Occasionally Lucid Thoughts

What The People Want in Reform

2009-08-29T12:54:00.000-07:00

This is not particularly complicated, and you'd think that certain simple reform measures could be accomplished without one dime of taxpayer money being spent. Of course, you might have to annoy some special interests in order to actually serve the people.

Here is my list:

1) Lower cost insurance (at least catastrophic coverage should be available inexpensively for everyone, but especially the young and healthy that don't want to spend money on a lot of other frills they have no use for).

2) Portability--meaning that your health insurance should NOT be tied to your job. This requires that "groups" are eliminated and that all individuals in an insurance company's entire portfolio are the only "group" that is recognized (which happens to be true, though for some reason we've all bought into the thought that our "group" was a company, a union, or something. This is what has made buying insurance so difficult for individuals and small businesses. It's arbitrary and counterproductive. See THIS post.) Also, if you are already insured and you want to change your coverage, the insurance company could not drop you for de-selecting certain menu items (for example, if you lose your job, you may want to keep the insurance the company was paying for, but, given you are now unemployed, you may need to drop back on your deductables until you are employed again to lower the cost).

3) No dropping people because they get sick, or actually use their insurance.

4) Insurance for people with pre-existing conditions. Obviously, some conditions are more major than others. I would have no problem some things simply being waved, as long as they can be covered with some other mechanism, such as a high risk rider policy that covers only that condition--all other conditions are charged under the "normal" policy, or perhaps an insurance cooperative that is funded by insurance companies and an extra fee by the client. Someone with a severe pre-existing condition (like cancer), should definitely be able to find a secondary insurance source specifically tailored to that condition. This could take some thinking, but I'd think that it would not be too difficult to figure out a way to do it without it becoming a government program.

5) Provide the same tax break to an individual paying for their insurance as a company gets. (Note that the company would only provide the insurance as a sort of convenience, because the policy would be portable with the employee, not tied to the job).

6) Tort Reform! Take a bunch of cost OUT of healthcare in one sweep.

7) Allow policies to be sold across state lines.

8) Disallow state mandates of what must be covered so that people could choose from a menu of items beginning with high deductable catastrophic coverage, then increasing in price as more items are added. For example, a gold-plated package might include everything from catastrophic coverage with no deductable, to office visits for the sniffles, where a mid-range plan might have a lower deductible on emergency room visits and catastrophic care, but you're paying out of pocket for your check-ups. I'm certain that, if forced to do it, insurance companies could come up with a great set of options that appeal to people and also allow them to be profitable.

This simple list would end up with more people covered by insurance (because it's cheaper). Frankly, I wouldn't even mind a mandate that people have at least catastrophic coverage. I don't like that kind of interference with personal choice, but if the cost was low enough, it could be like the mandate that you carry some form of auto insurance to drive. It would also make insurance just as affordable for the self-employed as the large corporation, because there would be no difference (no "group" to worry about).

It seems to me that THIS is all the majority of people want. They want security without having to pay through the nose for it. They don't want the government involved in it, other than setting some rules that work to favor the individual. Why should this be so difficult?

And Furthermore...

2009-08-22T10:33:00.000-07:00

Why isn't your auto insurance tied to your employment? Why isn't your life insurance tied to your employment? Do you notice the price of either does not go up if you buy it as an individual, and that it's portable whether or not you have a job? How about the menu of options available, like, higher deductibles, full glass coverage, liability?

Other than government regulation and entrenched business practices, why isn't health insurance the same?

Regarding the Post Below...

2009-08-21T10:18:00.000-07:00

Some might wonder how, in the absence of "groups", people could get varying levels of service in their health care plan. First of all, you know that the insurance companies would adapt to the "no group" reform to find ways to be profitable. That's capitalism--adapt and create!

One thought would be that the company takes an "every policy holder" baseline, which is their cheapest insurance: catastrophic with a high deductable. If the risk pool for this insurance is every policy holder they have, this should be extremely inexpensive. As the deductable gets smaller (another option the company offers), the price goes up. As a person starts to add from the menu of options (drug benefits, maternity care, etc.) the price goes up. But, it is all spread across a "risk pool" that includes every person insured by the company who is purchasing a particular benefit (with the baseline price still based on the catastrophic coverage for everyone).

Imagine the competition this would create for your insurance dollars. Imagine how low the prices would be for young, healthy single people who every insurance company would want in their plans because having them is money in the bank (they are, after all, young and healthy and are great risks).

The other area where this could create competition is this: if people are buying from a menu, many will choose to forego insurance payment for check-ups and routine tests. It will become reasonable to pay for these things out-of-pocket rather than pay a higher premium for something seldom used. Therefore, some smart doctors and nurses will doubtlessly create neighborhood clinics specializing in cash-payment check-ups and testing. Competition will be created that will lower the prices, and increase the services. Think "veterinarian". We might even find ourselves in a situation where the "house call" returns, either by doctors, or nurse practitioners.

Two things have to change for these things to become a reality: A mandated end to the business model of "groups" (or "pools"). And, the ability for insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines (not only does this increase competition and lower prices, but it's a bone to the insurance companies because it allows them to create a larger customer base, which means a larger risk pool).

One Simple Change Could Have Huge Results

2009-08-20T10:23:00.000-07:00

There is an insurance company business practice which, if altered, could make health insurance affordable for millions more Americans, and reduce the cost for everyone. Changing this practice would also make insurance portable. Those are two of the biggest goals of insurance reform that nearly everyone would agree upon.

This practice is grouping policy holders into pools. Your “pool” is usually your company. The problem is that this practice is an artificial structure that is intended to maximize insurance company profits by segmenting each pool (or group) as its own profit center. In fact, the insurance company’s real “pool” is every individual holding a policy with the company.
I have no problem with insurance companies making profits. I understand the business model of segmenting profit centers so that, if each one is managed to maximize profits, then if one or more do not make a profit in a given year, the profitable ones more than make up for it.
However, let’s look at the results of this practice. If you are an employee of a large company, that company, because it is a large pool, gets its insurance at a lower cost. A smaller company pays more for the same coverage. An individual can’t even afford that coverage, nor can really small businesses.

For example, let’s say there is an insurance company called Purple Shield. If I am self-employed, I can’t afford good coverage from Purple Shield because I have no “pool”. Purple Shield treats me like a one man (or one family) “pool” whose risk is spread across only itself. However, if next week I give up my attempt at self-employment and I am hired by Mega-Corporation, which is insured by Purple Shield, suddenly I can get a policy for a fraction of the price I would have paid as an individual. What has changed? I’m still the same risk. They could have thrown me as an individual into the pool with the employees at Mega-Corp when I was self-employed and let me pay the premiums. Plus, now if I lose my job at Mega-Corp, I’m out on the street again without insurance.

The only way to bring down the cost of insurance to individuals and smaller entities is to stop this practice of artificially grouping the insured by the company (or union) for which they work. Pricing is done based on spreading the risk across the group that is insured. The real group for which the insurance company is providing insurance is every policy holder they have.
Mandating the elimination of this “group” (or “pool”) business model will accomplish two things: It will allow everyone to buy insurance at lower prices because everyone will have the risk they represent spread across the largest possible number of people. Secondly, it will automatically make insurance portable, because the individual will no longer be tied to the pool they were in when the company they worked for purchased insurance for them.

Expanding the risk pool even more by allowing insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines will also help lower the cost.

Companies could still purchase insurance for employees as a perk, but that insurance would be of the employees choosing and would still be available at the same price to that employee if the relationship with the company is severed. In addition, if the tax rules were changed to give individuals a write-off for insurance, more people would be willing to buy lower cost, tax deductable policies.

This is “health insurance reform” that could make a difference. It’s also incredibly simple. It is no more complex than mandating something like “mark to market” (which didn’t work out very well because of what it was, but the point is that the government CAN mandate a business practice).

This “pool” (or “group”) concept is so ingrained that people don’t seem to be able to even consider that it is, in fact, artificial. I keep hearing experts talk about allowing small businesses to group together to form larger pools, or allowing individuals to group together to form larger pools in order to bring down costs to these smaller entities. That conversation misses the point. The risk to the insurance company is NOT really spread across whatever the insurance company defines as the pool you are in. The risk to the insurance company is, in fact, spread across everyone they insure.

The reality check is this: Mid-sized Company A is insured by my mythical Purple Shield insurance company and the cost of insurance is based on the size of the risk pool represented by the employees of Company A. There’s a toxic gas leak at Company A and every employee is affected. They all have to go to the hospital and receive expensive treatment. The premiums paid by Company A do not cover the massive expense. Where does Purple Shield get the money to pay the extraordinary hospital bills? From the premiums paid by all of the other people they insure! The risk is, in reality, shared across the entirety of Purple Shield’s portfolio of insured people. Profits will go down a bit for Purple Shield as a result of the extraordinary expense. But, if the reality was that Company A’s risk was only spread across its own employees, Purple Shield would never have been able to pay the hospital bills. Purple Shield is not bankrupt, and is in fact still highly profitable because the risk for each individual working for Company A is actually spread across every policy Purple Shield has sold. If that is the reality, why continue to price policies as though the person insured is part of a smaller subset group, making it difficult for small businesses and individuals to buy health insurance?

This very simple change to insurance company business practice, combined with allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines will result in lower cost to the consumer, more competition as insurance companies vie to create the largest risk pools possible, and create policies that attract more people into their “pool” to share the risk. It will also automatically make policies portable, because your policy will no longer be tied to your employer because your policy is no longer based on the risk pool your employer represents.

Isn’t this what we’re actually clamoring for when we ask for health insurance reform?

Health Insurance Reform

2009-08-17T10:02:00.000-07:00

1. Tort Reform. This is an obvious omission from the current bill. Threat of lawsuits (often frivolous) costs doctors too much money in malpractice insurance and also results in too many extra and costly tests being performed.
2. Three Simple Rules insurance companies must follow:
a. An insured person cannot be dropped from their insurance, or have their premium go up as a result of illness.
b. A mechanism must be put in place to insure people with pre-existing conditions.*
c. Insurance must be transportable for an individual, not tied to a place of employment.
3. End state mandates of what must be covered in an insurance policy so that individuals can choose from a menu of items they want to have covered, rather than forcing insurance companies and individuals purchasing insurance to provide and have coverage they don’t need or want. (This dovetails nicely to point 4 below.)
4. Allow sales of insurance across state lines. This will increase competition and increase the number of insured people in the risk pool, both of which should have the effect of lowering the cost of insurance.
5. End the practice of “grouping” the insured. Currently, insurance companies sell insurance to groups (like the individuals working for a company, or in a union, etc.) as though the risk posed to the insurance company from that group is limited to the number of people in a particular group. For example, I worked for a company employing 45 people. The cost of insurance to the company was based on the risk our little “group” posed. The same insurance for a larger company where the risk was spread across more people would have been less expensive because of the larger risk pool. The insurance would not have been available to the self-employed because there was no “group” across which to spread the risk.
The problem is that this is an artificial construct. An insurance company ultimately spreads the risk across everyone they insure, not merely the members of a particular defined group. I understand the business model, because it’s clear that if each “group” is managed for maximum profitability to the insurance company, even when a few “groups” end up upside down because of illnesses or injuries, the other profitable groups more than compensate.
This artificial construct of relating to the insured as members of “groups” rather than as all belonging to the overarching “group” of ALL of the people the company insures (which is the reality) is a cause of insurance being more expensive overall, and mostly unaffordable to individuals who are self-employed.
Ending this practice of “grouping” will make insurance more transportable, because the cost of insurance for an individual in a company will no longer be tied to that company “group”. It will also make the playing field level for the self-employed and for people who want an insurance option that their company is not willing to pay for (as part of the employee’s compensation package).

Summary: These five simple things will drive down the cost of insurance and of medical care. If insurance is more affordable, far more people will purchase it. If providing medical care is less expensive due to tort reform allowing for less money spent on malpractice insurance and unnecessary testing, a lot of waste and unnecessary cost will come out of the system. This is true “health insurance reform” that will make a difference to people.

*Perhaps a non-profit entity can be created that is funded by an X% contribution from all insurance companies (possibly also getting funding from other sources as well) making it a “re-insurer”. This would allow an insurance company to sell the person with a pre-existing condition a normal policy for all care not specifically related to the pre-existing condition, plus provide insurance for the pre-existing condition via the non-profit re-insurer. This would allow the insurance companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions knowing there was a fixed cost in doing so. The person with the pre-existing condition might be required to pay into the non-profit, but the cost would be limited.

Progressives?

2008-10-23T09:57:00.000-07:00

I always hear people on the left referred to as "progressives" (or, more accurately, referring to themselves as progressives.) So I ask myself: progressing toward what? Fairness? How is it fair to take something someone has earned and give it to someone who hasn't earned it? Equality? We're equal in a spiritual sense, we're equal in the sense that we should all have an equal opportunity, but the fact is we don't PERFORM equally. Bill Gates and I are not equal financially. I didn't start Microsoft, he did. Good for him. I'd better come up with a great idea too. Are we progressing toward a government that takes better care of us? Government is the least efficient, least adaptable, and most corrupt possible way to take care of anything, and even people on the left, when they have to actually interact with government, think it's a bureaucratic nightmare (yet they keep wanting more... go figure.)

So what are they progressing toward? More power over more people's lives is all I can really come up with. I don't think they're evil for that, because I'm certain that they have good intentions (most of them). The problem is that the basic assumption of that is that there is an elite that can make better choices for people than they can make for themselves, which diminishes the people, and puts power in the hands of a few that, by definition, are superior to the diminished masses.

The other problem, of course, is that rule by an elite has NEVER WORKED. I don't care how smart they are, life happens, and especially economies happen, in what could be called a positively directed chaotic state, where new things are created unpredictably, and things have to adapt nimbly to the new creations. No group of "wise people" can control it. Note how successful centrally planned economies were and are. Lots of new inventions and creative solutions coming out of the old Soviet Union, Cuba, and North Korea (not). Are the people there stupid? No. They're just not free or motivated because an elite is in control. Everyone's equal... equally miserable, except the elite because they're so wise... er, they have the power.

When someone says they're progressive, ask what they are progressing toward. It seems to me that what they're really doing is regressing toward what has never worked. Rule by an elite that sees all the peasants as the same didn't lead to progress in monarchies, facist states, or communist states. Freedom, and competition, has led to progress.

Government CAN'T Fix It (never could)

2008-04-14T09:56:00.000-07:00

This is a comment I sent to William Katz at UrgentAgenda (which I highly recommend).

Hi William,

One of the interesting aspects of this latest Obama elitist flap is something you’ve mentioned a few times in passing: How he seems to be convinced that the government is the answer. Government should provide jobs. Or maybe just money. And he thinks the government should provide jobs while taxing the hell out of evil corporations. Isn’t there an intellectual disconnect there that is just incredibly difficult to overcome?

Government doesn’t “create jobs.” Entrepreneurs create jobs. Expanding businesses create jobs. All government can do to help is to get out of the way; less government intervention via taxation and regulation. But the people promising jobs want MORE taxation and regulation. Plus, they want to increase taxes on the “rich”, who have the means to invest in entrepreneurial (risky) enterprises. Take more money away from them, and they’ll want to risk less. How can government tax the sources of jobs more, and expect more jobs to be created?

Or, is Barack (and Hillary too) really saying that the pathetic losers in industrial states that have declined have only one hope, and that is that the government will take care of them, because they don’t have the drive, the intellectual capacity, the creativity, or whatever else it takes to create a better life for themselves. In most cases in the industrial states, the problem has come through government (high corporate tax rates and/or regulation), or through a quasi-government style anti-corporate bureaucracy called a “union” that has made it impossible for an industry to compete in a global market (or even a national market) while conducting business in that state.

My family comes from Hibbing, MN, once home of the world’s largest open pit iron mine. The unions killed the mining industry in Hibbing, because wages and benefits kept rising for workers who had less and less incentive to work or accomplish anything. Wages went up, productivity went down, and suddenly it was cheaper to import steel than pull it out of the ground in northern Minnesota. Hibbing nearly died (rescued only by the fact that it’s surrounded by beautiful lakes where people love to vacation in the summer).

The only positive thing the government could have done to help solve the problem would’ve been to act on the side of the steel industry by nullifying the union contracts and allow the companies to pay only those workers who were productive a good wage, and make the business competitive again, meaning that workers had to compete to be perceived as the most productive and the most deserving of the high wages, and the companies could have again made American steel competitive in the global marketplace (certainly competitive for the U.S. market).

I just find it interesting that people like Barack and Hillary think the government is the answer, when government has NEVER been the answer except when it gets the hell out of the way. How can they look at world history and still sell the proposition that a large unwieldy government bureaucracy can be the answer to anything? Particularly in the area of economics where creativity and competition is the only thing that truly drives expansion.

Thanks for you time and your blog. I really enjoy it.

Instapundit Calls It McCain Derangement Syndrome--What to do?

2008-01-30T11:50:00.000-08:00

I am hearing more and more about how conservatives are thinking of bailing out of the election if McCain is the nominee of the Republican party. Thus throwing the election to Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. Michelle Malkin's blog had a "We'd rather have a Dem ruin the country than a Republican" post about that very thing. Instapundit called it "McCain Derangement Syndrome" and gave the wise advice: "This is politics, the art of the possible, not the ideal."

I wrote the following to Michelle:

I read your post on McCain and the letters from readers of your blog. I'm
no fan of McCain either. McCain/Feingold and McCain/Kennedy make me worry
greatly that Senator McCain will betray conservatives.

However, it is also a truism that cutting off your nose to spite your face is never a smart strategy. I keep hearing about Republicans threatening to vote Democrat or
to just stay home on election day if McCain is the Republican nominee. The
argument is something like, "If it's all going to go to hell, I'd rather see a Democrat do it."

Here's the thing... If a Democrat is elected, the Universal Health Care they will implement will NOT be something that can be undone in 2012. If a Democrat is elected, the debacle they will leave behind in Iraq and the Middle East in general will not be something that can be undone in 2012. The damage to the economy as a result of higher taxes and punitive taxes on business will not be something that can be undone (at least the 4 years of damage that will occur) in 2012. The
capitulation and pandering to global warming alarmists and resulting taxes
and whatever other insanity that comes from that will not be something that can
be undone in 2012. The appointment of extremely liberal Supreme Court
Justices cannot be undone in 2012.

Yes... I agree that a McCain/Kennedy type immigration plan will not be undone either. But we can hold a President McCain's feet to the fire on some issues. We can do what we did to the original McCain/Kennedy and make our voices heard through
Congress. Remember... the person sitting in the Oval Office isn't all powerful. But, that person is Commander in Chief. Do we want to punish McCain and the Republicans by making Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama Commander in Chief?

If McCain is the nominee, we shouldn't give the Democrats a free ride to the White House to punish him. We should say, "OK, John... if you want the job, we're going to hold your feet to the fire on conservative issues. You want a one term presidency? Or, do you want to really make a mark on history?" Then we should work our proverbial butts off to elect conservative Representatives and Senators. Balance out
McCain's worst instincts with people who will not let him make mistakes we can't
tolerate.

Don't let the Dems "ruin the country". We have to live here. How much did we enjoy the last 2 years of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid leading the House and Senate? Cutting our noses off to spite our faces worked out well there, didn't it? Now we want to do further damage by giving them a President (Hillary or Barak) that is just as liberal (or moreso) than they are? Now we're willing to give them four years to implement programs that will have the government reaching deeply into our pockets for the rest of our lives? And we're willing to allow liberal foreign policy and to let the Soros crowd make policy in the war on terror? I don't think so!

If McCain is the nominee, we will know we need to press him, and give him a Congress to work with that will fight his worst liberal instincts. However, we will also know that on some extremely important and life altering issues, he is a far, far better choice than any Democrat. This is still life and death in the war on terror. This is still about capitalism vs socialism. We conservatives will do unalterable damage to ourselves if we punish John McCain by giving the White House to a Democrat. If we do that by staying home, or voting for the Dem nominee, we will have only ourselves to blame as the troops precipitously leave Iraq, Iran becomes a nuclear power, the UN gains power over the American purse, and our wallets quickly empty due to oppressive taxation. Will we feel better about that just because we can say, "at
least a pseudo-Republican didn't get in there and screw up immigration"?
(A guarantee with a Democrat president, by the way.)

If McCain's the nominee, we need to gear up, not give up. We can't live with a Clinton or Obama presidency!

Long Time, No Post

2008-01-30T11:48:00.000-08:00

I haven't posted in over a year. Amazing. Anyone looking forward to a new post? Probably not at this point. So much for turning this into a money making venture! :)

Why I Support the War

2007-01-12T20:05:00.000-08:00

I’ve actually had a few people ask me why I support the war. First of all, without being a religious Christian, I am a spiritual type of guy who believes in a loving God who would like nothing more than to see His children behaving in a loving way toward each other. Secondly, I’ve never been a big fan of war or of violence. And, last but not least, I am not a huge fan of government (though I do think that ours is about the best one could ask for and far superior to the vast majority around the world). So, it’s a legitimate question: Why would a person who prefers peace and brotherhood (our would the PC version be something more like “siblinghood”?), and thinks big government is generally bad government, support a war?

To me, the love of peace and the desire to see a loving world are reasons TO support the war. “How could that be?” you ask. Well, my biggest reason for supporting the war is that I believe our enemies are very serious. It’s unfortunate that anyone would have to be referred to as an enemy, but there’s no other word to describe someone who considers YOU to be their enemy, or to describe someone who holds the goal of destruction of all you hold dear. Someone whose ideology is so alien to what you believe is right, and who has not merely stated that they want to wipe you out, but who has proven time and again that they’re more than willing (seriously… like they consider it a holy duty) to take action to bring about your demise… well, the language doesn’t hold a more appropriate term than “enemy” for such a person.

Therein lies the rub. The Islamists, or Islamofascists, are serious about destroying our way of life. They refer to us as decadent, and say we’re infidels. In their ideology, that makes us less than human, or certainly subordinate to them. And they’re not just talking about the fact that we can watch porn on the internet, or have barely-legal women strutting around in various stages of undress while singing songs, or even the fact that we love our iPods when they refer to us as decadent. It’s the fact that we tolerate other religions. We tolerate (and accept!) a variety of religious beliefs, including non-belief. We tolerate (and accept) gays. I know… within this country there is much debate about the degree to which we have tolerance for alternative lifestyles, but we have to remember that while we debate gay marriage and most people are willing to accept an alternative like civil unions, our enemies kill gays.

The Islamofascists interpretation of Islam (which looks a lot like a huge powerplay to me, where a ruling elite eventually gets to trample all over the masses of people by religious fiat) is hateful. There’s not much (if any) “love thy neighbor” in it. There’s a lot of “kill thy neighbor, or even those in your own household, if they don’t behave according to a strict set of guidelines… which, by the way, can change or be reinterpreted, by a fatwa from those above you.” It’s a “total control” ideology. You turn your life and will over to others, and those who don’t are eligible to be killed. Witness the Taliban’s Afghanistan. That’s what we’re talking about. Women remaining covered, uneducated, and treated as property. Men, while in a position superior to women, having to live under strict codes imposed by others. People living without hope, in a mode of pure terror and survival, in a system that places no value on creativity or productivity, and certainly not on human rights or property rights. To advance, you become part of the ruling cadre’, not by virtue of hard work and creativity, but by being as ruthless as they are.

They want that here. They want that in Europe. They want that all across the world. Yes, it clearly kills civilizations off. How prosperous was Afghanistan? How prosperous is Iran? (They even have oil and can’t keep it together!) How prosperous are the Palestinians? But the point isn’t what WORKS for people and for higher standards of living and care for the planet and it’s inhabitants. It’s ALL about whether or not you’re believing the right things and behaving in the right ways. Ultimately, like any fascism, it’s about power for an elite with no thought for what happens to the world after that power is attained.

OK… what has that to do with Iraq (which is the most controversial aspect of the general war on terror)? Well, aside from the fact that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless tyrant, and an enabler of terrorists (even if you don’t believe he was harboring al Qaieda operatives like Zarqawi after he’d fled Afghanistan, or training them in the North, it was widely publicized that he was paying suicide bomber’s families), he also had, at minimum, the knowledge of how to make chemical weapons, if not stockpiles of them. It was clear at the time, and made even more clear by documents recovered in Iraq, that Saddam was waiting for the sanctions to be removed—a process he was helping along—to simply get back to where he had been and wanted to be in terms of WMD.

All of that is bad. But what made it all worse is that Saddam’s regime, by its continued existence as well as by the things he said and did, was emboldening the Islamofascists. His regime continually thumbed its nose at the UN, the United States, and the civilized world. The UN, the USA, and the civilized world were content to talk and to threaten and to pass resolutions, but not to ACT with any resolve. This emboldened the Islamofascists. The statements of al Qaieda leadership tell us that they saw the USA as a paper tiger and nothing more. Do you think it was a secret from them that Saddam was shooting at our jets in the no-fly zone? Was it a secret that he was somehow able to build palaces while under sanctions by the UN using Oil For Food money? Was his seeming ability to hang on to his weapons of mass destruction by interfering with, and then ending the inspections regimes, making it seem like HE was in charge of the inspection process, something that made the UN and the USA look stronger or weaker? And, the fact that he could do all of this, making his people suffer all the more while still maintaining power, had to embolden anyone who held the desire for tyrannical, fascistic power.

So, I support the war in all of its aspects. I don’t want to see the rise of a horrible, fascist power that not only ends individual freedom, liberty, and hope for a better future, but that also denigrates women, enslaves men, and kills gays or anyone else who is not deemed appropriate, such as anyone who doesn't follow the teachings of the Quran as interpreted by the Mullahs. I think that reversing a course of apparent (and practical) weakness that emboldened these Islamofascists is a good thing. I believe that striking a blow for freedom, liberty, and democracy right in the heart of the first lands the Islamofascists would like to claim for themselves is a good thing. And, though I hate to say it, if killing must be done, killing them there rather than here is a good thing. Killing, it seems, must be done, because when someone wants to kill you, your only choice is to die, or kill them before they’re successful. The Islamofascists have made no secret of their desire or their ability to kill.

I’m a huge admirer of Mahatma Gandhi. Studying him as I have, I believe that Gandhi would’ve understood the need for this war. Gandhi was able to liberate India from British rule because he knew that the morals of the British people would not allow them to stand for their leaders perpetrating violence on the non-violent protesters. He knew the leaders themselves would not be able to continue that course. Eventually, they'd listen, see their side was intellectually and morally inferior, and capitulate. But the Islamists moral compass allows them to say things such as “We will win, because you love life, and we love death.” The Islamists are NOT guided by the moral compass that Gandhi could rely on, knowing what he knew about the British people and the West. Gandhi would’ve known that, if what he was confronting was a people who would kill and keep killing his protesters, and would do so with the blessings of the followers of the killers, he would have to come up with another tactic. The same was true of Dr. King. He knew that the majority of whites would see that the ignoramuses who wanted institutionalized discrimination and believed in racial superiority were wrong if the people saw thoughtful, non-violent protest being confronted by ignorant violence. If Dr. King had been a Jew in an Islamic land, do you think his tactic of non-violent protest would have worked? Would he have made it to the capital of that nation to give a speech on the mall?

The Islamofascists have told us and showed us that they are serious. They declared war on the USA and Western Civilization long ago. What they want for us is a near polar opposite of what we want for ourselves (and what we’d hope for even for them). When confronted by that (and we are confronted by that) we’d better be willing to resist, and part of that resistance is supporting our troops and our government in an effort to fight them.

How About Setting the Bar Higher?

2006-10-19T09:24:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading an article by Michelle Malkin about the feckless and corrupt UN, directed at educating Angelina Jolie, who apparently thinks the UN is the answer to the "refugee problem."

First of all, shouldn't one ask WHY there are refugees in the first place? I can tell you from first hand experience (I spent a month traveling in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi) that the refugees are the result of corrupt (or worse) governments. Here's a hint... when putting money into countries with corrupt governments, the money gets siphoned off by the ruling elite and does not make it to the people who need it. In addition, there is a very strange phenomenon that I experienced first hand where people in those countries begin to become reliant on whatever scraps of humanitarian money filters down to them and they do not develop self-reliance.

A quick story from my travels in Uganda. I was walking down the street and saw a guy coming toward me wearing a coat and tie (not exactly fashionable... looked like what one might pick up in a second hand store), but he looked like a businessman. He saw me (I wasn't hard to spot, as I was the only white man on the street) and he immediately stuck out his hand. I was thinking he wanted to shake hands, so I reached out to shake his hand and greet him. He pulled his hand back, then put it up again, palm up. The Ugandan I was walking with said, "He think's you're UN." The guy wanted a handout. And he was a "businessman." I started talking to my escorts and they pointed out the very nice Range Rovers the UN people were driving around, and said how they live like royalty, with everyone serving them, hoping to get handouts. My friend was disgusted by it, because the people had come to see handouts from the UN and NGOs as the only way to get ahead, rather than working for something themselves. In their defense, when you live in a place where anything you build up can be confiscated by your government, or where you have to live in fear that a coup will take place and the new government will take all you have built, it does reduce your motivation.

Which brings me to my point: Instead of messing around with the UN, which is filled with socialists and dictators, we need to set a higher bar. Create an "Organization of Capitalist Democracies" (you know them... they're the only countries that are truly successful). Set standards for joining, like respect for human rights, respect for individual property rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, democracy, and, of course, capitalism. Let the rest of the world look at these countries, see the success, the standard of living, and let them know that they too can join, IF they meet the criteria. And, if, like countries in Africa, they have a long way to go, offer to help them get their societies moving in a constructive direction. Given that capitalist democracies also tend to have big hearts, the organization could help non-participating countries, but it could do so in a manner that got the money focussed where it is needed, not siphoned off by the ruling elite.

The countries that need help are generally very poor. It's not that they don't have resources, or they don't have people who are smart enough, it's that their corrupt ruling elites can keep siphoning off money GIVEN (as distinct from PRODUCED) them and live the high life while the people suffer. If that money was to dry up, cutting off the corrupt elites, and people (even those who crave power) saw that the only way to live well was to get the country to be productive, perhaps they'd change.

Apparently, Angelina Jolie is about to play Dagney Taggart in a movie version of "Atlas Shrugged". Perhaps in studying for the role she'll read the book and understand what Ayn Rand was communicating. People are not empowered by being GIVEN something. It's not good for the soul, and it certainly doesn't teach them how to be productive. It creates a vicious circle. The only way to stop it is to stop it and start in a different direction. The UN is not ever going to start in a new direction. It's ruling elites are now just like the corrupt regimes they facilitate.

Something new has to be created. The bar has to be set higher!

Our Perceived Weakness Gives Them Strength

2006-09-30T09:15:00.000-07:00

This Powerline post from the 29th (regarding the Democrat's theory that being in Iraq has made us less safe) raised my ire and I have to vent. Why do you suppose the Dems can't see the connection between America's perceived weakness in the 90s and the rise of terrorism? I don't have the quote at hand, but didn't Osama Bin Laden at one point state in fairly blunt terms that America was a paper tiger? (Referring, I believe to Somolia.)

I have long asserted that, were I President Bush, even with all the other good reasons there were to go in and remove Saddam from power, the number one reason was to state to the thugs and terrorists of the world, "You can NOT f**k with us anymore!" Saddam was the standard bearer for little thugs and dictators who thought they could constantly poke and prod the USA (and the UN) and suffer no real consequence. He claimed victory in the first Gulf war. He toyed with the inspection regime. He built palaces while under sanctions. He shot at our aircraft. On and on.

Where I Osama Bin Laden, or Zarqawi, or any other terrorist or terrorist wannabe, I'd have been emboldened by Saddam's thumbing his nose at the USA and the rest of the world. No doubt they were. On the other hand, when his army was routed, and the US and her allies began killing terrorists and "insurgents" at an alarming rate, I might've used Iraq as a rallying cry, but I'd also have known that I was in a fight I could not win. At least not on the battlefield. It had to be easier to feel potent and powerful during the 90s than it feels now, when the best they can hope for is to blow up innocent Muslims to make their point, rather than killing masses of Americans. How impotent are you when your best offensive weapon is to kill your own just to show you can kill someone, instead of being able to defeat your enemy?

The Dems are dead wrong on this. I don't understand how they can believe we'd be safer by appearing weaker. Men of action (which, though in a demented way, the terrorists are) do not respect "dialog", and see it as weakness which emboldens them. I think it's intuitively obvious that the assertion that could be made, with evidence from the 90s to back it up, is that the dialog coming from the American left is precisely what is making us less safe. If the terrorists saw a strong and united America, with the rest of the free world standing squarely behind us, they would know there is no hope for them and their ability to recruit would be gone. It's the perceived weakness that gives the terrorists and Islamists hope that they can win, not demonstrations of strength.

The Dems are driving me nuts on this one.

DaVinci Code Bruhaha

2006-05-19T15:30:00.000-07:00

This is driving me nuts. Why are people upset about "The DaVinci Code"? Set aside that it's FICTION. Set aside that it's very easy to debunk it, and find info from people who have (Discovery and the History Channel have done shows debunking it, fer heaven's sake!)

I know my spiritual beliefs are slightly out of the mainstream, but in this case the mainstream seems to have gone over the edge. Whatever Jesus was, it's pretty clear that anyone who can withstand crucifixion would worry damned little about a movie that takes liberties with his life.

To me (haven't seen the movie... did read the book), the more human Jesus was, the more it gives me hope for the rest of us humans. Rather than thinking that my idol was being desecrated, my thought was how hopeful it would be if Jesus was a man like me, but he had attained a relationship with God and an ongoing state of consciousness that was so pure.

And I keep hearing people say, "Jesus WAS God". Where does the Bible say that? Jesus referred to his "Father", and also referred when talking to others about "your Father" (the Lord's Prayer that he taught the people starts "Our Father..."). So, was Jesus not letting us know that, virgin birth aside, we had the same potential for conscious relationship with "our Father" as he did? And was he not also distinguishing himself from God?

Even the statement "I and my Father are one" contains in it a distinction between Jesus and God, though it does speak to a conscious connection.

Jesus spoke about himself in two ways, one was as a man ("the son of man") when talking about his physical activities on earth... his body. He also referred to himself as the "Son of God" when speaking about himself in terms of his conscious relationship with God. He was God's son, but he also referred to God as "OUR Father" as well as his. Isn't there a message in there about OUR potential to reach the level he did? And it doesn't denegrate him in any way to believe that, but it does give us the hope that we have the potential to actually be like him. "Greater works than these shall ye do." Isn't THAT the point. He said "follow me" as in "emulate me". He didn't say "worship me" and in fact he turned away from being worshipped ("YOUR faith has made you whole").

I would love it if people took this controversy around the DaVinci Code to take a long, hard look at what Jesus taught. Contextualize it. Notice what he was saying and how he said it. He didn't distinguish himself from us in any way other than what he had acheived in terms of his consciousness, but he continually let us know that we could acheive it too. Doesn't it denegrate him MORE to say, in essence: "Jesus believed we could be like him, but we've decided instead just to worship him as a god."

Like I said, the fiction in the "DaVinci Code" has been thoroughly debunked. Did you know that the "Priory of Sion" that DaVinci was supposedly part of was completely made up by a guy trying to create bona fides for himself? And he did it in, like, the 1960s and just chose the names on the list ahead of his own, including DaVinci. So... Come on! Let's not get all wound up about fiction. However, let's actually take the opportunity to take another look at Jesus and perhaps alter our relationship from a belief IN him, to a relationship WITH him. What made Jesus worth listening to and learning from was not the virgin birth, or the resurrection, but the consciousness he displayed and taught between the two. If he'd been born to a virgin, resurrected from the dead, and said nothing worth listening to in between, who'd have cared? He'd be an interesting anomoly. But, he gave us incredible teachings and showed us a path to follow. He gave us, among so much more, the parable of the prodigal son, which was a very direct indication to us that we COULD (and should) return to OUR FATHER in our own minds because He's just waiting for us with all of the Love we could imagine and more. How does a question of whether or not Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and they had children diminish that in any way?

Update: Just saw the movie and am even more confused over the bruhaha. In it, it seemed to me that they had Langdon (the Tom Hanks character) go to great lengths to refute the theories about the Priory of Sion (even mentioning that it was exposed as a hoax in 1967 as mentioned in my original post. Now, in the movie it all comes out as true, but that's CLEARLY fiction). The Hanks character also makes a speech about how none of it matters, and that it shouldn't diminish Jesus in any way, which I totally agree with, obviously. Though I have to say I am unconvinced that, Priory of Sion or no, Jesus was married. I don't really care enough about it to delve further into research, because, as I said, my interest is in what Jesus taught, not theories about his life. To me, the movie was completely harmless.

My Answer to Energy Prices

2006-05-05T13:46:00.000-07:00

This is a post of what I've written to my Senators and Representative regarding energy prices and a possible solution. I am NOT in love with the solution, because it's not a totally free market solution. On the other hand, I'm hating $3 per gallon for gas, and I do think there's a glitch in the way the market works that, if corrected, could make a difference. Here's the letter... it's self-explanatory (I hope... I sent it to elected officials and if it's not pretty clear, they just won't understand it!):

Dear Senator,

I have a possible solution both for energy costs and for getting popular support for drilling in ANWR and off of the coast.

The biggest problem with gas prices is obviously the cost of a barrel of oil. Oil, no matter what the source, is priced on the world market at world market prices. Therefore, if a well was drilled right next to a refinery in Texas, the cost of the oil is still figured at $70+ because that's the world price.

My solution, though I don't love it because it is not totally free enterprise and I'm a died in the wool capitalist, is to create a DISTINCT MARKET, at least for oil drilled on public lands. Create a subset market, so there is one market for oil on the world market, and a separate market for domestic oil that will never be sold on the world market. There really is no reason that the cost of the oil from the derrick next to a refinery in Texas should cost the same as oil from Venezuela, except that both are purchased on the same market, as though the Texan could or would sell his oil to China.

The solution works like this: Create a secondary (subset) market for oil produced domestically for domestic consumption on public lands. Allow the oil companies to profit as much from the that oil (as a percentage) as they do from foreign oil. Our price at the pump would be the average of the number of foreign barrels used, and the lower cost number of domestic barrels used. Yes, it's government interference in the free market, but it also reflects reality and still provides a profit incentive for the oil companies. Particularly when the risk to the oil companies is reduced by allowing drilling on PUBLIC lands with known oil reserves where their risk of a dry well is greatly reduced.

I don't think the oil companies are gouging, but the way the market works, there is an unrealistic cost because the market is based on a world price, even when the ACTUAL cost for domestically produced oil does not, in reality, have to have that cost.

If people knew that domestically produced oil for domestic consumption was going to be priced in such a way as to reduce the price at the pump through cost averaging, they'd be FAR more likely to support drilling in ANWR and off of the coast. Especially since the reduction of the cost at the pump could be dramatic, since the cost of the domestic oil (even with the appropriate profit margin for the oil companies) could easily be a third of the world price. If it was 50/50 domestic to foreign, and the domestic price was 1/3 of the foreign oil, the average price would go from, say $70 (and the commensurate price at the pump) to $46. If there is a direct correlation between gas price at the pump and cost of a barrel of oil, that means $3 gas would be $1.97. People would FEEL that!

This seems to me to be a really good idea, and one that would actually make a difference, reflect reality, and still allow for profitability. Plus, it has the advantage of being a very REAL reason for people to get behind new drilling an refineries.

Respectfully,

Pat (name withheld for this post)

So... Good idea or bad idea? Don't like the interference, but, then again, if what is created is a separate market, just domestic, it's still capitalism. It's just fixing a hole in the system, because there truly is no reason for domestic oil that will never be on the world market to be priced as though it is. And, the caveat of oil produced on public lands, as opposed to private land, and in the hands of big oil drilling where they KNOW there is oil, rather than wild-catters that are taking a more entrepreneurial risk, assuages my fears that it's too anti-capitalist.

Can Socialism Die?

2006-05-05T10:13:00.000-07:00

There's a great article at Tech Central Station on why socialism won't die, despite failure after failure. The article was spurred by yet another socialist (Evo Morales in Bolivia) nationalizing the energy companies.

One of the things I liked about the article was that it did a better than average job of explaining Marxism. One of the things few people realize was that Marx would not have been happy about socialist revolutions that have taken place in the world. Marx believed that socialism would naturally occur at a time when capitalism had gone so far and become so efficient that all of the capital would be in very few hands (the capitalists), because they wouldn't even need workers (or would need very few) anymore. Basically, Marx thought natural evolution of economics would make socialism inevitable because the masses would be extremely poor and unemployed (for the most part) and the capitalists would be rich because they owned the means of production. Unfortunately for the capitalists, the people being poor would hold the unpleasant result of no one being able to afford to buy their wares anymore. Thus, a revolution where all that is needed is basically automatically produced and shared equally among the masses.

Marx's theories went wrong in many places--he obviously missed the point that in a capitalist society there are always new inventions and infinite varieties of products to be created, built and sold which will always require workers at every level, so he saw a finite number of human needs being fulfilled by capitalists who would end up automating the workers out of existance--but Marx wasn't one who believed capitalism was bad, he just believed it was a step... and actually a very efficient and necessary step that was only "bad" when it had gone past a certain point.

Viewing Marx's socialism from where it actually stood, no country would be "ready" for the socialist revolution. Not even the U.S. because capitalism has not yet produced a situation of high automation and comensurate high unemployment. The places that have tried socialism have all been in places that are the least likely to produce the socialist utopia, because they've been in places that were already poor and unproductive. Their backwardness is proven by the fact that even when the Soviet Union broke up, they haven't yet been able to get their productivity together enough to do a decent job of being capitalists. Socialism in an unproductive society is a recipe for disaster. Actually, it's a recipe for disaster anywhere because human beings are simply not motivated to be productive, let alone creative, when there is no reward for it. And, to pass out the "spoils" (or to loot, as Ayn Rand would rightfully call it) of those who ARE productive to give them to those who are not productive
and creative eventually destroys not only the motivation of the productive and creative, but also their ability to be productive and creative. Plus, successful economies operate in chaos. Needs are created, then ways to fulfill them are created. It's not planned, it just happens in the most efficient way possible. And that includes the creation of infrastructure to support the businesses.

Governments can not "plan" an economy. Just to take one example: where would the computer be if the government was left to plan exactly how it should evolve? In the creativity of the chaos, programs were created, the Internet and all of it's uses were created including the recent advent of the blogosphere, Google was created, speed was increased as a result of the programs that people simply HAD to have, the iPod was created and changed the way music was listened to and delivered, and now there are Podcasts... None of that could be "planned". Heck, I love Apple, but I couldn't figure out when the iPod came out why the hell anyone would want one. Now I LOVE mine and my lifestyle would feel greatly diminished if I didn't have it.

In the article, the question is why socialism keeps hanging on despite its record of abject failure every time it's tried. In the article, he sites that socialism is like religion. Plus, most "believers" don't even know their Marx, so they're utopians, rather than Marxists who would understand that you don't take a bunch of starving peasants and suddenly make them "comrades" and solve all of their problems. You merely create more problems trying to impose the utopia upon them, because it's a building with no foundation.

I would assert that another reason that socialism won't die is the human being's enormous capacity for rationalization, denial, and self-deception. It is just far easier to blame someone else for your problems (the capitalist who is "looting" the resources and "exploiting" the workers), and to rationalize and deny your own involvement in your own life situation than to realize that your life situation is due for the most part to your own decisions... did you get an education, or create something, or fight against a corrupt government that doesn't give you those opportunities? The wealthy, "limosine" socialist is the most interesting case. I have no idea what they're thinking, other than some strange belief that they somehow don't deserve what they have. What I want to know is how many socialist leaning Hollywood types negotiate their salary for a movie as high as possible and then distribute it equally among everyone who worked on the film, so that they make not a dime more than the kid who carries the script for the director.

So, as long as someone can rationalize and deny, as long as they can blame someone else, and can hope that someone or something else can give them what they've rationalized they deserve for nothing, socialism will not die. It IS a religion, with all of the least useful aspects of faith, and none of the best aspects of faith. At least most rational religious people I know assume that they have God's support, but if something is failing over and over, they can step back and say, "This isn't working, so maybe this isn't what I should be doing." Socialists don't let that much reality and rationality enter their thinking.

Price of Gas

2006-04-28T10:24:00.000-07:00

If only we could harness the hot air coming from Washington!!! Not an original thought, I know, but, those people are so full of crap I can't believe it. What is it with people looking for simple solutions to complex problems? I'm no huge fan of the oil companies... in fact, I once wrote a manuscript (in my semi-Marxist days) that proposed nationalizing the oil companies because oil is so important to our national security and economy. I no longer consider that a viable solution, given that the government would screw it up far more than the oil companies would.

How many of you have received the "boycott Exxon" e-mail?

The solution to the energy problem is clear. It begins with more domestic drilling. Naturally, using the most highly environmentally friendly, high tech methods available. Let's go to ANWR, drill offshore, etc. Secondly, we need to build refineries. Again, the most environmentally friendly... etc. etc. Let's also keep in mind that it is the Dems that have prevented that. Anything they say about oil prices or oil companies should all be filtered through: a huge part of the problem is THEIR fault! If Republicans can't use that to bludgeon the Dems in the mid-terms, they deserve to lose. (God help us if they do!)

Secondly, the government has to stop talking about throwing government money at alternative fuels. I don't know this for a fact, but my instincts tell me that people waiting for government funding are far less productive than people being creative and entrepreneurial. Plus, government money ALWAYS comes with strings. We don't need strings, we need outside of the box thinking. People who are hooked on thinking of hydrogen vehicles are going to be wrong (again, a gut reaction). I predict two things will happen... first, getting the hydrogen will turn out to be a high energy use process that may slightly diminish energy usage, but won't be the panacea that so many think it will. Also, the output is water. If nothing is coming out of the tailpipe but H2O, that sounds great and clean, but the number one greenhouse gas is water vapor. Not to mention the bummer of increased humidity in cities. It will be a matter of a short period of time before the environmentalists will be screaming bloody murder about the increase of water vapor in our environment. May sound stupid, but it's true.

If the government is going to help, what it needs to do is not throw money at the problem, but get the f_ck out of the way of the entrepreneurs and capitalists. Maybe give tax breaks for investment in entrepreneurial attempts to solve the problem, but don't give away money. They will not know what to support or what level of support to give a particular idea. I bet the answer is not even out there yet. Some dude in his garage, or sitting in a science or engineering class will come up with something that no one has even considered yet. The more the government spends, the more we'll be fixated on a particular solution, that will predictably not be the best solution. But, it'll get entrenched. Keep in mind, both hydrogen and electricity require some form of energy to create them. Even if it's the sun, or wind, it takes an array of some kind to harness it, and as we've seen with the Martha's Vinyard wind farm, people are loathe to have these arrays near them.

What we need to do is get the government to get out of the way as much as possible. Let the oil companies buy us some time via drilling and building refineries (make them have as small an environmental footprint as possible, but let them do it). In the mean time, support research and development, not by giving money away, but by incentivising MORE entrepreneurial efforts. Don't let the government bureaucracies pick and choose... let the markets and the people create the answer and the best one will surface.

We need to stop blaming oil companies for everything. These morons in Washington actually think that taking money from them will lower the prices. Since when did taxing a corporation make the corporation want to lower prices to further reduce their bottom line? The government's profit on a gallon of gas is higher than the oil companies' profit... why don't they cut that directly if they want to lower the price? Even that, though, is a pittance of the overall price of a gallon of gas. The rest of it is a result of our reliance on foreign oil. The vast majority of our gas price is in the costs to the oil companies, not their profits. Domestic supply and domestic refining reduces costs, and THAT is what is needed.

From a political point of view, this is a HUGE opportunity for the Republicans to demonstrate that it is Democrat policies that have caused and continue to cause the problems. How long have they been preventing new refineries from being built? How long have they been preventing domestic drilling? It far precedes the Bush administration, and it has continued through the first five years of Bush administration. People are feeling pain... the Republicans should let the people know who has really caused that pain. It wasn't the free market! It is interference by pandering by the Dems to environmental concerns, no matter how unfounded due to new technology. Hell, they could even give a hat tip to environmentalists having caused the oil companies to become environmentally aware and developing technology to be as environmentally freindly as possible while still getting the job done.

Will they be smart, or will they pander to the most base instincts of the uninformed and make themselves look as stupid and weak as the Democrats in the process?

MSM Using the Old Ploy

2006-04-23T12:47:00.000-07:00

You know the old ploy? It's sort of like the "straw man" argument. You start your argument by saying, "Everybody knows..." or, "The vast majority of Americans think..."

For example, I heard just today that "Everybody knows that the vast majority of Americans think [the double whammy] that the prosecution of the Iraq war is going badly." (Can't remember the name of the liberal talking head who said it... sorry for not having the quote credited).

Personally, I don't know the vast majority of Americans, but of the people I do know, if they think about Iraq at all (they're typically just busy leading their lives) think it's great we toppled Saddam and they hope it works out, but they know that how it works out will be up to the Iraqis, not us.

Of course, "Everybody knows..." should be replaced by, "Everybody has been told over and over again, whether it's true or not, that..." For example, "Everybody knows Saddam had no WMD or weapons program." Well, we don't KNOW that. In fact, everybody who's been paying attention (which has to be a serious minority of the people), knows that evidence continues to trickle in that Saddam likely had them and hid them well, and that Saddam definitely was planning to rebuild them, and likely wasn't even waiting for the sanctions to be lifted, given he was so good at getting money through OFF, and deceiving the UN inspectors. So, if "Everybody knows he didn't have them" then "everybody" is not paying attention. Everybody can't have a leftist agenda!

It also seems that the elusive everybody is ready to bring in the Dems because Bush is weak on immigration, gas prices are high, and (contrary to ALL evidence other than gasoline prices) the economy is weak. So... Everybody apparently wants to change out Republican leadership for Democrat leadership, despite the fact that Dems are even weaker on border enforcement and "amnesty" than Republicans, Democrats have no plan to lower gas prices other than to take money from the oil companies (a good plan, because everyone knows that when taxes are raised, lowering profits, the first thing a company does is lower prices to make even smaller profits) or give lip service to the panacea of alternative fuels (which are way out in the future) while still restricting the oil companies from building new refineries or drilling for more oil (despite the fact that technological improvements over time have enabled refineries to be cleaner and drilling footprints to be incredibly small and clean), and the Dems answer on the economy is always "more taxes, more help from new government programs". You want to see a bad economy and even worse gasoline prices? See what happens to the markets the day after Dems take over control of the House and Senate. I'm not on Wall Street, but it would scare the hell out of me and have me telling my money managers to sell oil short, sell stocks, and button up wallets.

The new one that the former generals in the Rumsfeld kerfuffle are bringing out is that everybody knows that the planning for Iraq was bad because we let the Baathist army disperse and didn't have enough boots on the ground. Um... exactly how much control did we have over the Baathist army, and how, when they "melted away" were we supposed to round them up and keep them in service to a new (though far from established) regime? How would the Kurds and Sunnis have responded to us keeping the army that was the club over their heads in place? Would that have led to a better result, or a much, much worse result? I can just see the soldiers from all of these additional forces we should've had running around to the former regime's soldiers and telling them that now they're free and they're fighting for US. What? Or maybe they could've been combing the desert for Saddam's arsenal. Trained for such activities or not...

It's just all complete and utter bullshit. 20/20 hindsight isn't 20/20, it's usually speculation. Here's my theory... if we'd just sent one really big, strong guy over to punch Saddam right in the face and knock him cold, everyone would've been so impressed by our strength and prowess that they'd have instantly held an election, set up a government, and the Baathists, Iranian backed terrorists, Al Queda, any other Islamofascist would've been far to afraid of our big, strong guy to even lift a finger to stop the democratic revolution in Iraq. Bush and Rumsfeld are complete morons for not having figured out how to get that one big, strong guy into Iraq and close enough to Saddam to punch him in the face. It's incompetence, I tell you. Think of the lives that would've been saved! If I'd have thought Rummy would listen, instead of being arrogant and dismissive, I'd have sent a letter detailing my "punch in the face" plan.

Euston Manifesto... Interesting!

2006-04-14T12:56:00.000-07:00

Please go to Normblog to read the Euston Manifesto. It's a manifesto for leftists that are basically sick and tired of the far fringes of the left dominating the debate coming from that side of the proverbial aisle.

I didn't agree with all of it, because I think there's an underlying current of "capitalists are bad" despite the fact that successful capitalism tends to produce the very results they'd like to see economically and even democratically. However, overall, I wholeheartedly agree with Paul at Powerline: When I was a liberal, THIS is closer to the kind of liberal I was and the so-called "progressives" and the left in general has completely left me bewildered.

Truthfully, I see the real progressives (if the meaning is something like "those committed to social, political, economic and general human progress") on the right, in the conservative momement in this country (of course, always leaving the far fringe dangling out there where they belong). Who is trying (once again) to defeat vicious totalitarianism, this time in the form of Islamofascism? Who is fighting for the rights of women and minorities in places where they are most oppressed? Who is dedicated to the spread of freedom and democracy? Who is working for broad-based capitalism that gives ordinary people the opportunity to better their lives and takes total economic control away from oppressive governments? It ain't the left, my friends.

In fact (this is what bewilders me), it is the left, the so-called progressives, that protest against the actions people on the right are taking to produce the results that they should want.

If this was just a disagreement over methodology, I'd welcome the debate. But, as the Manifesto points out, there is no realism in the far left's argument, because the methodology they would recommend has proven completely ineffective. For example, Kerry's "everything must go through the UN" approach, despite the fact they are the most hapless bunch in history, complete with corruption, self-centered rather than "what's right" motives (e.g. Oil For Food and France and Russia regarding Saddam, or the entire Arab block regarding Israel, or the human rights violators leading the UN human rights organizations), and straight up incompetence (Sudan, the response to the tsunami, Rwanda, etc.). Another example (which is in the Manifesto), is socialism. While the Manifesto seems to have socialist leanings, it does acknowledge that Communist and Socialist regimes amounted to nothing more than murderous tyrannies. If only even the right thinking left, as represented by those who wrote and support the Manifesto, could finally see that the European style socialism that they like is, instead of producing the kind of economic freedom and personal liberty they would love to see, producing economic stresses that will cause systemic collapse (and, hence, MORE joblessness and LESS economic security and personal liberty), they'd REALLY have something.

It does, however, acknowledge that the people the so-called liberals have aligned themselves with, intentionally or not, tend to be the worst kind of tyrants, monarchs, and theocrats. And it admonishes the left to disengage themselves from those entanglements. Basically, it acknowledges that there IS an enemy to freedom, democracy, and progress that does have to be defeated, lest we stop progress and go backward.

It's well worth the read, and it would be incredibly good if the right and left could begin debating from there, rather than from "Bush and the right are wrong in everything they do and anything and anyone that opposes them is OK with us!" My opinion is that the left needs to get back to the more rational place represented by the Manifesto, or everything "progressive" we've gained as humanity will be thwarted by the Islamists (hey, they're only a millenium or a millenium and a half behind in their thinking!), or, at best, the battle to retain the progress will be fought at close quarters.

My Letter to Republican Leaders

2006-04-07T15:12:00.000-07:00

Consistent with my post below, the following is the letter I sent to John McCain and several others regarding the illegal immigration issue:

Dear Senator McCain,

I know immigration reform is a complex issue and I applaud the fact that it is finally being addressed in a thoughtful manner. However, I, like most Americans, and certainly most Republicans, must emphasize that border enforcement must be the priority. I like the provisions in the bill currently being considered that basically insist that immigrants assimilate into the American culture (rather than bringing pockets of the culture they are escaping to our country). But, if the borders are not
closed, this problem will recur, and likely in short order.

I'm also curious how congress proposes to identify the length of time people have
been here, and deal with the likely cheating on that issue. If they can get fake SSNs, what will be difficult about getting fake evidence that they've been here for X-number of years? That appears to be the downfall of the plan as it is currently being considered.

I appreciate your consideration on these issues. And I urge you to be cognizant of the overwhelming support for border control as the primary concern for most citizens.

Republicans--Stop Threatening to Cause Defeat

2006-04-06T15:41:00.000-07:00

I love the right side of the blogosphere. I'm a regular reader of many blogs, and and occasional reader of many more. I also listen to a lot of conservative talk radio. One thing I keep seeing over and over, and saw just now on Michelle Malkin's awesome blog, was a threat that "If this is what Sen. Frist thinks Americans "expect" and "deserve," the GOP is in for a very rude awakening in November." The subject was the apparent immigration deal.

There can't be much thought put into a threat that Republicans won't elect Republican leaders. Who else are we going to vote for? Would we feel like we "really got those bastards" if suddenly the Democrats were in charge? Cutting one's nose off to spite one's face has never been a good plan. It would NOT be a good lesson to Republican leaders to have liberals running the country for the next two years and castrating Pres. Bush for the remainder of his term.

Maybe we could just show our apathy by not voting at all. SAME result.

And, we have GOT to be aware that our enemies (and I don't just mean political opponents in the US, I mean the Islamofacists) are just waiting for us to elect weaker leaders, or to have Bush weakened beyond hope. They're trying to help it happen, and they're hoping that, if worst comes to worst, they don't have to wait much longer than Nov. '08.

We can NOT give up the majority. Yes, some of these people are acting weak and don't seem to represent the conservatives that elected them. It's a difficult position for the party to be in. But the answer is not to give up the majority. The answer is to get extremely vocal. The answer is to start putting these RINOs and near RINOs through some tough primary fights that let them know they have to come closer to the base, or we'll find someone who is. If you're not writing letters and e-mails to your congressmen and senators, START. Find solid conservatives in your district or your state and start sending your funds to them, and let the RNC know that you're sending your contributions to better conservatives.

We do not want to go weak (or weaker) for even a moment. We wouldn't want to live with the results in domestic politics, and we definitely don't want to live with the result in the war against Islamofacism.

"Accident of Birth" ARGH!

2006-03-26T09:54:00.000-08:00

I was watching a Disney Channel movie called "Cowbells" with my son the other night and found myself having to explain capitalism to him as a result of the content of the movie. It blew my mind. I'll explain quickly, in case you're not a Disney Channel viewer. In the movie, two "spoiled little rich girls", whose father owned a dairy plant (which he had apparently started from scratch and built into a thriving business employing many of the local people), were forced to work there to learn some responsibility. The father went on a vacation, paid for by his friend who was a manager at the plant as a gift, and the manager/friend embezzled all the money from the company in the owner's absence. The daughters realized the peril this put the workers in and came to the rescue, using money intended to go for a "coming out party" and sale of a classic Mustang. During the course of the rescue (this is the part I had to explain to my son) one of the daughters went to the party, from which she had been excluded because she used her $25K to keep the dairy operating rather than to pay her share of the party expenses, and made a speech asking for volunteers to help produce some yogurt so the dairy could meet its obligations to its customers. In the course of the speech, she told the gathered affluent people that it was an "accident of birth" that they were there at the country club rather than working at the dairy and barely making ends meet. They had to understand the plight of the workers and come and help. Which they did, just in the nick of time.

It was the "accident of birth" part that got me. I have zero problems with having concern for the welfare of workers. In fact, one of the reasons I love capitalism is that entrepreneurs create jobs which help people better their standard of living. And, I appreciate entrepreneur/capitalists that treat their workers well, and appreciate their value to the company the entrepreneur has created. However, how a girl whose father had, by risk, the sweat of his own brow, and his own creativity, created a thriving business, could say there was anything "accidental" about their wealth is beyond me. Standing around at the party were the parents (who were also being asked to volunteer). I couldn't help but wonder how many of them had created businesses, or busted their ass getting a law or medical degree and then worked long hours in their practices to make good money, or had invented a product that people valued, and they had to stand there and be told that what they'd accomplished was an "accident of birth." Even the children, who hadn't done anything but enjoy the fruits of their parents' labors, should have bristled at those labors being referred to as an "accident."

The problem isn't that it was a theme in a Disney movie. It's that it seems to be a theme of the left, particularly the Hollywood left. I can sort of understand it of the Hollywood people. Even though many of them have actually worked their butts off to become good actors, or to write or become successful directors, it seems that, especially the actors, look at their success as being influenced by luck, or the blessing of a nice face or body (which could be true). So, perhaps they think that their success IS an accident of birth. And the Ted Kennedy-types, living their whole lives off of the wealth created by their ancestors, may believe themselves to be ultimately undeserving of the "accident of birth" which had them and not some soul in the body of a poor kid in Mississippi as the offspring of their parents. But these self-esteem issues absolutely should NOT be used to denegrate the efforts of the people who created the wealth (except possibly in Ted Kennedy's case, were Daddy Joe was a bootlegger so at least some of his money was ill-gotten).

I had to explain to my son that success was NOT an accident of birth. I told him that the girl didn't fully realize the work her father (and mother, who was apparently dead, but who had also apparently worked hard in the dairy when alive) had put in to create their wealth, or that the parents of the other kids had worked hard (and smart) to produce their wealth. There was no accident. There was the result of capitalism at work. And, one of the results was that the workers in the plants, the ones who did not create a business of their own, or invent a product people valued, or use their education to get jobs that paid high salaries, actually had jobs that allowed them to buy or rent homes, drive cars, put food on the table, have TVs, phones, and microwave ovens, etc. I wish someone would explain that to the people who wrote "Cowbells" and the "lefties" who believe that success is a matter of accident, not risk, work and creativity.

Islamophobia?

2006-02-22T21:03:00.000-08:00

The new buzzword that seems to be in combat with a concern for Islamofacism is "Islamophobia." Apparently, that would indicate "a fear of Islam." Supposedly, this fear is unfounded.

Now, why would anyone have a concern about Muslims? Couldn't have anything to do with the volatility of the "Arab street." Print cartoons depicting Mohammed and people riot, burn buildings, threaten to kill not just the cartoonists or the publishers, but infidels (you and I) in general. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the only people who seem ready to strap explosives on themselves and detonate themselves in a crowd are Muslims. Couldn't be all the beheadings and kidnappings and car bombs unleashed by Muslims. Couldn't be the election of a terrorist organization that has vowed to destroy Israel to run the fledgling Palestine. Certainly has nothing to do with the Mullahocracy in Iran and their deranged president pursuing nuclear weapons while deceiving and manipulating the rest of the world, and also threatening Israel and any other infidel nation. Couldn't be about al Queda and all the support they get in the Muslim world.

Are ALL Muslims insane beheading, bombing, infidel hating, Islamofacists? No. No way, no how. However, are there one hell of a lot of Muslims who are? Sure seems so. And it seems they're extremely vocal.

Until "moderate", or even 21st century enlightened, Muslims get to be as loud as those calling for our death and burning our flag all the time (despite the fact that we've fought for and liberated tens of millions of Muslims in the last dozen years), it would seem to me that it is perfectly legitimate to be uneasy about Muslims. If those calling for a new Caliphate and subjugation (or death) of infidels are the loudest voices, and the only other voices we hear are those telling us WE have a problem (CAIR, et al), rather than denouncing the radical Muslims, wouldn't it be foolish not to listen to the threat?

The cry of Islamophobia is meant to tell us that WE need to be more tolerant. We see Muslims burning embassies and threatening people over cartoons and WE need to be more tolerant. Doesn't the accusation itself tell us the rough equivalent of: "You are ALWAYS wrong." They make threats because they think we're wrong and bad in some way. If we acknowledge that it is Muslim who are threatening us, we're wrong again. THEY bear no responsibility. Everything falls on the infidels' shoulders.

When MLK Jr. was combating racism, he spoke of judging people "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Implicit in that statement is that not only do those holding wrongly based judgements need to re-evaluate their judgements, but that those being wrongly judged need to SHOW CHARACTER that proves the predjudice wrong. It is a responsible statement. He's saying, set aside your predjudice and we will prove that we are people of character.

Right now, the only thing we see from Muslims is what appears to be a vast number of them (it LOOKS like a majority, based on the volume of their voices) threatening us for who we are and how we live. When we comment, the only other voices are telling us we're Islamophobic. Muslims who want us to believe that Islam is not a threat to us need to show some character. They need to start backing down their own and to do it as loudly as the Islamofacists. If they don't, it's either because they agree that we should all be subjugated to Islamists, or they are afraid of their own. If they're afraid of their own, is that not Islamophobia? And if THEY are afraid to speak out, doesn't it mean that any fear (or mistrust) WE have is well founded?

Exposing the Weakness

2006-02-11T10:07:00.000-08:00

Karl Marx said that religion is the opiate of the people. Marx was a bit reactionary on the subject, and then the pseudo-religion of "the state" replaced belief in a spiritual diety, making the "religion" of socialism the opiate of the people, complete with a utopian vision. But, I think his point was that religious beliefs, promises of wonders in an afterlife, can anesthetize people to the shabby earthly situation they find themselves in. For example, during slave times, Christianity was used to pacify the slaves by convincing them that no matter how lousy their lot in life is, heaven awaits the obedient and the oppressors will go to hell. Also, if an individual or group of individuals can convince the masses that they have a divine decree to hold power, the religious masses will basically subjugate themselves to the divine authority. Hence, kings were given power by "divine decree" and the Catholic church had power long ago.

So, now we have radical Islam. The West has basically seperated personal spiritual beliefs and practices from government. Power does not come from divine decree, and one's lot in life is seen (in a person of character) not as some temporary penalty that will be resolved in heaven, but as a matter of personal choices and effort (at least when we can get a socialistic state out of the way). The opposite appears to be true in radical Islam. Politics and religion are closely intertwined, or are one and the same. Imams have both religious and political power. The people are left in whatever plight they are in, under the promise that being good Muslims (as defined by the Imams who are interpreting the Koran for them) will gain them favor when they meet Allah. This is so deeply ingrained that people are willing to blow themselves to bits for the promise of 72 virgins in heaven.

This reliance on religion being the opiate of the people keeps the people from asking very simple questions that would expose the weakness of the political system. But, others can ask the questions and the lack of a good answer could expose the weakness to the people and perhaps begin to wake them from their hypnosis.

Look at the economies of states that run under theocracies, or at least Muslim Arabs in the Middle East. Take away the oil riches from the Saudis and others, and what do they have going for them? How are the people doing in Iran? What's the standard of living in Gaza? Why is Egypt getting foriegn aid money from us? It's clear that one of the reasons that the Israelis are the sworn enemy of the governments in the region is that they are a demonstration that people, set free, can actually accomplish something. There they are, on a barren plot of land with no oil, and they have a decent economy and a good standard of living. So, if you want to keep your people under your thumb, you have to make that success evil somehow, and have those people be the enemy, particularly if you have absolutely NO plan of your own to create wealth and raise the standard of living of your people.

So, that's the question: What is the plan for raising people's standard of living? In the Caliphate, how do you plan to create a thriving economy, or do you merely expect the people to suffer, and all of the technology and lifestyle enhancements of the modern world to eventually break down?
An economy is an interesting beast. It's either advancing as a result of the creativity and effort of the people (mostly spurred by the promise of reward in the form of enhanced lifestyle for the creator and the laborer), or it's declining. Look at Iraq's infrastructure. Granted it was a semi-secular dictatorship rather than a theocracy (though, in practice it is tough to see a difference in results as opposed to a difference in style), but one of the problems we have with rebuilding it is not the damage by war, it's the damage caused by the neglect and the lack of modernization. Look at the differences in infrastructure and the economies in long time capitalistic liberal democracies versus socialist countries. Do you suppose effort and reward in capitalist terms results in a better standard of living than totalitarianism, whether it be a theocracy or claims to be socialist?

Other good questions are: After you have defeated and subjugated the infidels, who is going to buy the oil, and with what? How are you planning to keep the economies of the dhimmis thriving when it is clear that even if you can get people work by force, you can't get them to create by force, or produce high quality goods by force? Is the plan to keep people at a standard of living that is barely subsistance level and keep promising that life will be good only after life is over, or do you have a better plan? If you DO have a better plan, why do we see no evidence of it in the Middle East today? Do the Imams and the Ayatollahs get to live richly while everyone else suffers, and, if so, why? There are plenty of Arab and/or Islamic states, and they don't appear to be particularly blessed economically aside from the benefits derived from oil, which makes them rich only because other, non-Arab, non-Islamic states buy the oil. Why should the people expect sudden economic blessings just because more of the world is under Islamic rule when they don't see it in the places where the states are already under Islamic rule?

In other words, the relevent question is: Aside from promises of future heavenly grandeur (which require belief, but for which there is no evidence), what is in it for the average Muslim if the world becomes Islamafied? We KNOW there's nothing in it for the infidels, though some of the infidels (you and I) seem to want to ignore what we'll lose (including our lives) if the Islamafacists have their way. But, it also seems like there is not much in it for the Muslims either, other than for the select few who rule. Isn't facism always that way, no matter what guise it comes under?

False Analogies and The Left

2006-02-09T18:43:00.000-08:00

I haven't posted in a while, but I saw a trend and a thought coalesced as a result. What I saw were a slew of false analogies being used by the left to make their points. In logic, a "false analogy" is a fallacy: "The argument draws a conclusion from observed cases that are only superficially or apparently similar to the unobserved cases about which the conclusion is being drawn."

For example, Martin Luther King Jr. had his phone lines tapped. President Bush has the NSA monitoring calls from known (or suspected) al Queda operatives into the United States. The left uses MLK's phones being tapped as an analogy for President Bush's "domestic eavesdropping." The only problem is, the government (in this case, J. Edgar Hoover and Bobby Kennedy) snooping into the business of a US citizen for no reason other than a fishing expedition or to keeps tabs on him in peace time is not at all analogous to the CINC trying to gather information on our enemy's plans as they communicate to and from the US during war time. MLK was NOT a terrorist. Al Queda are terrorists. MLK was a man of peace. Al Queda has attacked US interests several times, including on 9/11. The government had no business listening to MLK's phone conversations, just as it has no business listening to yours or mine. It IS the government's business (actually, one of its most important jobs) to try to use sophisticated means to stop al Queda, or any other Islamofacist group, from attacking America or her allies. Making an analogy between listening in on MLK, or any other American, with no cause, and trying to gather information to prevent an attack by an enemy who has attacked us, is not only fallacious, it's stupid.

Another one: Right wing Christian groups getting upset over unflattering depictions of Jesus, or of Christianity, and Muslims burning down buildings and threatening bodily harm to publishers of cartoons. You simply can not compare raising someone's ire and having them respond with letters to the editor, complaints, or even protests and boycotts to raising someone's ire and having them burn down buildings, threaten to behead people, and kill all infidels (which means anyone who doesn't see things their way). The difference in scope is just too great to make the analogy. It's like saying being licked by a puppy is the same as being attacked by a wolf.

Similar: Comparison of the Newsweek article about flushing the Koran down a toilet and the publishing of the Danish cartoons. The only thing similar is the reaction. The events themselves are not analogous. One was supposedly a factual news story (that turned out to be false) reporting on torture of prisoners, the other was... cartoons. Satirical cartoons. Why would one decry the one and not the other? False reporting is NOT freedom of the press. It is antithetical to freedom of the press (wherein the press is free to express opinions, or, better still, to publish unvarnished facts--speaking truth to power, as it where). Satirical cartoons fall under the Freedom of the Press umbrella. As I said, the only thing similar between the two is the reactions of Islamists, who, apparently, take whatever opportunity is presented to call for death to infidels (again... meaning anyone who doesn't believe as they do--probably YOU and me).

Yet more: Carter compared MLK's struggle for equal rights (meaning equal Constitutional rights) for blacks to victims of Katrina, saying it proved we had a long way to go. Well, first of all, in a city that is majority black, would one not expect there to be a majority of black faces on TV when a disaster struck? Further, did Carter not look at the actual death stats and see that whites died in disproportionately large numbers compared to the percentage of the population they represented? Logically, one could conclude that if fewer blacks died than their demographics would dictate, then blacks were disproportionately represented among the rescued. MLK wanted equal rights. How does that have any relationship at all to Katrina? Yes, there were poor blacks in New Orleans. But were they oppressed by their black mayor, black police chief, or their Democratic governor? Rights had nothing to do with the tragedy of Katrina. In a place where a black mayor was elected, and blacks hold many high offices, it's difficult to say New Orleans wasn't a place MLK would've seen significant progress (if he didn't dig too deep into the corruption aspect that has been a historical problem). If the Democrats that have run Louisiana for umpteen years hadn't figured out a way to improve the quality of life for the population, that is hardly an equal rights issue, it's a government ineptitude issue, and probably a lack of personal responsibility issue. Remember, MLK spoke of equality in terms of judging people "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." He didn't say that equality meant GIVING people other people's wealth, if that is what Carter thinks equality means. If the implication is that the federal government is to blame and it was neglectful because the population was black, that is simply rediculous. Again, black mayor (in charge of first response), Democrat governor (also ahead of the feds in the response pecking order), and THOSE are the people who put, or left, people in peril, no matter what color their skin was. The whole thing was a mess from the bottom up, but it has nothing to do with the equal rights struggle of MLK.

My point is: just listen for the false analogies that the left has taken to using. It's insidious, because the unthinking will say, "Yeah, those things are the same." The stark nonsense of Bush=Hitler is easy to spot (at least for anyone who takes three seconds to think it over), but the more subtle nonsense is more dangerous, because they make it sound accurate. People who debate with slogans, ad hominem attacks, false analogies, etc. depend on the ignorance of the audience to believe their argument and not see through the fallaciousness of it. Fortunately, with the advent of the blogosphere, there will always be smart people out there tearing the arguments apart.

Which is More Dangerous Osama the Man, or His Vision

2006-01-21T13:41:00.000-08:00

A question for those who think the recent message from Osama Bin Laden means we're failing in the war on terror because he's still alive: Do you really think that capturing or killing Osama would've ended terrorism? Would Zarqawi have said, "Ooops... better go get a real job now"? And, if you believe Stephen Hayes from the Weekly Standard, it seems Saddam's regime was training a lot of terrorists in Iraq... Would capturing Osama have made all of those guys think it was better to forego the 72 virgins and become entrepreneurs instead? Would capturing Osama have caused Iran to elect (hehehe) a reformer rather than a dangerous nutjob and cause the mullahs there to embrace democracy and social and economic reform?

The "lesson of 9/11" for most Republicans was that we have to take terrorism and Islamofacism seriously and treat the issue like a war, not like a legal action. The perception is that the Democrats would be content to prosecute individual terrorists (after they strike?) and go back to the Clinton method of dealing with them. The comments about Osama verify that perception to those of us who think this issue is far bigger than one man.

Perhaps the difference is that we see the danger in the vision of the world espoused by Osama and other Islamofacists, and see their actions as proof that they are serious about creating an Islamic world in which Western liberal democracy has no place. The vision is beyond one man. It appears to us that the Democrats don't see the danger in that vision, despite the fact that the very freedoms liberals seem to hold dear would be the first things an Islamic Caliphate would crush. Note the self-expression allowed in Islamic states--there is none. Americans argue about gay marriage, while the Islamists hang homosexuals. We wonder if maybe MTV videos are too sexually suggestive for the eyes and ears of kids, while they cover women from head to toe and relegate them to servent status. We have a lively debate about abortion, while they would execute an unwed pregnant woman in an "honor killing". We have a dispute about whether or not the president should have invaded Iraq, while they would jail, torture, and/or execute anyone who spoke against the actions of their government. Etc.

To me, the way the Taliban ran Afghanistan appeared to be the preview of what Osama and his ilk would like to see worldwide. It seems to me, and I think to most Republicans, that that vision and the methodology for attaining it has to be stopped before it goes too far. 9/11 wasn't merely a "get Osama" lesson. It was a "stop the vision and the methodology" lesson.

"It's Like the War on Dandruff..."

2006-01-17T20:13:00.000-08:00

I've often wondered how the left views the War on Terror, or, as it is more and more often called, the war on Islamofacism. It's been clear that they don't take it particularly seriously. They seem to think simply capturing Bin Laden would have spelled the end of it. They don't seem to see a correlation between Saddam having WMD (whether on hand, or the ability to make them fresh) and a danger that he might give them to terrorists. They deny any relationship between Iraq and al Queda, despite the fact that Clinton made that tie himself in his indictment of Bin Laden. They see no need to try to intercept communications between known terrorists and operatives inside the U.S.A. In short, they don't seem to think it's real.

So, there I am last night, minding my own business, watching the Lincoln biography on the History Channel. One of the experts being interviewed was Gore Vidal, who wrote, "Lincoln." In a section where they were talking about Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, closing down newspapers, jailing the opposition, and generally being semi-dictatorial, Vidal says something like, "But Lincoln was in a real war. It wasn't like the way some presidents, who I will not mention, try to use a phony war as an excuse for dictatorial behavior..." And then he said, and this is a direct quote: "The war on terror? That's like 'the war on dandruff'. It's a metaphor."

The war on dandruff, my friends. September 11th. The Cole. Khobar Towers. Embassy bombings. The first WTC bombing. Dandruff. Al Queda in Iraq blowing up innocent Iraqis and killing as many American soldiers as possible. Dandruff. Richard Reed. A plot to blow up the bridges leading to New York City. The Y2K plot. Dandruff. Bombing a train in Spain. Bombing the subways in London. Dandruff.

In my opinion, Osama Bin Laden was not kidding when he stated that he wanted to destroy us. I take it seriously when Islamofacists say that they want to establish a Caliphate and that we westerners and non-believers are non-persons worthy of death before Allah in establishing that Caliphate. I understand that there are some crazy bastards in this world who can be convinced to grasp at the straw of a special place in heaven occupied by virgins just awaiting their martyred entrance who would kill all of those I love and care about for that bizarre promise. It's in the news all the time. I hear insane talk coming from the leadership of Iran, and no matter how peace-loving I am in my heart, or how much I'd love to see the poor, oppressed Iranian people have a shot at a better life, I start thinking that bombs need to be dropped.

To me, there is a war happening. And, it's vitally important that we win it. To Gore Vidal, and I assume to other far-left liberals, it's merely "like the war on dandruff. It's a metaphor."

Vidal could understand fighting and winning a war to free the slaves and keep the Union together. He could get behind extreme losses and justify temporary restrictions on civil liberties to support that effort. But, to keep all of us free (including him) from the death or dhimmitude that the Islamofacists would impose, and to preserve Western civilization, he can't even come to grips with the problem, let alone get behind the effort to effectively wage and win the war.

Now I understand the depth of the denial and the rationalization. "It's like the 'the war on dandruff.'"

Well... What Can I Say???

2006-01-04T19:32:00.000-08:00

Your results:
You are Superman

Superman		75%
The Flash		60%
Robin		55%
Spider-Man		50%
Supergirl		50%
Iron Man		50%
Green Lantern		45%
Wonder Woman		35%
Hulk		35%
Catwoman		35%
Batman		30%

You are mild-mannered, good,
strong and you love to help others.
http://www.seabreezecomputers.com/superhero/pics/superman.jpg">

%20HREF="

Advice to Republicans: Stop Conceding What You Don't Have To

2005-12-11T11:54:00.000-08:00

This morning I heard Madeline Albright and Sen. Lindsey Graham being interviewed by Tim Russert on "Meet the Press." Russert asked Graham about a statement he made regarding ties between Iraq and al Qaeda (I think it was regarding 9/11 ties). Graham stated categorically that he was wrong.

Why? This was an opportunity to talk about the fact that there were ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. Hell... the man was sitting there with Madeline Albright. The Clinton administration had made the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. We have this from a Washington Times article: "The 1998 indictment said: 'Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.'" [emphasis is mine]

We also know Saddam harbored (and paid the way for) one of the first World Trade Center bombers.

Steven Hayes has done excellent work chronicling ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, including this piece in the Weekly Standard.

Moreover, we have reports of Iraqi Intelligence Service people in Prague perilously close to the places where Attah was finalizing plans for the 9/11 attacks.

Basically, reports on 9/11 report no conclusive proof that Iraq was involved in 9/11, but they don't provide conclusive proof that Iraq wasn't involved either. What IS clear is that there were ties between al Qaeda and Iraq. Ties that appeared to be Saddam courting Bin Laden. Why would he do that? Well, he hated the USA and wanted to find ways to effectively strike us, and what better way than helping people who were effectively striking us. Does it take genius to figure this out? Opponents of this theory generally rely on the argument that Bin Laden didn't like Saddam because he thought Saddam was a lousy Muslim. Certainly, a man of Bin Laden's high character wouldn't stoop to doing business with a lousy Muslim! Except that he did business with none other than the United States when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, and I don't think he regards the US Government as good Muslims.

So... Graham is sitting there with Albright, and instead of saying that the Clinton administration had pointed out ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, actually including an accusation that Iraq had agreed to assist al Qaeda in development of WMD in a legal document, and talking about all of the other ties Iraq had to al Qaeda and other terror organizations, and concluding that, while the administration itself had never claimed Iraqi ties to 9/11, it was also not conclusively proven that there weren't any, Graham simply concedes that he was wrong.

Of course, he was also conceding all kinds of other things... mistakes in the conduct of the war, not having enough troops, etc. All while supposedly making the case that we need to stay and win. This is bullshit. You can concede that, in perfect 20/20 hindsight, some things could definitely have been done differently. But you also add that, while in the midst of the action, when you don't really know what is coming next, you don't have that benefit. You act, see the way the opposition reacts, then you adapt and change and act again. (Why do people seem to understand this while watching a football game on a Sunday afternoon, but they don't get it when it comes to a war?)

Republicans like Graham need to stop conceding errors without contextualizing them. Anytime one is taking action, making something happen, mistakes happen along the way. You can acknowledge that, but you don't make it an emphasis (or make statements that allow others to emphasize it). You put it into a context where the moment we're in matters, not the mistakes made along the way. President Bush does it right. He inserts that "missteps" have been made, but he keeps his argument focused on the big picture and he emphasizes THAT. Republicans in Congress need to follow that lead, particularly when they're in a conversation with someone with as little ground to stand on as Madeline Albright.

DNC Seeks Psychic Candidate

2005-12-04T16:55:00.000-08:00

Important News: Democrats are going to nominate a psychic for president in 2008. This psychic may or may not be Hillary Clinton. Democratic insiders say that her conversations with dead First Ladies while living in the White House bode well for her consideration, however, she’s shown no ability to actually know the future. Democrats, who demand that leaders be able to foresee all possible eventualities, even in war, are said to be intent on finding just such a candidate.

The search for a soothsayer candidate stems from their demand that a president, particularly in his role as Commander In Chief, be able to create plans that work perfectly each and every time, and that, as chief statesman, he or she be able to predict exactly when other governments—even those that have not yet been elected under a very recently minted constitution—are able to take full control of their country.

In a conversation at the DNC related by an insider, Howard Dean was heard to say, “That old axiom that ‘no plan survives contact with the enemy’ is complete bullshit. Bush should have planned for every possible contingency before he began conducting what he should have known was both an illegal and costly war. He should have been able to look beyond the so-called intelligence and known that Saddam had no WMD, and that Saddam was on the verge of declaring his pacifism and dedication to understanding among all people. If Bush had known all of that, we would not be in the position we find ourselves in now, simply trying to second-guess everything and Monday morning relief pitching [ed: he seems to have meant Monday morning quarterbacking] the war. This will NOT happen when we have a psychic as our president!”

It seems that the fact that the Democrats find themselves saying that they would not have voted for the war if they knew then what they know now has stirred a hornet’s nest at the DNC. They appear confused, in that they have no new ideas for what should be done differently in Iraq, other than to basically say that the Bush administration should do what it is already doing, while at the same time saying that what Bush is doing is not a plan. (Excepting, of course, the unpopular and potentially disasterous plan of pulling out, and it doesn't take a psychic to realize that, after that, they'd never win an election for any office above dog catcher.)

Our DNC insider put it this way: “Our fallback position is to demand timelines, as Senator Kerry has said. The problem is, we have no psychic who can tell us exactly when Iraqi Security Forces will be sufficiently trained and equipped to operate without US support, or when the government will be in a position that they feel is strong enough to ask us to leave. So we look like idiots trying to tell people that there should be a timeline that dictates when things occur, when anyone who has a lick of sense knows that what Bush is saying is right: you can’t know when things will happen without observing what’s actually taking place on the ground. And anyone who has ever tried to follow any plan, even something as simple as taking a vacation, knows that you have to adapt to contingencies as they come up. Our psychic candidate will eliminate those problems.”

To get back to Hillary Clinton’s prospects, it seems clear to Democrats that she was involved in an administration that seemed to have no ability to see the future at all. That works against her. The Clinton administration didn’t take Bin Laden when he was offered. They didn’t see how terrorists, particularly Bin Laden, would be emboldened by cutting and running in Somalia. They didn’t see how their fecklessness in dealing with Saddam would both embolden terrorists and Saddam himself. They didn’t even see that Jimmy Carter’s arrangement with the North Koreans might result in the North Koreans cheating on the agreement and becoming a major problem that must be dealt with in the future. This is to say nothing of the way they dealt with terrorist attacks during their time in office. In sum, Senator Clinton’s bona fides as a psychic engender more fear among the Democratic faithful than confidence, because the dream of Clinton II in the White House is so strong among some that she could defeat the true psychic they put on the ticket. Fortunately, any good psychic will be able to know whether or not they will actually win the White House, so the issue is sort of self-resolving.

The key, it seems, is that the psychic will be able to say that he/she would have known exactly what would have happened after the invasion of Iraq, and would have been able to formulate a plan that ‘survived contact with the enemy’. The psychic would have known who to round up, where to get them (even if they were foreign fighters who had yet to enter Iraq), and what their plans were. At the risk of being seen as pre-emptive, the Psychic CINC could have wrapped up the whole thing in a matter of a couple of days. Perhaps the psychic could have even known who would be elected and the whole “process” could have been truncated by political appointments. The psychic, of course, would know whether this would be seen as being more or less imperialistic than allowing a messy and more time consuming democratic process to take place.

Of course, all of this is conditional upon whether or not the psychic saw that Saddam was still a threat even without WMD, or, as Chairman Dean suggests, if he’d had a sudden transformation and become Ghandi-like in his desire for peace and devotion to understanding. Under the Bush regime, we will never know.

For now, it seems, until they find a real psychic of their own, the Democrats will have to be content bemoaning Bush’s lack of psychic skills, and running down his plan as nothing more than talking points. Perhaps if they DID have a psychic, and possibly the reason they’re having such trouble finding one, is that a psychic might tell them that Bush’s plan is actually working, and that a democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East, and the effect that will have (and that the invasion has already had), will make Bush go down in history as one of the great visionaries of history. It could be that the problem is that there are no psychics who can predict the events of the moment to come, but there are visionaries who create the future. It may be that the Republicans already have that guy.

Losing?

2005-11-20T20:05:00.000-08:00

I heard Murtha today talking about how poorly we're doing in Iraq. I've been hearing for months that we're doing terribly. We're LOSING!!

I keep thinking, "Wait a damned minute..." The "insurgents" do seem to be persistent bastards, but am I the only one who thinks they're actually pretty pathetic? Terrorism itself is pathetic because it is intellectually (and spiritually) vacant, but when you are trying to be the bad-ass in town and your best shots are trying to kill as many unarmed, innocent civilians as possible... that's really pathetic.

Every military engagement ends in massive killing and capturing of the insurgents, and few US casualties. The Iraqis seem to be winning in confrontations too. Speaking of which, ever more of them are taking the lead in operations.

The Iraqis are making tremendous strides (because of the work of our troops and the administration) in forming a democratically elected government in an amazingly short period of time. In a month they'll have a government. Obviously, to anyone with any sense of perspective, there will be fits and starts and it will take time for it to get up and running, but it's a miracle it's there at all considering what was there in 2002.

The vast majority of Iraq is pacified. The areas that aren't are dominated by people who were part of a minority that held power, and that viciously dominated the majority, and they don't like that any power they will get will have to be earned and that there may be a price to pay for their willing participation in the tyrannical Saddam regime. Also, there are some people that are dead set against a democracy in the heart of the middle east. They don't WANT to see a free and flourishing Iraq, because it disrupts their power base. If free people (Arabs... Muslims) in a free market are successful, what does that say about their "blame America and Israel for your terrible lot in life" sales pitch? What does that say to the masses in Iran and Syria and other countries about their own governments? So, yeah, they are a problem. But, as the political process keeps moving forward, and more Sunnis see that the tide is coming in whether they want it to or not, so they might as well participate, the insurgency will have less and less ground to stand on.

Apparently, in most of the country, the economy is beginning to flourish. Even in Baghdad I've seen reports that new shops are opening and more business is being done. Surely, people will see that security will attract investment, and as the tide continues moving inexhorably in, they will continue to take more and more responsibility for keeping insurgents out of their neighborhoods. Just today, in Mosul, a gathering of top Al Qaeda leaders (possibly including Zarqawi) was targeted by US and Iraqi troops due to a tip from an Iraqi civilian. They're catching on!

I don't see how all of this positive news, and more, much more in terms of building schools, building hospitals, re-building and improving worn down infrastructure, getting and keeping the oil flowing (oil that will belong to Iraqis!), etc., gets translated into "we're losing".

Yes, we've lost 2,100 people. Way too many Iraqis have died (not at OUR hand, but at the hand of the terrorists). Many of our bravest have been wounded. All of that is true. But, in historical terms, the casualties are incredibly low. We're talking about an operation that toppled a horrendously dangerous dictatorial regime, and is putting a democracy in its place in the middle of a region where authoritarian rule is all they know, and has been suppressing the people for generations. That is HUGE! That as few have been killed and wounded as there has been is an immense tribute to the quality of our military.

Yes... every loss is a tragedy. But we have to remember that there is a distinct possibility that if we'd just left it all alone, chances are very good that the combination of Saddam and his lust for WMD and his hatred of the US, and his support of terrorists could very well have led to far more death and disruption here than what our military has incurred there. 2,100 is a big number, but it's still smaller than the toll from 9/11. What would weaponized VX or anthrax in Times Square, or at the Rose Bowl, or in Tel Aviv cost in terms of life and economic damage?

Our military is winning, and they ARE keeping us safe at home because of what they're accomplshing there. It's time people stop saying we're losing.

Point of Emphasis... PLEASE!

2005-11-19T13:18:00.000-08:00

I'd love to see the administration, others in the GOP, and bloggers start to re-emphasize how the apparent weakness of the USA contributed to terror (including 9/11) and how important it is to show the resolve now that we didn't show then. I know there is a conversation about showing resolve and possible results, but I'd like the historical context emphasized so to help give weight to the argument about what pulling out of Iraq would mean.

For example, Bin Laden was convinced we were a paper tiger. He said that he thought we'd shown all the resolve we had after Somalia. We had made ourselves appear vulnerable, we had actually BECOME vulnerable, so they knew they could strike us.

I think the best reason to go into Iraq was presented in Bush's speech to the UN when he told them that they risked becoming irrelevent (and, they've since proved that they are). To quote no less a luminary than.... well... ME, in this early post from my blog:

I think this is closest to what was really in President Bush's mind when he
decided to go to Iraq. He knew that Al Queda was emboldened by our tepid
responses to their other actions. He knew that Bin Laden thought we showed all
the resolve we had in Somalia, where "Black Hawk Down" led immediately to our
retreat. He knew that Saddam's ability to thumb his nose not only at the UN, but
directly at the U.S.A. emboldened not only terrorists, but other outlaw regimes.
Why would North Korea or Iran take UN resolutions seriously when it was obvious
that you could violate them with no repercussions? Why would they take sanctions
seriously, when it was doubtlessly known that Saddam managed to get around them
and even make a profit despite them? Slapping Saddam down was a "do NOT screw
with US ANYMORE!" moment. And, you know what? It was necessary. We'd become eminently "screw-withable" and the bad guys were taking advantage. Afghanistan was an announcement that we'd get justice for 9/11. Iraq was the announcement that we have officially stopped taking shit.

Zarqawi: Sorry... but, BOOM!!!

2005-11-19T10:13:00.000-08:00

Yesterday Zarqawi released a tape apologizing for the bombing of a wedding in Amman. Apparently, they didn't MEAN to blow up a wedding. They just wanted to destroy property and non-wedding-going Muslims in the hotels, along with whatever westerners happened to be milling about.

Question: Have you ever walked into a wedding and not recognized that it was a wedding? The bomber had a choice about whether or not to detonate. He SAW what was there and who was there.

The day of the apology, two bombs were detonated in Mosques (!!!) in Iraq, killing (last I heard) 72 MUSLIMS at prayer in Allah's house. Then, today, a car bomb went off in a funeral procession.

I hope the people in Amman, and in Iraq (and throughout the Muslim world) are paying attention to the veracity of the apology. "Sorry... didn't mean to blow up the wedding party. Our real enemies are in the Mosques and in funeral processions!"

Interesting Iraqi Documents in Qatar

2005-11-18T10:48:00.000-08:00

I've been interested in Stephen Hayes' article in the Weekly Standard about all the papers sitting in Qatar that may shed some light on what Saddam was up to since the first Gulf War. Today, Aaron at Lifelike Pundits did a post on the documents. Republicans are wondering why the administration isn't using these documents to bolster their justification for the war. The left seems to figure that the fact they're not either means Stephen Hayes doesn't know what he's talking about, or that the documents are forged to help Bush (the first comment on Aaron's post said something like, "They're waiting for the ink to dry."

I placed a comment on his post, and liked my comment so much that I decided to post it:

Why isn't the administration exploiting this possible PR coup? According to Stephen Hayes: "I have been told countless times by officials of the executive branch that there is no need to reargue the case for war, that what matters now is winning on the ground, that our intelligence professionals don't have time to review history, so occupied are they with current intelligence about current threats. I'm sympathetic to at least part of that thinking; it's hard to insist in the face of new and evolving threats that intelligence analysts should spend their precious time evaluating the past." [emphasis is mine]

In other words, they have their eye on the ball.

What's so difficult about pulling these documents together and making an argument? Again, Hayes: "It's not an easy job. Some of the documents are forged. Others are hard to read after being damaged by fire, or the water used to extinguish those fires, in the days and weeks after the U.S. invasion. Making the job even more difficult is the fact that many of these documents have come from larger sets of documents that never made it to Doha. We know that the Iraqi regime in the run-up to war systematically destroyed what it considered the most incriminating evidence of its misdeeds. So our analysts are essentially looking at isolated pieces of a much larger puzzle without knowing whether they will ever have the remaining pieces.

"The document collection effort in Iraq was haphazard, to say the least. No comprehensive guidance was ever provided to soldiers and intelligence officials on what exactly they should collect. This lack of direction meant that in many cases unit commanders made decisions about what to gather and what to discard. When David Kay ran the Iraq Survey Group searching for weapons of mass destruction, he instructed his team to ignore anything not directly related to the regime's WMD efforts. As a consequence, documents describing the regime's training and financing of terrorists were labeled "No Intelligence Value" and often discarded, according to two sources."

Sounds like a difficult task to me, and one that probably won't get huge attention until after the war is won.

The fact is, if you've read the report by the Iraq Survey Group, you don't need to see all of this to know that whether or not he had WMD at the moment, Saddam had every intention of having them again. Either the guy was dangerous, or he wasn't. Either he broke all those UN resolutions, including the cease-fire, or he didn't. Either he was in league with terrorists, or he wasn't. Perhaps most importantly, either Islamofacists were emboldened by our dithering with Iraq and weak reaction to previous terror attacks, or they weren't. Before the war, there was vast agreement that the former was true in all those statements. That was the justification then, and it stands today.

Kerry: Bush Misled

2005-11-17T16:48:00.000-08:00

I usually can't watch John Kerry. I just don't believe he believes a word that comes out of his own mouth. But, I was flipping through the channels and landed briefly on CNN and Wolf Blitzer was interviewing Kerry. He asked about the Senate having the same intelligence as the president. Unfortunately, I paused long enough for the answer, somehow curious to see what Kerry would say.

He went into a fact barren rap about Bush misleading and exaggerating, then said, "Let me give you an example. In the State of the Union speech, the President told the American people that Saddam had tried to buy nuclear material from Africa... from Niger..." Impulsively, my finger hit the "up" button.

I sat stunned. Could they REALLY be countering the "congress had the same argument" rebuttal with the ol' Joe Wilson bullshirt? Are they unaware that the British STILL stand by their intelligence on that story? Are they unaware that it turned out that Wilson himself, in his report to the CIA, said more to confirm it (yes, Iraqi agents wanted to discuss trade relations with a country whose only real export is yellowcake uranium) than deny it? THIS was Kerry's example? Oh, lordy... these people are bankrupt.

Please, if you haven't done it yet, read this article at Front Page Magazine for a UNSCOM and ISG inspector's take on WMD. Favorite quote: "Iraqis have told me that the WMD destruction and movement started after Operation Desert Fox, since after all, who would be so stupid to start a bombing campaign and just stop. It was only after Saddam realized that President Clinton lacked the nerve for anything more than a temper-tantrum demonstration that he knew the doors were wide open for him to continue his weapons program."

Wilson has been debunked so much it's rediculous, so I'm sure you can find as many links as I can. Also see this article from June 2004 regarding Iraqi WMD and WMD manufacturing equipment being found all over the world after a hurried dismantling before the war. In my post below, I link to the final Iraq Survey Group report. Please read the whole post.

Why Isn't Anyone Saying THIS???

2005-11-16T19:54:00.000-08:00

I love that the administration in general, and George Bush in particular, are finally fighting back against the "Bush lied" lie. It's about time the Dems got their own words thrown in their faces.

However, there is one area where I think what they're saying could expose them as even weaker (if that's possible) on national security. President Bush touched on it, but I think it has to go deeper.

The Dems and the administration alike were saying that Saddam was dangerous with WMD. Right? And, that he harbored and supported terrorists, including al Qaeda. The danger after 9/11 was the possibility of a rogue dictator like Saddam passing off weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. All of that is true and on the record.

The final report from the Iraq Survey Group states emphatically that it was fully Saddam's intention to reconstitute his WMD program, and that he had both the scientists in place (including the nuclear scientists) and the dual use facilities to do so. Check out this little section of the report for example:

Saddam met with his senior nuclear scientists in 1999 and offered to provide them with whatever they needed, and increased funding began to flow to the IAEC in 2001, according to the former Minister of Military Industrialization. Saddam directed a large budget increase for IAEC and increased salaries tenfold from 2001 to 2003. He also directed the head of the IAEC to keep nuclear scientists together, instituted new laws and regulations to increase privileges for IAEC scientists and invested in numerous new projects. He also convened frequent meetings with the IAEC to highlight new achievements.
Saddam asked in 1999 how long it would take to build a production line for CW agents, according to the former Minister of Military Industrialization. Huwaysh investigated and responded that experts could readily prepare a production line for mustard, which could be produced within six months. VX and Sarin production was more complicated and would take longer. Huwaysh relayed this answer to Saddam, who never requested follow-up information. An Iraqi CW expert separately estimated Iraq would require only a few days to start producing mustard—if it was prepared to sacrifice the production equipment.

The report also talks about how Saddam was working to end sanctions, which we all know from the OFF scandal included lining people's pockets, as well as (according to the report) cutting off the flow of oil on occasion to exert pressure on members of the Security Council. There is little doubt that sanctions eventually would have ended, or that Saddam would have simply used his OFF money to covertly regain his arsenal of weapons. Possession of WMD (again, according to the report) was extremely important to Saddam.

So... here's my question: If Saddam was indeed dangerous with WMD, and clearly everyone agreed that he was, what difference does it make if he had old stockpiles, or created new ones? Do you realize what a small amount would be needed to pass some off to terrorists for a WMD strike that would... well... terrorize the living daylights out of everyone?

Just because it turned out he didn't have them at the time of the invasion (or, more accurately, that we couldn't find them, because it is still possible that Qusay, Uday, Saddam, or one of his minions may know--or knew before being killed--where they are... cough... Syria), does NOT mean there was no threat from him. Given his capability and desire to reconstitute his WMD arsenal, saying Saddam was no threat because we didn't find WMD is like saying that a smoker has quit smoking just because he has temporarily run out of cigarettes. The smoker is smoking again after a quick run to the convenience store.

Here is what I would emphasize if I were the administration:

The Democrats that are now saying that they would not have gone to war if they'd known Saddam had no WMD's (and implying that they were mislead about them), seem to be ignoring the fact that Saddam had both the equipment and expertise to make new WMD, and a desire to reconstitute his nuclear program. Do we want anyone who would ignore this incredibly important fact (that is available for all to see in the Iraq Survey Group Final Report) in charge of our national security?

The point was, Saddam was dangerous. He could not be trusted. He had thumbed his nose at the international community for years, was jobbing the system (OFF and inspections), and was making progress toward ending sanctions, despite his non-cooperation with the UN. Moreover, he STILL had ambitions, and capability, to have WMD, including nuclear capabilities. Knowing all of that, exactly what difference would the existence of stockpiles of aging WMD make?

Is it just me, or does it seem that the whole "Bush lied so we shouldn't have gone to war" theme is not only exposing the Dems as liars themselves, but also as people who absolutely do NOT have the intellect to perceive future probabilities, even when those future probabilities are identical to something they understand the consequences of in the present? I'd ask: "Exactly what difference is there between Saddam having stockpiles of WMD and Saddam reconstituting his stockpiles of WMD?" The only answer is that the terrorists would have to wait a little longer before Saddam could get the bio or chem weapons into their hands. Other than that, no difference.

All these Democrats agreed Saddam, as a leader, was a tyrant and a danger. The Iraq Survey Group report makes it clear that he had not changed and was determined to have WMD. Is that not complete justification of the war?

The Spirituality of Capitalism

2005-11-15T15:59:00.000-08:00

Capitalism is often portrayed as ruthless, and without morals. Remember the “greed” speech from the movie “Wall Street”? Even one of my personal favorite author/philosophers, Ayn Rand, is said to portray capitalism as “selfish”. Of course, “selfishness” is a bad trait. It takes no one else into consideration. It’s not what I read in Ayn Rand, though.

In spiritual philosophy, at least as I study and engage in it, there is a distinction made between a “low-self” (which is the set of beliefs about ones individuality, sometimes referred to as the “ego”, though not in the Freudian sense, that a person has developed—basically a person’s belief that they are separate and apart from others, and God, and their methods of survival in that lonely situation) and a “higher Self” (which is the understanding of oneself as connected with God, and all that God is connected to, which is everything). When I read “Atlas Shrugged,” I don’t see “selfishness” in terms of an ego gratification or in pursuit of raising in esteem the beliefs about the “low-self”, I see “Selfishness” as in connecting with the highest creativity and capability in oneself in order not simply to benefit the ego, but to fully express that creativity and capability which benefits all that are connected with it.

For those familiar with “Atlas Shrugged”, it seems to me that Hank Reardon’s “Reardon Metal” was not a self-aggrandizing effort, but a desire to humbly express his God-given creativity by passionately bringing forth something that was superior in every way to what was currently being used, and that would be of great benefit to people. I say “humbly” because he wasn’t proclaiming “I’M better than you” he was saying, “This metal is better than what you’re using now and it will bring a greater benefit to the people using it than what you’re using now.”

Dagney Taggart took on the “impossible” task of completing the “John Galt” line, not for her own self-aggrandizement (ego driven), but because she knew that she could confront any problems in her way and could accomplish something that benefited others, including the entrepreneurs bringing incredibly superior products to the market and the general population of the region.

What I read was not a statement of selfishness in terms of attaining ego gratification, but a book about people working to attain and be true to the highest aspect of their beings. This, to me, is a spiritual thing. What was celebrated was the mind. However, the mind was not defined as the sum of one person’s knowledge. It sort of remained in that spiritual plane, where it was greater than merely the sum of knowledge, or the combination of knowledge and beliefs and personality. Ayn never said it, but, to me, there was room, in a person “of the mind”, for reaching into a Universal Mind, for “connection”.

When I look at capitalism at the level of the entrepreneur, I see a spiritual journey. I see someone tapping not merely into a base of knowledge acquired through their lifetime, but reaching into the realm of creativity, which is a spiritual realm. Why do I say that? First, creating is what God does. It is not that the inventor is usurping God’s prerogative, it is that the inventor is working in the same realm, side by side with what one might call the Creative Impulse. Second, it requires a leap from what you know into a realm of inspiration that takes you beyond your knowledge. It’s unpredictable, at least in the moment, though it can appear in retrospect that each step forward is a logical step, rather than a creative one. Third, though it might sound strange, the act of creation is often an act of love. It even requires passion. The inventor/entrepreneur loves his/her creation, and also generally loves both whatever prompted them to create, and whatever, or (more importantly) whoever will benefit by the creation.

So, creation is a spiritual act. When you talk to inventors, the fact that they didn’t know the solution to a problem, and couldn’t think of it on their own, but then had an inspiration that provided the answer is a common theme. It is not all that unlike the writer who feels an inspiration and simply begins typing and, two hours later, they don’t know how much time has passed, and aren’t even sure what they wrote until they go back and read it. Or the artist who begins painting, loses their sense of themselves, and finds themselves surprised and amazed at what they’ve painted when they’re done.

I’m actually a Patent holder. I have three, and will be applying for more for different aspects of the inventions. I can tell you from my own experience that I didn’t solve the problems that led to the invention. I simply opened up and let them come to me. In one case, I was standing in the shower and suddenly saw the completed piece in my mind. I didn’t even understand how it worked until I sat down and drew it out and saw what had been created. At the time, I was working with two very good mechanical engineers who hadn’t been able to solve the problem (I’m NOT a mechanical engineer). I faxed them the solution and they both thought it was brilliant. Frankly, I couldn’t take credit for it, though I was both pleased and amazed that they not only understood what “I” had created, but saw that it would work. The answer didn’t lie in being a brilliant engineer. The answer was in having love for the project, passion for it, and both a desire and a willingness to have the answer come. This is NOT a story that is unique to me.

There is also another creative aspect of capitalism, which is, I think, also spiritual and it distinguishes capitalism from economic models such as socialism. It has to do with bringing order, and not just order, but exactly what is needed, out of apparent chaos. In other systems, people try to logically engineer what is needed. An elite tries to plan for all that is needed. As a result of this, evidenced by the progress (or lack thereof) in socialist countries, or in countries controlled by a totalitarian regime, there is tremendous lack. Trying to control the economy just doesn’t work. In capitalist countries, there is a fluid response that allows market forces to call forth from the apparent chaos of the market what is needed. What is needed is provided, and there is a minimum of lack. What we end up with is a sort of “dance” where a variety of forces move together (need, creativity, capital, labor, etc.) and what is needed and/or wanted is provided.

In the mix of this is something that could be called “The Hand of Providence.” Serendipity is often present. Synergy occurs. Creativity (as noted above) is needed and supplied. Abundance often results.

If you look across the short time span from the beginnings of the industrial revolution to now, the progress appears to be miraculous. Who could have predicted or planned the infrastructure we all enjoy, or the abundance of food, shelter, clothing, and convenience items?

The question about capitalism and spirituality often comes down to an argument about the money. Is it fair that some have a lot, and some have a little?

In spirituality, which I will loosely define as a growing understanding and experience of God, there is a condition that is also fundamental to capitalism. You get out of it what you put into it. It’s about choice, and about the use of your mind and your effort relating to that choice. In spiritual thinking, God is there, omnipresent, but He is not forcing you even acknowledge Him, let alone love Him. You will experience your connection with God to the degree that you put effort into trying to experience that connection. And, occasionally, you will have an “ah-ha!” experience that is life altering, IF you make it so. Many of us experience realizations of greater or lesser magnitude, or experience something miraculous, either in presence or mentally, and we discount it, or allow ourselves to forget the impact it had. Others can have those experiences and allow them to change their entire lives. Ultimately, it is what we choose to do with our time, with our minds, and with our efforts.

Capitalism works the same way. One person can start from nothing, make choices about the use of their time and their mind and end up rich. Another person from the same circumstances can make other choices and never move an inch forward. And, there are all options possible in between. For most people working within the capitalist system, they attain a certain level of comfort, and that is enough. Thus, we have the vast middle class. It is the same with spirituality. People are comfortable with a particular understanding of themselves and their relationship to God, and they hold there. And there is nothing wrong with either being middle class, or finding a comfortable spiritual place and holding there. Just as there is nothing intrinsically wrong with people whose choices leave them poor. As the popular saying goes: it is what it is. Simultaneously, it is not terribly productive to make self-destructive, or unfortunate choices and then blame someone else. Just as the person who has made no effort to have an active relationship with a God Who is always present is not well served to suddenly find themselves feeling spiritually bankrupt and then blame God for it. It’s sort of like when I’m getting angry as I search the house for my keys while holding them in my hand!

To a large degree, it is choice that makes capitalism spiritual. In communism, socialism and totalitarianism, the state makes your choices, and puts limits on you. Having your choices taken from you crushes your spirit, because you know on some level (spiritual) that being a human being (a child of God) is ABOUT the freedom to choose how you use your mind, spirit, and even the body. You get out of your spiritual endeavors what you put into them, plus the benefit of grace. You get out of your life in free market capitalism exactly what you put into it, plus the benefit of grace (as in, isn’t it interesting how “luck” seems so often to happen to those who are the best prepared and have worked the hardest).

Capitalism also provides the opportunity to give, which is obviously spiritual. Giving can take many forms. It can obviously be taking some of your abundance and literally giving it to someone in need. Giving can also be the creation of something that fills a need for people. It can also be providing a pleasant work environment, or opportunities for advancement—the ability to take a risk on another human being and allowing them to prove themselves.

The trajectory of capitalism seems to be for it to be opening it’s “heart”, so to speak. Companies are not just trying to provide their products and services, they are also finding that contributing to their communities in other ways is a good thing. Some of this is purely market driven, some is simply the nature of the people running the companies. Companies know that people would rather do business with someone they like than someone they don’t. Far from being self-serving, this is an incredible testimony to the power of the market. Many companies have come to realize that the quality of the work environment allows them to attract and keep the best and brightest employees. Again, competition and the market move capitalists in directions that are not predictable. “Workers” are “exploited”! Well, not in a company that wants to keep the best and the brightest, and wants to be confident that its employees are proud of their work and want to produce the best quality product possible. This doesn’t require, and is actually harmed by, an activist union making demands and pitting workers against the employers. It is the product of the expansion of the mind and an understanding of fellow human beings. The same is true of environmental issues. The market began to demand that the companies it does business with be more environmentally friendly. This was sometimes expressed politically, though the political expression is far too often so strident and adversarial that it doesn’t take into account that the minds of the people in the companies can and have changed and can and have reacted to the demands of the market. Thus, the political fervor can do harm by limiting the entrepreneur where it began by doing good by helping them “wake up”. The result of the market demand for being more environmentally friendly is that the virtues of capitalism went to work on the problem, and created solutions. Thus, a nation like the United States continues to become less polluted, while countries mired in totalitarianism are increasingly polluted.

In addition, there is another spiritual quality to capitalism. In spirituality, we’re all the same. We’re all children of God. There’s nothing that disqualifies us from that, though we can choose not to believe it, not to act like it, or not to be part of the family. The capitalist makes no distinction either. Everyone’s a customer. The capitalist wants everyone to succeed because their success makes them a better customer, or their positive choices make them better employees. The thought that capitalists would want to oppress anyone is ridiculous, because it would be self-defeating. Capitalists want markets to expand and markets only expand when more people are successful enough to become customers. Capitalists root for the best for their “brothers and sisters.”

Creativity. Choice. Being a conduit for fulfilling needs. Generating abundance. Bringing order from apparent chaos. Growth and expansion. These are spiritual qualities and they are the qualities of free market capitalism. And the two actually mesh nicely. The lessons from one can be applied in the other. Moreover, as Maslow showed in his “hierarchy of needs”, the base needs of people have to be met before, psychologically, they’re ready for “self-actualization.” No system ever devised has been able to provide those base needs, more effectively than capitalism, which then gives people the psychological space they need to move to higher levels on the hierarchy.

Whether you want to talk about spirituality in terms of connection with God, or if you want to think of it as self-actualization in terms of fulfilling ones full human potential (spirituality in terms of the human spirit), capitalism is the system that, in practice, is the best analogue to spirituality.

UPDATE: For my Christian friends

One of the things I find interesting in the Bible is this: When Jesus was confronted with a situation where he had a multitude of hungry followers with no food, he did NOT say, "Go... find wealthy fishermen and bakers and confiscate their loaves and fishes and feed them to the people." Instead, he saw the need, and he created the solution. This is widely (and rightly) regarded as a miracle, but I think the story is also an interesting analogy. It would be fantastic if, in our present state of humanity, we could create the fulfillment of needs out of the ether. The closest we come in our present state of consciousness and connection is the kind of creation that takes place in free market capitalism. (And... do not let my first point about what Jesus did NOT say go by unnoticed.)

They Can't Be Serious

2005-11-01T15:14:00.000-08:00

Did you know that Scooter Libby being charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for his testimony to the grand jury equals "the administration lied to get us into the war"?

That's what I'm hearing Dems say. I also heard a Democrat consultant today on The Big Story on Fox tell John Gibson that there were no WMDs, there was no connection between Saddam and Bin Laden, and... hell, I don't even remember the other thing. Probably something about no attempt to purchase yellowcake from Africa, or about Halliburton...

Do they believe any of this? Can they still be beating the WMD drum? They must figure that anything you say loud enough and long enough becomes true by default. Let's go over it again, shall we? Everyone from Bill Clinton, to Al Gore, to John Kerry, to the Russians, to the Israelies, to Saddam's neighbors, to the current administration believed he had WMD. The meme is, we didn't find any, so there weren't any. Well, we did find a few strays here and there. We did find dual use facilities to re-start the WMD program as soon as sanctions were lifted. I even remember Saddam saying, shortly after he was captured, that he WANTED the world to believe he still had the WMD. After all, he was "defeating" us, so he couldn't look weak to the world. So, the conclusion of multiple reports has been that he did have them once, he may have gotten rid of them (I'm still thinking he got rid of them by sending them to Syria or something equally clever), but he certainly wasn't willing to provide proof of it. Remember his level of cooperation with the last UNSC resolution? All he would've had to do to avoid war was to prove he'd gotten rid of them. Show us where. Tell us how. Nope. And don't trip to lightly over the sentence that says we've found a few. The Dems still say we haven't found ANY. I got this on an e-mail today:

"* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
* Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

This is only a PARTIAL LIST of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces have found NO weapons of mass destruction."

Not precisely no WMD. Not what we expected. But, the point was that Saddam was dangerous with WMD. If he just had to flip the switch after sanctions were lifted to start production again, isn't that just as bad as having stockpiles given our underlying concern?

The Dems so conveniently forget that Saddam DID have al Qaeda ties. He sent emmissaries to meet with Bin Laden. He offered the guy safe haven. Zarqawi was in Iraq prior to OIF. Why did Zarqawi think he'd be safe there if Saddam wasn't friendly to terrorists in general, and possibly to al Qaeda in particular? This is to say nothing of his support for Palestinian terror, or his harboring of other terrorists, or even the terror training camp in the North. This has also all been in official reports. And, we may never know the whole story, but it seems that some Iraqi Intelligence Service agents were hanging around in places perilously close to where 9/11 planning and preparations were taking place. Saddam also helped get one of the first WTC bombers into safe haven in Iraq and paid his way for 10 years. What the reports have said is that there is no PROOF that Iraq had OPERATIONAL ties to the al Qaeda 9/11 plot. It does NOT say he had no ties to al Qaeda, or even that it's not possible that there were in fact ties to 9/11. No proof he did does not equal proof he didn't.

I won't even go into Joe Wilson and Valery. OK... just a little. How does he come back as this incredible refuter of the entire reason for the war when what he came back with was that, indeed, Iraqi agents HAD visited with Niger officials, but the officials wouldn't sell them yellowcake because of the sanctions. People say his report "might even support the possibility that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake in Niger." MIGHT? Plus, I've been to Africa. Africa is a good deal bigger than just Niger. Not only didn't his mission to Niger completely refute the possibility that the Iraqis tried to buy yellowcake there, it in no way could speak to what may have occurred in other nations. The guy came back with bubkis in terms of refutation of the claim Saddam tried to buy uranium. Then he lied about not only who sent him, but what he found, plus a few other whoppers.

What Fitzgerald DID say about the indictment of Libby was that it had nothing to do with the war in Iraq, and that the White House cooperated fully. Let's keep in mind that it was four other people in this, supposedly, "corrupt" administration that told a story different than Libby's that resulted in his indictment in the first place. And, the underlying crime that was investigated was not proven at all. Wilson came up with bubkis in his visit to Niger, and the Dems came up with bubkis in the investigation of the Plame outing.

My question is why they keep calling everyone else liars when it is clear to anyone who has paid any attention at all that it is THEY who are lying. Add to that that they do everything in their power to divide the country: like accusing Bush of lying us into a war; saying that the war is a catastrophe and that nothing good has come out of it--ignoring the fact that it's a burgeoning democracy in the heart of the Middle East; voting in Clinton's term to make regime change our policy in Iraq because Saddam is dangerous with WMD, then claiming when we act to accomplish regime change that the reasons weren't good enough; talking about the danger Social Security is in during the Clinton years, then saying it'll all be fine when Bush moved to do something about it; talking about the economy like it's collapsing when it's actually flourishing; fighting against highly qualified court nominees; harping on the "stolen" election in 2000 and saying shenanigans occurred in Ohio in '04, despite the fact that from reports I've seen, the only shenanigans were by Dems; on and on and on, all the while claiming Bush and the Republicans are dividing the country.

There is a problem when people begin to think that anything they say or do, no matter how dishonest, is OK because they SHOULD be in power and they're not, so whatever gets them back in is fair game. Say Bush lied. It's OK to ignore all the evidence to the contrary. Say the war in Iraq is a failure. It's OK to ignore all the good that is being done, and what a tremendous success it will be when a Iraq is a functioning democracy and our ally. And, worst of all, it's OK to pretend that the WOT is a figment of the right's imagination. It's OK to pretend that some understanding could be reached with the Islamofacists. They don't REALLY want the world to exist under a sharia caliphate. They're just a little disgruntled. A good "progressive" politician could reason with them. After all, they pretty much left us alone under Clinton. (smirk)

The left has officially blown my mind. The half-truths and outright lies come so fast and furious that you can't refute them all. On "The Big Story" that democratic consultant reeled off her list of three things in 5 seconds. They were nonsense slogans. But it would've taken several minutes to fully refute them. The Dems know that if they can just burn certain quick slogans into people's minds, that's what the ignorant will remember. And to truly educate people on the truth, the Republicans would have to take more time than our soundbite driven media can give them (if they will give someone on the right any time at all).

Drives me nuts!

Capitalism and Racism... addendum

2005-10-30T10:49:00.000-08:00

This article on the history of segregation on public transportation in the south by Thomas Sowell in Front Page Magazine illustrates the point I made in my "They Hate Poor People" post. Please read the article. It talks about how the capitalists (owners of the transportation system) actually faught against the segregation on transportation systems. Including willfully ignoring the laws. It was the government (in a sad state of affairs at the time) that forced the capitalists to enforce laws that the capitalists did not want to enforce because, to them, the "negroes" were their customers. Even in a time of ignorance that has mostly vanished today, the equality inherent in capitalism was present.

The article says, in part:

"Far from existing from time immemorial, as many have assumed, racially segregated seating in public transportation began in the South in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

"Those who see government as the solution to social problems may be surprised to learn that it was government which created this problem. Many, if not most, municipal transit systems were privately owned in the 19th century and the private owners of these systems had no incentive to segregate the races.

"These owners may have been racists themselves but they were in business to make a profit -- and you don't make a profit by alienating a lot of your customers. There was not enough market demand for Jim Crow seating on municipal transit to bring it about."

Interesting...

Capitalism Project--Intentionally Proving the Point

2005-09-16T16:10:00.000-07:00

Capitalism Project – People who believe in the power of capitalism coming together to make a difference.

There is a huge opportunity that Katrina has put before us. It’s one that always exists, but it is now in sharp relief. That opportunity is to see the difference capitalism makes versus the difference the welfare state makes.

My idea is to create a “Capitalism Project” where businesses (especially manufacturing businesses) are created, and their contribution is tracked. Their contribution consists of the presence of the business itself, the return to the investors, the number of jobs created, the amount of taxes paid both by the corporation and the individual, etc.

These businesses can be anywhere, but we will specifically target putting at least the manufacturing in the Gulf Coast region, not only to help rebuild it, but also because it would be foolish not to also take advantage of the government programs that will be established to aid this kind of activity. Proving that those types of programs are more effective than government handouts will be an additional win for the project.

There are different levels at which people can invest in businesses. To maximize return, and to create the largest impact possible, I recommend that the investment be made at the ground floor. I’m talking about literally supporting (partnering with) the entrepreneur/inventor at the very beginning. At this level the largest difference can be made for the smallest investment, and the return on investment is multiples of the investment as the company moves to a second round of funding.

My goal would be to find entrepreneur/inventors that hold Patents on their products. The Patent gives us confidence that the product is both unique and protected. Obviously, beyond that, someone, or a committee of people, would have to look at the product (and business plan) to decide if it has high potential. There are literally thousands of entrepreneurs in this position.

The biggest problem for these entrepreneur/inventors is getting their product from the original idea to a level where they can raise large amounts of capital, sell their company to a larger competitor, or can begin production and sales if the amount of capital needed to begin manufacturing isn’t terribly high. This amount (I’ll refer to it as the “bridge amount” because it is the bridge between the idea and the ultimate potential) is generally small. The bridge amount may be just enough to build a final prototype, do product testing, or perhaps do some test marketing.

Teaming with the entrepreneur at this level gives the provider of the capital (in this case, us) a high level of ownership for a relatively small investment. When the company is ready for the next level of financing, this small investment can be extracted at multiples of the original. This is a common practice, most often done by family members, individuals, or small groups of investors. It is at this level that investors make the most money from a successful company.

The idea of the Capitalism Project would be to collect funds (details on this to come, it’s been researched… suffice it to say that the world provides the opportunity needed) and invest at the “bridge” level in as many companies as possible. These companies would be shepherded to the next level of funding, at which point we would cash out, and turn the money to investment in more opportunities. Turning the money at the return rates that are common at this level of investment can create enormous wealth relatively quickly, particularly since the amount of time needed to bring the company through the period in it’s growth that we are talking about is relatively short. Most of the time lag for entrepreneurs/inventors at this level is trying to raise funds, usually from people who may be willing to invest, but only AFTER the entrepreneur has gone through this bridge period, which is when they really need the funding.

Example of potential return: $100,000 is invested at a dime per share. We’d get 1,000,000 shares. Say the IPO goes at $1. That’s a 10x return, resulting in $1,000,000. Say 5 more companies are then funded at $200,000 per company. Assume 2 out of 5 fail (to be conservative). We’re left with (assuming our ownership is purchased at a dime in every case, which is typical) 6 million shares. Say the IPOs or buyouts go at an average of $0.75 per share. That’s $4.5 million on an original investment of $100,000 after two turns. Now imagine that the original amount was $1,000,000 and we worked with 3 or 4 (or more) companies.

Remember: we’re working at the beginning, as partners because we’ll find these people early in their process, not as part of an IPO.

Obviously, those of us who put money into the project stand to make a very large return for ourselves, along with the good that will be done by creating successful businesses. And, we will make part of the program tracking the good that is done for the general economy as a result.

The money would be raised from ordinary people... people who believe in capitalism and the project... not requiring a large investment from any one individual (though people could do that if they wanted). Again, this has been researched and it's possible. Even small investments could result in very large returns after many turns. In the example above, an investment of $100 would be returning, after two turns, $4,500. $1,000 would return $45,000 after 2 turns.

More to come…

"They Hate Poor People"

2005-09-08T15:52:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted in a while, because I've spent my blogging time commenting on other sites. However, I saw a comment on a blog post regarding the race baiting associated with hurricane Katrina that I thought required a post longer than a blog comment.

This person said, sarcastically, "Republicans don't hate blacks. They hate poor people."

The insanity of saying Republicans hate blacks, or that Pres. Bush hates blacks is absolutely too far gone even to comment about it. Racism is the result of a screwed up personal philosophy, usually held by people who are afraid that they are not good enough, so they want to feel superior to someone else... at least in this day and age, when anyone with half a brain and any heart at all knows that a human being is a human being. Frankly, the racists I see (those who spout racial epithets at minorities) seem pretty dense. Bush, on the other hand, seems to truly take Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to heart, and looks at the content of people's character and not the color of their skin. (Something I can honestly say that I see from most Republicans). Who represents this country's foreign policy? Who did it before her? Who's the person I hear Republicans cheering because of the effectiveness he showed when he took over the effort in New Orleans and immediately started getting results? Moreover, Bush never made a big deal out of the racial makeup of his Cabinet. It didn't matter to him. He was picking people, not a rainbow.

Anyway... The accusation of racism is rediculous.

The accusation that Republicans hate poor people is equally rediculous. Here's why:

Republicans are supposed to be the party of business, right? Supposedly, Republicans are the rich--the capitalists. Here's the deal. Nobody wants people to be successful more than the capitalists. It's very simple. If you look at it from a strictly selfish point of view, ignoring the benefits that most people realize are obvious to society and the spirit, capitalists SELL goods and services. They sell more when more people can buy them. Every person that goes from poverty to affluence (or at least solvency) is a new prospective customer. They go from being a drain on income in terms of taxes paid to support welfare and other entitlements, to being a customer and fellow tax payer. Capitalists WANT people to succeed, because every new success can potentially contribute to their success.

OK... what about the people who make their money on Wall Street? Obviously, high unemployment drags markets down. Those capitalists want to see a fully employed work force. It raises confidence. Why? See above. They want a larger tax base, which can ease tax burdens, rather than more dependence on government which leads to higher tax burdens. Everybody wins that way. They want companies to do well so their stocks go up in price (again, see above). Also, more successful entrepreneurial efforts create not only more jobs, but more opportunities on Wall Street.

There is absolutely no reason why "rich" capitalists would want to see poverty. It benefits them not at all. And, it costs them money. It also costs them security.

Who DOES benefit from having an underclass? Who would WANT to hold people down, to convince them that they can't make it, and that someone else is keeping them down? Let's see...

--Entitlement bureaucrats who would have to stop sucking at the government teet and truly do a job in which they were accountable for performance if they didn't have their bureaucratic jobs.

--Various people who make a cushy living race baiting and producing no results that actually benefit people long term, except to roil anger short term (and line their pockets with donations from supporters).

--Politicians who get elected over and over making promises that they will help people achieve a better life, but who know no other way to do it than to give those people other people's money, or creating more bureaucracies that continue to keep people dependent on them. These politicians NEED people to stay poor, and they keep trying to sell them the same, tired mantra that the government (meaning THEY) will help them... so long as they keep getting re-elected. What they really mean is that they'll help them stay at a subsistance level and never achieve anything beyond that.

President Bush talked about the "soft prejudice of lowered expectations." THAT is field on which the three beneficiaries of poverty play. "You can't help yourself, so rely on us. We're what stands between you and 'the Man'." The problem is, this fictitious 'the Man' only benefits by having as many people as possible achieve their way out of poverty.

I say "achieve their way out of poverty" because the "soft prejudice of lowered expectations" that is peddled by the people who benefit from poverty tells people the lie that the government (meaning THEM) can lift them out of poverty. But the government can do no such thing. It certainly can't do it without creating socialism, where everyone gets just a small suck off the government teet (except the elite, who happen to be the same people who benefit from poverty now), at least eventually. In that scenario, the capitalists, entrepreneurs, and workers have no motivation to create and to work. Their efforts are pilfered to equalize everyone (except the elite, who create nothing but the scheme for pilfering the creativity and labors of others) and the entire economy will quickly swirl down the drain. Then everyone will be equal... equally miserable and impoverished. But, when capitalists and entrepreneurs (including people in poverty with good ideas) provide opportunities for people to achieve their way out of poverty, so they are climbing the ladder rather than having the ladder removed so everyone is on the same level, everybody wins.

It might truthfully be said that Republicans hate poverty. But it can't truthfully be said that Republicans hate the poor. We want the poor gainfully employed and climbing the ladder of success, because we know that benefits everyone. We also know that the long unfulfilled promise of the government taking care of those people has not only proved itself to be an untruth and an impossibility, but that it has proved to be an effective illusion used by Dems against Republicans at election time, despite the fact that it harms everyone involved.

Race baiting, and inciting class warfare works to the actual benefit of no one, except the people making their living by keeping other people down. And that's NOT the Republicans, capitalists, and entrepreneurs in this country.

Economics?

2005-07-29T14:50:00.000-07:00

I keep reading about the Clinton years as the high point in our economic history. Of course, this is always contrasted with the dreaded Bush years, where apparently (all statistics aside) we're screwed. I'm NOT an economist. I'm just a guy with a memory, and my memory gives me problems when I hear politicians in particular, but also "economists" (usually with political leanings) talking.

Here's the thing that bugs me when the current economy is being run down by this or that politician or pundit: In the 1990's an extraordinary thing happened--something that is incredibly rare. An entire industry was born. From zero, the personal computer, and particularly the Internet, exploded onto the scene. Suddenly the cute boxes that some of us had purchased for word processing and spreadsheets, or that we were increasingly using at work, became MUST HAVE items for the home because, VIOLA', there was this incredibly cool thing called "The World Wide Web". Creativity abounded! Some people started pumping out hardware, but the real key to riches was creating ways to make money on "The Web." Thus, we had "the Internet bubble." Incredible amounts of jobs were created, investment capital poured in, and the future looked robust. This was an incredible boon to the economy. Also involved with this was the "tech bubble" which was related, but not necessarily identical.

All of this in the mid to late '90s. The "go-go '90s" as they're often called. What did Clinton have to do with all this? Well, he didn't totally screw it up, but for the most part he just REALLY benefitted by it. He looked great, as presidents do, because the economy was cookin'! The other thing to keep in mind is that it was during this "go-go '90s" period that companies like Enron and Worldcom were living high.

Then, 2000 came and the bubbles were about to burst. Oddly, then candidate Bush warned that a recession was coming. The bubbles did burst. Clinton/Gore had looked great because they just happened to be in office when a whole industry was born, and they got out just as the real players got separated from the pretenders (remember the Internet stocks where the business plans never showed how they were going to make a profit, yet their IPOs were HUGE?). Shortly after that process began, the other high fliers like Enron and Worldcom started crashing down. Then, speaking of crashing down, 9/11 happened. Then the real dishonesty (99% of which took place while Clinton was president) of Enron and others got exposed for what it was. All of this before Bush was in the White House for a full year.

So now we are in a good economy. Perhaps not to judge by the whimsical musings of Democrat politicians and left leaning pundits, who ignore the root causes of the growth in the '90s (the creation of an entire industry almost overnight, and, some have argued, the Reagan tax cuts), the inevitability of it's bubble-like bursting when the markets corrected themselves and companies discovered, lo and behold, you can't make money just because you have a cool web site. They also ignore the fact that Enron and Worldcom did most of their shady dealings prior to George Bush being sworn in as president. And, they don't seem to remember the catastrophe that 9/11 was for our economy (in addition to the loss of life and property).

It seems to me that the fact that we recovered from all of that is little short of a miracle. It is certainly a testimony to the tenacity and creativity of the American entrepreneur, worker, and investor, and it is also a testimony to the the effectiveness of the Bush tax cuts.

Can you imagine what would've happened if, instead of having President Bush saying, "Let's get money back in the pockets of Americans to spend and invest and to create with, because we know the people will make this work!" we had, say, a Jimmy Carter, who simply told us things were bad and our best days were behind us and we were going to have to muddle through?

It's important that we have memories. There were reasons for the "go-go '90s" and they had little to do with Clinton's actions. It was great that a whole new industry, a new technology that changed all of our lives was born in that time, and he didn't screw it up. But, the end WAS inevitable. A correction WAS going to happen. Now, what we have seems more real. It's more rooted in reality, where that new industry and technology has matured. And, statistically (unemployment, GDP, etc.), that more mature economy is very good.

Oh... one more thing... Why do people keep saying we HAD a surplus? Like it was money in the bank? I hear the same politicians and pundits that seem to forget the unreality of much of the "tech bubble" and "Internet bubble" talk about the "surplus" like it was cash on hand. And, now it's gone. My recollection is that it was a projected number that would've come into being IF one could project all that was happening in "the go-go '90s" into the future (some 5 years or so). Well... you CAN'T project that time period into the future, because that future projection didn't take into account the bursting of the bubbles, which was inevitable given the overexhuberance that created the bubbles, and, hence, that created the projection. Is that not obvious on it's face? That projection also didn't take into account that 8 months after Bush took office (get that? a mere 8 MONTHS... the friggin' STAFF wasn't even all in place) we'd suffer a terror attack the likes of which the world had never imagined, and that pretty much shut us down for a while, and damaged us deeply. These people still think that there should've, would've, could've been a surplus? That's just so far from reality that it is almost too bizzarre to comment on. Yet, there are people who want to ignore everything real and remind us that at one time in our recent history there was (a projection that there would be) a surplus. Basically the statement when talking about the so-called surplus should have been, "If reality doesn't intrude at all, and nothing negative happens, we COULD have a surplus." Well, we don't. Reality intervened. Sorry.

Africa... Good Luck Geldof and Bono

2005-07-03T11:51:00.000-07:00

Several years ago I got a chance to spend a month in Africa... Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi. It was extremely instructive. Here's what I saw: Government corruption, from cops that looked like 16 year old kids with assault rifles shaking you down for a few shillings before letting you pass in your car, to officials providing visas requiring a bribe in addition to the fee. The governments are on the take. (Pretty much everyone knows that now).

Second, the infrastructure is terrible. In Uganda, for example, food is grown in abundance, but, there are no good roads to get it from where it is grown, to areas that are not farming areas. On a side note, you should see the shores of Lake Victoria. Weather like Hawaii, beautiful landscape, and a huge, beautiful lake. There is only one reason that it's not a tourist hotbed... no infrastructure! Unfortunately, the worst people in the world at building infrastructure are socialists and dictators, because, rather than responding to the demands of the marketplace, they have to plan... and then there's the corruption. Capitalism is the key, but no investor in their right mind is going to invest in a place where even the government can't be relied on not to be thieves. If I could rely on the government and the workers not to rob me blind, I'd be gathering investors for hotels and golf courses along part of the shore of Lake Victoria as I write this... it's GORGEOUS.

Another big problem, brought into sharp relief by the devestation in Rwanda, is that there is an incredible amount of prejudice in Africa. Not white on black or black on white... tribal. And it's uglier than any racism I've seen in the US. They absolutely don't trust people of different tribes, and working together is extremely difficult for them.

Here's the hard part to swallow: One of the big problems I witnessed in Africa is that the people have become reliant on "charity." They're literally "children of charity" waiting for someone to come along and help, rather than helping themselves. I don't want to make this into an anti-UN screed, but the UN in particular, but also other charity organizations, have created a very destructive culture. People are starving while waiting for whatever charity money gets past the governments to trickle down to them. More charity = more of that destructive culture.

From what I read at Power Line, Bob Geldof is aware of the problem with governments and is working to have funds provided with strings attached that require government reform.
We (all non-Africans) can't provide the leadership and will that is required to fix the problems, because political leadership and the will of the people must come from within the afflicted country. And, throwing more money in there is actually providing a means to continue the problems. What we can do, I think, is encourage and support leaders who truly do stand for the good of the people, and we can try to design programs where the people who are willing to stand up and work for their own benefit can start building momentum toward a successful capitalist society. The answer isn't charity or re-distribution of wealth from the G-8 to Africa, it's in helping the Africans learn to create their own wealth. A rising tide lifts all boats!

2005-06-19T22:06:00.000-07:00

My son and I just got back from a thing called "Tsunami on the Square", which is a sort of quasi-theater, quasi-circus-ie thing. Sort of Cirque de Tsunami. Prescott has a big old county courthouse "square" and there're a lot of events there. One of the things that makes this a nice place to live. Anyway, this particular thing is very "alternative", in terms of the artsy performers. It was actually pretty good, although some of it was a little too "down the rabbit hole" for a group most of whom hadn't taken any drugs today.

Why the description? Well, when the evening started, we got a little political speech. It was the sort of incredibly lame type of thing you'd expect, but that always makes me shudder that people can be that simple minded. It's not innocence... that would warm my heart. It's pure "numbskullery".

In introducing the evenings festivities, the guy says something like: "This is what we need to bring the world together. Sharing the arts! Coming together as a community and communicating through art and dance and music. We don't need torture. We need the truth and the truth is in art." Something very close to that... including the torture thing.

OK... here's the scene. Many of the women in the audience, and almost all of the female performers, were in form fitting pants (short or long... either way, we were getting a good look at the shape of the legs and ass), tight shirts with their midrifts, shoulders, and in most cases cleavage showing, and no bras. In the performance, naturally, the women were occasionally sexually suggestive in their gestures. Among the men, I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing we had a gay guy or ten. And, none of the men had appropriate Muslim beards, and nobody was carrying either a prayer rug or a Koran.

The guy who made the speech saying that there is an answer to the worlds problems as simple as share the arts so we understand each other, and his troupe, would, in fact, probably would be the FIRST targets of an Islamafacist regime. He seemed to figure that if we dance for the Islamafascists, or with them, they won't want to kill us. Of course he forgets, they would STONE our women for dressing like our women dress. We can't dance WITH their women, because they don't get to dance.

The Taliban was a demonstration of what al Queda considered to be a good government. All these wonderful women, who truly were wonderful performers, (and, hell yes, they were very nice to look at) would be stoned or killed outright for looking like they looked. If we lose our war with Islamafascism, those ladies will be in burkas, won't be able to drive, won't be taking yoga and dance... They guys won't be able to pursue their artistic desires... And, if they resist, if their art doesn't manage to pursuade this insane enemy to become liberal, they'll be killed, or tortured (not for "truth" but as an example to the rest of us), etc. etc. etc.

He says that dumb ass shit, gets applause of course, and I'm thinking, "You people just have zero idea what we're dealing with here. This little infidel gathering would be a RIPE target. Those poor 'tortured' guys at Gitmo would LOVE to blow this fucker sky high... they'd get the salaciously dressed women, the infidel men, and the infidel kids all in one fell swoop. And I don't think they'd be dissuaded by the fact that we're showing them our 'truth' through dance."

I wish things were as simple as my artistic friend said. I remember the days when I'd watch the Olympics, prior to the end of the cold war, and I'd think, "You know... they enjoy their sports, we enjoy our sports... surely we can get along!" Ooops. Forgot that in their system, what the people cared about didn't mean a damned thing. They had an oppressive totalitarian government that controlled their lives. See this post for more...

By the way there was a standout performer at this event. He might actually help us in the war on terror because the terrorists minds would be blown wondering how he does what he does, and we could nail 'em. He's very cool, and truly talented. His name is Kid Beyond. He's a trip!

Filibuster BS... or... Who's the Fascist Here?

2005-06-05T17:05:00.000-07:00

In response to the Powerline post: Deja vu all over again (follow Powerline's links for the whole thing)--

I think the point needs to be made over and over: the Democrats are saying that a President's nominees held up in committee BY THE MAJORITY PARTY (when different than the President's party) is THE SAME as a MINORITY filibustering presidential nominees that have majority support. It is saying that it should make NO DIFFERENCE who has won an electoral majority. I think the word for a RULING MINORITIY is... "elitist?" Perhaps "fascist?" Funny, though... the lefties keep trying to say the Bush administration, with it's electoral victories in the presidential race, and majorities in both houses of Congress is fascist. Minority rule is... democratic? Majority rule is... fascist? Go figure the logic in THAT one!

Religious Zealotry Meme Debunked

2005-06-04T11:09:00.000-07:00

The far lefties are trying to scare the middle with charges against the right that the conservatives are religious zealots trying to establish a theocracy (see Maureen Dowd). First, I think it's interesting to note that they find religious zealots trying to establish a theocracy to be a bad thing, while at the same time seeming (at least on the far left) to be constantly undermining the war on terror, which is, in essence, a war in which we are fighting religious zealots trying to establish a theocracy. I'm generally stunned that liberals don't see what Pres. Bush has done for women's rights, human rights in general, gay rights, etc. in Afghanistan and Iraq and praise him unabashedly. I always want to shout: Remember!!! They've shown us the kind of government they want to have, because they had it in Afghanistan. Do you REALLY want us to back down so THAT can happen to us?

Anyway... that wasn't the original purpose of this post. My point is that when you look around the blogosphere and see all the conservatives, you see... um... normalcy. Even irreverence, and playfulness. Case in point: The Cotillion, a collaborative blog by women on the right. These women KNOW they are women. They include sexual innuendo for humor in their posts. One of the contributors to The Cotillion is Atlas Shrugs who put a post on her site titled, "Deep Throat Gives No Pleasure". The point is, these women are not uptight religious fundamentalists, they are real, powerful women; women that are complete, from their intellect to their sexuality.

Yes, there are religious fundamentalists on the right. Guess what? There are religious fundamentalists on the left too. And while GWB may speak of his spirituality (not stating that his RELIGION is right, but actually just speaking of his own spirituality), he wasn't campaigning in black churches! Suddenly playing the "religion" card to get African Americans to vote for them. And the Republicans don't have the African American leaders with "Reverend" preceding their name either. HOWEVER!!! I have a sneaking suspicion that Rev. M L King Jr. would be a Republican today. It seems that the Dems use the black churches to keep the victim culture firmly in place. My recommendation to African Americans: The Republicans are interested in the content of your character, not the color of your skin. We don't think there's anything that skin color should mean you can or cannot do, or be.

I think the whole religious theocracy meme is a canard, and people on the right need to make it known that it does not represent us. Look around at the real conservatives, not what the MSM or the far left would have you believe are the conservatives, and you find average (or above average in many categories) people... most of whom would be as uncomfortable with a "fundamentalist Christian" state as a secular Democrat (though possibly for different reasons).

The Question Religions Must Ask...or better...

2005-05-19T21:27:00.000-07:00

The question religions must ask, or better still, the question people must ask about their religion is: What kind of God am I worshipping?

I bring this up because, apparently, Zarqawi has claimed that "God ordered us to attack the infidels by all means ... even if armed infidels and unintended victims - women and children - are killed together." Let's throw that little gem in with the people killed because someone allegedly flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet (which would be a bad move to do with any holy book, but the flushing of some holy books are far more likely to get you killed than the flushing of others). Now... Is "Allah" not worth worshipping because people abuse His Good Name so? Is there even a slim chance that Zarqawi has the foggiest notion what "God" wants him to do?

In Islam, as in all religions, you have to ask yourself (and I mean YOURSELF, not someone else!!!) if the God being worshipped is a God worth worshipping. Not because He's scary. Is a God that makes you afraid worth worshipping? Would a God that didn't ask for your love of your FREE WILL and instead coerced it out of you with fear be worth worshipping? Probably not.

I think that if people look into their hearts, and even into their heads, truly using their intellect as well as their spiritual intuition, they'd come to the conclusion that the only God worth worshipping is a loving God. It's either a love exchange, or it's nothing. Like any love relationship, right? Simple.

If that is the case, then anyone who is portraying God in an UN-loving way, making God (Allah) seem scary or vengeful or even petty, is obviously not talking about God, they are projecting their own weakness (which begets a struggle for power) onto God. THAT God is a not-God.

This applies as well to Christianity as it does to Islam. It applies to any religion or God-centered belief system. Each individual must ask "What is God like? What is God like if God is worthy of MY love, and how would I hope God would view me and give me God's love?" Then, when people start projecting their own weaknesses, and struggles to compensate for those weaknesses (such as a quest for dominion over the lives of others), onto God, you can discern whether or not you should be rejecting that leadership. Be true to the God you know in your heart and mind, or the one worth being dedicated to knowing in your heart and your mind, not to some other person's vision.

If we all asked these questions, and came to these understandings for ourselves, people who are sullying God's name by projecting their own weaknesses onto Him would suddenly find themselves without followers.

From MSM to President Bush

2005-05-18T09:24:00.000-07:00

While I have no authorization to do so, I thought I'd take a shot at writing an open letter to President Bush from the Mainstream Media, representing what it appears to me (as a media consumer) they have to say to him:

Dear President Bush,

You can not win with us. Our purpose is to make you look as bad as possible, as often as possible. We hate you. We can't put our finger on WHY, exactly. Perhaps it's because you keep proving us wrong and we can't stand that. It's not really because of the "stolen election" in 2000, because the truth is that when people went in there and did the counting every-which-way-from-Sunday, you won. But, you see, it's not what we wanted or what we predicted! We were wrong, and we hate that! We get you back for that one though! We let people proclaim that you were "appointed" not elected, or claim that you stole the election all day long and never bring up the fact that the counts done after the election result in you winning, and that no disenfranchisement was ever proven. Get it? We've hated you from the start.

Just so you know, it does not matter to us that fanatical Islamists want to kill innocent people in the U.S., we'll always give them the benefit of the doubt, and never will give it to you or to any aspect of your administration--including the military of which you are Commander in Chief. We will make a big deal out of Abu Graib, but won't report on the thousands of soldiers who reach out with their hearts to the Iraqi people (like the soldiers that provided 800 pairs of shoes to Iraqi kids when they noticed the kids didn't have shoes that fit). We will make your administration look as bad as possible to the Arab world, even if it hurts the country.

On that note, we will NEVER EVER acknowledge the fact that it is increasingly clear that you were absolutely right (see, there you go again, being right when we were all wrong... unforgivable BASTARD!!!) about spreading freedom and democracy in the Middle East and how that'll transform the region. We can't talk about all of the positive changes in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban. We'll make darned sure we keep hope alive for the terrorists there, though. (How brilliant was the undermining of your administration with that flushing the Koran at Gitmo story?) We'll keep giving the body count in Iraq, but won't ever talk about the positive things that have happened there, and how the people are taking to democracy. We'll talk about "insurgents" like they're a political movement, rather than just bastards that want to kill enough people to scare the survivors into becoming willing to give them absolute power. We won't mention how much farther ahead the Iraqis are now in terms of their infrastructure than they were under Saddam, and we certainly won't report on how much farther ahead they'd be if they weren't being undermined by the "insurgents".

We won't acknowledge that Arabs are starting to see that it is other Arabs that are holding them down, and that it is the Americans who are in there trying to help them have freedom and democracy. Yes... we know it's happening. But what we'll do is foment hatred, or make it look like the majority hates us...er... YOU. We can't let you be right about this one. No way.

We are also going to make it look like liberal thinking is mainstream thinking. We know that that was just disproven by an election (yeah... we saw how red even the blue states were when you look at the map county by county, not just state by state). Our plan is to make "conservatives" look like extremists... preferably mind-numbed religious zealots who can't REALLY think for themselves. Look how well we're doing with your judicial nominees! We parrot the democrat's talking points like they're the truth! People actually think your own guy (Gonzales) was calling Priscilla Owens an activist judge. We let that out-of-context quote fly from people's mouths unquestioned for weeks! You'd think we'd do a story about a judge's qualifications, their recommendations from different professional organizations, etc. No way! And let people find out that you actually nominated qualified judges and not radical reactionary conservatives?

Well... I could go on and on. The bottom line is, as I said, you can't win, buddy! It doesn't matter what you do. It could be because you keep proving us wrong... but if you say that to anyone, we'll deny it. See... we'll be trying to shape the reality in everyone's minds so that you look like you're wrong anyway. Yes... even when you being RIGHT is what's good for the country.

Disrespectfully submitted,

MSM

Why is there a Soc Sec debate?

2005-05-01T16:00:00.000-07:00

I'm having a difficult time figuring out the opposition on the Social Security debate. I don't understand the opposition to the "privatization" aspect, and I certainly don't understand why there's a problem with "means testing".

As for privatization, it makes so much sense to me to have a portion (I'd make how big a portion optional, personally) of the social security tax invested in the market (in relatively safe broad based funds, not risked in individual stocks), and kept as a personal asset that can be passed to heirs that it blows my mind that anyone can argue against it. If we were talking about your 401K and your options were: A) Let the government invest the money, or B) You choose the funds, which would everyone take? Doesn't the FICA tax strike everyone as a complete rip off? It's this large portion of your paycheck (MATCHED by your employer!!! to make matter worse) that you get back after you retire, if you live so long. And people don't want at least a portion of that money, which they're going to take from you either way, in a fund that provides a far better return, and that can be passed to your heirs?

The only argument against doing it that's truthful is that it has the potential of making people less dependent on the government, which is... well... to some, a bad thing. Of course one argument is "Don't give that money to the greedy bastards on Wall Street." Right... don't give it to people whose job is to make money grow and create wealth as quickly as possible. Leave it with the government, which is so good at waste and inefficiency. If you have $1,000 and you have a choice of paying someone $100 of it to turn it into $2,000 in 5 years, or paying no one anything and having that same $1,000 turn into $1,100 in 5 years, which is the right choice? The arguments I've heard are so lame, and so dependent on people being ignorant, that it really makes me scratch my head in wonder. Truthfully, it's difficult to figure out what the "no privatization" people have as an agenda, except that it's NOT what's best for people who would like to build some wealth and not have to depend on the government for their retirement.

Now a Democrat has convinced Pres. Bush basically that means testing is a good idea. President Bush likes the idea, because it really makes sense. Some people can afford not to get paid their Social Security. If it's an insignificant portion of someone's retirement plans, that's the time to "stick it to the rich"! But, Dems are saying no. Wait... it's a Democrat's idea. Yes, but Bush put it forward.

So... what's going on here? Doesn't it seem that helping the little (working class) guy create a larger nest egg for retirement, and helping his heirs to have a leg up in the future, should be something the Democrats are all over? Why would they not want to help the working person create wealth for themselves? Clinton actually suggested it once... but, then again, they all forget that they voted for regime change in Iraq in 1998 too, after Clinton talked about Saddam's evil dictatorship and weapons of mass destruction. How can you be "standing on principle" when you're telling people that you're still going to levy a tax they can't avoid, and you're going to give them a paltry retirement income from it, rather than allowing that person to "own" a part of the money that's being confiscated, invest it in something that pays a reasonable return (and is ALWAYS safe when viewed over time), get more money in their retirement, and pass the remainder to their heirs? What's the "principle" in preferring the former scenario to the latter? Um... dependency? And why would any good Democrat be against "means testing" for getting benefits? Doesn't that really make sense too? I mean, yes, you're screwing people that paid into the system who aren't getting any of it back, but you've screwed them once by taking it in the first place, and they don't need it. You could even make it optional. Ask people in the top 1% of earners and I'll bet 98% would be happy not to bother taking their Social Security checks, particularly if someone gave them a choice so it was done by free will, rather than being just another confiscation.

What it seems like to me is that the good of the people is absolutely NOT being addressed by the Democrats in the debate. Once more, rhetoric is being substituted for substance, and a reliance on ignorance and the ability to inflame passions is the strategy of choice, rather than a having a serious discussion of the merits of different ideas. Have "truth" and "facts" become completely irrelevent concepts in politics? It seems so. I know the Republicans do it too, but when people are going around touting how evil and stupid Pres. Bush is because he wants to give people back a small portion of what's being confiscated from them in order to let them see if they can, from among a few relatively safe options, pick something to invest in that can bring them literally hundreds of thousands more dollars for their retirement, I have to believe it's farther out of hand on one side than the other.

Rights Not Looting

2005-04-19T15:31:00.000-07:00

There is talk lately of "a right to health care" and "a right to a good job". In the town I live in, there is a conversation about "a right to affordable housing."

There is an interesting and vital distinction that I think people miss. The "rights" that were declared in this country from the beginning were natural and the didn't take anything from anyone else; except if those others wanted to oppress and control others. Freedom of speech is natural. Being able to say what you want to say to whomever you want to say it is the natural drift and it does not cost anyone anything "real" (you can not like what someone says, but that doesn't cost you anything but annoyance). Freedom of the press... same thing. Freedom of religion... obviously the natural thing is for people to worshop, or not worship depending on what their own heart tells them. It doesn't cost anyone else anything. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" do not extract a cost from others.

This new form of "rights" that people are now claiming actually cost others. Something must be taken from another ("looted" from what is rightfully theirs).

Examples:
"The right to health care" sounds good. Health is "natural". However, in order to supply the health care that would be everyone's "right", something must be extracted from others. Either doctors have to give their services away, with no thought to the effort it took for them to attain the skills and knowledge that they have and what the value of that skill and knowledge is. Or, taxes must be extracted from other people to pay for the health care of those who have a "right" to it, but cannot pay for it themselves. Or, hospitals and clinics have to give away care at an operating loss. Or, all three. What is the result? Would the best and brightest want to be doctors? (NO... and you can't get away with denegrating them for wanting to choose to make a good living over altruism) Hospitals and clinics will close. And, taking something rightfully earned from one person and giving it to another who hasn't earned it or performed a service for it is theft (looting).

"Right to a good job" This has to be taken from an employer, by telling an employer that they have to hire someone regardless of that employer's need for a particular person, that person's qualification for the job, or the employee's performance. Or, it is taken from the tax payers if the "right" is fulfilled by creating government jobs. In any case, there is no onus on the employee to prove their worth. They become a leech, sucking the lifeblood out of the employer, or, in the case of the unnecessary government workers, from all other productive earners. And, the employee who is working because it is their "right" to have a job, who doesn't have any incentive to work hard, brings down the morale and level of effort of other employees, something that can destroy the work ethic of a nation, and certainly can bring down a company.

"Right to affordable housing" (usually associated with having inexpensive housing in the midst of a desireable, and, hence, high priced area). This generally means artificially lowering the value of adjacent properties, which costs the property owners. It reduces the value of the property owned by whoever is forced to build "affordable" housing rather than building whatever the market could bear. If the housing is subsidized, it money is tranferred from one group of people (taxpayers) to another.

Etcetera...

Do you see the difference? It costs you nothing (meaning nothing real, though it may make you deal with your own thoughts and feelings) for me to have free speech. It costs you nothing (nothing real, though you may be disappointed in the result) for me to have a vote... even if I was a woman, or my ancesters were from Africa. But, if I don't have a job and you have a business, and you're forced to hire me, whether you've got my wages budgeted or not, whether I do a good job or not, it DOES cost you. And wait until I take you to court because I have a right to a "good job" and you're not paying me enough. You ain't seen nothin' yet!

We need to watch these "rights" arguments and see if they impose a real cost, a cost to body or property, on others. When someone claims a "right" that imposes a cost on another, warning flags should go up!

Help Us Ayn Rand!

2005-04-19T10:25:00.000-07:00

Want to read a scary book? Don't read anything by Stephen King. Read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. Then read the news. Read this article by Pejman Yousefzadeh. Then read this article by John Hinderaker of Powerline. Alright... keep going... read this article on the inheritance tax at Ankle Biting Pundits.

OK... if you haven't read "Atlas Shrugged", read it. It's a long, and very good, book. The story is great, and its ability to make one think is outstanding. However, for the moment, if you haven't read the book, what you need to understand about it is that it is a vision of what would happen to the world if "progressive" thinking ruled the day. It's written from the point of view of the most productive, highest acheivers in the society, and what happens to them, and to society in general, when the "looters" gain control. More and more is taken from the most productive in society and given to the least productive, and the most productive people are not thanked or even acknowledged for the extra burden they are willing and able to bear for the benefit of their fellows. Instead they are denigrated and declared to be evil for having acheived so much (unsaid: "more than they deserved"-- despite the fact that it was their effort and creativity that resulted in the achievement). The government became corrupt as it convinced people that it alone knew what was in the public interest and convinced people that they were helpless. An elite few controlled the country, and, as the elite few are good at producing fancy theories, but not so good at creating products, or running companies, or adapting to the chaos that is the marketplace, everything fell apart. Sorta like socialism.

What I found extremely powerful was the brutal honesty of calling the people "looters" who kept stripping money and ownership and opportunity to expand away from the successful people. And how one of the requirements for doing it was to make people believe that there was something wrong with achievement, so the achievers deserved to be looted. Including convincing the acheivers themselves that they don't deserve what they've earned (how often do you hear someone who has acheived something great say, "I was very fortunate...", rather than, "Yeah, I worked my ass off for it!") When is the last time you heard a business person acclaimed for his or her achievement?

For example, Bill Gates is acclaimed, not for the jobs he's created, the entire industry he's contributed to enormously, to the way the world has literally changed in very convenient and productive ways due in large measure to his efforts, but when he gives his money away. This is as it should be, IF what was said was, "Mr. Gates has earned every penny he has and deserves it for his effort, his creativity, his vision, and his ability to shape reality with his mind and his effort. And, incidentally, he has chosen to give some of what he has earned and has every right to possess and to celebrate owning, to others. May it inspire someone to his level of acheivement!" Instead, what is said or thought is more like, "He's kind of a dweeb who got lucky, and his company is this evil monopoly, so to assuage his guilt and the self-loathing he has earned, he has given huge amounts of money away. No doubt he realizes he doesn't deserve it."

People had a "right" to a job and a good living, whether they were productive or not. In fact, it is the fact that they are in need that somehow makes them worthy and right. Those who achieve, or are productive have an obligation to provide for those of less talent, ability, or productivity. What happened? Showing ability and talent meant only that you were to become a slave of those who had no talent or ability, who weren't productive, but still had needs. Obviously, being needy was a more favorable position than working hard for no payoff.

The parallels between "Atlas Shrugged" and today's "progressive" agenda are more frieghtening than anything Stephan King ever wrote. We need as many people as possible to read it and understand.

Scandalous Bush News...

2005-02-20T22:22:00.000-08:00

On Fox news they did a report on the "secretly recorded tapes" that a former Bush friend and associate recorded. The anchor asked the reporter, "What do you think this means for President Bush?" The reporter (Greg Kelly?) said (paraphrasing), "Nothing much will hurt the president. After listening to the tapes, I'd say he says the same things in private as he does in public."

I wish I had the exact quote, but the drift of it is there. When I heard the different subjects that had been recorded I thought, "Oh damn... here we go. He stuck his foot in it somehow." Nope. He is who he is and he doesn't change. I like a guy who says the same thing in private as he says in public. I think that's perhaps why he won the election. I think people knew that was true of Pres. Bush, but they had a sneaking suspicion that Sen. Kerry was a different guy depending on the situation he was in. I think the same is true of Al Gore. Now... I actually get the impression that, the occasional human weakness/overdeveloped appetite aside, Bill Clinton is authentic.

OK... and there's the lying under oath thing, and the parsing of "is", but I mean--and I'm not kidding--ASIDE from that, there was something that seemed authentic about him. I think he REALLY cared, and mostly meant what he said at least in that arena. I know... the more I think about it, the less sense it makes. Sorry. I like the guy personally. Always have. Four guys in the room... Clinton, Bush, Gore, and Kerry... you get to pick two to hang out with for a day. I'm picking Clinton and Bush without question. And not just because they're winners. I think they're winners BECAUSE most of us would pick those two out of the four.

Frankly, I wouldn't let Gore stay in the room. I used to be a fan, but the persona he's adopted since 9/11 is sickening. You wanna talk inauthenticity for a minute? I wish someone would do an expose' about his attitude toward Iraq and Saddam from 1996 to 2000, and then would explain how AFTER 9/11 suddenly regime change is a "betrayal" and talk of WMD is a "lie". Apparently, in 1998 he was arguing for attacking... for forcing regime change. 9/11 made him more DOVISH? Thank God he lost the election! (No, I'm not saying Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. But Saddam with WMD--which reportedly he no longer had, but WAS going to reconstitute as soon as he could get sanctions lifted--and terrorists attacking us on our shores... You have got to hate the math, don't you?)

The Hatred in the Debate

2005-02-12T11:16:00.000-08:00

I just finished reading articles in the DailyKos and another at Althouse that brought to mind the inability to have a reasonable dialog on politics these days. I've been wondering what happened. I remember when Democrats disagreed with Republicans because they didn't agree with their policies, so they put their point of view forward and tried to pursuade people. If they didn't pursuade someone, that was OK... disagreements are inevitable and don't mean you can't still respect each other. The same is true for Republicans. If a Democrat didn't agree, they weren't immediately labeled this, that, or the other. There was a dialog. Naturally, there were intense ideologues on both sides that couldn't countenance the other side, but those of us out in the world could have intelligent discussions and political disagreements with people we still regarded afterwards as friends. I even recall intelligent debates on television.

AH!!! Have we found at least part of the answer? With 24 hour news, we've spawned debate shows. Hardball. Hannity and Colmes. Etc. On these shows, politics has become professional wrestling. It's entertainment. And the shrillness of the debate is part of the entertainment value. The format calls for vitriol. Segments are short, so you'd better get in your sound bite! A guest can't listen thoughtfully to someone else's point, point out the areas of agreement, perhaps acknowledge where the other guest has made him/her think a little, then give their points. There's no time. That's not entertaining enough. Guests of opposing points of view don't even have time to dissect a poorly made argument, or to point out factual or logical flaws. All they have time for (and entertainment value for) is: "That's stupid. What we should do is..."

Anyone who has taken Logic 101 and listens to the (so-called) debates on the political shows has got to absolutely cringe at the falacious arguments that are made. There are Ad Hominem attacks galore. False analogies are practically the only kind of analogy you hear. (where would Washington be if someone pointed out every false analogy... and what would we do without quick access to the Hitler reference?)

I think part of the reason the political debate has become so base is that what we see on television, and hear on the radio, is politics as entertainment, and the entertainment is the vitriol. It is professional wrestling, and many of us who aren't on television have adopted that style, in the same way kids on the playground adopt the styles of the professional athletes they see (and displaying the same maturity level as those impressionable youths).

Also, I think there's the Clinton factor: Republicans hated Clinton and tried way too hard to bring him down. Unfortunately, Clinton gave them a lot of ammunition. But, it was WAY out of hand. It was very personal, and part of that was that the ammunition Clinton gave them was personal. I think what really angered the Republicans was that Clinton kept taking credit for their accomplishments. Frankly, it wasn't his fault that the Republicans were bad communicators. The personal hatred aimed at Clinton almost inevitably came back to haunt Bush.

Naturally, with a collective memory of just under a week, no one on either side remembers things that would force us to cut the vitriol out of the debate (if we were to be intellectually honest and not try to spin the issues). For example, in 1998 it was the Democrats calling for regime change in Iraq and talking tough, particularly about weapons of mass destruction. It is said that Al Gore wanted to invade. Now, Democrats act like everyone has always known there were no weapons of mass destruction and Bush made it all up, that they were the only reason given to invade Iraq, and that there was no reason to go in and no good to come out of a free and stable Iraq. For their part, Republicans forget that during the time when the Democrats were talking tough about Iraq, they were so engaged in their Clinton hatred that they dismissed what Clinton was saying and doing regarding the dangers posed by Saddam's regime as "wag the dog." This means it was the Democrats to first point out the dangers of Saddam and call for regime change, and the Republicans were the first to dismiss the arguments. Interesting...

Then, of course, there's the fact that there are so few trustworthy, unbiased, sources of information. Reporting, whether you believe it is left or right, is clearly no longer a "just the facts" type of endeavor. Even hard news appears to be approached from one perspective or the other. When do you see straight information, inclusive of all relevant points of view, dispassionately dispensed? You don't even open the sports pages without being able to detect the political leaning of the writer. So, most people are left with a choice of reading things they agree with, thus hardening their point of view, or reading things they disagree with and getting mad. There are few neutral information sources. With information pre-biased, which means conclusions are predetermined, our critical thinking skills get very rusty indeed.

I wish the Democrats had not hired a DNC chairman who has recently said, "I hate Republicans." I wish Republicans were less likely to call Democrats traitors when they disagree. To paraphrase a quote from the movie "The American President": These are serious times. We have serious problems and we need serious people to solve them...

We don't need to all become "political wrestlers."

Where the Thinking Goes Awry

2005-02-06T10:03:00.000-08:00

I keep wondering how people on the far left can be so against the war in Iraq when so many of "their" issues were addressed as part of the accompishment. For example: the war stopped a massive abuse of human rights. I don't even need to go into it, but Saddam, his henchmen, and his incredibly sadistic sons were not only intimidating people, but actually abusing (like torturing, raping, maiming, and killing) people. The war and it's aftermath are having a very positive effect on women's rights. The war and its aftermath have the potential of creating a more liberal atmosphere that is more accepting of gays. There are massive numbers of people who, for the first time ever, have clean water and electricity. Wealth, rather than being completely concentrated in the hands of a tyrannical dictator and his cronies, will be dispersed down though the society and the resources of the land will benefit the people.

I would think that these types of results would generate an enthusiastic response. Yet, for the far left (not the more moderate Democrats), the war is seen as a horrible act by the administration, done as the result of lies, and for some motive other than our security and to benefit the Iraqi people. The cynical question is: "Who would Jesus Bomb?"

Without going into a whole metaphysical conversation, I have an quick answer (despite the rhetorical nature of the question). First, Jesus was operating out of a different consciousness, and he wouldn't need bombs to affect the change (I won't go deeply into this now). Second, in the absence of achieving the consciousness that Jesus possessed, Jesus would bomb those who were suppressing God's children; asserting their ego's dominion over other people, treating their "subjects" cruelly, killing them, causing them to live in FEAR, and, as a result of the ego-driven leader's actions, keeping the people from attaining higher consciousness and understanding of themselves. Jesus would stand up and say: "No more. You can NOT treat my brothers and sisters this way! You do it because you do not understand your true nature, but, despite my sympathy and understanding of that fact, I cannot allow you to cruelly be a cause in keeping others from their self-realization." As I said, Jesus would likely be able to impact Saddam's consciousness in ways we can't. But, the point would be to protect our "brothers and sisters" (which also includes people like the Iraq's neighbors--remember what they did when they invaded Kuwait city?--and others, including citizens of the U.S.).

So, I was wondering why liberals are upset when liberal goals are being acheived. I acknowledge that innocent people are killed in the war. No question about it, and it's a horrendous thing. However, that fact alone begs the question, do you save the lives of the innocent by not having the war, just to trade those lives and more that will be taken by the tyranical dictator, or, at best, to give those lives over to the life of fear and suppression they will live? Tough question, no doubt!

What I realized, thinking of my own views when I was a liberal Democrat, is this: In the liberal's mind, the government under which people live is invisible and has no impact. It is the individual, or even the whole of the PEOPLE that tug at the liberal heartstrings. And the people are, in liberal thinking, a wholly separate and unassociated thing from the government. I think this is the result of living in a place where the government is so benign that people can actually be thought of as separate from, and relatively unaffected by, the government under which they live. How we live, and where we take our lives and our consciousness and our personal expression IS up to us. In the liberal thinking I refer to, it's assumed that that is the case everywhere.

Here's how I arrived at that conclusion: Remember the height of the cold war, when the threat of nuclear war with the USSR seemed very real? There was a way of thinking that developed where we said, "The Soviets are just people like us. Let's let them be. Let's just get along. Who cares if they're communists? They love thier children just like we love OUR children. We're really the same." That kind of thinking was pervasive. It made its way into "Rocky IV" and Sting songs: "The Russians love their children too..."

The part about the Soviets being people just like us had the benefit of being true. The problem was, it DID ignore their government. It ignored the fact that our Soviet brothers and sisters were standing in line for bread and toilet paper because of their government. It ignored the fact that our Soviet brothers and sisters could not find their own individual expression in life, and become the person they want to be, because the government told them what they could be and punished any self-expression (recall that dissidents were jailed or killed). It ignored the fact that the "State" could jail or kill our Soviet brothers and sisters at its whim and there was no independent judiciary, or even an independent press to say anything about it. And, it ignored that the government of the Soviet Union wanted to SPREAD that wonderful way of life around the world. Including to US.

For the liberal mind, the totalitarianism that was being called Soviet style socialism was OK... whether it was OK with our Soviet brothers and sisters or not. They were in misery and had no hope, but somehow we liberals were being loving and compassionate by saying, "You're just like us, so we accept your style of government and see no reason to have that be a reason for anyone being killed!" No thought was being given to how much the PEOPLE wanted their style of government. No thought to whether or not THEY might want freedom and the same kinds of rights and ability to determine their own fate that we have.

Remember M*A*S*H? It was SO anti-war! The purpose of the war and the result of the war made no difference. The war itself was consistently referred to as stupid, or assinine, etc. The military people were fools, and the compassionate doctors who hated the war and thought only of the individual lives were the smart ones and the good guys. That was about the Korean war. Right now, North Korea is ruled by an insane dictator in an extremely oppressive regime. There's incredible poverty and starvation. Millions of people have no hope and live horrible lives. In South Korea, people are productive, wealth is being generated, and obesity is becoming a big problem (far different than starvation, huh?). Do you think the average North Korean wouldn't prefer that we, or someone, had kept fighting and had won so that they were living like the South Koreans? Hawkeye and BJ SEEMED so compassionate, but they were more than willing to leave millions to lives lived under Kim Jong Il. (Yeah... I know it's fiction, but it's typical "no war no matter what the cost" thinking).

That's where I believe the thinking of the far left goes awry. They have compassion for the people, but don't seem to have any concept that the government under which the people live makes a huge difference in the quality of those people's lives. As much as they criticize our government, it is our government's relatively benign nature that enables them to forget how truly horrible, how terrifying, how suppressing, how profound an effect a tyrannical government could have on lives. They can believe that compassion is protecting those lives as they are, and not see how compassion could be changing those conditions so people can flourish rather than mearly survive.

P.S. I just saw "Million Dollar Baby." I would bet the most liberals would look at the euthanasia and say, "It was the right thing to do. There was no quality of life! Nobody should have to live like that." But those same liberals would say that liberating Iraq and ultimately providing millions with a tremendously improved quality of life cost the lives of too many innocent Iraqis.

Iraq, Pre and Post Election

2005-02-03T08:58:00.000-08:00

Once again today I hear the rumblings (or is it rantings and ravings) of the "anti-war" crowd... at least the far left of that crowd. Not even the moving embrace between a real Iraqi woman and a real American Marine mom can move them. Apparently the election (the Iraqi election) didn't either. I must, however, tip my hat to the Democrats who are seeing that even if they disagreed with going into the war, there's clearly value there now and we need to see it through to a successful conclusion. Let's face it, there is a history of Democrats, including Bill Clinton, who have espoused the same theory as President Bush regarding the transformative power of freedom and liberty. It's really an American thought (see the Declaration of Independence!), not a Republican thought.

I would, however, at this point like to talk about the original reasons for going to Iraq. The far left meme seems to be that it was all about WMD, and, the argument goes, since there were none, Bush is a liar and the whole thing is illegitimate. First, obviously, the Clinton administration, the British, the French, the Russians, the leaders in the Middle East (who told Tommy Franks before the war that our army would definitely face chemical attack, so we'd better be ready for it), and pretty much everyone else thought that Saddam had WMD. Further, Saddam didn't do anything to disabuse the world of that notion. If Saddam really destroyed all of this weapons, his refusal to allow completely transparent inspections, and to deliver a full and accurate accounting for what was there and when, where, and how the weapons were destroyed is the all-time horrible political calculation.

The lack of WMD making Bush a liar and the war illegitimate is just a rediculous argument.

In addition, he truly was a ruthless dictator who abused his own people in horrible ways. I never understand how the same people who would go to the mat for women's rights, gay rights, and general human rights here and in other places in the world don't seem to think that the atrocities committed by Saddam, his sons, and the Ba'athist regime were reason to remove Saddam from power. It's also curious that, despite the fact that in 1998 congress passed (led by Democrats!) and Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" calling for regime change, which basically made the same arguments Bush made, including WMDs and the abuse of his own citizens, so many Democrats and liberals seem to dismiss those two arguments as fabrications by Bush.

Note: One of the reasons I became a conservative after being a liberal Democrat was the disingenuousness I saw from the Democrats. Initially, it was watching as Clinton claimed successes by Republicans as his own (and I was a Clinton fan and Democrat at the time... I thought it was brilliant politically, but not exactly full of integrity). Then, hearing Al Gore, who was the biggest hawk in the Clinton White House in calling for military action to bring about regime change in Iraq, talking about GWB "betraying" the country by going to war with Iraq... It makes me lose all respect. How can they forget that THEY were calling for regime change for the same reasons as Bush did, only they were doing it three years BEFORE 9/11. Wouldn't it seem that the same people who were behind it in 1998 would be even MORE behind it post 9/11?

As to the relationship between Saddam and terrorists, I think it's been established by now. The far lefties keep wanting to say that the administration was linking Iraq and Al-Queda to 9/11, saying it was another Bush lie. The problem, of course, is that the administration didn't link Iraq to 9/11 (past wondering immediately afterward IF Saddam had a hand in it). But, there are, according to the 9/11 Report and other intelligence, connections between Al-Queda and Iraq. You know... little things like emissaries from Saddam offering sanctuary to Bin Laden. And, clearly Saddam had links to other terrorists and terror groups.

To me, however, you can forget all of that, despite it being true. Here's my question: Zarqawi went to Iraq after Afghanistan fell (odd that he'd feel comfortable doing that if Saddam's regime wasn't open to harboring and assisting terrorists, isn't it?). If we hadn't given him something to do in Iraq, where would he have ended up? It's not like he was destined to be a farmer and we forced him to fight. He was destined to be a terrorist and we forced him to fight in Iraq instead of the East Coast of the United States.

Also, Saddam HAD violated the surrender treaty, and... what was it?... 16 UN resolutions. To me, what President Bush said to the UN was true: When your resolutions become known as completely empty threats, you become irrelevant.

I think this is closest to what was really in President Bush's mind when he decided to go to Iraq. He knew that Al Queda was emboldened by our tepid responses to their other actions. He knew that Bin Laden thought we showed all the resolve we had in Somalia, where "Black Hawk Down" led immediately to our retreat. He knew that Saddam's ability to thumb his nose not only at the UN, but directly at the U.S.A. emboldened not only terrorists, but other outlaw regimes. Why would North Korea or Iran take UN resolutions seriously when it was obvious that you could violate them with no repercussions? Why would they take sanctions seriously, when it was doubtlessly known that Saddam managed to get around them and even make a profit despite them? Slapping Saddam down was a "do NOT screw with US ANYMORE!" moment. And, you know what? It was necessary. We'd become eminently "screw-withable" and the bad guys were taking advantage. Afghanistan was an announcement that we'd get justice for 9/11. Iraq was the announcement that we have officially stopped taking sh_t.

Fortunately, given that we are Americans who believe in freedom, and who have loving hearts (really, amazingly loving hearts!), we don't merely make our announcement and leave a mess. We actually try to make people's lives better, and have a lofty goal of bringing peace and freedom to the world.

May I Just Say...

2005-02-01T21:04:00.000-08:00

YEA!!! Iraq! And a heartfelt salute to our soldiers, marines, diplomats, and our allies (we love you Brits, Aussies, and everyone else!).

Seeing the joy on the faces of the Iraqis, and knowing their bravery, brought a tear of joy to my eye. People can try to spin it negatively, or downplay it in some fashion, but I pity anyone who didn't just let it fill their heart.

Freedom is NOT "just another word for nothin' left to lose!" Freedom is the dream and the POSSIBILITY of creating something positive for yourself, your loved ones, and the world. It is the ability to express the best of who you are, without restriction. God, Allah (however you want to refer to That Which Is All) bless the Iraqis and the Afghans in finding that expression and making it valuable to the world! And bless those who made it possible for them to have that freedom!

First Post -- Welcome (probably no one but me!)

2005-02-01T19:21:00.000-08:00

There are several hopes I have for my blog, aside from self-indulgent self-expression. One is that issues other than politics are addressed thoughtfully. Another is that politics is addressed without rancor. I will endeavor not to demonize the "left" or the "right"--the blue staters or the red staters, but to point my criticism, when I have it, more directly where it belongs. I don't like it when I hear a woman say "men are ____" as though we're all the same. I don't like it when I hear a man generalize about women. I wish I had enough intimate experience with women to be able to speak with authority in generalities, but I don't! Neither do I know enough "left wing wackos" or "right wing facists" to speak in generalities about them. I do know that there's a lot of grey.

I have evolved (I know, some would say devolved, but it's my blog!) from being a liberal with Marxist leanings in college, to being fairly conservative. The conservatism is pretty recent, actually. I voted for Clinton twice. Here's what happened to my thinking politically, in case it helps in figuring me out.

I grew up in Minnesota and was a huge fan of Hubert Humphrey. Being a Democrat was a matter of pride for me, because my father was a Democrat. My father was also an entrepreneur. When I went to college I took a PoliSci course from this maniac Marxist who was incredibly interesting. I'd never heard capitalism dragged over the coals like that before. And, what he was saying made a certain kind of sense, in a utopian sort of way. Damn-it, we SHOULD all share the wealth!!! I took every class that professor taught, and became quite argumentative with my bourgeoisie father. Drove him crazy, no doubt. After all, the guy was an entrepreneur who had invented a product to solve a problem in an industry, and put himself on the line to create a company around it. That company at that point was employing 40 people at good wages, had made profits for its shareholders, and was paying taxes into the coffers of the community, state, and nation. But, my newly learned theories of how my dad was exploiting his workers because the only value added to his products was the sweat of the worker's brows... Well... I sort of forgot that there were a lot of things that went into the creation of the product that were beyond the worker's labor.

Marxism began to really lose its appeal because I started looking at the raging success of the communist governments around the world. Um... they weren't HAVING raging successes. They were having breadlines. They had unhappy looking people. They had lousy infrastructure. It occurred to me that central planning was a horrible way to run an economy, because there are so many uncontrollable variables that nothing but the chaos of a free market can find a way to produce all that is needed. For that, and other reasons, I recognized that Marxism didn't really work. Great theory. Not very workable, particularly not in the places it was tried! Plus, I must say that it appeared that what was supposed to be a very loving, parental state that took care of the citizenry and allowed for them to grow and express the highest in themselves seemed to look alot like repressive totalitarianism. Again... Marxism lost its appeal. It didn't work and it was obvious to any honest observer that it didn't.

I did remain a liberal Democrat, though, as I said, right through Clinton's second term. Then something happened. I started to ask myself about how effective "big government" programs were. It seemed to me that the schools were an ongoing mess... and it was also apparent that the schools were basically run by liberal Democrats. It was, and remains, a largely Democrat run bureaucracy. And, it's really bad at doing what it's truly intended to do.

Welfare was incredibly well intentioned, but the result was an a large and disfunctional culture that was supported by a large and disfunctional bureaucracy.

Basically, the more I looked at my liberalism, the more it seemed that the idealism of it did not translate into effective programs that made life better. What DID seem to work, however, was people with a particular combination of freedom, creativity, and motivation lifting themselves up, and inevitably dragging a lot of people with them. In other words, I suddenly started appreciating what my dad had done. I basically started looking at what works, and what doesn't work. (This is distinguished from looking at what utopian thought sounds good, and not caring that it doesn't function as theorized in the real world.) For example, my early naive thought that wealth should be evenly distributed was beautiful as an ideal, however, where the rubber met the road, people that had no incentive to create, to excel, to dream, and to work simply don't create, excel, dream or work. What do you suppose the difference would be in the number of Patents applied for in the U.S. versus the number that would have been applied for (if they had such a thing) in the old U.S.S.R., or in China, for any 10 year time span? Also, I realized that capitalism works. Yes, there can be abuses, but overall, it's really kind of a miracle.

My desire, of course, is that every capitalist would operate with integrity. I'd want them thinking long term, as well as short term, so they would take into consideration that polluting is harmful and would stop. Unfortunately, there are people in high positions that lack wisdom, and I think there is a place for government regulation. There is also a place for a pro-active consumer! That's what makes capitalism great. It's also a great flaw of some liberal thinking. For example, "We have to stop driving vehicles that burn fossil fuels." YES! Very little disagreement with that. However, you can't just order people to stop driving their cars and SUVs. What you need to do is create a BETTER PRODUCT and sell it to the consumer. I promise, if someone came up with an extremely functional vehicle that gave people all the performance they want and it ran on soy bean oil, or on hydrogen (I don't care), not only would consumers buy it, but the automobile companies would see the potential and would start production ASAP. And no one can tell me that the oil companies wouldn't allow it. Who has the infrastructure to distribute the soy bean oil (or hydrogen) and the money to build (or convert) refineries for it? They could adapt and change their business model to meet whatever the consumer's demand is. The miracle of capitalism is that it can deal with so many variables. The dynamic forces of the market and of human creativity will come up with the answers that are needed. It's pretty amazing.

So, I noticed that my liberal ideals didn't translate very well into reality. My liberal ideals were impractical ideals. They weren't pragmatic in the sense that when exposed to the real world--real people and real conditions-- they didn't work. A recent example, but one that was very disheartening for someone who at one time believed extremely strongly in the U.N. as a current and future hope of the world, is the U.N.s performance regarding Iraq. My liberal, impractical ideal is that the august world body would look at the facts (and they really didn't need to look any farther than the fact that Saddam had violated resolution after resolution, including the original surrender document) and they'd support the U.S. Or... I'll even aim lower. I'd have hoped that there would be an honest debate. Not much to ask for, is it? Didn't happen. It turns out that some very important erstwhile allies had dealings with Saddam that precluded them dealing with the issues honestly. I had to admire George W. Bush standing before the U.N. and laying out the reality for them. Agree or disagree, it took both courage (at least of the political kind) and integrity. To paraphrase: "This is what needs to be done because of all of the violations of U.N. resolutions. Either you do it and retain your credibility, or we do it, and you lose your credibility." To quote from "The Outlaw Josey Wales": Bush's words "had iron." Had the nations that were doing all their backdoor dealings with Saddam despite who Saddam was and what Saddam stood for had a modicum of "iron" in their words, it truly is possible that the whole thing could've been done diplomatically. And don't even get me started about Rwanda, Sudan, or even the Balkins. My faith in the U.N. is shot. Although, I'd still like to believe that it would be possible to reshape and realign the U.N., or create a new international body, so that it could truly make a difference. But the ideal of the U.N. being important and credible, or even particularly good at anything, is long gone.

What I see in conservatism is basically that free people, left mostly to their own devices, do great things. Everywhere I see freedom, combined with responsibility, I seem to see things moving forward in a positive way. Everywhere I see a nanny-state taking responsibility, and calling the lack of need to be responsible "freedom", I see deterioration. The other thing I see from the free and responsible is happiness and lives that seem to have meaning.

I'm definitely NOT a religious fundamentalist, by the way. I know, people who praise conservatism are supposed to be. If you read my blog on a regular basis, you'll note that I can stack my out-of-the-mainstream spiritual views against anyones! I love Jesus! I believe in Jesus. I also love and believe in Buddha, Krishna, the wisdom of Native American religion, etc.

There are a lot of things about me that wouldn't fit the normal concept of "conservative". I guess my turning from being a liberal Democrat to a "conservative" is when I realized the difference between having irrational ideals that truly seemed wonderful, but produced nothing positive once confronted with reality, and having rational ideals that could achieve lofty goals, but took a more realistic route to the achievement.

That's a little about me. Kinda long for a first post... and no links. Sorry.