weakling. I'm willing to grant that she can probably do the job, and she is probably a smart woman... The problem is that nobody except GWB knows the actual answer to those questions. An untested commodity ought not be put on the Supreme Court.

The Democrats share blame for this nomination. The prcedent they set with Bork and almost every Republican nominee since, has caused Republican Presidents to nominate people who can hide behind the Ginsberg shield. If we know nothing about these people, and they can honorably refuse to answer questions, then they stand a chance of passing through the process. Anyone with a significant paper trail will be raked over hot coals.

Chief Justice Roberts, about whom even Democrats are now waxing nostaligic, got 22 Democrats to vote against him. Ginsberg, who said she favors abortion during her confimation hearings, got 2 Republicans to vote against her.

Hate Bush all you want, but the Democrats are to blame for allowing this appointment to even be taken semi-seriously. A generation ago, this nomination would NEVER have been made by ANY President.

With that said, she should withdraw. Leading Democrats are accusing Republicans of sexism. That is stupid. Most conservatives who are complaining are citing several women who they would have loved to be nominated. There are plenty of things to complain about, this isn't one of them, but if sexism is your thing, how about the fact that male candidates weren't even considered. There ya go.

Conservatives want someone of whom they can be proud. Hate Scalia all you want, he is a genius, and you know it. He makes us proud because he is serious, thoughtful, and insiteful. Despise Rehnquist if you feel the need, but he is already considered one of the great Chief Justices because he promoted good argument, and ensured that the strongest opinion in majority and dissent were published, and distributed writing assignments accordingly, without glorifying himself (except for the three gold bands around his shoulder, which Roberts has removed). These are people we're proud to have as team leaders. Bush and Miers are the equivalent of Howard Dean and James Carville or Donna Brazile. Are you proud to have them as your representatives? If so, you are the person that everyone hates except for ignorant socialists. Best that someone tells you.

We want more John McCains, we want more John Roberts, we want more Colin Powells, Alan Greenspans and Rudy Giulianis (jerk? Yes, but effective jerk).

This nomination is also rediculous from a political perspective. GWB's job approval ratings are at 38%. The last thing he should be doing is emphasizing his cronyistic leanings. The best thing he could do is provoke a fight of ideas and values with the left. GWB is losing his base. He should have motivated them with an honest brawl, but he failed his party again.

Withdraw this nominee and let's have a fight about ideas, not bad charater traits.

Why I hope Iraq votes no...

2005-10-15T13:17:00.000-07:00

Iraqis voted on their constitution today. High turnout. Good. I hope the constitution fails. If Sunnis realize that they can actually affect the political future of their country in ways other than killing babies of people that mildly disagree with them (in the Arab tradition), then perhaps the insurgency will die down a bit, and Sunni civil society may flourish through political organization.

If the constitution passes, the Sunnis will feel as if they've been steamrolled (in a more mild form than they've been steamrolling everyone else for 30 years), and the insurgency will continue.

Schwarzenegger finally shoots back at the public unions.

2005-09-18T11:06:00.000-07:00

Gov. Schwarzenegger added Prop. 75 to his November slate of proposals. Good for him. The public unions are the single most significant reason for government waste and inefficiency. They are the embodiment of what it is that even Democrats hate: greed, corruption, self-interest. The unions have no competition, and are give a legislative license to racketeer.

This is their bit: the teacher's union REQUIRES that if you are a public school teacher, you MUST pay dues to them. You don't have to be a member, but you must give them money. That is racketeering. The funny part about it is that their justification is that the unaffiliated teachers are benefitting from their collective bargaining. Um, who was the last teacher you met who felt blessed by the union's brilliant negotiating prowess that got them such fantastic benefits and wages? Don't talk to me about the three months off... that was not the result of the genius teacher's union.

Sounds like protection money to me.

Prop 75 is another excellent proposal. Voting for each and every one of the November proposals will do our mediocre state a great deal of good.

Japan: on the right track.

2005-09-11T14:42:00.000-07:00

Koizumi has won. The world economy gives a sigh of relief. This election will very likely result in the privitization of Japan Post, by some measures the largest bank in the world, with over $3 trillion in assets. Those assets are primarily the plentiful savings of the Japanese populace.

With a slowly recovering Japanese economy, which has suffered from the deflation of the past decade, we can expect growth rates to rocket upwards from the currently projected 0.8%. Japan Post has been used as a piggy bank for LDP politicians for decades and has ensured inefficient allocation of capital to the Japanese economy, partly responsible for the property boom and bust of the early 90's. With the privatization almost ensured, we'll likely begin to see capital investment boost in Japan, and hopefully end deflation once and for all. Look for higher interest rates in Japan over the coming 5 years or so.

The possibility of rising interest rates may lead some disenchanted asian investors to move cash out of US bonds and into Japanese bonds. This will raise the cost of capital in the US, and hopefully lead to some necessary fiscal discipline and possibly a deflation of the property bubble in selected US markets.

What can we do in the US? We can cheer. This may lead to world growth burden sharing by the Japanese and possibly a resurgent German economy (possible, but don't hold your breath... the incompetent compaigning by Angela Merkel may force a grand coilition with the welfare-statist SPD). Increased burden sharing may lead to increased flexibility for the Fed, and higher interest rates due to less fear of a world recession predicated upon too-quick tightening of rates. If the Japanese economy grows by more than 3% in the near future, look for a 50 basis-point rise by the Fed, hopefully designed to increase savings (at an all-time low of 0% in the US) and deflate the property bubble in many urban areas.

Look to Japanese stocks to continue their upward move (up almost 8% since Koizumi announced the snap election), more investment by the Chinese in their arch-rivals economy, especially in Japan bonds as per the revaluation basket of last month, and slower but more sustainable growth in the American economy. Look for weakness in the dollar compared to the Yen, but possibly firmer to the Euro.

For my part, I will wait for a bump in the Nikkei due to the election results, followed by a short profit-taking trough, and then a sustained upward move for a significant period of time.

Cindy Sheehan: she is what's wrong with the Democratic Party

2005-08-21T19:21:00.000-07:00

In a borderline brilliant editorial, Mark Steyn shines a light on those who feign policy differences to mask their utter hatred for all things unlike themselves, and primarily the Bush Crime Family. Cindy Sheehan is standing on the dead corpse of her son and using it in lieu of a soap box. Clearly he did not feel the way she does or he would not have enlisted.

Read the editorial... I actually have very litte to add. This is a must read for anyone who believes the crazy-ass NYT when it claims that Sheehan is the beginning of a massive anti-war movement, rather than a display of what is wrong with all extrememism, especially modern ultra-leftism.

Notes on Dallas

2005-08-14T16:46:00.000-07:00

I just spent two months in Dallas. Tremendously nice, decent, curteous people; heirs of the South. All of my "friends" chuckled and told me before I left that I would probably come back a liberal after stewing in the repulsive Bush juices all summer.

They were wrong. If anything, I'm a bit more conservative. Why you ask? It was the bumper-stickers, of course.

I was raised in Berkeley, CA. The Bay Area is a punishment likely to turn any thinking person against the liberal spectrum, but its hallmark is the bumper sticker. It all began with "Save the Whales" and has now become "Everyone who disagrees with me and Mao is a bastard." I invite you all to visit Berkeley and see. It is borderline unbelieveable. The public vitriol and insults strewn about on '78 Volvo station wagons is impressive. What is most odd though is that no Republican is likely to ever see the insults... They aren't welcome in the region, and the Volvos certainly wouldn't make it on a freeway. Perhaps that is significant. Being that self-righteous in front of an adoring audience isn't very difficult, but to throw trash in someone else's house takes cohones of a different size.

I was assured that Dallas was simply the conservatives Berkeley. I was prepared for graffiti endorsing intimacy with cousins, public cross burnings at local malls, gas-driven checkers boards, etc.

I was shocked. There is a thriving gay community in Dallas, and more mixed clubs (gay/straight) than here in L.A.; loud Democrats; nice architecture; good public schools... Dallas is actually a very nice place, though too flat for my taste. Then there are the bumper stickers.

Firstly, yes, everyone does drive an SUV, and yes that is irritating, BUT... there are many "W" bumper stickers, but not much else. The Dallas political bumper stickers (which are somewhat few and far between) are not insulting, not childish, not vindictive. They state a preference for a politician (several Democrat endorsements on cars that were not burning, despite my friends assurances from California) or a policy, and then they end. They are not clever, not angry, not self-righteous.

The Dallas culture is one of spontenaity in the Nietzschean sense, and of general courtesy and tolerance. In short, Dallas culture is what Berkeley culture claims to be (and seemingly believes it is).

I encourage all who have beliefs, but no experience in both places to take a peek at both... Just read the bumper stickers. Both say more than perhaps the car-paint haters meant to.

Amnesty International has officially become just another anti-American organization.

2005-06-07T06:59:00.000-07:00

AI says that Gitmo is a "gulag" a la Stalinist Soviet Union. Hmm. So a well-fed and maintained populace of 500 prisoners is akin to the forced labor and execution of perhaps 6 million people? Okay.

Now, AI says the U.S. should open Gitmo to the inspection of the ever infallible "International Organizations." So, if AI is willing to admit that they have never inspected Gitmo, how can they be so assured as to call is a gulag? Does logic count for nothing anymore?

The truth is this: Gitmo is a bad idea only in that the prisoners are not allowed a hearing and a military lawyer (no more communication via corrupt lawyers, thank you [and BTW, look up Lynne Stewart on Google. There are only about 5 links, one is a crazy rightist screed, one is IBD, a stupid rightist screed, and all the others are leftist apologist garbage... this lawyer aided a terrorist to communicate from prison! How about some coverage of that?!]). There are no good alternatives to keeping Gitmo active, but offering more hearings.

AI, a formerly great organization, has become just another screeching voice in the chorus of the ignorant, mindless, hypocritical left.

It's a shame, really.

John Hagee on Memorial Day

2005-05-29T14:08:00.000-07:00

"I want you to close your eyes and picture in your mind the soldier at Valley Forge, as he holds his musket in his bloody hand.

"He stands barefoot in the snow, starved from lack of food, wounded from months of battle and emotionally scarred for the eternity away from his family surrounded by nothing but death and carnage of war. He stands though, with fire in his eyes and victory on his breath. He looks at us now in anger and disgust and tells us this. …

"I gave you a birthright of freedom born in the Constitution and now your children graduate too illiterate to read it. I fought in the snow barefoot to give you the freedom to vote and you stay at home because it rains. I left my family destitute to give you the freedom of speech, and you remain silent on critical issues, because it might be bad for business. I orphaned my children to give you a government to serve you and it has stolen democracy from the people.

"It's the soldier, not the poet, who gives you the freedom of speech.

"It's the soldier, not the campus organizer, who allows you to demonstrate.

"It's the soldier, who salutes the flag, serves the flag, whose coffin is draped with the flag that allows the protester to burn the flag!"

Halleluiah, it's raining moderates.

2005-05-22T23:29:00.000-07:00

A centrist block is seeking compromise in the judicial fillibuster issue. They are also looking at forging a power block that might be able to offer bipartisan plans for many issues. Let's all hope so...

Schroeder loses North Rhine-Westphalia. Not as good as it sounds.

2005-05-22T11:53:00.000-07:00

Everyone loves to see Gerhard Schroeder get kicked in the goodies. In Saturday's regional elections, Schroeder's SPD lost control of NRW for the first time since 1966. Sounds good, right? Though the good guys won (the Christian Democratic Union), the major reason the SPD lost was because of the labor market reforms forced down the communist throat of the Germans.

Unemployment is at a post-war high in NRW, and voters blame it on the reforms which have cut unemployment benefits for the habitually unemployed, and those who refuse job offers. These are good reforms that have nothing to do with the higher unemployment rate. The real culprit is of course complex, but is largely because the German economy is out of synch with the rest of Europe right now, and because monetary policy is set in Brussels, money is too tight in Germany, but just right in France and Italy. The result? The French are barely growing even with a favorable monetary policy, the Italians are on strike for no particular reason, the Brits, who still set their own monetary policy, are in year 13 or so of their expansion, and the Germans, far and away the most powerful economy in continental Europe, are stagnant.

The ECB won't cut rates because they are inflation obsessed and focused on M3 supply (a braod measure of money which includes equities, etc.), and they are more concerned with their own reputation as inflation busters than they are with a growing, strong Europe.

So Schroeder loses, and that is good. They intend to call early elections. Don't count Schroeder out, but if Angela Merkel, the leader of the CDU wins, I hope she's not tempted to reinstate protectionist, labor "friendly" policies which hurt labor in the long term, along with damaging the overall economy, and thereby loweringthe chances of long-term poverty reduction.

Congratulations CDU, don't betray your center-right principals.

Why "The Politics of No" forces a loss on all Americans.

2005-05-19T23:13:00.000-07:00

The ranting E.J. Dionne defends blind rejectionism from the Democrats in Congress over Social Security. He is short-sighted.

The argument runs thusly: say no until Bush loses, then, when you've got a majority somewhere, propose your union-based, big government, growth-busting solution. He says that "for everything there is a season" and this is the season of no.

Does anyone else see the very obvious problem that extremists of all stripes seem blind to? The Republicans are threatening to go nuclear over the (completely unconstitutional, but traditional) judicial filibuster. The Democrats point out that if the filibuster is eliminated, what will the Republicans do when the Dems dominate the government? True. Um, that goes both ways.

If the Democrats refuse to even participate in the debate over Social Security simply to give Bush a black eye, what do they think the Republicans will do when the Dems finally stop whining and make their own Social Security "solution"? Will the Republicans come and negotiate? well, by the time the Dems are back in power, it will likely be because the social conservatives finally piss off the (good, decent) Goldwater Republicans, and party unity is lost to some extent. The Goldwaters will object to the inevitable "throw more money at it" solution that the Dems will propose, and the social conservatives will object to it as somehow against God's will (okay, just because they are pissed, and don't compromise anyway).

The nuclear option is on the table because Gingrich decided that blue-slipping (the process by which a senator from the nominee's home state could secretly hold up a nomination without reason) was dishonest, and required that nominees at least be considered by committee. Because of that, the limited Constitutional power allotted to the Senate to advise and consent (read: give an up or down vote) was implicated in public. The legislature is just supposed to vote on these nominees, not decide who the executive could nominate. The Dems say that this doesn't mean there should be a rubber stamp. Fair enough, but in the rare event that the executive and the Senate broadly agree on a nominee, a minority cannot remove a nominee, because nomination is an enumerated executive power, and just a very limited Legislative power to vote, and approve or disapprove thereby. The right to vote against a nominee removes the idea of a rubber stamp. Just because the President and a majority of the Senate disagree with you, doesn't mean there is a rubber stamp. Stop crying, move on.

The point: when one party dominates, sometimes the other party simply can't stand in the way of everything. When the people speak, and call on one party to rule, the ball moves faster in one direction. That is the way it is. That's the way it was meant to be. That's the way it was when the Dems were in power (and when Roosevelt threatened to stack the Supreme Court if they didn't pretend that his "reforms" were Constitutional... There is a reason why the Constitution can be altered... anyhow...). Please also note that when Ruth Bader Ginsburg came before the Senate, she said that abortion was central to a woman's dignity. She was confirmed 97-3. Advise and consent. NO LITMUS TEST, just an evaluation of competence of the Executive's nominee (in accordance with the Constitution). The next year, the people thought the government had become too liberal and they voted in the Gingrich revolution (yes, the house, not the senate, but there IS a link... I think). None of Bush's nominees are close to that level of controversy, and yet ALL Democrats refuse to allow a vote because they use a LITMUS TEST, not a simple evaluation of competence. Compare that to Ginsburg: only three Republicans voted against a VERY liberal Clinton nominee because she was competent, NOT because they think abortion is a good idea, i.e., NO LITMUS TEST. Things have gotten far more bitter. Three guys hated her; they voted against her; they moved on.

The minority can slow things down, but when they resort to the "politics of no," they salt the earth for years to come. Make a proposal and fight for it, or get out of the way.

Stem cells and the Republican party

2005-05-19T14:48:00.000-07:00

Highlighting a spilt in the Republican party, Republicans can't agree on a position on the ban of stem cell research. This is a genuine difference in morality, and one in which the government ought to have no part.

The Roe v. Wade decision is a horrible piece of judicial overstepping that is indefensible. Casey v. Planned Parenthood is perhaps more defensible, but still a step into the realm of the Legislature and States Rights. Either way, until the judiciary overturns these decisions and returns the power to the states, as (soon to be Chief) Justice Scalia has advised, the Legislature (nor the Executive) ought to have the power to restrict legitimate medical research resulting from a practice that the Judiciary has declared a fundmental (privacy, autonomy, etc.) right (i.e. abortion).

If those decisions are overturned in the manner suggested by Scalia, and the power to regulate abortion is given to the states, then stem cell research should be regulated by the states. Undoubtedly, the Legislature would declare a commerce clause right to regulate stem cell research on a Federal level, however, getting the votes necessary to squash stem cell research looks iffy right now, as the afore linked article displays, when you add in a States Rights question, fewer Republicans will support it (obviously Dem would oppose a ban on stem cell research).

Vietnam, 30 years on.

2005-04-30T15:21:00.000-07:00

Modern wisdom has it that Vietnam was an utter failure, and that a disproportionate amount of our war dead were Black and Latino soldiers. I was treated to this alternative perspective.

Here is an interesting perspective on whether the U.S. actually lost the war. Okay, we certainly lost the war, but this article argues that our goal was to stabalize ALL of Southeast asia, not just Vietnam, and that we may have actully accomplished that goal.

There were several countries with communist insurgencies at the time: The Phillipines, Singapore, India, Korea, etc. Each of those countries stabalized after our intervention in Korea and Vietnam. Many are now FAR ahead in terms of living standards. This perspective gives no cause as to why communism stabalized in the other countries, and I'm no expert in that field, so I'll leave it to others, but the article is interesting nonetheless. Please read.

Though light on treatment of our 58,000 dead soldiers, this perspective puts a stake in the heart of the lie that Black soldiers were shuttled to the front lines, while the White soldiers were safely behind our lines. Black soldiers (please take no offense... just easier than typing African-American 50 times. No disrespect meant) in fact died in a smaller percentage to their representation in the armed forces, and were represented in the armed forces to a smaller percentage of the serving age population.

It's important that we revisit significant moments in history with fresh eyes. It's all too easy to believe popular "wisdom" and draw the wrong lessons...

Schwarzenegger sputtering

2005-04-24T11:03:00.000-07:00

It's a shame. Governor Schwarzenegger's popularity is at 49% (down from the high 60's) and his State reform plan is stuck in the mud.

The reform plan includes three major initiatives:

1. A cap on State spending
2. Independent redistricting for state legislature seats
3. Restrictions on tenure for teachers

The cap on spending is huge. The State is notoriously in debt due to massive overspending during the tech bubble, which everyone and their shirpa knew wouldn't last, but of course the legislature (as all legislatures it seems) can't figure out how to cut spending. We may be as much as $7 billion in the hole this year. The spending cap is absolutely critical, but the Democrats smell blood, and won't cooperate in any sort of fiscal responsibility simply so they can make the Governor look bad. Well done. I'm pretty sure that's why people voted for you.

Not much confusion as to why the legislature isn't afraid of the will of the people or the Governor in the State. In the last election, NOT ONE SINGLE SEAT OF THE 153 CHANGED HANDS. I'm pretty sure it's because every single one of them is a freakin' genius, and REALLY deserves to be there. We have the worst gerrymandering problem in the country. This is bipartisan, selfish, anti-democratic horse crap. In Iowa, an independent comission sets the legislative borders, and it has created more seat turnover, and, by inference, more accountability to the voters.

I say this rarely, but anyone against the redistricting proposal is a bad person. There you have it.

The third proposition is so obviously right , that the fact the there are a huge number of people against it would make me cry if it were any surprise that people are sometimes suckers. The Governor wants to change teacher's tenure so that crazy people and incompetents don't get mandatory raises and jobs-for-life, while "teaching" the poorer portion of our populace.

Um, who is against better teachers for poor kids? For some reason, the Democrats are. I must be honest and tell you that I don't really understand the argument. The fact that the teacher's union is raising $54 million for Democrats this election year might be the only argument they have. Sad. So, why is the teacher's union against paying more money to their best teachers, and less to the worst? Well, the union calculates that they will lose membership that way, and for some strange reason, that is good enough for the members.

Nobody disputes that better teachers are needed, especially in the innercity, but when proposals come forward that will improve the situation, the unions goad their bought-and-paid-for politicians into opposing it. The Schwarzenegger education team is bi-partisan (led by moderate Dick Riordan, and staffed by prominant Democrats such as Eric Skinner in finance), expert (including the genius former superintendant of the Alberta school system, Mike Strembitsky, who turned worst to first through budgetary control by principals), and dedicated (multi-millionaire Richard Riordan, who has no further political ambitions, spends his time and money trying to move resources to the innercity). Their proposals are almost unanimously considered wise and appropriate, and are therefore spurned by the unions.

If we're serious about fixing problems, then we must each dedicate ourselves to educate ourselves (Jesse Jackson can kiss my booty). These reforms are NOT ideological, they are NOT partisan. These reforms are simple, logical, and beneficial reforms for everyone. Better fiscal discipline, more government accountability, better education, especially for poorer kids.

What is there to oppose? If you're a California voter, please sign that referendum petition!

The OAU wants reparations. Idiots.

2005-04-21T20:02:00.000-07:00

The 7 member panel appointed by the "Organization for African Unity" (OAU) who nobody has ever heard of, thinks the U.S., France, and Belgium ought to pay reparations for not stopping the slaughter in Rwanda.

I can't believe these people are serious. Firstly, (yes, I said "firstly") we must acknowledge that the failure to stop the slaughter in Rwanda is a horrible tragedy which the world ought not repeat in Darfur, or anywhere else. Secondly, we must acknowledge that some people are insane. Moving on...

Where was the OAU, or her proud members during the slaughter? Why should the Western powers pay for a uniquely African horror?

I'm afraid there is a mentality in Africa akin to that of teenagers, drug adicts, and American liberals; "save me from myself." Somehow it is everyone else's fault when the tribalism of Africa spills into open slaughter. By some conivance, the rich world has again tricked the poor dictatorships into a civil war. Aren't we clever. I'm sure we probably did it for oil, or some other such nonsense.

How about this: redraw your borders based upon tribal affiliation, or overthrow your dictatorships and install accountable governments. How about joining the modern world rather than blaming that world for allowing you to act like animals. Hate the Western world too much? okay, look to South Africa who has sucessfully and bloodlessly (bar the Apartheid atrocities) converted to a democracy, Thailand who has maintained a clannish but thriving democracy(bar the south), Singapore who has built an empire out of a small society of cooperative people, anywhere not ruled by warlords and dictators.

Either way, look to yourselves to solve your problems, nobody else. That's what being an adult, mature country is all about.

French naivete.

2005-04-21T19:20:00.000-07:00

The French today were the lone voice within NATO refusing to deploy troops in order to stop the genocide in Darfur. You may at first think the French to be silly, hypocritical cowards, who care nothing for anyone in the world, bar themselves, and that their only use for the outside world is to bilk them financially through the EU farm subsidies, and to huddle next to them for military protection, as in WWII and the Cold War.

Why would you ever think that?!?!

Actually, in this case, the French are staying true to their roots: all bark, no bite. Diplomacy first and last. They want equal footing in NATO, but refuse to join the military command. They then refuse to join in any military excursion to stop the massacre of innocents in Darfur. This is actually consistent. Of course, as Emerson said, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

During the massacre in Rawanda, the U.S., U.K., and France all stalled, and 500,000 Rwandans were killed. In Darfur, the U.S., and the U.K. have explicitly learned from their Rwandan failings and pledged a defensive force should NATO deem it necessary. The French seem to think that the Rwandans should have taken care of it themselves, as should the Sudanese. Maybe they're right, but if so, they shouldn't be so damn sactimonious about a decision to let poor starving people to be raped and tortured to death.

The mindset that France seems to tout is one in which all action is stymied by endless chatting and occasional fiscal threats, until the hostile power is talked into submission. Sometimes it works when accompanied by an armed resistence (S. Africa), sometimes it doesn't (WWII). The problem is that an unconditional, unwaivering dogma of the power of diplomacy inevitably fails at least once, and without the flexibility and militarism of allies, the dogmatic becomes extinct (don't cry).

This is true of many dogmas, but the French inability to see their own wreckless stubborness has led them to the brink of disaster more than once. Francophobia is born of the French self-righteous naivete.

At least the Swiss acknowledge their dependency. Were the French to do the same, resentment of the French would devolve into light farce.

Annan: The U.S was bad, too

2005-04-14T13:54:00.000-07:00

U.N. General Secretary Kofi Annan claimed today that the billions made by Saddam, through corruption in the U.N. Oil for Food program, was actually the fault of the U.S.
Mr. Annan thought he was speaking off the record.

Never mind that the entire program was administered by the U.N. Please pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Annan's assertion is based on the fact that most of the smuggling was fenced through Turkey and Jordan. Both allies of the U.S. He says that only the U.S. had the type of interdiction force necessary to stop the smuggling.

The U.N. never asked for interdiction support for smuggling being facilitated by its own officers, and EVERY attempt by the U.K. and the U.S. to bring the smuggling before the Security Counsel was blocked by the Russians and the French, both of whom had massive oil contracts in place with Saddam.

The charge seems to assert that the U.S. turned a blind eye to the smuggling, which was providing money with which Saddam bought (among other things) anti-aircraft weapons being used to attempt to shoot down the planes that the U.S. and the U.K. provided in order to police the no-fly zones over pre-war Iraq. We did this because the U.S. apparently likes the Jordanians more than their own pilots. This does not seem to conform with the other U.N. complaints claiming that the U.S. is too militaristic and aggressive. Here the U.S. decided to give a little cash to Saddam and a few corrupt U.N. officials and their foreign friends and family, rather than increase safety for it's pilots.

To be sure, the U.K. and the U.S. knew about the smuggling. Both brought the issue before the U.N. security coulsel more than once, and the U.N. failed to allow any action against it. I can only imagine that Mr. Annan's point is that bringing issues before the U.N. is a bad idea, and that the U.S. should have acted (wait for it) unilaterally.

It's about time Mr. Annan came around to the merit of "unilateral action."

Hmm. Sounds like somebody is nervous about the final U.N. audit due out in a few months. Sounds like Mr. Annan has some info that will make him look very weak at the very least. Hold onto your hats...

Bush Economics: Big Government Cowards

2005-04-13T23:57:00.000-07:00

Mr. Bush's half-assed attempt to slow subsidies to massive agri-business farms has been abandoned. No ass left at all.

Cowards. Where is the rationale? The largest 10% of farms (those owned by PROFITABLE businesses) get 80% of the subsidies!

When will these "conservatives" start acting like it? Yes, perhaps some social conservatives REALLY want gay people to be wedged in a corner, unhappy and alone. Somehow it's their business... I don't know. How about these same passionate believers read a freakin' economics text book and find out what real conservatives are about: SMALL government (how about the irony of the all caps, eh? Clever, eh?), less government paternalism and spending, and most of all, FISCAL DISCIPLINE!

We're spending $52 BILLION on farm aid, 80% of it to profitable farms. We're facing a serious debt load. Far lower as a percentage of GDP than Democrats would have you believe, but a serious and unproductive debt nonetheless. Just as an aside, this is not like your personal economics, as so many Congresspeople would have you believe, debt can be a good thing in terms of investment, but more on that another day... our current debt is not productive. Do you know how much of our debt we could pay off with $42.6 BILLION (the 80% of the $52 billion we give to huge farms)? That's right, we could pay off $42.6 BILLION.

The math is not so hard, but the contortions that farm state Republicans go through in order to pretned that this is a conservative move is freakin hard. This is the kind of thing that could turn me into a Democrat. Thank goodness the Democrats are always there to remind me why I would never do that...

BTW, sorry for all the caps in this episode. I get unusually excited when talking about farms. ahem.

Best sign that Democracy is winning in Iraq? Al-Sadr is back

2005-04-10T19:03:00.000-07:00

Muqtada al-Sadr staged a large anti-American protest, and has vowed to follow it up with a campaign to oust U.S. troops from Iraq. Why is this such good news? The campaign is to be non-violent, and the demonstrators in the march were told not to carry guns or to chant slogans against the new Iraqi government.

The man who gauged Iraqi sentiment last year and judged it to be violent and anti-American was right then, and he's right again now. Iraqis support their new government, and they have not just given up on violence, but they've utterly rejected it in favor of grassroots political action.

In other words, Iraqis see the power of peaceful democracy, and they like it. Amazing.

Al-Sadr is demanding a timetable for an American pullout, and is campaigning to put himself in a position of power in a democratic opposition. He will not get the timetable, but his position is revealing. This cleric (I will not say "firebrand", if for no other reason than to keep you from getting repetitive imitation stress disorder) has now accepted that the U.S. intends to leave, the only question is when. Al-Sadr is now getting as much political capital as he can before we leave.

If I may opine by extension (try to stop me...), it looks to me as if Iraqis may be closer to maintaining their own country than most Americans think. Opposition figures are looking not to become warlords, but to squeeze the last bits of capital out of anti-Americanism before we're gone.

A banner day. I predict an 80% pullout within 2 years.

Update!

The day after I published this last line, Iraqi President Jalal Talbani told reporters he expects a U.S. pullout in two years. Weird.

The North Koreans are crazy bastards.

2005-04-01T01:04:00.000-08:00

North Korea will return to the six-party talks, but only if Secretary Rice retracts her "outpost of tyranny" comment and apologizes.

Uh huh.

Mr. Kim is completely bizarre. I was watching a History channel biography of Caligula today, and was struck by certain similarities in their character. Long story short, Caligula was freakin crazy, enjoyed torture, was completely decadent amidst starvation, and told anyone who would listen that he was a god. I imagine he stopped believeing it after his personal guards stabbed him 30 times, burned his body, and them chucked him into a hastily dug, shallow grave.

He did not rise again three days later. Different guy.

Makes me long for the good 'ol days when crazy-ass leaders were brutally killed if their idiosyncratic whimsies began to destroy their country. Kids today. I blame it on the hip-hop music not being violent enough.

Problem: the N. Korean leadership is bolstered by the Chinese because of the Chinese fear of millions of starving immigrants flooding into China that would certainly result from a collapse of the N.K. regime.

Solution: encourage S. Korea and Japan to go nuclear (maybe even Taiwan too). It would take them about 20 minutes to make the leap. The announcement alone would make the Chinese need to change their collective pants. As much as the Chinese are afraid of starving migrants, they are FAR more afraid of losing their military hegemonic power over Asia.

Ask the Asian states to insist on removal of the military junta in the DPRK in exchange for a nuclear step-down. There ya go, problem solved.

Shocker: our professors are socialist bigots.

2005-03-29T18:40:00.000-08:00

72% liberal, 13% conservative. This is the faculty disparity on college campuses according to a right-leaning policy group. Even granting a slight righward skew on the polling, this shocking number should shock very few people who have ever been to school of any kind, kindergarten on.

Our teachers are commies, let's face it.

The only counter that the representative for the American Association of University Professors can conjure is basically that there is no evidence that this is effecting (or affecting... please explain that one to me. I learned about Marxism, but not spelling/grammer) the policies of the institutions or the teaching content of the professors.

Apparently that person has never been to school before.

For those of us who have actually attended the grand institutions of higher learning that lead to an ironic lifetime of indentured servitutde to loaning institutions, we need no proof. Our professors OBSESS about racial and gender representation, but really couldn't be bothered about ideological representation. For those of us who have attended these institutions, whether we be liberal or conservative, we must all acknowledge that it is a rare professor who can sepparate his/her personal perspective from his/her teaching.

A grand example:

Larry Summers. The president (or whatever) of Harvard told a room full of intellectual cowards (the Harvard faculty)that there were three major hypotheses as to why women are so underrepresented in the sciences and that they should be investigated. Despite what the ignorant and frightened lemmings in the media tell you, he did NOT say that women were worse at the sciences than men (don't believe me? Good. Here is the transcript).

The leading lights of self-delusion stormed out of the room, and subsequently passed a vote of no-confidence against Mr. Summers. Mr. Summers, being a good liberal, appointed by President Clinton to be Treasury Secretary when nobody competent could be found (okay, he wasn't so bad, but competence is barely even funny), dutifully cowered in a corner and passionately re-avowed himself to dogma, and to forceful ignorance, and agreed that his desire to increase knowledge about the root causes of the under-representation was inappropriate.

Where is the outrage over the fact that over 80% of the faculties in Political Science self-identify as liberals? Will we see Jesse Jackson marching over that abomination? Will we have the EEOC investigating that one? I'm gonna go ahead and not hold my breath.

The truth of the matter is that in academia, and many areas of the media, conservative thought is considered not to be a valuable alternative point of view, but a disease, an affliction of chronic ignorance.

For those who think that's correct, Rush Limbaugh thinks your point of view is based on delusion, and an ignorance of history. Can't have one without the other.

If you say "tolerance", mean it.

France to reject their own Constitution?!?!

2005-03-22T11:00:00.000-08:00

Two polls suggest that France may reject the E.U. Constitution that they wrote. Tragicomedy.

Written by former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the Constitution promotes "ever closer union" and was designed to create a common front for the promotion of a unified European international facade for all matters from trade to defense.

Considered by many (especially the British) as too integrationist, a French okay was taken for granted if for no other reason than that the Brits were hesitant. A no from the French doesn't doom the project, as they could run another referendum down the road once the French see what they've done, but it would be incredibly embarrasing.

French Racism Rears its Frequently Seen Head

French interior minister, Dominique De Villepin, said that a No vote would result in globalisation "without any constraints," he said, and Europe would then become "the big market that the Anglo-Saxons dream about, a Europe under US influence, a Europe under Chinese influence".

Meanwhile, the two main reasons that the No campaign is doing so well is distaste for the Chirac government, and the French fear of Turkish entry into the E.U.

So, essentially, Villepin is attempting to counter French racism with French racism and Anglophobia. Fight fire with fire I suppose.

The architect of Containment dies at 101. TURMENISTAN may be next on the terrorist hit list.

2005-03-18T10:35:00.000-08:00

George Kennan died today. Kennan was the man who created the concept and policy of containment that kept the world from WWIII and ensured a capitalist victory in the cold war. His idea was oulined in a single memo to the President in 1946 called "The Long Telegram".

Incidentally, his ideas are the driving force behind our policy on North Korea, and interestingly in Iran.

Look at this map (I command you). Looking at the toppling of Iraq in a geographic context, Iran is now surrounded by Turkey (an American ally), Afghanistan (an American ally), Iraq (well, you know...), Azerbijian and Armenia (erstwhile allies, somewhat ungoverned), and Turkmenistan.

Turkmenistan is an interesting case. Ruled by a pretty harsh but clever dictator, Saparmurat Niyazov who has renamed January after himself, and April after his mother (no, not a joke), this gas rich country could well be the focus of intense Russian-American diplomacy in the coming months.

Violence is unlikely, but with the recent revelation that nuclear capable cruise missiles were smuggled from Ukraine to Iran I think stepped up patrols of the Black Sea, along with a diplomatic push for sealing the borders between Trukmenistan and Iran are likely.

Sealing the border with Turkmenistan would provide an economic stranglehold for local trade with Iran, akin to our attempts (failed) to strangle Castro.

Considering we've already got pretty strict sanctions in place agianst Iran, the only way to hurt them more is to encourage others to restrict trade as well.

BTW, it's NOT I ran, it's Ir-on.

62% of Iraqis say their country is headed in the right direction.

2005-03-15T22:31:00.000-08:00

You heard it here. USAToday reports that 62% of Iraqis believe Iraq is headed in the right direction. 23% say it is headed in the wrong direction.

44% of Americans believe our country is headed in the right direction. 56% of Americans say Iraq is heading in the right direction, while 57% disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq.

No grand point here, other than my belief that the anti-Bush numbers could be an American "death and dismemberment" number, akin to the anti-occupation numbers in Iraq.

I'll be interested to see what the "was it worth it?" numbers is in ten years. That number right now is worthless IMHO. The pain of death is too near in time to objectively judge.

Gay marriage ban unconstitutional!

2005-03-14T15:53:00.000-08:00

A California court has found the ban on gay marriage to be against the California Constitution.

It's about time.

Though this decision will be appealed, conservatives who aren't socially oppresive nut-jobs should be extatic. Those of us who believe the government ought not intrude on the personal choices of its citizens ought to be cheering.

Most are not.

The secretly recorded tapes of President Bush would indicate that he ought to be cheering as well. He is not.

This is precisely the issue that spawned this blog. If we as Republicans are against government intrusion and for the limiting of its power and its budget, we OUGHT to be cheering.

I know I am.

What the hell does this have to do with the U.S.?

2005-03-10T15:53:00.000-08:00

Spanish Muslims issued a fatwa against bin Laden today. Good for them.

In addition, they thanked the Spanish government for not overreacting after the 3/11 attackes in Madrid, unlike the U.S. Now, what the hell does this have to do with the U.S?!?! Must EVERY press release posted by Muslim or European groups be self-congragulatory AND anti-U.S.? We had a hickup right after 9/11 that was a bit middle-easter xenophobic. Hard to blame us, but we're over it (seriously, I invite anyone to counter this point).

Do American Muslim groups take shots at Europeans? Do U.S. Federal agencies mock the EU? What the hell is wrong with everybody?

How about just going about your business and tending to your own affairs? This bizarre addiction to comparing your own actions to the evil U.S. reeks of Neitzche's (frequently and horribly misunderstood) "slave mentality" wherein the weak compare themselves to the (evil) strong in an attempt to establish themselves as the relative "good".

The Europeans are acting like teenagers who strive to establish their own independence by differentiating themselves from their parents.

Move out already!

I certainly understand the desire... I take pot-shots at the French like it were an Olympic event (hey, if the biathalon is an event, skeet-shooting the cheese-eaters should be).

The problem is that a unified Western front is so much more powerful than just the U.S. The unfortunate truth is that we may be witnessing the beginning of the end for the Atlantic Alliance. Fortunately, this is probably a temporary situation, as outlined brilliantly in Foreign Affairs. I would love comments about the Atlatic Divide... more to come on this...

Hypocrisy I

2005-03-10T14:25:00.000-08:00

I was thinking today about the "anti-war" position as pertains to Iraq II. If a person is anti-Iraq war, can that same person fault the U.S. for doing business with an oppressive regime?

Seems hypocritical to me. Are we to ignore those countries entirely? That's what's happening in Zimbabwe right now. We're ignoring it and people are starving to death. Since Mr. Mugabe came to power, Zibabweans earnings per capita has decreased by 50%!

Ignoring a more powerful country that behaves poorly and aggressively is what non-Churchillian Eurpoe did in WWII and continues today. It's called appeasement. Hoping for the best.

The best never happens.

So, I say: choose one or the other; anti-war OR economic disengagement. The alternative is to apply for French citizenship.

Al Jazeera: NOT pro-Arab, just anti-US.

2005-03-08T15:52:00.000-08:00

Al Jazeera is reporting 1.5 million pro-Syrian protesters in Lebanon today. The rest of the world is saying between 50,000 toseveral hundred thousand.

Interesting, especially when you consider there are only 3.7 million Lebenese total. Figure about 2.5 million adults, and Al Jazeera is claiming that 60% of the entire adult population was in the street today. A Tuesday. I know the unemployment rate is high in Lebanon, but 60%?

So the question is: why would Al Jazeera buy such an absurd claim? The Lebanese claim Arab ancestry (by and large), so it isn't yet another case of mindless belief of all Arabs, as is AJ's general M.O.

This seems to me to be the truth behind Al Jazeera's mission: whatever the U.S. is for, we are against. This is the appeal and marketing posture of AJ to the Arab world. The Arab world can always count on AJ to take the other point of view, no matter how silly that POV is.

Bush is for it so AJ is against it. They sacrifice the interest of some Arabs, so long as thier own Sunni pan-Arabist (Baathists) are shown in heroic light.

Banning the IRA

2005-03-08T14:51:00.000-08:00

So I'm almost always against the European tendency to ban political parties it finds distasteful. I believe that banning political parties simply drives the sentiment underground where it festers.

The IRA and Sinn Fein has made me question my beliefs. They flatly robbed a bank. They offer to kill their own killers.

This, along with the fact that 70% of N. Ireland residents would vote for union with the U.K rather than Ireland makes this group essentially an organized crime sydndicate. They represent no democratic ideal, they have no guiding philosophy other than minority rule.

I would not ban them only because they make themselves publicly silly with each new scandal.

The Democrats minimum wage laws hurt the poor.

2005-03-07T22:29:00.000-08:00

Again, the Democrats look like heros for attempting to hurt the same people they are trying to help. Again, the Republicans look like red-headed step children with a plan that would actually help...

Click for a Chicago Tribune article debunking simplistic thinking about raising the minimum wage. They make you register, but it's a great article.

The facts: poor adults are hurt by minimum wage laws. The truth: it sucks to be poor.

I would heartily agree that a way to distribute better benefits to the working poor is required, but perhaps a tax rebate for those that don't pay in the first place is a better method... Distorts the job market less.

This is the reason why I can't vote for the big D's. Symbolism over substance. Every informed individual knows that minimum wage laws hurt the poor, but in their desire to appeal to the ignorant portion of the populace (unfortunately high proportion in this instance) they go for the idiot stick and whack us yet again.

Public Education in the U.S. is Socialism in action

2005-02-17T22:23:00.000-08:00

Perhaps the largest problem facing this country, and the easiest to solve is the U.S.’s woeful underperformance in K-12 education. There are several solutions, all of which are an improvement on the current system, some of which are beiong experimented with right now: vouchers, local control, and the student weighted formula. State and local experimentation is crucial, yet too many states and localities are reticent to try anything new. Why? It certainly isn’t because our current system is adequate. It costs $7000 to educate a kid in the public school system each year, it costs $60,000 to encarcerate them in the California Youth Authority, which is where hopeless kids with bad educations are likely to end up.

The problem, you might think, can be summed up with a roll of the eyes, a look skyward, and the familiar utterance of “the teachers union.” They are certainly part of the problem, but not the whole problem, and a belief that eliminating or crippling the union will result in a successful and happy student population, is a belief that would end in disappointment. The system by which we fund schools, train teachers, and manage programs is a fantastic example of why the Soviet Union collapsed.

The plan? Ask Professor William Ouchi, oracle to Governor Schwarzenegger, and Secretary of education Richard Riordan. Click for an abstract and links.

Government vs. Business

2005-02-17T22:21:00.000-08:00

The greatest social plagues in human history have been the result of intolerant, exclusivist ideologies: Crusades, Nazism, Communism, Triumphalism, Imperialism (some but not all), Islamism, Separatism and anti-separatism, despotism, and many more. The greatest triumphs in human history have been the result of inclusivist, human nature exploiting ideologies and movements. Intensive agriculture, democracy, capitalism, advanced medicine, literacy and printing

Maybe the difference is one of human perception. Those events that we consider bad are those that tended to produce unhappiness, disease, and failed to produce human progress. Those events and ideas we consider good are those that tended to produce happiness, healthfulness, and human progress. To some degree, we also tend to consider those ideologies that attempt to impose themselves upon an unwilling population, bad. There are exceptions; racial tolerance, for example, was essentially foisted upon a contentedly intolerant populace via a civil war and governmental regulation. Very few people would argue that racial tolerance is a plague.

Growth is good for the poor

2005-02-17T22:20:00.000-08:00

According to a study prepared for the World Bank by David Dollar and Aart Kraay, economic growth as a result of globalization improves the economic plight of the poor in the same proportion as the rich. Tough times resulting from an open economy also hurt the poor in the same proportion as the rich. Certainly a 10% loss hurts a poor person more than a 10% loss to a rich person, but the loss is, nonetheless, proportional.

In the same paper, the study found that cutting inflation and cutting public spending actually improves the distribution of income. The poor benefit twice as much as the rich.

Click here for the paper.

One of the factors most closely corallated to wealth disparity? Education. Surprise!

Conservative Cultures: Gay marriage: Iraq. Connected?

2005-02-17T22:07:00.000-08:00

I am for gay marriage. Those of us who believe in limited government intrusion into personal lives must agree.

Those social conservatives (Democrats and Reps) that cry about the degrading of traditional society may actually represent the portion of our culture that recognizes the fact that the behavior of each citizen affects the system under which we exist,and to allow people to deviate from the established norm may do damage to the system that sustains our high standards of living, etc.

I think they're wrong, but only because they don'tknow why they protest. They have only a vague feelingthat something could go horribly wrong if we so fundamentally change the mores upon which our state system is founded, but they have no actual reason for believing it is so.

The term "political conservative" was best explained to me as those that attempt to preserve what is "best" about society. I suspect that it might also be the group of people that are most concerned with maintaining the functioning of society and culture.

If you've got a society wherein the social conservatives are dominant, as they tend to be in traditional cultures (hence the name) and the existing society is one in which loyalty is given to those directly around you, and the rest be damned, it is difficult for progressives who might see the benefit of a system wherein loyalty is given to the broader society, to explain the benefits of that system to others.

This is the problem of Bolshevism. The Bolsheviks couldn't wait for the greater society to buy into their vision of cooperative society instead of fuedalism, so they caused a revolution. The anarchy that was supposed to follow in the communistic life never emerged because there was a need for a secret police to try to mold the very thoughts of the people to ensure that loyaly was given to the state, to the "party" instead of to family and clan. This is why capitalism works. It takes the natural self-interested nature of humans and directs it in such a way that loyalty to the broader society benefits the individual ("serve the market"). There is no need to explain it, it is evident within the system. This is why we have such a distate for nepotism (current crop of politicians exepted), and why others don't understand our revultion. To give to those around you based on relationship rather than ability shows a loyaly to the clan rather than the society.

I think there is an argument that this is what we're talking about on a national level about Iraq. Can we force capitalistic democracy on these people the waythe Bolsheviks tried to force communism on thier populace? Are we even trying to do that? When we talk about the Arabs being "ready" for democracy, we're asking if they have a cultural respect for the state, or are they essentially tribal? The same argument is had for colnial state boundries: can tribal people change their allegiances based on faith? Probably not, and I look for an independent Kurdistan within ten years.