Saturday, December 31, 2005

Theocratic Democracies?

A very interesting question has been floating around for a while. It can be summarized in the following question asked of me:

Why limit the question of democracy to Islam? Can anybody name a country that has, say, a Christian theocratic government that is also a democracy? Maybe the point is that ANY kind of government based/controlled by clerics CANNOT be democratic at the same time.

Some of us amateur philosophers, and a few professionals, have had this debate in multiple ways on my favorite group blog, redstate. There are those conservatives who believe that Islam exists in exclusion to any other religion on its base principles. Others, like me, believe that they have not experienced reforms culturally, and are in the process of becoming modern. But, the question of democracy is not so much of a 'system' that works, but of the population that practices it. If, for instance, many people of religious faith agree on democratic government, to be more successful and secure, they must limit the influence of one particular sect gaining control of that government. Hence, the government does not support one specific belief system (this doesn't mean that the government is overly secular). This form of democracy seems to work pretty well. But if you have a monoculture, the form of the democracy will reflect the beliefs of the majority much more, no matter how the system is arranged.

What is interesting, for Islam, is that there seem to be two very opposing interpretations. One is to the exclusion of all others, and the other is inclusive. I like to call this a very dogmatic type of principle. In a real Christian walk with God, inevitably there are questions that have no immediate answer. You can provide a answer dogmatically, or according to some interpretation of the 'law' or moral code, conversely, you can seek what is fruitful. In other words, you can be right, or you can seek life. I think this goes to the heart of all fanaticism, as they have traveled deep into the path of 'rightness', and are left with a culture of death. There is no life in it. The same thing happened to the Catholic Church in the dark ages. When I say this, I mean the culture as a whole, or a societal effect. Of course any one group can do the same thing, or an individual, but what we see today in Islamo Fascism is more broadly indicative of a societal effect.

How this 'dogmatic' approach, or you might call it a pure legalistic philosophy, can coexist with western democracy is not clear. I think that within the Muslim community there will have to be a separation of the two, much like the reformation. Yet they are already divided along ethnic, geographic, and Sunni/Shiite lines, so it isn't clear cut. Certainly the more capitalistic and secular a country is in its economy, the less problem this will be, but as we both can see, the Arab states, and North Africa, are the some of the worst economies in the world. Going to take a long time.... That is why I view Iraq much more favorably that Afghanistan. Iraq can easily support a economy with diverse elements, just needs time. Afghanistan will be a collection of mini fiefdoms for the near future, much less stable, and no bright horizon.

As for the greater question of a Christian theocratic government, I see no contradiction with the many predominantly Christian countries that have a democratic government. Christians are a majority, the politicians are mainly Christian, the laws are based on Christian ethics, the only thing those governments do not have is clergy control. Which is fine, not necessary. However, this may contradict with the form of democracy we would find acceptable in a non-Christian country. No matter how you frame the argument, it does reduce to a cultural conflict on many levels. We may think that some other 'democracy' is controlled by clerics simply because those clerics are the politicians of that culture and time. A significant majority of the founding fathers had religious schooling, and were comparable in church leadership. What separates the two in direct comparison however, is the broad base of Western thought, and the very narrow base of modern Islamic education on a societal scale. In other words, they have yet to experience a Enlightenment, or even a reformation of sorts. So the question of a theocratic democracy is loaded, and in application to modern events, there does not seem to be any clear parallel in history, just significant similarities.

Friday, December 30, 2005

Dour Prediction for Leakers?

I find it interesting that liberals can so easily compartmentalize their morals to fit political objectives. On the face of it, we see complete disregard for facts or reason, but as we dig deeper, the picture clarifies, it is a complete distorted realm that the liberal mind resides. Lets begin our palaver with another provocative message received from the far left.

Lemme see if I got this right. The "government" conducts illegal and unauthorized wiretaps etc in violation of Federal law. Some patriot tells the press. Now the Gestapo (DOJ) is trying to find out who outed their illegal operations so they can prosecute them for telling the truth. Don't ya just love freedom in Amerika?

Now this is in obvious reference to a recent headline (example) about the opening of investigations into leaks of classified information. Notice first of all, that the actions of the government are assumed to be illegal a priori, and that the leaker (who actually did break the law) is deemed a patriot. Then the DOJ is falsely impugned with the attributes of a terrible historic police force. Anyhow, my sarcastic response was fun.

You're close:

The "government" tries its best to protect the citizens against terrorists by conducting covert activities, perfectly legal in a time of war. Some quisling idiots on the left want to get political mileage and expose the program. Now more of our finest citizens, who give their whole careers to see justice done, are going to stick it to the traitorous scum.

Yes, I love America.

But the fun hasn't stopped there! Oh no, said lib won't leave this one alone, thats for sure. As I think about it, isn't that the reason we have these conversations? Do we not derive great satisfaction in crafting lightly veiled sarcasm, the purpose of which is to plow under the old rhetoric, and create far more beautiful maunder (deliciously obscure double entendre)? Lets consider the liberal response.

First: NO, NOT PERFECTLY LEGAL IN TIME OF WAR, OR ANY OTHER TIME, UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY LAW AND UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE COURTS. We have a "balance of powers" system, where absolute power is NEVER vested in a single branch of government. That is why the Executive must get PERMISSION from the Judicial to execute what would otherwise be clear violations of Constitutional rights. We must NEVER give up rights during time of war, at the risk of NEVER getting them back from the Executive again. Due process must still be met, probable cause must still met. We cannot allow the Executive to go on a fishing expedition against anyone it chooses simply on its say so. No republic will long survive the suspension of civil liberty.

Second: Strong, but meaningless rant. You should consider that most opponents of the Bush administration consider themselves to be every bit the patriot, and more, than Bush. They do what they do to further what must be done to save the republic from overblown and excessive Executive power. All Bush had or has to do is go to the courts to get the proper authority to conduct the wiretaps. It is not unreasonable to assume that he did not do so, first, because he is trying to grasp all power to the Executive Branch, and second, because he knows that almost all of those wiretaps would be denied for lack of credible evidence and hence probable cause. Everything has become "politics" to the Bush camp. They are simply seeking the aggrandizement of power for its own sake; it has little to do with the safety of the republic. At some point, I think we have reached that point, the people will see it for what it is and the courts will move to redress it. For example, Pedilla.

Third: More name calling, not useful. If one were to lay an accusation of treason, let it be laid where it belongs; on those who would subvert republican principles and in so doing produce more terrorist enemies of the nation where there were none before.

Oh boy! What a interesting defense. Lets dispense with the first bit of nonsense quickly. My dear opponent, not being a lawyer, seems to be forming his opinion from leftist news organizations and not reality. The best explanation I have seen yet is from the real lawyers at Powerline (here,here), who discus and present links to background quite well. Good luck lefty! On the second issue, this malplaced patriotism is exactly what is wrong with the left. They consider it holy work for the socialist church to do anything to bring down this administration, and in the process, do enormous harm to our country. As for the rest of point two, see point one. And as for the group to whom "everything has becomes politics", it is easy to see how far the left has sold out their own country just for politics, so I would contend they win the prize. On to the last point, where the accusation of name calling has been made. Is quisling not a apropos retort to "Gestapo"? And the insinuation of treason is very clear for the left who apparently want the same goal as our mortal foe. Yet the juvenile claim is made again about us creating the terrorists, fighting a enemy that wasn't there, and how that is supposed to be traitorous. Yeah, that makes sense...

In conclusion, what the majority of people are seeing for what it is, happens to be the Moonbat left and their Draconian philosophical overlords in the socialist journalist newsrooms. Apparently, evidence and reason are unpalatable for Moonbats, and they need something bloodier, like the NYT. Yes, one of the targets in the leak probes will be the superfood of Moonbats. My own desire, is that we get some scoops on the NYT by the WP, or visa versa, and then we can have a socialist journalist civil war, much like what they are hoping for in Iraq. Whatever happens, it will be high entertainment, and we may even get a scandal in the Senate. Yep, it doesn't look good for the leakers. (I have to start that now, partly in jest of the idiots who screamed for blood in the Plame Afair.)

Thursday, December 29, 2005

The Liberal Hand of Friendship

Have you heard this inanity frothing from a liberal mouthpiece yet? When I first read this I though, "Gee, maybe we should give them some guns, provide free health benefits, and a retirement package as well?"

"You have to extend your rights and courts to the enemy, Or you won't have them for yourself."

This is evidence of the complete degeneracy of the left. The stupidest thing possible. Talk about wanting to destroy your own country. Our rights and our courts are part of America, not some global democracy. They are for Americans, and we in turn, give the government our support to protect those rights and courts and everything else that constitutes our society. If someone wants to form their own country with similar benefits, good for them, and we should support that. If someone wants to emigrate here, well, we aren't exactly turning anyone away. But to think that a group of our own citizens wants to eviscerate the very foundations of citizenship, and do it for a group of people who's intention is to destroy us, is unimaginably traitorous. Al Qaida could not have created in a hundred years a better ally than the leftist in the West.

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Here is Some Nice Fear Mongering

You would think that liberal socialist journalists would have something better to do, but no, it just fits. Some unmentionable has complained about cookies on his computer. Must create everything possible to fit our agenda. What a bunch of wankers. Hey, don't forget to wrap your head in tin foil tonight to protect against the NSA's mind reading satellite! At least we can sleep easy knowing Al Qaida members can surf the NSA's website without violation of their socialist liberal extended Constitutional rights.

Thursday, December 22, 2005


More from the mailbag. Liberals promote world depression. Its a fact.

"I just try to see things as they are, not as I want them to be. An imperfect world. With a limited range of possible responses on our part. The US aint gods gift to the world, we're only the last best hope."

Look, in all seriousness, you don't view anything the US does under this administration as good. You don't see things as they are, you partially see things as you want them to be. In each of the situations regarding our foreign policy, you see the US as the perpetrator of injustice. It is your overriding world perspective. If you don't see that, I can't help. This view is a creation of your political philosophy, not a independent "assessment of foreign policy", not that such a thing exists. You say we are the last best hope, yet you hope we are defeated? And what kind of hope is that? You express no hope, and no vision of a bright future. Just predictions of DOOM. Doesn't that seem troubling? The view that the US is a "beacon on the hill" and has a bright future, and can be an example for the rest of the world, even one coming from God, is what made Reagan so popular. It is what people want, and respond to. It is the reflection of the population, a indicator of the countries desire. It is what build National strength. Your defeatist attitude, of limited possibilities, of an imperfect world, inspires no one. And also engenders a malaise preventing progress. What is worse, some have the same view and philosophy you adhere to and act upon it to the direct harm of our country, purely for political power. They would have called for FDR's head and wanted to impeach Lincoln, as well as predict the DOOM of the US in those conflicts given the context and your current state of analysis. It is a free country, people can speak freely, there were those in the time who did just that, but history tend to filter based on success.

Of course we dealt with less than favorable governments. And in the context of those decisions, there are arguments for both sides, just as valid. In hindsight, I personally believe that the long term foreign policy of the US should not be in support of dictatorial regimes. Yet we are not in business to spread a socialist liberal philosophy around the globe. We are in business to create a better future for our country first, and as an example, exhibit that to the world. Nations compete for resources. Life is competition, not globally induced fairness. That is the crux fallacy of socialism. Competition makes organisms stronger, extends survival. Forced mediocrity leads only to extinction. Whoops, now we have really drifted off into Wilsonian social Darwinism. Better stop ranting about that...

You don't like Israel for some reason? Imagine that. What is your gloomy prediction for Iran? The Euro's seem to almost want it to be a nuclear power. Another Islamo Fascist thug, with real WMD, and a Hitleresqe view of the Hebrew. Probably take at least 6 or 7 Divisions to occupy it peacefully (snarky sarc.).

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

The Defense of the Nutz, and a Retort

Well, the previous socialist liberal jabber went out to multiple readers (as did my response), and we get a defense. So of course I have to reply to that!

Please read where you will discover that less than 1% of Iraqi's think Allied military involvement is helping to improve the security and over 65% support full out killing of Allied troops. The source - the Ministry of Defense for the United Kingdom.

You jump on the author for saying that Sadam[sp] had "Utopia". I didn't read that anywhere.. Nope, instead he said that there were 1) no weapons of mass destruction (as him[he] and I were stating in the months leading up to the war - we at least deserve the concession that we were right), 2) they were not a threat (our own CIA assessments told the Prez that much before the attacks even started). and 3) that the deaths and killings of Iraqi people were carried out with the support of Dick Cheney and Rumsfield[sp] during the Reagan and Bush administrations.

Your arguments would lead me to believe that you support the US involvement in spreading democracy around the globe and the US involvement in the stopping/prevention of genocide. If not, then what justification is there for staying in Iraq (duh, can you say Oil). If that was the case, would you support the US fully engaging in the Sudan or Ethiopia. Shame on Clinton and the US for not doing more when they could of but Bush is equally as guilty for standing on the sidelines while thousands are being killed now. You can follow all the current killing we are ignoring on

Then you mention the "The Iraq Liberation Act" with no purpose or point. That act was passed by a Republican controlled House on Oct 5, 1998 by an overwhelming majority and the Senate passed it unanimously Oct 7, 1998. The most important part of this act was the last line - "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces". I'm not sure there is anything else to make out of it other than a lot of hot air from a Congress looking for a little line they could put into their campaigns in the days leading up to the 1998 elections.

Here is a very good piece of info on Bush and the Republican's tax cuts and how they are just for the richest of the rich: Sure, the top 50% of income earners in this country pay almost all of the income tax. But my chunk has much more of an impact to my life than the chunk that Bill Gates pays and the impact it has on his life.

Your attempt to discredit liberals as a small minority really does show how far out to sea you have become out there on the island. The Bill O'Reilly's and Rush Limbaughs's[sp] are the laughing fodder of America or have you just missed seeing an episode of the Daily Show (my favorite is the 7 minute appearance of O'Reilly earlier this year). Air America, on the other hand is growing in audience size with 84 stations across the US and a National satellite audiences. Then there is the machine that is The trend right here in Washington state is overwhelmingly towards ideas supported by the Democratic party, Progressives, and Liberals who now have control of the legislature and the governor's office. It is the Neo-cons finding themselves isolated as the fiscal conservatives are turning away from GW and his politics of spending that are driving the country down the toilet. Just look at the recent elections in California where each and every referendum put to the people by the Arnie failed. Now, he has appointed a Lesbian Democrat to be his Chief of Staff in Susan Kennedy.


You start with the one poll. The one I impugned in my palaver. Of course I know about it. So you going to hang your hat on a double super secret poll, that you have no access to, and have no validation of, to make your point? Not even close to convincing, and even the glorious left wing socialist journalist won't touch this. Notice how they don't investigate Murtha's happy number? There are many other polls, with documented statistics, that you can access. And they aren't all roses, but none of them even come close to that garbage. I like this ABC poll, even though it is from the mortal enemies of freedom. Oh, wait, that is CBS, not ABC. What, are all the other polls, done in the open, documented and validated, lying? And a single double super secret Ministry of Defense poll is gospel?

On the Utopia reference, its just rhetoric against the Fascists Apologist who argue against the war with statements of a glorious world under Saddam, and a vicious hell now that we are there. Nothing else, been used in this argument before, so I should have thrown in context since you were reading as well. As far as the liberal belief that our country supported Saddam's policy of killing his own people, no facts to support that. Convenient of you to saddle Cheney and Rumsfeld with that, fits the liberal world view, and discards any context. Not a strong argument.

You may have stated that there were no WMD pre-war, but the leaders of both parties believed it, and so did the liberal mass media. Moot argument, again, toss out context to fit current liberal agenda. If you mean personally, I will grant you any concession, no problem. Again, I am not intending to 'jump' on anybody, we are having fun here, otherwise, there is no point.

Interesting that you bring up the spread of democracy. I am in full agreement with you, and in complete disgust with the corrupt and ineffective UN regarding many of the horrors happening in Africa. I would support US involvement in actions for that region, provided that we could be part of a regional security force, and not the sole supplier of force projection. However, comparing that region to the goals and risks of the Arab States is disingenuous. It is not "all about oil", its about Israel, its about rampant Wahabism, its about a Stalinist Dictator. The justification for staying in Iraq is so obvious, unless you are a liberal who believes that we are creating the terrorists. But that is a separate thread, we have addressed before, and can again, but lets table it here.

Regarding the more hypothetical debate (minus specific partisan policies) we can probably find some surprising agreement. This is a interesting debate on democracy world wide and the perception of democracy among nations. We have not discussed this yet. Could be fun.

So you move on to pooh pooh the "The Iraq Liberation Act", and claim it as a political stunt? So the idea was immensely popular, yet they didn't have the guts to put teeth in it? You say I mention it with no purpose or point, what are you missing? I think it is much more indicative of what everyone perceived than replaying the innumerable quotes of Clinton, Rockefeller, Durbin, Daschel, Kennedy, blah blah, stating how big of a threat Saddam was and his weapons of mass destruction. And don't go down the ridiculous reinvention path that they didn't know what the President knew. Come on, all the usual suspects made the same statements before 2000.

Ok, the quick switch to taxes. You correctly state that the debate is about immoral socialistic policies and class warfare vs pro-growth capitalism under the more pure Union (its rhetoric). You want to legislate lifestyles by punishing the most productive members of society. Yet I would contend the we already are suffering economically from overburden of this corrosive philosophy (more rhetoric). But, lets do the tax thing later too, its fun, yet I need to go back to slaving away for peanuts.

Now, you finish by defending liberals, and claiming some sort of equivocation with types of media and the respective political content. Not good enough, as, for one, the majority of the media is still in the hands of socialist liberal dinosaurs, and secondly, media does not reflect demographic. If I am out on my own island (granted, these islands constitute the most liberal state in the union) how come Bush got reelected? And you claim elections in California as indicative of success? It was not a hotbed of conservatism, and still isn't. Neither is WA. Your not jumping on the homosexuality bait here, are you? If you really think the evidence you have sited as a healthy and vibrant emerging liberal majority, conservatives have nothing to worry about.

As for the specific cut of red meat you offer, I don't think you could call Air America much of a success, as Byron York points out. Lets work the numbers on your other example, hmmm John gets a Nielson of 1.4 vs what? O'Reilly rates around 2.4? Yet of course these are apples and oranges, different markets, different formats. But still piddly compared to network news coverage, which is horribly liberal (yet juvenile in content), and print media (THE elite), which thinks it defines the world. So if I went just on media, all of America must be liberal? No, it doesn't break down well like this, but I think your getting into the spirit of things!

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Liberal Nutz Cling to Lies

Again, probably because it's a easy cop out, I have responded to inanity in the inbox. It appeases my guilt for not doing real investigations. But time is tight, and its the Holiday Season, so do what you will!

There are some things us old guys just don't understand, I guess.

Our Prez wants us to 'stay the course' in a war in a country where more than 80% of the people want us to leave.

Our Prez saz we gotta fight terrorism in a country, in which there was no terrorism until he invaded it.

Our Prez saz we are going to rebuild an 'infrastructure', that we destroyed.

Our Prez thinks I should give up my civil liberties, so I can be safe and stay free.

Our Prez says we don't torture nobody, but he wants a legal exception so that he can.

Our Prez says that this feller Saddam was buddy buddy with Osama, but everybody else says they hated each other.

Our Prez says this same feller, Saddam, was building atomic bombs and missiles and chemical weapons, but he just can't find them.

Our Prez says Saddam was a threat to world peace, but it was his Defense Secretary and Vice-Pres that helped arm him and gave him chemical weapons.

Our Prez says that debt and deficits don’t matter, yet he represents a political party that used to yell and scream about debts less than 1/10th the size.

Our Prez says that polls don't matter, yet he and his friends always quote those polls when they agree with whatever they want.

Our Prez says that the really rich need a tax break, but us middle class folks who pay a lot more of those taxes, don't.

Our Prez says that listening in to my e-mails and phonecalls is necessary, but the law says he can't without permission.

Our Prez says that he's only killed 30,000 of them Iraqis, ONLY 30,000? But he had to because they were killing each other.

Our Prez says we are a country that obeys the law, but he runs a world-wide system of secret prisons in which torture routinely occurs.


Whose nutz here, me or him?

Well, I keep doing this, I guess because its fun, but liberals have a tendency to cling to their untenable world view in the face of facts. And I guess its self preservation for the most part, because most liberals believe they are right (morally correct) to the exclusion of any dialog, which is very indicative of a psychological disorder. But for the record, we can dissect this drivel quite rapidly. And, yes, your nutz.

From the top, you state 80% of Iraqis want us to leave, yet where do you get your facts? From a Murtha quote? Or maybe a suspect poll that is 100% inaccurate? Maybe you would like to hear from a real war hero about what the Iraqi people want. I love the "we created the terrorists" argument. Its so vapid, requires no rebuttal beyond the comment that liberals really do believe this, amazingly. The infrastructure myth is simian as well. What was your mythical Saddam Utopia like pre-war? What perpetuated the decay? Years of sanctions? Oil for food for fat checks in the pockets of French and German diplomats? On the flip side of this, we see that liberals really do like Stalinist regimes above democracies. Ah, next up, McCain's Al Qaida Bill of Rights. Another worthless argument as apparently we already have laws against torture. But now lets extend constitutional rights to enemy combatants! To bad liberals don't believe in history. How about one of the greatest Republican's similar actions? Saying it better than I, from The American Enterprise:

He knew he could not fight a war on two fronts, and his critics are right that when it came to coping with what he once called "the enemy in the rear" he was stern, occasionally closing newspapers, suspending habeas corpus, defying a hostile Supreme Court Chief Justice, imprisoning ordinary people and even duly elected legislators (one Democratic congressman was forcibly exiled from the Union--see page 49). Lincoln did all this unapologetically, foreshadowing Justice Jackson’s later view that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." If this makes Lincoln a dictator, he is in the same company as our other war-time Presidents, all of whom took extraordinary actions to protect the security of our country. As Lincoln himself put it, "You don’t fight wars by blowing rose water through corn stalks."

In light of this, I would say President Bush has kid gloves on. We need a Lincoln in the War on Terror! Now you move on to being a apologist for the Stalinist dictator Saddam again with the "he's not a bad guy" garbage and "we made him that way" crap. Oh, that will win you elections! And this holistic effort of psychotic liberals to create a reality in which "Bush Lied" is laughable. The finest debunking of that pea-brained silliness comes from another stellar president who in 1998 passed legislation ( The Iraq Liberation Act) requiring that the US foreign policy would focus on regime change. In the document reference is made of the goal to "eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs". So Congress lied? Clinton lied? All lies! Liberal lies everywhere! Run for the hills!

Lets deal with your other mutterings rapidly. Yes, deficit spending should cease. This one certainly crosses party lines, as every politician sent to Washington takes little green pills when they get off the plane, freeing their conscience from the national wallet. Next you want to trip up the President concerning polling data? Whatever, oh, look at those approval ratings. Why aren't you touting that anymore? I thought libs were compassionately concerned with Bush's approval rating, at least they were for the last year, what happened? Now you claim that the middle class pay more taxes than the rich. Keep smoking that stuff. Here is my favorite figure. Looks like a whole lot of wealth redistribution going on! Get with the program, class warfare is such a looser.

Ah, we move on to the hot topic of the day, secret spying on American citizens. Clinton's Echelon program didn't seem to bother you, yet when we want to listen to conversations between terrorist, you get offended? Gee, and it wasn't even a war when Bill did it. Yes, this issue gets to the heart of the matter. Al Qaida has no better weapon right now than the liberal journalist on the left. As if scripted by OBL, the NYT releases, on the day after hugely sucsessful democratic elections in Iraq, a spurious slime piece. It seems that the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy is alive and well. Liberals must have defeat for America, defeat for Bush, in order to satisfy themselves. Doesn't that seem awful close to treason? Furthermore, the Old Grey Hag has apparently no memory of its own, and no editorial morals, as from a NYT article this appears to be legal. Idiots, but they make me laugh.

Finlay we end with a few more choice lies. One, the President did not claim anything, and your attribution betrays your bitter peacenik hatred. Hmm, thats kind of a oxymoron, but there it is. What the president did state is the tragedy of war, and any war is ugly. But this is where the peacenik has lost touch with reality, so its pointless to argue. And last we have a "world-wide system of secret prisons" where unmentionable horrors occur. Only, there is no evidence of such. Come back to the real world. There is some evidence of rendition, a policy brought to you again, by one of our favorite Presidents in this darkly worded Directive #39. Star Chamber? Conflagration of Overlords? Clinton was such a pioneer!

Yep, I guess there are some things socialist liberals don't understand. And they don't seem to understand that they are increasingly marginalized as a political philosophy. But it has nothing to do with physical age. It has more to do with memory loss and the unwillingness to deal with irrational hatred. It has a lot to do with the formative years of protest glory and free love. Unfortunately, liberals always look backwards to those days, and have no vision of the present or future. The libs are nutz, and the policy of Doom and Gloom appears to be crumbling, kinda makes me feel sorry... nah.

Friday, December 16, 2005

A Day of Ignorance, Dec. 12 2005

I had to respond to my favorite libs taunts today with a fairly well constructed rant. This is in response to two separate emails concerning the news (or lack of) for the day. Predominantly figured in this argument is the NYT drivel that I don't link to, or even reference, on account of its idiocy. Secondary is a pessimistic observation of how Iraq, like a couple of other Islamic countries, will reject democracy. Enjoy!

Oh surprise surprise. Not to exited about the Iraq elections are you? And then to parrot your beloved NYT. Was this an issue two days ago? Do you want to stop terrorists? Apparently, in answer to your questions, some members of congress seemed to think it was ok to get a ear in your private conversations. However, none of that supposed information has been used in a criminal trial, you should be safe. I guess this will be an issue now though, since McCain's Al Qaida Bill of Rights appears like its going to become law. Even if legitimate agencies obtain information about suspected terrorist activities, they won't be able to use it.

Amazing the confluence of America destroying idiots. So the little worms book comes out in ten days? And they release the story on the day after a huge success for our country? Al Jazeera couldn't do as much damage, but no matter, they can rely on the NYT. The agenda of both seems apparent, the failure and disgrace of America. So who has been leaking this information? Critical information about our national security is being systematically given to the press for political use. But that doesn't seem to bother you. Doesn't fit your agenda. And some very damaging information is being suppressed for politics as well.

Don't you want to know what is in the Barrett report? Talk about presidential abuse of power! Forget the NSA, you should be very scared of political abuse of the IRS! That is a much more insidious problem. Anyhow, no one seems to be screaming about using spy satellite resources when looking for the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City Bombing, again, does not fit the agenda. Oh, wait, Viacom has no one on deck with a book to market on that one yet. But will they? I mean, it would mean Clinton illegally authorized spying on American citizens.

The agenda, its all about the agenda. Forget about honor, forget about reality. Just do anything possible to further the agenda. Notice how many front page stories there are about the amazing Iraq election? None. What is on the front page? Stories about the Patriot act going down in flames, and stories about Bush authorizing the eavesdropping on Americans! Gasp. Horror. Wait, didn't the Patriot Act authorize that anyhow? But not anymore! And the most diabolical, idiotic legacy of the Clinton era is coming back, the Gorelik Wall. Yep, can't share intelligence among agencies, wouldn't be fair.

The only thing liberals seem to see is politics. No concept of National Security. The only outcome acceptable to them is defeat for Bush. Yet, since he is trying to protect America from terrorism, they are on the side of terrorists. Or do you think Bush is out to get information on you? If it truly is personal rights and freedoms that you want to fight for, how come you aren't screaming about the Kelo decision? Cities and Counties all over the country are now moving against innocent property owners under the new found definition of eminent domain. That is a real infringement, not some information gathering that is designed to protect us. Again, doesn't fit the agenda.

Finally we get back to Iraq, which should be the lead story for days. Iraqi security was very successfully in maintaining a peaceful and well organized election. Where were the terrorists? Where is your civil war? And yet, in the face of amazing progress, the biggest concern is whether a true democracy is possible. Fears about political parties similar to Islamic Brotherhood or Hamas gaining majorities in Iraq. Fears that democracy is not possible. Well it is interesting that you never mention Turkey in those discussions, Iraq's successful neighbor. Even Iran has a bit of choice for some, and yes, the 'voted' for a dynamic radical, and will pay the price. But further than that, it appears there are a preponderance of Islamic Democracies of one form or another. Imagine that! From the doom and gloomers, you wouldn't think it were possible. Or maybe it is not on the agenda. A agenda that seems to be more and more involved in overt ignorance.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Liberals Will Claim Anything!

Ok, maybe that is a bit to broad, but I need catchy titles for the regular feature here of incendiary banter between your esteemed columnist and the liberal fringe. Without further ado...

(from the mailbag)
Subject: RE: U.S. Trade Deficit Hits New Record of $68.9 Billion (no link, the NYT wants $)

You state: "So, how do you justify massive tax cuts for the rich with these tremendous trade deficits? Neocon idiocy!"

I reply: "How do you make such weak fallacious statements? Its easy, bury your head in the sand and ignore the most robust economy in years."

The whole class warfare redistribution crap is so old. Not only that, it's stupid. Use your NYT for more useful problems like wrapping fish or starting the yule log. Hey! What happened to the "million jobs gone" and "worst economy in years"? Wasn't that just one year ago? A lie then is still a lie now.

Gee, a new low! A triple diversion!
Did I say anything about the robustness of the economy? No.
Did I say anything about income redistribution? No.
Did I say anything about loosing a million jobs? No.

Now, the economy ain't very robust (look at housing related, deficits, negative savings rates and on and on), income redistribution IS a legitimate function of government (just a function the rich don't like), and the jobs situation is awful (we're almost back to the level of employment we were at a few years ago, but that's not accounting for jobs needed by a growing workforce).

The question asked was, who in their right mind would give tax cuts to the least deserving/needy thus decreasing revenue income while at the same time losing hundreds of billions of dollars as Americans buy overseas, borrow billions to pay for debt, export jobs and grow the national debt as well as the trade deficit? What kind of economic policy is that? What, you don't think the trade deficit means anything at all?

Getting a bit feisty? First, how do I justify tax cuts for the rich? Well for one, tax cuts tend to make the economy grow. And for two, the only people paying significant taxes anymore are the rich. Do you want growth? I don't think so. You just want class warfare in the hopes it helps you politically. Stupid. Growth is what benefits the lowest strata socioeconomically, not self defeating entitlement programs. Growth provides more opportunities, more incentives, higher standards of living for everyone. Socialist idiocy suppresses growth, enlarges the population of the unwilling, and injects the country with a insidious malaise.

You state that the economy isn't very robust. What are you people taking? Its the most robust major economy in the world! What, pray tell, is better? Unbelievable. The jobs situation is awful? Yeah, its awful in France, Germany, Russia, Spain, Belgium, and really bad in Poland. The US is at the top. More redefinition of the problem to suit your political position. As far as the redistribution of wealth, its legitimate for a immoral governmental philosophy like socialism. And its not the rich that don't like it, its the pool of voters your philosophy panders to that do like it. That is another one of the liberal BIG lies for convenient political gain.

As far as coupling the trade deficit to taxation, its a dubious link. And there are viable contrarian apolitical perspectives on interpreting trade deficits such as this Congressional Testimony. The only place you will get me in concurrence, is with the continued deficit spending. Enough already. The thwarted recession did not apear, and yet we are still writing every check. And what the heck is a conservative President doing INCREASING entitlement spending! He will be pushing LBJ numbers for increased spending soon. You vote and vote for a certain product, and for some reason it never arrives.

Again, its typical liberal lies and drivel to equate tax cuts with the needy and deserving. You cut taxes on the most productive members of society in order to increase growth. It has nothing to do with the deserving or needy. Surprisingly, income goes up, which you can not seem to grasp, and refuse to acknowledge, even when its happening. Anyhow, you forgot to throw in the war on this round, and how its bankrupting us. Sheesh, get with the message!

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

The Fog of Nam and the Media Mist of Iraq

I love military history. Beginning with my trusty Daisy at the age of five, crouched behind a rock wall as arrows zinged overhead, I was entranced by the glory of warfare. As I was galloping to victory on my Shetland pony, Saigon fell. Inevitably, as one matures, the exposure to the less glorious aspects of war chinked away at my young enthusiasm. Especially in my early teens, after viewing the chilling documentaries about the Holocaust. But then curiosity grows to sincere investigation, and one wants to understand more deeply war. Yet, even through my undergraduate days, I avoided Vietnam. At first I didn't understand why, I just knew that something about that war was disjoint.

Most of the formative impressions of my generation's (conceived in the late sixties) view of Vietnam comes from mass media. We have all seen MASH reruns. I remember the pictures on the news as we pulled out of Saigon. Added to this is Hollywood's interpretation with Full Metal Jacket, Born on the Fourth of July, Rambo, even one of the finest movies of all time is here, Apocalypse Now. But what did we learn from this information? A true picture of the war? Did we even get a clear view of what the media felt about the war? Yes, its clear they were against it, but not for any reason driven by salient argumentation.

The deconstruction of the history of the Vietnam war continues on, and will forever be unclear. Why? I believe it is one of the few modern instances where the fog of war drifted beyond the battlefield and permeated throughout our whole country. I have immersed myself in this topic three times in my adult life, and each time I come away with the same conclusion. Yes, there are many lies and political views that were veiled, and those continue to be exposed. But the execution of the war, and the principal motivating that process, quickly becomes obscured in the time-line, and reconstructing the context does little to validate specific actions and policy.

From the purely military perspective it was a betrayal by the political process. Yet even this is not complete. The initial strategic action of sending into the field our modernized Special Forces was probably the one decision that needs no second guess. Even those who disagree with the action, can perceive its intent and in any honest evaluation of the initial results, will find many areas agreeable. To provide education and training to an at risk population and assist them in developing their commerce and security, as well as providing medical care and training, sounds like a modern humanitarian project. Even if the strategic goal of containing communism was not well defined, our Special Forces was the closest thing to practical execution of those goals.

Here is where the difficulties arise, and competing interests distort the definition of success in regards to our national security and the threat of communism in Asia. Once there are US troops on the ground to protect our 'advisors', the outcome of open battle is almost predetermined. With this commitment, the defining of the goal and the communication of the goal become pinnacle hurdles, which we can look back with hindsight and see, were not scaled. Much of the rest we can call history. I won't rehash it, and since the propaganda war is still a open wound, I can not give conclusive opinion without resorting to contentious philosophical viewpoints.

If you seriously do not agree with my assessment, ask ten random people over the age of fifty, whether in the 60's there was a global communist threat. Read a few academic histories of the war, then read a few personal histories of those who served or were involved politically. Then come back and explain in clear detail what the purpose and nature of the conflict was. Even with this sparse exercise, you will not reach a consensus. If the scope of research is expanded, clarity is still not achieved. That is the complete fog of war in action.

Some will bristle at my apparent spreading of the blame for our 'loss' in Vietnam. I intend no such thing. Yes, the media influenced the outcome of that conflict, and did so in a manipulative and systematic way. But the concept of limited engagement is just as complicit in the outcome. Furthermore, the definition of success was unclear. Yes, we could have militarily prevented communism's expansion, yet in that was the threat of possible future engagement of Chinese forces. Could we have created reform in South Vietnam? Probably, but if that was one of the goals, it was reduced in importance quickly in the time-line.

Even these observations will get me in trouble, and cause argument. The specifics do not matter, the principal is evident. So lets move forward a third of a century and see if there are any instructive parallels. Since we began with impressions of a historical war, it would be prudent to ask what is the public's impression of war in general. I believe this has changed for Americans from the visible horrors and shock of the media war during Vietnam, to the expectation in modern times of almost sterile warfare due to our overwhelming military superiority. This is a unfortunate expectation, and I don't mean that in a way where I endorse the increased sacrifice our finest citizens must make. My intention is to show that we no longer have a political connection, a collective will as it regards our actions militarily. The average American (if there is one) does not feel connected in purpose to our institutions of defense and the actions they take.

The majority of us can vote in support of our actions (and did), yet we have a disconnect with the mission. What is very interesting in regards to Iraq is how similar the follow on mission is to the initial Vietnam one. Our whole military is now engaged in a Special Forces type of action. We are training new forces, education doctors and medical personnel, providing security for commerce and government functions. We are facilitating the self sufficiency of an at risk population. In this regard the modern US military is absolutely amazing. Our only weakness is the lack of police forces. However, its doubtful that we would ever try to meet that need, as training and retaining a large contingent of police forces is inefficient, and not the military's commission.

With this perspective we ask why is the public not connected with the goals? Well, the media refuses to acknowledge that goal, and actively propagandizes against it. If one investigates clearly the activities of our forces right now in Iraq, you can come only to the above mission, with the benefit of the continued extermination of some terrorists. But if you form a opinion of the execution of the war based on western media, you get transported back to a contentious reminiscing of the late sixties. Despite the imaginative perception of the western media, the factual parallels end at the mission comparison.

Iraq has no state backed underground army. We have no outside political restriction on our actions. Our military actions are not a 'response' to a foreign threat. Our military efficiency is unimaginably better than thirty years ago. Our finest citizens have all volunteered for service. There is no political chess match perverting the execution of the mission and hobbling the civilian and military leaders of such. The most key ingredients present in the Vietnam conflict which created the confusion are not present in Iraq. And the one ingredient, insurgent propaganda, is so perverse in its goal of Fascist world domination that obviously its not a contributor. But the imaginary propaganda of the western socialist journalist has caused confusion. Just enough confusion to create some doubt in the will of the American people. Fortunately this Media Mist has no corresponding factors of degeneration, and is in no way indicative of the Fog of War.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Do We Torture?

There is currently a debate occurring in which the definition of humane treatment is in dispute. But, my interest is in whether we actually have CIA operatives who use torture in their interrogations. There are not many pieces of evidence supporting this. Take this article for instance, claiming the CIA tried to cover up a torture. The cause of death was likely blunt force trauma and asphyxiation. It was labeled a homicide on the death certificate. The individual was abducted by SEAL team members, then interrogated at Abu Ghraib where he perished.

There is no mention of the condition of the detainee after capture. The interrogation room was cleaned up before the treatment investigation took place. Photos of US forces and the deceased were taken, showing the men grinning. The bloody hood covering his head has disappeared. His body was kept on ice to prevent its decomposition. Which the author claims is to cover up something.

There are the facts. If you stretch them out into a dark conspiracy, it could be a cover up. Or maybe he was half dead when he arrived. But what if he had critical information regarding a bombing? What if they roughed him up a bit, and he died? The cover up is extremely thin. Of course you would clean any room. Especially if there was blood. Any janitor worth his salt would clean it right up. The hood and restraint part is standard procedure, and perfectly within international law. And if the hood had blood on it, would you keep it? Of course it was canned.

If he was bleeding, bruised on arrival, yet needed to be interrogated immediately, and died during the 'interview', who killed him? If he was bright and shiny on arrival, and beat to death in the interrogation, thats not a good practice, and we should hold the responsible parties up to the law. But is there proof in this instance? And even if there was, does it constitute anything more than one bad apple? Still no proof, and certainly the great body of evidence regarding our treatment of detainees indicates we do not torture.

Why, when you search for the term torture, are the results split up into two opposing views from the same political perspective? On one side are all the men, women and children immigrating to the United States claiming asylum and bringing evidence of torture. On the other side are all the psychotic peaceniks who detest the US and its power. They devote much time and energy to demonize us, simply because they do not agree with US foreign policy. What extreme hypocrisy. Are we the purveyors of torture, or the island of refuge from such?

I personally believe that techniques for the extraction of information are terrible, and would not want to be the subject of such. But if terrorist had abducted any of my friends or family and we had one of them, I would be all for extraction techniques. So where is the balance? I think it must be discouraged in the open, and used judiciously in covert situations, with the expectation that if exposed, the practitioner is going to take a fall. Any other solution is fraught with trepidation. But this is the current situation, and exactly what we currently do, so why do we need a new debate? Could it be simple politicization? I believe so. With the end result of our country's image being smeared.