Monday, October 31, 2005

An Interesting Postmodern Possibility

A slimy political operative circulated the pre-scripted Democratic hit points on Alito. It, unfortunately contained a little bit more information than perhaps they wanted. Ah, the everbright light of the shining blog world. The Alito Hit Circular has a few interesting comparisons and metaphors included. The allusion to Italian mobsters, the little guy getting shafted by Trump, the cruelty against immigrants, its all here. But what is really fun is the metadata. One, the date, written just after Sandra Day's exit from the big bench. So nothing fresh, whoever the nominee is, just pull out the script. And then the author, prendergastc. They find a staffer at the DNC named Chris Prendergast, but wouldn't it be fun if it were someone with a similar name?

There is a fine piece of work in the New Left Review by Christopher Prendergast. It is enlightening to say the least. Or maybe I should say its the least bit enlightening. Ok, how about its pure liberal mental masturbation. It stinks. Whatever, there is some very funny parallels. One of the current postmodern precepts concerns key words and labels that characterize successful ideas and topics. The Democrats have embraced this idea wholeheartedly. For instance, a reduction in growth is a cut. They all have a moderate stance on abortion in public now. There were millions of jobs lost during a period of economic growth. We have seen it all, and can expect more of it. But there are a few choice cuts from the article I have to share. First is a little comment on rigging the results:

"But the dialectic does not come cheap. It is not a pre-given totalizing frame, effectively rigging the results in advance."

What is the price of your dialectic? And what they wish for is totalitarianism, not a totalizing frame. Oh, and if they could rig the results... But thats not the point. What we see here is leftist academic drivel. And I have taken it completely out of context, just like all the mainstream media quotes we listen to and read. I do it as tribute. The piece ends with a gut splitter:

"Saying the least here is saying a lot. It will be interesting to find out what, in these terms, the dialectic in action will give us."

So I think in the current instance the "dialectic in action" is clearly evident in the Hit Circular, whatever Prendergast it was written by. And I wonder what Chris thinks of metadata in terms of dialectic? Well, saying the least here is saying allot...

Thanks Cadwalj (rs) for making me laugh so hard I had to write this (Prendergast spell checks as Predigest).

Legality of Leaking: Carlos Opines

Liberal zee2 over at redstate has the following comment in thread Scooter Libby Indictment regarding Plamegate and Fitzgerald's lame indictments:

So I don't know which exact statute was violated, but are you telling me there is no law against government officials leaking classified information? And if there is no such law, we probably both agree this is a Law congress should probably be busy writing.

Now we are close to a strange agreement, but I would error on the side of reform instead of new laws. The protection of classified information appears to be a very fluid legal issue. Things that are clearly bad for 'enemies of the state' to know should be protected. But who decides that? And things that are confidential because the parties do not want the information public are protected, until they are public. I agree it would be nice to have clear guidelines, but this is a country of free speech, free press and all the crazy loopholes that go with that. I would be in favor of reform in this issue! But good luck.

Take the Sandy Burglar case, the former national security advisor turned tv consultant. Obviously it would not be good for certain governments and/or terrorists to have access to the documents he had access to. And if he were no longer in government, and not under any official capacity, should he even have access to the files? Of course he should. He already knows most of whats in there. And he did break the law, but it was written off as just bungling, and not a vetting of incriminating documents. He gets a slap on the hand.

If you or I took the same documents, we would still be behind bars.

What about a technician working in Military Intelligence? I have met a few. Bright young computer geeks serving their country. Do you think their wives know anything? Of course they do, but that is against the law. Yet we don't want to crack down on that. And the military does have the rules as you seem to desire, but covering only members of the military. So you can see that many things conflict here, and we haven't even come to issues regarding the press.

Now lets go speculate on the cloak and dagger part. Your concern is that classified information contained in a memo circulated in the V.P.'s office was leaked at the risk of agents welfare and lives. First of all, if the agent in question was under the often quoted NOC, that agents name would not appear on any memo as it did in this case. Sensitive and primary assets are not going to be written down and circulated outside of the Directorate. If they are, well then they are a bungling bunch of buffoons and no intelligence agency. I would presume that those who organize and run such operations are more concerned about their agents than you or I.

As to the 'classified' nature of the memo, it is not a good idea to spill the beans per say, as it leads to mistrust at the least, and outright prosecution at the worst. But in order to be prosecuted for a crime, the revealing of classified information has to fall under certain laws. And the intent needs to be clear. Political revenge is the intent the left is claiming, but that doesn't cut it. So it ultimately resides in the trust of those who have access to the information to use it in the interest of the country or agency for which it is intended. Was this trust breached? Those on the left believe so. But I can make a clearer case of the same "crime".

Wilson discloses classified information in his oped attacking the Administration. Worse than that, by becoming a very public figure he exposed his wife to increased scrutiny leading to her identification as a CIA employee. Not only did he break the trust of the CIA, unless of course the CIA intended to attack the administration, he threatened the status of his wife, unless her status was not a concern. I think we get a very clear picture of the real situation. And it leaves the central core vacated as concerning the Fitzgerald investigation. Forever to be remembered as a Witch Hunt and not much else. Unless we get some juicy fireworks during the trial. I hope so, and Libby will get some pretty good lawyers, hopefully they attack the 'big picture' issues and suck the media whore Wilson into the trial.

French Socialist Perfection

Recently we were treated to a week of America bashing by the liberal socialist mainstream media when a catastrophic hurricane hit the gulf coast near New Orleans. The world was going to end, and it quickly became a blame game. But what does this have to do with France apart from the French Quarter? Here it is. Did we not hear over and over how this can't be America? Maybe in some far away third world, but not here. The whole world is watching and seeing the death and looting. The obvious racism and lack of response.

Well, I contend what we really had a glimpse of is the effect of forty years of socialism's failure. And we have today a friendly comparison to make. In Gay Paris all is not well. Four nights of riots in a Paris suburb. In response to the Interior Ministers goal of cracking down on crime. Say it isn't so! And, horror of horrors, police actually fired tear gas into a Mosque. Its the end of the World as we know it. At least in Paris the police have not joined the rioters yet. But the choice comments come toward the end of the piece. French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who will be running for President soon, had this enlightening thought:

"I am perfectly aware that it is not in three days or in three months that we will make up for 30 years," he added, vowing to crack down on gangs and drug dealers in the suburbs.

Am I hearing this correctly? The French are complaining about thirty years of socialism? My black and white pat world view is crumbling... But in to save the day is the former Socialist Prime Minister Laurent Fabius (who probably wants to be Pres. too) with the final suggestion how to solve this terrible situation:

"We need to act at the same time on prevention, repression, education, housing, jobs ... and not play the cowboy."

Oh good, the stars came back into alignment. That should save the day. Notice how socialists, even in France, hate Bush? And what does this wonderful prescription amount to? Spending someone else's money to prevent, unrepress, educate, house, and employ some group of people that apparently can't do it for themselves. That philosophy has worked well in N.O. and in Paris, might as well keep it up.

Friday, October 28, 2005

A "Sad Day" Says Sad Sack

It is a sad day Joe. Apparently there was no crime involving the disclosure of your wife's employment. And what is really sad is the fact that you continue to profit from your disgraceful lies and flagrant media whoring. But that is the beauty of a free country. And that brings me to a wonderful irony. Its pure speculation, but fun nonetheless.

Peacenic anti-war leftist Joe becomes poster boy for the "Bush lied" movement. But what about his wife? Aren't these NOC agents the ones who are trained to get and run intelligence sources in foreign countries? Are they trained in the art of torture and assassination? Are leftists peacenics providing for the retirement of someone who has knowingly violated some of the very tightly fought ideals held dear by the leftists?

She was covert for eight or nine years, and part of it during the COLD WAR. Under the EVIL Reagan administration! At the same time as IRAN CONTRA! What do we really know about her? Should we have a full investigation into these possible activities? How can you be comfortable with any agent of the CIA under the Reagan administration?

Its a sad day Joe. Very sad that we get two years of a witch hunt, and no real answers. When did you first talk to the press Joe? Mention anything about your wife to a reporter? Ah, at least we get a trial, and will probably get to see some real fun.

Intrade and Political Intelligence

I was very surprised to see how closely intrade called the indictment situation regarding Libby and Rove. Over the weekend both stocks shot up on news that appears to have been accurate. There were indeed five indictments. But Libby remained around 80 all the way up to the day before the indictments came down. Rove on the other hand dropped like a rock the day before. How has this happened? Is it a big enough market that people actually involved have taken positions? I would presume that that is illegal, yet due to the nature of the market, improbable to detect. And the number of people with that information would be very few. So how did the market figure this out? The leaks and coverage appear to have predicted the outcome with very good accuracy. Its a very interesting situation. So as a final note, the contract on Rove expires Dec. 31. Its still possible for the hopeful liberal. This is the follow up to my original post:

The Inflamitory: Libby and Rove Stocks Go Up

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

The Global Citizen is a Socialist Liberal

Working as I do in the vaulted ivory towers, I come into contact with a large number of liberal socialists. In fact, academia is so polluted with socialism its very hard to converse honestly with a majority of colleagues. Talk about minority persecution! But I want to bring a interesting observation to the table. When I am talking to a liberal its fun to ask sometimes whether they consider themselves a "global citizen". You can guess the answer. Now having a world view and understanding the issues concerning humanity is a positive thing. And concerning ourselves with international topics and contributing with that focus I believe is one of the most important aspects of modern politics. We need to make contributions to support our ideals throughout the globe.

Its this global contribution that gets perverted under socialism however. There is no world government, but liberal socialists somehow believe the U.N. is one. And citizenship comes from being a part of a government. In fact some people I converse with are mentally a part of this non-existent government to the exclusion of their real citizenship. Constant opinionated messages come from these same mentally confused people. We are stealing the resources of the world. We are encouraging forced labor throughout the third world. We are the cause of famine, terrorism, civil wars, displacement, pollution, and crime the world over.

The Global Citizen I am talking about believes in this socialist unreality to the point of mental illness. And there is very little room for discussion, as a emotional connection to these beliefs based on opinion is deep. Which leaves us with very bright people operating under the delusion of "global citizenship". And citizenship in a hypothetical body where there is no security, no representation, no rights, no votes, nothing conferred upon the individual.

I contend that we should "think globally, act locally". For instance, voting for conservatives on the local level. Like supporting the emerging democracy in Iraq. By purchasing export products from growing world markets. In fact we have seen a huge change in China as a manufacturing state. And hopefully that will lead them to greater freedom as the standard of living increases. We should continue not doing business with oppressive dictators. Now the historical foreign policy of "my biggest enemies enemy should get my support" was a ill applied philosophy, and led to our complicity in horrendous events. Instead of this historic policy, we should punish governments that oppress. We should promote individual freedom for all people. And this goal is actually impeded by the liberal socialist movement.

Monday, October 24, 2005

The Illegitimacy of Political Moderates

My new position is official. There is no Moderate. If one exists, they are rendered impotent immediately by lack of decision. Here is what the real "political moderates" are: Liberals. With a couple of exceptions for those who are complete media whores. Take John McCain. Is he a moderate? No, just a media whore. There is no moderation there. Now individual issues can have compromise solutions. But there is no platform that is driven by a platform of compromises. No one approaches a issue without predefined information and disposition as to an opinion.

I asked someone "Are you a moderate?" They responded positively. Try it anytime, you will be surprised. Then I quickly jumped in with "Do you support abortion on demand?" And I get a quick no. So you probe on to what the persons position on abortion is and it about as pro life as you can be. Thats no moderate. They just want everyone to like them. Call themselves moderate to avoid confrontation. And on the other side, I know people who salivate over McCain in one breath " the moderate that this country needs." And in the next breath parrot Moore's accusations straight from Farencrap 911 against the evil AWOL doper Bush. That is not a moderate.

There are no moderates. As a political label, its a misnomer. Now you might have moderate liberals as opposed to radical liberals, but I think you will find their core positions are about the same. And someone might call themselves a moderate republican, but I bet they are a liberal. In fact, we conservatives have a serious problem, because there are allot of "moderate" republicans. Look at the Coburn vote. Apparently there are twelve conservatives in the senate.

Now, many liberals were in support of the War in Iraq, so its not a particularly good issue for the detractors of my theory. Conversely, it does not contradict my assertion because there were no moderate positions on the war. And certainly the modern conservative position is to actively protect our national interest overseas. So I propose to call all moderates just plain liberals. And to combat the ridiculous compassionate conservative label. Conservatism is far more compassionate than the enslavement of liberal socialism, and it was so long before needing the compassionate moniker. If you have to call yourself moderate or compassionate, you need to get comfortable with your beliefs and positions as a conservative. Otherwise, your just another liberal.

Friday, October 21, 2005

Libby and Rove Stocks Go Up

So we can wait patiently for the tittering of the press who expect indictments soon, or we can do our own fun speculating. First a comment about the indictments value on intrade (legal - indictments). Apparently, Scooter is in for it. Rove is still just over fifty-fifty, but Libby is looking at a 80% chance. Why the difference? I didn't see anything publicly that would indicate either one of them being higher than the other. Except for the relative news cycling. So how much of a reflection is the news in the price of each contract? Or are these prices being driven by real leaks, and reflect the underground market? Its an interesting question.

Now what happens if the indictments come out, and they are carefully crafted to only apply to a supposed cover up or perjury? Does that mean that there will be no investigation into the CIA and what led to the supposed "outing"? I can't see that happening. The defense will be all over trying to get as many of these idiots out in the public parade if they have any sense. It would be very nice to question our gal Val, and her bubbly hubby. And lets ask Tenet about why he called for the investigation. Did he just not know about the law? Simply incompetent? Or was he pushed to do it by someone else? Questions we want answered. The press continually trumpets the outing theme, all the while knowing its not possible. So if we do get a trial, it will be a lot of fun! Well, not for Scoot and Karl, but for us, yes. My statement to those who still cling to the original charge, its impossible. You can not be NCO (non official cover) and have an "official" desk job at the shop. And if you can, well we are in a worse bureaucratic nightmare than anyone thought possible.

More fun on topic:
Garage Doors, News, Rove, and Freud
Split in the Congregation?

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Joseph Wilson Sparks Up on the Left Coast

Apparently world swinger and all around hip guy Joseph Wilson turns out to be a peacnic flower child. As a former Ambassador to Iraq, he should have some sense, but alas, apparently all the dope went to his head. The very deep forward looking prescription for foreign policy in Iraq was expunged by him recently. The crux of it hinges on running away. Well, its ok if we still offer air support and troop training according to Joe. He is still on the bandwagon to destroy the Bush administration if possible. But, his assertion that he is just trying to do the right thing is odd, especially since it appears he is still on a lecture circuit. He isn't giving away his sage advice at this San Fransisco State lecture. Ah profiting from lies.

What gets me in leftist articles like this is the crap about "other investigators" who support Wilson's claim that there was no sale of yellow cake uranium to Iraq. There didn't have to be a sale, Saddam was shopping, and thats the point. Wilson and his fan club have toked up a few to many brain cells. But who convinced him to become a political media whore? Did he need the money? Or was it something more sinister that he got sucked into? A plan was hatched within the CIA maybe?

In his speech he hopes the Iraqi vote on their own constitution fails. What a imbecile! He goes to the overt length of Fascist Apologist. And the audience wants him to run for political office? Are there clouds of smoke in the room I wonder? This idiot should be prosecuted for divulging classified information on an investigation with national security implications. And we should be finding out who in the CIA crafted this political plot and hired a crack pot pothead to execute it. We need a new special investigation...

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

From the Enlightenment to Socialism?

I need to answer a question: "Was the Enlightenment the fertilizer for the seeds of socialism?" First we have to define the Enlightenment (disc. of European Enlightenment). Many different pointy headed intellectuals will argue about the pure source. But we are pragmatists, and turn quickly to the font of wisdom which is the Oxford dictionary. Now the first and obvious definition of enlightenment is to enlighten, as in bringing understanding to ones mind, or awareness in the spirit. But that is not what we are considering here. Here is the second definition of Enlightenment:

2. Sometimes used [after Ger. Aufklärung, Aufklärerei] to designate the spirit and aims of the French philosophers of the 18th c., or of others whom it is intended to associate with them in the implied charge of shallow and pretentious intellectualism, unreasonable contempt for tradition and authority, etc.

Ah, now we have a better understanding of what is meant. Shallow and pretentious intellectualism. Unreasonable contempt for tradition and authority. Why, we must still be in the age of Enlightenment! That describes my University quite well in terms of its political attitude. Now some would argue I am being quite harsh here, but prove me wrong. Lets designate three separate actualizations of enlightenment. We can clearly point to the reformation as the seminal influence behind each of the three socio-political formations and phisical locations. We will compare the Continent, the United Kingdom, and the New World.

The Reformation begins with the rejection of the control of ones spirituality by Rome. It begins with freedom for people from a corrupt and oppressive Church State that was Catholicism. Now on the continent this turns to religious wars. In merry England it progresses a bit more smoothly, as the monarchy did not want to answer to Rome either. Yet in America, it begins arguably with the assembly of those who were rejected from the two situations above. That is a oversimplification, yet the 'radical' ideas of the reformation that were unacceptable at times on the Continent and in England were firmly planted in the colonies.

Now that we have our three separate entities, lets look at resulting stable governance. First in England, a slow evolution of democracy takes place, with the Monarchy formally loosing it in the Bill of Rights (1689), as a result of complicated politics covered elsewhere. On the continent things are not good, and Kings and Queens, Lords and Ladies duke it out for quite a while. The colonies have their day with the Declaration of Independence and subsequent war with England. This is the interesting point in time, the late 18th century. Who influences who?

Pure Enlightenment pointy heads contend that the French philosophers, the pinnacle of which being Voltaire and Rousseau, form the model and basis for influencing the political philosophy of the day. A broader and more correct perspective includes many different minds of the day including Locke, Hume, Paine and others. What is interesting to pontificate on is how much of an influence are these philosophies on the formation of the United States, and how much did the revolution actually influence subsequent events? But, our heads are not pointy enough here, and we move on.

Its now the early 19th century, socialism's inception is upon us, Napoleons changed the face of the continent, and the fledgling representative republic that is the U.S. is stretching. Oh, did we miss one little detail? Yeah, the pinnacle expression of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution. Now we need not argue about this horrific affair. The plight of the people was ignored by the ruling class for certain, yet afterwords ignorance and stupidity ruled France, some say to this day. The pattern of disgruntlement is similar from the peasant in France to the growing urban disaffected in England.

My contention is that there is a clear connection to Enlightenment thought and the philosophy of socialism. However, the roots and structure of enlightened thinking are clearly freedom of the individual socially and spiritually. And central to that theme is capitalism. So, even though there is a connection, there is a divide. I would contend that socialism would appeal to Rousseau yet disgust Voltaire, or perhaps the other way around. And becoming enlightened is a good thing, but becoming one of the Enlightened, as per the Oxford definition, is not.

The Spanish Unilateral Court

The Spanish leftists are at it again. A judge in Spain has issued warrants for the arrest of three U.S. soldiers in the situation involving the death of a Spanish journalist and cameraman. This is just the same infantile crap that two bit yellow socialist countries try in order to make a stink. Its the same as the anti-Semitic world court issuing warrants for Israeli generals and such. Just political screaming from America haters. If they really want to pursue this, they have to go through the already established relations with the U.S., and they will not do that, because the Spanish government would have to enforce with all countries its law on foreign soil which is as stupid as you can get. And its a slap in the face of the U.S. military, who the Spanish hate anyhow, as they did investigate this matter, and the requirement of the Spanish law is that the matter is not investigated in the foreign country. Hey, this is kinda like judicial unilateralism! We need to get into that. I think we should just apply US law to anyone who does anything to a US citizen anywhere. And then we can actually back it up, unlike the idiotic Spanish, with force! This could be fun, maybe they are onto something... I like it, forget the world court, since its so ineffective, we might as well do it for them.

Split in the Congregation?

Is there a deeper plot unfolding? Valerie Plame attends the same church as Karl Rove, only she goes to the wacky service. I guess we can conjecture here, off the record, that they attend St. David's Episcopal Church and Karl goes to the 'traditional' service, while Valerie goes to the 'contemporary' service. This is all speculation of course, because no one would actually know this unless they saw them, and I just picked the closest Episcopal church to Rove's house (as if I knew where he lived). But they must know each other on sight, and maybe even had a chat or two. Or maybe the 'traditionalists' and the wacky 'contemporarists' don't mingle much. However, does this indicate a deeper split within the church? Did the contemporary services inspire Valerie to send Mr. Wilson on a quest for justice against the war mongering administration? More speculation is in order!

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Ambassador Wilson Conspiracy

After a eventful fun day at, I must document my newest theory. In comments on the provocative piece (which was mentioned in Rush Limbaugh's radio program) I heard someone say "Wilson voted for Bush". Then it struck me how the whole mess happened!

1. Valerie did not vote for Bush, gives a cool grand to Al Gore

2. Suffers postpartum depression just after Gore looses the recount

3. Joe voted for Bush, but wisely sides with Val in shear terror of new mom of twins

4. CIA central in WMD intel screwup

5. Val loyalties for CIA and hatred of Bush coincide for hubby political hit mission

6. Joe makes the best of his domestic situation and becomes a political whore

Its perfect! Explains every aspect of this mess except for the mysterious Judy situation. We will have to wait for that one I fear. So its indictment time and everyone giddy. Though I would lay down new background before this whole thing completely dies. Yeah, thats my prediction on the indictments. Boring.

Import Deport Retort

Are we about to be treated to a change in the Administration's policy on immigration? We can hope so, but as with many things Bush, do not get your hopes up. Have we been told in the past that there is millions being spent on border control? What about all the new Border Patrol Agents that we were promised years ago? So now we hear from Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff about canceling the 'catch and release program'. The environmentalists were right! They want to remove all the fish from the rivers and lakes now. Do we believe this new get tough stance?

Immigration has been speeding up instead of slowing down. And along with the new get tough stance, we get more of this drivel about the guest worker. So the end result is basically, the very poorest, uneducated migrant illegals get a free pass still, and the rest get kicked out. I know personally two different individuals who have been deported. One from Australia, and one from Brazil. Both would have worked pretty hard to stay in the U.S. and if it weren't for tougher laws after 9/11, would be productive tax paying citizens here today. And they were not picking fruit. They were competing with other Americans for good jobs. Its a good free market system we have, and if there are people who truly want to share in the freedoms we should encourage it.

On the other hand we have this mantra about jobs no American would do. Thats a ignorant and I would say socialist position. The reason being we are subsidizing the farms, paying the health care, and providing the education for these people who are here illegally. Are we growing the welfare state with this policy? And if you paid a competitive rate, you can get anyone to do any of these jobs. If it is then two expensive to grow lettuce in Arizona, so what. Buy it from Mexico. We outsource millions of even higher quality jobs every year. Its ridiculous to support this program. And for those who spend years dealing with red tape and stupid bureaucracy just to stay in this country, its a slap in the face. More punishment for the achievers, and rewards for the criminals. That is the essence of Socialism.

For those who argue about how many jobs will be lost, and how many farms will be lost, get over it. Move on to things that are sustainable in our economy without subsidy either direct or hidden. If it was a debate about outsourcing Electric Boat to China, then yes, subsidize based on national security. Let the correct and successful model of free markets change the landscape and make us more efficient. If the people will pay for it willingly, then sell me my $6 lettuce. Otherwise, stop taking my money and giving it to a illegal immigrant. Even the great socialist states of Europe are cracking down on the influx, why do we persist in this dance? And Mexico itself has a completely tight border to the south keeping out the unwashed. Its time do deal with it correctly. If you are here illegally, you must leave.

Monday, October 17, 2005

Judith Miller Spa: Returning Refreshed

What do you do when you have been a reporter at the old Grey Hag for more than twenty years, lost some of your spark, health concerns, ... well you need to join the Judith Miller Spa and Weight Loss Center at the acclaimed resort in Alexandria. Many pundits and left wing bloggers are getting upset that Judy did not have the goods to take down Rove or Libby. But thats not the question here. The Grey Hag has finally come out and explained the story..... Uh, maybe. You can read it for yourself, but trust me, you don't need to. Since I am not going to link the Hag, here is the source, then the only pertinent excerpt:

The Miller Case: A Notebook, a Cause, a Jail Cell and a Deal

At a gathering in the newsroom, she made a speech claiming victories for press freedom. Her colleagues responded with restrained applause, seemingly as mystified by the outcome of her case as the public.

"You could see it in people's faces," Ms. Miller said later. "I'm a reporter. People were confused and perplexed, and I realized then that The Times and I hadn't done a very good job of making people understand what has been accomplished."

Thats a really catchy title! I jest, yet the serious nature of the excerpt is clear. The Hag and her hadn't done a very good job explaining... I mean come on people! She is standing right in front of you! A new woman, 14 pounds lighter, some quality soul searching, how come her colleagues don't get it? They should be lining up in droves for a stay in her personal suite at the famous Virginia resort.

To add incredulity to this affair, Miller presented an award to Deep Throat, a first amendment award from the California First Amendment Coalition, on Saturday. Bet he is glad she was not the reporter he leaked to. Of course Judy just got her own first amendment award from the SPJ. Bet they wish they could take it back now. Journalists awarding sources, getting their own awards, small world. I wan't a second amendment award for packing heat. High on the list would be a 21rst amendment award. I digress. Now that the mystery isn't solved and the jury is almost over, it appears the sharks are willing to eat their own. Judy is going to need some ruby red slippers pretty soon.

My personal Judy journey:
More Discussion of the Judith Miller Caper
Judith Miller: Covert Undercover Agent of the NYT

Friday, October 14, 2005

Instruction on Arguing for Federalism

Many of my investigations into the thoughts of great men and the origin of strong words lead to a certain time and place. That is the seminal years surrounding the framing of our constitution. What I enjoy especially are the periods of time 3 or 4 years prior to the constitutional convention. In this spirit I want to delve into the mind of one of the greatest presidents. In Lincoln's Cooper Union Address, which is arguably one of his greatest speeches, he exhibits a frame of mind that is instructive for both the layman and the scholar. He constructs an argument in a careful yet forceful manner. Part of this construction is examining the voting record on an issue of those who signed the constitution. Here is the excerpt I wish to examine:

In 1784, three years before the Constitution - the United States then owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other, the Congress of the Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery in that Territory; and four of the "thirty-nine" who afterward framed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh Williamson voted for the prohibition, thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory. The other of the four - James M'Henry - voted against the prohibition, showing that, for some cause, he thought it improper to vote for it.

Has he found reason to extend federal control over the states by interpreting the intent of this vote? Very interesting question. He continues on with other votes and similar evidence regarding more of the framers until he has evidence of a majority who's apparent intent was to extend federal authority with regards to slavery. Its a powerful argument. But lets look at just this first instance as a fundamental example. Who were these three in favor?

Roger Sherman was self taught, a surveyor, lawyer, proprietor, justice of the court, as well as a writer. A parish Minister assisted in his education and at a young age he was engaged in the civic and religious affairs of New Milford Connecticut. He is a signer of the Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Mifflin was raised a Quaker and educated by the Rev. Dr. Smith. He graduated from the College of Pennsylvania in 1760. He ran his own import export business before the war and this formed some of his support against undue taxation which led to his involvement in the war. At a time in the War for Independence he was quartermaster of the army and Washington's right hand. He witness the inability of congress to control states infighting over supplying the war and thus did not support a loose confederation.

Hugh Williamson was one of the students in the first graduating class of the College of Pennsylvania. After graduating he became a minister but removed himself from that over infighting. He went back to school and mastered in mathematics. After four years as a professor he went to Europe and obtained degree in medicine. He lodged with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison and was instrumental in helping them (a clear federalist).

Can we see just how much depth Lincoln has put into his argument? Not words assembled together to persuade, but solid pieces of a foundation that have weight beyond the words. And its just fun to notice how religion and faith, commerce, and academia of the day formed the framers views. Within these extraordinary ordinary men the foundations of federalism can be found. And its instructive how Lincoln is aware of this and extends the same principles to engage in the fight over slavery while expanding federalism. Equally interesting is the offhand rejection of the vote against by James M'Henry. Lincoln clearly denigrates the cause in "for some cause" that prompted the negative vote by not even mentioning it. We have a bar, a standard, and in this matter of persuasive oration, the pinnacle is in a very high place. Thank you Mr. President.

Are They Liberals or Fascists Apologists?

I was recently sent an article sans reference or author. It was a stupid propaganda piece of typical gloom and doom about how the new constitution in Iraq was so horrible. But, as with all crap like this it peaked my interest as to who wrote it. Well that was easy enough, its the wacko Pepe Escobar. I will not bother you with his current drivel, but here is a little excerpt to get you in the mood from one of his previous pieces:

"Everyone in Baghdad, the former great capital of Islam at its apex, is fond of saying how it has survived the Mongols, the barbarians at the gate. The evangelic apostles of armed democratization cannot even imagine the fury a new breed of barbarians may unleash at the gate of the new American century."

Funny, its seems everyone in Baghdad was pretty glad to be saved from an oppressive evil dictator in Saddam. And I think we could imagine the fury of the barbarians, who are not a new breed, but a festering uneducated mob of religious fascists. Nothing new in this world. This guy is typical drivel, and not very interesting. Constant distortion, with very little rational discourse. But I found a gem of a piece written by a sane liberal. (That can't be right...) I am in full concurrence with the label Fascists Apologist. Very well done Dean.

Truth In Labeling: Calling Fascists What They Are

So now we can make a very clear distinction. You can be against the war, you can be against War, or you can be a pot loving peacenic, but when you cross over into this realm of hate filled diatribe that is mostly distorted opinion we need to call you what you are, a Fascists Apologist. Which leaves us with Pepe Escobar and the hundreds of other journalists who have an addendum to their current ideology of secular liberal socialists.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Have Liberals Succumbed to Ideologism?

There is a constant barrage of frothy rhetoric spouted from the leaders on the left opining that conservatives ranks are filled with racists. The term racist stems from the term racialism which Oxford defines as:

Belief in the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those in close proximity who may be felt as a threat to one's cultural and racial integrity or economic well-being.

I have never met someone as defined above. The strict interpretation of having a belief in the superiority of a particular race raises the bar for being a racist very high. Yet I know many people who exhibit the rest of the definition. Where I currently live in Hawaii, we have the most diversity of any state in the union. Also, Caucasians are not first or second on the list in terms of population. I would conjecture that this is the most prejudiced state in the nation. My Korean neighbors show clear disdain for the Micronesians. I know Chinese friends who honestly advise their children to avoid the Vietnamese. Even the largest group, Americans of Japanese descent, are prejudiced against each other depending on how many generations back your family emigrated. Do any of these people believe they are a superior race? Not that I have ever noticed.

Do conservatives believe they are a superior race? That is a completely ridiculous statement. And offensive to the large body of conservatives who are not descended from white western Europeans. But lets take the definition from above and substitute a few words:

Belief in the superiority of a particular ideology leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other ideologies, esp. those in close proximity who may be felt as a threat to one's cultural and ideological integrity or economic well-being.

I would propose that this could be the definition of the term ideologism (I always wanted to make an ism), and then would use the term immediately to label current liberal socialists as succumbing to ideologism. They may even believe they are a superior mental race. Their constant use of class warfare and racial innuendo falls clearly into the definition. And not only do they believe in the superiority of liberal socialism (bordering on the religious), they personally and globally feel threatened by conservatism. And that leads us back to race. These liberals who have succumbed to ideologism openly antagonize using racial discord. This leads to reverse prejudice where one race is identified and labeled racist when they clearly are not. More antagonism is created, and the resulting fear and separation is self destructive.

Non racial xamples of this behavior are the familiar mantra "Reagan was a simpleton" or "Bush is stupid". Clearly antagonistic statements originating from ideologism. The popular accusation of actively denying black votes, wherever liberals happen to loose and election, stems from ideologism. Most tragic is the accusation of racism against conservatives from the leaders in the urban minority communities. The cultural and economic well being of this population group has been effectively under the control of socialist liberals for forty years, yet the statistics show a staggering picture of waste and ineffectivity. And yet these same leaders constantly accuse conservatives of systematic racist practices. Reality is difficult to distort, but they persist in trying.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

The Manners and Spirit of a People

Sometimes we can look back at the pure brilliance of the founding fathers a absorb some insight. In Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia (1784) there is a extremely pertinent indicator of some of the current political malaise within our great republic. I include the lead in to the fantastic observation as an aside. Many people on both sides of the spectrum have questions about outsourcing jobs. My snide remark would be that Jefferson was all for it. But in seriousness, he has already seen the manners and principles of the mobs in the cities of Europe, and found them wanting. This is the same group of workers that form the backbone of socialism thirty years later. Anyhow, let some light in:

While we have land to labour then, let us never wish to see our citizens occupied at a work-bench, or twirling a distaff. Carpenters, masons, smiths, are wanting in husbandry: but, for the general operations of manufacture, let our workshops remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to workmen there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them their manners and principles. The loss by the transportation of commodities across the Atlantic will be made up in happiness and permanence of government. The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.

The mobs of great cities are like sores? Does that have any application today? And these mobs, what cesspool do they represent in terms of modern political philosophy? Now we find out how to preserve a republic in vigour. The preservation relies on the the manners and spirit of a people. When our manners become base, and we display a degenerate spirit, we begin to destroy the basis for our laws and constitution. I have chills....

A startling observation I would make here relates to the 2004 presidential election. There is a amazing map of counties that voted democrat or republican respectively, and I think we can compare Jefferson's observation to this map (mobs in big cities are blue). I would not say that every big city is infected with liberal socialism, but most are. And urban discontent is the perfect breeding ground for the canker of modern liberal socialism. We should focus the vaccine of freedom in these mentally diseased areas. This is mild break with Jefferson's idea of the time (no constitution hammered out yet), we can't isolate ourselves from the world to protect our 'pure government' in the modern era. We have to emphasize and support the betterment of manners and the enhancement of the spirit in the whole population. That is the true prescription.

Goals of Islamic Terrorist in Iraq

What are the plans of the radical Islamic terrorists? Apparently we can find out quite easily. CentCom has published the translation of a letter from the al-Qaida leader Zawahiri to or favorite Jordanian in Iraq, Zarqawi, which outlines the goal of these dangerous scum. The plan is in four stages, and is not exactly brilliant. What is amazing is that these people understand that perception is more important that tactical results. Its the classic example in warfare where you can win many tactical battles yet lose the war to a great strategic victory. And the strategy they employ is propaganda. Align your message to mirror the left wing liberal mainstream media. Let your goals be those of the divisive voices within your enemy camp. Ok, lets take a look:

The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.

Duh... I think he doesn't like us. Are we hindering the creation of a terrorist state? Could be. And isn't this the same message we are getting from Al Gore, Cindy Shehan, Move On, Micheal Moore, ...etc? So our primary task if we want to thwart Sheik Osama and his little club is to beat the crap out of them in Iraq and stay there as long as the Iraqi government wants us.

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.

There is no doubt that this amirate will enter into a fierce struggle with the foreign infidel forces, and those supporting them among the local forces, to put it in a state of constant preoccupation with defending itself, to make it impossible for it to establish a stable state which could proclaim a caliphate, and to keep the Jihadist groups in a constant state of war, until these forces find a chance to annihilate them.

Ok, he doesn't like Shiites either. Its enlightening to see that even terrorist scumbags recognize who is in control and the void that would be left if the U.S. armed forces were to leave prematurely. And it appears to be the purpose of this organization to 'find a chance to annihilate' us. More validation for being there, and killing these people at each opportunity.

The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.

Well, you can't stop with just a little progress, so why not move out to the rest of the world. So look out Syria, Turkey, and I wonder what constitutes a secular country? Maybe from his standpoint, Iran?

The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.

My raising this idea-I don't claim that it's infallible-is only to stress something extremely important. And it is that the mujahedeen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal. We will return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway over us. Instead, their ongoing mission is to establish an Islamic state, and defend it, and for every generation to hand over the banner to the one after it until the Hour of Resurrection.

Oh no, you mean you don't like Israel? Imagine that. The important thing stressed here is instructive for us as well. The author does not want the fighting zeal to end. The fear is that it will end when we leave Iraq in humiliation, the mujahedeen will feel that they completed the mission. But the zeal could end in another fashion, after we shoot all the zealots.

Supreme Court of Conservative Opinion

Will the real conservatives please stand up! It is about the debate, not the candidate. If we want to sneak around to get the goal, then we are just as base as our opponents. Why not pick the most vocal, on the record conservative possible for the supreme court? What is wrong with a open debate? If they don't make the court, pick another in the same mold. Apparently there are quite a number of candidates to choose from. If the president continues to say this is the best choice, he is blind to the reality of our movement. It might be a very good choice personally, but a extremely poor choice for conservatives. We are fighting a distorted socialist liberal ideology, and the best way to do it is to sway hearts and minds through open discourse. The president who represents conservatives would openly try to support that debate in every arena. Yet, with arguably the most important responsibility of the president, our current president removes us from the choice, and shrinks from the debate. Its shameful, and they don't see why. Whoa there right wing radical, your saying the same thing over again......

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

The Flame War on Iraq Continues

We have to delve back into the flames again. Its to much fun to miss, but gets tiresome at some point. This banter is quite lengthy, but worthy of inclusion into the realm of thought. Its point counterpoint with our favorite con-lib duo, starting with the original message:

The flawed constitution will fail,
The militias control Baghdad,
The country is in civil war,
The Kurds want their own state, as well as the Shiites….
Socially and economically the country is in far worse condition than under the former dictator..
No oil flows…
Dozens and dozens die everyday...
And foreigners do battle in the streets….
Ah, the blessings of democracy.
Maybe the Amerikans should have stayed home.

V: So…

M-So? So your a socialist who can't see past his left pinkie. Lets look at your lies:

V: I am a clear-eyed realist whose vision is not clouded by ideological cataracts.

M-What? Every single statement you make is doom and destruction! It has been since pre 9/11. I'd say you are a blind Bush hater, who hates totally based on ideology.

V: The flawed constitution will fail,

M-What constitution isn't flawed? You leftist think ours is an outdated archaic quaint piece of toilet paper, unless it can be misconstrued to fit your wishes. And if you mean the referendum fails, well then have another one. Do it until you get it.

V: The constitution is vague or speechless on vital issues because there is NO agreement on them. This is Wiemar written in Arabic! Is Iraq a federal union or a centralized state? Can't tell from the constitution! How much independence do each of the three regions have? Undefined in constitution! Is the supreme law of the land the secular law of the legislature as interpreted by the secular courts, or is it Shia law interpreted by clerical courts? Constitution does not say. Document is flawed to the point of collapse....means nothing. Will be defeated in vote coming up, meaning yet another election to get yet another government and months and months more of no result because there CAN BE NO result that all parties agree on...hence, no country called Iraq.

M-Again, you only see doom and destruction, even in the midst of a democratic process to self organize. Notice how your argument is solely based on opinion?

V: The militias control Baghdad,

M-What militias? If you mean we made peace with the radicals in Sadr city, fine, but I think they are officially recognized. And who controls Baghdad? Stores are open, you can buy gas, groceries, go to school. It may be violent in terms of insurgent attacks, but they certainly don't control anything but fear.

V: There are at least two dozen militias doing battle for control of the country. Mostly in the capitol, but in every major city. Politicians, religious leaders, teachers, administrators, police and soldiers are killed by the dozens daily. The government, such as it is, is held prisoner in the green zone and has no control or authority in the country. It controls no army, does not direct the economy, and will disappear in a blink as soon as the Americans put their tail between their legs and run away. The militias each control sections of the country, but the situation is very fluid and dynamic. In short, there is no Iraqi government "in being" that has the support of the Iraqi people.

M-More doom and gloom and opinion. This is really repetitive.... Or are you trying to legitimize a few terrorists by calling them militias now? Can't even stay with the more generic 'Insurgent' label. You should work for the BBC.

V: The country is in civil war,

M-Civil War? What? You people live in some far away imaginary sinkhole.

V: Ya, like the delegates from the Arab league who said the same thing just yesterday. Even American generals call it a civil war. In fact, everybody calls it a civil war except Scrub and Fox news. Geez, wake up! The best solution IS a three nation one....but, of course, that means trouble for Turkey, with a Kurdish state on it's borders, and a big win for Iran, with a Shiite state in the south. The big losers are the Sunni, who would get next to nothing, and the American government, who would be made to look like the fools they are. There was a reason George Senior didn't go into Baghdad, and now u know what it was!

M-Apparently you can't read your own leftist forwards correctly. The biggest "threat" is civil war quoth the general, not "we are seeing a civil war". And everybody does not call it a civil war. Just repeating something enough times in a leftist news media outlet doesn't make it true. And I would contend that President Bush the first listened to much to a certain peacenic general and lost a golden opportunity. We might have been able to avoid the whole increase in terrorism in the 90's had we really destroyed Saddam. But thats just the warmonger in me.

V: The Kurds want their own state, as well as the Shiites….

M-After being oppressed for so long you would want your own state to. And we have more than one state in our union. So what. Work it out.

V: Not state as in Oregon, state as in nation. And the Kurds won't settle for anything less in reality. It could end up being called an autonomous region, at least for awhile, but they want a real country of their own. We have a federal system, which is EXACTLY what the Sunni will never allow because it means they loose control/power. Hence, they will never agree to a constitution that defines a Federal system while the Kurds and Shiite will never agree to a constitution that DOES NOT define a Federal system.....therefore, no constitution.

M-More doom. You do not want them to work it out apparently. And amazingly, you got the state sarcasm! So when did we federalize? (more sarc.) And this double negative thing based on opinion does not qualify as logic.

V: Socially and economically the country is in far worse condition than under the form dictator..

M-If you can honestly say this about Saddam's reign of terror, you are a imbecile. No comment necessary.

V: In terms of gas availability, oil production, electricity, basic infrastructure, water, sewer, schools, housing units, GDP, jobs, income etc etc, Iraq IS worse off that under the Bathists....fact of life. Oh, include women's rights, medical treatment, and public safety in that too. To say nothing of the terrorist attacks of which there were NONE in Iraq until the US invaded and bought thousands of them in.

M-Do you people really convince yourself of this stuff? You have no problem with mass graves, rape rooms, no freedoms, no representation? Oh yeah, your a socialist. Its like being group dictator.

V: No oil flows…

M-Uh... Oil production? Its already at close to the U.N. "oil-for-food" "grease for my pocket" level of 2.5 mil. What planet are you on?

V: Ya? Well, BS. How about the level of oil production BEFORE the US started bombing and imposing sanctions (that killed millions in the infant mortality rate for example? Take a look at how much oil was produced in the 1980's and how much now.... Iraq would be a rich country except for us. Remember that we ENCOURAGED Saddam to attack Iran, and that OUR Ambassador hinted that we would turn a blind eye to the invasion of Kuwait. We armed Saddam, anthrax, gas, the whole thing, because we were in a snit about Iran. US foreign policy in the Middle East has been blindly stupid since 1945.

M-Again, standard stupid argument. Its our fault. And again, repeating something enough times does not make it true. Always blame the U.S. foreign policy. So stupid. But it is convenient and comfortable for those who hate this country. I don't even want to debunk the above, as its part of your leftist religion now.

V: Dozens and dozens die everyday... And foreigners do battle in the streets….

M-Yes, this is the first true statement. Those terrorist are really evil aren't they? Maybe the U.N. should go get them.

V: Ya, and WE are the foreigners. 150,000 yanks versus at most 5,000 foreigners. What the CCCRW's can't get thru their heads is that the insurgents are less than 10% foreign (while making up 90% of the suicide bombers, for reasons I trust are clear enough.) The militias represent the infighting between religious groups...they work with/cooperate with, to some degree or another, the foreign terrorists who are targeting US troops....everybody agrees they want to push the US and Brits out, THEN they will settle their own hash in a great bloodbath...they way they always have.

M-Ah, this is what you leftists are looking forward to. And working hard to make happen. You want a bloodbath. Actively undermining the support of our efforts may even bring it about.

V: Ah, the blessings of democracy. Maybe the Amerikans should have stayed home.

M-Ah the idiocy of isolationist socialism. Maybe they should all shoot themselves. And the real blessing of democracy, we voted, you lost.

V: I don't think u understand politics here. Socialism is an internationalist movement. It is not now nor has ever been isolationist (which is not to say it hasn't been nationalist in some cases). Marx, Lenin, Tito, Mao, the African and south American (Castro etc) socialists/communists have always looked to the worldwide movement for support. That's why the song is called the Internationale! Workers of the world unite! And all that.

The election(s): The D's lost for a combination of reasons. Not the least of which was that the country was lied to about the nature of the war in Iraq. But the D's have moved further and further away from working people. They have lost their purpose by being co-opted into a corrupt political system. They are as much the party of the rich and comfortable as the R's. Then, of course, they put up a candidate that was a pantywaist, and flawed. You cant vote for the war and then oppose it. The party of the spineless, as I've said before. Time to form a party based on fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, national responsibility, and international responsibility. Cut spending! Stop exporting jobs! Build America rather than sell it.

M-First, I think I have a pretty good grasp of politics here. Socialism, as peddled today, does not want our free and democratic republic to engage foreign threats, hence its 'traditionally' isolationist. As far as your worldwide movement, yes, much like the plague, it is worldwide. But strangely enough, they have never coexisted very nicely together. You really would need one world government to redistribute everything, and those in power in a socialist state tend to not want to relinquish their stranglehold on the population.

As far as being lied to about the nature of the war, who lied? J. Efn. K. sounded more hawkish than Bush before he voted for the war. And multiple committees in congress saw, and reviewed the same information that the administration had. Hell, everyone believed there were WMD's stockpiled away, even your leftist mainstream media.

Now, about your new party. You apparently stress responsibility. I'm all for it. We have a responsibility to uphold the goals of freedom internationally. We should cut spending, especially in areas where competitive market systems would be more efficient. And as for the exporting of jobs, you are confused. We have actually been importing more jobs than exporting, its just in different sectors. But another one of our international opportunities could be in exporting security. Charge for keeping the world safe!

Consistency in the Socialist Label

A frequent question arises in discussion with people and politics. Repeatedly occuring in rhetoric is the misuse of labels that are commonly know but not understood. The question arose yesterday as to what a socialist is. I was surprised to find out after examining some early references that socialism has remained relatively unchanged for a century and a half. The crux of the theory is the distribution of capitol and capacity of a state equitably amongst the population. For instance, large scale manufacturing would be controlled by the state for the people. In its most pure form it would represent the ultimate worker owned corporation. Alas, the whole premise is flawed. As an example, what is a workers motivation to work productively? The betterment of the state? In fact, the system practically halts itself, in that what is the workers motivation to work at all? Resources are divided equally, so why work for them? Then of course the state needs to 'encourage' the workers, for the betterment of all. So you end up with forced labor. We could go on, but the idea is clear.

Now as for the label, we turn to our favorite source of wonderment, the Oxford dictionary:

1. a. One who advocates or believes in the theory of socialism; an adherent or supporter of socialism.

Ok, no great surprises there. The fun begins in the citations. The first, and I would assume very close to the originating date of the term, is from 1827.

1827 Co-operative Magazine Nov. 509 The chief question..between the modern,..Political Economists, and the Communionists or Socialists, is whether it is more beneficial that this capital should be individual or in common.

We see from this the origin of the problem. Many workers, barely off the farms, work hard and have very little to show for it. Whereas the privileged have profited greatly. So the obvious solution is to take the capitol from the rich and give it to the poor. We can be clear that this sounds nice, yet never works. And that does not imply that government should not involve itself in labor laws and increasing the standard of living for the worker. It just means that removing the capital from those who use it to create more wealth and distributing it amongst those who will consume it is self defeating. Next we have:

1833 The Crisis 31 Aug. 276/1 The Socialist, who preaches of community of goods, abolition of crime, of punishment, of magistrates, and of marriage.

Ah yes, crime and punishment. Oh, and lets get rid of marriage. Sound familiar? Redefining the family to suit your personal belief. And how do you abolish crime? Is everyone going to be happy with their equal allotment from the whole? Happiness everywhere. I don't think so. Most people are happy when they have a sense of fulfillment. And the state can not provide that. The state challenges no one personally, all are 'equal'. Equally turned into mind numbed robots who have no say and no opportunity as an individual. Lets move on:

1889 SHAW Fabian Ess. Socialism 182 The young Socialist is apt to be catastrophic in his views.

Its 60 years after the introduction of the label, and things don't look good for the socialist. What a surprise! Why, do we not hear the same litany today? Everything is the worst possible. There is no optimism anywhere amongst the liberal ranks. For some reason the socialistic ideology produces the same type of person today as it did over a hundred years ago. One final gem:

1848 W. E. FORSTER in Reid Life (1888) I. vii. 246 The worst of all Socialist plans I have seen is that all have within them..a damning desire to shirk work.

Ah! Now we find out why the world is not a socialist paradise. I find it fascinating that this obvious result of the socialist model was recognized so early. However, as self defeating as it is, the socialist agenda appeals to peoples emotion and continues to influence the western world. Everyone empathizes with the oppressed downtrodden worker. Especially if that worker is in the minority. Yet the socialist solution oppresses even further by removing freedom and trods upon the desire and hope for betterment. With enlightened vision, we can see government protecting freedom and providing opportunity. At the same time not falling into the trap of the socialist state. Now we have a better idea of what a socialist is, so go out a call a socialist a socialist.

Monday, October 10, 2005

Four Hours a Day: A TV Breakdown

The current average for a citizen of our wonderful country is 4.5 hours. That is of course how much television we actually watch. What does this encompass? With todays format, you get about one full hour of advertisement per day. About 90 adds. Take one product, say a single brand of beer. You probably get 5 exposures per day. In one month we are told how much better one brand of beer is 150 times. Pretty constructive use of time. We condition our brains to tune out this information (or drink alot of bad beer). We dull our minds just to survive the advertising.

What is that time worth? Lets break it down. Lets consider it a part time easy job at say, three hours a day at ten dollars an hour. The yearly income would be 10,000 dollars. Throw in another 700 for cable savings. Now for the rich and famous (or anyone else who doesn't want more work), you are talking about 68 days per year recovered for spending with your family, or hobbies, or just relaxing. That is more than two months out of a year that each person in America spends staring at a glowing box.

Now I know we could be stretching things. Some people unwind in front of the tube. Others eat while watching a favorite movie. And I am not discounting the value of information disseminated through television. But, for the most part, its amusement. And the strict definition of amusement is to not think. I would contend that television trains you to not think. So every week that you leave it turned off, you gain another full day of time for your own use and remove from your mind 600 advertisements. Sound very reasonable.

Reagan's Far Reaching Vision

I was reading one of Reagan's speeches when I realized how amazingly pertinent his view was. With very few changes in context, it could be given today. Unfortunately, after forty years of growing conservatism, we have not yet addressed the fundamental problem addressed in the following excerpt. Why? What is wrong with our system that we can not get our elected representatives to reduce government? Where have we gone wrong that socialism is even on the table? Here is the amazing text from the speech in support of the Goldwater campaign called Rendezvous with Destiny:

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth. Federal employees number 2.5 million, and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force is employed by the government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury, and they can seize and sell his property in auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier overplanted his rice allotment. The government obtained a $17,000 judgment, and a U.S. marshal sold his 950-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work. Last February 19 at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-time candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.

In retrospect for the final statement, he wasn't elected, and the advance of socialism got a nice boost from Lyndon B. Johnson. We haven't yet reversed the effects of that administration, let alone achieve Reagan's vision from this speech. Now it is interesting that the ratios of government employees has remained pretty close to one in six. So there is hope on that front, but the current rate of expansion is probably going to set us back many years. We have added more bureaucracy every year, never reducing, or even holding steady. We have Homeland Security and the TSA. We have the new FEMA. We have who knows how many new employees in the War on Terror. One place that hasn't seen huge expansion, and would be the obvious choice, is the Border Patrol. But that doesn't fit the socialist agenda. And I am perfectly willing to accuse the current administration of advancing the socialist agenda in this regard, ---if the shoe fits.

But its not just the White House is it? Apparently the Supreme Court of today got its inspiration from the past. The ruling in favor of local government condemnation of private property in the Kelo vs. New London case sounds like the same underlying principle as the one at work in Reagan's speech. Forty years and we have not eradicated this socialist cancer. Its a malignant tumor and we have to actively fight it.

Interestingly, Reagan counters with a quote from Norman Thomas who clearly wants the advance of socialism. This is one of the founders of the ACLU. Strangely, if Thomas were active today, his very own ACLU might take offense at one of his inspiring motivators, the Christian Socialists. Or maybe he would have seen the light and aproved of social progress included the removal of all references to God. Reagan certainly was aware of that vision. Where are our own conservative leaders who can see the same? Stand up!

Friday, October 07, 2005

Socialist Media or Just Entertainment?

I received a email asking about a book called "Moral Capitalism: Reconciling Private Interest with the Public Good". Catchy title, but there is a warning light on my radical right wing sycophant mind numbed robot panel. So lets investigate a little further. The author is Stephen Young of the Caux Round Table. The former aim to promote moral capitalism everywhere. I read the principles, and I don't see much difference between them and the typical boilerplate that is shoved into every large business's annual report. I mean what company does not say "We will support peace, security, diversity and social integration". Its almost required in todays p.c. world.

Actually supporting peace and security is a interesting point. I would contend that the Boeing Corporation supports peace and security by developing new weapons systems and supplying them to the U.S. military. Of course my liberal socialist friends can start screaming at this point. And what the hell is diversity and social integration? These same pointy heads are enamored with the Japanese business model and glean from it many useful ideas. But that is a huge contradiction when it comes to diversity. And the Nippon model of social integration is not what I would call "freedom for the people". Anyhow, lets get back to the real fun concerning 'moral capitalism'.

I looked at some of the user reviews on this book (amazon) and a excerpt from one review is the seminal thought that irritated me enough to start writing. This is choice:

"A book of tremendous importance. Communism committed suicide, and Capitalism needed the rescue this read can provide."

Capitalism needs to be rescued? Rescued from the cancer of socialism maybe. But even that does not seem to be a problem. Especially when the most successful countries in the world are the capitalist free markets. Now rampant overconsumption might be a social ill, but I don't think it will hurt capitalism in the long run. What I want to discuss however, is this moral implication. Who says capitalism is immoral? Thats the implication in the book title. That is the perception presented to us from the liberal socialist mainstream journalist. Now we have had some fantastic examples of immoral behavior recently in the largest corporations. Enron's collapse, the Tyco duo, Worldcom and a few others. However, even with this surge, I would contend that the majority of these large corporations do not have immoral leaders. Additionally, the largest employer in the U.S. is small business, and success in small business is extremely difficult without trying to maintain positive ethical behavior. When was the last time the manager at your local supermarket recieved an indictment?

Now a strange aspect of this is that the marketplace seems to allow for some obvious unethical behavior. Take car sales. Clearly anyone with a ounce of cognition can see through the scam that is new car sales, but it seems to persist. I would contend however, that in the majority of the marketplace, unethical and immoral behavior is quickly adjusted for. That is what keeps most business leaders in line. And this normalcy is not in any way exciting in terms of news cycles.

Another odd aspect is that the rarefied pinnacle of business does contain some very scurrilous characters. We have the railroad tycoons, Rockefellers, Kennedys and such who all have some very questionable ethics in their history. And in our day we have a few as well. One of my favorite is Soros who sucked the cream off a whole country to make his billions. Apparently legal, yet inherently immoral. And less evil, but on the same scale is the empire Gates built based on crushing the little guy. But my point is this, the perception is one of greed and corruption, the reality is far more benign. Not that we shouldn't actively prosecute crooks and adjust rules and regulations to adapt to a changing marketplaces. We should be vigorous. More fundamentaly we should be vigorous in our opposition to socialist journalism.

In conclusion, it seems important to discriminate between the entertainment spectacle that is the fall of some powerful scumbags, and the persistent portrayal of capitalism as corrupt and morally bankrupt. And a book on keeping your business healthy and moral is fine. But why not name it "Capitalism: Moral Actions Mean Success" or something like that? And where are the sane voices exposing the stupidity of socialism? You will not find them among mainstream journalists. And when journalists are asked if they are socialists, they duck and hide. Why? Why not just say what you are and try to influence people honestly? Oh, I forgot, one of the hidden tenants of socialism is fear.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

The Lie of Clinton's Justice

Why has this been ignored and suppressed? The mantra from the left has been to proceed against terrorist using the legal system. We have to be fair, we have to accord them rights that they do not have. But what if someone hinders the Justice system? What if politics mire the process? Well, we have a perfect example of why liberals are so wrong on this issue. Its provided to us by a exemplary member of the liberal establishment. Our boy Bill. Lets look at one of the attacks perpetrated upon us during his watch.

In June of 1996, the Khobar Tower complex was attacked killing 19 brave Americans. Some of the instigators of this terrible crime were caught. I wonder how the legal system worked? The former director of the FBI is releasing a new book soon, and in it he details the absolutely unbelievable actions of the Clinton administration. No need to wait for the book, former director Lois J. Freeh details this disturbing reaction to terrorism in a previous column. Is it any wonder that Americans are disgusted with liberalism? Even now in Clinton's "Media Express to Resurrect a Legacy and Get My Wife Elected" world tour he makes claims to being tough on terrorism. Not only is he not tough on terrorism, he almost directly encourages it by appeasement. So, the outcome of the investigation into the Khobar Towers under the Clinton administration? Nothing. Not even pursuing access to the suspects for FBI investigators.

If we have 19 brethren murdered in cold blood, and we know where the cowards are, what do we do? Apparently, if your a liberal, you roll over and hope no one notices. This should be criminal. It is getting my blood a little hot....

Al Gore's Blindness is Illuminating

The AP released the text of a recent speech by Mr. Gore. How can someone who is presumably so bright be so stupid? Its very interesting to simply remove all of the rhetoric and then see whats left. But I want to look at just one excerpt here as an example of how lost liberals are at this point in time. From the speech:

"And here is my point: it is the destruction of that marketplace of ideas that accounts for the "strangeness" that now continually haunts our efforts to reason together about the choices we must make as a nation."

This about sums it up. He can not see past the liberal realm, where there is very little reasoning, and even fewer new ideas. He is blind to the fact that the citizens of this country are making choices as a nation, just not his choices. Furthermore, the "strangeness" that now haunts his efforts, is the fact that he is not in power anymore. It certainly must be strange to not get away with controlling the debate. And what is this "reason together" bs? You don't want to reason together Al, you just want everyone else to agree with you. How much reasoning have you been doing lately Al? Its only reasonable to a liberal if the outcome is to make the world more liberal. Otherwise its unreasonable, and introduces "strangeness" that haunts liberal efforts. Totally blind.

And what does Mr. Gore mean by the destruction of the marketplace of ideas? Does he mean the demise of liberal mainstream journalism? The demise of force fed bias on the nightly news? It makes you wonder if the "inventor of the Internet" has ever gone online. He's lying to his audience. He's playing on their fears. Totally blind.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Defining Liberal; Labeling Liberal

There is much contention about what constitutes a 'liberal', and what the label really means. For me, the modern label is sufficient. Yet many who fit this label do not want to be associated with the label. They want to be independent. They want to be progressive. Or they just want to be known for their special topic which they are passionate about. The classic duck is "Well, I'm fiscally conservative, yet socially liberal". Ok, you're a liberal. When you ask them about cutting social services its definitely no. But they are perfectly willing to cut the military budget. Is that fiscal conservatism? However, the reason for our current pontification is to find a more historical definition of the noun, Liberal. Lets look at the Oxford dictionary (my anglophile roots showing?) for enlightenment:

1. A member of the Liberal party

Ok, so far so good, but lets look at examples for the above:

1823 SOUTHEY in Q. Rev. XXVIII. 496 The Liberals of that day [end of 18th c.].. flew at high game... There was a scheme for establishing a society of Liberals at Cleves, where..they were to employ themselves in the task of destroying Christianity by means of the press.

Oh my, we have found some interesting usage here. Collusion of the press? Destruction of Christianity? Schemes and plots, and the goal is clear. Wait, there is more:

1885 LOWE Prince Bismarck I. 469 This was evidently the calculation of the Liberals in the Reichstag, when..they began a series of attempts to cobble at the Constitution.

Cobbling at the Constitution? Oh dear, what have we done! Now this is getting out of hand. In fairness to honest liberals and slanderous conservatives everywhere, I have to provide historical precedent for the usage of such labels. A very informative location of British history and politics of the day has a page devoted to the term Liberal Tory. If that raises a question, then you ought to investigate, but for the great unwashed, I'll summarize. A liberal when the term became a label for political usage, was not a liberal of the late Victorian, who is not a liberal of pre WW2, who is not a liberal of the 60's, and then we get to today. And its even worse for us conservatives. We were for the monarchy, lets leave it at that.

So that brings us back to the Oxford dictionary. A few instances of modern usage:

1940 N.Y. Times 23 Jan. 20/4 Since then [sc. the Russian Revolution] Liberal has been a word of confusion. Everybody who was not a Conservative became a Liberal or Radical or Red, whichever came first to the mind.

Well, I'd contend that Liberal is still a word of confusion. And most liberals are confused in the strict definition of confused. But, that is a digression, onward:

1969 New Yorker 14 June 44/2, I don't think he is a liberal. He's tight with his money, and he wants to see the poor work for their money.

So that sums up our example of usage of the noun liberal. Note that the final implication is that libs are not tight with their money, and intend on giving it to the poor. But I would take issue with this, as it seems that they actually are tight with their money personally, and want to give 'other' peoples money to the poor, of whom they don't expect to work, just vote. I am more fully behind the definition now than ever. Liberals are just part of a political body. There is no special meaning, and no horrible stigma to shy away from. So why do they not want to be called liberals? Is it because they do not want to be members? Are we using the label to broadly? Things to ponder, but I will continue to call a lib a lib. Its just plain fun.

More Discussion of the Judith Miller Caper

So I send off some questions to my favorite lib. And we get some good answers. Its not a cut and dry political topic, but very interesting for numerous reasons.

You have to get this and read the juicy bits. Mind you, these are the legal pinheads representing all of the Mass Liberal Leftwing Mainstream Media. I mean, you don't get any more liberal than this. Yet, more than wanting to stick it to the Pres, their main disdain is CLEARLY against the evil dark uncontrollable CIA. unbelievable. I wish I had read this earlier. I want your thoughts on three points in light of this:

1) Who is going to make the most money on this story in one year, when the books come out for the midterm elections..... Miller? Cooper? Wilson? Maybe our gal Val will even turn to penmanship. And do you think they are doing this purely for publicity and money? I.E. the above.

V: Wilson's book is already out, I gotta copy! The books are just positions in the political battle, trying to gain points for each side's way of looking at things. They all will make some money out of it, but hey, that's not the reason. The Wilson's are really PO'ed about this, and their supporters see a way of attacking both Scrub and the CIA....more power to them! Both Scrub and the CIA are corrupt and ineffective....the CIA hasn't gotten anything right for quite a few years now, for various reasons. (Not the least of which is the continuing politicization of the agency and the dependence on SIGINT etc rather than HUMINT....but, long story there.)

2) What can be done politically to change the nature of the CIA and intelligence? Apart from any politics. I mean, when I read the Amici, I can't help but agree with the disdain shown for the bungling bureaucracy that is our front line against terrorism. Argh, agreeing with the worst type of liberal...... My neo-con lockstep robot warning meter is screaming.

V: Well, the CIA has "evolved" over the past years. Growing from the old OSS it was made up of New England types, from well known universities, well educated, knew languages, well traveled, learned the culture of the countries they worked in etc that sense they were "liberal". At the same time a great many of the same people were from well known families in business, government etc, and were politically moderate and conservative (in the Robert Taft/Berry Goldwater sense.) They were not listened to in the late 40's and 50's about China and Vietnam, nor about the Pan-African movements, nor for that matter on the nature of eastern European communism....They were right and the political types were wrong. But, the political types controlled congress and hence the budget. So, from the sixties onward the agency has become more and more politically conservative (in the neo-con sense), more and more dependent on "technical" intelligence, and less and less able and willing to support field operations. The result today is that very few in the agency know anything about the countries they are "in charge" of, speak no language of the country, never been outside the US embassy in the country, and certainly don't have a set of agents inside telling him what's going on!! The answer is to make it into a professional agency, non-political, who do analysis and intelligence and place that analysis in unvarnished form in front of the politicians....little chance of that happening these days. It will take 20 years and a whole new generation of folks at CIA before results can be seen.

3) What is the historical perspective on the relationship between the press and foreign intelligence, and how will this be altered in the future? I know there is a whole book there, but what key points do you see?

V: In days gone by the press used to be a good source of info for the CIA....the press got around, talked to everybody, saw everything, went places no known agent could/would/should go. It was all VERY informal. Nobody got paid (well, very few). But, with the reign of technie methods the human side is all but gone, so there is no role for the press. Besides, the press is now very hostile to the Vietnam, South America, Middle East, Africa....and views the CIA as a bunch of ignorant political stooges. And they are right! The press, of course, has also lost it's way. Partly driven by 'new school' journalism, partly by money concerns, and partly by the fact that it is SO hard to get the publics attention span to last longer than 30 seconds. No easy solution here! Maybe no solution at all. It would be nice to see leadership from the top, meaning the White House, Congress, etc, but not likely....the whole nature of politics has changed. As recently as Johnson/Nixon presidents and Congress worked on some kind of strained consensus model. No it is very shrill, loud, brief sound bites and extraordinarily ideological...compromise is taken as weakness rather than as the usual way of reaching a consensus. Lotsa luck.

Anyhow, if you haven't read the juicy bits of this yet, enjoy! (most of it is legal mumbo, so just skip up to the contents, and especially the discourse on whether any crime has been committed)

Amici Curiae

Mired by Miers, in the Mud

Ok, I have hesitated on commenting on the new supreme court nominee because we know nothing about her. Now I have to, for the same reason. Back and forth, talking heads and floating voices for and against. Enough already! Its clear. Why not pick someone who has a established record? If they loose, pick another one. Do it until we, the people, have to vote. Then if we want senators who will confirm a pro-life justice, we will elect them. Its not about trying to pick a fight. But it is about reality. It pisses me off that so called conservative politicians don't get it or are not conservative. They confirmed Ginsberg. Why? The quotes are that "she was eminently qualified". Thats crap. You spineless politicians on our side are so plastic. She was not eminently qualified if you are a conservative. She was clearly a flaming leftist. That disqualifies her, as far as a conservative is concerned. The libs get it. Why can't our own conservatives get it?

So now we have another candidate, that we know nothing about, and are continually told, "you will be pleased with this choice". Thats more crap. I'm already not pleased with the choice, and even if Miers squeaks in right of me on the spectrum, I still will not be pleased. Its about the principles and engaging in the debate. Not about skirting the issue and appeasement. This is what really ticks me. Stand up and explain your position. If you get the scripted liberal wacko response, shove it back in their faces. Enough of this. Its not like we have to make everyone like us. And this is not the 90's. There are plenty of media outlets that confound the mainstream leftist journalist.

There, rant off, move on.......