The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Monday, October 31, 2005

CNN puts on kick me sign on the indictments

In the same story showing Harry Reid whining about firing Rove, CNN make polling a news story and spins the indictment of Libby. The heading of this section of the story states:

Poll: Indictment damages White House

Among other polling data regarding Libby, CNN has to go all the way back to July to make a comparison. A reminder that tomorrow is November 1. Here is the quote:

"Nevertheless, Bush's approval rating was 41 percent, the same as it was before before the indictment, and views of his honesty remained stable at 49 percent versus 47 percent last month.

Only 43 percent said they believe he can manage the government effectively, compared with 53 percent who held that opinion in July."

So instead of the heading stating that the indictment did not change Bush's approval rating, they have to trek all the way back to July to show a double digit difference which was the desired effect. If this is not bias, what is? Why July? What was this number right before the indictments? What other factors may have affected that number?

With news profits, viewers and circulations way down in the liberal arena, such blatant bias is once again donning the now infamous "kick me" sign I often post about on this blog.

Harry Reid gets pathetic and demands Rove to be fired

After the failure of Fitzmas to deliver an indictment against Karl Rove, instead of backing away from it Democrats pressed forward as if Rove actually was indicted. Oblivious to the reality that Rove was not indicted, Reid and other Dems pressed for Rove to be fired.

"Everyone knows Karl Rove is involved," Reid said. "If the president is a man of his word, Rove should be history."

I assume that means Fitgerald knows Rove is guilty of a crime yet chose not to indict. Interestingly enough, the Dems have withheld much criticism against Fitzgerald. I don't think he deserves criticism, but such restraint is not logically consistent with the things the Dems are saying.

"A criminal standard wasn't met. But that doesn't mean that real harm wasn't done," the New York Democrat [Schumer]said. "These agents risk their lives for us. They have operatives that risk their lives. And when you expose the name of such an agent, you do harm."

So why isn't Chucky Schumer introducing a bill in the Senate to raise the bar for a criminal standard? It is sad that the Dems look around every corner for the next prop to carry in their campaign to somehow bring Bush down. They don't care about Valerie Plame, or Cindy Sheehan, or the 2000 dead in Iraq, or Katrina victims or any of their other handy props. They use and they cast aside. When the Tom Delay trial goes south, they will throw their hero Ronnie Earle to the dogs. When you stop and evaluate their words and actions based on right and wrong instead of partisanship, you see their concern is hollow. All they want is a restoration of power.

Sling shot has been released

In this post I spoke of the sling shot effect about to take place. Bush's low poll numbers never hit as low the low points of all his predecessors. The low point has likely been hit acting the same as pulling back on a rubber sling shot as tight as possible and then releasing. The Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito has lit the fuse in energizing the base. A nominee the base can be confident will interpret the constitution instead of legislating from the bench and making up constitutional law out of whole cloth is a huge step in Bush regaining his momentum.

With the CIA leak fizzle, soon only the loons will be talking about it. Successful Iraqi elections in December will be a triple crown in the march toward democracy in that country. With the new government more firmly in place, the training of the Iraqi police and military will soon pay off. I predict by next June we will see a modest return of some soldiers.

The lies and hype of the left is beginning to evaporate. As I say again and again, the left always overplays its hand. By hyping the Plame case only to have a fizzling indictment that will not likely stand the left has drawn back the curtain and we are seeing the humbug.

Kiss the Girl

If you have ever seen "The Little Mermaid", you will have seen the part of the film where they sing "Kiss the Girl". The little mermaid must have one kiss of true love to avoid becoming slave to the witch. There is a long drawn out part as the couple gets closer and closer while the music builds into a crescendo. Finally, just as their lips are less than an inch away from each other, the witch's pets turn over the boat they are in.

The liberals and their water carrying media built up the CIA leak story to a fevered pitch, where you expected the entire administration frog marched out of the White House. Then the boat tipped over as only one person was actually indicted. None of the indictments were for the original crime being investigated. Not only was there no clear statement on Valerie Plame's alleged covert status, but after coming close to insinuating it, Fitzgerald had to clearly back away from any such claim.

The liberals have been behaving like the unfolding of these events are a positive thing, when in fact the results are meager at best and may not even stand the test of a trial. They are trying to beat their chests with the thrill of victory when they know that the "prosecutor's prosecutor" didn't deliver the goods. They do not stop to think that maybe there are no goods to deliver. They do not stop to think of who the real culprits in this whole saga are likely to be: the CIA and the Wilsons. A cursory look at the antics of Joe Wilson will show that his motives are not at all pure in this. If Wilson was concerned about his wife's CIA status, he would have kept a low profile instead of the trip to Niger, the high profile OP-Ed hit piece, the media circus, the photo shoot. All of this does not add up to a careful effort to keep from blowing his wife's cover. By simply sticking his head up and writing this piece so strongly against the administration, how many government agencies immediately investigated who this man was? What is his history? Who is he married to? What is her history? Had Rove and Libby been silent, her cover was already in jeopardy from that moment.

The corruption in the CIA is a known fact; leading Bush to appoint Porter Goss as its head to weed out the corruption. The media is usually not so chummy with the CIA, but if their actions might hurt Bush - best friends. It is interesting that nearly every story I read regarding the tragedy of the actions of the Bush administration whether from the New York Times or 60 Liberal Minutes, the sources always seem to be limited to the Wilsons and the CIA. It was CIA intelligence that failed us on Sept. 11. It was CIA intelligence that failed us either on the possession of WMD in Iraq or where they went? We know there is animosity between the CIA and the Bush administration. Why should they be trusted? Partisanship, will allow an overlooking of these flaws because the alternative does not line up with ideology.

I am accused often of sticking for corruption and wrong doing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who is proven of wrongdoing needs to be punished. The key word is proven. Of all the venomous, hate-filled assaults against Bush there is very little solid evidence proving wrongdoing. This is a day where people are selling their souls for partisan agendas. What lies people will tell, what unprofessional actions people will make to advance their agenda makes their credibility hard to swallow.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Miers withdraws nomination

If there was any strategy as I have speculated to nominating Miers to the Supreme Court, we may never know now that she has withdrawn. If such a strategy existed, it is likely she could not survive until the nomination hearings to enact it.

Or was a doomed nomination the strategy all along? The timing of this withdrawal is suspiciously close to any possible indictment announcements. The nomination of a super-star conservative like Luttig, Owens or Brown in a week or so could do a lot to cheer up the base after a few indictments.

Of course it there are no indictments, or if at least Rove is not indicted and a great nomination is made, the base would be quite cheered up. In my little world, I wish politics were simple: the ideas of one side versus the ideas of the other side in open, honest and spirited debate. The actions and rhetoric of recent decades has created an environment where whoever has the best strategy wins. Wouldn't it be great if whoever was right won?

Israel the blot that won't go away

I am continually amazed at the bigotry against the small country of Israel and who joins in this bigotry. There is this unofficial coalition between terrorists, European elitists, American liberals and the United Nations joining forces to hate Israel and plot against it. While there may have been some heavy-handed defensive tactics by Israel along the way, looking at the volatile history of this country you see several points where their very survival was in question.

The vast bulk of any criticism I have ever heard or read about Israel comes when Israel is in a defensive posture. I don't know who is writing the rules here, but it is common sense to expect anyone to take whatever measures possible to defend themself, their family and their country when its existence is seriously threatened. There may have been times when defending their country against the threat of being pushed into the sea and against a flood of bombing terrorists things have gone too far. As in all war, I am sure some individual members of the armed forces committed repulsive actions. I do not condone those actions, but when looking at the whole picture I think the anti-Israel crowd has maximized those actions while minimizing the actions against Israel.

Since I have been observing events in Israel, I cannot recall where the cessation of hostilities has been broken by Israel. If anything I think Israel has been foolishly passive by giving back land fairly taken when attacked by multiple countries. Now that they have given back more land, they are being attacked from it. However, the media continues to report this in a reserved tone. If Israel had been the one attacking the media would be actively reporting against Israel.

Today it is being reported that the newly elected leader in Iran, who has been identified as one of the American hostage takers during the Carter presidency, has made some aggressive statements against Israel. Some snippets from that report:

' “As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,” Mr Ahmadi-Nejad said, citing Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran’s Islamic revolution.

The president told an audience of students there was “no doubt the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world”. '

Of course as he continues to escalate this rhetoric and Iran continues to develop its nuclear program, when Israel bombs the Iranian nuclear facility in the face of these threats, the anti-Israel coalition will kick into high gear. The United States has been criticized for its support of Israel. The fact is that without the level of support the US has given Israel, that little country would not exist today. Of course, that would make you liberal happy wouldn't it?

Israel the blot that won't go away

I am continually amazed at the bigotry against the small country of Israel and who joins in this bigotry. There is this unofficial coalition between terrorists, European elitists, American liberals and the United Nations joining forces to hate Israel and plot against it. While there may have been some heavy-handed defensive tactics by Israel along the way, looking at the volatile history of this country you see several points where their very survival was in question.

The vast bulk of any criticism I have ever heard or read about Israel comes when Israel is in a defensive posture. I don't know who is writing the rules here, but it is common sense to expect anyone to take whatever measures possible to defend themself, their family and their country when its existence is seriously threatened. There may have been times when defending their country against the threat of being pushed into the sea and against a flood of bombing terrorists things have gone too far. As in all war, I am sure some individual members of the armed forces committed repulsive actions. I do not condone those actions, but when looking at the whole picture I think the anti-Israel crowd has maximized those actions while minimizing the actions against Israel.

Since I have been observing events in Israel, I cannot recall where the cessation of hostilities has been broken by Israel. If anything I think Israel has been foolishly passive by giving back land fairly taken when attacked by multiple countries. Now that they have given back more land, they are being attacked from it. However, the media continues to report this in a reserved tone. If Israel had been the one attacking the media would be actively reporting against Israel.

Today it is being reported that the newly elected leader in Iran, who has been identified as one of the American hostage takers during the Carter presidency, has made some aggressive statements against Israel. Some snippets from that report:

' “As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,” Mr Ahmadi-Nejad said, citing Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran’s Islamic revolution.

The president told an audience of students there was “no doubt the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world”. '

Of course as he continues to escalate this rhetoric and Iran continues to develop its nuclear program, when Israel bombs the Iranian nuclear facility in the face of these threats, the anti-Israel coalition will kick into high gear. The United States has been criticized for its support of Israel. The fact is that without the level of support the US has given Israel, that little country would not exist today. Of course, that would make you liberal happy wouldn't it?

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Update on the demon-eyesing of Condi

Apparently USAToday has pulled Condi's doctored photo and placed in an editor's note. Michelle Malkin received an email explanation claiming that they:

" other news organizations, often adjusts photos for sharpness and brightness to optimize their appearance when published online. In this case, a newly hired editor sharpened the photo and then brightened
a portion of Rice's face. Those changes had the effect of inadvertently distorting the photo and failed to meet our editorial standards."

Since I am not a Photoshop expert, but the comments below from people familiar with it make me think that it would be difficult to do this by accident. My suggestion is for USAToday to post a video somewhere showing exactly how they accidentally changed the eye area so differently from the rest.

Scott J. (via says:

"I'm a prepress manager with twelve years experience and this is my professional take on it. The 'retraction' claimed that they sharpened the image and adjusted the brightness, they did not. The eyes were pencilled in at the pixel level by hand. (VERY sloppy, I might add.)"

Brad (via says:

"I am a professional photographer and have used Photoshop on a daily basis for many years. This malicious retouch
of Condi's image is not only intentional, but must have cleared the photo director as well. In other words as a collaborative effort or a wink and a nod.

I don't believe the eye treatment could be the result of over-sharpening alone, but probably involved some heavy handed levels or curve adjustment as well, and the eyes had been isolated from the rest of the image by selection or masking."

Here is a picture split in half with one side normal and the other doctored:

The story of the century

The link in my title is not to the ENTIRE
story of the century, but a PART of it. No the story of the century has nothing to do with the Plame leak. The story of the century is organized media deception. I have seen story after story, photo set after photo set where there is undeniable proof that the media source has deliberately manipulated; changing the truth into a lie.

In this link has shown two versions of the same picture of Condi Rice that appeared in different online versions of USAToday. He has provided links to each of these versions, which I clicked on and saw with my own eyes. What has happened is that someone in the photo room has taken the original photo and doctored Condi's eyes to make them look almost demonic; at the least the change detracts from her appearance.

Many might say this is a non-story
, that the simple manipulation is harmless. I would strongly disagree. The little people like me depend on news outlets to provide accurate coverage of world events. Nobody can possibly on their own get a first hand account of all the events going on in the world, so we depend on news to view, research, document, photograph as it happened so we can take those precious facts and draw our own conclusions. That last sentence would be met with derision by many in the media I fear, who think it is their job to take the facts and transform them into what they want me to see.

The manipulation in the media goes deep. With every event, there are several key media people between me and the facts. I am at their mercy to decide what I should and should not see. If something happens and they don't want me to see it, they hide it. If it is something they want me to see, they present it bold, upfront and repeatedly. If something does not happen and they want me to see it, they will manufacture or manipulate so I see it.

What this picture represents should make everyone very angry. USAToday should find who manipulated the picture and plaster a 3/4 page picture of that person on the front page with a retraction in bold and an apology at the bottom. This story should be the lead story on every news station regardless of what happens in the Plame indictments. Of course it will not be, because to emphasize it, they know they indict themselves because they manipulate the news every day. We have heard stories of the old USSR and China and Iraq under Saddam where the government forces the media to censor and manipulate the news to keep the citizens uninformed or misinformed. It is a shame when this happens in the land of the free.

Twas the night before Fitzgerald

We have endured weeks of non-news speculation and that may end Wednesday. To listen to most news sources, there are more leaks in investigation than the original leaks. If that is the case, will Fitzgerald be able to announce the indictments with a straight face? There are many interesting points surrounding this.

Considering the targets of a possible indictment received letters at least 48 hours in advance, the
White House should know by now if any are targeted. Judging from what little is coming out of the White House, I think it is possible the indictments are either non-existent of do not involve Cheney, Rove or Libby. I would think a signal of some sort would occur to try to take the sting out of the announcement rather than let the media build up to this fevered pitch and having the hammer strike at full force. Perhaps they may not have had any legal options to do otherwise. If pre-empting an announcement was an option, then I suspect the White House is allowing the media to go into full stride only to have a disappointing announcement.

Of course, with only days before the Grand Jury expires, there is only a little time left for indictments to take place. When the point was made in the Delay case that grand juries almost always go with the prosecutor, the left poo-pooed it. If they were right and grand juries do think for themselves, it would be quite interesting if this one refused to indict even if Fitzgerald made the attempt.

In recent days, with the media spreading rumors of indictments and pumping the scandal, Fitzgerald has become almost heroic in the left's eyes. Could it be that the media really has nothing BUT are simply conspiring to embarrass Fitzgerald into pressing for indictments? If he does not indict, you will see him go from hero to schmuck in 60 seconds or less.
It will be an interesting day.

The Blogosphere welcomes Chip of Logic

There is a new blog in the family; the blogging family and my family. My youngest son has been inspired by reading the Logic Lifeline and has created his own. Hopefully all will be nice to him while he is learning the blogging ropes :) I have added his link to my link list.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Choices in viewing politics and crime

I have posted before that crime on the part of a politician does not detract from the political philosophy of his party unless of course the crime is related to a plank in the party's platform. A political party might have stood for term limits. When a party member is indicted and/or convicted of a crime, it does not mean that term limits is now a bad philosophy. It is nauseating when either side thinks the path to victory is through criminal prosecution.

With criminals and corruption common on both sides of the aisle, what is your choice in viewing crime in politics? Choose all that apply to how you think:

  • I am interested in seeing all corrupt politicians pay for their crimes
  • I am only interested in seeing corrupt politicians opposite my side pay for their crimes
  • I am not interested in seeing any corrupt politicians opposite my side pay for their crimes
  • When someone on the other side is indicted, I make a big deal out of it to try to spin public opinion into thinking only their side is corrupt
  • When someone on my side is indicted, I minimize their actions and look for ways to demonize the other side or the prosecutor
  • I am fully aware that politics can play a hand in any prosecution of a politician
  • I think that all prosecutors are above playing politics with their indictments
  • Politics is all about winning, who cares about real corruption
  • Every elected or administration official has committed crimes worthy of prosecution, they are just waiting to be found

Let Cindy tie herself to a post

Now that the Iraq death count has sadly reached 2000, Cindy Sheehan will likely make good on her promise to tie herself to a post at the White House. The best thing that can happen here is to just let her tie herself to the post. If she is trying to get arrested, then a failure to arrest her would get interesting. After all, she is not tresspassing as she would be outside the fence. I don't see the need to arrest her, so let her tie herself to a fence post. Maybe they can send somebody out with food for her at each meal time. Cindy may need several days of food. If indictments are announced tomorrow, I don't think there will be much time for the news to cover her.

Monday, October 24, 2005

My latest Miers theory

Rarely is anything in Washington what it seems to be. Many conservatives have wrestled with this Miers nomination on several levels. Why her? Is Bush really who we think he is? Is she merely a crony or does Bush really know how she will vote? We see about 40% conservatives wanting her thrown overboard, with the rest split evenly between neutral to positive.

After reading through the latest round of news and blogs about Miers, I have a new theory. We have seen the last few nominees from both sides of the isle ducking and dodging on their positions trying to reveal enough to show their qualifications without showing too much of how one would vote. In my latest theory I anticipate Miers during nomination hearings to come out directly and forcefully. Whether planned up front or recently determined, that is one thing that would salvage the nomination with conservatives. As Bork pointed out in his "Slouching toward Miers" column, the harm of needing to hide your paper trail and true beliefs on constitutional law is extremely damaging.

It would get extremely interesting if this tactic would then force a filibuster. A forced filibuster and subsequent enactment of the nuclear option would electrify the right at a time they really need it. Wishful thinking? You bet, but it is almost Christmas!

Bad move for the insurgency

I have a natural suspicion for documents that suddenly appear in the media (Bush national guard forgeries, Downing Street memo, Zawahari letter to Zarqawi, etc.) so I did not make anything of the business to business (terrorist to terrorist) letter giving advice on the PR war in Iraq. In that letter Zawahari notes that too many publicized beheadings might not be the best tool to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. If it was real, perhaps we will see another letter soon with Zawahari chastising them for attacking their friends, the journalists. Nearly all foreign journalists and most US journalists have been quite helpful to the insurgent's cause. Today, the insurgents attacked the Palestine hotel that many journalists have been staying in. That was not a smart move, as at least 20 were killed. It seems the whole plan was faulty from beginning to end. In addition to attacking a group that has been mostly sympathetic to their cause there was a hostage plan involved:

In this Foxnews report:

al-Rubaie told The Associated Press "The plan was very clear to us, which was to take security control over the two hotels, and to take the foreign and Arab journalists as hostages to use them as a bargain."

I wonder who they were planning on bargaining with? Another interesting question is how differently the media will treat this direct assault by the insurgents as opposed to the accidental collateral deaths that occurred when the US troops were exchanging fire with hostiles a couple of years back. My prediction is that the indignation will not be quite as strong as it was back then when they accused US forces of deliberately trying to target journalists (remember Eason Jordan, formerly of CNN). Now that a deliberate attack has been made by insurgents, what inner struggles will the media go through with their conflicting interests?

Does bizarre behavior at the NY Times mean Rove-Libbey off the hook?

The New York Times sudden change in their treatment of Judith Miller from darling to under review is very bizarre. Mix that with the 'catty' snipes from Maureen Dawd against Miller and you sense the Grey Lady is sensing that in spite of all the hyped up story of Miller going to jail, etc. nothing will come of it as far as indictments against Rove and Libbey. Could this sudden turn simply be a temper tantrum? We will see. The best thing about this whole case is that it must end this week. The term of the Grand Jury Fitzgerald is working with expires Friday. However it goes, maybe the news media will be able to cease passing speculation for journalism for a little while.

The problem of the US working poor

I checked out links posted here on the working poor in the US. I think that anything I have to say on this will at first glance seem hard hearted. I don't believe I am hard-hearted at all and while I do have compassion on these people, my comments are limited to pure reasoning. For now I will limit my comments to the working poor in the US. I don't claim to know all the causes of the working poor in the US, but I suspect that the biggest causes in the US are the economic
globalization that has happened in recent decades, massive legal and illegal immigration, failure of the US public education system and failure to resolve urban problems.

Globalization and Immigration
Import tariffs and protectionism used to keep US jobs and manufacturing in a more stable condition. By dropping that protectionism and by failing to keep the southern border sealed, jobs and wages in the US have been adversely affected. Additionally, legal immigration has brought in some very competitive skilled employees which has pushed the outer fringe of this group from the market. Due to the pressures outside the US in the arena of globalization, it may be difficult to put that genie back in the bottle without isolating the rest of the world and cornering ourself out of the markets. Thanks to liberalism (including Bush), any efforts to curb or eliminate illegal immigration brings a charge of racism. I would also add that so many illegal unskilled laborers coming from the southern border over the last 50 years would have a huge impact on the statistics of the working poor in the US. It is hardly fair to have millions coming here illegally, then count them in our poverty statistics. Extract them from the statistics and you will likely see better numbers.

Failure of the Education System
In spite of astronomical amounts of money being poured into the US education system, it is overall a dysmal failure. I have seen numbers claiming that the national average education cost per student is around $8500 per year. (In my post showing New York City it is $14,000) It is very difficult for politicians to refuse raising the funding levels to education because they will be attacked for not caring about our kids. Yet we see the more we spend, the worst the problem gets. On the flip side we see homeschoolers and low cost religious private schools having phenomenal success. While we continue to add billions to education our 'graduates' are less and less prepared for college or real life. I would also add that the illegal immigration problem compounds the problem by sapping the funds we are giving to kids requiring additional buildings, special education, bilingual programs, etc. The failure of our education system has made legal immigration so damaging to our own professionals, because those coming from India and China are better educated.

Failure to address US urban problems
The problems that have plagued the urban areas of the US have had billions of dollars thrown at them over the last 40 years. Once again we see that throwing more money at a problem often makes it worst. What happens is that people become invested in the problem and the flow of money grants them power. If problems are solved, the money and power that comes with it will
end. So basically, the incentive to fix these problems is not there. For the most part attempts to solve urban problems have come from the left side of the isle. When real solutions are prevented by trumped up charges of racism, etc. the problem remains. These areas would be the strongholds of the working poor.

Conclusion of causes
So I have given some of the main causes of the problem of the working poor. The question at hand is what is the right way to correct or alleviate the problem? This will need to be a separate post.

Sunday, October 23, 2005

An accusation can be a powerful tool

There are many accusations that fly around in politics all of the time. Various outlets such as other politicians, different media point, individuals known and unknown treat these accusations very differently. An accusation can range from a simple claim to an indictment (or even a conviction). After an accusation is made here are the basic ways they are handled (though each can have varying facets):

  • I uniformly presume innocence until guilt is proven
  • If I agree politically with the accused, I will presume innocence until guilt is proven (or even beyond)
  • If I disagree politically with the accused, I will assume guilt regardless of the flimsiness of the accusation and associated evidence (whether any exists or not)
  • I presume innocence unless there is enough public factual evidence (not opinion) to point toward guilt (aka, the smoking gun)
  • I try to presume innocence but am susceptible to lean towards thinking the party is guilty if I disagree with them politically
  • I believe whatever my source of news tells me, so if they presume innocence or guilt so do I
  • I uniformly resume guilt because all politicians are crooks and liars
How great it would be if in politics we simply openly and aggressively debated the issues and shaped our policy based on the outcome of those debates. Instead politics, though always flavored with such, has devolved into such a state that decisions are rarely made under the right circumstances and for the right reasons. It is a sorry state of our government where the accusation has become such a powerful tool.

While those of us who thrive on seeing justice served want to see a guilty party charged and convicted to pay for their crimes, an unfounded accusation should make us all recoil in disgust. In today's environment an accusation is made and before a shred of evidence is given the media is already holding massive discussions founded on the assumption that the accusation is true.

Sure, I hope those accused on my side are proven not guilty. However, if they are guilty I must side with justice and demand a punishment. While I may want those who disagree with me politically to be defeated, I want them to be defeated by winning the debate on ideas not on some bogus trumped up charge. Sometimes a sports team wins when the star player on the opposing side is injured and can no longer play. Sure winning is nice, but it is more satisfying to win if the star player is still in the game.

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Downing Street Memo - old news - my take

I hear all the time about the Downing Street memo and now bkln has left a comment referring to it. I had read a few things about it and perhaps even seen snippets of it. With the link bkln provided I have read the memo in its entirety as well as doing a google search on the topic to get the take of others on it. I mostly found comments from the left on it while the right seems to be ignoring it for the most part. After this review I find that in order for this memo to be a conclusive smoking gun against the Bush administration it would need:

  • It would need to be proven to be a genuine document
  • The offending comments would need to be proven and not an expressed opinion
  • Even if contents are proven facts they would need to be provably linked to the Bush administration.
In this Newsmax link the authenticity of the memos is called into question. According to Newsmax the only 'surviving' memo is a manual recreation of the 'original'.

The story states:

'British reporter Michael Smith, who broke the memo story in the London Times on May 1, revealed to The Associated Press over the weekend that "he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals."'

Right after the memo first surfaced, I recall quite a lot of news coverage and Democrats including John Kerry touting it as damning evidence. Once it was discovered that the memo's original was destroyed the story seemed to evaporate overnight except among the left leaning blogs. After the Dan Rather forged document story, the news media knew they could not take another such hit. Without the original memo to ensure there were no changes or typos there was no story and it was appropriately dropped. For any potential legal action, no forensic evidence could be performed on the documents either. The left is not likely to accept a Newsmax story any more than I would accept a story from Daily Kos. The British government also has not denied or confirmed the authenticity of the memo, merely stating it "looks authentic". Assuming for the sake of argument that the memo is authentic, are the contents truly that convincing and damning? I don't think so.

First, I would point out that if this document is authentic, it was illegally leaked to the press. With all of the criticism swirling around about leaking high level security matters, you would think the same individuals currently angered by the Plame leak would be outraged by the leaking of such a high level security document. The memo begins with:

"This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents"
Second, the memo is not a recorded transcript of a meeting. It is the summarizing minutes of the meeting taken by Matthew Rycroft. So during the meeting, various individuals are speaking and Rycroft is taking minutes. To emphasize the point these are minutes, not quotes. To illustrate, the first sentence of the minutes state:

"John Scarlett summarized the intelligence and latest JIC assessment"
Nobody in the meeting stood up and uttered the words "John Scarlett summarized the intelligence and latest JIC assessment". So we see that what minutes are written may be related but are at the discretion of Rycroft. I do not know anything about Rycroft. I do know that different people can hear the same things and conclude differently. While I would not expect Rycroft to willy nilly change things at will to reflect his own views and continue functioning in this fashion, but a few subtle differences between what is said and what is written is entirely feasible.

Third, the content itself is not damning even if recorded accurately. The following are what might be considered the most suspicious excerpts of the memo:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." "The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."
In excerpt 1, Sir Richard Dearlove, head of British Secret Intelligence Service (notated as 'C'), comments on discussions he recently had in Washington. He reports that the Bush Administration is intent on going to war to remove Saddam on the basis of terrorism and WMD. The statement about the intelligence and facts being fixed around the policy are being pounced upon by the left. Here because this is a summary by Rycroft of statements by 'C' using the word 'fixed' it is not clear that we can be sure of the context and intensity of the statement. I am not an expert on the British version of english, but am aware that we can use the same word as they do with different meaning. Does the word "fixed" have the same usage and meaning there or is it used in a softer context than say the American charge of "fixing a boxing match". Food for thought. We don't know if C actually used the word fixed, but we can glean that he was commenting that Bush has seen enough in intelligence reports to make a decision and in the light of that fact care should be taken to factor the Bush policy into their discussions. In fact when C resigned in August '04 according to this story he made it clear his resignation had nothing to do with Iraq and that he still maintained the highest regard for Tony Blair. Additionally, the memo does not subsequently reflect any adverse reaction to the comments of C. It should be pointed out the Bush and Blair are on different sides of the political spectrum and Blair had nothing to gain by following Bush to war without justification. To believe this room of liberal oriented people from Blair's side of the isle would hear this interpreted as the war critics now interpret it and decide to kiss Bush's ring does not make sense.

The second excerpt also shows taking the facts at hand and trying to push policy through the UN to make smoother path if we went through the UN. I don't see anything sinister here. While it shows that Saddam had less WMD than his neighbors, less in the hands of an enemy willing to use them is more dangerous than more in the hands of one hesitant to use them.

Fourth, the contents of the memo shows that all in the meeting believed that Saddam had WMD. In the second excerpt as pointed out above, Saddam admittedly has less WMD than his neighbors. What this shows clearly is that all in that room believed that Saddam did have WMD. Their own intelligence was telling them the same thing that US intelligence was claiming. Even if that intelligence was wrong, it does not allow a conclusion that WMD was lied about. If Bush and Blair believed faulty intelligence, that is not a lie, it is faulty intelligence.

Fifth, the US Senate security committee had the same intelligence information that the president had. This is not directly related to the memo, but links to the Bush lied conspiracy that is feeding off the memo. This committee includes both GOP and Democrats. If the intelligence was being cooked or skewed by Bush, the Democrats on that committee would know about it and have an opportunity to intervene. At the very least, they would have been in a position to notify their fellow Democrats that they saw a discrepancy and prevent them from voting for authorization to go to use military force. This memo was well before the authorization vote.

My conclusion is that the Downing Street Memo is constantly touted as some trustworthy, fool-proof smoking gun against Bush and the Iraq war. My points show that its authenticity is in doubt, the contents were summarized interpretation of the discussions in that meeting and that the contents of the memo itself are not conclusive evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Bush or Blair. Yet the left will continue to put faith in what points to their preconceived notions.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

No perp walk and a big smile

Given the likelihood that the Delay indictment was purely political, there were 3 things the Dems wanted to get from it, but have to skulk away with only one and that one is likely temporary. The Dems wanted 1) to force him to step down from his very effective leadership due to the GOP only self imposed rule to do so when indicted 2) a mug shot 3) video of a perp walk.

They only really have forcing him to step down. He foiled their plans by exercising his legal Texas right to appear in the location of his choice. By willingly appearing in a more sympathetic location he was able to avoid the perp walk altogether. His mug shot will hardly be used in campaigns to paint him as a miserable criminal. Delay is smiling from ear to ear proudly displaying his House of Representatives security pin.

I am sure Dems across the country feel robbed and dissatisfied at this turn of events. I am sure they will feel even more robbed when Delay is aquitted for admitted lack of evidence. If the judge was not a liberal known to be a contributor to, he would have already dismissed the charges. Oh, well I guess we will have to be satisfied with a verdict of not guilty.

The three classes of society a five car train

Many have an incorrect view of the classes in society. I think the 3 class society can be viewed as a five car train containing an engine, a caboose and 3 passenger cars. The engine represents opportunity and determination that provide the ability to advance econimically while the caboose represents dragging factors that hold back economically. The 3 cars are the 3 classes rich, middle and poor.

The proper view of the 3 cars is that they are attached. As the rich car advances so does the middle and poor class. Also, by working hard a person in the poor car could advance to the middle car or from the middle car to the rich car.

Those who engage in class warfare want this to be different. Their first preference is for there only to be one passenger car even if that one car is the poor car. They bristle against the advancement of the rich car even though being connected it advances the middle and poor cars. Even though the situation of the poor and middle cars is better, it is evil because the rich car is still better than the other two.

For most people in the US, which car you are in is the result of hard work and making proper choices. There is a good luck and bad luck factor for sure. Some inherit wealth without working for it. If that is the wishes of the parents who worked for the wealth, then who has the right to deny them what they want to do with their wealth. Some drop to the lower cars due to random catastrophe. Some are born with handicaps preventing opportunity.

It would be Xanadu if we could assimilate the poor and middle cars into the rich car. This is not likely to happen. So a society should work to set up an environment where the lower cars keep pace with the rich cars. Society should not cut the connection to the poor car and take off. Society should not keep people out of the middle or rich cars based on discriminitory reasons. Society should not expand the connection to the poor car so it gets farther and farther away. Simplistic thinking such as wealth transfers contribute to this.

Society should have a carefully constructed safety net for those who do not have the ability to make the right choices or work hard, but not for those who are able bodied and able minded. Society may have a temporary safety net for those who may make the wrong choices, but need a temporary hand up to make better choices. Society should not resent or penalize those in the rich car who worked hard and made good, legal, ethical choices to get there. As for the argument that the rich used the US infrastructure to get wealthy, all able bodied and able minded have the same opportunity to use the US infrastructure. Those who choose to do so should not be punished for doing so.

How much does it take to educate one kid per year?

I have been doing some research on education spending since I have been questioned on some points I have made on other blogs. My points were:

  • Bush acts like a liberal in key areas like spending including huge education spending hikes.
  • Our education system is not short on money and does not need more. It is full of waste.
  • The federal government should get completely out of education because it does not make sense for dollars to go from the states through D.C. back to the states.
When what I thought was obvious came into question, I decided to waste my time to find more details on what I knew to be right. I found some interesting items, but one in particular caught my attention and I have linked in the title. The graph from that link shows per pupil spending trends from 1990-2005 in New York City. Topping off at $14,642 per pupil per year it is ludricrous that liberals complain about education funding at all. How much does it take to educate a single student for one year? Yet the liberals keep demanding more and more money.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

NY Times continues downward financial plunge

The NY Times is reporting a drop in profit by 52%. As has been stated previously on this blog, all of the liberal news sources whether newspapers or TV news have put propogating their agenda before making a profit. For years before talk radio and Fox news we heard the response to the charge of liberal bias that instead of bias they were simply reporting what sells. At the time there was not many alternatives to liberal news sources.

Now with alternatives firmly in place people have a choice and are leaving the liberal establishments in droves. So we now see that the liberal reporting was not to "sell papers" but to set an agenda. They are not willing to relinguish that agenda indoctrination in order to save themselves financially. If what they were spewing was true, this might be considered noble. With so many descrepancies between what they are reporting and truth coming to light so frequently it is merely stubborn partisanship.

Two new theories for the leak case

There is a conspiracy theory out there that claims the whole leak thing was staged so that in the process of Dick Cheney resigning over it, Condi Rice would be nominated as VP. This would then stage her nicely for 2008. While the outcome might be nice, I have a hard time believing any would go to that length for this move. Cheney could simply have resigned for health reasons and accomplished the same thing.

The second theory I have is regarding the huge speculation craze seen on the left with very little being stated on the right about it. As stated previously to believe that it is known before the announcement that there will be indictments, would necessitate the prosecuter leaking the information in an investigation about a leak. What I believe we are seeing is a staged and coordinated effort on the left to establish a presumption of guilt before the announcements are made. If indictments are made, it would set the stage to maximize the damage. If no indictments are made, it would be easier to suggest that the prosecutor fixed the case so there would be no indictments. In other words, they are not only extremely corrupt but they are also getting away with it. I would maintain they do not know and are creating the speculation from whole cloth.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Miers a planned failure all along?

I am getting the distinct feeling that Bush never expected Miers to be confirmed. I realize that the left has a good 'ol time painting Bush as stupid when they know he is not. Yet Bush often looks like he is feeling his way along then all of the sudden it goes his way. In such cases I like the win, but would much rather win the debate. Sometimes it is more about educating the public than about winning and often you can do both.

This Miers nomination though, just is not making sense that he is serious on getting her confirmed. This latest relaunch of her nomination seems very telling to me. First, even the relaunch could have been done without saying that is what you are doing. Then with leaks about supporting the right of privacy along with leaks that she would overturn Roe vs. Wade seems to be targeted at making everyone mad.

With the latest revelation that she lobbied for an amendment that would repeal most of Roe vs. Wade you would think the Dems would strike out at her. Yet they don't because they don't want the GOP to stop bickering with each other. Could it be that this is a trap devised to get her confirmed with the spin that it was reported she was pro-life all along? I think it more likely that Bush wants her nomination to fail so he can 1) Nominate someone more conservative with a paper trail or 2) stick it to the base and nominate Gonzales. How this ends up will tell the true tale of this administration.

Leak case a field day of speculation

I see rampant speculation on the left about possible indictments in the leak case. I find it hard to believe that there would be a significant leak of information on indictments in an investigation of leaked info. For those reporting alledged leaks many were quite angry at the thought of Rove, et. al. leaking about Valerie Plame yet none buzzing about a leak in the prosecuters office seem the least bit angry about that. There seems to be quite a lot of silence on the GOP side. Most conservative sites I visit almost always report even the bad along with the good, so this whole picture is not jiving.

I have a few theories of my own, though I admit they are speculation. Having admitted that I may as well record them before the fact to see which are correct.

My first theory is that somebody tripped up in something they did. Someone lower down in the administration. A series of indictments will be made and the issue will end. The delay in announcing would produce quite an interesting reaction in the MSM.

My backup theory is that the indictments will go higher up at Rove, Libbey or both. Both would resign and I suspect go to trial where I predict an aquittal. In this case, expect the administration to lurch to the right in its policies of immigration, spending and other issues. My one issue with Rove is that although he wins elections, instead of capitalizing on the wins he only thinks of the next election and GOP expansion. Once Rove is out of the way, Bush will only have his base and I would like to think he would work overtime to keep them happy.

So that is it. Not much to this post but added it for fun.

Monday, October 17, 2005

Raise taxes on the rich on one condition and even then ...

While I fully recognize the US is not undertaxed at any class level, liberals in this country seem obsessed with sticking it to the rich in this country. While there are circumstances where some are withheld from reaping the benefits of what the US offers, most are in poverty due to their own choices. I don't lightly or hard-heartedly berate the poor, but the fact is almost all have opportunity in this country to be anything they want to be if they work and apply themself. Almost all who don't make good choices end up in a lower class income situation. Most who make good choices have a good income level all the way up to extreme wealth. Liberals always want policies that reward those who make poor choices and punish those who make good choices.

For years liberals have been inciting class warfare against the rich by claiming they don't pay their fair share. While a modest progressive tax may make sense, asking for 40% or more of anyone's income is confiscatory and punitive. In addition, the claim that the rich don't pay their fair share has been blown away as seen on Rush Limbaugh's website that shows the top 50% wage earners pay 96.54% of all taxes and the top 1% wage earners pay 34.27% of all taxes. If this is not paying your fair share I don't know what is!

While I would fight any tax hike tooth and nail, if the liberals were bound and determined to steal more from the rich and had the votes to do it there is one compromise I would entertain. In exchange for raising taxes on high income individuals, I propose we irradicate ALL corporate taxes across the board. Hang on liberals, don't leave yet! When you think about it, corporations are not people they are pieces of paper; a legal entity. Why should the corporation pay taxes? Because "they" make a lot of money? They don't think or act or do anything; "they" are simply a container, a shell. Taxes should only come from individuals.

Corporations are opportunity centers that give individuals the chance to make a living and/or create wealth. So much energy is focused on sheltering wealth from taxes by this loophole or that instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing. If no taxes are levied against corporations, what will be done with that money? Anything done with the money will almost inevitably become a taxable event:

  • By spending it on the companies needs and investing in itself, corporations can expand to provide more jobs
  • By providing dividends to investors and owners, a taxable event is created and the money is taxed at the end level
  • Even if it is held as cash for a future need, eventually it will either be spent or distributed
Whether used as a bargaining chip as described above or not, this is the right thing to do. The economy would soar in this environment and tax revenues would skyrocket.

Investments of the American left

We invest 2 main things in this country: money and time. Derivatives of these two items include resources, energy, effort, etc. Sometimes an investment goes so bad, you lose everything you put into it. Before you get to the point where you realize that the investment is a goner, you try things to help it along, to bolster it, to rescue it from the brink by whatever means necessary.

When you look at the last five years at what liberals have invested in, it is quite revealing of their behavior today. Liberals have a huge investment in the War in Iraq ending in a miserable failure. Right before the '02 elections Democrats voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq to avoid seeming soft on terror. (On a side note, imagine that: Democrats saw a link between Iraq and terror in '02 but claim now there was not one. ) Since then, they have distanced themselves from that vote and committed themselves to use Iraq as the issue to topple Bush and the GOP in future elections.

Some of the items they have invested in along the way are:

  • ignoring all evidence of a WMD program
  • ignoring the evil deeds of Saddam even up to the end
  • propping up Joe Wilson in his lies about Niger
  • downplaying any good news out of Iraq
  • giving aid and comfort to the insurgency with their continued criticism of any Bush Iraq policy
  • protesting our presence in Iraq while 'understanding' the insurgents
  • downplaying the elections of the interim government
  • downplaying the elections for the constitution
  • pretending that successful wars of the past did not have similar issues and incremental failures we have experience in Iraq
  • adopting terrorist rhetoric by claiming we are 'occupying' Iraq
  • ignoring each victorious initiative that racks up dead terrorists like cord wood
  • accepting every lie the terrorists give claiming heavy civilian casualties
  • selling out our military by acting as if abu graib was more than a few bad apples
While nobody would claim that the election of the constitution means the end of all problems, to treat this significant event as if it is nothing tips their hand. In more than one liberal blog I saw the elections being described as Bush administration smoke and mirrors. With approximately a 70% voter turnout, we can safely assume that the Iraqis take this seriously. Liberals see it as a threat to their investment and are committed to minimizing it.

As Bush continues to 'stay the course' in Iraq much to the anger of liberals, the likelihood of success goes up. A success in Iraq would put a ball and chain in the investment of the liberals. I remember the pictures of the mudslides in California where huge million dollar homes went crashing into the ravine. Liberals must fear that with every hard won inch of victory that comes to pass. It is not imaginable that we would ever see them get on TV and claim they were wrong and that a great accomplishment was made in Iraq. So we can't be surprised when 70% of Iraqis come out and vote for freedom and democracy and the liberals downplay it as "smoke and mirrors'. Those who claim to care about people are willing to sell out the people of Iraq to regain political power.

Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel

The title of this post links to a story from British website In this story there are serious allegations about former Russian military members helping Iran develop a missile program to launch the nuclear weapons they are also developing.

According to the article:

"The Russians are acting as go-betweens with North Korea as part of a multi-million pound deal they negotiated between Teheran and Pyongyang in 2003. It has enabled Teheran to receive regular clandestine shipments of top secret missile technology, believed to be channelled through Russia. Western intelligence officials believe that the technology will enable Iran to complete development of a missile with a range of 2,200 miles, capable of hitting much of Europe. It is designed to carry a 1.2-ton payload, sufficient for a basic nuclear device."
Over the last 3 years we have seen world in an uproar over the US war in Iraq resulting from Saddam's continuous breach of the cease fire agreement from Desert Storm and world-wide intelligence reports of a continued WMD program. We have seen massive protestors in the US as well as in Europe and other areas in the world. They protest a country that learned from 9/11 that if you wait too long to defend yourself you place your citizens in harms way and do not meet your obligation to protect them.

I am astounded at the things they do not protest. Here is a small list of things these hypocrites overlook:

  • The developing nuclear program in Iran
  • The assistance of Russia in their nuclear program
  • The assistance of Russia and China in the North Korean nuclear program
  • The continuous breach of human rights in China
  • The continuous breach of women's rights throughout the muslim world
  • The reverse ethnic cleansing that is now happening in Kosovo against the christian population
  • The suicide bombings in Israel
  • The insurgency in Iraq and the support it receives from neighboring countries
  • The repeated scandals at the United Nations, the body they want to grant world oversight to
  • China's continued threat of war against the sovereign nation of Taiwan
There is so much danger, terrorism and corruption going on in China, Russia, Europe the Arab world and South America yet world criticism and protests continue to focus on the US. Looking at all the things like Russia helping Iran develop a nuclear program that happen before our eyes and imagine the things we don't know about. The fact is the US is the ONLY check and balance on the most dangerous elements in the world, yet how many in the US and abroad want to see the US weakened economically and militarily. Is it out of jealousy or do they truly want these dangerous countries to control the world. It is truly twisted when the US continues to be protested and scrutinized for every action while the true thugs of the world get a free pass again and again. The whole world seems to chronically strain at a gnat yet have no problem swallowing a camel.

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Chris Wallace sees shift of open bias

When Chris Wallace joined Fox News all I could think of was his liberal father Mike. I feared that Fox News had caved under pressure from the left to abandon its middle of the road stance and move to the left. I have been mostly pleased, however, with Chris' performance on Fox. Though Chris is no conservative, he seems to me to be one of the most objective news people I have seen that is not a conservative.

In the linked article, Chris speaks of how his former network news associates have become astonishingly biased. This is quite an admission, but comes as no surprise to me. I have followed the news closely for the last 25 years and have seen a dramatic shift in the last 5. The network news was always quite bias, and when CNN came along it was liberal bias with a different platform. The bias, however, was not jumping out the screen and shaking you like it now is. Though liberal bias used to permeate the news casts consistently, it was more subtle and more deniable. Since our only news sources had this liberal bias, they did not feel the need to advance beyond this constant low level radiation of liberalism.

When conservative talk radio and Fox News came along, it shook the foundations of the liberal news establishment. The monopoly was broken and people flooded to what had been withheld from them for decades. When you see the ratings list of my previous post and the dropoff of circulation numbers of liberal newspapers, you understand both the panic and hatred gripping the liberal news establishment. They are rapidly losing the faux mask of objectivity they have long worn and beginning to show their true colors. They are now striking out like cats with their claws in such an obvious way that someone like Chris Wallace can see it. I predict it will get worse in the coming years, especially the GOP continues to win elections despite their intervention attempts.

Friday, October 14, 2005

Maybe Olbermann will start paying people to watch him

The list of news network viewership numbers must be a real bummer for CNN and MSNBC. Here is the list for Wednesday night:

CNN KING 821,000
CNN ZAHN 818,000
CNN COOPER 766,000
CNN BROWN 687,000

It must be pretty disconcerting to be lower than Aaron Brown. I can only take watching him for about 15 seconds before I am begging to be tortured in some other way. Just what is it that causes these ratings to be the way they are? I have maintained that when it comes to news people watch the one they trust most. Also, the liberals have consistently sold out the truth and consistency for partisanship. They must be gambling the survival of thier networks that once the next Democrat gets in, the Fairness Doctrine will be reinstated. That is the only environment these partisan smear reporter can survive in.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Democrats beat their chest too soon

Democrats are salivating over Bush's poll numbers. Power Line Blog lists the low point poll numbers of the last 7 presidents:

*Johnson: 35%
*Nixon: 24%
*Ford: 37%
*Carter: 28%
*Reagan: 35%
*Bush I: 29%
*Clinton: 37%

Compared to Bush's current poll numbers at 41% Bush is doing well. As most poll numbers (by large margins) see the legal pursuit of Delay, Rove and Frist as politically motivated even if more trouble comes these numbers are not likely to go down. Actually, I think that these lower numbers for Bush are timed and calculated like a big rubber band. The lower they go, the more it stretches for the sling shot effect just before the '06 elections.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

When Al Gore gets the base excited you know your party is in trouble

I have one favorite liberal blog I like to visit called the Ostroy Report. The author, Andy Ostroy, has always been tolerant of my conservative comments as I am to liberal comments here. Apparently, Andy and another liberal have some kind of weekly TV show they do in New York which I would like to see at least once. I don't mind linking to Andy's site as I am confident in the strength of conservative ideas.

Anyway, since I have been reading his blog there are two things that generate the most comments: when I add a controversial comment and when he adds a post about the possibility of Al Gore running for president. The first time he posted about Al Gore and a possible run he generated about 90 comments. Boy am I jealous :) If I stay away and he doesn't post about Gore there is usually about 5-6 comments per post. So then a week later he posts about Gore again and boom another 31 comments.

My point is liberals must have a pretty dry well of candidates if they get so excited over Al Gore. Gore has transformed himself a bit since his loss in 2000 having more animation and energy than the wooden automaton of the presidential debates. The problem is that now he has so much energy that there is speculation on just how the loss affected him psychologically. At any rate, now that Gore is having a taste of the private sector with his television station he is not likely to go back to running for office. The liberals were dismayed at his immediate denouncement of the idea of running again. Some were even wanting to start a draft campaign.

I wish he would run. The Democrat primary of '03-'04 was nothing more than one big anti-Bush commercial where 95% of the primary they were all in a line giving the liberal media a chance to continuously interview all 9 of them so they could criticize Bush with a soundbite. In fact most had no hope of winning; they just wanted a stage for their soundbites agains Bush. The '07-'08 Democrat primary cannot take that tone this time since there is no sitting president. No, they will actually have to run against each other. If they think that they can run with an anti-Bush platform, they are mistaken. The GOP candidate will come out with a clear agenda and ideas. Even with Bush in office, Kerry learned you can't merely run AGAINST. You must actually run FOR something. Oops! Democrats can't do that either. Their message of raising taxes and spending even more money than Bush to add the socialized medicine that is failing in Canada and Europe is not a winning agenda. Like I said, the primary will be interesting.

Howard Fineman opens his mind for us to see a fantasy

I find it remarkably interesting how liberals are treating the debate among conservatives over the Miers nomination. Howard Fineman writes an aritcle called "The Conservative Crackup" where he thinks the conservative movement

"that began 50 years ago with the founding of Bill Buckley’s National Review; that had its coming of age in the Reagan Years; that reached its zenith with Bush’s victory in 2000 — is falling apart at the seams"

To quote Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon". I think liberals have chaffed against the real splintering of the Democratic party and the true prospect of a liberal crackup for several years now. At the first sign of disagreement, then they come in predicting a "crackup" of the GOP. The difference between the parties is that among the GOP there is a historical pattern of healthy debate where disagreement exists. Instead of forcing all to think alike, the GOP has expanded the tent. The Dems on the other hand have worked to mold thinking that is robotically alike among their members. Dissent is crushed keeping the tent limited only to those in their mold. While the GOP is quick to call out a fellow member in the wrong, the Dems have time and again held the line. If their leaders do wrong, deny, deny, deny.

The Dems keep trying to take the problems they have struggled with for years and falsely attempt to brand the GOP with them: a wildly corrupt presidency, criminal tendencies among congressional leaders, psychopathic lying and now crackup among their coalition. These lame tactics may work with the core liberal faithful, but most see through it.

In all likelihood, by the time the '06 elections come around Miers will be on the bench proving she will interpret the Constitution as promised. The alledged criminal accusations will have had their day in court with the likely outcome of leading to nothing. A few bonus items like a passed Constitution in Iraq, and tangible ensuing progress. Maybe some solid budget cuts lead by the GOP will have happened. I don't know exactly what will happen, but my prediction is a GOP momentum by next September just before the elections. After all one strategy during difficulty is to let things go real low before the improvement to maximize the affect of a comeback.

Air America host claims taxing the rich key to robust economy

Citing Clinton's tax hike on the rich and the ensuing economy boom, Air America host Randi Rhodes yesterday actually claimed that the that the two were actually linked. She suggests a repeat of economic prosperity could be accomplished by once again raising taxes on the rich. She overlooks the high taxes under Carter that killed the economy, the economic boom after Reagan cut taxes across the board, the recession that occurred after Bush 41 broke his 'no new taxes' pledge. She also misses the blunting of the edge of the recession and a relatively quick return to low unemployment after Bush 43 cut taxes across the board.

Liberals love to give Clinton credit for the economic boom of the '90s. Rhodes correctly points out that the only economic policy Clinton had was to raise taxes. However, it is ridiculous to claim that cause and effect. The real reason for the economic boom of the '90s was that the Reagan tax cuts of the '80s were like a petri dish with just the right conditions resulting so that when the dot com technology came down the pike, the economy could do nothing but take off.

If the Dems want to jump on Rhodes' bandwagon and name raising taxes on the rich as the way to economic prosperity I would welcome that plank in their platform. A promise to raise taxes has always resulted in a lost election. Even Clinton knew he had to lie and promise a middle class tax cut in order to get elected. Then a month after he assumed office, he claims he tried harder than anything in his life to find a way to cut taxes for the middle class and he just couldn't.

Now that is another important point. As I said Libs love to give Clinton credit for the economic boom. If Clinton actually had policies in place he thought would produce such an economy, keeping the promise of a middle class tax cut would not have been a big deal. So he had no plan for the economy that he had faith in would work. This drives home the point that Clinton had nothing to do with the boom of the '90s.

By the way, I have no link. I was listening to Rhodes between commercials on the two conservative stations so I heard it myself.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Yet another reason never to relinquish sovereignty to the UN

The BBC took a poll with 15,000 respondants on who should rule the world. Here are the top 10:

1. Nelson Mandela
2. Bill Clinton
3. Dalai Lama
4. Noam Chomsky
5. Alan Greenspan
6. Bill Gates
7. Steve Jobs
8. Desmond Tutu
9. Richard Branson
10. George Soros

In the unlikely event I need to say more, with this kind of lame thinking, how could we ever think of handing our sovereignty to the rest of the world? The UN and the rest of the world are far from simply not having our best interests in mind. They are not even neutral to our best interests, they want our decline.

Sunday, October 09, 2005

US #1 Export - discontent with government

Apparently, victims of the Asian earthquake have taken their queue from the US and are complaining about the slowness of the response. While I am saddened at the loss of these people and have no wish to speak lightly of their tragedy, there seems to be a growing trend around the world of people who look only to government to help in times of trouble. I am certain this discontent was encouraged by the spectacle that occurred after Katrina.

In the past, the order people looked for to solve crisis problems was: their own preparedness, their family, their friends and neighbors, their community assistance and/or their religious community. Finally, the government came in last. Now they seem frozen in their tracks waiting for the government to step in and help us all if they are too slow.

I guess we can be proud that we have exported this nonsense abroad. I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Saturday, October 08, 2005

Dems prove once again they are to blame for high fuel prices

The GOP has introduced an energy bill designed to encourage the building of new refineries. True to form the Dems have rebuffed the measure basically claiming it will increase profits of oil companies and harm the environment. It is without argument that in order to lower gas prices, there needs to be more of it on the market. As China multiplies its need of fuel and the US need for fuel steadily grows, the laws of supply and demand kick in. While liberals want to turn to their tired tricks of freezing prices (which as we saw in the California power crisis only causes shortages), the GOP is proposing the only solution that will work.

More gas needs to be refined. In order to achieve that, more refineries must be built. Whether the refineries are here, or in another country, the effect on the environment will be the same. If the refineries are here, we will reap the benefit of local refining instead of shipping refined fuel into the US. If we do not build more refineries, then by looking outside the US for refined fuel, we add another layer of dependency on foreign fuel sources which places our national security and economy in danger.

Our senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin actually for once had a good idea recently. We currently have a strategic oil reserve. He wants to create a similar reserve for refined fuel for the same reasons the oil reserve was created. I must say this makes perfect sense and fully support it. Why, then do not Durbin and other Democrats unite the creation of the refined fuel reserve with an initiative to build more refineries. This could be a bipartisan measure for the good of the country and they are passing it up to spite oil companies and to kiss the ring of their special interest groups. Come on Dems, I have kudos here for the asking if you do the right thing!

The selective anger of Wilson and other liberals tells all

The anger Joe Wilson and liberals across the country at the alleged leak of his wife's status of a covert CIA operative (which still has not been confirmed officially) is selectively limited to Bush, Rove, Libby Lewis and Dick Cheney. Their anger seems to stop at the partisan line and they have no more left for the reporters who chose to disseminate that information to millions. Somehow Judith Miller and Matt Cooper get a pass. Legally, Rich Novak seems to get a pass but there was at least a little criticism for him in beginning. Since he leans conservative, that would explain why Cooper and Miller were the ones that escaped all scrutiny.

Reporters are not duty bound to report all they may know or pick up along the way. If this were the case many other reporters who already knew of Plame's CIA connection would have reported it long ago. After two known other outings of Plame (which caused her to be called back to the US in the first place) and the fact that many media members knew about it shows that only after Rove and Lewis mentioned it did they deem it worthy of a story.

With no anger at Miller or Cooper, Wilson and other liberals forfeit their right to be angry at Rove and Libby. Even if they heard about it, they should have exercised better judgment than to report it. This shows that partisanship is the only driving force in this lame issue.

It would be interesting if Fitzgerald only gave indictments to Miller, Cooper and Novak. The left would absolutely go nuts. I for one am eagerly awaiting the official revelation on whether Plame was even officially covert at the time. Unless she was AND the CIA provides supporting documentation then no crime was even committed. What a boatload of egg would be on Wilson and the liberal's faces if she was not covert. But even if she retained a status of "covert" operative and mother of twins, for Rove and Libby to only mention her as "Wilson's wife" still does not meet the standard. In any case, it will be an interesting week coming up.

Liberals look for next tragedy to strike to blame Bush

Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor the other day to deride the president on the possible strike of a worldwide bird flu. In the story I have linked to in the title, Reuters ( a proven critic of conservatives) declares the US is "woefully unprepared" for the coming flu.

While critics of Katrina criticized the slowness of military boots on the ground in New Orleans to help with the hurricane relief, these same critics seem to have a real problem with a plan to mobilize military forces in the event of a pandemic flu. With estimates of possible flu related deaths at 200 million, flu isolation is the best way to contain and proactively prevent the most damage. The only way to isolate a virus is through quarantine, and Bush wants to mobilize the military to enforce these quarantines. Liberals and/or civil rights advocates are already bristling at using the military.

As I have pointed out before, the government consists of bureaucratic departments that always seem to be hamstrung by red tape. While the military also has its bureaucracy and red tape, during a crisis their disciplinary structure makes them the best candidate for the job. I am sure that Bush views the military as the most qualified to handle such a heavy large scale crisis spanning across several geographical areas. After all, who would you trust most?

It is obvious that liberals are looking to this as another vehicle to deride this administration while Bush on the other hand views this as a crisis to make sure he gets done right. The question is "Are liberals willing to sacrifice millions of lives to create another situation they can tar and feather Bush with?" How would they react to a successful handling of the crisis? With gladness or with disappointment? No claims here, I am just asking.

Finally in the interests of fairness and to avoid bias from the media, I would like to know what they are saying about the preparedness of other countries? Either the other countries have everything in order or they are just as unprepared as they claim we are. If they are prepared, why isn't the media pointing out the steps they are taking so we can utilize here? If they are not prepared, why is the media only criticizing Bush. After all, the less people in other countries that are infected means the less likely to spread here. This is going to be a global effort to contain, therefore we can't just focus criticism on the US.

Soverignty II - Some are better than others

Liberals are truly disengenuous when it comes to this issue of sovereignty. They know full well that Iraq forfeited its right to claim sovereignty when they invaded Kuwait. The US had a treaty with Kuwait and was bound to honor it whether or not the UN joined. Bush 41 put a lot of effort into building a UN coalition. This was both needless and set the stage for the Bush 43 attack later. Being the top super power and wealthiest nation is not an easy road to travel when you consider the envy it certainly generates. I am sure Bush 41 was simply trying to be a team player by asking the UN to go along. This path of getting people to like you never seems to work.

So when we had Saddam on the ropes and could have plucked him from power, the UN said no. The best course of action would have been to ignore them and finished the job, instead a cease fire agreement was signed by Hussein. For the next 12 years Hussein did everything he could to break that cease fire agreement, thereby forfeiting the right to a cease fire. Because of this, it was fitting and right for Clinton to send in bombs against Iraq. It is unfortunate he did this to distract the nation from the Lewinsky affair, but it was within the auspices of the UN resolutions and Hussein's broken cease fire agreement. When Saddam for years did not let inspectors in, did not provide proof that the WMD was destroyed, provided hospitality and encouragment for terrorists. When the intelligence of many countries determined he had WMD, and we learned not to wait for threats to become terror after 9/11 we had the right to invade again. No further UN resolutions were needed. Still the liberals cry about invading Iraq's sovereignty in spite of its forfeited status.

At the same time liberals shoot off their mouths about capturing Osama Bin Laden. The fact of the matter is that Osama is most likely in Pakistan. Pakistan earned the right to be called an ally of sorts with their cooperation during the attack on Afganistan. Not an ally you would lower your guard with, but an ally nonetheless. While it is not likely the leader of Pakistan is doing as much as he says he is to find Osama, that is difficult to prove. I don't think any are suggesting we go to war with Pakistan at this time.

So the only route open to us in apprehending Osama is to send troops into the SOVEREIGN country of Pakistan to get him. Our troops would not only open themselves up to be fired upon, it would be quite a breach of diplomacy verging on an act of war. Yet the liberals continue to spout their mouths off about ignoring Osama to fight in Iraq. The worst is that most leaders who say it know the issues, yet they ignore them not willing to pass up an opportunity to stick it to Bush every chance they get.

I do wonder how the liberals would react if Osama was captured or killed. When I saw the tragedy of the earthquake in Pakistan my second thought (after concern of the people) was hoping that somehow Osama was in that region. He is supposed to be on the border with Afganistan and this is on the other side but we can always hope. Nevertheless, the liberals can cry about the sovereignty of Iraq, yet they think nothing of the sovereignty of Pakistan.

To a liberal Iraq sovereignty important while US sovereignty is dirt

I would be a wealthy person if I had a nickel every time a liberal spouted the tired line about the US invading the sovereign country of Iraq. The liberal place a lot of stock into the sovereignty of Iraq, yet seem willing to give away the US sovereignty.

Sovereignty is not something that should be lightly given because once given would be difficult to take back. The United Nations seems on the surface to be a good idea. A unique location where the various countries can get together and hash out solutions to world problems. In reality the UN has not nor can it ever work or be a trustworthy body. In order for the UN to work ALL of the most powerful countries in the world must be willing to set aside their best interests for the world's good. Among the most wealthy and powerful (which would be the US, China, Russia, Japan) it can only be argued that the US and Japan have even tried to make it work. In reality the other countries of the UN come to the US asking them to play the game with both hands tied behind its back while they play with both hands. Somehow the rest of the world and US liberals think this is right and fair.

The UN cannot be trusted with US sovereignty for several reasons:

  • As the previous paragraph shows, other countries would come to the table with unequal expectations.
  • The UN virtually has no systems of checks and balances. This would especially be the case regarding the US. If we went to the UN claiming another country was unfairly treating the US, other countries could merely deny it and vote against the US.
  • The UN has no system of policing itself. This has been clearly seen in the many recent scandals brought to light in the UN. Other countries merely shrugged it off as if it were not important. It would not be fitting to sign away our sovereignty to such a corrupt body.
  • It is historically obvious that from the beginning the UN's top priority has been to sap the US of wealth and power. The US pays the bulk of UN costs. The US devotes the most military costs to peacekeeping forces. The UN keeps trying to pass a world tax for the sole pupose of tapping into US wealth. With such a history of hostility toward the US why would we trust them with our sovereignty?
  • The UN has historically favored abusive nations with shameful human rights records. During the cold war the UN displayed unabashed favoratism toward the USSR. After the cold war the UN obviously embraces such tyrannical power as China, Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela while shunning benevolent one such as the US and Taiwan.
The UN is morally bankrupt, corrupt and hostile to US ideals. History and common sense tells us that the UN will attempt to nibble away at our strength and wealth. Such is not the actions of a friend. If it is no friend and cannot be trusted, we should never entertain the possibility of relinquishing our authority to such a disgraceful body.

Friday, October 07, 2005

A strange definition of supporting our troops

The liberal and/or anti-war groups want to make the claim that they support our troops, but not the war. When you boil it down there is no other alternative but to realize they have first changed the definition of the word support and then used their definition when they say the support our troops. We will let their actions and words paint a true picture of their definition of support:

  • They express a sentiment of hoping our troops do not succeed in Iraq almost to the point of sounding gleeful when things go wrong
  • They try to criticize the "failures" in Iraq as being the fault of the Bush Administration, knowing that the strategy comes from the generals and the actions by our soldiers in the field.
  • They bypass discussion of the successes and good things happening in Iraq
  • They are nearly silent about the atrocities of the insurgency. The insurgency is not the will of the people of Iraq it is a core group of murderous thugs that have no morals or decency. There seems to be an under current of silently cheering on the insurgency to victory.
  • They constantly compare Iraq to Vietnam. This tells me the same people are behind this that were there after Vietnam to spit on our soldiers when they were coming home. They hate the military and all it stands for even to the point of personally hating the soldier.
  • The constant and growing protest against Iraq gives encouragement to the insurgency while demoralizing our troops. So no matter how many dead insurgents are stacked up like cord wood they are encouraged to fight longer and able to recruit more. A strong denouncement of the baby killers of the insurgency by all of the US and the world body added to their continually growing body count would deflate them.
  • True support of troops (if it even exists) comes far lower in the agenda than sticking it to the Bush Administration.
  • The attacks against recruitment for the US military on US owned or funded institutions shows a hatred for our military and a strategy to prevent victory in Iraq.
  • The ridiculous statement "We support our troops, bring them home now" if enacted would be catastrophic to the troops. A lack of victory just like Vietnam would in their minds nullify all the courageous and selfless sacrifices of our troops. Coupled with the massacre of Iraqi people that would certainly follow as it did in Vietnam would leave our brave troops with burdens far too heavy to bear for the rest of their life. While WWII vets have their post war problems, they are much less than those from Vietnam.
I am sure more could be added to that list. The fact is that this list shows that their definition of support is actually closer to loath, hate, fantasize of their failure, etc. The left saying "We support the troops" is the equivalent of crossing your fingers behind your back while spewing out a lie. The US needs to truly support the troops by doing whatever it takes to give them a gift that will last their whole life: victory over tyranny.

We need to decide once and for all the role of a student

In the story the title links to a high school student in my home state of Illinois was reprimanded for a breach in multiculturalism. The school had a group of Mexican students orchestrating a celebration day of Mexican Independence day. Part of the celebration involved taking down the American flag, raising the Mexican flag and then all were to stand while the Mexican national anthem was played.

One young man determined not to stand during the playing of the anthem and school officals have reprimanded him and sent him to the school office. He gives a reason that seems unusual to me - that it might interfere with his joining the military in the near future. Whatever his reasons, there seems to be in this country a growing trend of calling some things freedom of expression and other things they call wrong. If the expression is against the US or against christianity, it is upheld as freedom of expression. If it is against causes that tend to be supported by liberals it is no longer freedom of expression, it is wrong. I would be interested in whether the ACLU would issue a statement in this. Since no real punishment seems to have been given, there is probably no legal action available.

I should note that I am as multicultural as any, yet by my interest and by my choice. My point is that our schools are for learning. We pay more than enough taxes to give our students the best education in the world, yet we seem to allow so many distractions it is a wonder students have time to learn. Students if they have the right cause are encouraged to express themselves by school system. Teachers add their own topics they wish to instruct the students in that goes beyond academics and again if it is the right topics it is encouraged, otherwise discouraged or punished. Then the school curriculum itself is loaded with social indoctrination designed to steer the thinking of students according to their agenda.

I ask for consistency. While my preference is to limit a school to real academic pursuits, if they want to go beyond that then be consistent. Don't praise one kid for wearing a "Bush Sucks" shirt and then reprimand another for not standing during the Mexican national anthem.