In The Course Of Human Events

Holodomor: Killing by Hunger

2011-10-26T06:33:00.000-07:00

Just learned about this today... never heard of this specific event before. Putting it here to remember:

From Wikpedia:

The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор, 'Морити голодом', literal translation Killing by hunger) was a man-made famine in the Ukrainian SSR between 1932 and 1933. During the famine, which is also known as the "terror-famine in Ukraine" and "famine-genocide in Ukraine",^[1]^[2]^[3] millions of Ukrainians died of starvation in a peacetime catastrophe unprecedented in the history of Ukraine.^[4]

Early estimates of the death toll by scholars and government officials varied greatly; anywhere from 1.8^[5] to 12 million^[6] ethnic Ukrainians were said to have been killed as a result of the famine. Recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.4^[7] and 7.5^[8] million. The exact number of deaths is hard to determine, due to a lack of records,^[9]^[10] but the number increases significantly when the deaths inside heavily Ukrainian-populated Kuban are included.^[11] The demographic deficit caused by unborn or unrecorded births is said to be as high as 6 million.^[9] Older estimates are still often cited in political commentary.^[12]

As Beck and Stu explained and simplified the story, which warrants further research to confirm, the Soviets demanded ever increasing food production from the Ukrainian people, to ship it to the motherland to feed the Russian people, that the Ukrainians did not have enough to feed themselves. When the Ukrainians began resisting, the Russian troops rolled in and took the food out of the kitchens of the homes and shot anyone who tried to steal it back. In their discussion, some 7 million died.

What prevents people from being absolutely barbaric to each other? Is there anything to restrain them from their impulse to dominate and feed off of someone else?

Counting Obama Voters: 1

2011-09-14T18:12:00.000-07:00

Stopped by the grocery store yesterday afternoon for what should have been a quick trip... +10 minutes as the woman in front of me hashed it out with the cashier about coupons being applied properly.

I should have thanked her for being frugal. When it was time for her to pay her $33.48 total, suddenly $25 disappeared, paid for courtesy of you and me via the federal government: Food Stamps. (She paid the rest in cash.)

This fellow citizen was wearing an Obama campaign t-shirt from 2008.

Perma-voter.

A little Sesame Street classic to help us with the counting:

PS: did you know this counting song was sung by The Pointer Sisters? Had no idea...

There is Room For Another...

2011-09-13T08:54:00.000-07:00

During the CNN / Tea Party debate last night a tea-partier asked what the candidates were willing to do to gain support specifically from hispanic voters. As the wife and I listened to the answers, we looked at each other and agreed that the right answer, the one that was missing, was the following:

I am going to reach out to hispanics the same way I will reach out for the support of every American voter: by appealing to their desire to protect life, to promote liberty, to expand the opportunity for every individual to achieve their happiness. We are all Americans, come with me, let's re-claim our nation.

Romney came close in his eventual answer, but he was so off the beaten path he would have a long way to walk to get back to the purity of that statement above.

Palin. She might be able to stake a claim in this position. Her frank discussion of crony capitalism, the manner in which she has trained herself to be immune to the media's efforts to goad and lead the candidates into certain responses... this is the space she could fill.

If she runs.

Will she?

I Remember...

2011-09-11T08:48:00.000-07:00

Re-posted from the original: Where Were You?

I was standing at the kitchen sink filling the coffee pot with water. I had the radio on, listening to NPR’s Morning Edition. They took a break from the national feed at ~5:48am for local news or weather. Same as the day before. Same as the day before that.

“I don’t know what this means, but we just received a report that a small plane has struck the World Trade Center,” the local announcer says at the break.

I looked out the window. I switched on the TV. I watched the second plane fly into the tower.

I stopped thinking.

While I sat frozen I knew I wasn’t alone. I thought of so many other people who must be transfixed at the same moment.

While that happened a third plane hit the Pentagon.

Life changed in those moments. I had the luxury of sitting in shock on my couch. But some people had to keep going. There were people to rescue in New York and Washington. There were other planes in the sky. There were policemen and firemen and air traffic controllers and military staffers and commanders who needed to do their jobs.

There were citizens who needed to act, to do something, to prevent a fourth plane from wreaking its havoc on one of America’s cities.

Please make the time to see United 93. Remember the moment you first heard of the attack against America. Marvel at the fact that within only an hour and a half our fellow Americans had managed to organize and counter attack and prevent a complete victory by our enemy.

A few hours into the experience, I struggled to restore normalcy. I forced myself to switch off the TV and go into my morning routine. Shower. Dress. Grab the laptop, keys, wallet. Walk to the door. Open the door. Walk...

I could not.

I could not cross the threshold. Outside that door was I was unprotected. Outside that door I had to drive the freeway through downtown Los Angeles. Past the Library Tower, the highest building west of the Mississippi River. I could not.

I did not.

I put down my case. I left a voice mail for my boss... "I can't do it, I can't drive in, I cannot." I turned the TV back on. I sat on the floor and just absorbed, and hurt.

I cried.

***

Thursday 9/13, as I drove down the 105 freeway on my route to the office a plane was wheeling from south to west, heading towards LAX. It was the only plane in the sky. It was the first plane I had seen since Monday. It was, for a moment, terrifying.

Friday 9/14 I left the office and walked to the Episcopal Church near me in Pasadena. I went to a service on my own accord for the first time in ages. It was packed. I cried. We all cried. It seemed incomprehensible.

Always remember.

***

And when today is over, and tomorrow begins... ask yourself: What is different? What am I doing, what are you doing, what are we all doing to make sure this world is comprehensible and for those parts that cannot be, will not be, that we are united to defend our sane world from those barbarians at the gate?

Eugenics Group Advertising on MSNBC During GOP Debate

2011-09-08T07:34:00.000-07:00

In the first commercial break there was this commercial which stopped me in my tracks. Watch it, then go read their background page. Population control. Fertility management. Eugenics. Really scary this is mainstreamed enough to buy commercial time on a national broadcast on MSNBC. What else is being advertised on that channel that I would never know about?

I live in Seattle, Washington... was this ad actually run on the national feed?

Here is the text of the background page on this group's website (highlights are mine)

http://www.capsweb.org/content.php?id=4&menu_id=3&menu_item_id=13

BACKGROUND
Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) isconfronting the most important issue facing California and the United States:runaway population growth. This problem cries out for action now and will havesevere and irreversible consequences for our children and grandchildren.Overpopulation brings environmental damage and overuse of nature's bounty.Overpopulation strains local infrastructure and frays community institutions.It affects air and water quality, causes destruction of forests and wildlife andresults in the permanent loss of fertile land and other non-renewableresources.

The solutions are limiting immigration, encouraging lower fertility and educating thepublic about likely outcomes if we fail to take decisive action today. The mostcrucial task for those who care about California and the rest of the UnitedStates is to reverse the endless growth agenda supported by most of our electedofficials and based on a "business as usual" attitude that continuingincreases in population and consumption can go on indefinitely. The nation isgrowing at the rate of 0.9% a year. California is growing by 1.01%, which meansits population will double in 69 years. At this rate, by early in the nextcentury, our great-grandchildren will be living in an America crammed with overa billion people.

Electric vehicles andanti-sprawl campaigns may have merit, but because they deal with the symptomsrather than the underlying causes of society's overpopulation woes, they are nosubstitute for just saying "no" to current and unprecedented massimmigration policies.

CAPS was organized in 1986, when it split off from ZPG (Zero Population Growth) because thatorganization, like many other population groups, decided to focus on thepolitically safer issue of global overpopulation. While we agree that globaloverpopulation is a problem, CAPS works to influence population policy in ourown country and uses education and advocacy to accomplish this goal.

CAPS is a 501(c)(3), membership-based, public interest organization, that isdetermined to end policies and practices that cause overpopulation and theresultant decline in our quality of life here in California and in the UnitedStates.

Thus, CAPS has a special niche in the population-environment movement. Several of our boardmembers have held leadership positions in national environmental groups. Threecurrent board members are scientifically-trained academics, now dedicatedimmigration reform activists.

Because conventional environmental organizations have abrogated their responsibility tooppose continued U.S. population growth, a huge gap exists that organizationslike CAPS are determined to fill. A detailed history of the U.S. environmentalmovement's retreat from advocating U.S. population stabilization has beendocumented by Roy Beck and Leon Kolankiewicz in volume 12 of the Journal of PolicyHistory.

Total fertility rates are below replacement (2.1 children per woman) for all groupsin California except for Hispanics, whose total fertility rate is2.68 (CA Dept. of Finance). But it is direct immigration and births toforeign-born women that now account for virtually all of the population growthin California. CAPS is unique among population and immigration reductionorganizations in our advocacy of less immigration, small family size and the wideavailability of family planning information and contraceptive use.

CAPS recognizes that California has developed a harmful positive feedback loop thatinvolves over-immigration, a poor and deteriorating public educationalsystem, and highfertility. Thesefactors reinforce each other in negative ways: Over-immigration overwhelms thepublic schools with too many students who have little command of English. Thisis a major factor interfering with immigrant achievement and promotes droppingout of school early. Because of the well-documented inverse correlation betweena woman's lifetime fertility and the amount of schooling she receives,these earlydropouts will have, on average, high fertility. This will fill the schoolswith even more children and exacerbate further the overcrowding and otherproblems. This harmful repetitive cycle will never be fixed until immigrationlevels are reduced. Just to accommodate current rates of immigration-drivenincrease in the under-age-20 population, California would have to build a newschool every other day and this need will continue for the foreseeablefuture.

Population can and must be stabilized in the United States. CAPS believes we are in aposition to have significant influence, especially here in California. We havemade a reasoned analysis of the problem, based on the best available data fromdemographic and ecological source material. We have designed research,education and advocacy programs that will be effective. We ask for your supportin this critically important work.

Courage and Honor in the Face of Evil

2011-05-28T07:09:00.000-07:00

A Chicago family had their disabled child's specialized wheelchair stolen from their driveway. When it would be so easy to simply react, play the role we see so many victims play in interviews on television... this mother requests that anyone who intended to donate to her family please donate to a charity instead.

God bless America.

Story is here: An American Family

The Zero'ing Out of a Generation

2011-05-27T19:00:00.000-07:00

Just finished watching "Generation Zero." I bought this well over 6 months ago, and until last night it remained in the original plastic wrap. The news this week of Sarah Palin's re-emergence into public life with a bus tour and a secretly made, feature length movie profile of the former vice presidential candidate inspired the viewing. Stephen K. Bannon is the filmmaker for both.

The first thing that struck me as the movie started, though, was the production company: Citizens United Productions. Producer? David N. Bossie. I've sat pondering the meaning of the Citizen's United ruling from the Supreme Court since it was announced. As far as I knew, it had not touched my life. And until yesterday I did not know who Mr. Bossie was... I had to look him up on Wikipedia after reading this Jonah Goldberg post on The Corner.

The movie was stunning. I'm very glad I invested the time and would recommend it to all. We have entered a stunning period of life in American history. We have overspent. We have authorized others... our politicians and our elites... to control our destinies. These are not opinions, they are simply facts. Next comes the struggle to reclaim them.

The struggle that I have progressed through for the past 10 months at work is part and parcel to the struggle that we will face in the coming years, perhaps the coming generation. A return to the basics: honesty, compassion, work, responsibility. People who behave by other principles than those are the people that should be avoided, but when necessary, battled.

The movie discussed the commitment that our government made to provide for retirees. Income. Healthcare. Free. The concept in presented, here and in general, as if we the American People must fulfill this obligation that other generations before us committed us to.

How is this construct of the obligation... that I the child must work and earn and be productive, so that my income can be taken from me and redistributed inefficiently through the government to my own parents and grandparents? I would not for a moment advocate leaving anyone out in the cold. Let us simply be clear: My parents' generation voted for politicians and policies that would guarantee them an income after they were done working and at the same time would not save a single penny to cover the cost of that commitment.

My parents' generation took an extraordinary risk with their future. They invested much of their retirement into this flim-flam scam. And now, when there is no money to fund the machine, when the ponzi scheme is revealed, when the risky investments they made fail... they come looking to my generation, and that of my future children to bail them out.

How is this any different than the primary discussion topic of "Generation Zero" where the big Wall Street institutions kept their profits by having the middle class taxes to bail out their failed investments?

I plan to address this topic with tremendous compassion. No one should be left in the cold. But I would like a truthful discussion. Truth, forgiveness, solution. Without the truth, without acceptance of the truth by the perpetrators, the victims will simply be bled dry.

Gird for difficult times.

The U.S. Non-Defense Strategy?

2011-02-23T06:46:00.001-08:00

Imprimis arrived yesterday in the mail. Author Brian Kennedy seems to be headed down a path that is well known and much discussed already:

Islam is evil and duplicitous and a threat to the security of the United States
China is a military threat to the security of the United States
Russia is a threat to the security of the United States

Mr. Kennedy describes several verses from the Koran, proceeds to a discussion of the economic stranglehold China has over the U.S. as it increases the scope of her military forces and influence outside her borders, then addresses the post-cold war non-victory over Russia and that nation's current influences and capabilities.

Striking Thought #1: The falsity of the U.S. naval power. This piece posits the possibility of quick and total destruction of the overseas military presence of the U.S. blue water navy through the use of missiles.

Striking Thought #2: Our mainland is not defended for lack of a missile defense, the knowledge that the navy could be destroyed or seriously damaged quickly, and the concept of an EMP device activated from an aggressor's vessel off U.S. shores.

Questions that occur:

Is it time to pull our navy back to the near boundaries of the US?
What if the Iranian vessels that transited the Suez yesterday have an EMP capability that could be utilized just off the shores of Israel?

The National Security Fortress

2011-02-15T10:26:00.000-08:00

America's foreign policy moved front and center in the past few weeks as the popular revolt in Egypt appeared, intensified, and found "success." (As Niall Ferguson said on Morning Joe recently... it's hard to call a popular revolution that leads to a military junta a success...) For so many years we have supported the existence of autocratic regimes across the Middle East, holding steadfast that the devil we know was better than the devil we don't know.

Glenn Beck led the US Policy flogging. His pronouncements on the topic... well... let's say I agree with the great bulk of them. But where does that flogging of our past policy lead us? Criticism is not enough. Should we aggressively strive to overturn every non-free government around the world? Should we constantly evangelize our flavor of freedom everywhere we go? Should we reject all treaties and reject all trade opportunities with authoritarian regimes?

Maybe...

Solutions are required. New ideas must be injected into the mix. And here is my developing contribution:

The first and primary objective of the United States Foreign Policy should be the security of the nation and the protection of it's citizens domestically and across the globe.
We have a military that can project tremendous force around the globe as needed, only sparingly, and to tremendous effect, to the direct service of protecting the lives and interests of America. Victory should be quick when possible but always decisive.
We should expand the defensive barrier that is our liberty and freedom throughout the world. Each country that is free and democratic is another extension of our defensive barricade. Free countries do not attack each other, which reduces the number of countries that must be observed as threats. Increasing numbers of free nations challenges to abilities of the remaining authoritarian regimes to defend their own borders, complicates their ability to project control outside of their borders, and most importantly, provides them with too many close proximity targets to allow them to threaten the United States.

Form a Fortress of Liberty. Tell all they are welcome to join us, not by coming inside our walls, but by using our example to build their own wall, which they are then welcome to attach to ours.

As we pursue this, our moral path will be apparent at each step. America should never need to side with the enemies of freedom to protect freedom. The core of our nation's foreign policy and national security policy should always be the expansion of democracy and liberty around the globe.

A Toast, To America

2011-02-13T07:58:00.000-08:00

Courtesy of John Bolton, who gave an impressive and moving speech yesterday at the CPAC 2011 conference. He included in his talk the following quote from the french author Andre Malroux:

"I offer a toast to the only nation that has waged war but not worshipped it, that has won the greatest power in the world but not sought it, that has wrought the greatest weapon of death but not wished to wield it; and may it inspire men with dreams worthy of its action."

The Education Bubble

2011-02-06T22:23:00.001-08:00

Really thought this post was quite thought provoking, especially the video:

Harvard Study: Maybe Everyone Shouldn't Be Going to College

The Marxist Vision of America?

2011-01-26T09:48:00.000-08:00

Last night was Obama's State of the Union Address... In the first 10 minus (all I happened to hear) he espoused a remarkable vision of America... basically, he asked if we could remember the old days... When you could go to the door of the factory in your town, get a job, have it for life, maybe even getting a promotion along the way... comfortable in the knowledge that your children would be able to come to the same factory and get the same job... Remember when nothing changed generation after generation in America? Remember when America was a worker's paradise?

The Power of Freedom

2010-12-15T06:57:00.000-08:00

Richard Holbrooke, ambassador to, well, lots of the important stuff, passed this week rather unexpectedly. The WSJ has an eye catching op-ed in remembrance of him this morning. One of the reasons why I enjoy that page so much - the editors take the time to form reasoned, measured opinions on most topics.

The first paragraph:

Perhaps because he was born on the eve of Pearl Harbor, but more likely because of the inborn force of his personality, Richard Holbrooke behaved like a man who believed that American power could be wielded to achieve great things. That was especially so when he was the one doing the wielding.

Emphasis mine.

When was the last time we behaved as if we believed that American power could be wielded to achieve great things? It has been discussed it many times... but when was the last time we acted on it?

New year's resolution has been identified.

Game, Set, Match

2010-11-11T23:45:00.000-08:00

The handle for a commenter on Glenn Beck's TheBlaze.com:

A DOCTORS LABOR IS NOT MY RIGHT

The Lights Dim in England

2010-11-10T09:11:00.000-08:00

An ominous sign of things to come... and on the same day that students are rioting in England...

New dark age on our streets: Up to 75% of councils are dimming the lights to save money

The Senate's Tea Party

2010-11-06T14:16:00.000-07:00

The WSJ weekend interview went in a new direction today. The article presents two contrasting interview subjects, both newly minted members of the Senate for the GOP: Rand Paul, the Tea Party favorite from Kentucky; and Roy Blunt, the GOP stalwart congressman from my home state of Missouri.

Both interviews together really highlight the challenges that the Tea Party movement will face as it converts from election activists to governing activists.

Rand Paul is fired up and plans to walk in and have his way with the world of the Senate. Something tells me he is going to just crash into a wall of resistance. The Tea Party could help tame the senator and ensure that he is able to have an effect.

Roy Blunt's interview... was terribly frightening. It's great to have solid conservatives on the team for us, and the alternative... of having Robin Carnahan join McCaskill in the MO delegation... (shudder). But I had the same sensation when I read this bit:

Ask Mr. Blunt what he learned from the DeLay experience in Congress—which ended up with the Republicans losing the majority in 2006—and he says that the party needs to make sure it "communicates well" with an electorate newly engaged by the tea party.

Is he an Obama clone?

The problem is not communication, the problem is politicians, like Blunt, who fail to hew to the needs of the people. The interview notes his role in stopping the effort to reform Social Security in Bush's second term...

...and there's the second challenge of the Tea Party now: to communicate well with their elected representatives.

The American people are tired of being told how things work. That is a lesson that we will have to help Blunt learn.

Government of the People, by the People

2010-11-04T13:09:00.000-07:00

The following from Wednesday's Best of the Web column in the WSJ caught my attention:

Democrats will have at least 51 seats in the Senate, making this the first time that the House alone has switched. Actually, that's not quite right. It happened once before--in 1931. Republicans had lost 52 seats in the 1930 election--President Hoover, if we remember right, said it was no big deal, voters were just angry and scared because of the economy--but still had a one-seat majority. Owing to deaths, vacancies and special elections, however, the Dems had taken over by the time the new Congress convened in March.

This statement captures something very interesting, and very unique (at least in my lifetime) about this mid-term election cycle. The House of Representatives was designed to be a place for the general expression of the people in the government. The Senate a place more to represent the interests of the separate states. Thus the switch of the House alone, without the Senate.

What seems to be happening in this election cycle is a movement of the people themselves to re-take the reins of the government. Several commentaries indicate that the Tea Party might ultimately have been detrimental to the interests of the party because they obstructed the efforts to conquer the Senate... but I think that is a false indicator.

The House was the most accessible to the people, and the most easily influenced. The Senate would require more time and energy because the people need to find true leaders among themselves, with credentials to manage the challenges of that upper chamber of our legislature. What happened is that the people hired the representatives that they believe will be most responsive to their wishes... and if I understand the mood of the country correctly... the people plan to continue to be very active in the management of their new reps.

In the Senate elections we see a few examples of leaders with requisite demeanors and skill sets, particularly Marco Rubio (FL) and Rand Paul (KY), and likely Ron Johnson (WI) as well. But the rest were mostly statements of warning to the general population of the political set: We are serious this time, we will not accept establishment candidates without serious vetting, and you will listen to us and be responsive. The people are not afraid to lose a fight that must be engaged.

2012 looks to be a brilliant election, and the period between now and then will likely be a thrilling time in American political history.

The Wave Crashes, Dissipates

2010-11-02T22:14:00.001-07:00

The California results are simply devastating. This state is ungovernable.

The results fit, though, to the analogy that I came up with mid-afternoon today, before any results were in: The GOP wave would crash upon the Rockies, then spread across the desert of Arizona and Nevada... and evaporate.

Almost all of the statewide positions on the ballot in California went to Democrats. Ballot measures are passing in a pattern that makes no sense at all. I'm frightened to take a hard look at the house seats, and then the CA state legislature results.

This state is ungovernable. Soon it will be unlivable.

Here's hoping Jerry Brown has a plan, this time.

Impressions from the People's Night

2010-11-02T20:57:00.000-07:00

Rand Paul got the night started of fabulously well, with a marvelous speech that encompassed the people's movement that was so well communicated at the polls tonight.

Rubio took Rand Paul's thread and executed an even better speech. To think of the story that he is able to tell... people who at the prime of their lives had their dreams stolen from them by history and tyranny, who fled to a foreign land that welcomed them, a place where they could pass their dreams on to their children.

Also from Florida: a true American hero, Colonel West, has won his congressional race. Congratulations, sir.

John Boehner's speech... emotional speech... touching speech... was unexpected, at first off-putting, but in the end very welcome. He is human, he may very well be the leader we need. and he wasn't orange tonight.

I'm so sad for California... my current home... we have subjected ourselves to another half decade of insanity. Awaiting the results on the propositions.

I'm glad we haven't taken the Senate. That makes it more meaningful. Agree with Charles K's comments there about control / power, but would like to add that the people remain in power. The threat of doing to the Senate in 2012 what we have done to the House in 2010... all incumbents up for election have reason to stand and pay attention to the people.

Thank you, Jon Stewart, for your assistance. Sanity, just so much of it, has been restored.

Capitalism = Life

2010-10-14T21:28:00.001-07:00

I began the morning today with a remarkable statement by Daniel Henninger in his weekly Wonderland column, in the WSJ. He wrote of the gifts that capitalism brings to the world, in reference to the technology that made possible the rescue of miners trapped 2,500 ft underground in Chile.

Capitalism Saved The Miners
If those miners had been trapped a half-mile down like this 25 years ago anywhere on earth, they would be dead. What happened over the past 25 years that meant the difference between life and death for those men?

The timing of this posts arrival is what struck me. Early this week I found myself wrapped up in a discussion with people close to me who believe... or arrive at their beliefs... differently than I do. Freedom means something different to them. Capitalism is somehow a great evil.

But it isn't, really, is it? Capitalism, and the state of liberal thought that nurtures it, facilitates solutions to problems that would otherwise long be forgotten. Capitalism provides a mission for each of us, a reason to live... an answer to the Life Is statement. These small companies that designed a drill bit, a cable, a sock... they did not imagine at the time of their creation that they would save lives with them... they were just looking for a way to live a dream, leave their mark on the world, or turn a profit and provide a nice lifestyle for their families. Not only have they achieved that, but they now have the satisfaction of facilitating the same in others.

Freedom matters, in the course of human events.

Its All in a Name

2010-10-14T21:08:00.001-07:00

And the blog has been renamed. The title came easily, and spurred on by Little Red, who will be making an appearance here in due time.

Life is.

We are here, and this is all the reason we need to make choices, strive forward, strike out swinging, or finish triumphant. That is what this blog is about... by its mere existence. The line from the Declaration of Independence is so simple, so powerful. "When in the Course of human events," opens the document with a certain tone of inevitability. It establishes a certain mood ripe for the bold statement that follows, that rights, certain rights, are self-evident, provided by a power greater than man, and therefor inviolable. The opener indicates that the Founding Fathers had no other choice but to take the time to put these words down on paper and commit themselves to this tumultuous path. "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary..."

We live in extraordinary, historic times. I wondered if we would be able to say that. The Reagan 80's and the United States' victory in the Cold War certainly were as well... but the Clinton 90's seemed to woosh it all away, and the Bush 'double-aughts' were such a confusion of true American conservatism and squishy governmental progressivism.

Now it seems different. Now seems to matter. To Matter. Mere perception, perhaps... time will tell. Regardless it is into this time this historic age that we stride intent on raising our voice and entering our thoughts into the cacophony of the interwebs for all posterity.

We hope you will enjoy this ride with us.

Five Core Principles

2010-08-07T08:31:00.001-07:00

Fella named David Barton* mentioned this in an interview I'm watching today... there are five core principles at time of the founding of the United States. Didn't know that? Neither did I. But they are right there in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights (that among these rights are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness)
that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights
that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed
that it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish their government if it becomes destructive to these ends...

Powerful thoughts for tumultuous times.

*Assignment: research David Barton and his organization Wallbuilders...

General Truths of the U.S.S.R.

2010-07-29T08:48:00.000-07:00

A caller to Glenn Beck today mentioned a general that had defected from the Soviet Unions some time ago, as relevant to the threads Beck is pursuing regarding the direction of the U.S. So I looked the fellow up. Second link on Google brought me to a link purportedly showing Senja's testimony to a Congressional Panel in the '90s... and his testimony included the following statement that really caught my attention:

Czechoslovakia also built a crematorium in North Korea to disposed of the bodies and parts after the experiments were concluded.

This is not something that I was aware of before. I don't think I've ever encountered the idea before that the Soviets could be so connected in action with the Nazi's, that they performed such medical experiments.

Coupled with the general tone of the piece, where he describes the Soviets as in a perpetual state of war & war preparation...

Here's the link: http://www.nationalalliance.org/vietnam/senja.htm

People are idiots that they can't know how crazy they are. The fellow who I upbraided (definition to accommodate my buddy's limited command of the English language...) back at my previous emplyer for wearing a t-shirt with the hammer & sickle on it took offense that I would challenge him, thought it was defensible to glorify communism...

Seeing The Wall For What It Was

2009-11-09T12:30:00.000-08:00

This needs no commentary, but I'm sure it'll get some soon, anyway:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013004574515850127019522.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjWDrTXMgF8&feature=player_embedded

A Very Democratic Event

2009-11-04T04:55:00.000-08:00

Maine voters elected their state legislature. As representatives of the people, the state legislature voted to add the ability for same-sex couples to marry.*

Maine voters elected the governor of their state. The governor signed the new same-sex marriage bill into law in the state.

The people created a ballot measure and voted state-wide in a referendum. 53% of those voters said "No" and the measure was voted out.

This seems a very democratic event. The legislature is more susceptible to adverse pressure by the loudest voices lobbying for their attention. It is a smaller set of people to impact, and they are more focused on the mix of people in their district, or to the offers that they are promised in return for their vote. Similar pressures exist at the governor's level.

The individual people, though, represent only themselves, their own interests. They are the bulwark.

Here is the most interesting fact from the first article I've reviewed, emphasis added:

For the gay rights movement, which has gained a foothold in New England, it was a stinging defeat. Gay marriage has now lost in every state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine, framing same-sex marriage as a matter of equality for all families in a campaign that used 8,000 volunteers to get out the message.

Five states have legalized gay marriage — Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut — but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote.

The message here seems pretty clear, here. The people, in total, do not wish to have this change implemented state-wide or nationally.

*I haven't reviewed the definition of marriage in this situation... i.e.: full marriage, same as already existed, or some form of legal partnership with similar rules to marriage, such as hospital visitation and inheritance... but not necessarily "marriage", etc.

An offer you can't refuse...

2009-07-31T09:14:00.001-07:00

Ok, this is ridiculous. The most powerful man in the world invites you and your friends over to his house to have lunch. He wants to talk about the future of your livelihood and career... and when I say talk, I mean he wants to tell you how its going to be.

What do you do? Well, of course, you clear your calendar and show up. You leave your brown bagged lunch at home for another day. And once your there and the diatribe is over and your future decided for you?

Why, you pay for lunch, of course.

Ridiculous.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25627.html

Of the people, by the people, for the people...

2008-12-08T10:47:00.000-08:00

Since hte media loves to compare Obama to Lincoln (and Roosevelt, and Reagan, and Kennedy, and...)

Lincoln never let the world forget that the Civil War involved an even larger issue. This he stated most movingly in dedicating the military cemetery at Gettysburg: "that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

It's an unfortunate trend that seems to be happening today... Government is for the people, primarily. "What will the government do for me?" asks the liberal voter. The conservative voter of today seems to say "by those people."

To get all of this back on track, what we need is to recall that WE are the people. You, me, your neighbor. We the people stand and serve, and decide what is the correct cause to promote and bill to pass and budget to meet. We are responsible to not only learn, but to vote, and even to run for elected office ourselves.

The problems we face today will not be solved by continuing to sit on our laurels and watch others squander the capital won over such a long time by so many that have come before us.

Stayin' Objective...

2008-09-08T06:20:00.000-07:00

(CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama — locked in a tight presidential race against Sen. John McCain, widely considered a war hero — said in an interview broadcast Sunday that he once considered joining the military himself. [emphasis added]

From Obama: I Once Considered Joining the Military

Just what would it take to actually be a war hero? I'm jus'askin', 'cause in 2004 John Kerry's record was just about enough...

Note that CNN continues on with no mention that the Selective Service requirement was not reinstated until 1980, but Obama signed up in 1979.

Also, there is the glaring ommission of Obama's slip of the tongue while dodging and weaving about the GOP using "My Muslim Faith" on the campaign trail.

Just Like You...

2008-08-28T12:55:00.000-07:00

Michael Medved has a great piece on the contradictions of the Democratic message these days. It's a must read...

I wanted to talk about one piece of it, though. Michael says:

She made similar observations about her husband, the presidential candidate: “His family was so much like mine. He was raised by grandparents who were working class folks just like my parents, and by a single mother who struggled to pay the bills just like we did. Like my family, they scrimped and saved so that he could have opportunities they never had themselves.” [emphasis added]

So the highlighted portion of the text caught my attention on Monday night when she said it. It makes no sense:

Michelle:

Raised in a 2-parent home
Dad did honest work to support the family
Mom stayed home and raised the kids

Obama:

Raised in a single-parent home
Mother worked to pay the bills
Grandmother stayed home and raised him

Someone please explain to me exactly how his family is "just like" hers?

By presenting such information as "fact" they are forcing the Democratic follower into an untenable mental position... where eventually they simply surrender to the poor logic, stop processing and just pull a lever on election day.

DNC Convention: Shhhh... People... Sit Down.

2008-08-28T09:18:00.000-07:00

I had recorded both the CNN and Fox New coverage. CNN's coverage is much more comprehensive, showing more of the actual goings on at the convention, so I watched a few of the state delegations reporting their votes... then fast forwarded through the rest until I found the moment where Hillary surrendered. As I was watching it I couldn't help but wonder if their was one last obscure rule in the books allowing a dark horse candidacy if the main guy wipes out and the delegates didn't all cast their votes. Oh, and it was after Florida got to throw most of their votes in for Obama. Occam's Razor would say I'm grasping at straws.

It was really entertaining to watch the CNN commentators afterward. They were all tripping over themselves to tell us how exciting it was to be present for the historic moment of a black man, or half black man (both were mentioned), becoming the lead candidate of a major party, and how it healed racial divisions, etc. Some of the commentators spoke for everyone in the room, others for all the blacks in the room... it was all over the map. Their true colors were vividly on display. It was... well, boring... but really provided a healthy does of perspective regarding their true feelings.

Back to the Clintons. Seems to me that the Clintons have done a spectacular job this week. No question they have been in complete control of two nights of the party. The Clinton shadow even loomed large over Michelle's coming out party on Monday. Hillary's speech on Tuesday evening gave a respectable amount of ground to Obama, but not a complete ringing endorsement. As several commentators have discussed, she can't be accused of not supporting him, and when he loses she's been a good party soldier... while leaving things sufficiently open for her to run again in 2012.

Bill's speech last night was simply a work of art. He was on a mission to kill the energy in the room. And he did it marvelously.

Think about how it started. He comes out, gets to the podium relatively quickly, and starts asking everyone to sit down and be quiet. He does it repeatedly. He even does it again in the middle of his speech. He kept tamping down the excitement in the room. Also, I thought it was telling that he opened with the support of Obama... then quickly followed up by expressing that he was there to warm up the room for Joe Biden. Who does that? You want to close with the most exciting part (Obama support) and let people cheer madly. And you don't announce an intention to pump up the crowd... you simply pump up the crowd! You provide a rousing oratory on behalf of your man.

The Fox News guys did note that Bill only mentioned Biden once in the speech... but I think they totally missed this angle of the analysis. From my living room, Bill's speech was very dull. He didn't thrust for applause lines, he actually would extend his remarks straight through natural applause moments, not allowing them to bubble up. My $0.02.

I think Michelle understood only too well what had happened for the last two days. She knew when she was giving Hillary the stink eye from her box on Tuesday night. And she struck the first blow last night by trapping Hillary and crew in the elevator after the session was closed for the night. Yes, that is me expressing a bald-faced conspiracy theory. But it just seems all that likely after reading about the Obama campaign's efforts to shut down the Ayers advertisements and the arrest of of an ABC reporter yesterday outside of hotel where high-ranking Dems were meeting with well-heeled donors. (You really should read this piece... In the middle of the article is a call-out box with 3 images. The middle one is a video of the actual arrest... watch this reporter get pushed into the street by a cop, then cuffed by a honest-to-goodness cigar chomping sergeant!)

Lastly, a video about the military ran at the convention last night, placed between Bill's speech and John Kerry's intro of Biden. If you were watching Fox you missed it, it was on in the background as Brit was opening his portion of the coverage. It was a stunning piece. A clear example that the Dems knew they had to "honor" the military and veterans, but they just can't get themselves to do it without showing blood (literally!) or dead comrades being dragged away from a bomb site in Iraq, or young soldiers marred by shrapnel hits to the head or sporting prosthetics. It was a stunner. Truly vile. If I were a veteran, I'd be voting McCain. Oh, and it was directed by Spielberg and narrated by Tom Hanks. If you want to see it, I put instructions at the end of the email.

One more thing. There is an article today in the WSJ that John McCain is timing his acceptance speech next Thursday to happen right after the end of the NFL opening game... nice way to pick up middle America!

Veterans Video Instructions:

Go to the DNC Convention Video site
Download one or two browser enhancements as requested
Click on the "Video Gallery" tab near the bottom of the frame
Click on "Day 3" (on the left)
Use the navigation at the bottom right to get to the 3rd page
Find the "Veterans Video" and click on it... Takes some doing.

Broken Glass

2008-02-22T08:16:00.001-08:00

I feel just awful for these parents and there families. 4 children lost in a random moment. Accidents happen, we all know that. But the fact that the driver who caused the accident would not have been on the streets on MN at all if the police and Feds had done the jobs the community reasonably expects of them... Its salt on the wound.

I'm sure politicians will jockey to make amends. What I'd really like to see is the police officers step up and do the right thing regardless of policy. Law breakers must be dealt with. I'm not an advocate of "round em up and send them home." however they cross the path of police, to jail they should go.

I feel bad for the officers who had to respond to that call in 2006. It must weigh heavily on their consciences.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/02/019854.php

Yes we can...

2008-02-03T09:27:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama is inspiring a nation. His website, his messaging, the messages created for him, they all contain a tremendous resonance and an incredible power. Obama could win this thing. Tuesday's primary contests could prove the death knell of the Clinton machine. And if Obama seizes the Democratic Party's nomination, he will most likely defeat his Republican opponent and ascend to the White House.

And America will survive the experience. Because his message is one of hope. He is inspiring those who follow him. I have yet to hear a supporter explain which of Obama's policy statements they support and yearn for, but then I haven't spoken to many of them myself. Hope, though, can count for a lot and move people to action regardless of direction.

America will survive the experience. It's possible for damage to be done around the globe in respect to security issues. It's possible that a President Obama will not act forcefully to defend the interests of peace and western values when they are challenged during his term. People will suffer, somewhere as a result of that. It will make it a greater challenge for Obama's successor to clean up the mess and restore a sense of security to the global marketplace of ideas and commerce. but it is unlikely that there will be another terrorist attack inside the United States, because the people themselves, government bureaucrats and elected officials at a national, state, and local level all have a tremendous incentive to protect their own jobs by protecting their constituencies. And the voters and citizens will step in and defend themselves as well. They will remain vigilant in their homeland and will report and act in order to protect their own livelihood.

America will survive the experience. Obama's policies will force a shift towards the democratic socialism that is rampant in Europe. But it will not last forever, and the country will still be here, the Constitution will still stand.

America will survive because his message is one of hope and optimism. I'll take that message any day over the painful rearrangement of everything we know and love that would occur under Hillary Clinton.

...but I wish I wouldn't have to...

The ultimate Backfire...

2007-10-19T05:09:00.000-07:00

Will the Dems ever win anything (besides the gavel?)

The Protocols of Newsweek

2007-08-12T23:29:00.001-07:00

Is there blatant Anti-Semitism in Newsweek?

Last week Newsweek ran a long piece, The Truth about Denial, about the supposedly concerted effort of climate change deniers to pull the wool over the eyes of the believers. There is a tremendous amount of silliness throughout the article, and I tortured my lady friend all day today picking the article apart... but two portions stand out so starkly that they deserve more discussion:

In what would become a key tactic of the denial machine—think tanks linking up with like-minded, contrarian researchers—the report was endorsed in a letter to President George H.W. Bush by MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. Lindzen, whose parents had fled Hitler's Germany, is described by old friends as the kind of man who, if you're in the minority, opts to be with you. "I thought it was important to make it clear that the science was at an early and primitive stage and that there was little basis for consensus and much reason for skepticism," he told Scientific American magazine. "I did feel a moral obligation."

The words I highlighted above do not enhance this man's credentials as a meteorologist. His status as a refugee from the horrors of Europe in the WWII era do not add academic or emotional power to his discussions of the environment. It certainly says amazing things about his character... but it holds no relevance on the topic of climate change. So why is it included in the article?

Take a look at what follows the Hitler reference: "...is described by old friends as the kind of man who, if you're in the minority, opts to be with you." This is a statement to the unthinking masses that they can now discount anything read or hear from Dr. Lindzen. He takes the contrarian point of view for the simple joy of it.

Connect the two thoughts though and you have something much more invidious. "Hmmm..." says the thoughtful reader. "This denier escaped from Hitler... and he sides with the minority... and he is a global warming denier... he must be a Jew!" I'll leave off there and avoid continuing into the grand conspiracies about who has money and power in the world. I find this small connection by Newsweek's authors disgusting enough.

This example gets worse. He flees from Hitler... and he sides with the minority... so Hitler must be the majority in the case of this decision to flee... so in order to be speaking from a position of moral authority... Dr. Lindzen should have sided with Hitler in regards to WWII. Worse, if you accept Newsweek's inference that he is a Jew, Dr. Lindzen should have teamed up with Hitler and helped to eliminate the Jewish people.

I do not have any proof that Dr. Lindzen, or the subject of the second point below, are Jewish. I frankly don't care. These two persons' religion simply isn't relevant to their ability to speak or write on climate change.

Let's go to the second example, another introduction later in the article:

Just before Kyoto, S. Fred Singer released the "Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change." Singer, who fled Nazi-occupied Austria as a boy, had run the U.S. weather-satellite program in the early 1960s. In the Leipzig petition, just over 100 scientists and others, including TV weathermen, said they "cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes." Unfortunately, few of the Leipzig signers actually did climate research; they just kibitzed about other people's.

Apparently, Fred Singer's intense training in the environmental sciences started at a young age as he climbed across the alps to Switzerland... perhaps it was the grand view atop the mountains... perhaps it was a chance encounter with Captain von Trapp, family in tow. This particular childhood adventure of Singer's does not add anything of interest to his credentials as an expert on the environment. As with the plight of Dr. Lindzen above, this flight to freedom must have been a stunning adventure, and I respect Fred Singer for having built an impressive life following such upheaval at a young age. However it is simply a nice aside to have this information about his personal history included by Newsweek.

So if this factoid does not enhance the environmental arguments of the authors... why is it included at all?

Remember that it was the next sentence in Dr. Lindzen's intro where the hackles were really raised. Take a look at the final phrase about Dr. Singer: "Unfortunately, few of the Leipzig signers actually did climate research; they just kibitzed about other people's." There you go. Not only are we reading a gratuitous Yiddish word, it is directly connected with a widely held stereotype of the Jewish people. Singer and his pals live off of the hard work of other people. They don't exert any effort themselves. Bloodsuckers. To me the use of this language by Newsweek is damning... a bald-faced attempt by the authors to tell the reader they must discount this man's work because he is a Jew.

That the authors and editors of Newsweek would stoop so low as to infer that these highly trained and respected men should have their reputations and work disposed of out of hand due to their heritage or religion is appalling. It's abhorrent. Newsweek should be shamed into retracting these portions of the article.

As a disclaimer: I am not a fan of the theories of human-induced global warming. But that is not what I am addressing here. Lindzen's and Singer's comments and scholarship should stand on their own, without any need to reference their personal faith. My purpose here is not to prove or disprove global warming. It is to do my part to demand a higher and more responsible level of journalism from the mainstream media.

I'll likely write more about the article in the next few days. This point was too important to delay.

Swift

2007-01-08T19:54:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine started a conversation with me today regarding the Texas pizza chain that decided today to accept Pesos as payment. Then there were two great stories on NPR this afternoon (All Things Considered) and the next thing I know I'm writing an essay in response. I thought I would share that with any internet denizens that happen upon this post...

**************

When I sat down in the car to drive home, a great story popped up on NPR. The first segment was about a group of 17 (I think) current and former employees of the Swift Meat Packing Co. who are suing the company for conspiring to hold down employee wages by knowingly hiring illegal aliens. You may remember that Swift was the company that was raided by the feds about a month ago and some 1,200 employees were detained for suspicion of being in the country illegally.

I have too little information to judge the legitimacy of these claimants to make their case - the woman's story was certainly told as dramatically as possible. But I'm very comfortable, based on what I heard and what I read about the case when the raids happened, in judging the company as way out of line. The effort of hiring illegal aliens is an artificial restraint on natural market forces, something I very keenly support.

If the company did not hire illegals, it would naturally occur that their workforce cost would go up over time. Salaries go up over time across the board. As competitors offer higher salaries, or as other industries offer higher salaries, the Swift employees could leave Swift for greener pastures. It is nearly always cheaper to hold onto existing employees than to hire new ones. There are real costs involved in new hires, from the paperwork and admin time to the management's time spent hiring instead of managing to the cost of having an open position and that lack of productivity. By hiring illegal aliens systematically, who are always available and cost less to employ, they have a distinct and unethical advantage over their competition.
By hiring illegals, who will always be willing to work for the least amount of money, they hold prices down artificially. To some degree, that is desirable to the company - lower prices mean more people buy their product, kicking in more revenues. If their competitors are hiring legally, those competitors make thinner profits, while Swift walks off with the unnatural profits - they get to price their meats higher than required to make a profit, but lower than what is required of their competition. They benefit from the pain of their competitors. Price controls. Arbitrary. Unethical.
Lower prices initially seem advantageous to the consumer. We can buy more meat for less and love it. But that is only in the short term. If all competitors were playing on an even hiring field, prices would naturally climb over time. This has several effects:

Supply and Demand: If prices start going up, consumers buy less. But the businesses still want to make as much revenue as possible. So the current market players, or entrepreneurs outside the industry, begin to innovate. They strive to find ways to make meat production less expensive by innovating in the factory, the warehouse, the production facilities, the distribution channels. This innovation is GOOD for the economy - and necessary. Over time, it makes meat cheaper in both human and material ways. In the long run, we would all eat more meat at cheaper prices. As is, the prices are arbitrarily restricted and that innovation fails to occur. Eventually, this causes inefficiencies in the marketplace that cost everyone more.
Consumer buying power: Our total buying power is reduced through this unethical effort. Remember that extra profit that I mentioned Swift is able to sneak out of the pricing gap? That money should be yours and mine. In an efficient marketplace, WE decide where to spend that extra money. In this case, Swift pockets the gap. Who knows what they do with it, but one can be assured they don't reinvest it efficiently. Where's their incentive? They can always hire more, cheaper, people.
Back to the Supply and Demand thing: If prices go up and we buy less, that means that there will be less production at farms. This means less waste from the animals. Less strain on the feed supply. Less strain on the land. Less strain on the animals themselves. No, not making fun of you in this next line: PETA should really like that outcome. Fewer animals raised in captivity. Fewer abused to make veal. Fewer living in filth until they are slaughtered. Fewer animals slaughtered at all. Again, the efficient marketplace, allowed to operate normally, has incredible benefits.

And then there's the human cost. The management at Swift is terrible to their employees. The job previously required skilled labor, people who learned as they worked over the years, gained in experience, skills, confidence, earning power. Swift came up with a new production scheme that isolates each worker to one position on the line, one activity in the production process, for their whole tenure. No growth. No value ad for the employee. Cheaper for the company, thus less earning in the future for the employee. Since, as they mentioned in the story, the same employee might be making the same motion thousands of time in one shift, the incidence of injury (carpal tunnel, etc.) is increased. how hard would it be to simply be human in your management effort and deliberately rotate employees over the long or short term, so they all become smarter, are aquainted with more pieces of the production process, feel more loyalty to the company, place more pride in their work... and grow over time? It's not that tough. But Swift doesn't need to do any of this. If an employee is hurt, they can be quickly replaced with cheap labor. If an employee attempts to collect for htat physical damage, they are faced with deportation - so Swift saves money on the health care. If the employees complain that they have no growth opportunities, or demand more money, they again can simply be replaced at little pain to the company - despite the costs of hiring a new employee, it's likely made up for by the excess profits due to the inefficient market.

Swift should be drawn and quartered, Their management should be thrown in jail, and their company should be reorganized by other investors. Period.
Listen to the story here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6749042

The next short segment was on the pizza chain in Texas that is now accepting Pesos. I disagree that this is a bad thing. I agree with the business owner interviewed. It is a business decision. Whether it's smart is a story to be told in a few months. From his perspective, there are consumers who have pesos who want pizza and otherwise might not buy it. Now they can. The business makes more revenue. Plus, because they work on a fixed conversion rate, likely in the business' favor, they pocket a little (pennies) on each transaction as profit. Bingo!

But it's risky for the owner, as well. They run the risk of the conversion rate changing against their favor so quickly that they can't adjust and start to lose pennies (or more) on each transaction. They then must quickly shut the peso transactions down, or redo all of their charts (printing & education costs) or just take the loss. The other factor that can easily work against them is if they have misjudged the volume and intensity of the opposition to this vs. the number of peso transactions available to them. If their dollar-spending consumers take umbrage, and many will, those consumers will stop spending at the restaurant. If the Peso transactions aren't enough to make that up, the pizza business goes down the tubes.

Listen to that interview here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6749045

Great stuff. Seriously great stuff to think about. Practice for when these decisions fall into my lap someday...

CNN Should Face the Music II

2006-10-22T21:16:00.000-07:00

Wow. Charles Johnson says it all right here:

CNN: Broken Government

CNN Should Face the Music

2006-10-21T07:36:00.000-07:00

I read several commentaries regarding CNN's decision to show a video tape provided to them by a Iraqi terrorist group they were in contact with. I read CNNÂs explanation and a few of the comments on their website when that page was posted. But I avoided actually watching the video until this morning.

This morning I read an article, posted on the Drudge Report, that Rep. Ducan Hunter (R-El Cajon), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has asked that all CNN reporters embedded with the US Military, lose their embed privileges.

"I think Americans like to think we're all in this together," Hunter said. "The average American Marine or soldier has concluded after seeing that film that CNN is not on their side."

This sounds like a wholly reasonable consequence of CNN's decision. Likewise, it made me want to view the video. And that viewing instantly brought up another consequence that should follow this video.

Boycott the companies whose advertisements are running before that video.

CNN is running the video through their pipeline service. When you open the video window, the first thing that runs is a video advertisement provided by a CNN sponsor. When I viewed the video, the advertisement was for the Chase Freedom Visa credit card. After the ad video completed and the CNN sniper video began, a banner ad remained at the bottom of the video window for Chase Freedom Visa. The banner is still on the window now as I type.

Boycott Chase. Boycott Visa. Boycott CNN.

Drown these companies with letters explaining our decision. Do the same with all other advertisers on CNN. These companies are explicitly attempting to increase their revenues by capitalizing on the horrific death of our soldiers who are sacrificing everything to keep us an the rest of the world safe. This is deplorable.

CNN has made a terrible decision with this video. The advertisers have been inadvertently brought in to the mix, and on the wrong side of the discussion. Let them all earn their just rewards.

Hail to the Chief

2006-08-23T06:51:00.000-07:00

I got in a raucous argument last week at lunch with a co-worker who loves to needle me about how stupid President Bush is. I wish I could get him to read, and understand, the following two posts on Power Line I just read. You don't get to the positions in life that Bush is in if you can't think and speak coherently, if you can't move a crowd. It's just not possible.

Read and enjoy...

-Mike

----------------------------

Hail to the Chief

I had the opportunity this afternoon to be part of a relatively small group who heard President Bush talk, extemporaneously, for around forty minutes. It was an absolutely riveting experience. It was the best I've ever seen him. Not only that; it may have been the best I've ever seen any politician. If I summarized what he said, it would all sound familiar: the difficult times we live in; the threat from Islamic fascism--the phrase drew an enthusiastic round of applause--the universal yearning for freedom; the need to confront evil now, with all the tools at our disposal, so that our children and grandchildren can live in a better and safer world. As he often does, the President structured his comments loosely around a tour of the Oval Office. But the digressions and interpolations were priceless.

The conventional wisdom is that Bush is not a very good speaker. But up close, he is a great communicator, in a way that, in my opinion, Ronald Reagan was not. He was by turns instructive, persuasive, and funny. His persona is very much that of the big brother. Above all, he was impassioned. I have never seen a politician speak so evidently from the heart, about big issues--freedom, most of all.

I've sometimes worried about how President Bush can withstand the Washington snake pit and deal with a daily barrage of hate from the ignorant left that, in my opinion, dwarfs in both volume and injustice the abuse directed against any prior President. (No one accused Lincoln of planning the attack on Fort Sumter.) Not to worry. He is, of course, miles above his mean-spirited liberal critics. More than that, he clearly derives real joy from the opportunity to serve as President and to participate in the great pageant of American history. And he sees himself as anything but a lame duck, which is why he is stumping for Republican candidates around the country.

It was, in short, the most inspiring forty minutes I've experienced in politics.

Posted by John at 08:25 PM
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015081.php

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hail to the chief, take 2

On the heels of John's eyewitness account of President Bush speaking extemporaneously before a friendly group in Minnesota yesterday afternoon comes Kathleen Parker's column with her own eyewitness account of President Bush at an off-the-record luncheon with a hundred or so supporters. Like John, Parker was impressed:

What I witnessed was revealing. Not only was the man fluent in the English language and intellectually agile, he was knowledgeable on a wide range of subjects raised during a 90-minute Q&A. Someone apparently had been slipping intellectual-curiosity tablets into Bush's cola.
Toward the end, one of the guests said, "Mr. President, I think if Americans could hear you speak the way you have today, you'd have a 95 percent approval rating."

I think that's almost true. Not 95 percent, obviously, but he'd surely have a higher than 30 percent approval rating were he better able to explain what he's thinking. Bush does know; he just can't seem to say.

Why? Parker has a theory:

My theory dovetails with something one of his most acerbic critics, columnist Molly Ivins, once wrote: "George W. Bush sounds like English is his second language.'' That's because it's true. "Washington English'' is a second language for Bush; "Texas English'' is his first.
When he tries to speak Washington English, which is the way Bush thinks presidents are supposed to speak -- over-enunciating and sprinkling his comments with awkward aphorisms -- he fumbles. He forgets what he's saying because the thoughts and words are not his own.

This is also when his annoying sibilance kicks in. The "terroristsssssss," he says when "terrorists" would do. My guess is he over-enunciates to cover his prairie accent, but the effect is, well, sssssstrange.

Tapes of Bush as governor of Texas reveal none of the malapropisms for which he is now infamous. That's because in Texas, he speaks his native tongue -- dropping syllables and esses without fear of criticism or embarrassment. That kind of freedom seems to liberate the man's mind and his mouth.

Anyone who speaks before cameras knows the taste of humility and can relate to the agony of being George Bush.

(I can relate.) During the Reagan administration, occasionally discouraged conservative supporters theorized that Reagan was the victim of misguided advisers and counselled "Let Reagan be Reagan." Taken together, John and Parker make a compelling case to explain the mystery of George Bush: "Let Bush be Bush!"

Posted by Scott at 06:48 AM
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015087.php

The reason why?

2006-08-21T19:44:00.000-07:00

As I sit here now, with it already being 5:40am August 22nd in Jerusalem, the day Ahmadinejad set for his "formal" response to the UN's effort to stop Iran's nuclear program, I think I may finally have a reason why Israel agreed to this crazy peace plan...

They anticipated a broader fight, a bigger attack, and they wanted all the troops at home when it started.

Maybe.

August 22nd, YoniTheBlogger

The Rantel Inspired Rant

2006-08-15T18:54:00.000-07:00

Actually, I hope it won't come out sounding like a rant. On the drive home tonight I was listening to Al Rantel's show on KABC 790 in LA. He's a clearheaded guy and the conversation was stunning in its quality. Here are the points I wanted to make, if I had the patience to wait to get online:

The UN peace agreement is a complete farce. There are numerous reasons, here are a few:

Russia and China are ascendent in their global ambitions. Economically, politically, militarily, they are eager to be the most meaningful players on the world stage. It is in their best interest to keep America as entagled as possible in world affairs elsewher... i.e.: the Middle East. They love the peace agreement, because it ensures that America will not be able to keep their eye off the ball and gives them a tremendous opportunity to climb to the top of the ladder
The Arab countries are not interested in peace. They are interested in taking over the world. They don't mind destroying a lot of things and killing a lot of people along the way. They certainly don't mind if the US can't get anything done to prevent them. This peace agreement is an excellent opportunity to keep our hands tied, and they are happy to put French and other troops in between them and the US / Israeli forces.
Take that thought to it's extension and the UN forces soon to be deployed in the South Lebanon are the ultimate shield from Israeli and American troops. Once the ~15,000 blue helmeted troops are deployed, and once it is clear they will not make progress disarming Hezballah, the good guys will have no way to strike in Lebanon without spilling blue blood. That will be the end of the international goodwill that is the only possible upside of the current agreement.

It goes beyond that, though. There are some frightening prospects with this current global Islamofacsist enemy:

The Nazis were a nationalistic movement (kudos to the Rantel listener and Rantel himself for this idea.) This means they could only expand their mission by inspiring the same nationalistic fervor in all the countries they gained influence over, but it also meant that the alliance could split at any time, if the Czechs or Austrians or Poles decided they were in the fight for their own nation instead of the German nation.
The Nazis (again thanks to the conversation for this idea) fundamentally desired to survive the fight. It was possible to wreak enough havoc on their homes to inspire them to put down their arms and live to see tomorrow.
The current struggle is based on religious ideology. They do not care if they live. In fact their beliefs tell them death is a great thing, bringing access to the riches of Heaven. This requires us to fight them to the very death. Nothing short of massive casualties to the Islamic forces and their civilian population... massive... will cause them to change their religious philosophy.
The Muslims are ascendent across Europe, particularly in England, Spain, France and Germany. All of these countries are having some difficulty recognizing the threat and a significant difficulty rallying the nerve to fight back and stop it. The odds are with the Islamist here. At some point they will cause a major Euorpean government to fall, causing tremendous difficulty in restoring the Western ideals and government in that nation. Worse, they might actually become the government, either thru force of arms or by bringing about hte surrender of the Western lifestyle. Either way, once they have removed the established government they have access to a terribly significant quantity of nuclear material. The Jihadis will have, at their fingertips, either the nuclear material from the many power plants in the former nation in question and/or to the actual nuclear arms themselves. They have numerous choices then. They can launch these in attacks against neighboring European states yet to fall. They can simply blow it up in place and cause a massive disaster in their adopted land. The can portage that material to the US or anywhere else in the globe and foment disaster.
The Israeli government is very likely going to lose a no confidence vote very soon. Maybe this will be for the best in the longterm - a new, more belligerent leader willing to fight could rise. But during the time of transition, while the campaign is happening, Hezballah, Iran, and the other players will declare a significant, and accurate, victory. This is the most likely and strategically perfect time for all of the Arab and Islamic forces to strike out very aggressively at a weakened Israel. They may not win, but hte pain suffered by our allies could be significant, before the Jews get their feet beneath them and fight for their very existence on all sides.

The more this develops, the more convinced I am that George Bush is our generation's Chamberlain, willing to fade into the sunset declaring "Peace in our time." Willing to leave the hard fight to others who may follow him. Placing our hopes in Bush & Cheney and Rice and Rumsfeld seems unlikely to bear fruit. We need a new leader, we need a Churchill to appear, and unfortunately we may have to wait until he rises from the fires of our major cities and the lands of our former allies.

I simply cannot uncover, no matter how much I think it thru, what the possible beneifts are of this peace agreement. The iron was hot. The troops were mobilized. The path was clear. And now Israel is sending their troops home to a fearful life instead of engaging the battle on our terms and winning.

There will be peace in our time, but it will be some time from now, and I fear we will suffer great pain before it arrives.

Black Flag

2006-08-14T19:57:00.000-07:00

Ever since the start of the conflict in Laebanon the paragon news force of television, CNN, has had ridiculously skewed and blinded coverage. But one thing has been simply appalling.

On Anderson Cooper 360 they have had a graphic in the bottom right corner of a waving flag. The flag fades ever 10 seconds or so between the Lebanese flag is red, white and green, and the Israeli flag, in black and white instead of blue and white. At first I was willing to give CNN the benefit of the doubt... maybe it was just a deep navy and my own TV was making it appear otherwise. But then I thought about, and looked for an actual Israeli flag image, like this one here, and it just can't be explained.

So they have been running this flag every night for 30+ days now. Tonight, during another segment, they ran an American flag in the same graphic. No question, the field with the stars in it was blue, not black.

Do not adjust your tv set, folks.

Where were you?

2006-04-29T23:36:00.000-07:00

I was standing at the kitchen sink filling the coffee pot with water. I had the radio on, listening to NPR’s Morning Edition. They took a break from the national feed at ~5:48am for local news or weather. Same as the day before. Same as the day before that.

“I don’t know what this means, but we just received a report that a small plane has struck the World Trade Center,” the local announcer says at the break.
I looked out the window. I switched on the TV. I watched the second plane fly into the tower.
I stopped thinking.
While I sat frozen I knew I wasn’t alone. I thought of so many other people who must be transfixed at the same moment.
While that happened a third plane hit the Pentagon.
Life changed in those moments. I had the luxury of sitting in shock on my couch. But some people had to keep going. There were people to rescue in New York and Washington. There were other planes in the sky. There were policemen and firemen and air traffic controllers and military staffers and commanders who needed to do their jobs.

There were citizens who needed to act, to do something, to prevent a fourth plane from wreaking its havoc on one of America’s cities.
Please make the time to see United 93. Remember the moment you first heard of the attack against America. Marvel at the fact that within only an hour and a half our fellow Americans had managed to organize and counter attack and prevent a complete victory by our enemy.

Is there any choice but war?

2006-04-29T10:09:00.000-07:00

At some point, enough is enough and one must go to war.

Iran can't keep it's mouth shut. They really don't care about winning. If they did they would be all quiet and sneaky, setting everything up carefully while pretending to be our friend before striking like a snake and taking the western world down.

Instead every day there is a new comment from Iran about eliminating Israel, striking back against the US, sending missiles to Europe, yadda yadda yadda. The latest, which I've learned of through two posts on LittleGreenFootballs today:

...paints a pretty clear picture. If we attack Iran's nuclear complexes in order to eliminate that aspect of their threat Israel must, simultaneously occupy and neutralize the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Southern Lebanon. If that were to happen, odds are good Egypt sends troops into Gaza and Syria rolls into Lebanon (to occupy the rest of that country, not immediately to counter-attack the Israelis.) Full scale war in a matter of days.

We have to cut off the nuclear head of this snake. More than that, though, we need to eliminate the regime in Iran, which so desperately wants to increase their standing in the world by speaking out against America and the West in general.

Question: Does that mean that we need to bomb Iran's nuclear sites to get this started?

Answer: No.

The nuclear threat that Iran poses to the world can be eliminated through many means. The most obvious is to blow the sites up. This is difficult and expensive and we might not get all of them. It also leaves the mouthy Iranian figureheads in place to jump on Al Jazeera and explain how evil and mean we are, thus enhancing their status as martyrs and calling more people to the cause.

Iran's overactive mouthpieces have instead given us a much better option. Iran has made it clear their mission is to destroy a sovereign nation, a nation recognized by the UN as legitimate. They have made threats of death and destruction against the US and anyone supporting our cause. They have made threats to bomb our subways or buildings or planes. They have openly supported the flow of weapons and support to the insurgency in Iraq. They are pals with Syria, who is up to no good. They have ties with Hamas, the "democratically elected" leadership of the Palestinian Authority, a group hell-bent on the destruction of that same UN recognized neighboring stae of Israel. They fund and supply Hizbollah in Lebanon, keeping the local Lebanese population in a constant state of fear, regularly shelling Israel, and threatening to do worse. Oh yeah - and they are 3 months to 10 years away from a nuclear warhead, depending on who you listen to.

We have a tremendous set of reasons to eliminate the current government of Iran. It's time to do it. Forget the nuclear sites. The funding and support for that will end immediately if we take Tehran. No country could sustain such a technologically advanced research program while there are foreign soldiers on their land. Send in the Marines, not the Air Force.

But if we go in, as I said, Israel must simultaneously attack its neighbors. It must because they are ready to attack Israel. No sense just standing there taking the punch. Much better to strike first and make it impossible for that punch to be thrown.

If Bush is nervous that now is not the right time (it is!) another possibility would be to neutralize Syria, either by sending in troops or cutting them off from the world community and preventing them from continuing to funnel money and materiel from Iran to everywhere. This is a bad option in the long run becuase it will take so long for any resolution of the situation. But if we're afraid of war outright, it is an option.

All in all, it does not look good right now. I only hope that the Bush Administration is building up its forces and plans as we speak and planning of the invasion and over throw of Iran post haste.

Old Glory

2006-04-29T07:55:00.000-07:00

Ya know? I never knew the Star Spangled Banner came in 4 verses. Thank God that Rosie was only allowed to mangle that first verse...

Courtesy of Michelle Malkin:

(The Defense of Fort McHenry)
September 20, 1814
By Francis Scott Key

Oh, say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, now conceals, now discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner forever shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Getting old...gracefully

2006-04-28T06:54:00.000-07:00

Seniors are overwhelmingly happy with the Medicare Drug Plan. 30 million have already signed up. Despite that success, despite this survey by the AARP stating:

78% of those enrolled say they are satisfied
Only 20% of respondents feel they are not saving money
63 % say their coverage is better than or equal to their past coverage
only 17% say their coverage is worse.

...NPR's Morning Edition still ran another negative piece today, focused on the deadline that hits in 2-weeks. So hard for the MSM to change it's tune...

The Human Trafficking Business

2006-04-28T06:09:00.000-07:00

Bush addressed the United Nations on September 23rd, 2003. He had three main themes in the speech:

The Iraq War to date - success, challenges, meaning, etc.
WMD Proliferation - the challenge that presents to the world body
The humanitarian challenge:

AIDS treatment & prevention worldwide
Famine mitigation
Ending the human sex trade

There's another humanitarian crisis spreading, yet hidden from view. Each year, an estimated 800,000 to 900,000 human beings are bought, sold or forced across the world's borders. Among them are hundreds of thousands of teenage girls, and others as young as five, who fall victim to the sex trade.

This last point seemed so incongruous with the rest of the issues he discussed. But I'll save that for another day. Think about how it relates to the Immigration debate.

Many of the people who are brought into our country illegally are brought in a state of debt by coyotes from Mexico or packed into shipping containers from China, etc. This human trade is deplorable. This trade deserves the attention of President Bush. I think he would change his tune if someone reminded him of the moral aspects of this debate.

Trafficking in humans, whether for personal gain, to fill the sex trade or to bring in cheap labor for a US business owner is a disgusting, deplorable act. We should target it aggressively, end illegal border crossing, then figure out how to deal with the 10 - 12 million illegals already in the country.

First things first.

Home sweet home...

2006-04-27T23:20:00.000-07:00

...this makes me want to move back to the home of the Gateway Pundit...

Jim Talent solves immigration

I've heard of a social disease, but this...

2006-04-26T14:47:00.000-07:00

When I read this, I thought I thought of the Best of the Web. So an an homage to James Taranto's witty style...

Please note the hightlighted section...

Cheers, women! If you want to tune up those brain cells, then have a drink. A continuing study of more than 3,000 New York City residents found that women who had one or two alcoholic drinks a day scored 20% higher on standard cognitive tests than women who didn't drink or consumed less than one a day. The researchers, from Columbia University, say the difference remained after adjusting for income, marital status, race or other disease factors. the average age of study participants was 65. The correlation was not found in men, but this may have been because there were very few men in the study who never drank. Now if only there was some cheery news about alcoholism.

(From the 4/24 issue of Businessweek, pg 88, "Innovations" column... available online, but need a subscription.)

Let it Snow...

2006-04-26T08:29:00.000-07:00

Tony Snow is an inspired choice for the White House press secretary. I've always perceived that position as Public Relations, not journalism. It's always been about controlling the information flow. And I'm sure it will to a large degree maintain that character. But when you're controlling the delivery of the information what you are not doing is telling the truth. And that leaves you fundamentally exposed. Because somone else may be about to release that truth themselves.

It has long been a complaint of mine that the White House should be able to defuse the conflict they have with the press more effectively... simply by telling the truth, or by being straight-forward with the White House position on a topic. The Bush administration will not win over the press corps by speaking this way... but they will strengthen their support with the voters, the people of America. The people are very good at recognizing the truth. We know that the MSM is going to apply their spin to every story. What's been missing is a serious alternative for the MSM to compete with.

Tony Snow is connected with the conservative media channels. He knows how to talk to them. And now he will be doing that on behalf of all of us from the podium at the White House. Our story will be told.

The danger is that as a journalist he is used to talking about both sides of a story, and as a commentator Tony is used to speaking his mind on a topic. Now as the WH press secretary he will have to hold the company line on everything. That may prove challenging for Tony the individual. I'm sure he's already thought this part through, let's hope he aces this challenge. If he executes well we will get more of the results we asked for when we cast our votes in 2000 and 2004 and the Bush legacy will be much more secure.

But... execution has been this administration's weak point... stay tuned...

As Heard On NPR

2006-04-24T08:53:00.000-07:00

During the news update at the half hour this morning (~7:30am PDT) the newscaster told us that the president of Iran "renewed his criticism of Israel today..." what exactly does that mean, to "renew" the criticism. Did he take a break? Yesterday was he talking to his people about sitting down for a game of parcheesi with his good buddies the Israelis? Does any time in between rants against the existence of Israel, including sleep, count as holding back? Sigh.

Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs has a post on this today...

Speaking up...

2006-04-22T20:42:00.000-07:00

I thought this was insightful (found it on PowerLineBlog...)

http://www.dartblog.com/data/005547.html

I've been wondering about this since it happened. Apparently, as the liberals on NPR rejoiced in pointing out numerous times this week, she started her heckling just after bush completed a sentence about the benefits freedom of speech would offer the people of China. And according to Joe here, she was able to heckle for a few minutes before the Secret Service whisked her away.

Is it possible that this was a put-up job by the Bush Administration? No state dinner, Cheney sleeping in the corner, no promises to accomplish big things together as nations... and a protester speeks freely, one who held a press pass obtained after the White House approved a dissident and oppressed Chinese reilgious/social organization as a press entity.

There are people who feel the Bush administration is crooked, backhanded and always up to conspiracy. There are time, like this one, where I agree wholeheartedly. Not all battles need be fought with guns.

The Great Debate

2006-04-04T22:52:00.000-07:00

Tonight turned into an impromtu dinner outing with a few coworkers. A few glasses of wine into the meal and politics swarmed in. My favorite situation: Iwas completely surrounded. Two lefties in front, one at either side, my back (literally) to the wall. I lead the charge, fearlessly, and we debated immigration and Iraq and jeffersonian democracy. It was a great conversation, at least for me.

In case you didn't see it, the Brits have lost there minds. Robbing a house? Expect only a slap on the wrist... Why this rule is ridiculous:

The cops now have permission to decide when and against (or for!) whom they'd like to enforce the rules. You better hope you are one of the people they like
The bad guys have guns. The good guys don't. They are illegal. Now the bad guys can use them to threaten the police so the police will enforce or ignore the laws according to the whims of the armed. Hope you have a gun.
There is no rule of law if the law is not applied equally across all spectrums. Why should one person respect the law when he knows it only applies to himself? Society cannot survive.

It's insane. I wish I had travelled to Europe before the madness began. Paris, London, more... it may, and very likely will, be a very different place by the time I manage to get there.

DeLays DeLays DeLays...

2006-04-04T22:18:00.000-07:00

Ok, so a quick return to the DeLay bit... first because I misspelled it all the way thru, the second becuase I missed a little yesterday.

It seems pretty likely at this point that if DeLay himself wasn't involved in fuzzy, criminal behavior, his closest advisors were, which make it exceedingly difficult to deny he knew what was happening. I'm not so naive to think differently.

That doesn't change the fact that he did the right thing, in the end, by stepping down. By voluntarily taking himself off the stage he leaves seat open for the best candidate to step in and move the conversation back to the issues of the day insteda of hte actions of one man.

QotD

2006-04-03T22:49:00.000-07:00

Like all Americans, I like big thing: big praries, big forests and mountains, big wheat fields, railroads -- and herds of cattle too -- big factories and steamboats and everything else. But we must keep steadily in mind that no people were ever yet benefitted by riches if their prosperity corrupted their virture. It is more important that we should show ourselves honest, brave, truthful, and intelligent than that we should own all the railways and grain elevators in the world. We have fallen heirs to the most glorious heritage a people ever received and each of us must do his part if we wish to show that this nation is worthy of its good fortune.

-Theodore Roosevelt, as quoted in Paul Johnson's
"A History of the American People"

The Humble

2006-04-03T20:51:00.000-07:00

Tom Delay is stepping down. It's a brilliant move. For years now the Democrats have made a tremendous ruckus about the "political corruption" of the majority Republicans. They have chosen to focus on Tom Delay. They have painted him as The Very Visage of Corruption. The left has made every possible effort to take him down, hoping that the GOP as a whole would follow his fall.

I remember being very frustrated for months while I waited for Delay to step down as Speaker of the House, to take himself out of the limelight, to allow the focus to shift back to the party and the agenda. Gracious move number one was when he did step aside, a move which lead to a remarkable and cleansing debate within the Republican caucus and base as John Boehner was selected as the new Speaker.

This is gracious move number two. Humbly fading into the sunset even though he won his primary last month. And now, looking back, it is plain to see that waiting so long to take both of these steps was a great idea. The Dems were raring for a fight. He simply picked up the ball and walked off the playground.

In their confusion the Dems will crow and cluck for a while they caused his downfall... that he stepped down because of imminent prosecution or the burden of scandal or such. But I won't believe it. He is too shrewd of a political operator for that. He knew it was his time to step down. He had lived out his fifteen minutes of fame, tasted glory, stood upon the mountain top and saw the whole world laid out beneath him. Yet despite the power and influence he held in his hands, he has remained a humble man.

The strategy that Delay has implemented here is brilliant. He didn't stand pat and wait for the attack. He didn't rush headlong into battle. He didn't yearn for glory of victory on a blood-stained battlefield. He simply laid down his weapon, took his wife's hand, and turned aside.

Now the Dems only have Bush to vilify. And you know what's brilliant about that? Bush can't run again in 2008. They are girding themselves for battle... and there will be no enemy. And the Republicans will win again.

It's almost too easy.

Two of my co-workers were ribbing me today about Delay. The conversation will be boisterous tomorrow, I have no doubt. I look forward to it.

Barbarians at the Gate

2006-04-03T06:57:00.001-07:00

Allah Pundit added this to Michelle Malkin's website this weekend. A deeper look at social conditions in the immigrant suburbs surrounding Paris, particularly the group that attacked Ilan Halimi, a 17-year old jewish boy reeled in, tortured for 3 weeks then killed. Horrifying to think that such danger might be lurking just outside the City Of Light.

I have not yet traveled to Paris... I hope it is a place I still want to visit when that time comes...

But I support the troops!

2006-04-02T14:57:00.000-07:00

Time for the Sunday Rant. The Sunday LA Times has an absolute doozie front page center. I slid the plastic sheath off the paper early this morning, slid off the plastic string insde, and casually flipped the paper to have a look at the front page. The photograph on the cover caused me to catch my breath.

It is gruesome. It is pornographic. It is a frozen scene from a snuff film.

The broken, bloody and bandaged face of a soldier in Iraq stares unseeing out of the center of the page.

Bringing Back the Wounded With Heart, Soul and Surgery
screams the main headline.

The subheadline: "Injured troops are swept up in a lifesaving process unmatched in past wars - reaching hospitals in minutes and the U.S. in days."

That sounds good... but that image... then the rest of the subheadline: But their agony doesn't end on the battlefield."

The paper is clearly confused... do they want to write an historical piece about the conditions for wounded soldiers in the conflicts America participated in? Or is it going to be an anti-war tract attempting to disgust us with the gritty realities of combat hospitals?

I was actually conflicted as I stared at the image. An article comparing the treatment of wounded soldiers in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam... Iraq I and Iraq II (2003)... as a history buff, well, I would love such an article. I've read much in this vein in regards to the Civil War, but never the Revolutionary War. But I know the LA Times better than that. They have a history with me. And despite their past slant against everything Bush and Iraq and War on Terror I am always willing to give the paper the benefit of the doubt.

So I read the article. The bulk of the print shown is telling you about the horrific injuries suffered on going into detail about plucking rocks out of the flesh of the wounded soldiers. Most of the photos match the first for horror.

What this article is not:

It is not an historical piece. It spends very little time laying out the coditions of battlefield hospitals in previous wars. Not even a casual mention of M*A*S*H
It is not a description of the passion, committment, sacrifice of the men and women working in these hospitals to try and save lives
It is not a piece to descirbe the impressive logistics that have been implemented to get the soldiers off the field, treated and back stateside in 4 days. The men, the supplies, the flights, the dedication

Perhpas this is a matter of interpretation. I think not. These photos... to want to publish these photos... you have to be sick...

...and you have to believe that America should lose this war to the jihadis. Otherwise, you wouldn't go so far... you wouldn't put the broken image of a soldier front and center on the biggest paper in one of the biggest cities on the biggest circulation day...

This is how the jihadis are winning the media battle.

In the beginning...

2006-04-02T12:14:00.000-07:00

The inagural post... I was reading a post on another's blog, recovering from a brilliant 33 mile bike ride along the beach... I wanted to add a comment to the blog... and the next thing you know I'm publishing my very own.

A blog is born.