Friday, November 18, 2005
Here's Another Interesting Wal-Mart Story
Here's the link to an interesting Business Week Article: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2005/nf2005117_0199_db016.htm?campaign_id=topStories_ssi_5
Do you like Wal-Mart? I do. To the critics: Give Me a Break.
Here's John Stossel's new column on Wal-Mart and it's economic critics from Townhall.com:
Is Wal-Mart a problem?
By John Stossel
Nov 16, 2005
Is Wal-Mart a problem?
The Food and Commercial Workers Union hired Paul Blank, who was political director for Howard Dean's presidential campaign, to lead a campaign to convince people not to shop at Wal-Mart until Wal-Mart pays workers more. "The average associate at Wal-Mart makes $8.23 an hour," Blank told me. "That's not a job that can support a family."
Wal-Mart said its average pay is higher than that, but Wal-Mart workers do make a lot less money than Wal-Mart's owners.
"They have taken the values, the morals, the ethics, fairness that are the fabric of our society and put them aside and . . . put their profits before their people," said Blank.
That's foolish economics, and not very good morality. He is as wrong as the tycoon Michael Douglas played in the movie "Wall Street," who said: "It's a zero-sum game. Somebody wins. Somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply transferred."
That's a myth. Businesses create wealth.
Take the simplest example. I buy a quart of milk. I hand the storekeeper money; she gives me the milk. We both benefit, because she wanted the money more than the milk, and I wanted the milk more than the money. This is why often both of us say "thank you." Because it's voluntary, business is win/win. A transaction won't happen unless both parties benefit. Each party ends up better off than he was before. And when you have millions of successful transactions, you end up very well off -- like the owners of Wal-Mart.
Their becoming rich doesn't mean there's less for the rest of us. Sam Walton's innovations created thousands of new jobs and allowed millions of Americans to save money.
In earlier eras, John D. Rockefeller and Cornelius Vanderbilt were depicted as evil. But the condemnation rarely came from consumers. It was competing businessmen who complained. And newspapers lapped it up, calling them "robber barons."
Vanderbilt got rich by making travel and shipping cheaper. Lots of people liked that.
No one was forced to buy the oil on which Rockefeller got rich. He had to persuade people by offering it to them for less. He offered it so cheaply that poorer people, who used to go to bed when it got dark, could now afford fuel for their lanterns.
These are "robber barons"?
"You could not find a more inaccurate term for these men than 'robber barons,'" said philosopher David Kelley. "They weren't barons. All of them started penniless. And they weren't robbers, because they didn't take it from anyone else."
Wal-Mart's critics act as if economic competition were a "zero-sum game" -- if one person gets richer, someone else must be getting poorer. If Wal-Mart's owners profit, we lose. But the reality is exactly what our ordinary language tells us: We make money. We produce wealth.
Wal-Mart created wealth. It started with just one discount store. Then, its owner, Sam Walton, invented new ways to streamline the supply chain, so he was able to sell things for less and still make a profit. By keeping prices low, Wal-Mart effectively gives everyone who shops there a raise, its own employees included.
Not all Wal-Mart workers support families. Some are retired. Others are part-timers, students or people looking for a second income.
"None of them was drafted. None of them was forced to work at Wal-Mart," said Brink Lindsey, a senior scholar at the Cato Institute. "That means that if they're working there, presumably, that was the best job they could get."
Before Sha-ron Reese was hired at Wal-Mart she was on welfare. She'd lost custody of her kids and was homeless, living in her car. California store manager W.C. Morrison took a risk and hired her. "She had no references," he told us. "She had no work experience."
In her own words, she was "raw." But Morrison took a chance on her. That changed her life.
Today, Reese has two people working for her. She's got her own apartment. She's regained custody of two of her kids.
And she's a Wal-Mart customer. "Everything, just about, that's in my house," she said, "Wal-Mart sells."
Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/JohnStossel/2005/11/16/175731.html
Is Wal-Mart a problem?
By John Stossel
Nov 16, 2005
Is Wal-Mart a problem?
The Food and Commercial Workers Union hired Paul Blank, who was political director for Howard Dean's presidential campaign, to lead a campaign to convince people not to shop at Wal-Mart until Wal-Mart pays workers more. "The average associate at Wal-Mart makes $8.23 an hour," Blank told me. "That's not a job that can support a family."
Wal-Mart said its average pay is higher than that, but Wal-Mart workers do make a lot less money than Wal-Mart's owners.
"They have taken the values, the morals, the ethics, fairness that are the fabric of our society and put them aside and . . . put their profits before their people," said Blank.
That's foolish economics, and not very good morality. He is as wrong as the tycoon Michael Douglas played in the movie "Wall Street," who said: "It's a zero-sum game. Somebody wins. Somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply transferred."
That's a myth. Businesses create wealth.
Take the simplest example. I buy a quart of milk. I hand the storekeeper money; she gives me the milk. We both benefit, because she wanted the money more than the milk, and I wanted the milk more than the money. This is why often both of us say "thank you." Because it's voluntary, business is win/win. A transaction won't happen unless both parties benefit. Each party ends up better off than he was before. And when you have millions of successful transactions, you end up very well off -- like the owners of Wal-Mart.
Their becoming rich doesn't mean there's less for the rest of us. Sam Walton's innovations created thousands of new jobs and allowed millions of Americans to save money.
In earlier eras, John D. Rockefeller and Cornelius Vanderbilt were depicted as evil. But the condemnation rarely came from consumers. It was competing businessmen who complained. And newspapers lapped it up, calling them "robber barons."
Vanderbilt got rich by making travel and shipping cheaper. Lots of people liked that.
No one was forced to buy the oil on which Rockefeller got rich. He had to persuade people by offering it to them for less. He offered it so cheaply that poorer people, who used to go to bed when it got dark, could now afford fuel for their lanterns.
These are "robber barons"?
"You could not find a more inaccurate term for these men than 'robber barons,'" said philosopher David Kelley. "They weren't barons. All of them started penniless. And they weren't robbers, because they didn't take it from anyone else."
Wal-Mart's critics act as if economic competition were a "zero-sum game" -- if one person gets richer, someone else must be getting poorer. If Wal-Mart's owners profit, we lose. But the reality is exactly what our ordinary language tells us: We make money. We produce wealth.
Wal-Mart created wealth. It started with just one discount store. Then, its owner, Sam Walton, invented new ways to streamline the supply chain, so he was able to sell things for less and still make a profit. By keeping prices low, Wal-Mart effectively gives everyone who shops there a raise, its own employees included.
Not all Wal-Mart workers support families. Some are retired. Others are part-timers, students or people looking for a second income.
"None of them was drafted. None of them was forced to work at Wal-Mart," said Brink Lindsey, a senior scholar at the Cato Institute. "That means that if they're working there, presumably, that was the best job they could get."
Before Sha-ron Reese was hired at Wal-Mart she was on welfare. She'd lost custody of her kids and was homeless, living in her car. California store manager W.C. Morrison took a risk and hired her. "She had no references," he told us. "She had no work experience."
In her own words, she was "raw." But Morrison took a chance on her. That changed her life.
Today, Reese has two people working for her. She's got her own apartment. She's regained custody of two of her kids.
And she's a Wal-Mart customer. "Everything, just about, that's in my house," she said, "Wal-Mart sells."
Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/JohnStossel/2005/11/16/175731.html
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Lewis "Scooter" Libby Indicted. Mr. Libby is facing five very serious charges. If true, he should be punished for the violations. That said, a couple of points: I have always believed that the Bush Whitehouse (and Campaign) have had among the worst communications operations in modern political history. This "scandal" never should have happened. If the Administration had simply destroyed Ambassador Wilson's claims in the open--as they should have--there would have been no reason to resort to this type of b.s. innuendo, etc. (If you still believe that Wilson has any credibility, you obviously are unaware of the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the subject. Check it out.) And, my second point is that I am disgusted by much of the whining and complaining by my Conservative brethren. Of course the Bush Administration is not covered the same way as the Clinton Administration was by the mainstream media. They have always been and will always be hostile to Republicans who profess to any sort of Conservative Philosophy. So what? Get over it. That's the reality and we should begin to act accordingly. Of course Hillary and Bill were allowed to "walk" for similar charges, but that's really irrelevant. Our disgust with their actions was justified. It should also be directed at Libby's actions (again, if they're true.) And, while Ken Starr was an honorable Independent Counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald seems to be no less professional. Once again, if the Administration had just "kicked Wilson in the nuts" as he deserved, in the open, because his dishonest efforts to harm his Nation REQUIRED a fast, factual, and ruthless response, we wouldn't be having this discussion today. This problem exists thoughout the Administration and MUST BE CORRECTED if we have any hope for a successful second term.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
David Frum Echoing My Thought on Miers
David Frum, former Bush speechwriter (remember: the Axis of Evil--it was his line), writes something similar to what I was trying to articulate yesterday on Harriet Miers. Of course, he writes it much better than me.
From his Blog on the National Review Online site:
OCT. 5, 2005: MORE ON MIERS
The president was visibly angry at his press conference yesterday. Nobody likes criticism, especially when it's justified. But was he convincing? He sure did not convince me. The closest thing he offered to a defense - praise for his nominee for hailing from outside the "judicial monastery" - entirely misses the point. Senator John Cornyn elaborates on this defense in the Wall Street Journal this morning, and makes it clearer than ever what is wrong with it:
"[S]ome have criticized the president because he did not select an Ivy-League-credentialed federal appeals court judge for the open seat."
The problem with Harriet Miers is not that she lacks formal credentials, although she does lack them. Had the president chosen former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, or Securities and Exchange Commission chair Christpher Cox, or former Interior Department secretary Gail Norton, nobody would complain that they were not federal appeals court judges.
Had the president named Senator Jon Kyl (LLB, University of Arizona) or Senator Mitch McConnell (LLB, University of Kentucky) or Edith Jones Clement (LLB, Tulane), nobody would be carping at the absence of an Ivy League law degree.
Those who object to the Miers nomination do not object to her lack of credentials. THey object to her lack of what the credentials represent: some indication of outstanding ability.
The objection to Miers is not that she is not experienced enough or not expensively enough educated for the job. It is that she is not good enough for the job.
And she will remain not good enough even if she votes the right way on the court, or anyway starts out voting the right way. A Supreme Court justice is more than just a vote. A justice is also a voice.
The president's defense of Miers in many ways amplified the problem. His case for her boils down to: "Because I say so" and "She really is a nice person."
But "because I say so" is not an argument. It is an assertion of pure authority. And have not the great conservative legal minds of the past three decades warned again and again that the courts have gone wrong precisely because they have relied too much on authority and too little on argument?
"She really is a nice person" likewise is a statement grounded on feeling rather than thought. And don't conservatives object to legal liberalism precisely because it is based on sloppy emotion rather than disciplined thought?
Believe it or not, legal conservatism is a powerful and compelling school of thought. The Scalias and the Thomases and the Rehnquists have had their effect not by forcing their positions on the country by brute vote-counting, but by persuasion. That's why, to pick out just one example, that Bush v Gore was decided by a 7-2 majority and not lost 3 to 6.
This president has never believed much in persuasion. He believes that the president should declare and that the country should then follow. But judges cannot and should not do that. He should have chosen a justice who could lead by power of intellect, and not because she possesses 1/9 of the votes on the supreme judicial body
It has been conservatives who have been most up in arms about the Miers nomination. But really this is a nomination that disserves not just conservatism, but the whole country.
All Americans are entitled to know that those judges who exercise the power of judicial review have thought hard and deeply about the immense power entrusted to them. If the courts were just about getting the votes, then the preisdent should have chosen Dennis Hastert for the Supreme Court. But to change American law, it's not enough to win the vote count. You have to win the argument. And does anybody believe Harriet Miers can win an argument against Stephen Breyer?
Yesterday's White House talking point was that Miers "reflects the president's judicial philosophy." OK. But can she articulate it? Defend it? And persuade others of it - not just her colleagues, but the generations to come who will read her decisions and accept them ... or scorn them. That's the way this president should have thought about this choice. And that's the way the Senators called on to consent to the choice should be thinking about it now.
From his Blog on the National Review Online site:
OCT. 5, 2005: MORE ON MIERS
The president was visibly angry at his press conference yesterday. Nobody likes criticism, especially when it's justified. But was he convincing? He sure did not convince me. The closest thing he offered to a defense - praise for his nominee for hailing from outside the "judicial monastery" - entirely misses the point. Senator John Cornyn elaborates on this defense in the Wall Street Journal this morning, and makes it clearer than ever what is wrong with it:
"[S]ome have criticized the president because he did not select an Ivy-League-credentialed federal appeals court judge for the open seat."
The problem with Harriet Miers is not that she lacks formal credentials, although she does lack them. Had the president chosen former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, or Securities and Exchange Commission chair Christpher Cox, or former Interior Department secretary Gail Norton, nobody would complain that they were not federal appeals court judges.
Had the president named Senator Jon Kyl (LLB, University of Arizona) or Senator Mitch McConnell (LLB, University of Kentucky) or Edith Jones Clement (LLB, Tulane), nobody would be carping at the absence of an Ivy League law degree.
Those who object to the Miers nomination do not object to her lack of credentials. THey object to her lack of what the credentials represent: some indication of outstanding ability.
The objection to Miers is not that she is not experienced enough or not expensively enough educated for the job. It is that she is not good enough for the job.
And she will remain not good enough even if she votes the right way on the court, or anyway starts out voting the right way. A Supreme Court justice is more than just a vote. A justice is also a voice.
The president's defense of Miers in many ways amplified the problem. His case for her boils down to: "Because I say so" and "She really is a nice person."
But "because I say so" is not an argument. It is an assertion of pure authority. And have not the great conservative legal minds of the past three decades warned again and again that the courts have gone wrong precisely because they have relied too much on authority and too little on argument?
"She really is a nice person" likewise is a statement grounded on feeling rather than thought. And don't conservatives object to legal liberalism precisely because it is based on sloppy emotion rather than disciplined thought?
Believe it or not, legal conservatism is a powerful and compelling school of thought. The Scalias and the Thomases and the Rehnquists have had their effect not by forcing their positions on the country by brute vote-counting, but by persuasion. That's why, to pick out just one example, that Bush v Gore was decided by a 7-2 majority and not lost 3 to 6.
This president has never believed much in persuasion. He believes that the president should declare and that the country should then follow. But judges cannot and should not do that. He should have chosen a justice who could lead by power of intellect, and not because she possesses 1/9 of the votes on the supreme judicial body
It has been conservatives who have been most up in arms about the Miers nomination. But really this is a nomination that disserves not just conservatism, but the whole country.
All Americans are entitled to know that those judges who exercise the power of judicial review have thought hard and deeply about the immense power entrusted to them. If the courts were just about getting the votes, then the preisdent should have chosen Dennis Hastert for the Supreme Court. But to change American law, it's not enough to win the vote count. You have to win the argument. And does anybody believe Harriet Miers can win an argument against Stephen Breyer?
Yesterday's White House talking point was that Miers "reflects the president's judicial philosophy." OK. But can she articulate it? Defend it? And persuade others of it - not just her colleagues, but the generations to come who will read her decisions and accept them ... or scorn them. That's the way this president should have thought about this choice. And that's the way the Senators called on to consent to the choice should be thinking about it now.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Supreme Court Nominee Harriet Miers. I'm not impressed. Why didn't Bush nominate a brilliant, Conservative intellectual? Would it be a tough fight in the Senate? Probably. But isn't it a fight worth having? Isn't it something that much of America thinks is important--perhaps the most important issue facing the nation today? I do.
Why I'm Very Disappointed in Bush's Choice of Harriet Miers.
Count me among those Conservatives who are very disappointed in President Bush's choice of Harriet Miers to replace Justice O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court.
What is the evidence of her excellence as a legal mind? Really, that's what I wanted to see in the next Justice. John Roberts seems clearly brilliant, and very well qualified for his position. He also happens to be quite young (50-ish), and has the potential to leave a significant mark on the Court for years to come.
Do we know how he'll rule? Of course not. While I hope he'll be a Conservative in the mold of a Scalia, I'd be quite pleased with another Rehnquist if that's how he turns out.
But why is Scalia my model? He's a thinker. A scholar. A true intellect. He has the utmost faith in the system created under our Constitution, including it's built-in mechanisms for "fixing" results that the people don't like. If political hot-button issues are decided in the legislative arena, the people can voice their opinion by contacting their representatives and by their vote on election day. No such relief is possible with unelected lawmakers sitting as Justices.
Will Miers vote the "way I want?" Perhaps. But, Bush has an opportunity to renew/begin a national conversation about the role of the judiciary in our society. I believe most Americans want a limited role for the courts. Of course they are a co-equal branch of government, but where their branch works should not interfare with the other equal branches: legislative and executive.
I haven't seen anything that tells me that Miers is exceptional enough to make the Conservative judicial case. The case is there, it is waiting, and it can be won--as I think it's the one most of us would choose, if told the options. I don't have any reason to see her demonstrating the correctness of this view. Scalia can persuade if he is given the chance. He certainly can hold his own (at least) in any debate of legal scholarship. Can Miers? I hope but I doubt.
I have enjoyed the posts at the National Review site, their Corner and Bench Memos blogs as well. Check out the link on the right side of my blog if you're interested.
What is the evidence of her excellence as a legal mind? Really, that's what I wanted to see in the next Justice. John Roberts seems clearly brilliant, and very well qualified for his position. He also happens to be quite young (50-ish), and has the potential to leave a significant mark on the Court for years to come.
Do we know how he'll rule? Of course not. While I hope he'll be a Conservative in the mold of a Scalia, I'd be quite pleased with another Rehnquist if that's how he turns out.
But why is Scalia my model? He's a thinker. A scholar. A true intellect. He has the utmost faith in the system created under our Constitution, including it's built-in mechanisms for "fixing" results that the people don't like. If political hot-button issues are decided in the legislative arena, the people can voice their opinion by contacting their representatives and by their vote on election day. No such relief is possible with unelected lawmakers sitting as Justices.
Will Miers vote the "way I want?" Perhaps. But, Bush has an opportunity to renew/begin a national conversation about the role of the judiciary in our society. I believe most Americans want a limited role for the courts. Of course they are a co-equal branch of government, but where their branch works should not interfare with the other equal branches: legislative and executive.
I haven't seen anything that tells me that Miers is exceptional enough to make the Conservative judicial case. The case is there, it is waiting, and it can be won--as I think it's the one most of us would choose, if told the options. I don't have any reason to see her demonstrating the correctness of this view. Scalia can persuade if he is given the chance. He certainly can hold his own (at least) in any debate of legal scholarship. Can Miers? I hope but I doubt.
I have enjoyed the posts at the National Review site, their Corner and Bench Memos blogs as well. Check out the link on the right side of my blog if you're interested.
The 2006 CR-V LX AWD Mini-Sport Ute. I'm shopping for one right now for my wife and I. (I already drive a 1999 CR-V EX, and I LOVE it, but we need to replace her old Civic. I'm posting this because I hate to car shop. You just know they're gonna screw-ya, it's just a question of how much. I think I have a good price on the new vehicle, and I have a good rate on my loan, but the trade-in is the kicker. That negotiation comes tomorrow. I'll post the result later.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Ed Koch, a REAL Liberal, Spanks Cindy Sheehan.
Courtesy of the former Mayor of New York City, a true Liberal:
Speak up America! Sheehan has spent her sympathy, By Ed Koch
Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in action in Iraq on April 4, 2004, has become the face of the anti-war movement in the United States. While her grief is understandable, her rhetoric is outrageous.
As the mother of a son killed in battle in Iraq, she originally struck a sympathetic chord, whether you supported the war in Iraq or opposed it. One cannot help but empathize with the agony of a bereaved mother. But that has changed over the months, and I believe that many Americans who viewed her with sympathy no longer do so.
Many Americans, myself included, now see her as a person who has come to enjoy the celebratory status accorded to her by the radicals on the extreme left who see America as the outlaw of the world. These radicals are not content to be constructive critics. They are bent on destroying this country.
Some of them want to turn America into a radical socialist state. Others hope to create a utopia. But regardless of their agendas, how can Cindy Sheehan's supporters defend her shameful statement, "This country is not worth dying for."
While we recognize the U.S. is far from perfect, we are still head and shoulders above most other countries in the world in every respect. We remain the place where almost all others, given the chance, want to come to live. We continue to be the land of opportunity. We are the world's leading economy.
Yes, there is far too great a difference between the incomes of the rich and the poor. Yes, we haven't provided universal medical care as a matter of right for all of our citizens. Yes, minorities still suffer from discrimination socially, in housing, jobs and education. But we have a political system that for more than 200 years has allowed the electorate to work its will through regularly held elections. The government follows the will of the people, or it will no longer stay in power..
Those who rail against the United States have simply failed to sell their message to the public at large. They keep losing elections, local as well as national. Rather than broadening their appeal, they have narrowed it.
I supported and still support the war in Iraq, because our Congress and President had every right to rely on the advice of the CIA that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. On Sunday, September 25, 2005, Tim Russert of Meet The Press, summed up the situation prevailing before the war, saying, "…post September 11th, there was a fear of terrorism, an inability to know whether there were weapons of mass destruction by the public or by the media. George W. Bush said there were. Bill and Hillary Clinton said there were. The Russians, French and Germans, who opposed the war, said there were. Hans Blix of the UN said there were."
Iraq had fought an eight-year war against Iran resulting in a million casualties, using poison gas against the Kurds, who were citizens of Iraq, and against the Iranian army. Yes, since the 2003 invasion, we have not found any present supplies of WMD. Nevertheless, based on advice from CIA counterparts advising every member nation of the United Nations Security Council, the Security Council, including Syria, adopted Resolution 1441 unanimously, finding Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for which it had not accounted and advising Iraq that failure to account was cause for war. Iraq refused to account for them to the U.N. We and our allies were right to invade, notwithstanding that other countries, terrified by the prospect of terrorism against them and tempted by corruption at the UN masterminded by Saddam Hussein through the Oil-For-Food program and lucrative vendor contracts with Hussein's regime, did not join us.
As I have often stated, we have accomplished our original goal to prevent Iraq from threatening us or its regional neighbors. We should declare victory and get out. Yes, there probably will be a civil war among the Kurds, Sunni and Shia. If the UN — which is still under a cloud because of the "Oil for Food" scandal — decides to take a military role in Iraq to stop the civil war, we can join them at that time. Having accomplished our original mission, we should no longer be fulfilling the obligations of other countries, such as Germany and France which have had a free ride to date. Even in Afghanistan, the latter NATO allies, do not participate in combat duty, leaving that and the ensuing casualties for the U.S. to bear.
President George W. Bush summed up his views on Iraq when he stated, "When the Iraqi army stands up, the American Army will stand down." I have low expectations of that happening in the immediate future. The estimates provided by the Bush administration on our getting out range from two to ten years. I do not believe we should wait that long, because of the casualties that would be involved. We should get out now, leaving the UN in charge. Although I believe that we should leave Iraq, I do not accept Sheehan's outrageous statements.
Sheehan has joined those who rail against Israel, labeling Israel as the culprit with her comment, "You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine and the terrorism will stop." Is that why Sunni and other terrorists have intentionally killed thousands of Shia civilians, labeling them, according to al-Zarkawi, infidels? Is that why Arab fundamentalists have declared war against all Christians and Jews?
According to Wikipedia, on August 15, 2005, on the Chris Matthews Show, Sheehan said, "she would not have responded differently to her son's death had he died in Afghanistan rather than in Iraq. Sheehan argued that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was 'almost the same thing as the Iraq war.'" Remember, the UN Security Council authorized the invasion of Afghanistan and the war against the Taliban government.
Sheehan's personal attacks on President Bush include comments in a speech on April 27, 2005, when she said, "We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We're waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush." Shameful.
According to Wikipedia, Sheehan wrote, "Casey was killed in the Global War of Terrorism waged on the world and its own citizens by the biggest terrorist outfit in the world: George and his destructive neo-con cabal."
In an interview on CBS, Sheehan referred to the foreign insurgents coming into Iraq, who are condemned as terrorists even by other Arab countries, as well as the U.S. and Great Britain, as "freedom fighters." On September 16, 2005, she said, "Pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq." On the one hand, she and her supporters urge that the National Guard be brought back from Iraq to be used in New Orleans, and on the other hand, she condemns their use there now.
In addressing a veterans' group on August 5, 2005, she demeaned herself with the use of truly outrageous remarks hurled at the President, describing him as "a lying bastard," "that jerk," "that filth spewer and war monger," and "that evil maniac."
Sheehan appeared this past weekend in Washington, D.C., leading the parade in a picture captured by the media that included Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond and Al Sharpton.
On Monday of this week, while Sheehan and her supporters were in Washington protesting at the White House against the presence of U.S. military forces in Iraq — those forces there at the request of the democratically elected Iraqi government — according to The New York Times, "Armed men dressed as police officers burst into a primary school in a town south of Baghdad on Monday, rounded up five Shiite teachers and their driver, marched them to an empty classroom and killed them, a police official said." Sheehan believes them to be "freedom fighters."
Of course, Sheehan has the right to state her opinion in a country she believes shouldn't be defended. We who disagree with her statements, we who believe this country deserves our thanks, love and willingness to defend it, also have the right to express our views. Speak up, America.
(posted at: http://www.JewishWorldReview.com)
Speak up America! Sheehan has spent her sympathy, By Ed Koch
Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in action in Iraq on April 4, 2004, has become the face of the anti-war movement in the United States. While her grief is understandable, her rhetoric is outrageous.
As the mother of a son killed in battle in Iraq, she originally struck a sympathetic chord, whether you supported the war in Iraq or opposed it. One cannot help but empathize with the agony of a bereaved mother. But that has changed over the months, and I believe that many Americans who viewed her with sympathy no longer do so.
Many Americans, myself included, now see her as a person who has come to enjoy the celebratory status accorded to her by the radicals on the extreme left who see America as the outlaw of the world. These radicals are not content to be constructive critics. They are bent on destroying this country.
Some of them want to turn America into a radical socialist state. Others hope to create a utopia. But regardless of their agendas, how can Cindy Sheehan's supporters defend her shameful statement, "This country is not worth dying for."
While we recognize the U.S. is far from perfect, we are still head and shoulders above most other countries in the world in every respect. We remain the place where almost all others, given the chance, want to come to live. We continue to be the land of opportunity. We are the world's leading economy.
Yes, there is far too great a difference between the incomes of the rich and the poor. Yes, we haven't provided universal medical care as a matter of right for all of our citizens. Yes, minorities still suffer from discrimination socially, in housing, jobs and education. But we have a political system that for more than 200 years has allowed the electorate to work its will through regularly held elections. The government follows the will of the people, or it will no longer stay in power..
Those who rail against the United States have simply failed to sell their message to the public at large. They keep losing elections, local as well as national. Rather than broadening their appeal, they have narrowed it.
I supported and still support the war in Iraq, because our Congress and President had every right to rely on the advice of the CIA that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. On Sunday, September 25, 2005, Tim Russert of Meet The Press, summed up the situation prevailing before the war, saying, "…post September 11th, there was a fear of terrorism, an inability to know whether there were weapons of mass destruction by the public or by the media. George W. Bush said there were. Bill and Hillary Clinton said there were. The Russians, French and Germans, who opposed the war, said there were. Hans Blix of the UN said there were."
Iraq had fought an eight-year war against Iran resulting in a million casualties, using poison gas against the Kurds, who were citizens of Iraq, and against the Iranian army. Yes, since the 2003 invasion, we have not found any present supplies of WMD. Nevertheless, based on advice from CIA counterparts advising every member nation of the United Nations Security Council, the Security Council, including Syria, adopted Resolution 1441 unanimously, finding Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for which it had not accounted and advising Iraq that failure to account was cause for war. Iraq refused to account for them to the U.N. We and our allies were right to invade, notwithstanding that other countries, terrified by the prospect of terrorism against them and tempted by corruption at the UN masterminded by Saddam Hussein through the Oil-For-Food program and lucrative vendor contracts with Hussein's regime, did not join us.
As I have often stated, we have accomplished our original goal to prevent Iraq from threatening us or its regional neighbors. We should declare victory and get out. Yes, there probably will be a civil war among the Kurds, Sunni and Shia. If the UN — which is still under a cloud because of the "Oil for Food" scandal — decides to take a military role in Iraq to stop the civil war, we can join them at that time. Having accomplished our original mission, we should no longer be fulfilling the obligations of other countries, such as Germany and France which have had a free ride to date. Even in Afghanistan, the latter NATO allies, do not participate in combat duty, leaving that and the ensuing casualties for the U.S. to bear.
President George W. Bush summed up his views on Iraq when he stated, "When the Iraqi army stands up, the American Army will stand down." I have low expectations of that happening in the immediate future. The estimates provided by the Bush administration on our getting out range from two to ten years. I do not believe we should wait that long, because of the casualties that would be involved. We should get out now, leaving the UN in charge. Although I believe that we should leave Iraq, I do not accept Sheehan's outrageous statements.
Sheehan has joined those who rail against Israel, labeling Israel as the culprit with her comment, "You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine and the terrorism will stop." Is that why Sunni and other terrorists have intentionally killed thousands of Shia civilians, labeling them, according to al-Zarkawi, infidels? Is that why Arab fundamentalists have declared war against all Christians and Jews?
According to Wikipedia, on August 15, 2005, on the Chris Matthews Show, Sheehan said, "she would not have responded differently to her son's death had he died in Afghanistan rather than in Iraq. Sheehan argued that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was 'almost the same thing as the Iraq war.'" Remember, the UN Security Council authorized the invasion of Afghanistan and the war against the Taliban government.
Sheehan's personal attacks on President Bush include comments in a speech on April 27, 2005, when she said, "We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We're waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush." Shameful.
According to Wikipedia, Sheehan wrote, "Casey was killed in the Global War of Terrorism waged on the world and its own citizens by the biggest terrorist outfit in the world: George and his destructive neo-con cabal."
In an interview on CBS, Sheehan referred to the foreign insurgents coming into Iraq, who are condemned as terrorists even by other Arab countries, as well as the U.S. and Great Britain, as "freedom fighters." On September 16, 2005, she said, "Pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq." On the one hand, she and her supporters urge that the National Guard be brought back from Iraq to be used in New Orleans, and on the other hand, she condemns their use there now.
In addressing a veterans' group on August 5, 2005, she demeaned herself with the use of truly outrageous remarks hurled at the President, describing him as "a lying bastard," "that jerk," "that filth spewer and war monger," and "that evil maniac."
Sheehan appeared this past weekend in Washington, D.C., leading the parade in a picture captured by the media that included Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond and Al Sharpton.
On Monday of this week, while Sheehan and her supporters were in Washington protesting at the White House against the presence of U.S. military forces in Iraq — those forces there at the request of the democratically elected Iraqi government — according to The New York Times, "Armed men dressed as police officers burst into a primary school in a town south of Baghdad on Monday, rounded up five Shiite teachers and their driver, marched them to an empty classroom and killed them, a police official said." Sheehan believes them to be "freedom fighters."
Of course, Sheehan has the right to state her opinion in a country she believes shouldn't be defended. We who disagree with her statements, we who believe this country deserves our thanks, love and willingness to defend it, also have the right to express our views. Speak up, America.
(posted at: http://www.JewishWorldReview.com)
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Former FEMA Director Mike Brown testifying before Congress today. Now, I don't claim to be an expert on FEMA--as I doubt many Americans are--and, I'm not going to say he did a great job during the Katrina Storm--even though it's possible that when the historic record is reviewed he did. No, I'm writing to say GOOD WORK standing up to the blow-hards in Congress and in not letting them stick him like a muzzled pig. They really are a pathetic bunch. Both Democrats and Republicans. They sit back and judge others for what they feel was done wrong, but do you ever hear them criticize themselves? I don't. And, don't you think Congress was in a position to oversee FEMA, the safety of the levees of New Orleans, the inept preparedness of the local authorities on N.O. who are some of the most corrupt in the nation? I do. Since they didn't, they really don't have much right to criticize others in my book.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Emory. Four + years old. The greatest dog in the world! We just learned that he has epilepsy. I've witnessed three seizures over the past 6 weeks or so. He seems ok, and on doctor's orders we just began to treat him with medicine: Potassium Bromide. If it helps, it shouldn't harm him, shouldn't shorten his life, should help to lessen the seizures (in both number and duration), and should just add a few more minutes to his daily dining routine--as I squeeze his medicine into his mouth via a syringe. Fingers crossed!!
Charles Krauthammer is one of my favorite columnists and political analysts. I've mentioned Krauthammer in the blog before, but I thought I'd just take a moment to add a bit more. He is obviously a very bright man, and his medical degree from Harvard is some evidence of that. He worked in the Carter Administration, and was presumably, a strong Democrat. However, like many of us, he came to rethink his politics as time passed, programs failed, thinking on the left atrophied, etc. He has now become a very prominent NeoConservative voice, most often seen on FoxNews and read in the Post and it's syndicated peers. I can't urge anyone enough to read some of his work. It's just plain good! (Here's a link to some columns of his for the Washington Post, that are available on the web: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032401690.html)
Blogger Spam is Annoying!
Just a quick thought: immediate and robotic spam posted to MY blog after I add a post is really annoying!
Streaming Radio on your Pocket PC. This screenshot is an image of Resco Radio. (www.resco.net). This is a great product! There are all kinds of radio stations on the internet that "stream" their broadcasts for free. This sweet app lets you access and play those streams really easily and it also lets you record them at a time of your choosing. The only problem I have so far, is that the app doesn't yet support Windows Media streams. (It is coming, but it's not here yet.) So for now, I use Resco whenever I can, but sometimes I need to rely on Windows Media 10 to hear some of my other favorite "talk and news" stations.
Friday, September 23, 2005
I Hope President Bush appoints another Conservative like Judge Bork to the Supreme Court. He's certainly a bit odd-looking, but the man sure is bright and thoughtful. And, he has the courage to disregard Political Correctness in favor of honest jurisprudence. Sort of what we want in a Justice, don't you think? Now, if you listened to Senator Kennedy, you'd think Bork wanted to return the Nation to the Pre-Civil War Confederacy. But, are you really listening to Kennedy? If so, you are in trouble and are detached from reality. My Senior Sentator's chronograph is stuck in 1969 and he doesn't seem to recognize that most of us are in 2005.
Mr. President, You Don't Have to Micro-Manage Hurricaine Relief.
Why must President Bush spend so much time working on overseeing the storms raining down upon the Gulf Coast States?
Katrina. Rita. Whatever the next one's name is. These are monster storms that bring mother nature's power down on our communities. The devastation can be, has been, and will likely still be emmense in the future from such natural phenomena. (Is that a word?)
Of course I feel great emphathy with the folks suffering the immediate impact of the storms, but I don't want the President spending too much time HIMSELF working on the government's response.
Local governments, State governments, Federal Agencies (FEMA, et al), and relief organizations like the Red Cross, should be in control and should be able to handle the storms. Immediate action must come from the people closest to the event: i.e., the locals. The Feds can backup, followup and assist. But, the Federal Government is not there to be a first responder for big storms. And, I don't want my President to be First Responder in Chief.
I'd rather he work on issues of governing the Nation.
Katrina. Rita. Whatever the next one's name is. These are monster storms that bring mother nature's power down on our communities. The devastation can be, has been, and will likely still be emmense in the future from such natural phenomena. (Is that a word?)
Of course I feel great emphathy with the folks suffering the immediate impact of the storms, but I don't want the President spending too much time HIMSELF working on the government's response.
Local governments, State governments, Federal Agencies (FEMA, et al), and relief organizations like the Red Cross, should be in control and should be able to handle the storms. Immediate action must come from the people closest to the event: i.e., the locals. The Feds can backup, followup and assist. But, the Federal Government is not there to be a first responder for big storms. And, I don't want my President to be First Responder in Chief.
I'd rather he work on issues of governing the Nation.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
The Best Hurricane Katrina Summary Yet, IMHO.
From one of my favorite columnists, Charles Krauthammer, via Townhall.com:
Assigning blame
Charles Krauthammer (back to web version) | email to a friend Recommend to a friend
September 9, 2005
WASHINGTON -- In less enlightened times, there was no catastrophe independent of human agency. When the plague or some other natural disaster struck, witches were burned, Jews were massacred and all felt better (except the witches and Jews).
A few centuries later, our progressive thinkers have progressed not an inch. No fall of a sparrow on this planet is not attributed to sin and human perfidy. The three current favorites are: (1) global warming, (2) the war in Iraq and (3) tax cuts. Katrina hits and the unholy trinity is immediately invoked to damn sinner-in-chief George W. Bush.
This kind of stupidity merits no attention whatsoever, but I'll give it a paragraph. There is no relationship between global warming and the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes. Period. The problem with the evacuation of New Orleans is not that National Guardsmen in Iraq could not get to New Orleans, but that National Guardsmen in Louisiana did not get to New Orleans. As for the Bush tax cuts, administration budget requests for New Orleans flood control during the five Bush years exceed that of the five preceding Clinton years. The notion that the allegedly missing revenues would have been spent wisely by Congress, targeted precisely to the levees of New Orleans, and reconstruction would have been completed in time, is a threefold fallacy. The argument ends when you realize that, as The Washington Post notes, ``the levees that failed were already completed projects."
Let's be clear. The author of this calamity was, first and foremost, Nature (or if you prefer, Nature's God). The suffering was augmented, aided and abetted in descending order of culpability by the following:
1. The mayor of New Orleans. He knows the city. He knows the danger. He knows that during Hurricane Georges in 1998, the use of the Superdome was a disaster and fully two-thirds of the residents never got out of the city. Nothing was done. He declared a mandatory evacuation only 24 hours before Hurricane Katrina hit. He did not even declare a voluntary evacuation until the day before that, at 5 p.m. At that time, he explained that he needed to study his legal authority to call a mandatory evacuation and was hesitating to do so lest the city be sued by hotels and other businesses.
2. The Louisiana governor. It's her job to call up the National Guard and get it to where it has to go. Where the Guard was in the first few days is a mystery. Indeed, she issued an authorization for the National Guard to commandeer school buses to evacuate people on Wednesday afternoon -- more than two days after the hurricane hit and after much of the fleet had already drowned in its parking lots.
3. The head of FEMA. Late, slow and in way over his head. On Thursday he says on national television that he didn't even know there were people in the Convention Center, when anybody watching television could see them there destitute and desperate. Maybe in his vast bureaucracy he can assign three 20-year-olds to watch cable news and give him updates every hour on what in hell is going on.
4. The president. Late, slow and simply out of tune with the urgency and magnitude of the disaster. The second he heard that the levees had been breached in New Orleans, he should have canceled his schedule and addressed the country on national television to mobilize it both emotionally and physically to assist in the disaster. His flyover on the way to Washington was the worst possible symbolism. And his Friday visit was so tone-deaf and politically disastrous that he had to fly back three days later.
5. Congress. Now as always playing holier-than-thou. Perhaps it might ask itself who created the Department of Homeland Security in the first place. The congressional response to all crises is the same -- rearrange the bureaucratic boxes, but be sure to add one extra layer. The last four years of DHS have been spent principally on bureaucratic reorganization (and real estate) instead of, say, a workable plan for as predictable a disaster as a Gulf Coast hurricane.
6. The American people. They have made it impossible for any politician to make any responsible energy policy over the last 30 years -- but that is a column for another day. Now is not the time for constructive suggestions. Now is the time for blame, recriminations and sheer astonishment. Mayor Nagin has announced that, as bodies are still being found and as a public health catastrophe descends upon the city, he is sending 60 percent of his cops on city funds for a little R&R, mostly to Vegas hotels. Asked if it was appropriate to party in these circumstances, he responded: ``New Orleans is a party town. Get over it.''
©2005 Washington Post Writers Group
Assigning blame
Charles Krauthammer (back to web version) | email to a friend Recommend to a friend
September 9, 2005
WASHINGTON -- In less enlightened times, there was no catastrophe independent of human agency. When the plague or some other natural disaster struck, witches were burned, Jews were massacred and all felt better (except the witches and Jews).
A few centuries later, our progressive thinkers have progressed not an inch. No fall of a sparrow on this planet is not attributed to sin and human perfidy. The three current favorites are: (1) global warming, (2) the war in Iraq and (3) tax cuts. Katrina hits and the unholy trinity is immediately invoked to damn sinner-in-chief George W. Bush.
This kind of stupidity merits no attention whatsoever, but I'll give it a paragraph. There is no relationship between global warming and the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes. Period. The problem with the evacuation of New Orleans is not that National Guardsmen in Iraq could not get to New Orleans, but that National Guardsmen in Louisiana did not get to New Orleans. As for the Bush tax cuts, administration budget requests for New Orleans flood control during the five Bush years exceed that of the five preceding Clinton years. The notion that the allegedly missing revenues would have been spent wisely by Congress, targeted precisely to the levees of New Orleans, and reconstruction would have been completed in time, is a threefold fallacy. The argument ends when you realize that, as The Washington Post notes, ``the levees that failed were already completed projects."
Let's be clear. The author of this calamity was, first and foremost, Nature (or if you prefer, Nature's God). The suffering was augmented, aided and abetted in descending order of culpability by the following:
1. The mayor of New Orleans. He knows the city. He knows the danger. He knows that during Hurricane Georges in 1998, the use of the Superdome was a disaster and fully two-thirds of the residents never got out of the city. Nothing was done. He declared a mandatory evacuation only 24 hours before Hurricane Katrina hit. He did not even declare a voluntary evacuation until the day before that, at 5 p.m. At that time, he explained that he needed to study his legal authority to call a mandatory evacuation and was hesitating to do so lest the city be sued by hotels and other businesses.
2. The Louisiana governor. It's her job to call up the National Guard and get it to where it has to go. Where the Guard was in the first few days is a mystery. Indeed, she issued an authorization for the National Guard to commandeer school buses to evacuate people on Wednesday afternoon -- more than two days after the hurricane hit and after much of the fleet had already drowned in its parking lots.
3. The head of FEMA. Late, slow and in way over his head. On Thursday he says on national television that he didn't even know there were people in the Convention Center, when anybody watching television could see them there destitute and desperate. Maybe in his vast bureaucracy he can assign three 20-year-olds to watch cable news and give him updates every hour on what in hell is going on.
4. The president. Late, slow and simply out of tune with the urgency and magnitude of the disaster. The second he heard that the levees had been breached in New Orleans, he should have canceled his schedule and addressed the country on national television to mobilize it both emotionally and physically to assist in the disaster. His flyover on the way to Washington was the worst possible symbolism. And his Friday visit was so tone-deaf and politically disastrous that he had to fly back three days later.
5. Congress. Now as always playing holier-than-thou. Perhaps it might ask itself who created the Department of Homeland Security in the first place. The congressional response to all crises is the same -- rearrange the bureaucratic boxes, but be sure to add one extra layer. The last four years of DHS have been spent principally on bureaucratic reorganization (and real estate) instead of, say, a workable plan for as predictable a disaster as a Gulf Coast hurricane.
6. The American people. They have made it impossible for any politician to make any responsible energy policy over the last 30 years -- but that is a column for another day. Now is not the time for constructive suggestions. Now is the time for blame, recriminations and sheer astonishment. Mayor Nagin has announced that, as bodies are still being found and as a public health catastrophe descends upon the city, he is sending 60 percent of his cops on city funds for a little R&R, mostly to Vegas hotels. Asked if it was appropriate to party in these circumstances, he responded: ``New Orleans is a party town. Get over it.''
©2005 Washington Post Writers Group
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Friday, August 19, 2005
Cindy Sheehan. Feel Free to Speak, but You Don't Know Squat About Geopolitics or Fighting Islamo-Fascists
I'm sorry for her loss, and she should certainly has the right to express her thoughts, but how can anyone take her seriously as an Iraq War (or War on Terrorism) critic?
All of the "Peace" protesters certainly express a grand wish. Peace on earth would be a wonderful thing for all. But, Peace does not necessarily involve other grand notions, such as freedom, democracy, equality, etc. Saddam Hussein's Iraq could be considered "peaceful," but was that fact comforting for the hundreds of thousands (at least) who were executed and brutalized by his regime during his reign? Was the "peace" that existed comforting for the slaves held by Americans before our nation's Civil War? Pre-war Nazi Germany? Do you think the Jews and Gypsys were pleased that their country was not yet at war?
And, isn't it odd that many of these "Peace" protesters today (who incidentally, include and are often led by the "Peace" protesters of the post-Vietnam Cold-War era), often celebrate horrible tyrants who's only virtue seems to be that they are enemies of the American Government? (Leaders such as Castro in Cuba and Stalin in the U.S.S.R.?)
When these people are asked how it's possible to compare the most free and humane nation on earth (us), with our "rivals" abroad, we are told that such comparisons are meaningless, since we hold ourselves to a higher standard. While it's true that we do, isn't that proof our our decency and moral leadership?
Don't call this a fascist country or call Bush a murderer, unless you are arrested by the secret police and tortured for doing so. Since this will never happen, your hyperbole can't be considered serious and even though you deserve prayers and compassion for your loss, your politics are pathetic and foolish.
Leave the Global War on Terrorism to serious people who understand that we are the good guys and that we're fighting the bad guys. This fight will determine whether our nation will continue to exist and permit future "Cindy Sheehans" to spew their ignorance and absurdities.
All of the "Peace" protesters certainly express a grand wish. Peace on earth would be a wonderful thing for all. But, Peace does not necessarily involve other grand notions, such as freedom, democracy, equality, etc. Saddam Hussein's Iraq could be considered "peaceful," but was that fact comforting for the hundreds of thousands (at least) who were executed and brutalized by his regime during his reign? Was the "peace" that existed comforting for the slaves held by Americans before our nation's Civil War? Pre-war Nazi Germany? Do you think the Jews and Gypsys were pleased that their country was not yet at war?
And, isn't it odd that many of these "Peace" protesters today (who incidentally, include and are often led by the "Peace" protesters of the post-Vietnam Cold-War era), often celebrate horrible tyrants who's only virtue seems to be that they are enemies of the American Government? (Leaders such as Castro in Cuba and Stalin in the U.S.S.R.?)
When these people are asked how it's possible to compare the most free and humane nation on earth (us), with our "rivals" abroad, we are told that such comparisons are meaningless, since we hold ourselves to a higher standard. While it's true that we do, isn't that proof our our decency and moral leadership?
Don't call this a fascist country or call Bush a murderer, unless you are arrested by the secret police and tortured for doing so. Since this will never happen, your hyperbole can't be considered serious and even though you deserve prayers and compassion for your loss, your politics are pathetic and foolish.
Leave the Global War on Terrorism to serious people who understand that we are the good guys and that we're fighting the bad guys. This fight will determine whether our nation will continue to exist and permit future "Cindy Sheehans" to spew their ignorance and absurdities.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Sorry I've Been Gone. Are You?
Well, I've been a very bad boy-blogger. I've left you all high and dry for a while now. First I will apologize, as I hate when bloggers do that.
Second, let me explain. Nothing to revelatory (is that a word?), it's just that I had a terrible summer cold a couple of weeks ago, and then I was away with the family for a week, and then I had to to try and catch up with work and life over this past week.
Did I do it? Am I back? Almost.
I'm hoping to add a few post this weekend on the vacation, my hunt for a new car, and a few Supreme Court stories floating around the last couple of weeks. And, maybe even a mention of the Rove silliness.
So, until then, ciao!
Second, let me explain. Nothing to revelatory (is that a word?), it's just that I had a terrible summer cold a couple of weeks ago, and then I was away with the family for a week, and then I had to to try and catch up with work and life over this past week.
Did I do it? Am I back? Almost.
I'm hoping to add a few post this weekend on the vacation, my hunt for a new car, and a few Supreme Court stories floating around the last couple of weeks. And, maybe even a mention of the Rove silliness.
So, until then, ciao!
Friday, July 01, 2005
Friday, June 24, 2005
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
This is what my beautiful VGA Dell Axim X50v screen looks like today. The artistry is not by me, but rather by folks like Juni, mickesj, and Swampy. The software is by super developers like Amit at SBSH, Chris at Lakeridge Software, and Spb Software house. We PPC-addicts are a little bit soft in the head, so you must forgive us our excesses.
Want to Read a Couple of Reviews I Wrote?
If anyone's interested, my latest review at www.mobiletechreview.com has been posted.
The review is of a series of beautiful cases for the Dell Axim X50/X50v Pocket PC. My Axim is a super machine that keeps me busy for many hours a day. Scheduling, web surfing, watching home movies and viewing digital pix, checking email, games, etc., it's really an amazing tool. (Which is funny, as that's what my wife says about me.)
Here's the link: http://www.mobiletechreview.com/tips/Dell-Axim-X50-Cases-Review.htm
My earlier review for the same site (but when it was called www.pdabuyersguide.com) is located here: http://www.mobiletechreview.com/tips/Dell_Axim_X3_cases.htm
Hope you like them! Mobiletechreview is a really good site for tiny notebooks, pdas, gps systems, Sony PSP information and games, smartphones/pocket pc phones, accessories and other goodies.
The review is of a series of beautiful cases for the Dell Axim X50/X50v Pocket PC. My Axim is a super machine that keeps me busy for many hours a day. Scheduling, web surfing, watching home movies and viewing digital pix, checking email, games, etc., it's really an amazing tool. (Which is funny, as that's what my wife says about me.)
Here's the link: http://www.mobiletechreview.com/tips/Dell-Axim-X50-Cases-Review.htm
My earlier review for the same site (but when it was called www.pdabuyersguide.com) is located here: http://www.mobiletechreview.com/tips/Dell_Axim_X3_cases.htm
Hope you like them! Mobiletechreview is a really good site for tiny notebooks, pdas, gps systems, Sony PSP information and games, smartphones/pocket pc phones, accessories and other goodies.
Local Illegal Immigrant Outrage
Here's an article from the Salem Evening News in Massachusetts. (www.salemnews.com)
An illegal immigrant from Brazil plowed into a Salem police officer doing a road detail. She then lied about her identity. She's getting a little jail sentence, but hardly enough. The officer may never be able to return to his job. It is an invasion, as Michelle Malkin says. Go to the website to find the picture and article.
Illegal immigrant imprisoned for running down patrolman
Nilma Goncalves Figueiredo,23, sits with a Portuguese interpreter appointed by the court during her court session Monday afternoon before Judge Santo Ruma. Michael Shea and his wife Melissa are in the background Photo by Jim Daly/Salem News.
By Julie Manganis
Staff writer
PEABODY — An illegal immigrant from Brazil was sentenced to six months in jail yesterday for causing an accident that seriously injured a Salem patrolman and then giving police a false name.
But before she was sentenced, Nilma Goncalves Figueiredo, 23, apologized in court to the man she ran down.
"I'm feeling very badly," she said, through a Portuguese interpreter, "because I caused these injuries to this officer. I want him to forgive me."
"I'm very glad you said that," Peabody District Court Judge Santo Ruma responded. "You almost took a man's life."
Whether her victim, veteran Salem police officer Michael Shea, will forgive her is a question he would not answer yesterday afternoon, as he avoided reporters waiting to speak with him after Figueiredo's plea hearing.
On the evening of April 13, Shea was working a detail at a gas leak on Tremont Street in downtown Peabody. As he directed traffic around two Keyspan trucks, Figueiredo clipped him with the right side of the Honda Accord she was driving.
The impact knocked Shea off his feet and onto the hood of the sedan. He hit the back of his head against the windshield and was then thrown from the car onto the pavement, prosecutor William Melkonian said.
A state police accident-reconstruction team concluded that Figueiredo was driving between 17 and 20 mph, well below the 30 mph speed limit. She simply wasn't paying attention, Melkonian said.
After the accident, Shea was flown to a Boston hospital where he was put into a medically induced coma because of swelling in his brain. While he has regained his mental abilities, he still suffers headaches and dizziness, the prosecutor said.
And his leg was badly damaged. Doctors had to insert a metal plate and eight titanium screws in his leg to repair it. Melkonian said the plate and screws will be permanent. It's still unclear whether he will ever return to the police force, a job Shea, 39, held for 18 years.
Shea did not speak at all during yesterday's hearing.
Figueiredo has formally been deported, but immigration officials have promised prosecutors they will not put her on a plane to Brazil until she completes her sentence, which will be served at Framingham State Prison.
She was given credit for 27 days she was held in jail before her bail was posted, and could also receive credit at the jail that could further reduce her time behind bars. She will be deported upon her release.
'Hoping to help her family'
It's not the outcome she was hoping for when she crossed the border between Mexico and Texas back on April 4, and then — after being released by the Border Patrol with an order to leave the country within 30 days — took a bus to Boston.
On the night of the accident, her lawyer said, she had been allowed by her passenger to drive the car, which was owned by a Salem woman, Lizette Faria. Figueiredo was heading to Salem to pick up a book that would help her learn English, the lawyer said.
Shea has filed a civil lawsuit against both Figueiredo and Faria.
"She had hoped to find the American dream and to be able to help her family," said defense lawyer Mark Gallant. Her sister suffers from a club foot, and Figueiredo told him she wanted to make money to help pay for medical treatment.
But Figueiredo appears to have had another reason for coming here, according to Danielli Limos, a Brazilian journalist who has been covering the case for a Portuguese-language newspaper, O Jornal.
A young man named Patricio, who was Figueiredo's boyfriend in Brazil, is in the United States on a work visa, a document Figueiredo was unable to obtain herself. Patricio was in court Friday and again yesterday for Figueiredo's hearing. During the hearing, he was crying.
Melkonian had urged the judge to send Figueiredo to jail for eight months — six months for the crash and another two months for giving police the false name of Leila Lopes and saying she was just 17.
Gallant, meanwhile, urged the judge to impose a sentence of time served, meaning she would have been sent back to Brazil with no further jail time.
Ruma imposed a sentence of four months for driving to endanger charge and another two months for giving a false name.
An illegal immigrant from Brazil plowed into a Salem police officer doing a road detail. She then lied about her identity. She's getting a little jail sentence, but hardly enough. The officer may never be able to return to his job. It is an invasion, as Michelle Malkin says. Go to the website to find the picture and article.
Illegal immigrant imprisoned for running down patrolman
Nilma Goncalves Figueiredo,23, sits with a Portuguese interpreter appointed by the court during her court session Monday afternoon before Judge Santo Ruma. Michael Shea and his wife Melissa are in the background Photo by Jim Daly/Salem News.
By Julie Manganis
Staff writer
PEABODY — An illegal immigrant from Brazil was sentenced to six months in jail yesterday for causing an accident that seriously injured a Salem patrolman and then giving police a false name.
But before she was sentenced, Nilma Goncalves Figueiredo, 23, apologized in court to the man she ran down.
"I'm feeling very badly," she said, through a Portuguese interpreter, "because I caused these injuries to this officer. I want him to forgive me."
"I'm very glad you said that," Peabody District Court Judge Santo Ruma responded. "You almost took a man's life."
Whether her victim, veteran Salem police officer Michael Shea, will forgive her is a question he would not answer yesterday afternoon, as he avoided reporters waiting to speak with him after Figueiredo's plea hearing.
On the evening of April 13, Shea was working a detail at a gas leak on Tremont Street in downtown Peabody. As he directed traffic around two Keyspan trucks, Figueiredo clipped him with the right side of the Honda Accord she was driving.
The impact knocked Shea off his feet and onto the hood of the sedan. He hit the back of his head against the windshield and was then thrown from the car onto the pavement, prosecutor William Melkonian said.
A state police accident-reconstruction team concluded that Figueiredo was driving between 17 and 20 mph, well below the 30 mph speed limit. She simply wasn't paying attention, Melkonian said.
After the accident, Shea was flown to a Boston hospital where he was put into a medically induced coma because of swelling in his brain. While he has regained his mental abilities, he still suffers headaches and dizziness, the prosecutor said.
And his leg was badly damaged. Doctors had to insert a metal plate and eight titanium screws in his leg to repair it. Melkonian said the plate and screws will be permanent. It's still unclear whether he will ever return to the police force, a job Shea, 39, held for 18 years.
Shea did not speak at all during yesterday's hearing.
Figueiredo has formally been deported, but immigration officials have promised prosecutors they will not put her on a plane to Brazil until she completes her sentence, which will be served at Framingham State Prison.
She was given credit for 27 days she was held in jail before her bail was posted, and could also receive credit at the jail that could further reduce her time behind bars. She will be deported upon her release.
'Hoping to help her family'
It's not the outcome she was hoping for when she crossed the border between Mexico and Texas back on April 4, and then — after being released by the Border Patrol with an order to leave the country within 30 days — took a bus to Boston.
On the night of the accident, her lawyer said, she had been allowed by her passenger to drive the car, which was owned by a Salem woman, Lizette Faria. Figueiredo was heading to Salem to pick up a book that would help her learn English, the lawyer said.
Shea has filed a civil lawsuit against both Figueiredo and Faria.
"She had hoped to find the American dream and to be able to help her family," said defense lawyer Mark Gallant. Her sister suffers from a club foot, and Figueiredo told him she wanted to make money to help pay for medical treatment.
But Figueiredo appears to have had another reason for coming here, according to Danielli Limos, a Brazilian journalist who has been covering the case for a Portuguese-language newspaper, O Jornal.
A young man named Patricio, who was Figueiredo's boyfriend in Brazil, is in the United States on a work visa, a document Figueiredo was unable to obtain herself. Patricio was in court Friday and again yesterday for Figueiredo's hearing. During the hearing, he was crying.
Melkonian had urged the judge to send Figueiredo to jail for eight months — six months for the crash and another two months for giving police the false name of Leila Lopes and saying she was just 17.
Gallant, meanwhile, urged the judge to impose a sentence of time served, meaning she would have been sent back to Brazil with no further jail time.
Ruma imposed a sentence of four months for driving to endanger charge and another two months for giving a false name.
A "Right Nation" Update at the WSJ Opinionjournal.com
As I listed it in my bio, I really like the Right Nation book published sometime before the 2004 Presidential election. The authors, Brits who write about America in The Economist, brought a sharp outsider's perspective of our political culture, which demonstrated an astute understanding of our nation.
They've written an editorial published at the WSJ's Opinionjournal.com free site. I've reposted it here in case the link stops working. I think it's interesting and a reminder of the big picture for American Conservatives:
THE RIGHT NATION
Cheer Up, Conservatives!
You're still winning.
BY JOHN MICKLETHWAIT AND ADRIAN WOOLDRIDGE
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
The second-century physician Galen observed famously: "Triste est omne animal post coitum." So perhaps it was inevitable that such a lusty beast as American conservatism should fall prey to unhappiness sometime after its greatest electoral seduction. All the same, the droopy state of the American right these days is unnatural.
Last November, American conservatives were full of grand visions of a permanent revolution, with spending brought back under control, Social Security privatized, conservatives filling the federal bench, and a great depression visited on the lawsuit industry. Six months later, listening to conservatives is as uplifting as reading William Styron's "Darkness Visible." Larry Kudlow bemoans "the dreariest political spring." John Derbyshire worries about the "twilight of conservatism" as the Republicans go the way of Britain's Tories. For Pat Buchanan "the conservative movement has passed into history"--much as, some would say, Mr. Buchanan himself has done.
Conservatives whinge that George Bush has presided over a huge increase in federal spending. Social Security reform is stalled. A plan to deprive the Democrats of the power to filibuster Supreme Court nominees failed at the 11th hour, when seven Republican Senators defected. America is confronting protracted resistance in Iraq. And, needless to say, liberals remain firmly in charge of the commanding heights of American culture, from the Ivy League to the Hollywood studios.
All true. But it is time for conservatives to cheer up. Fixate on a snapshot of recent events and pessimism makes sense. Stand back and look at the grand sweep of things and the darkness soon lifts. There are two questions that really matter in assessing the current state of conservatism: What direction is America moving in? And how does the United States compare with the rest of the world? The answer to both questions should encourage the right.
The Republicans have by far the most powerful political machine in the country. Last November, the Democrats threw everything they had at George Bush, from the pent-up fury of a "stolen election" to the millions of George Soros. Liberals outspent and out-ranted conservatives, and pushed up Democratic turnout by 12%. But the Republicans increased their turnout by a fifth.
Crucially, George Bush won as a conservative: He did not "triangulate" or hide behind a fuzzy "Morning in America" message. Against the background of an unpopular war and an arguably dodgy economy, he positioned himself to the right, betting that conservative America was bigger than liberal America. And it was: The exit polls showed both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry won 85% of their base, but self-described "conservatives" accounted for nearly a third of the electorate while liberals were only a fifth. Mr. Bush could afford to lose "moderates" to Mr. Kerry by nine points--and still end up with 51% of the vote, more than any Democrat has got since 1964.
It is true that, since those glory days, the Republican Party has lost some of its discipline. Once-loyal members of Congress have defied a threat of a presidential veto on both highway spending and stem-cell research. It is also true that the liberal wing of the party is enjoying an Indian Summer. Opinion polls suggest that John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are the two favorites for the Republican nomination in 2008.
But is this loss of steam really all that remarkable? All second-term presidents face restlessness in the ranks. And the noise is arguably a sign of strength. The Democrats would give a lot to have a big-tent party as capacious as the Republicans'. One of the reasons the GOP manages to contain Southern theocrats as well as Western libertarians is that it encourages arguments rather than suppressing them. Go to a meeting of young conservatives in Washington and the atmosphere crackles with ideas, much as it did in London in the heyday of the Thatcher revolution. The Democrats barely know what a debate is.
Moreover, it is not as if the Republican moderates really pose a long-term threat to the conservatives. The High Command of the party--Messrs. Bush, Cheney, Frist, Hastert and DeLay--are all from the right. Even Messrs. McCain and Giuliani are better described as mavericks rather than liberals. Mr. Giuliani is as resolute on terrorism as Churchill would have been; Mr. McCain mixes social conservatism with media-pleasing iconoclasm. Both these alleged RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) are further to the right than Ronald Reagan on plenty of issues.
Political success is not everything, of course. Reassure conservatives about the Republican Party, and you get an inevitable retort: that the Republicans are doing well, but conservatism, either of the fiscal or social sort, is not. Stand back a little, however, and this, too, looks over-pessimistic.
Consider, for instance, Mr. Bush's failure to control public spending. The White House points out that some of the splurge is thanks to Clinton-mandated programs. This can hardly apply to the prescription-drug benefit or the pork-stuffed farm bill. All the same, other bits of big-government conservatism have a decidedly ideological edge. Schools have been given more money, but only in return for tougher standards. Money has gone into social programs, but with a clear attempt to encourage self-discipline. The Bush administration is trying to practice "statecraft as soulcraft" (to borrow a phrase from George Will): to use government for conservative ends--to reinforce family values and individual self-discipline, and to give poorer Americans the skills they need to rise in a market economy.
The essential conservatism of Mr. Bush's approach is all the clearer if you compare it with the big-government liberalism of the 1960s--or with the big-government reality of European countries that American liberals are so keen to emulate. Mr. Bush is not using government to redistribute wealth (unless you own an oil company), to reward sloth or to coddle the poor. And government in America remains a shriveled thing by European standards. Some 40 years after the Great Society, America still has no national health service; it asks students to pay as much as $40,000 a year for a university education; it gives mothers only a few weeks of maternity leave.
What about values? Back in the 1960s, it was axiomatic amongst the elite that religion was doomed. In "The Secular City" (1965), Harvey Cox argued that Christianity had to come to terms with a secular culture. Now religion of the most basic sort is back with a vengeance. The president, his secretary of state, the House speaker and Senate majority leader are all evangelical Christians. Ted Haggard, the head of the 30-million strong National Association of Evangelicals, jokes that the only disagreement between himself and the leader of the Western world is automotive: Mr. Bush drives a Ford pickup, whereas he prefers a Chevy.
Rather than dying a slow death, evangelical Protestantism and hard-core Catholicism are bursting out all over the place. Who would have predicted, back in the 1960s, the success of "The Passion of the Christ," the "Left Behind" series or "The Purpose Driven Life"? To be sure, liberals still control universities, but, thanks to its rive droite of think tanks in Washington and many state capitals, the right has a firm control of the political-ideas business.
Indeed, the left has reached the same level of fury that the right reached in the 1960s--but with none of the intellectual inventiveness. On everything from Social Security to foreign policy to economic policy, it is reduced merely to opposing conservative ideas. This strategy may have punctured the Bush reforms on Social Security, but it has also bared a deeper weakness for the left. In the 1960s, the conservative movement coalesced around several simple propositions--lower taxes, more religion, an America-first foreign policy--that eventually revolutionized politics. The modern left is split on all these issues, between New Democrats and back-to-basics liberals.
The biggest advantage of all for conservatives is that they have a lock on the American dream. America is famously an idea more than a geographical expression, and that idea seems to be the province of the right. A recent Pew Research Center Survey, "Beyond Red Versus Blue," shows that the Republicans are more optimistic, convinced that the future will be better than the past and that they can determine their own futures. Democrats, on the other hand, have a European belief that "fate," or, in modern parlance, social circumstances, determines people's lot in life. (And judging by some recent series in newspapers on the subject, the party appears to have staunch allies in American newsrooms at least.)
If the American dream means anything, it means finding a plot of land where you can shape your destiny and raise your children. Those pragmatic dreamers look ever more Republican. Mr. Bush walloped Mr. Kerry among people who were married with children. He also carried 25 of the top 26 cities in terms of white fertility. Mr. Kerry carried the bottom 16. San Francisco, the citadel of liberalism, has the lowest proportion of people under 18 in the country (14.5%).
So cheer up conservatives. You have the country's most powerful political party on your side. You have control of the market for political ideas. You have the American dream. And, despite your bout of triste post coitum, you are still outbreeding your rivals. That counts for more than the odd setback in the Senate.
Messrs Micklethwait and Wooldridge, who work for The Economist, are the authors of "The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America," just out in paperback from Penguin.
They've written an editorial published at the WSJ's Opinionjournal.com free site. I've reposted it here in case the link stops working. I think it's interesting and a reminder of the big picture for American Conservatives:
THE RIGHT NATION
Cheer Up, Conservatives!
You're still winning.
BY JOHN MICKLETHWAIT AND ADRIAN WOOLDRIDGE
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
The second-century physician Galen observed famously: "Triste est omne animal post coitum." So perhaps it was inevitable that such a lusty beast as American conservatism should fall prey to unhappiness sometime after its greatest electoral seduction. All the same, the droopy state of the American right these days is unnatural.
Last November, American conservatives were full of grand visions of a permanent revolution, with spending brought back under control, Social Security privatized, conservatives filling the federal bench, and a great depression visited on the lawsuit industry. Six months later, listening to conservatives is as uplifting as reading William Styron's "Darkness Visible." Larry Kudlow bemoans "the dreariest political spring." John Derbyshire worries about the "twilight of conservatism" as the Republicans go the way of Britain's Tories. For Pat Buchanan "the conservative movement has passed into history"--much as, some would say, Mr. Buchanan himself has done.
Conservatives whinge that George Bush has presided over a huge increase in federal spending. Social Security reform is stalled. A plan to deprive the Democrats of the power to filibuster Supreme Court nominees failed at the 11th hour, when seven Republican Senators defected. America is confronting protracted resistance in Iraq. And, needless to say, liberals remain firmly in charge of the commanding heights of American culture, from the Ivy League to the Hollywood studios.
All true. But it is time for conservatives to cheer up. Fixate on a snapshot of recent events and pessimism makes sense. Stand back and look at the grand sweep of things and the darkness soon lifts. There are two questions that really matter in assessing the current state of conservatism: What direction is America moving in? And how does the United States compare with the rest of the world? The answer to both questions should encourage the right.
The Republicans have by far the most powerful political machine in the country. Last November, the Democrats threw everything they had at George Bush, from the pent-up fury of a "stolen election" to the millions of George Soros. Liberals outspent and out-ranted conservatives, and pushed up Democratic turnout by 12%. But the Republicans increased their turnout by a fifth.
Crucially, George Bush won as a conservative: He did not "triangulate" or hide behind a fuzzy "Morning in America" message. Against the background of an unpopular war and an arguably dodgy economy, he positioned himself to the right, betting that conservative America was bigger than liberal America. And it was: The exit polls showed both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry won 85% of their base, but self-described "conservatives" accounted for nearly a third of the electorate while liberals were only a fifth. Mr. Bush could afford to lose "moderates" to Mr. Kerry by nine points--and still end up with 51% of the vote, more than any Democrat has got since 1964.
It is true that, since those glory days, the Republican Party has lost some of its discipline. Once-loyal members of Congress have defied a threat of a presidential veto on both highway spending and stem-cell research. It is also true that the liberal wing of the party is enjoying an Indian Summer. Opinion polls suggest that John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are the two favorites for the Republican nomination in 2008.
But is this loss of steam really all that remarkable? All second-term presidents face restlessness in the ranks. And the noise is arguably a sign of strength. The Democrats would give a lot to have a big-tent party as capacious as the Republicans'. One of the reasons the GOP manages to contain Southern theocrats as well as Western libertarians is that it encourages arguments rather than suppressing them. Go to a meeting of young conservatives in Washington and the atmosphere crackles with ideas, much as it did in London in the heyday of the Thatcher revolution. The Democrats barely know what a debate is.
Moreover, it is not as if the Republican moderates really pose a long-term threat to the conservatives. The High Command of the party--Messrs. Bush, Cheney, Frist, Hastert and DeLay--are all from the right. Even Messrs. McCain and Giuliani are better described as mavericks rather than liberals. Mr. Giuliani is as resolute on terrorism as Churchill would have been; Mr. McCain mixes social conservatism with media-pleasing iconoclasm. Both these alleged RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) are further to the right than Ronald Reagan on plenty of issues.
Political success is not everything, of course. Reassure conservatives about the Republican Party, and you get an inevitable retort: that the Republicans are doing well, but conservatism, either of the fiscal or social sort, is not. Stand back a little, however, and this, too, looks over-pessimistic.
Consider, for instance, Mr. Bush's failure to control public spending. The White House points out that some of the splurge is thanks to Clinton-mandated programs. This can hardly apply to the prescription-drug benefit or the pork-stuffed farm bill. All the same, other bits of big-government conservatism have a decidedly ideological edge. Schools have been given more money, but only in return for tougher standards. Money has gone into social programs, but with a clear attempt to encourage self-discipline. The Bush administration is trying to practice "statecraft as soulcraft" (to borrow a phrase from George Will): to use government for conservative ends--to reinforce family values and individual self-discipline, and to give poorer Americans the skills they need to rise in a market economy.
The essential conservatism of Mr. Bush's approach is all the clearer if you compare it with the big-government liberalism of the 1960s--or with the big-government reality of European countries that American liberals are so keen to emulate. Mr. Bush is not using government to redistribute wealth (unless you own an oil company), to reward sloth or to coddle the poor. And government in America remains a shriveled thing by European standards. Some 40 years after the Great Society, America still has no national health service; it asks students to pay as much as $40,000 a year for a university education; it gives mothers only a few weeks of maternity leave.
What about values? Back in the 1960s, it was axiomatic amongst the elite that religion was doomed. In "The Secular City" (1965), Harvey Cox argued that Christianity had to come to terms with a secular culture. Now religion of the most basic sort is back with a vengeance. The president, his secretary of state, the House speaker and Senate majority leader are all evangelical Christians. Ted Haggard, the head of the 30-million strong National Association of Evangelicals, jokes that the only disagreement between himself and the leader of the Western world is automotive: Mr. Bush drives a Ford pickup, whereas he prefers a Chevy.
Rather than dying a slow death, evangelical Protestantism and hard-core Catholicism are bursting out all over the place. Who would have predicted, back in the 1960s, the success of "The Passion of the Christ," the "Left Behind" series or "The Purpose Driven Life"? To be sure, liberals still control universities, but, thanks to its rive droite of think tanks in Washington and many state capitals, the right has a firm control of the political-ideas business.
Indeed, the left has reached the same level of fury that the right reached in the 1960s--but with none of the intellectual inventiveness. On everything from Social Security to foreign policy to economic policy, it is reduced merely to opposing conservative ideas. This strategy may have punctured the Bush reforms on Social Security, but it has also bared a deeper weakness for the left. In the 1960s, the conservative movement coalesced around several simple propositions--lower taxes, more religion, an America-first foreign policy--that eventually revolutionized politics. The modern left is split on all these issues, between New Democrats and back-to-basics liberals.
The biggest advantage of all for conservatives is that they have a lock on the American dream. America is famously an idea more than a geographical expression, and that idea seems to be the province of the right. A recent Pew Research Center Survey, "Beyond Red Versus Blue," shows that the Republicans are more optimistic, convinced that the future will be better than the past and that they can determine their own futures. Democrats, on the other hand, have a European belief that "fate," or, in modern parlance, social circumstances, determines people's lot in life. (And judging by some recent series in newspapers on the subject, the party appears to have staunch allies in American newsrooms at least.)
If the American dream means anything, it means finding a plot of land where you can shape your destiny and raise your children. Those pragmatic dreamers look ever more Republican. Mr. Bush walloped Mr. Kerry among people who were married with children. He also carried 25 of the top 26 cities in terms of white fertility. Mr. Kerry carried the bottom 16. San Francisco, the citadel of liberalism, has the lowest proportion of people under 18 in the country (14.5%).
So cheer up conservatives. You have the country's most powerful political party on your side. You have control of the market for political ideas. You have the American dream. And, despite your bout of triste post coitum, you are still outbreeding your rivals. That counts for more than the odd setback in the Senate.
Messrs Micklethwait and Wooldridge, who work for The Economist, are the authors of "The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America," just out in paperback from Penguin.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Rush Limbaugh. For the MANY who claim that he spews hate, is a "mouthpiece" for the Bush Administration, is a liar, is a bigot, I have just one question: have you ever listened to his radio show? Not have you read transcripts, or heard excerpts. Have you actually listened to the show? For an hour or so, and for at least a week or so? You might want to try it before you prejudge. I'll tell you what, my preconceptions about Rush were 180 degrees off of the reality. Where did I get the preconceptions? From reading, watching, and listening to the mainstream media my whole life. Thanks God for the alternative media. The monopoly of misinformation has been beaten back!
O'Reilly really is an A-hole. I think it's hilarious when a liberal friend points to Bill O'Reilly when they are attacking Fox News. I think to a liberal, O'Reilly is a Conservative. To a Conservative, he's a...well, not really sure, just know he's not one of us. Actually, he's a Bill-otarian. What's a Bill-otarian? It's someone who believes that the world revolves around Bill O'Reilly, and that he's the source of all wisdom, knowledge, and truth. I'd say that political party has about 1 member. The rest of us? Well, those of us who occasionally watch his show (which is often nearly impossible to do), find ourselves there because we turned on Fox News for Brit Hume's excellent Special Report broadcast at 6:00 pm, and because the alternatives are EVEN WORSE if you can believe it! Do I need to mention Keith Olberman??? God help us with primetime TV. Where did I leave that copy of National Review or Weekly Standard anyway...
Happy Father's Day
Happy Father's Day to any other fathers out there in the vast www. This is my second, and now that my baby is getting a little older, it was a lot of fun! Children are really what this life is all about. I can't wait until next year!
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Michael Jackson--pre-acquittal. Troubling freak. Likely child predator. Probably correctly acquitted in THIS case. I am no fan of Michael Jackson. And, I think he is likely a child predator. But, his recent criminal trial seems like a good example of our American Criminal Justic System working properly. In our system, we let 12 guilty go free, to ensure that one innocent isn't wrongfully convicted. Are there terrible consequences from this approach? Yes. Many people are harmed by people who have been acquitted, but who were not innocent. Is it worth it? I think so. For the system to maintain any moral authority, the citizens must be confident that it is doing all that it can to protect the rights of the innocent. In the process, some "not-innocent" people are found not guilty. Even with this price, I don't think there's ever been a better system.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Anysoldier.com. What a Great Site!
Just found this site. [http://anysoldier.com/index.cfm]
It looks like a great way to send needed care packages to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are on the front lines and who are lacking some contact and some little treats from back home.
Check out the site and click through the pix. It seems like it started out as a nice and simple idea of a serving soldier, and it blossomed into a really successful project.
Now I've gotta find a soldier and figure out what I want to send. Maybe I'll even get some email and some visits from some of our soldiers who can tell us what they're really doing and accomplishing--which many in the media don't seem interested in conveying to those of us who care back in the States.
It looks like a great way to send needed care packages to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are on the front lines and who are lacking some contact and some little treats from back home.
Check out the site and click through the pix. It seems like it started out as a nice and simple idea of a serving soldier, and it blossomed into a really successful project.
Now I've gotta find a soldier and figure out what I want to send. Maybe I'll even get some email and some visits from some of our soldiers who can tell us what they're really doing and accomplishing--which many in the media don't seem interested in conveying to those of us who care back in the States.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin. Undoubtedly about to impart some really foolish "wisdom." Did you hear about his latest rant on the US Senate floor? He compared the behavior of US soldiers at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center holding suspected Islamo-fascist, barbarian, savages, with the conduct of the Stalin Communists, the Nazi's and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia after the Viet Nam War. How do these liberal Democrat leaders expect us to do anything but change the channel when they speak? Their complaints and criticisms are so absurd, juvenile and outrageous that they're not worthy of serious consideration. In my opinion, we are much more humane and decent than we need to be or should be with this enemy. Their brutality must be matched with greater (albeit more civilized) brutality. What do I mean? Well, while they try and kill civilians and children by car bombs and beheadings, we should use our precision guided weaponry to incinerate suspected terrorists, wherever they might be. We will never try to harm civilians, but we must show no mercy when it comes to destroying the enemy. Any less will be seen as a sign of weakness and will only encourage greater terrorism in the hopes of breaking our will. With fools like Durbin providing the verbal ammunition, is it any wonder that they think this way?
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Just Added a Site Meter/Counter
Wondering if anyone is coming here--even if by accident. I just added a site meter to help to see. If you do find yourself here, please feel free to post a comment, suggestion, or a rebuttal to one of my many "stream of consciousness" posts. (I don't start out intending for them to be SOC posts, but they seem to end up that way when I get really annoyed or frustrated.) Thanks!
I love this! Wonkette apparently doesn't, which makes me love it even more.
Reprinted in it's entirety from www.worldnetdialy.com :
WAR ON TERRORBush urged: 'Never apologize' to MuslimsAdministration officials reportedly inspired by classic John Wayne movie
Posted: June 7, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Some members of the Bush administration have taken a cue from a classic John Wayne Western and are advising their boss to take the film's advice – "Never apologize" – when dealing with Muslims, reports geopolitical analysts Jack Wheeler.
In a column on his intelligence website, To the Point, Wheeler explains Wayne's "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon," made in 1948, though lesser known than many of the star's films, includes what's been called one of the top 100 movie quotes of all time.
Wayne's character, Capt. Nathan Brittles, who is facing an Indian attack, advises a junior officer: "Never apologize, son. It's a sign of weakness."
It's that attitude that some employees of the Pentagon, State Department and White House are urging President Bush to take when dealing with charges of Quran desecration and other allegations from radical Muslims. They've even sent a DVD copy of the film to the commander in chief.
"Their numbers are small," explains Wheeler, "but they are seriously sick and tired of squishing-out to the hadjis (the nickname our soldiers give the Muslim terrorists in Iraq and their sympathizers – pronounced 'hah-geez,' referring to the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca called the hadj). These sympathizers now include not just rioters on Pakistani streets but Newsweek magazine and Amnesty International.
"'The more we kiss the hadjis' tushes, the more they denounce us and the less they respect us,' one of them told me. 'Just take a look at the DOD's procedures for the handling and inspecting of detainee Korans . You won't believe how impossibly respectful and careful they are. What good does this do us? All we get is lies, lawsuits and riots in return.'"
Wheeler says the goal of the John Wayne aficionados is to eliminate any "We're sorry" message in State Department cables and communiqués, National Security Council analyses, and Pentagon press briefings – "and inserting in their place, however subtly worded in diplo-speak, the message: 'If you don't like it, stuff it.'"
In his column, Wheeler quotes from a message the anti-apology staffers would like to see in a future Bush speech:
I want to make it very clear that neither this administration nor the American military nor the American people owe an apology whatsoever to the religion of Islam and its believers. The American people have every right to take enormous pride in the respect which our military treats believers in Islam, and in the fact that the American military is not just the most powerful but the most humanitarian fighting force in the history of humankind. It is the Islamic terrorists and their followers who owe us an apology for making war on us, and owe an apology to their fellow believers in Islam for making war on them.
Writes Wheeler: "So cross your fingers he takes the movie and the message to heart. The day the president of the United States announces that Muslims owe an apology to us and not the other way around will be the day we truly begin to win this war."
WAR ON TERRORBush urged: 'Never apologize' to MuslimsAdministration officials reportedly inspired by classic John Wayne movie
Posted: June 7, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Some members of the Bush administration have taken a cue from a classic John Wayne Western and are advising their boss to take the film's advice – "Never apologize" – when dealing with Muslims, reports geopolitical analysts Jack Wheeler.
In a column on his intelligence website, To the Point, Wheeler explains Wayne's "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon," made in 1948, though lesser known than many of the star's films, includes what's been called one of the top 100 movie quotes of all time.
Wayne's character, Capt. Nathan Brittles, who is facing an Indian attack, advises a junior officer: "Never apologize, son. It's a sign of weakness."
It's that attitude that some employees of the Pentagon, State Department and White House are urging President Bush to take when dealing with charges of Quran desecration and other allegations from radical Muslims. They've even sent a DVD copy of the film to the commander in chief.
"Their numbers are small," explains Wheeler, "but they are seriously sick and tired of squishing-out to the hadjis (the nickname our soldiers give the Muslim terrorists in Iraq and their sympathizers – pronounced 'hah-geez,' referring to the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca called the hadj). These sympathizers now include not just rioters on Pakistani streets but Newsweek magazine and Amnesty International.
"'The more we kiss the hadjis' tushes, the more they denounce us and the less they respect us,' one of them told me. 'Just take a look at the DOD's procedures for the handling and inspecting of detainee Korans . You won't believe how impossibly respectful and careful they are. What good does this do us? All we get is lies, lawsuits and riots in return.'"
Wheeler says the goal of the John Wayne aficionados is to eliminate any "We're sorry" message in State Department cables and communiqués, National Security Council analyses, and Pentagon press briefings – "and inserting in their place, however subtly worded in diplo-speak, the message: 'If you don't like it, stuff it.'"
In his column, Wheeler quotes from a message the anti-apology staffers would like to see in a future Bush speech:
I want to make it very clear that neither this administration nor the American military nor the American people owe an apology whatsoever to the religion of Islam and its believers. The American people have every right to take enormous pride in the respect which our military treats believers in Islam, and in the fact that the American military is not just the most powerful but the most humanitarian fighting force in the history of humankind. It is the Islamic terrorists and their followers who owe us an apology for making war on us, and owe an apology to their fellow believers in Islam for making war on them.
Writes Wheeler: "So cross your fingers he takes the movie and the message to heart. The day the president of the United States announces that Muslims owe an apology to us and not the other way around will be the day we truly begin to win this war."
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Wow! This is not a handsome man. Actually, I think this is a John F. Kerry picture from his Yale days. Funny thing, though. His grades from college have been released to the Boston Globe, and it turns out they're a little lower than President Bush's were from his Yale days. I guess Kerry wasn't the superior intellect that his supporters smugly proclaimed him to be. I never bought the "nuance" crap, anyhow. To me, he was indecisive and always trying to be on both-sides in every issue so that he could always be "right." Of course, it also made him "wrong" on every issue, too. Bush, he just tries to make a good decision and he sticks to it if he thinks it was the right one. Articulate? No, Bush isn't. Bright, courageous, grounded and steady? You betcha! That's why he got my vote.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Posting in bed.
Gotta love technology. Posting this from on top of my pillow with my Dell Axim X50v and wifi! One day it'll probably be telepathic posting. Wow!
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Admiring their legacy. It's ok to move on, guys. Watergate was 30-plus years ago. Deep Throat Made Them Rich and Famous. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein made a career publishing leaked information provided by a top F.B.I. agent upset at being passed-over for the top job after Hoover retired. Did they provide the public with information it had a right to know? Of course. But, why is most of the modern political and corporate investigative reporting aimed at Republicans? Aggressive investigative reporting is wonderful--when it's accurate, even-handed, and a little less self-richeous. What am I talking about? Rathergate, NewsWeek Koran-gate, the un-investigated Swift-Boat Vets Allegations, Sandy Berger's Theft and Destruction of Classified Documents, etc. All I ask is that you do it professionally and fairly.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
