Well, I can't say that I am happy to once again be in the minority, but as was learned back in '92, it definitely has its advantages. For one, playing offense is so much more enjoyable than playing defense. However, it seems the Democrats are trying to steal all of our thunder. What do I mean? Let's consider the following:
Illinois. Illinois politics is kind of like the Sopranos. Lots of corruption. Lots of foul language. Lots of shady dealings. But one heck of an entertaining show. And that is just referring to the Blago scandal. You have to empathize with the guy - but just a little bit. I mean, honestly, trying to sell Obama's senate seat could not be an original invention of this guy. Consider the on-his-way-out individual appointed by the Massachusetts governor to fill the vacated seat of then recently-elected JFK, thus making it extremely easy for brother Ted to run in the next election for that seat. Coincidence? Only a political Pollyanna believes in coincidences when it comes to politics (and Kennedys). Blago also gives us high entertainment in, once again, forcing Democrats to play defense on the race issue. These guys really don't know what to do with themselves. Usually it is the GOP that has these issues leveled at them. Dems don't know what to do when the gun is turned on them. Cases in point - Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Geraldine Ferraro having the race card played against them.
Obama. Not even coronated . . . I mean inaugurated yet, and already a cloud over his head. Most presidents don't have to perform internal investigations of their staffers until after they hang the new drapes in the Oval Office. Already Obama has had to conduct one regarding whether anything untoward occurred, from his end, regarding the Blago scandal (and wasn't it amazing how his own people found that they had done nothing improper?). Rahm Emmanuel was up to his neck in it. Now Bill Richardson is having to withdraw his name for consideration for Commerce Secretary, because, come to find out, he might be under investigation for corruption in some shady pay-to-play deals in New Mexico. Never mind that the investigation was under way before he was named for the position. Turns out that a contract was awarded to a company that did not offer the best bid, and, coincidentally, the deal went through not too long after that company had made a sizable contribution to Richardson's election coffers. Concerning coincidences in politics, please see the preceding paragraph.
Now Obama has picked Leon Panetta to head the CIA. Didn't even run that one by Dianne Feinstein, the incoming Senate Intelligence Committee Chair. Surely you all are aware of his extensive credentials for running the top intelligence position in the country at a time when we are engaged in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan, when Gaza and Israel are locked in combat, when Iran threatens to develop nuclear weapons, when Russia haphazardly runs roughshod over former Soviet republics and threatens budding democracies in Eastern Europe. Oh, wait, he has none. Well, that certainly shows Obama's intellect and wisdom. While he is at it, maybe he can quickly, after he is inaugurated, pardon ponzi schemer-extraordinaire, and former Democrat and liberal fundraiser, Berny Madoff so he can name him to be the next Treasury Secretary. That is, of course, unless he chooses to pardon first his erstwhile real estate sugar daddy, Tony Rezko, and give him that position. Perhaps he could, at the same time, appoint Bill Ayers to some worthy position - say Homeland Security?
You see, he really could do all of the above. Honestly, nobody in the dinosaur media is going to call him on it. Sure, the Code Pinkers are going to be upset that he has not yet condemned Israel for retaliating against Hamas, which has been firing rockets into Israel, and still hold Gilad Shalit, without even access to Internation Red Cross observers. Where is the outrage over those violations of Geneva Conventions?
Apparently, though, Obama's powers are already showing effect, and he hasn't even taken possession of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As I type, the rise of global temperatures, spurred on by our excessive and willful pumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, is in the 10th year of its hiatus. Arctic sea ice has rebounded to levels not seen in nearly 3 decades. For crying out loud, they had to pull out the snow shovels recently in Las Vegas, as hell, literally, froze over. Its amazing. And Obama did all of that just while playing in Hawaii! Imagine the paradisiacal glory this planet will achieve once he actually enters his kingdom - scratch that, I mean, takes the oath of office!
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Where Is My Bailout?
So it seems now that the government is going to prop up every failed business that comes hat in hand. Apparently you can make an inferior, crappy product, but still get my tax dollars to prop you up, so long as you are "too big to fail." I love this line of reasoning. Because a company is big enough, we need to ensure that it stays afloat peddling garbage. Squandered money loaning it to people that couldn't afford it? No problem, we'll keep you going. Building crappy cars that chug gas faster than frat boys chugging beer at a kegger, all when gas prices are skyrocketing? Hey, you are an American institution! And besides, those are good union jobs we need to protect!
So many people are heralding the collapse of free-market capitalism in all of this. But how can it be, when this isn't really a free market we are seeing collapse? The American auto industry has been bogged down by so many things for so long - the strangulation of unions, the incessant regulation of standards by the government, their inability to stick a finger in the wind and discern that now is the time for fuel efficiency. So the government's answer is to bail them out. Why is it that we think it is a good thing to prop up a failed enterprise? I know, people will lose jobs. But that is not the job of the government to control. You lose one job, you go look for another. There is no right guaranteed by any of our founding documents to the job of your choosing for the rest of your natural life, including retirement and healthcare benefits. We are guaranteed the right of the pursuit of happiness, not a guaranteed happiness.
I suppose it is to be expected, though. Consider that this is the modus operandi of the modern liberal mindset - especially since FDR and the New Deal, and LBJ and the Great Society. So ingrained is it now in society, that even supposed "conservative" Republicans support massive government bailouts. The mindset is this idea that the way to solve any problem is to throw more money, preferably government money (after all, it just grows on trees, or flows freely from the pockets of the greedy rich) at it. Call it Keynes on steroids. Public education failing? Well, give it some more money. Companies failing because they gave mortgages to people with no income? Bail them out. We couldn't think of holding anybody responsible! American car companies making crap that doesn't sell and strangled by unions? Quick! Somebody write them a check! Can't get enough people to vote Democratic to win the presidency? Promise "tax cuts" to the 45% of Americans who don't pay taxes in the first place!
It is not bad for bad companies to fail. The world doesn't end. Ever wonder why you don't see many stagecoach manufacturers anymore? They made a product that nobody wanted to buy anymore, so they ceased to exist. Notice the railroad sleeper car industry is also not what it used to be? Or how ocean liner-as mode of transpotation is practically non-existent? When people no longer want your product, or you just aren't doing a good job anymore, you probably need to say your fairwells. Why should my tax dollars pay for something we don't want anymore?
It is telling that so many people think that government should step in and meet every need out there. Can't get a job? Government will take care of that. Can't pay for medical insurance? No problem, we'll get right to work on that. Bought more house than you can afford? Don't worry, we'll get those greedy rich people to pay your mortgage. Besides, you were probably deceived when you got the mortgage in the first place. They should have known that you wouldn't necessarily understand that you needed to have an income to afford a mortgage.
All the while, numerous people go about their lives they way they should. When the bills come, they pay them. When they want a house, they save for it. When their job doesn't pay enough to support their family, they look for another job. If their company is going under, they start looking to relocate. What happens to these people under these circumstances? They get screwed. They pay double. Not only are they caring for themselves, but their tax dollars are also going to prop up those who don't want to actually have to work for what they want. These are the people who, when they realize they need medical insurance, they get a job that provides it, rather than complain that nobody is giving it to them.
The bottom 50% of earners in this country pay less than 10% of the total tax revenues. And yet they believe they are being screwed over when wealthy people see tax cuts. Basic mathematics seem to fail them. They can't see that if you cut taxes by, say, 10%, then in terms of absolute dollars, of course the guy paying $10,000 is going to keep more money than the guy paying $10. Along come politicians that tell them that they deserved that $1,000 in tax cuts - even though they were only paying $10 in the first place, and the rich person, still paying $9,000, is screwing them over.
But in doing this, crafty politicians, like our newest president-elect, ensure their future victories. When they promise handouts to more than 50% of the people, they guarantee their establishment in power. The only hope for their downfall, then, is the economic disaster that inevitably follows such policies. Confiscatory taxation that punishes the productive members of the society to prop up the unproductive is self-limiting. Eventually the goose stops laying golden eggs - either it dies, or it moves to another country that is cheaper to work in.
So congratulations! It looks like we, the taxpayers, now own investment banks, AIG, and pretty soon, we will also own the "big" 3 automakers. Who wouldn't be excited? We just bought some pretty massive failing companies! While we're at it, is it too late to buy the American Motors Corporation and bring back the Pacer and the Gremlin? And hey, is DeLorean for sale? For that matter, I don't think it is too late to pay top dollar for the rights to keep producing the Betamax player, or the Laser Disc, or 8-track players? I think I've got some K.C. and The Sunshine Band 8-tracks!
So many people are heralding the collapse of free-market capitalism in all of this. But how can it be, when this isn't really a free market we are seeing collapse? The American auto industry has been bogged down by so many things for so long - the strangulation of unions, the incessant regulation of standards by the government, their inability to stick a finger in the wind and discern that now is the time for fuel efficiency. So the government's answer is to bail them out. Why is it that we think it is a good thing to prop up a failed enterprise? I know, people will lose jobs. But that is not the job of the government to control. You lose one job, you go look for another. There is no right guaranteed by any of our founding documents to the job of your choosing for the rest of your natural life, including retirement and healthcare benefits. We are guaranteed the right of the pursuit of happiness, not a guaranteed happiness.
I suppose it is to be expected, though. Consider that this is the modus operandi of the modern liberal mindset - especially since FDR and the New Deal, and LBJ and the Great Society. So ingrained is it now in society, that even supposed "conservative" Republicans support massive government bailouts. The mindset is this idea that the way to solve any problem is to throw more money, preferably government money (after all, it just grows on trees, or flows freely from the pockets of the greedy rich) at it. Call it Keynes on steroids. Public education failing? Well, give it some more money. Companies failing because they gave mortgages to people with no income? Bail them out. We couldn't think of holding anybody responsible! American car companies making crap that doesn't sell and strangled by unions? Quick! Somebody write them a check! Can't get enough people to vote Democratic to win the presidency? Promise "tax cuts" to the 45% of Americans who don't pay taxes in the first place!
It is not bad for bad companies to fail. The world doesn't end. Ever wonder why you don't see many stagecoach manufacturers anymore? They made a product that nobody wanted to buy anymore, so they ceased to exist. Notice the railroad sleeper car industry is also not what it used to be? Or how ocean liner-as mode of transpotation is practically non-existent? When people no longer want your product, or you just aren't doing a good job anymore, you probably need to say your fairwells. Why should my tax dollars pay for something we don't want anymore?
It is telling that so many people think that government should step in and meet every need out there. Can't get a job? Government will take care of that. Can't pay for medical insurance? No problem, we'll get right to work on that. Bought more house than you can afford? Don't worry, we'll get those greedy rich people to pay your mortgage. Besides, you were probably deceived when you got the mortgage in the first place. They should have known that you wouldn't necessarily understand that you needed to have an income to afford a mortgage.
All the while, numerous people go about their lives they way they should. When the bills come, they pay them. When they want a house, they save for it. When their job doesn't pay enough to support their family, they look for another job. If their company is going under, they start looking to relocate. What happens to these people under these circumstances? They get screwed. They pay double. Not only are they caring for themselves, but their tax dollars are also going to prop up those who don't want to actually have to work for what they want. These are the people who, when they realize they need medical insurance, they get a job that provides it, rather than complain that nobody is giving it to them.
The bottom 50% of earners in this country pay less than 10% of the total tax revenues. And yet they believe they are being screwed over when wealthy people see tax cuts. Basic mathematics seem to fail them. They can't see that if you cut taxes by, say, 10%, then in terms of absolute dollars, of course the guy paying $10,000 is going to keep more money than the guy paying $10. Along come politicians that tell them that they deserved that $1,000 in tax cuts - even though they were only paying $10 in the first place, and the rich person, still paying $9,000, is screwing them over.
But in doing this, crafty politicians, like our newest president-elect, ensure their future victories. When they promise handouts to more than 50% of the people, they guarantee their establishment in power. The only hope for their downfall, then, is the economic disaster that inevitably follows such policies. Confiscatory taxation that punishes the productive members of the society to prop up the unproductive is self-limiting. Eventually the goose stops laying golden eggs - either it dies, or it moves to another country that is cheaper to work in.
So congratulations! It looks like we, the taxpayers, now own investment banks, AIG, and pretty soon, we will also own the "big" 3 automakers. Who wouldn't be excited? We just bought some pretty massive failing companies! While we're at it, is it too late to buy the American Motors Corporation and bring back the Pacer and the Gremlin? And hey, is DeLorean for sale? For that matter, I don't think it is too late to pay top dollar for the rights to keep producing the Betamax player, or the Laser Disc, or 8-track players? I think I've got some K.C. and The Sunshine Band 8-tracks!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
In spite of my earlier griping, I actually did go and vote for McCain. Never say never, I guess. It didn't matter. McCain, to my mind, was almost as weak a candidate as Dole in '96. We knew this would be a hard election. It is always hard for the incumbent party to win a third term. Bush had low ratings. Iraq is unpopular. We needed someone strong. McCain wasn't it. Never was. All the talk of him being a good closer was always BS. Where was that good closing in 2000? Has he had some nailbiters in recent elections in Arizona that I'm unaware of that he came from behind to win? He didn't close well on his immigration bill (thank goodness). The guy pulled less punches fighting his own party than he did with Obama.
Obama won. He is to be congratulated. He won with the largest margin of any Democrat since Johnson. He outperformed Clinton (both times) and Carter (not necessarily a high bar to overcome, but, still). Now let us see if it really all was jut hot air regarding how an Obama presidency would finally transcend race in this country. Can we now do away with quotas and affirmative action and race-based admissions? Do we really need them when a black man can win the presidency with a commanding majority, and not just a plurality?
I sincerely pray that my fears of an Obama presidency won't come true, but I worry that is too much to hope for. He has the White House, and Dems have even stronger majorities in both houses of Congress - better than the Republicans had. Not filibuster-proof, but on the right issues, it just might, given that there are still some very fickle GOP senators in there, who I place as much faith in regarding their stalwart GOP-loyalty as I do in my 3-year old obeying me - I am happy when it happens, but nor surprised when it doesn't.
Dems now have what they wished for - the legislative and executive branches. If predictions are true, they should also be able to solidify a Roe-worshipping panel in the judiciary to ensure that this travesty of a decision is never given any serious threat. Obama campaigned in the primaries as very liberal. In the general, he tacked more to the center. It is hard to say exactly which was more accurate - because we know so little about him. What little we do know makes his centrist statements ring hollow. We know that in his very limited career as a U.S. Senator, he voted more liberal than anybody else in the Senate. We know he amassed a liberal voting record, when not voting present, in the Illinois senate. We know he has made some very liberal statements in interviews in the past. We know he has associated with some extremely radical people in his life - Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Pfleger, Khalidi. We know he has also associated with some criminal figures - Rezko. Do I think he espouses their most vicious beliefs? No. Do I think he has some common ground with them? Yes. And that is what scares me. I don't think he wants to bomb government buildings, like Ayers did. But does he agree with Ayers' radical views on education? And will that be reflected in his appointments in education positions? I don't think he supports the terrorist actions of the PLO. But will he share an antipathy towards Israel, our only staunch and reliable ally in the Middle East? And if I don't believe that he has the same hateful feelings towards American and its government that Wright has, I also believe he won't stand up to those who do, so long as having their support is politically advantageous.
I fear that Obama and Reid and Pelosi will take this opportunity to pass a myriad of leftist legislative pieces that they have been dying to pass for some time now. Card check. Freedom of Choice. Fairness Doctrine. "Tax cuts" to the 45% of Americans who don't even pay taxes in the first place. He said that he will cut the taxes on 95% of Americans, that he will only raise taxes on the top 5%, those making $250,000/year and above. But the IRS numbers don't match. According to the IRS, the threshold for the top 5% of earners is $153,542. Maybe that is why the number that Joe Biden was saying was $150,000, not $250,000. Or why Bill Richardson put the line at $120,000. The top 5%, people earning $153,542 and above, already pay 60% of income taxes. The bottom 50% pay 2.99%. The threshold for the bottom 50% is <$32,000. So half the people pay only 3% of taxes. How are they being punished by "tax cuts to the rich?" Democrats would do well to remember the lesson the DNC learned in 1994, and the one learned by the GOP in 2006. Overreaching is a temptation, and it is often very costly in midterm elections. I believe, though, that the temptation will be too great, and the hunger too strong, and we will see some very aggressive, very liberal action quickly, while a whipped GOP mistakenly views yesterday as a message to get out of the way.
This was not a historic election based on voter turnout. 3 million fewer votes were cast in this election than in 2004. There was a 9 million vote swing between 2004 and 2008, because Obama pulled in 3 million more votes than Kerry did, and did it brilliantly in some key states, while McCain pulled in 6 million fewer votes than Bush did. McCain was not the man to win this election.
And for the GOP? Make no mistake, the GOP is in trouble. But conservatism is not. Why? No conservative has lost. McCain was no conservative. His proudest achievements have been those where he crossed the aisle and put together some horrible legislation with some pretty liberal Democrats (Feingold?). His biggest ally is a center-left Scoop Jackson-style quasi-Democrat, Joe Lieberman. The GOP in the House and Senate haven't been conservative for quite some time - maybe back when they were opposing Clinton, but not since Bush got in. We all wanted Bush to be conservative, and he was on social issues, but he never was on spending - "compassionate conservatism" is code for moderate. No, this was not a defeat of a conservative GOP - this was 1976 and Gerald Ford, or 1996 and Bob Dole.
My fear now is that we are going to turn the reigns over to CINOs - conservatives in name only. I love Giuliani, but he is no conservative. I love Romney, but he is, at best, a recent convert to conservatism, and not convincingly so yet. Huckabee? I can't stand him. Still can't. Not only is it a hoax to claim him as any kind of conservative standard bearer, but on a personal note, after his belittling my religious beliefs to boost him ahead of Romney, I now find the man repugnant, and wouldn't support him for local dogcatcher.
Palin shows promise, but she came out too early. I liked her, but it was not a wise move by McCain. I think she will make a great candidate someday, but by adding her to the ticket, McCain effectively negated his "experience" argument against Obama. She was a first term governor. She has done some good things there, and I think she is a rising star. I hope this hasn't soured her chances in the future. Jindal also has the potential to come out as a star for the GOP. In my mind, he was a much stronger choice than Palin, which is why I am glad he wasn't picked. I never thought McCain would win, and worried that any running mate would have been tarnished from it. To my mind, McCain would have done well to pick Fred Thompson. I think Fred would have been a formidable opponent, and I think he would have talked rings around Biden.
So there it is. Democrats, you now have your dreams realized. A black Democrat in the White House, Bush out, and commanding majorities in Congress, the likes of which Democrats haven't seen for 3 decades. But you know what they say. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. Beginning inauguration day, 2009, all of this becomes yours. You own it. Bad economic numbers? Your fault. Troops still in Iraq? Your fault. Death toll rising in Afghanistan? Your fault. Jobless numbers rising? Your fault. No more blaming others. No more blaming Bush. You want the troops out? Take them out, like you pledged to. Nobody left to stop you. "Rich" not paying their "fair share" in taxes? Raise them, and watch revenues fall, jobs fall, jobs shipped overseas to more business-friendly tax environments, and the economy plunging further into recession.
I now get to be the happy warrior, playing the loyal opposition. Don't worry, I am not going to mimic my colleagues on the left, and spend the next 4 years (Oh, dear Lord, let it be only 4) drawing depictions of Obama as a Nazi. But don't tell me to support him either, any more than acknowledging that he is my president. That I will do. But turnabout is fair play.
Obama won. He is to be congratulated. He won with the largest margin of any Democrat since Johnson. He outperformed Clinton (both times) and Carter (not necessarily a high bar to overcome, but, still). Now let us see if it really all was jut hot air regarding how an Obama presidency would finally transcend race in this country. Can we now do away with quotas and affirmative action and race-based admissions? Do we really need them when a black man can win the presidency with a commanding majority, and not just a plurality?
I sincerely pray that my fears of an Obama presidency won't come true, but I worry that is too much to hope for. He has the White House, and Dems have even stronger majorities in both houses of Congress - better than the Republicans had. Not filibuster-proof, but on the right issues, it just might, given that there are still some very fickle GOP senators in there, who I place as much faith in regarding their stalwart GOP-loyalty as I do in my 3-year old obeying me - I am happy when it happens, but nor surprised when it doesn't.
Dems now have what they wished for - the legislative and executive branches. If predictions are true, they should also be able to solidify a Roe-worshipping panel in the judiciary to ensure that this travesty of a decision is never given any serious threat. Obama campaigned in the primaries as very liberal. In the general, he tacked more to the center. It is hard to say exactly which was more accurate - because we know so little about him. What little we do know makes his centrist statements ring hollow. We know that in his very limited career as a U.S. Senator, he voted more liberal than anybody else in the Senate. We know he amassed a liberal voting record, when not voting present, in the Illinois senate. We know he has made some very liberal statements in interviews in the past. We know he has associated with some extremely radical people in his life - Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Pfleger, Khalidi. We know he has also associated with some criminal figures - Rezko. Do I think he espouses their most vicious beliefs? No. Do I think he has some common ground with them? Yes. And that is what scares me. I don't think he wants to bomb government buildings, like Ayers did. But does he agree with Ayers' radical views on education? And will that be reflected in his appointments in education positions? I don't think he supports the terrorist actions of the PLO. But will he share an antipathy towards Israel, our only staunch and reliable ally in the Middle East? And if I don't believe that he has the same hateful feelings towards American and its government that Wright has, I also believe he won't stand up to those who do, so long as having their support is politically advantageous.
I fear that Obama and Reid and Pelosi will take this opportunity to pass a myriad of leftist legislative pieces that they have been dying to pass for some time now. Card check. Freedom of Choice. Fairness Doctrine. "Tax cuts" to the 45% of Americans who don't even pay taxes in the first place. He said that he will cut the taxes on 95% of Americans, that he will only raise taxes on the top 5%, those making $250,000/year and above. But the IRS numbers don't match. According to the IRS, the threshold for the top 5% of earners is $153,542. Maybe that is why the number that Joe Biden was saying was $150,000, not $250,000. Or why Bill Richardson put the line at $120,000. The top 5%, people earning $153,542 and above, already pay 60% of income taxes. The bottom 50% pay 2.99%. The threshold for the bottom 50% is <$32,000. So half the people pay only 3% of taxes. How are they being punished by "tax cuts to the rich?" Democrats would do well to remember the lesson the DNC learned in 1994, and the one learned by the GOP in 2006. Overreaching is a temptation, and it is often very costly in midterm elections. I believe, though, that the temptation will be too great, and the hunger too strong, and we will see some very aggressive, very liberal action quickly, while a whipped GOP mistakenly views yesterday as a message to get out of the way.
This was not a historic election based on voter turnout. 3 million fewer votes were cast in this election than in 2004. There was a 9 million vote swing between 2004 and 2008, because Obama pulled in 3 million more votes than Kerry did, and did it brilliantly in some key states, while McCain pulled in 6 million fewer votes than Bush did. McCain was not the man to win this election.
And for the GOP? Make no mistake, the GOP is in trouble. But conservatism is not. Why? No conservative has lost. McCain was no conservative. His proudest achievements have been those where he crossed the aisle and put together some horrible legislation with some pretty liberal Democrats (Feingold?). His biggest ally is a center-left Scoop Jackson-style quasi-Democrat, Joe Lieberman. The GOP in the House and Senate haven't been conservative for quite some time - maybe back when they were opposing Clinton, but not since Bush got in. We all wanted Bush to be conservative, and he was on social issues, but he never was on spending - "compassionate conservatism" is code for moderate. No, this was not a defeat of a conservative GOP - this was 1976 and Gerald Ford, or 1996 and Bob Dole.
My fear now is that we are going to turn the reigns over to CINOs - conservatives in name only. I love Giuliani, but he is no conservative. I love Romney, but he is, at best, a recent convert to conservatism, and not convincingly so yet. Huckabee? I can't stand him. Still can't. Not only is it a hoax to claim him as any kind of conservative standard bearer, but on a personal note, after his belittling my religious beliefs to boost him ahead of Romney, I now find the man repugnant, and wouldn't support him for local dogcatcher.
Palin shows promise, but she came out too early. I liked her, but it was not a wise move by McCain. I think she will make a great candidate someday, but by adding her to the ticket, McCain effectively negated his "experience" argument against Obama. She was a first term governor. She has done some good things there, and I think she is a rising star. I hope this hasn't soured her chances in the future. Jindal also has the potential to come out as a star for the GOP. In my mind, he was a much stronger choice than Palin, which is why I am glad he wasn't picked. I never thought McCain would win, and worried that any running mate would have been tarnished from it. To my mind, McCain would have done well to pick Fred Thompson. I think Fred would have been a formidable opponent, and I think he would have talked rings around Biden.
So there it is. Democrats, you now have your dreams realized. A black Democrat in the White House, Bush out, and commanding majorities in Congress, the likes of which Democrats haven't seen for 3 decades. But you know what they say. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. Beginning inauguration day, 2009, all of this becomes yours. You own it. Bad economic numbers? Your fault. Troops still in Iraq? Your fault. Death toll rising in Afghanistan? Your fault. Jobless numbers rising? Your fault. No more blaming others. No more blaming Bush. You want the troops out? Take them out, like you pledged to. Nobody left to stop you. "Rich" not paying their "fair share" in taxes? Raise them, and watch revenues fall, jobs fall, jobs shipped overseas to more business-friendly tax environments, and the economy plunging further into recession.
I now get to be the happy warrior, playing the loyal opposition. Don't worry, I am not going to mimic my colleagues on the left, and spend the next 4 years (Oh, dear Lord, let it be only 4) drawing depictions of Obama as a Nazi. But don't tell me to support him either, any more than acknowledging that he is my president. That I will do. But turnabout is fair play.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Super Tuesday Follow-up
I'll admit it, my prospects look bleak. I know that I am being labeled as one of those angry conservatives who is willing to cut off his nose to spite his face. But I still won't vote for McCain or Huckabee, and I certainly won't vote for a McCain/Huckabee ticket. I am not counting Romney out yet, but it is going to take a miracle right now for him to beat McCain. Especially if Huckabee stays in it and we continue to have more West Virginia scenarios play out where Huckabee runs block for McCain.
Maybe McCain can win the general election. However, I am far from convinced of that. In race after race last night, the individual totals in each state for either Obama or Clinton, regardless of who won the state, in many cases totaled more than the combined vote counts for all of the Republican candidates. Right now, it looks like McCain is cinching up the nomination to be a less likable Bob Dole.
Maybe a McCain presidency would be more conservative than I think. Let's hope so. But I won't bet on it. If Republicans do poorly in this election in the Senate and the House, and the Democrats gain a filibuster proof majority, does anybody really believe that McCain would have any objection to signing his immigration bill, unchanged, if sent to his desk? Or would a Republican minority stand up to him on the issue? Sure, they stood up to Bush when he was riding low in the polls, but a newly elected president? Or what about taxes? And we know he will sign legislation to expand embryonic stem cell research. Let's face it, a McCain presidency is just as much of a crap shoot as a Clinton presidency. McCain takes it as a point of pride that he has stood in opposition to conservative principles. Stop citing to me his conservative rating from 20 years ago. Maybe he was more conservative then. He isn't now. They have to bring Bob Dole out of retirement to tell us that back when he was in the Senate (1992), McCain was a good conservative?
I know, I know, Reagan signed the last terrible immigration bill, so McCain is just the same as Reagan. Bull crap! Maybe Reagan did sign that bill, but if he were here now, in the presidency, he would look at what a failure that one was, and realize that signing a bill that goes even further would be sheer lunacy. Reagan also would not have opposed the Bush tax cuts because they, as McCain described, would only benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. McCain is not the logical heir of Reagan. I agree that Romney isn't either, but an ascending conservative, to me, is preferable to a descending conservative who has a freakish desire to be loved by the mainstream media, and loves poking a stick in the eyes of conservatives to get that media adoration.
Sorry, if you are telling me my choices are Hillary and McCain, I may have to sit this one out.
Maybe McCain can win the general election. However, I am far from convinced of that. In race after race last night, the individual totals in each state for either Obama or Clinton, regardless of who won the state, in many cases totaled more than the combined vote counts for all of the Republican candidates. Right now, it looks like McCain is cinching up the nomination to be a less likable Bob Dole.
Maybe a McCain presidency would be more conservative than I think. Let's hope so. But I won't bet on it. If Republicans do poorly in this election in the Senate and the House, and the Democrats gain a filibuster proof majority, does anybody really believe that McCain would have any objection to signing his immigration bill, unchanged, if sent to his desk? Or would a Republican minority stand up to him on the issue? Sure, they stood up to Bush when he was riding low in the polls, but a newly elected president? Or what about taxes? And we know he will sign legislation to expand embryonic stem cell research. Let's face it, a McCain presidency is just as much of a crap shoot as a Clinton presidency. McCain takes it as a point of pride that he has stood in opposition to conservative principles. Stop citing to me his conservative rating from 20 years ago. Maybe he was more conservative then. He isn't now. They have to bring Bob Dole out of retirement to tell us that back when he was in the Senate (1992), McCain was a good conservative?
I know, I know, Reagan signed the last terrible immigration bill, so McCain is just the same as Reagan. Bull crap! Maybe Reagan did sign that bill, but if he were here now, in the presidency, he would look at what a failure that one was, and realize that signing a bill that goes even further would be sheer lunacy. Reagan also would not have opposed the Bush tax cuts because they, as McCain described, would only benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. McCain is not the logical heir of Reagan. I agree that Romney isn't either, but an ascending conservative, to me, is preferable to a descending conservative who has a freakish desire to be loved by the mainstream media, and loves poking a stick in the eyes of conservatives to get that media adoration.
Sorry, if you are telling me my choices are Hillary and McCain, I may have to sit this one out.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
I will not vote for McCain (or Huckabee)!
There it is. I have said it. I would rather see a Democrat in the White House (not with my vote, though) than vote for either of these two. Here is why:
McCain will sign McCain/Kennedy, if it were to come to his desk. He has said he would. This immigration bill was a travesty that President Bush should have never supported. The fact that McCain spoke with such disdain, and perpetuated the myth that those of us who opposed his bill were anti-immigration and racist xenophobes only solidifies in my mind that he doesn't deserve my vote.
McCain gave us McCain/Feingold, a law that helped to rob such groups as those who are pro-life and pro-gun rights of their 1st amendment right to free speech in letting people know how their incumbent representatives in Washington stand on those issues.
McCain considered the possibility of running as John Kerry's running mate in 2004. Enough said.
McCain formed the Gang of 14 that permitted the Democrat minority to block votes on conservative justices to federal courts.
McCain voted both times against the Bush tax cuts. I don't believe his current reasoning that it was because they weren't coupled with spending cuts. At the time, he sounded just like Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, objecting to the tax cuts because they would only benefit the rich - typical class warfare rhetoric.
McCain wants to shut down the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility, presumably relocating these homicidal maniacs to United States soil, where the ACLU will have a greater ability to get them constitutional protections they are not entitled to.
McCain voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's confirmation. He feels that Justice Alito is too conservative. And now you really expect me to believe that he will appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court? Sorry, I'm not buying it.
McCain is perhaps even more liberal on environmental policies than even Clinton or Obama.
McCain opposes drilling in ANWR.
He is not the consistent conservative he paints himself as. In 2007, now that he has a shot at the nomination, he thinks that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. However, in 1999 he said we would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade. In addition, his support of embryonic stem cell research hardly makes him a stalwart pro-life champion.
Let's not forget his role in the Keating 5 scandal, because you know the Democrats won't. Back then he wasn't so opposed to taking soft money.
The only area I agree with McCain on is the war. But let's face it. If Hillary wins the election, she is going to do whatever is going to help her the most, regardless of what she has promised up until now. Not a single one of her policy positions has remained firm since she started this race. If Iraq is going well when she took office, she would no sooner withdraw troops and risk being blamed for stealing defeat from the jaws of victory than shoot herself in the head. And if things go south on her, then 2012 should be a cake walk. The country will be able to see once and for all why it is that Republicans claim that Democrats are weak on defense. I don't think breaking down at negotiations is going to impress Ahmadinejad as much as it did with those saps in New Hampshire.
And let's not forget the spoiler, Mike Huckabee. Other than his evangelical Christian credentials, it is amazing that so many people view this man as the standard bearer of the conservative cause, especially considering how much water he is now carrying for McCain. With the exception of Giuliani, I can't think of anybody that has kissed up to McCain more in the last little while. Huckabee can't win, and he knows it. Does it seem odd to anybody else that Huckabee is running a campaign against Romney, the guy who is in 2nd place, rather than against McCain, the frontrunner? It was McCain that bumped him out in South Carolina, not Romney. Huckabee has run a vicious attack against Romney, slurring his religion, and now is running a campaign to split the conservative vote so that the nomination will go to McCain, hoping that he might get a juicy position in a McCain presidency, maybe even as a running mate, that could then propel him to the top spot later on. I don't believe that McCain will kill the Republican party, I believe that Huckabee will.
Now I am not going to argue that Romney is the most conservative guy out there, or that he is the legitimate heir to the Reagan legacy. I do believe that he will be more conservative than Bush, whereas McCain will be more liberal than Bush. I do believe that Romney is the more capable in terms of economic policy. Romney was not always as conservative as he now seems. But I would rather have a candidate that once seemed more liberal, but lately has become more conservative, as opposed to a man who used to be more conservative, but lately has become more liberal. And I certainly wouldn't vote for a man who has been, and remains, liberal, but who says, "Vote for me, because I'm a Christian."
Romney is the person who needs to win the nomination. Nobody else will get my vote. It won't kill the Republican party if McCain wins. We will be back to where we were in 1976. It will be a good opportunity to purge the party of RINOs. We have finally jettisoned people like Lincoln Chafee. Maybe the silver lining in all of this is that if McCain wins the nomination, we will at least not have him in the Senate anymore.
McCain will sign McCain/Kennedy, if it were to come to his desk. He has said he would. This immigration bill was a travesty that President Bush should have never supported. The fact that McCain spoke with such disdain, and perpetuated the myth that those of us who opposed his bill were anti-immigration and racist xenophobes only solidifies in my mind that he doesn't deserve my vote.
McCain gave us McCain/Feingold, a law that helped to rob such groups as those who are pro-life and pro-gun rights of their 1st amendment right to free speech in letting people know how their incumbent representatives in Washington stand on those issues.
McCain considered the possibility of running as John Kerry's running mate in 2004. Enough said.
McCain formed the Gang of 14 that permitted the Democrat minority to block votes on conservative justices to federal courts.
McCain voted both times against the Bush tax cuts. I don't believe his current reasoning that it was because they weren't coupled with spending cuts. At the time, he sounded just like Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, objecting to the tax cuts because they would only benefit the rich - typical class warfare rhetoric.
McCain wants to shut down the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility, presumably relocating these homicidal maniacs to United States soil, where the ACLU will have a greater ability to get them constitutional protections they are not entitled to.
McCain voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's confirmation. He feels that Justice Alito is too conservative. And now you really expect me to believe that he will appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court? Sorry, I'm not buying it.
McCain is perhaps even more liberal on environmental policies than even Clinton or Obama.
McCain opposes drilling in ANWR.
He is not the consistent conservative he paints himself as. In 2007, now that he has a shot at the nomination, he thinks that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. However, in 1999 he said we would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade. In addition, his support of embryonic stem cell research hardly makes him a stalwart pro-life champion.
Let's not forget his role in the Keating 5 scandal, because you know the Democrats won't. Back then he wasn't so opposed to taking soft money.
The only area I agree with McCain on is the war. But let's face it. If Hillary wins the election, she is going to do whatever is going to help her the most, regardless of what she has promised up until now. Not a single one of her policy positions has remained firm since she started this race. If Iraq is going well when she took office, she would no sooner withdraw troops and risk being blamed for stealing defeat from the jaws of victory than shoot herself in the head. And if things go south on her, then 2012 should be a cake walk. The country will be able to see once and for all why it is that Republicans claim that Democrats are weak on defense. I don't think breaking down at negotiations is going to impress Ahmadinejad as much as it did with those saps in New Hampshire.
And let's not forget the spoiler, Mike Huckabee. Other than his evangelical Christian credentials, it is amazing that so many people view this man as the standard bearer of the conservative cause, especially considering how much water he is now carrying for McCain. With the exception of Giuliani, I can't think of anybody that has kissed up to McCain more in the last little while. Huckabee can't win, and he knows it. Does it seem odd to anybody else that Huckabee is running a campaign against Romney, the guy who is in 2nd place, rather than against McCain, the frontrunner? It was McCain that bumped him out in South Carolina, not Romney. Huckabee has run a vicious attack against Romney, slurring his religion, and now is running a campaign to split the conservative vote so that the nomination will go to McCain, hoping that he might get a juicy position in a McCain presidency, maybe even as a running mate, that could then propel him to the top spot later on. I don't believe that McCain will kill the Republican party, I believe that Huckabee will.
Now I am not going to argue that Romney is the most conservative guy out there, or that he is the legitimate heir to the Reagan legacy. I do believe that he will be more conservative than Bush, whereas McCain will be more liberal than Bush. I do believe that Romney is the more capable in terms of economic policy. Romney was not always as conservative as he now seems. But I would rather have a candidate that once seemed more liberal, but lately has become more conservative, as opposed to a man who used to be more conservative, but lately has become more liberal. And I certainly wouldn't vote for a man who has been, and remains, liberal, but who says, "Vote for me, because I'm a Christian."
Romney is the person who needs to win the nomination. Nobody else will get my vote. It won't kill the Republican party if McCain wins. We will be back to where we were in 1976. It will be a good opportunity to purge the party of RINOs. We have finally jettisoned people like Lincoln Chafee. Maybe the silver lining in all of this is that if McCain wins the nomination, we will at least not have him in the Senate anymore.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Musings on a Wednesday afternoon
"Have we stopped the war in Iraq? No. Have we gotten health care? No. Have we improved education? No. But we have been able to do what we've done. We've done a lot of things." Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Roll Call, Monday, Dec. 10, 2007
So, what exactly have they been able to do? Well, they tried to oppose the surge. And now the surge is working. Just ask John Murtha. Let's see, I think they raised the minimum wage. Anything else? Oh, right, endless investigations. How is that working for them? Seems like a pretty poor return that Democrat voters got on their efforts in the '06 elections.
So I am assuming, if you care anything about politics, you have heard the biggest bombshell regarding the use of waterboarding in interrogation of terrorists. If not, it goes something like this. Democrats have been beating the Bush administration over the head, demagoguing like crazy, implying that the Bush administration approves of torture, because it has allowed a total of 3 very high al Qaeda terrorists to undergo this technique for a combined total of 3 minutes, in exchange for which we received incredibly valuable information. Waterboarding is torture because politicians say it is, and it makes a nice stick to beat the President over the head with. Only problem is that now those intelligence people who have for so long been leaking information to the press that gives the Bush administration a black eye have now bitten the hand that feeds them and let slip that top lawmakers, including Democrats like current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, had received extensive briefing regarding the use of waterboarding, and either gave their tacit approval, or, at the very least, expressed no disapproval with the technique. In fact, some even questioned whether that was enough. So to turn one of their favorite questions on them, I would ask, "Madam Speaker, what did you know, and when did you know it?" And did she approve of waterboarding before she disapproved of it?
Finally, you have to really wonder whether the kid gloves that the media is using to treat the Democrat candidates versus the bashing they are giving the Republicans is, in fact, really beneficial to Democrats. In Democrat debates, they get softball questions from devoted Democrat voters, allowing them to discuss in detail exactly which one of them opposed the invasion of Iraq first, and who has the quickest plan to retreat. They venture into such dangerous venues as labor union debates, NPR radio debates, and CNN/YouTube debates, but won't consider Fox News debates. Repbulicans, on the other hand, go to Univision debates, CNN/YouTube debates (where they get hit with setup questions from Democrat plants - not very clever plants, either), and take all the tough questions. Okay, maybe they like that now, but when they actually have to go up against an opponent of substance in the general election, I'm thinking the guy that has already had to take some tough questions is going to be better prepared. So I actually have no problem with Republicans getting tough questions. I think there should be debates where, instead of getting questions from their own party, they should have to face questions from people of the opposite party. No softball questions at all. I would treat it like prepping a witness for questioning in a trial. Hit them with the tough questions now, so they are prepared for when the battle begins in earnest. To some extent, Republicans have already been doing this (yeah, I'm sure that guy who asked who believed in the Bible was somebody considering voting Republican). Democrats won't. They won't even go on Fox News for a debate. Now that is what I call reaching out to all voters!
So, what exactly have they been able to do? Well, they tried to oppose the surge. And now the surge is working. Just ask John Murtha. Let's see, I think they raised the minimum wage. Anything else? Oh, right, endless investigations. How is that working for them? Seems like a pretty poor return that Democrat voters got on their efforts in the '06 elections.
So I am assuming, if you care anything about politics, you have heard the biggest bombshell regarding the use of waterboarding in interrogation of terrorists. If not, it goes something like this. Democrats have been beating the Bush administration over the head, demagoguing like crazy, implying that the Bush administration approves of torture, because it has allowed a total of 3 very high al Qaeda terrorists to undergo this technique for a combined total of 3 minutes, in exchange for which we received incredibly valuable information. Waterboarding is torture because politicians say it is, and it makes a nice stick to beat the President over the head with. Only problem is that now those intelligence people who have for so long been leaking information to the press that gives the Bush administration a black eye have now bitten the hand that feeds them and let slip that top lawmakers, including Democrats like current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, had received extensive briefing regarding the use of waterboarding, and either gave their tacit approval, or, at the very least, expressed no disapproval with the technique. In fact, some even questioned whether that was enough. So to turn one of their favorite questions on them, I would ask, "Madam Speaker, what did you know, and when did you know it?" And did she approve of waterboarding before she disapproved of it?
Finally, you have to really wonder whether the kid gloves that the media is using to treat the Democrat candidates versus the bashing they are giving the Republicans is, in fact, really beneficial to Democrats. In Democrat debates, they get softball questions from devoted Democrat voters, allowing them to discuss in detail exactly which one of them opposed the invasion of Iraq first, and who has the quickest plan to retreat. They venture into such dangerous venues as labor union debates, NPR radio debates, and CNN/YouTube debates, but won't consider Fox News debates. Repbulicans, on the other hand, go to Univision debates, CNN/YouTube debates (where they get hit with setup questions from Democrat plants - not very clever plants, either), and take all the tough questions. Okay, maybe they like that now, but when they actually have to go up against an opponent of substance in the general election, I'm thinking the guy that has already had to take some tough questions is going to be better prepared. So I actually have no problem with Republicans getting tough questions. I think there should be debates where, instead of getting questions from their own party, they should have to face questions from people of the opposite party. No softball questions at all. I would treat it like prepping a witness for questioning in a trial. Hit them with the tough questions now, so they are prepared for when the battle begins in earnest. To some extent, Republicans have already been doing this (yeah, I'm sure that guy who asked who believed in the Bible was somebody considering voting Republican). Democrats won't. They won't even go on Fox News for a debate. Now that is what I call reaching out to all voters!
Monday, December 10, 2007
I'm back - Musings for Monday, Dec. 10, 2007
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have (emphasis added). This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
--Stephen H. Schneider, author of the book Global Warming (Sierra Club), in an interview in Discover Magazine, October 1989.
"You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." Abraham Lincoln
So Al Gore has officially accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, which by now means that this would put him in the same company as Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat, and the fabricating Rigoberto Menchu. I guess I won't begrudge him that fellowship. And ever the modest, forward-thinking man that he is, he did not fail to mention in the beginning of his speech that he felt that he should not have lost the 2000 election, "Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken — if not premature." Still no word, though, on how much in carbon offsets he will have to purchase to compensate for the flight across the Atlantic to accept. I suspect he made a greater contribution to global warming in this trip than I will this whole month.
Mike Hucakbee has been front and center as of late for his surge in Republican polls. Now, I am sure he is a nice enough guy, but I'm afraid I don't know much more about him than that he is a "true" Christian, unlike, say, that freaky Mormon guy. Honestly, can anybody tell me anything about him other than that he has some great one-liners and, did I mention, he is a "true" Christian? Sure, he takes the moral high ground, choosing not to comment on Mitt Romney's religion, but his not so subtle commercials proclaiming him a true Christian candidate practically scream between the lines. And that is all we know of him from him. What we find out from other sources disturbs me. He was disappointed with the President's veto of the egregious expansion of SCHIP to cover middle class adults who are too lazy to pay for their own insurance. Regardless of how he likes to spin it, his playing off raising taxes as Arkansas' governor is about as easy to stomach as George H. W. Bush's breaking his "Read My Lips . . . " pledge. But vote for him, because he is a "true" Christian. Sorry, just like I despise all the lemmings who will vote for Obama because he is black, or Hillary because she has 2 X chromosomes, I need more from a candidate than their religious background. Can anybody even tell me what his foreign policy is?
Mitt Romney made a big speech last week to try to appeal to the evangelical base of the Republican party to not reject him based on his religion. Was it a good speech? Sure, why not. I think it is stupid he had to ever give it. With all of the important issues on the table this election season, some people are worried because the guy is a Mormon? Ask any of these people what exactly they dislike about his views, and they couldn't tell you, I'm sure. But they've been told that we are all freaky. So let me ask you this, which is the weirder idea, that God spoke to a 14-year old boy in upstate New York in the early part of the 19th century, or that there is an all-powerful being who created everyone and everything in the universe? What is harder to believe, that Jesus Christ visited the people on the American continent after his death, and these people also kept a record of their spiritual teachings, or that there existed a man who came to earth, payed for the sins of all mankind, died on a cross, and came back to life 3 days later? Or that God sent a flood that killed everybody on earth, except for one family, who were crowded together on a boat containing 2 of every animal on the face of the earth? Or that Moses was able to part the Red Sea so that the children of Israel could cross through on dry land? But you are right, it really is just a bit too much to think that God would talk to a 14-year old boy (by the way, how old was the prophet Samuel when God spoke to him? and how old was David when he was chosen by God?). If people are so concerned with the influence that Salt Lake City would hold on a potential Mormon president in imposing its ideas, then how do they explain that both a serious potential contender for the presidency and the Senate Majority leader both are members of that same faith, and yet are on seemingly opposite sides of the political spectrum?
Finally, in light of all of the rosy news that comes out of the Middle East and Muslim world, I thought it might be appropriate to contemplate the perceived favoritism that the nation of Israel receives from us. First of all, are they favored above all others in that region? Maybe. This may be, though, more due to their actions, than any pre-conceived favoritism. The fact of the matter is that they are more in line with our goals than anyone else over there, so of course they get preferred treatment. For the same reason that the hard worker in an office is going to get more raises and promotions than the slacker. You could argue that the hard worker gets them because of favoritism, but I think the better argument is they get them because they deserve them more. Is it any wonder that Israel gets more of our support? When was the last time you heard of someone thrown in jail for naming a teddy bear Moses, let alone had mass protests calling for their death, in Israel? You'd probably be pretty shocked if you were to hear of such a thing, wouldn't you? But were you shocked when you heard that a British teacher in the Sudan was thrown in prison for letting her class of school children name a teddy bear Mohammed, while people on the streets wanted her executed? Probably not. Let's try this one. How shocked would you be if you heard that a woman that was gang-raped in Israel was sentenced to 6 months in prison because at the time she was raped, she was with an unrelated man she was not married to? I'm sure we would see any number of denunciations at the much vaunted United Nations against Israel for that. And yet how shocked were you when you heard that a woman in Saudi Arabia received not only 6 months in prison, but also 200 lashes, after being gang raped by 7 men, all because she was in a car with a man that she was not related to - it was an old schoolmate of hers who wanted her picture - for shame! The Palestinians have a public education system that teaches them to hate Jews and teaches them a geography where Israel has been eliminated. Their version of Mickey Mouse extols the virtue of dying with a bomb strapped to your chest, killing Jews and infidels (that's you and me, in case you weren't clear on that).
But you are right, we probably side more with Israel just because we like them more.
--Stephen H. Schneider, author of the book Global Warming (Sierra Club), in an interview in Discover Magazine, October 1989.
"You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." Abraham Lincoln
So Al Gore has officially accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, which by now means that this would put him in the same company as Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat, and the fabricating Rigoberto Menchu. I guess I won't begrudge him that fellowship. And ever the modest, forward-thinking man that he is, he did not fail to mention in the beginning of his speech that he felt that he should not have lost the 2000 election, "Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken — if not premature." Still no word, though, on how much in carbon offsets he will have to purchase to compensate for the flight across the Atlantic to accept. I suspect he made a greater contribution to global warming in this trip than I will this whole month.
Mike Hucakbee has been front and center as of late for his surge in Republican polls. Now, I am sure he is a nice enough guy, but I'm afraid I don't know much more about him than that he is a "true" Christian, unlike, say, that freaky Mormon guy. Honestly, can anybody tell me anything about him other than that he has some great one-liners and, did I mention, he is a "true" Christian? Sure, he takes the moral high ground, choosing not to comment on Mitt Romney's religion, but his not so subtle commercials proclaiming him a true Christian candidate practically scream between the lines. And that is all we know of him from him. What we find out from other sources disturbs me. He was disappointed with the President's veto of the egregious expansion of SCHIP to cover middle class adults who are too lazy to pay for their own insurance. Regardless of how he likes to spin it, his playing off raising taxes as Arkansas' governor is about as easy to stomach as George H. W. Bush's breaking his "Read My Lips . . . " pledge. But vote for him, because he is a "true" Christian. Sorry, just like I despise all the lemmings who will vote for Obama because he is black, or Hillary because she has 2 X chromosomes, I need more from a candidate than their religious background. Can anybody even tell me what his foreign policy is?
Mitt Romney made a big speech last week to try to appeal to the evangelical base of the Republican party to not reject him based on his religion. Was it a good speech? Sure, why not. I think it is stupid he had to ever give it. With all of the important issues on the table this election season, some people are worried because the guy is a Mormon? Ask any of these people what exactly they dislike about his views, and they couldn't tell you, I'm sure. But they've been told that we are all freaky. So let me ask you this, which is the weirder idea, that God spoke to a 14-year old boy in upstate New York in the early part of the 19th century, or that there is an all-powerful being who created everyone and everything in the universe? What is harder to believe, that Jesus Christ visited the people on the American continent after his death, and these people also kept a record of their spiritual teachings, or that there existed a man who came to earth, payed for the sins of all mankind, died on a cross, and came back to life 3 days later? Or that God sent a flood that killed everybody on earth, except for one family, who were crowded together on a boat containing 2 of every animal on the face of the earth? Or that Moses was able to part the Red Sea so that the children of Israel could cross through on dry land? But you are right, it really is just a bit too much to think that God would talk to a 14-year old boy (by the way, how old was the prophet Samuel when God spoke to him? and how old was David when he was chosen by God?). If people are so concerned with the influence that Salt Lake City would hold on a potential Mormon president in imposing its ideas, then how do they explain that both a serious potential contender for the presidency and the Senate Majority leader both are members of that same faith, and yet are on seemingly opposite sides of the political spectrum?
Finally, in light of all of the rosy news that comes out of the Middle East and Muslim world, I thought it might be appropriate to contemplate the perceived favoritism that the nation of Israel receives from us. First of all, are they favored above all others in that region? Maybe. This may be, though, more due to their actions, than any pre-conceived favoritism. The fact of the matter is that they are more in line with our goals than anyone else over there, so of course they get preferred treatment. For the same reason that the hard worker in an office is going to get more raises and promotions than the slacker. You could argue that the hard worker gets them because of favoritism, but I think the better argument is they get them because they deserve them more. Is it any wonder that Israel gets more of our support? When was the last time you heard of someone thrown in jail for naming a teddy bear Moses, let alone had mass protests calling for their death, in Israel? You'd probably be pretty shocked if you were to hear of such a thing, wouldn't you? But were you shocked when you heard that a British teacher in the Sudan was thrown in prison for letting her class of school children name a teddy bear Mohammed, while people on the streets wanted her executed? Probably not. Let's try this one. How shocked would you be if you heard that a woman that was gang-raped in Israel was sentenced to 6 months in prison because at the time she was raped, she was with an unrelated man she was not married to? I'm sure we would see any number of denunciations at the much vaunted United Nations against Israel for that. And yet how shocked were you when you heard that a woman in Saudi Arabia received not only 6 months in prison, but also 200 lashes, after being gang raped by 7 men, all because she was in a car with a man that she was not related to - it was an old schoolmate of hers who wanted her picture - for shame! The Palestinians have a public education system that teaches them to hate Jews and teaches them a geography where Israel has been eliminated. Their version of Mickey Mouse extols the virtue of dying with a bomb strapped to your chest, killing Jews and infidels (that's you and me, in case you weren't clear on that).
But you are right, we probably side more with Israel just because we like them more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
