Vagabondia

Bill Keller and Glen Reynolds

2006-06-26T19:56:00.000-07:00

Instapundit gave an almost sound critique of the ridiculous defense offered by Bill Keller. Keller defends the "get" at the New York Times which detailed a government program that tracks finances of possible terrorists. Bush has hammered the paper, with good reason. However, I'm going to focus on a the word "gave" used by both Glen Reynolds (Instapundit.com) and Bill Keller himself.

Keller says in his defense

The power [of the press] that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly.

Reynolds retorts

The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn't give freedom to the press.

Now, I agree with what Reynolds is arguing. However, the problem is that the Founding Father's did not give Americans anything other than the law. The law, of course, is "the laws of nature and of nature's God" and the Constitution. They did not give, or grant freedoms to anyone. Alexander Hamilton argued as such in Federalist 84:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

The freedom to print is a natural right, not given by any government and only given up by consent of the governed. Those are the principles America were built on, and until we consciously deny such principles, they are what we must live up to.

Otherwise, big fan of Instapundit. Good stuff can be found there.

Youz Want Dat Whiz Wit?

2006-06-12T10:59:00.000-07:00

Last week a story hit the local Philadelphia news and quickly went national. Owner Joe Vento of Geno's Steaks in South Philly put a sign up at the order window saying, "This is America. When ordering speak English."

Now if you're not from Philly you're probably asking yourself, "So what?" If some street food vendor wants to put a sign up making himself look like a bigot, what's the big deal? The big deal is that Geno's is a Philadelphia icon. Every tourist that comes to Philly has four things on their to do list.

See Independence Hall
See Liberty Bell
Run up the steps of the Art Museum, raise you hands in the air like Rocky and yell, 'Yo Adrianne!'
Get a real Philly cheesesteak from Geno's Steaks

On a side note it's ironic Geno's would be requiring customers to speak English considering nobody in South Philly speaks the language well. Ordering a cheesesteak at Geno's goes something like this:

"Can I get a cheesesteak please?"

"Whiz?"

"No"

"Youz want dat wit?"

"Yes."

To explain, you just ordered a cheesesteak with provolone (not cheez whiz) and fried onions (just 'wit' for short).

When the story ran on the local news, local talk radio picked it up and everyone quickly chose sides. Many people support Joe's decision to put up the sign and say it's about time someone said something. Not surprisingly, the Libs and illegal immigrant crowd came down against Geno. Many people who sympathize with the illegal immigrants are rational about the situation. The Day Without an Immigrant Coalition is simply saying they will take their business across the street to Pat's, Geno's rival. This is the correct attitude to have. If you don't like Joe's way of doing business, don't do business at Geno's. But other groups are going too far in their outrage.

Juntos, a local Hispanic neighborhood organization began setting up a protest by sending people to Geno's to order in Spanish. They may pursue court action if refused service. They equate this sign to the days of segregation when blacks couldn't sit at the counter and had to ride the back of the bus. This is taking things a bit too far.

But the thing that really bothers me is now the city is thinking of getting involved. City Councilman Jim Kenney has asked Geno's to take the sign down. He says Geno's is "an iconic institution and business, one that is that visible for many of our residents, for the region and the world." The problem is Geno's doesn't belong to the city. It belongs to Joe Vento.

I support Joe's right to hang the sign. It's his establishment. He's trying to make a point and our Constitution gives him the right to speak his mind. I also support anyone's right to call Joe a bigot and refuse to do business at Geno's. That includes the city if they choose to no longer promote Geno's as a Philadelphia tourist attraction as they have been doing for decades. That is their right and that's what free markets are all about. But if the city tries to do anything to put Joe out of business, like pulling permits or trying to inspect him out of business, I'll be extremely upset and disappointed.

"Sacred Honor"

2006-05-31T21:07:00.000-07:00

Cannot say I am all that surprised, but Michael Moore is getting sued:

A veteran who lost both arms in the war in Iraq is suing filmmaker Michael Moore for $85 million, alleging that Moore used snippets of a television interview without his permission to falsely portray him as anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

We are a sue happy society, so this isn't all that shocking that someone would (finally) go after Moore and his vile smear. However, this is what I was particular interested in:

Sgt. Peter Damon, a National Guardsman from Middleborough, is asking for damages because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation," according to the lawsuit filed in Suffolk Superior Court last week. [Emphasis mine]

At the end of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson refers to the "sacred Honor" that is being pledged by the signers of the document (and by extension, all those involved in the Revolution). To men, and I'd assume a brave person like Sgt. Damon is a real man, personal honor and pride is important. Are we so feminized in American society to believe that people like Lincoln, Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Jackson, and even Bush and Kerry are not in part driven by their honor as men? I'd be willing to assume a brave soldier like Sgt. Damon is truly ashamed of the way Moore (as he does to many) exploited his remarks.

I'm not typically big on lawsuits, but this is one I'd like to see work. People like Moore cannot continue to insult people without any regard for the accuracy of his work. For more on this and Michael Moore in general, check out (the biased) Moorewatch.com.

Sacrifice of the Soldier

2006-05-29T13:42:00.000-07:00

As the Twin Towers fell on September 11th, 2001, the event united Americans in ways never before seen by the non-World War II generations. The attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941 also shattered the natural divisions within the United States. In the aftermath of both conflicts, all that mattered was that Americans, not simply human beings, were killed. Patriotism, the flame that ignites a political community, is seen time and time again during national crisis and tragedy. But what is mandatory to a political community is trust, which allows the motto e pluribus unum to have meaning. Trust must be the foundation of any society that wishes to form a government based on consent of the ruled. Peaceful transition of power, which is the cornerstone of Western representative democracies, is completely dependent on the trust the minority has in the majority of the same community.

In the book A New Birth of Freedom: Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War, Harry V. Jaffa details how it is possible to have an American political community. The Founding Fathers understood that within a free society, the risk of an overbearing majority will always be apparent. But trust, which politically means that the ruled believe the ruling will adhere to the laws that protect all including those absent from power, always falls at the feet of the minority who must choose to accept their own political weakness. Therefore, the standard cannot simply be sentiment or sympathy. It must be rooted in the ideas perfectly expressed by Thomas Jefferson as “the laws of nature and nature’s God”. From the natural right doctrine, the American political community is cemented in the idea of equal rights in the law, i.e., the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln understood this best as he attempted to appeal to the South’s mind after his ascension to the presidency. In this instance, he would fail practically but theoretically succeed. Relying on both the Founders and Abraham Lincoln, it can be affirmed that the social compact, understood through natural law and imperfectly realized in the Constitution, underlies all that allows for an American political community.

Trust, without a doubt, is the prerequisite for any political community to take form. The American political community is based upon the principle of popular government, which resonates from the ground up through universal voting rights. However, during the American Revolution, it was a difficult proposition to explain and implement. It was incumbent on the Founding Fathers and the American people to first create a semblance of trust within the nation. Practically, Tories, which were Colonists loyal to the British Crown, were victims of “mob violence” and driven from the colonies. But this merely eliminates declared enemies of the Revolution. The question of trust is still left unanswered. Therefore, it is necessary to draw from “the laws of nature and nature’s God.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Summary View of the Rights of British America where he explains the natural right doctrine as it applies to those in America. Unlike the views expressed by some such as Russell Kirk, Jefferson’s argument against the British government’s abuses of the Colonies is not pointing to “the rights of Englishmen.” Jefferson is in truth arguing that British Americans possessed rights that pertain to all men, equally and always. Jefferson first argues that nature had endowed all British Americans, as their Saxon ancestors did before them, with the right “of departing from the country” where they were born. But, as Jaffa points out, rational decisions are made as to where one will later be located. And this migration was ultimately guided by the objective of “promoting public happiness.” If civic happiness is the goal of one’s location, which was guided by rational choice given by nature, then it is necessary to have government based on the conditions that protect the natural rights of man.

“[W]hen… it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands…” is the beginning of the Declaration of Independence, also written by Thomas Jefferson. The great uniting document of America explicitly outlines the rights of all men. These rights derive from “the laws of nature and nature’s God,” which could more readily be expressed as natural law. According to Jefferson, writing for all Americans, “[A]ll men are created equal… and endowed… with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The idea of equality, which flows from the natural right doctrine, is penned here to show that men are born free and therefore own themselves. If one is born free, one therefore consents to be ruled, since all are in sole possession of themselves from birth. In the Summary View, Jefferson notes that the king is “the chief officer of the people” and is part of the government which is “erected for [the people’s] use.” Jefferson assumes that all power and authority first begins among the people who compose society. Then government only has certain “definite power” that are used to the people, thereby working for the people’s “happiness.”

Government derives from the consent of the people, and the government’s objective is to defend the “life, liberty, and… pursuit of happiness” of the people, and if government becomes “destructive of these ends,” it is necessary and a “right” of those who are ruled to change the government. Rule is not an immediately natural existence. Through society, men gather into a political community. But it is only through the consent of the people, may government be proper. Jefferson would see the right of revolution being succeeded by the “right of free election” with his election in 1800. And the right of revolution is the base of which all the right of the people derive. To summarize, all men are equal because of “the laws of nature and nature’s God.” Since this is so, government is only legitimate if it is created through consent. The right of revolution is the guardian of these rights. Only through this understanding can a social compact, i.e., the Constitution, be successfully implemented.

The American government is one that resonates from the people, or society. In debating the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton asks the readers of The Federalist if they would accept such a proposition: Americans must decide “whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.” The operative word is “choice,” meaning the people of America are to decide their fate, much as Jefferson recalled the migration of the Saxons and later the Pilgrims and other British Americans. The Constitution is the social compact of the American people. But the election of 1800 is the culmination of the social compact which allows for power to derive from the people. Only then the will of society can be seen in government.

Thomas Jefferson, who defeated John Adams in the election of 1800, fulfilled the idea of the social compact. Jaffa compares the election of 1800 with the election of 1861 in that the winner had to persuade the public, both majority and minority, that the loser of the election was not the loser of “a war.” Jefferson says in his inaugural, “We are all republicans-we are all federalists.” This statement alone hammers out what it means to have a social compact. The “federalists,” represented by John Adams, had become the minority of America. But they, being part of the American political community, were in a sense, republicans. This appears to be improbable on the one hand, but Jaffa explains how this can be possible. Drawing from Aristotle’s definition of friendship, justice is an inherent quality of friendship. American citizens can be seen as friends of a community. Lincoln would also appeal to friendship in his first inaugural address, attempting to stop Southern succession.

James Madison, who wrote the Virginia Resolutions attacking the Alien and Sedition Act, argued that the social compact is understood through the Constitution. Here, the states were used as a vehicle to defend individual liberty, but the states were not used in a manner to defend a “state’s right” as such. It is of interest to note that Madison used the state of Virginia to uphold the social compact, e.g., individual liberty, but discourse in pursuant of ballots, not bullets, were used for political change. Lincoln, writing to Congress, states that, “[B]allots are the rightful and peaceful successors of bullets….” This is to say that clearly, the social compact was set concretely prior to 1860 and succession is not permitted. Madison, in an essay entitled Sovereignty, states that the will of the majority must be seen as the will of the entire society. The social compact was unanimous, as any political community must be prior to its formation. After formation, the great balance of majority and minority rights begin to fester. But, as stated above, the right of revolution defends all who are bound by the social compact and the natural rights that were present before and during.

The social compact, which binds together a political community, is realized through the Constitution. However only through the natural law embodied perfectly in the Declaration of Independence can there be a social compact to be entered in. The natural law doctrine comes before the social compact, but the natural rights of man are defended by the right of revolution on which America was founded on. Both the Founders and Lincoln understood the importance of the social compact and its affirmation through majority rule. However, trust is the linchpin of the American political community. It was this breakdown of trust that allowed the American Civil War and the crisis that almost destroyed a nation. Soldiers, however, saved the nation through their individual sacrifices. What civilians do to a political community is unfair to the soldiers who have payed the ultimate price. It is why Lincoln will dedicate America in the Gettyburg Address to the fallen Union soldiers who "gave the last full measure of devotion."

References (e-mail for exact page numbers):

Jaffa, Harry V. A New Birth of Freedom: Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000.

Peterson, Merrill D. The Portable Jefferson. New York: Penguin Books, 1977.

Rossiter, Clinton. The Federalist Papers. New York: A Signet Classic, 1961.
Strauss, Leo and Joseph Cropsey.

Reality Foreclosing in on San Diegans

2006-05-11T06:33:00.000-07:00

A couple of years ago, the Indigent Girlfriend and I were astounded by a friend of ours who bought a $380 thousand home with no money down. That friend has since sold that home and moved to Texas. She was the smart one. Our other friends that have recently purchased homes have done so with no money down and something called an adjustable rate, interest only loan.

I'm not about to explain all of these mortgages in detail because I don't really know that much about them. However, when I was in Waveland, MS last year, there was a mortgage banker from Illinois a few bunks down, and he seemed to believe the loans being approved in California were way out of balance in terms of mortgage-to-income and other indicators. He predicted that as interest rates rose, so would foreclosures.

The rate at which borrowers are foreclosing on their mortgages has doubled since last year, as high-risk financing has become the norm for home buyers in San Diego County. Local experts wonder whether the recent spike in foreclosures is a harbinger of horrors to come or of the much-hyped "soft landing" for the local real estate market.

Perhaps even more indicative of the state of the housing market, in January 2005 no properties were seized by lenders through the foreclosure process in San Diego County. Every one of the homeowners who had defaulted on their loans managed to offload their property without the bank closing in on them. But last month, lenders seized 66 properties through foreclosure processes. That's almost as many as in the whole of 2005.

Obviously! Of course foreclosures are going to rise along with interest rates, and the Federal Reserve has just raised the rates again yesterday, to five percent which is a six-year high. It stands to reason that some people will not be able to afford the effect that will have on their adjustable rate mortgage payment, and they will have to sell the house or be foreclosed upon.

Having said that, there is a greater problem in San Diego and southern California in general. People are getting what I would classify and complete sucker loans. I personally know people who have purchased homes with interest only loans, and now I read that some San Diegans are using something called a negative-amortization loan where the home-owner doesn't even make a complete interest payment, the balance of the loan actually increases each month.

In 2005, more than 70 percent of home loans in the county were interest-only or negative-amortization loans, according to Loan Performance LLC, a San Francisco-based firm that analyzes lending statistics. With interest-only loans, a borrower only pays off the interest on their loan every month for an initial time period. With negative-amortization loans, the borrower actually pays less than their interest payment each month, meaning that the amount they are borrowing grows over time.

Loan Performance reported that in 2005, 26.7 percent of loans made to homebuyers and those refinancing their mortgages were negative-amortization loans. In 2004, that number was 9.9 percent. In 2003, it was 1.1 percent.

In addition, the vast majority of loans issued in San Diego County in recent years have been adjustable-rate mortgages. The interest rates for these loans are indirectly tied to short-term federal interest rates. Those rates have been rising recently, which means many people's mortgage payments have been increasing, leading to an increased chance that they will succumb to foreclosure.

In other words, 96.7 percent of all home loans in 2005 were made to people who could not really afford to buy a home. Home buyers have gotten away with this in the past because the value of their property has been sky-rocketing, allowing them to refinance and ease the burden of the rising mortgage payments. However, property values have flattened out in San Diego. The equity fairy isn't going to come riding in a white stallion to save anyone, not for a while at least. That will mean more foreclosures and more foreclosures will mean more properties on the market. It becomes a self-sustaining problem until all the would-be home owners who cannot afford a home in San Diego have been weeded out.

To be fair, some of the folks who go into these sucker loans were speculators. They thought they were going to make a fortune in real-estate and bought properties with adjustable rate interest only loans expecting a reasonably profitable short-term turn-around. These amateurs will be cleaned out of the market in the next couple of years.

It used to be that speculators could at least become land-lords and rent their properties if they had to hold on to it for longer than initially planned, but that is no longer the case. For example, the 1550 square foot house I am living in goes for about $525 thousand on the market, but I pay $1,625 per month in rent. That is admittedly a pretty good deal, but nobody in this neighborhood is paying more than $2,000 per month in rent. That's the ceiling on what the market will bear from renters. Now, by the time you add mandatory insurance and taxes to a 30-year $525 thousand loan, it starts looking a lot like $2,700 or $2,800 per month. So, speculators and distressed home-owners can no longer count on renters to come in and save the day.

This gap between rents and mortgages will only get worse until mortgages come down, especially since residents are fleeing San Diego County.

For the first time in more than three decades, the population of San Diego County declined last year, joining other California coastal counties that are losing their allure as high housing prices drive home-buyers to more affordable regions.

The surprising reversal of the county's long-standing population gains is revealed in U.S. Census Bureau estimates released today showing thousands more people leaving the county than moving in from other parts of the state and elsewhere.

In terms of real estate, this is a perfect storm. However, I don't believe this is going to be that big bursting bubble that everyone keeps talking about. I don't think that is going to happen. Don't get me wrong, I would be doing back-flips if I woke up to tomorrow and San Diego housing values were half what they are today (that's not real popular at parties). So, in addition to flushing under-funded speculators and home-owners, the flattening of real estate values will also dry out the other equity-based spending that has been happening in the county. All those people who have been refinancing once a year and splurging on big screen TVs and new cars will no longer be able to do so.

I don't pretend to know to what extent this is happening nationwide, and I don't know what impact this will have on the economy, but it can't be good.

The American Mind at War

2006-05-10T19:51:00.000-07:00

Over at The Remedy, they linked to an eloquent Victor David Hanson article over at Real Clear Politics. Besides the fact that it is pretty accurate, it also goes a long way to exploring the deteriorating American mind. I'd like to go over a few portions:

Our present leisure, wealth, and high technology fool us into thinking that we are demi-gods always be able to trump both human and natural disasters. Accordingly, we become frustrated that we cannot master every wartime obstacle, as we seem otherwise to be able to do with computers or cosmetic surgery. Then, without any benchmarks of comparison from the past, we despair that our actions are failed because they are not perfect.

I'm reminded of Martin Heidegger's argument against the technological age we now find ourselves in. All alive today have seen man triumph over all of nature's immediate obstacles. Heidegger, in his famous Der Spiegel (.pdf) interview said that he was "frightened" by the pictures that returned from the moon. It was one of those moments that man was going further and further to master and manipulate the objective world he sees, thereby destroying its mysteriousness. This blend of Cartesian "subject" observing objective reality and Nietzschean unfettered will is where we are, for the most part, today. This means that everything must be faster, less strenuous, and most of all, flawless. These things taken alone and with the proper mind set, are not necessarily bad. Hanson, correctly, sees man taking slow Internet connection frustration to the uncertainties of war. Of course, nothing less is to be expected of modernity.

Perhaps we have forgotten such modesty because we have ignored the study of history that alone offers us guidance from our forbearers. It now competes as an orphan discipline with social science, -ologies and -isms that entice us into thinking that the more money and education of the present can at last perfect the human condition and thus consign our flawed past to irrelevance.

The single greatest obstacle facing modern man, aside from our historical amnesia, is the new religion science (all, including physical and social) has become for man. There is no doubt that science is now the "opium of the masses," to use Marx's phrase. The current surge of Christian activism in politics is a direct reaction to this scientific dogma. While I agree with the sentiment, I disagree with the solution. More on this below.

The result is that while sensitive young Americans seem to know what correct words and ideas they must embrace, they derive neither direction nor solace from past events. After all, very few could identify Vicksburg or Verdun, much less have any idea where or what Iwo Jima was. In such a lonely prison of the present what are historically ignorant Americans to make of a Fallujah or an Iranian madman's threat of annihilation other than such things can't or shouldn't or must not happen to us?

Thomas Jefferson sent a note to his nephew, Peter Carr in 1785. In it, he lists for his nephew, who was fifteen, as to which subjects he should begin to study, in what order, and what other activities he should do. He gives him the task of studying the ancients, including Plato, Cicero, and many others. The key is that there is something permanent about human nature. We can, if we examine the historical events and individuals carefully, learn about those in the past and of today. Today (and I am a product of contemporary education) the great figures of the past are passed over. A shame to say the least.

They would add that it is not unusual to be confronted with new crises even after such apparently easy victories.

It is even more accurate to say that the nihilism and radical historicism, represented by Heidegger and John C. Calhoun, were defeated physically on the battlefield, but become victorious in the minds of the triumphant Americans. This is seen so clearly in Harry V. Jaffa's A New Birth of Freedom. That is the current state of the American mind at war. Disillusioned with human nature (because, quite amazingly, human creativity has yet to conquer it's stubborn permanence), Americans today assume, as Hanson points out, that our cause as a political community is either unjust or handled by incompetent politicians (which, by the way, may or may not be the case) if victory cannot be perfectly found.

The option for modern Americans is, as Leo Strauss said, either progress or return. We can either continue to believe, foolishly, that we can and should bend everything to our own will, regardless of the standards we once admitted existed. There is no doubt that human creativity is a source of good and has given Americans wealth never seen on such a grand scale. The question, of course, is are we going to say there is something right and wrong about particular activities, or is the only "good" the mastery of the world and the human mind, i.e., anything goes. From here, Heidegger's argument was correct. However, the choice clearly is the nihilism of the present, or the substance of the American Founding. Seeing the current state of the American mind, it is hard to be optimistic about the latter.

I Don't Care About High Gas Prices

2006-05-10T11:11:00.000-07:00

And neither do you. How do I know this? By and large, there have been no changes in driving habits. I'm not driving any less. In fact, I'm driving more and if traffic is any indicator, I'm not the only one (the day without immigrants notwithstanding).

Dale Franks has a post at QandO Blog examining the corollary between the price of oil and the price of gasoline and marvels at the uniformity, almost as if it "were governed by a...a...law or something!" Some of the commenters to his post still challenge his post with absurd statements like, "when prices rise, margins should decline, period".

Roger Hedgecock, a local talk show host here in San Diego, took an interesting call a few weeks ago that dealt with subject in a simple, yet masterful way (paraphrasing):

Roger: "How much did you pay for your home?"
Caller: "About $150 thousand with another $100 thousand in improvements over the years."

(ed) The caller's home was easily worth $500 thousand in today's real estate market.

Roger: "Ok, so that's $250 thousand. Will you sell me your home for $300 thousand?"
Caller: "Of course not."
Roger: "What do you mean 'of course not'. You aren't going to be like the oil companies and gouge me are you?"

This was an amazing demonstration of supply, demand, and how such principles are manipulated by everyone, not just big, greedy oil companies.

Of course, the same principle works against those arguing that drilling in ANWR will somehow impact gasoline prices (either now or in the future). Let's I start the Indigent Oil Company and am awarded the rights for extraction in ANWR. I have begun and now have many barrels of oil from ANWR. The question is how much will I charge for each barrel of oil? Today, I would sell them for a little over $70 each. Period, that's it.

I know what some of you are thinking, "Wait a minute, how much did it cost you to extract the oil?" The truth is that it doesn't matter one bit; it's completely irrelevant. You don't believe me? Let's say it costs me $100 per barrel to extract the oil from ANWR. Who is going to pay $110 per barrel when it can be purchased anywhere else for around $70 per barrel? What if it costs me $5 to extract each barrel of oil. Well, like the caller with the house on the beach in San Diego, why would I sell a barrel of oil for $10, $20, or even $30 when I can get around $70 per barrel all day long.

Don't get me wrong. I support drilling in ANWR because Alaskans support drilling in ANWR, and I believe it is Alaskans who should get to decide the matter. Also, higher oil prices benefit the host nation. So, while our politicians are going after American oil companies, nations like Iran, China, Russia, and Venezuela are reaping a windfall. I prefer the United States to supply as much of its own oil as possible for environmental, diplomatic, and security reasons.

MORE: Tom Maguire

Countdown to Judicial Coup in San Diego

2006-05-09T00:11:00.000-07:00

Lt. Smash has a big Monday update over at the Indepundit, including this article on the cross at the Mount Soledad War Memorial.

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders wants the city to continue its 17-year legal battle to preserve the Mount Soledad cross, despite a federal judge's order to remove the religious symbol or face a $5,000-per-day penalty.

“This is not about a Christian symbol,” Sanders said yesterday at a rally of cross supporters at Soledad Natural Park in La Jolla. “What this boils down to is preserving a nationally registered war memorial that is an integral part of San Diego history.”

It's not even so much about being an integral part of the war memorial for me. This is about judges who use a tortured interpretation of the law as an excuse to dictate their own personal policies upon an electorate whose voice has already been clearly heard on this issue, twice now. It's one thing if the majority of voters choose the other candidate or the other side of an issue, hey that's part of living in a democratic community and a democratic nation. It's another thing if there is some injustice or abuse of power for which the court is correcting in its proper role as a balacing government power. However, it's something entirely different when a judge invents and dictates new limitations and restrictions on the heretofore protected rights of the citizens.

Damn it, this really boils my blood. I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but more than any other, the subject of these rogue jurists frustrates and aggravates me to no end. The fact that our elected representatives seem paralyzed against them is incomprehensible. I mean we do have three branches of government with balance of power and all that, correct? The legislative body and executive body are countering each other all the time. Why is it we never see the Judicial Branch challenged more often? Certainly, a constitutional amendment is not the only defense against this judicial coup?

Anyway, StopTheACLU also has more information and an online petition to sign. Personally, I don't sign online petitions. In fact, I think they are rather childish and completely ineffective. However, I signed this one hoping it would make me feel a little better, but it didn't. Maybe it will work for you.

SEE ALSO: Freedom Through Oppression

MAD?

2006-05-08T17:28:00.000-07:00

Drudge is linking to a Jerusalem Post article, quoting Shimon Peres:

Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Monday that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map."

"Cowboy!" Well, not really. Mr. Peres is saying exactly what Iran must hear: You cannot scare a nation that does not care about the "international community." It does care to an extent, but that extent merely goes as far as Washington. It is no accident that the U.S. and Israel are united and the U.S. surely holds Israel back from truly defending itself, but it must be remembered Israel will indeed act in its self-interest when cornered. Mr. Peres continues:

"Teheran is making a mockery of the international community's efforts to solve the crisis surrounding Iran's nuclear program," Peres told Reuters, adding that "Iran presents a danger to the entire world, not just to us."

What is the "mockery?" I thought it was pretty clear, with the ignored sanctions in regard to Saddam's Iraq, the genocide in Rwanda and Sudan, the UN makes a mockery of the international community. Iran is merely doing what it can do to secure its own security and regional supremacy. Of course, the question is when will truly political nations-Israel and the United States-again act in the best interests of themselves and the world?

Cue Up Some More U.S. Prisoner Abuse Questions

2006-05-08T11:53:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Just in Time! BBC: US 'acts to end prisoner abuse' 08 MAY 2006

The only United Nations organization more grotesque than the Iraqi Oil-For-Food program, is the Sex-For-Food program running in Africa. It might be time for Secretary General Kofi Annan to cue up another day of rehashing Abu Ghraib abuses by U.S. forces because the sexual abuses perpetrated by UN organizations and within the UN itself are spinning out of control.

Soldiers from the UN peacekeeping force, aid workers, and teachers are among those who demand sex from girls some as young as eight.

After this was first exposed in camps for internally displaced people four years ago, even before the war ended, the international community put in safeguards that should have stopped it happening again. But the research found that, "sex in exchange for goods, services and as a means of survival was becoming a more common option for children to support themselves and their families".

The most visible signs of abuse are close to garrisons of UN peacekeeping soldiers. In one village a 17-year-old girl said that most of her teenage friends were having sex with Ghanaian soldiers from the nearby base. Like many of them she has a baby fathered by a Ghanaian soldier.

So, a child sex-for-food program on a continent where AIDS is most prevelent is reported to the United Nations four years ago, and yet it continues. Well, at least the performance of the United Nations' when tackling problems is consistent if nothing else. Not to worry, I fully expect yet another secret U.S. gulag to come under investigation in the next day or two, but that won't make this little problem go away.

DNC Challenges States' Voter ID Laws

2006-05-08T07:03:00.000-07:00

I find our national elections to be fascinating, not just for the policy discussions and partisan mud-slinging, but also for the influence the political parties attempt to impose on state election laws. Every state determines their own voter ID requirements in accordance with Federal law, but Howard Dean and his Democrat National Committee are not happy with that arrangement (hat tip: Election Law Blog)

Dean said the law is "part of a national Republican program to disenfranchise voters" and drive down voter turnout.

A similar law passed in Georgia was overturned by the courts, and Dean said he thinks the same will eventually happen to Indiana's law. Dean said the case could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. "We're going to take this as far as we have to," he said.

Secretary of State Todd Rokita, though, said reports Tuesday showed "no systemic problem" and that in any case the legal appeal will have to be on the evidence already offered in the court case.

"The way the law is crafted, there is always a way for (people without the necessary ID) to vote if they wanted to," he said, citing provisional ballots, which are counted if the person later produces the ID or cites religious scruples against the photo ID. - IndyStar

I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and watched the DNC battle Nader's ballot qualification state-by-state in 2004. So, this kind of move is not at all beneath them.

What the DNC doesn't seem to care about is that every time an illegal ballot is cast by an unqualified voter, a legal ballot is cancelled out and the qualified voter who cast that ballot is disenfranchised. So, using Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker's own standards, "If this law disenfranchises one voter", then perhaps we should also care if the overturning of this law would make it more likely that a legitimate voter would be disenfranchised.

In other bone-headed election moves, 56 Republicans in the House are ready to allow billingual ballot requirements expire this week (hat tip: Election Law Blog). I doubt there is much stomach in Washington for this effort. Even Senator Sensenbrenner can't support it.

"If [immigrants] want to achieve the American dream, they better learn how to read and function in English," Sensenbrenner said. "But this deals with the right to vote, and these people are United States citizens; they are not illegal immigrants. It seems to me these people should not be confused because they don't have the proper instruction about how to vote on ballots for the candidates of their choice." - LA Times

It's one thing to require proper voter identification to protect citizens from disenfranchisement, but to have naturalized citizens denied voter instructions in the language they most understand is just plain wrong.

Oxymoronic House Select Intelligence Committee

2006-05-07T13:51:00.000-07:00

Oh, this one is so rich! I held off on it because I just couldn't believe our House Select Intelligence Committee could be so misled so badly. No, I'm not talking about how the Bush Administration supposedly pulled the wool over their eyes in making the case for an invasion of Iraq. I'm talking about a report from Reuters, printed in the Washington Post and at FOX News:

"Battlefield 2" ordinarily shows U.S. troops engaging forces from China or a united Middle East coalition. But in a modified video trailer posted on Islamic Web sites and shown to lawmakers, the game depicts a man in Arab headdress carrying an automatic weapon into combat with U.S. invaders.

"I was just a boy when the infidels came to my village in Blackhawk helicopters," a narrator's voice said as the screen flashed between images of street-level gunfights, explosions and helicopter assaults.

Well, DanceThisMess over at the ChronWatch forums posts a link to a couple of gamer sites containing some interesting information. You can download the video and read the posts of the person who made it by following this link.

The ominous quote about a being "just a boy when the infidels came" may be recognizeable by some readers. It is the voice of Trey Parker, one of the creators of South Park, and the "just a boy" speech was lifted directly from the movie Team America: World Police in the making of the video. Truly an embarrassment for our media and our congressional intelligence.

Dolphins, PETA, and Reason

2006-05-07T13:03:00.000-07:00

Just an amazing piece of research done in the United Kingdom. It appears that dolphins have more human-like communication than once thought:

DOLPHINS may be closer to humans than previously realised, with new research showing they communicate by whistling out their own “names”.
The evidence suggests dolphins share the human ability to recognise themselves and other members of the same species as individuals with separate identities. The research, on wild bottlenose dolphins, will lead to a reassessment of their intelligence and social complexity, raising moral questions over how they should be treated.

I am not necessarily surprised that dolphins, or any creatures on Earth, have very unique mental faculties. What has surprised me is how some claim, that just because something is a living being it means "rights" shall be applied to it. In particular, this is straight from PETA's website:

PETA believes that animals have rights and deserve to have their best interests taken into consideration, regardless of whether they are useful to humans. Like you, they are capable of suffering and have an interest in leading their own lives; therefore, they are not ours to use—for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other reason. [Emphasis mine]

The creation of animal rights is an interesting phase in human history. This issue has been around since the ancient Greeks, and Immanuel Kant wrote an essay entitled Why We Have No Obligations to Animals. But the appropriation of rights is something of a new religion, filling the void of our deceased God. I was attracted to this article because it does raise a good point, namely the "raising [of] moral questions" in human/dolphin interaction.

"PETA believes," and interestingly does not know, that animals have "rights." But how is it possible that PETA could come to the conclusion that animals have rights at all? Simply put, it is the rejection that reason can play a role in understanding the objective world around us.

First, how do we know humans have rights? It certainly is not because of the natural sympathy one human has toward another human. Sympathy can be used for purposes other than compassion, such as Nazism or other brands of fascism. There is no argument against fascism if sentiment alone is the standard. Nature, therefore, must be the standard, The Founding Fathers understood this and Lincoln dedicated his entire presidency to affirm the principles derived from nature. All men are born with a free mind, to which they own and all men have free, individual reason. So if man owns himself and can therefore reason his existence and the objective world around him, there are certain rights that necessarily must be applied to all men. However, animals, do not fit into this category.

Nietzsche tells us that cows have no history because they neither contemplate their existence nor their morality. Being driven to their demise means as much as being herded from unseen danger. They cannot, therefore, fulfill their natural purpose of existence unless man does so for them. Ants fulfill their natural purpose upon conception. But neither cows nor ants have rights applicable to them. Their respective subjugation or extermination is not wrong if done for human betterment and only right if leads to said betterment.

On the other hand, dolphins, like dogs or gorillas, have higher reason and must exert some labor to fulfill their natural purpose. Dolphins must gather into groups and have emotional interaction; dogs yearn for love and attention and gorillas have shown to be highly intelligent. In short, they are all more human, not less. The cow and the ant are far removed from man, and this is most obvious due to their lack of reason, but more clear with their natural purposes being realized after subjection or immediately upon conception. Therefore, it is harmful TO MAN to abuse, eat, or otherwise be cruel to dolphins, dogs, or gorillas. Dolphins, therefore, deserve special care apart from other sea animals. This must not give man a blank check in treating other animals however he chooses. Anything that harms a man's soul and or psyche is wrong, and being unnecessarily cruel to lower species does just that.

It is only possible to contemplate the "rights" of animals when human rights have become devoid of substance. The rejection of nature as the standard has made it possibly to go beyond human rights and allow emotion, not reason, to prescribe what a human right is. Only then is it possible to equate human rights with that of an animal. In sum, by advocating for animal rights, PETA is advocating for nothing.

Reference: Harry V. Jaffa, A New Birth of Freedom.

Welcome to The SandBox

2006-05-07T08:42:00.000-07:00

I've added a new blog to the Blog Roll. It's called The Sandbox. It's well worth visiting regularly.

Dying Under Government Protection

2006-05-06T10:07:00.000-07:00

Alex Tabarrok's entry at Marginal Revolution (hat tip: Chicago Boyz) examines the latest DC Circuit Court ruling that would prevent the FDA from interfering with a dying patients' access to life-saving drugs. I'm having trouble finding the part in the Constitution that permits the government to deny dying patients access to life-saving drugs that are not yet government approved, but apparently someone along the line thought that power was granted to them.

I wonder how many doctors or hospitals fail to recommend life-saving treatments because lack of government approval leaves them vulnerable to expensive malpractice litigation? I also wonder what the relationship is between the FDA and pharmaceutical companies? I guess it would take a little more research than I am willing to do... but I can't help myself (PDF):

The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs (“the Alliance”) seeks to enjoin the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) from continuing to enforce a policy barring the sale of new drugs that the FDA has determined, after Phase I trials on human beings, are sufficiently safe for expanded human testing (hereafter “post-Phase I investigational new drugs”). More specifically, the Alliance seeks access to potentially life-saving post-Phase I investigational new drugs on behalf of mentally competent, terminally ill adult patients who have no alternative government- approved treatment options (hereafter “terminally ill patients”).

Are you kidding me? So, the Alliance is not trying to prevent the government from initiating a policy barring terminal patients from potentially life-saving drugs, it's attempting to get the government to discontinue its existing policy! As bad as that sounds, its not the scariest part of the court document. How about this little gem in the ruling from the bench:

Despite the FDA’s claims to the contrary, therefore, it cannot be said that government control of access to potentially life-saving medication “is now firmly ingrained in our understanding of the appropriate role of government,”...

"It cannot be said"? What in the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you telling me if it could be said that government interference in life-saving medical care was ingrained in our understanding that it suddenly becomes law of the land? God save us all, lawyers truly are the modern day cannibals of the Western world, devouring first a finger, next the hand, then an arm and a leg.

Is that how it works now? Initiate a government sheme or policy to get a toe-hold in our understanding and keep the pressure on until it becomes firmly ingrained?

Madonna is the New Marie Osmond?

2006-05-06T08:05:00.000-07:00

I've been using the MSN service to buy music for my Creative Labs Zen Vision M and other personal use. Well, tonight, it was the Indigent Daughter's turn to select some songs for purchase, with her own money, of course.

Her first selection was Hollaback Girl by Gwen Stefani. Now, I like Gwen Stefani because I like what she has done with No Doubt and I hear her all the time on the radio. There is just one problem. Gwen Stefani's entire Love Angel Music Baby album contains explicit language.

This is important to me because my daughter is only 9 and is not permitted to use bad language. Since she will be punished for using bad language, I don't use bad language around her and don't tolerate it being used around her. It would kinda be like entrapment or something, in my opinion. Along those same lines, getting her an album stuffed full of explicit lyrics would also be a setup... no, not punishing her for 'slipping' is not an option, but I would rather not have to punish her at all. So, I don't want to put her into a situation where she's going to be singing out, or along, and use bad language unintentionally where I can hear it.

The next choice she made was Green Day's Boulevard of Broken Dreams. Green Day is talented enough, but all their albums sound the same to me. However, this song also had explicit language. The Indigent Daughter indicated the song contained the 'F' word, so I declined and decided to look for alternatives.

I go back to Hollaback Girl and see that it has been covered on a parent-friendly album called Girl Authority. We sat together listening to the sample tracks, and I have to tell you; they were pretty bad. Despite this, the Indigent Daughter expressed some interest in Material Girl, so I just went to Madonna's version and ended up purchasing that one for 99 cents. Something struck me as odd while looking through the song catalog for Madonna, relatively few of them had that Explicit label indicating bad language. We sampled Vogue, Lucky Star, Like a Prayer, and a few others. I was so happy to finally have a list of songs for which I didn't have to continually reference the lyrics to judge how gratuitous was the use of bad language.

Unfortunately, the Indigent Daughter didn't care for any other Madonna songs, probably because she did not recognize them. Here is the list we ended up purchasing and burning to CD:

Material Girl - Madonna
We Got the Beat - Go Gos
Head Over Heels - Go Gos
Genie in a Bottle - Christina Aguilera
Come On Over Baby - Christina Aguilera
What a Girl Wants - Christina Aguilera
Get the Party Started - P!nk
My Prerogative - Britney Spears
Whenever, Whenever - Shakira

I have to admit that it was a very terrifying experience, but we got through it and the Indigent Daughter was quite happy with the outcome. I just can't believe we're at a place where I might chide someone for bringing a Gwen Stefani CD to a family party and instead recommend a nice, safe Madonna album.

The Dear Professor

2006-05-05T09:34:00.000-07:00

Scott Bruce over at North Korea Zone examines a solution proposed by Republican Congressional candidate Tony Zirkle... and file it under humor.

"On Thursday, Zirkle suggested the unification of North and South Korea and giving North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il 60 days in which to abdicate or face the threat of a unified invasion by the United States and China.

To get the North Korean leader to agree to abdication, Zirkle suggested tempting him with international amnesty for his crimes -- and the offer of a professorship at either Beijing University or Yale University."

Mr. Bruce has some concerns about what subject the "Dear Leader" might teach. Perhaps Yale might start a new vocational course for aspiring Elvis impersonators? My favorite is one of the commentors suggesting the Dear Professor might be better suited for a professorship on UC Berkeley or Santa Cruz. Those universities need more moderate voices after all. LOL!

Freedom Through Oppression

2006-05-04T00:29:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the cross at the Mount Soledad War Memorial was ordered removed by a federal judge. The City of San Diego has 90 days to remove or destroy the cross or face a $5,000 fine each day they do not comply with the Judge's order.

The cross was erected at the site in 1954 with the approval of the democratically elected San Diego City Council. It has twice been re-approved by public referendum (Proposition F 1992, Proposition A 2005) with over 75 percent of the vote in each case.

U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. is 77 years old and was appointed to his current position by President Nixon in 1970. He is citing the California State Constition to subvert the democratic process and deny residents of San Diego their Constitutionally protected freedoms.

This is the exact same issue that killed Democrats in race after race across the nation in 2004. It wasn't values per se, it's about an out-of-balance authoritarian judiciary. The gay marriage issue was just one example. I don't oppose gay marriage, but the state legislatures have been determining the conditions under which they will license a marriage for centuries. I will remain neither silent nor idle when glorified ambulance chasers in black robes decides to usurp that authority for themselves.

Lt. Smash has more on the issue: The Desecration of a Veterans' Memorial

SEE ALSO: Trouble With Judges

May is Social Security Month

2006-05-03T06:19:00.000-07:00

For some reason, May seems to be Social Security announcement month. QandO blog has a post on the Social Security and Medicare trustees' announcement that both programs will be exhausted in 34 and 12 years respectively. So, I thought this might be a good time to revisit my post on Social Security from this time last year.

Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme 05 MAY 2005

Now it all becomes comes clear. Charles Ponzi couldn't have dreamed up a better scheme. Our government claims 12.4 percent of every worker's wages couched as a retirement investment, then steals from the retirement Trust Fund to mask excessive spending, and guarantees to payback those retirement investments with the power to tax those workers to any extent necessary.

This is exactly why I supported the Bush Administrations' progressive Social Security reforms. At the same time, I can't understand the undying defense and support (from the left of all places) for the most regressive tax ever imposed on the American worker.

What's an alternative? Let's say the average moron making minimum wage ($6.25) invests $1560 per year into U.S. Treasury Bills (just like the Social Security Trust Fund) for 47 years starting at age 18. Let's say that Treasury Bills returned 4.5 percent (a very low investment return but par for T-Bills) on our morons investment. What's that? How do we know this person is a moron? Becaue this moron worked for 47 years and never once got a raise.

Our moron could retire at age 65 with approximately $265,000 in the retirement account. This moron could now retire at 100 percent of his highest salary without touching the principal investment. Excuse me? What kind of sadistic son of bitch takes $1560 a year from someone making minimum wage? Well, that would be the Social Security Administration.

Introducing Expose the Left

2006-05-03T00:35:00.000-07:00

My favorite news and analysis show on TV is Special Report with Britt Hume on FOX News Channel. Just after the bottom of the hour, Britt Hume has a short feature called the Political Grapevine with two or three little snippets of interesting or funny information.

Well, there is a site called Expose the Left that features video clips of the days events, usually making the folks on in reactionary left look bad. Of course, a video clip is all it would take to do that. Expose the Left is like my daily web-dose of the political grapevine and it is a very well put together site. They offer most video clips in both Windows Media and MP4 (Apple?) format.

The great entry today was John Bolton doing some sparring before a Congressional Subcommittee:

US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton testified before the House subcommittee on international relations today and got in a little argument with Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Rep. Kucinich asked John Bolton about Sy Hersh’s “New Yorker” article on (ed- US troops in) Iran, to which Bolton said he didn’t see it because he doesn’t have time to read “fiction”

That is exactly why I supported John Bolton during his nomination. I hope that's gin in his glass because the man deserves it! Check out the video at Expose the Left and keep going down the list. They have a lot of good entries up right now.

Day Without Immigrants? Let's Make It a Week!

2006-05-02T12:09:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Well, I meet the Indigent Girlfriend at Souplantation on Clairemont Mesa Blvd for dinner and... CLOSED! And this wasn't closed as in "closed early", this was closed as in totally dark and not open at all today kind of closed. The Indigent Girlfriend was absolutely livid about that, but I was overjoyed. You see, when we have the usual "so where do you want to go for dinner" discussions, I always pick Black Angus (great Long Island Iced Teas) or Trophys (best two-glass margarita in town). She always picks Souplantation, which has neither long island iced teas nor margaritas, and that's usually where we end up going. I would say we end up eating at Souplantation two to four times a month (yes, we out too much). Well, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to Garden Fresh Restaraunt Corporation and The Souplantation because I know we will never be eating at a Souplantation again!

UPDATE 2: Just to cover my bases and make sure the Indigent Girlfriend could not later come back and say, "maybe they were closed because of broken plumbing" or something like that, I called them this morning. The person who answered the phone told me "yes" they were open today and that they were closed yesterday because they did not have enough people to staff the building.

May Day? Yeah, they made my day. No traffic. No more salad for dinner. I could almost see the appeal of these communist holidays.

~~I have not run into any side-effects of the May Day boycott~~ (see update), other than the ground crew for the home-owners' association not being on the job today. I don't usually attend the meetings, but prehaps I will recommend the association check out Hire Patriots to find employees that don't miss work to participate in Communist holiday celebrations. Outside of that, all businesses I frequent, here in San Diego, appear to be open and fully operational.

The most noticeable effect of the boycott was traffic... and what a BEEE-YOOO-TIFUL effect it was! Clear sailing into work from Tierrasanta to Miramar, at around 8:00 AM this morning. It was clear again on north and south bound lanes of I15 between Miramar, up to Rancho Bernardo, and back to Tierrasanta. I made that round-trip circuit in about 45 minutes. It usually takes well over an hour. I didn't even sniff a slow-down in traffic all day, in over 80 miles of freeway driving.

So, this is all coming from someone (me) who has very much supported President Bush's guest-worker program and been critical of Senate bills, such as the REAL ID Act, to crackdown on immigration in general. I think we need more immigrants and a much more liberal immigration policy than exists now. Having said that, the recent marches and activism of the immigrant community has me rethinking those positions.

No Immunity for Complicit Journalists

2006-05-01T09:41:00.000-07:00

Michael Barone has an interesting article at Real Clear Politics about the blowback the media is experiencing as a result of the various CIA leak investigations. Of course, the media spear-headed this campaign with its calls for investigations into the "outing" of CIA employee Valerie Plame, the unfortunate wife of that self-congratulatory liar, Joe Wilson.

...there have been precious few prosecutions of leakers of classified information in our history and none of journalists. And don't journalists have a right to protect their sources? The answer to the last question is yes, in some states, but no in federal law...

April 28 was the anniversary of Aldrich Ames' last day of freedom. He was sentenced to life in prison for leaking classified information to the Soviet Union. That was Ames' big mistake. These days his scheme would've worked much better by using journalists.

I don't want to make light of Ames' treason, which led to the execution of at least nine CIA agents in the Soviet Union, but I do want to make a point. If we had an Ames-like individual working a similar names for money or plans for money scheme today, he would only need to make payment arrangements with those desiring the information, then leak the information to the media.

Imagine a scenario where we had a spy amongst General Tommy Franks' advisors in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. The spy makes all the circumspect financial arrangements with Saddam Hussein's goverment, then leaks the information to an eager journalist with a very anti-administration slant to it. It's not hard to imagine the headline, Achtung! Bush Plans Blitzkrieg on Baghdad! followed by an article with enough details of the operation mixed in with the usual quotes from the average Iraqis that don't want to die and the U.S. generals that say such a plan wouldn't work.

Do I think journalists deserve special protection? Do I think there should be some kind of special journalist-spy privilege protect by law? Hell NO! I think journalists should be dragged out of their corporate offices and into FBI interrogation rooms until we have the names of every traitorous son of a bitch in our intelligence agencies.

Gas Idea

2006-04-30T22:29:00.000-07:00

I was watching Meet the Press and there was a roundtable discussion about what to do with the high gas prices. There was the usual comments:

Windfall tax
Build refineries
Alternative fuels
$100 tax rebate
Drill for oil
Leave oil companies alone

All of these are great for starters or long-term objectives. Eventually, no matter if oil is finite or not, the US economy does need to find an alternative fuel source that gives it independence. For the short-term, let's drill and all that good stuff. However, how about I offer an alternative that I have not heard yet.

Let's call it the Grimacer Gas Relief Plan of 2006 for short and ego. Basically, it has the feel of a plan similar to what was bandied about here. The difference is that it will not be a rebate per se. It is more like a tax exemption from federal taxes overall. For simplicity, let's use some round numbers.

Let us assume that a person spends $1,000 a year on gasoline and has kept all of their receipts. Let us also assume that the person makes a yearly income of $100,000. If the federal tax code were to be tweaked, it should deduct 50% of what that person had to spend on gasoline throughout the year. So, the person would write-off $500 from their income and would officially earn $99,500. Now, of course, this isn't much, but it is a start. And most of all, it has a built-in means test. Those who drive the most save the most. Those who don't, well... they're saving the planet, right?

It should be noted that I'm neither anti-oil companies or pro-oil companies (Can one be the latter?). I think there possibly is some gouging going on, which is dispicable considering it is a necessity for America. It is especially scandalous during war-time. I was not particularly offended paying such a high price for my Xbox 360. I did not need to buy one, but could. I know Gates and his Leviathan gouged and gouged and gouged for every last penny. That is the price of such a free political community. The oil companies, however, are should not get this kind of a free pass.

This plan is not much, and I'm sure someone can point out flaws with little ease (I recognize a few, such as lessening federal tax revenues.). We do need to find a way to save some money for the consumer and taxpayer. Nothing is worse than deciding between gas and a Xbox.

Communists Revive May Day in U.S.

2006-04-30T10:22:00.000-07:00

The Communist May Day celebration will be returning to the United States tomorrow. The Socialist Workers Party and other Communist organizations are appropriately congratulating themselves on this momentus achievement.

Socialist Workers Party:For the first time in six decades, International Workers Day will be celebrated on U.S. soil with mass working-class demonstrations on May 1. May Day, celebrated the world over, commemorates the seismic upheaval inside the U.S. that launched the struggle for the eight-hour workday in 1886, a time when native-born workers had few rights and immigrants had still fewer, yet both united in a class-wide battle.

This picture (hattip: BBC) is a display of Soviet strength in a May Day parade from 1951, but we've all seen pictures from subsequent May Day parades with the endless rows of tanks and mobile missile launchers. May Day parades ended in the United States when organized labor recognized the threat communism posed to liberty and the middle class during the 1940s. Consequently, the U.S. labor movement expunged communists from its ranks and enjoyed several decades of growth and progress for the American worker. Unfortunately, it appears the socialists and stalinists have re-infiltrated the U.S. labor movement, which would explain the precipitous deteriation of the U.S. labor movement over the last 20 years.

Stay Tuned for Democrat Party Announcement

2006-04-28T20:21:00.000-07:00

The Democrats have released and announcemnt today stating that the war in Iraq has created hundreds of terrorists that have "broken the back" of the U.S. military. Their announcement goes on to say that U.S. and British forces in Iraq have bogged down in Iraq and "have achieved nothing but loss, disaster and misfortune." Err... hold on for just one second...

Oh! This is an announcment from Al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahri. Sorry about that brief moment of confusion. I'm sure you can understand how that could happen.

That Riehlly Hurt

2006-04-28T00:01:00.000-07:00

An Instapundit post tipped me to Riehl World View. It's a good blog and has been added to the blog roll here at Vagabondia.

If there was even a shred of credibility left in the Pulitzer Prize winning secret prisons story from the Washington Post, Riehl shreds it thoroughly and completely.

In 2002 the WaPo called the International detention (prison) story vital - in 2005 they quote another official calling it a burden. In 2002 they informed people that Clinton initiated the practice of extraordinary rendition. In 2005, they made it look like a creation of George Bush.

What changed? And what did Dana Priest know and when did she know it? Evidently, not a terribly great deal changed from 2002 to 2005, given that many details of the program the WaPo broke in 2005 were actually published through a group reported piece in the WaPo in 2002.

Reihl found a nearly identical story printed in the Washington Post in 2002, only it didn't win any prizes in 2002 (probably not enough Bush bashing). However, I now remember the 2002 because it did generate some wonderful press events for Human Rights Watch who issued letters or protest to President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair. Riehl has some great blog entries in addition to this one, take your time on his site.

PorkBusters Herd Losing Credibility

2006-04-27T08:27:00.000-07:00

I was listening to the Hugh Hewitt radio show yesterday when I heard him announce that the Senate had defeated an amendment to kill funding for the infamous Railroad to Nowhere. He followed up his announcment with the statement that "we are not yet serious about pork". I can agree with him on that because the people who appear to be the least serious about pork-barrel earmarks are the folks at PorkBusters.The railroad to nowhere is now the centerpiece of the PorkBusters movement, the be all end all, the ultimate big game, and the coup-de-grace of all their efforts. Unfortunately, their arguments appear to be descending into the same demagoguery used by much of the left.

During the debate leading up to the invasion of Iraq, which I did and do support whole-heartedly, there were conscientious and reasonable arguments against an invasion. However, those arguments were quickly lost amidst a tsunami of 'Blood for Oil' and 'Greater Israel' moonbattery. Well, now the PorkBusters have picked up a chorus of the old bogey-men, greedy developers and evil casinos.

Yesterday, the Senate voted down Coburn's amendment to kill funding for the Railroad to Nowhere-- a $700 million project meant to move an already functional section of CSX rail line farther away from the Mississippi coast so that the section of land it now occupies can become a beach resort/casino area.

On my first day in Waveland, we had one guy walking around shouting bible verses at the residents who had come for food and announcing Katrina was God's response to Mississippi's casinos. To the credit of Convoy of Hope, he was invited to leave that day but not before I had the unfortunate experience of sharing a table with him. After talking with him for five minutes, I wanted to punch him (as Christianly as possible mind you) right in his big smug mouth!

I'm surprised to hear these standard hobgoblins of the left used by Hugh Hewitt. Like Mr. Hewitt, I live in Southern California where we've heard all about the evil developers and wicked Indian casinos for decades now. And it's not like I support pork-barrel spending or even this particular railroad to nowhere, but I need substance to be convinced. I am more than willing to look at some evidence and agree that this is a corporate boon-doggle or a big labor kickback, but PorkBusters has failed to present any such evidence at this point.

What they have done is converged on a few arguments which they continually state as truth, but that are, in fact, less than decided. For example, we have the New York Times article and countless PorkBusters articles stating that the CSX rail line has already been rebuilt at a cost of $250 million dollars. I haven't been back there recently, but the two-mile Saint Louis Bay Bridge, used for Highway 90 and for CSX rail lines, was not yet completed as of January 2006. Even if it were, who can blame the Senator for making a rail line that connects New Orleans to Biloxi, Gulf Port, and the rest of the Gulf Coast a federal matter.

Of course, I've already pointed out the demagoguery of the PorkBusters herd, including one particularly shameless gem asking "how many people will lose their homes". As usual, the issue becomes a little more complicated than simple slogans. Sure, some developers and casinos may benefit from a relocation of the rail line, but the party that stands to benefit most is the State of Mississippi. The state wants that ground, currently occupied by the CSX rail line, for a relocation of Highway 90 to the higher ground. The current Highway 90 would be converted to a "beach boulevard", which I could care less about. If PorkBusters or the residents of Mississippi want to protest the "beach boulevard" plan, I have no problem with that. However, there are genuine reasons to relocate Highway 90 to the higher ground where the CSX rail line now resides.

We know there is no amount of safety we can buy to protect us from something as devastating as Hurricane Katrina. The residents of Hancock County found that out the hard way. Since Highway 90 was one of the higher locations in the county, residents would park their cars along the shoulder to keep them out of the flood waters. The first picture shows how effective that was for Katrina. The second picture is a crossroad connected to Highway 90 during Hurricane Rita. The part of 90 that I was on remained dry, but it was closed due to flooding the night before. That's why we drove over the rails into Bay Saint Louis to help folks clean out their homes that day. The CSX rail line is the highest ground in the area. That's why the governor plans (PDF) to relocate part of Highway 90 to the rail line, which is why he supports the relocation of the CSX freight traffic.

Relocation of CSX railroad operations and acquisition of the CSX rail line and right-of-way for the development of a new east-west transportation thoroughfare.

Another talking point that the Porkbuster herd have decided upon is that the CSX line will be transferred to existing lines currently used by a competitor. Unfortunately for PorkBusters, I don't believe that has been decided with any amount of certainty. The idea has come up along with the original idea of building a new east-west rail corridor, but I've seen nothing that settles that argument one way or the other.

Please don't take this the wrong way. I am absolutely opposed to pork-barrel spending and earmarks on completely unrelated bills, but I've seen no evidence of the railroad to nowhere being in either of those categories. For some unknown reason, the Porkbusters herd has chosen this one issue as their Little Bighorn and I'm afraid their credibility and thus their cause will meet the same end as General Custer.

Countdown to Int'l Justice (Day 391)

2006-04-27T00:01:00.000-07:00

The genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan continues unabated. While your oh-so concerned journalists breathlessly report on the displacement of 25,000 Iraqis and bemoan an acute malnutrition rate of 7.7% amongst Iraqi children, another 200,000 Sudanese have fled Darfur and severe malnutrition has jumped above 15% in recent months.

Clinics have seen a 20% increase in severely malnourished children since January, a spokesman for the UN children's agency, Unicef, said.

The surge in fighting has forced some 200,000 people to flee, bringing the total displaced to over two million.

Aid agencies last year managed to bring the malnutrition rate below the emergency threshold of 15% but south Darfur was seeing those figures again, Mr Chaiban said.

"Admissions to therapeutic feeding centre where severely malnourished children go are up by 20% since January. Admissions in the supplementary feeding centre where moderately malnourished children go are up by 50%," he said. - BBC

Fortunately, the United Nations has sprung into action and imposed sanctions on four people. Adam Yacub Shant, Gabril Abdul Kareem Badri, Gaffar Mohamed Elhassan and Sheikh Musa Hilal are now officially "in a box" constructed of that ever-effective UN paper work.

The war crimes suspects - Adam Yacub Shant, Gabril Abdul Kareem Badri, Gaffar Mohamed Elhassan and Sheikh Musa Hilal - would be subject to a ban on foreign travel and have any assets held abroad frozen.

The BBC's correspondent at the UN headquarters in New York, Laura Trevelyan, said it had taken weeks to get to this point and the sanctions could be difficult to enforce.

Russia and China, both permanent members of the Security Council with the power to veto the resolution, had initially opposed this move, but chose to abstain because the African nations supported the sanctions.

Even though it took weeks for the United Nations to decide to impose sanctions on four people, we should be thankful that Russia and China did not actively oppose these drastic measures. Apparently, they feel Osama Bin Laden will provide enough opposition to any attempt to stop the genocide in Darfur, at least for the time-being.

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden urged his followers to prepare for a long war against Western would-be occupiers in Sudan's Darfur region, according to an audiotape attributed to him and aired on Sunday.

"This is a continuous Crusader-Zionist war against Muslims. In this regard, I call on the mujahideen and their supporters in Sudan ... and the (Arabian) Peninsula to prepare all that is necessary to wage a long-term war against the Crusaders in western Sudan not in defence of the Khartoum government, even though our interests may be mutual, as our differences with it are great."

You'll have to excuse me for not having much hope for Sudan. We have a global for-profit media and intrasigently relativist academic industry that almost universally views Bin Laden and his ilk as the oft referenced "another man's freedom fighter". The United Nations won't even define the word terrorism. Most of Europe believes that fighting terrorists is addressing their grievances and capitulating to their demands. We have a Democrat Party that believes Osama Bin Laden is so popular because he builds schools, hospitals, and day care centers. The United States is having tremendous success in Iraq, but we are stretched thin in that effort. Meanwhile, the world sits idly by and either secretly plots or openly cheers for our defeat against terrorism.

SEE ALSO:

Countdown to International Justice (Day 195) 11 OCT 2005
Countdown to International Justice (Day 31) 03 MAY 2005
Countdown to Int'l Justice (Day 5) 07 APR 2005
Countdown to International Justice in Sudan (Day 1) 02 APR 2005

War in Egypt

2006-04-26T09:43:00.000-07:00

Big Pharaoh is blogging on the escalating war in Sinai peninsula of Egypt evidenced by the fresh bomb attacks on peace-keepers in the region. The BBC is reporting that there were no injuries, while Haaretz is reporting at least four injuries amongst the international peace-keepers:

Two suicide bombers attacked security personnel and foreign peacekeepers in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, but did not cause any injuries to their targets. - BBC

One New Zealander and one Norwegian attached to the multinational force as well as two Egyptian policemen were wounded, security officials and Egypt's official news agency reported. - Haaretz

I think Big Pharaoh summarizes it best when he says, "Damn them those terrorists, they can't withstand a beautiful place, they have to destroy it."

Flight 93

2006-04-25T19:53:00.000-07:00

It is hard to believe that it has been over four years since 9/11 occurred. Now the movie Flight 93 will be coming out. But what is more astonishing to me is that there are those who are still say, "Too soon." The pleas, if from family members, are understandable. Those who have lost loved ones through tragedy have various levels of time needed to heal. It is impossible to completely empathize with a person who has lost so much.

However the movie is going to be out this Friday. There have not been any strong objections from family members who lost loved one on Flight 93. Several article, here, here, and here, point to one word: Heroism. This word has, over the course of human history, slowly diminished in meaning. It is possibly more applied now to our sports icons than the men on the battlefields of Afghanistan or Iraq. We've all done it... watching our favorite team win with a (I almost typed it!) great play or maneuver by a player. I'm just as guilty of this than anyone else. The problem, of course, is our inability to truly identify and marvel at heroism.

From all comments made so far about the movie (and the 9/11 Report confirms) show that heroic acts are still within human capabilities and that yes, even Hollywood can properly display it. I would submit that the acts by those on Flight 93 were truly American and truly heroic. The former, rather than the latter, would of course be disputed by many. The spirit of Jefferson, the proponent of the natural right of revolution, is within all Americans; this I do believe. I am excited, yet simultaneously nervous about seeing Flight 93. It will show me the great heroism that can be displayed by such "average" Americans, but it will also show my great failings as an individual. But this "self-hate," if one could call it that, is rather healthy. We need, especially among our youngest Americans, to see men and women doing something truly heroic, devoid of personal gain or glory. As the Greeks defended the polis, the Romans res publica, and now the Americans, who defend all those bound by "the laws of nature and nature's God," we should watch the movie, and allow us to relive the emotion we felt for our fellow Americans on that dreaded day. Currently, I can think of no other way to honor the dead than to remember their sacrifice.

Too Many Beers

2006-04-25T09:59:00.000-07:00

I was reading a Tom Maguire post on the continuing saga of Mary McCarthy and the national security leaks. By the way, Tom Maguire seems to be the clear-but expert on all things that leak in Washington D.C. Anyway, something struck me as I was reading; there's that name Rand Beers again in the New York Times article referenced in Maguire's piece:

"That's not the Mary McCarthy that I know," said Rand Beers, a former colleague of Ms. McCarthy's on the National Security Council who has spoken to her several times since her firing.

"I'm glad she was prepared to push back," Mr. Beers said. "I was concerned that we were only hearing one side of the story."

So, in order to allay fears that McCarthy might be a partisan mole who supports the Party first and the people somewhere after that, we are given Rand Beers. Maguire points out that as recently as Saturday, the Times described Rand Beers as "an adviser to Mr. Kerry's campaign in 2004". Like their reporting on the true measure of McCarthy's campaign contributions to the Democrat Party in 2004, they fall a little short in their biography of Mr. Beers.

Rand Beers quit his office job in the Bush Administration and signed on to John Kerry's campaign as his National Security Advisor. Paul C. Light, a scholar with the Brookings Institution had this to say about Rand Beers:

"He's not just declaring that he's a Democrat. He's declaring that he's a Kerry Democrat."

Of course, this was a perfect selection for the Kerry campaign at the time. Beers was a general in the War on Drugs serving as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs for most of 1998, appointed by President Clinton. So, who can blame Kerry, having once proposed using military bases slated for closing as detention centers for first-time drug offenders, for wanting a War on Drugs veteran on his cabinet? However, this hardly leaves Beers in a position to be an objective non-partisan source of a news story.

McCarthyism

2006-04-24T13:55:00.000-07:00

Here is a quote from Mary McCarthy. I call it a McCarthyism:

"Unlike other functions of democratic government, the conduct of intelligence is purposely-and with the consent of the public-carried out in secret, out of the view of public and without much public debate."

- Testimony before the 911 Commission, Oct. 14, 2003

Well, the "consent of the public" be-damned when you've got some career-building brownie points to score. Hell, get that purposely secret intelligence right out to the first reporter you come across if it means a little friendly back-scratching and purely personal gain. Now, I have to make a new category. We have too many gentle-sons in our State Department, too many Wilsons at our embassies, and probably too many McCarthys in our CIA.

Is it any wonder that this woman served on the National Intelligence Council as the National Intelligence Officer for Warning and Deputy NIO for Warning during the period that included terrorist attacks against two U.S. embassies in Africa, the USS Cole in Yemen, and World Trade Center in New York on September 11?

Blasts in Egypt and Big Pharaoh

2006-04-24T12:42:00.000-07:00

You may have heard about the terrorist attacks in the Egyptian resort town of Dahab on the Sinai Peninsula. Of course, anytime I want an informed opinion about current events in Egypt, I go to the Big Pharaoh blog. Only this time, the Big Pharaoh reports that he is going to the Red Sea for a vacation. Now, the Red Sea is a considerable body of water and the chances that Big Pharaoh being affected by these blasts are very low. However, I'll feel a helluva lot better when I read his next post.

UPDATE: Looks like Big Pharaoh is alive and well and will be back in Cairo tomorrow.

Poo-litzer Prize Winning Journalism

2006-04-24T11:33:00.000-07:00

I was in the backyard scooping up piles of dog-poop. One particularly sloppy and malodorous pile reminded me of something I wanted to write about, the Pulitzer Prize. Now, I haven't been alone in my skepticism of these types of awards, but I have done my share.

Let's set aside the recent arrest of Bilal Hussein, the Pulitzer Prize winning photographer who snapped the Haifa Street photos and displayed an uncanny ability to move freely amidst insurgent groups in Iraq.

Let us instead focus on one of the recent Pulitzer Prize winners, like Dana Priest of the Washington Post. She won the prize in the category of "Beat Reporting":

For a distinguished example of beat reporting characterized by sustained and knowledgeable coverage of a particular subject or activity, in print or in print and online, Ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

Awarded to Dana Priest of The Washington Post for her persistent, painstaking reports on secret "black site" prisons and other controversial features of the government's counterterrorism campaign.

Well, the revelation of "secret 'black site' prisons" as a "feature of the government's counterterrorism campaign" sounds quite ominous and downright Orwellian. Unfortunately, Dana Priest's reporting was a little too Orwellian. Just like the totalitarian societies in Orwell's novels, Dana Priest's secret 'black site' prisons appear to be fictional places.

The European Parliament's probe and a similar one by the continent's leading human rights watchdog are looking into whether U.S. intelligence agents interrogated al-Qaida suspects at secret prisons in eastern Europe and transported some on secret flights through Europe.

But so far investigators have not identified any human rights violations, despite more than 50 hours of testimony by human rights activists and individuals who claimed to have been abducted by U.S. intelligence agents, de Vries said.

"We've heard all kinds of allegations, impressions; we've heard also refutations. It's up to your committee to weigh if they are true. It does not appear to be proven beyond reasonable doubt," he said. "There has not been, to my knowledge, evidence that these illegal renditions have taken place."

Now, it turns out that Dana Priest's source for the news has been arrested and some are speculating that the entire subject could've have been an internal CIA sting to smoke anti-american treasonous operatives out of their little spider holes at the agency.

Let me summarize with this reminder; a so-called journalist was awarded $10,000 and a Pulitzer Prize for regurgitating a story that could be a complete fabrication. In defense of the Pulitzer, there is no question that concocting a believable story about fictional events happening to fictional people can be "painstaking", but hardly worthy of a Pulitzer Prize, at least in my mind.

Clueless Journalism...

2006-04-23T07:59:00.000-07:00

The New York Times has now joined Porkbusters and the Instapundit in criticism of Senator Trent Lott's $700 million railroad to nowhere.

Let me first say, that although I would probably not see eye-to-eye on many issues with Glenn Reynolds, I am a big fan of his Instapundit blog and read it daily. Also, while I agree with goals of groups like Porkbusters (I think spending earmarks should be prohibited), I'm not that attracted to their message because the alternative to every bit of spending becomes an over-simplified quick-fix. Let's take a snippet from the Porkbusters article:

As for not being able to evacuate people, here is a novel idea, why not use the rail lines? Certainly it wouldn’t be too much to ask that a passenger train be sent to evacuate people in times of emergency. And it would be a solution for all the people who do not have a private vehicle to evacuate in.

That's an excellent idea and certainly quite plausible. Also, that CSX Freight line could've been used immediately after the disaster to ship things like diesel fuel, food, and supplies to places like Waveland, Mississippi. There's only one problem with that:

The only thing of notable value on this freightline was a house (you can see the rooftop in the distance), at least on the day I took this picture. It sure would have been nice to have this freight line available to the few groups who remained in Waveland when Hurricane Rita roared past us in the Gulf. Before I get too far off-topic, let's get back to the New York Times' editorial and examine their characterization of this vital freight line:

As the Senate returns from recess it will confront the year's prize porker blithely trotted out by Senator Lott — a $700 million earmark to relocate a Gulf Coast rail line, which was just rebuilt, post-Katrina, at a cost of $250 million. Invoked in the name of public safety, the project is actually a transparent attempt to tap already scarce hurricane reconstruction funds so the rail bed can be replaced by a touristy "beach boulevard" long sought by Mississippi to aid the casino industry and coastal developers.

Did I read that correctly? Did the author actually use the words "scarce hurricane reconstruction funds" to describe the government's approved spending for the Katrina recovery effort? According to the Heritage Foundation (a conservative anti-pork organization), government spending on Katrina could exceed $200 billion, not including tax incentives such as the one I took advantage of when I spent almost $1,000 to get myself down to Waveland to distribute food and help clear debris from houses. It's nice to see the New York Times is finally so concerned about government spending, but like the other groups that keep throwing around this $250 million number for a "rail line which was just rebuilt", they should try a little thing in journalism known as investigation. That $250 million includes reconstruction of the Saint Louis Bay Bridge that carries both the rail line and Highway 90 from Bay Saint Louis to Pass Christian, which by the way, has not been done.

Now, I'm all for scrutinizing these expenditures, especially where the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) is concerned. I'm also wary of government "paybacks" to labor unions. The federal Department of Transportation waived contracting rules to allow officials to hire contractors for the immediate rebuilding. Now, could the reasoning behind this $750 million project be a bone thrown to transportation unions? You bet it could, but I haven't seen any of the anti-pork slueths raising that question.

Despite my inclination to oppose earmarks and the opposition from a growing chorus of anti-pork voices, the fact of this particular matter remain unchanged. This freight line was taken out of action by Hurricane Katrina. Rebuilding infrastructure is expensive and a working freight line would've been a God-send when I was last in Waveland, Mississippi.

Homelessness is not a crime...

2006-04-14T16:54:00.000-07:00

... according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

Los Angeles' policy of arresting homeless people for sitting, lying or sleeping on public sidewalks as "an unavoidable consequence of being human and homeless without shelter" violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and punishment, a federal appeals court ruled today.

The pattern of logic develops...

"Because there is substantial and undisputed evidence that the number of homeless persons in Los Angeles far exceeds the number of available shelter beds at all times, including on the night" the plaintiffs were arrested or cited, "Los Angeles has encroached upon" the plaintiffs' 8th Amendment protections "by criminalizing the unavoidable act of sitting, lying or sleeping at night while being involuntarily homeless," Wardlaw wrote.

Now Judge Wardlaw, who wrote the opinion of the case, is making an interesting argument from the outset. If you notice, she clearly is not making an argument about becoming homeless; quite the contrary. She begins her argument after homelessness has already been achieved. To her, that is where she has decided to begin the relevancy of the Los Angeles ordinance. But it is here that she undermines the entire idea of a community setting up its own standards and whether she knows it or not (I would argue that she does indeed understand the implications of her argument), Judge Wardlaw has stated quite clearly that it does not matter as such that the person became homeless to start with.

It might be advantageous to explain it another way. The crime being committed in Los Angeles-homelessness-is a degradation of the community and therefore, sleeping on the streets, or any public place, is an attempt to devalue what the public has created. It must be noted here that rational men can disagree on whether or not sleeping on a street corner is degrading the public works, but that is a standard set within each city or county (possibly state). Los Angeles has decided that becoming homeless does not make you less human (Why do I understand Judge Wardlaw's opinion to say as such?), but it does not mean you have a right to degrade the public works others have labored for.

Wardlaw said that "as a result of the expansive reach of the [Los Angeles ordinance], the extreme lack of available shelter in Los Angeles, and the large homeless population, thousands of people violate the Los Angeles ordinance every day and night, and many are arrested, losing what few possessions they may have."

This is simply astonishing. Los Angeles is not saying homelessness itself is a crime (although Judge Wardlaw reads that as such), but the abuse and degradation of the public works is. Just as Los Angeles, and every other city in the United States, states that selling a product is not a crime, but selling crack cocaine is. Specific acts of homelessness is criminal, just as specific acts of being a retailer can be.

Judge Wardlaw's rationale states that Los Angeles cannot do as such because in placing a value on the public works, they have stripped away a right of an American citizen. There is nothing "cruel and unusual" about giving value to public works; and there is nothing "cruel and unusual" about expecting a person to either be productive or at the very least, be lazy* and do not degrade the public works. But then again, I doubt highly Judge Wardlaw, or the ACLU for that matter, really care about the substances of their exoteric arguments.

*Yes, of course, there are at times circumstances that can place someone on the streets. But I doubt highly that that is the rule and not the exception.

Bible Lesson #3174

2006-04-09T07:00:00.000-07:00

Attendees of a New York City political conference, hosted by Reverend Al Sharpton, were treated to a bit of a Bible lesson from Senator John Kerry (hat tip: QandO Blog). Patrick Healy provides some details of the groups tutelage in the New York Times:

A Roman Catholic who has struggled at times to talk about his own faith, Mr. Kerry also told the group that he believed "deeply in my faith" and that the Koran, the Torah, the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles had influenced a social conscience that he exercised in politics.

"I will tell you, nowhere in there, nowhere, not in one page, not in one phrase uttered and reported by the Lord Jesus Christ, can you find anything that suggests that there is a virtue in cutting children from Medicaid and taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich," Mr. Kerry said.

Kerry, a Roman Catholic, gets his moral guidance from the Koran and the Torah? I must've missed those lessons in catechism classes, but that's not the statement that struck me as funny. When I repeated Kerry's statement to the Indigent Girlfriend, her first thought was the same as mine; the Parable of the Talents:

For [the kingdom of heaven is] as a man travelling into a far country, [who] called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made [them] other five talents.

And likewise he that [had received] two, he also gained other two.

But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.

After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

His lord said unto him, Well done, [thou] good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, [there] thou hast [that is] thine.

His lord answered and said unto him, [Thou] wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and [then] at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

Take therefore the talent from him, and give [it] unto him which hath ten talents.

For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Now, this parable is primarily about works, but I'm surprised Kerry wasn't mindful of it as he mentions the Gospels so prominently in his speech. However, it clearly illustrates "one phrase uttered and reported by the Lord Jesus Christ" where money is taken from the poor and given to the rich. The problems with Kerry's speech are further compounded by the rediculous notion that a government could ever be virtuous or recognized by God for that matter. Our government could implement every social policy that every wack-job has ever dreamed up, and I would still be thankful that I only have to answer to God for what I have done, not for what any government has done. I also believe there would be a whole lot of people, which had voted for and supported those social policies all their lives, having their talents taken away and given to those who perhaps had not voted for the government programs.

Stone Flees Puritanical Repression

2006-04-05T07:57:00.000-07:00

I haven't seen Sharon Stone's new movie, Basic Instinct 2... In fact, I haven't seen the first Basic Instinct. Apparently the sequel is not doing so well at the box office, scoring a little over $3 million in receipts, just edging out Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector. Ok, in all fairness to Larry the Cable Guy, it has been out for two weeks. Health Inspector actually did about $7 million on its opening weekend. Hollywood Reporter has tracked down the director of the movie who offers an explanation for Basic Instinct's abysmal failure: (hat tip: Powerline)

Paul Verhoeven, director of the first "Basic Instinct" (which scored $353 million worldwide) as well as the widely ridiculed "Showgirls" (now regarded as something of a camp classic), attributes the genre's demise to the current American political climate.

"Anything that is erotic has been banned in the United States," said the Dutch native. "Look at the people at the top (of the government). We are living under a government that is constantly hammering out Christian values. And Christianity and sex have never been good friends."

Scribe Nicholas Meyer, who was an uncredited writer on 1987's seminal sex-fueled cautionary tale "Fatal Attraction," agrees, noting that the genre's downfall coincides with the ascent of the conservative political movement.

"We're in a big puritanical mode," he said. "Now, it's like the McCarthy era, except it's not 'Are you a communist?' but 'Have you ever put sex in a movie?"'

Of course! We can't see erotic images because of the puritanical repression in the United States of America. This is especially true here in the mostly Christian, mostly conservative City of San Diego. Let's ignore, for a moment, the dozen or so sex shops and all-nude dancer joints within ten miles of my home and stick to what is on Television beginning at 11:00 PM tonight.

Let's see, I could watch Sex and the City on my choice of two broadcast network channels, KSWB and KTLA. Ah, not fair you say. Sex and the City is not really an "erotic thriller". Well, neither was Basic Instinct 2 by all accounts, but I will move on. It goes without saying that we'll find much more fertile material on HBO and Cinemax (aka Skinemax) between the hours of 11:00 PM and 1:00 AM. Here I find, for my viewing pleasure, a choice between Bikini-A-Go-Go (technically a comedy), Hotel Erotica Cabo (must be a series), and back to back episodes of Best Sex Ever. Let's stick a fork in this one once and for all by talking about the Internet. Here is a VERY truncated list of binary (picture or video) groups that anyone with Internet access could choose from:

I want to re-emphasize that this is a much shortened... excuse me for one moment: beanie-babies?!?! Puritanical society indeed! Even beanie-babies are lumped into our "erotic" fetishes.

Well, Sharon Stone won't have to worry about that anymore. She says there is already a script for Basic Instinct 3 and that she is planning to direct it. She also plans to make the movie in the UK to get away from the puritanical constraints of the U.S. and to give the film a more "gritty atmostphere. It should be a big success. After all, who doesn't like their eroticism a little on the gritty side?

Public Service Announcement: While the usenet groups listed above are available to anyone with an Internet connection, they are completely unmoderated. So, you may be thinking that your going to view a picture or video of an erotic blonde, but what you actually get may be a picture or video of an exploited ten year old. Also understand that the picture, whether legal material or not, is also sitting on the hard drive in YOUR computer by the time you are looking at it.

CBS Cameraman Freed...

2006-04-05T06:06:00.000-07:00

Reuters is reporting that the cameraman apprehended by US troops a year ago has been released by an Iraqi judge for lack of evidence to support the charges of terrorism.

A cameraman for U.S. network CBS was freed on Wednesday after a year in detention without charge when an Iraqi court ruled there was no evidence to support charges of terrorism against him. Iraqi security forces fired warning shots into the air as journalists tried to speak to cameraman Abdul Ameer Hussein's American lawyer outside the court. It was not clear why they opened fire.

I think anyone who has seen a press swarm knows why the Iraqi security forces fired warning shots. Personally, if I were confronted by one of these swarms, I can't guarantee that my warning shots would be fired into the air.

Hussein, an Iraqi, was shot by U.S. troops and arrested exactly a year ago, on April 5, as he filmed clashes in the northern city of Mosul. He was accused of instigating a crowd and of recruiting Iraqis for the anti-U.S. insurgency, but the exact charges were never made public.

The Committee to Protect Journalists has accused the United States of stonewalling investigations into allegations against journalists, often detained for months without charge.

The committee ranks the United States as the sixth worst jailer of journalists, along with Burma.

"For the lack of evidence ... the court orders that all charges be dropped and the accused be released," Judge Kamil al-Shweli said.

Hussein's lawyer Horton said outside the court, before the shooting: "Justice has been administered in Iraq. I am very happy with that."

Now CBS should be free to shed some light on the footage contained in Mr. Hussein's camera on that day. They should now be free to answer some of the questions I have asked about this story, but I don't expect we'll hear much more about this.

Last Man Watch

2006-04-04T18:33:00.000-07:00

If one were to look at my profile, they'll notice that I'm a fan of the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche. Not because I agree with his solution to the problems of modernity, but because his description of the liberal (note: Not to be confused with American liberalism) world he saw is exactly correct, and still applicable today. He spoke of the "last man": those who were content with their own mediocrity. A professor of mine commented that if Nietzsche were alive today, he'd see modern man and not at all be surprised. MTV and its participants would be called "walking coffins"... a term I truly enjoy.

Because I am so heavily influenced by Nietzsche's diagnosis, I look for "these last men" that walk to Earth today. So, I was not at all surprised by an article I found linked by Tim Blair. The article from the Guardian tells:

Doctors from London University have revealed details of what they believe is the largest amount of ecstasy ever consumed by a single person. Consultants from the addiction centre at St George's Medical School, London, have published a case report of a British man estimated to have taken around 40,000 pills of MDMA, the active ingredient in ecstasy, over nine years. The heaviest previous lifetime intake on record is 2,000 pills.
Though the man, who is now 37, stopped taking the drug seven years ago, he still suffers from severe physical and mental health side-effects, including extreme memory problems, paranoia, hallucinations and depression. He also suffers from painful muscle rigidity around his neck and jaw which often prevents him from opening his mouth. The doctors believe many of these symptoms may be permanent.

I am less saddened by this than the recent protests happening all across the United States. The protests themselves are not bad, but the fact Mexican and other Lain American flags were so proudly flown was dispiriting... and disheartening. But this story about a man who-it is safe to assume-wandered aimlessly through life with no purpose other than the self is telling. We all, including myself, experience this aimless pursuit of meaning. Since it is no longer "rational" to believe in God ("God is dead!"), nor is it "good" to believe in patriotism (human rights, not natural rights), we are forced into pursuing meaningless; empty dopamine releasing experiences.

While we may or may not be at the "end of days" (whatever that may be), there is little doubt human excellence is still on the decline and we are the "last men." America is one of the few places left-because of the revolutionary principles disclosed in the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence-where we still see a yearning for human excellence and human purpose. One of my favorite movie quotes comes from the mediocre movie Ice Harvest where a character played by Oliver Platt is drunk and looking at two girls hanging on the arms of a guy in the corner of this club. He says (cleaned up language here) that "all that is left for men is women and money." Something to think about as we continue to work and go through our lives. Are we really putting meaning in our lives? Or are we endlessly pursuing a rapid and extreme release of chemicals that make us "feel" the moment? Or possibly the better question is, is there a real, tangible meaning to life? All I know is that modern life says that there isn't, but I've never been one to listen to philosophical modernity...

Comedy and Immigration

2006-04-02T21:07:00.000-07:00

I am really a big picture, "how does this impact our culture" type person. Practical, nuts and bolts politics or what is happening at the Oscars really does not determine how I will live my life and does not truly interest me. But I'm a fan of comedy; especially comedy that reflects universal truths. Andrew Sullivan a while back commented on the state of American comedy, where he included comedians such as Dave Chapelle, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert. They are all very funny and go a long way to breaking down stereotypes and misconceptions that have, throughout modern American history, divided Americans along racial, religious, or economic lines. However, I've become very impressed with Carlos Mencia.

His show, Mind of Mencia, is probably the best attempt at truly being comedy aimed all who simply want to be entertained. Mencia's goal, which is obvious with his opening skit or set of jokes, is to hit all groups quickly and without apology. The feeling the viewer gets, if paying attention, is how ridiculous stereotypes are and why it is important to be able to look at how odd and funny we all can be on an individual and collective level.

Recently, the debate over immigration has been dominating the air waves and print. Interestingly, neither party seems to have a good hold of the issue. The question that needs to be most readily addressed is assimilation. American immigration, as a whole, has been far more successful than any other nation in the world. That is because American citizenship is not based on race, religion, or any other subjective criteria. The only requirement is a belief in the American experiment: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Those two documents are the fundamental concepts of America and have universal appeal. The only real issue that should be debated in the Congress is how to Americanize all immigrants, legal or otherwise. I'm saddened that America wants to rely on a guest worker program. It seems to be a European approach which does not work and it neither promotes America's political ideals nor increases the American population. (More will live within the borders, but what does that mean if they are not committed to the American experiment?)

The private side of America, along with government, has indeed assimilated the vast majority of immigrants. However, it has always been the case that the numbers are managable AND the connections of the immigrants, more or less, were severed at departure. European immigrants and Asian immigrants could not practically keep those connections. Today, Mexican or any Latin American immigrant can keep these links. This causes great strain, as anyone who saw the recent protests observed that there were many Mexican or other flags present. Many American flags were there as well, but it is hard not to cringe at such a bond with a foreign country that, for one reason or another, drove one's ancestors out.

So you may be asking what that has to do with Carlos Mencia, or any comedian in general. Mencia, and many other comedians, do represent how successful American assimilation has been in the past. He recently just took a shot at Kanye West, who has a history of making racist comments. Of course West is an easy target, but West has great appeal, just as many vulgar characters always had the ability to make it in pop culture. It was something that had to be done, but it just depended on who was going to do it first.

But Mencia's appeal is more in tune with the American ideal. He cares little, unlike Kanye West, about what race has to do with a person. Rather, some Americans' fascination with race is what Mencia really digs at and profits from. It is this appeal that we need to remember as we continue to see heated, unnecessary comments directed at Hispanics/Latinos, or Anglo/non-Hispanic Americans. If we cannot continue to assimilate and create new Americans, who are loyal only to the US, then any guest worker program or any fence will matter little at the end of the day. America is one of the few nations that can take in so many people, from so many nations, and keep the real patriotism alive.

Democrats Resurrect Kerry Campaign from the Dead

2006-04-02T08:20:00.000-07:00

The Democrats have come together to release a less than inspiring national security strategy. I've read through it and I must tell you that it sounds suspiciously like John Kerry's presidential campaign platform from 2004. In fact, it is so much like Kerry's campaign platform that it says more about their perception of the reasons for their 2004 defeat than it does their policy towards national security. Here are a few key elements of the Democrat plan, called Real Security, towards the War on Terror:

Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan and end the threat posed by the Taliban.

This is the very much follows the meme that we devoted the bulk of our forces to Iraq instead of focusing on capturing Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. This was usually followed by Kerry's own vow to go after Bin Laden. What the Democrats don't seem to be understanding is that, in the minds of most Americans, eliminating Osama Bin Laden is not the end. Even the Dalai Lama recognizes that. Of course, we also know what the Democrats mean by "destroy terrorist networks" because they explain how they're going to do that in the third bullet-point:

...by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive...

Here we are, back to the "root causes of terrorism" and poverty being one of them. This is so pathetically simple-minded that it is hard to continue, but when I said the Democrats were resurrecting the Kerry campaign platform, I meant they were resurrecting the entire losing policy.

Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.

This is the one Kerry campaign promise that really got under my skin. What is says is the only reason we don't have more people in Special Forces is that a President hasn't declared that there should be more people in Special Forces. After all, any Democrat knows that Special Forces people are a dime-a-dozen, nothing at all exceptional or special about their physical and mental characterstics. No, what makes Special Forces people "special" is the honorary title of Special Forces granted to them by them beloved and benevolent government. It couldn't possibly be that it's the special people making the Special Forces special. Let's move on before I really get going.

Secure by 2010 loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or “dirty bombs.”

In other words, they're going to continue the Materials Control Protection and Accounting program started by this Bush Administration, which is just a Department of Energy version of the agreement signed by the first Bush Administration through the Department of Defense. So, this is like Republicans running a campaign that promises a Christmas holiday on December 25. Finally, we get to the last bullet point of the Democrat plan:

Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.

What effort will be redoubled? Would that be shipping free food to the cronies and sub-servient factions of the communist regime or building the free light-water nuclear reactors for the militant communist regime? I think they really need to be more specific on this one.

Well, the Democrats sure are in the resurrection spirit this Easter season. They've got Kerry's dead campaign policies and Dean has promised to resurrect the Terry Schiavo for the 2006 and 2008 elections. We'll see how all that works out for them.

The most interesting part of this Real Security plan is what it says about the Democrats. They seem to truly believe they lost in 2004 becuase Bush cheated in Ohio, or was it Diebold, or was it disenfranchisement... maybe it was voter intimidation. Heck, it couldn't possibly be that the American people rejected Kerry's national security plan.

Jill Carroll Coerced By Captors

2006-04-01T16:31:00.000-08:00

Apparently, Jill Carroll wants to set the record straight on her recent captivity in Iraq. The Christian Science Monitor, for who she is working, has released her official statement along with their own.

During my last night in captivity, my captors forced me to participate in a propaganda video. They told me they would let me go if I cooperated. I was living in a threatening environment, under their control, and wanted to go home alive. I agreed.

She goes on to discuss her statement on Iraqi Television for the Iraqi Islamic Party and clears the air of a few completely mischaracterizations of her attitude towards the U.S. military.

Software Licensing and the Windows Repair Install

2006-04-01T11:58:00.000-08:00

In early 2002, I decided that I was going to clean-up my computing habits and get rid of all the illegal (or cracked) software I had installed on my home computers. There were two reasons for this decision; 1) I had just changed careers from Quality Assurance to Software Development, 2) product activation and license validation was becoming more and more prevalent.

To make a long story short, I was down to my last ill-gotten copy of Microsoft Windows XP Professional running on an old laptop that used occasionally for odd test and development work. This was one of the infamous "corp. editions", which is a installation CD with a volume license key (usually purchased by large companies) and requires no activation.

Along comes Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage program around the middle of 2005. Now, there was a lot of uproar over this new program from Microsoft and piles of misinformation. Basically, users wishing to remain compliant with Microsoft's licensing policy would have to validate their operating system before they could continue receiving non-critical updates and other free product downloads, such as the Windows Defender Beta2 (formerly the Anti-Spyware Beta). The truth is that, as a test, I ran the WGA validation check on my laptop and sure enough, it failed. That's it. I could continue to download and install criticial security updates, but there were no black Microsoft helicopters or jack-booted enforcers coming to punish me for illegally using Microsoft Windows XP. All of my office and development software installed and worked as expected and Windows Components (e.g. Internet Information Services 5.1) could be added from the "cracked" CD with no hassles.

I've had a extra valid license for Windows XP Professional SP2 for some time now, but today was the first chance I had to apply it to my laptop. There are two ways to accomplish this; 1) a clean wipe of the laptop hard drive followed by a fresh install with the legal copy of Windows XP or 2) a repair installation of the existing Windows operating system.

The latter of the two options was the most appealing because I did not want to go through the hours of work required to reinstall and reconfigure all my application and development software. I also took a great deal of time stripping down the Windows installation (i.e. minimal graphics, security, etc) because it is only a 500Mhz Pentium III with 256 MB of RAM. So, I decided to follow the instructions posted on Michael Stevens' web-site. In addition to the low system specs listed above, I'm also running a compressed volume on the laptop to increase my total disk space.

I can report to you that the in-place repair install worked flawlessly and that Michael Stevens' instructions are spot on. All of my minimalist settings were preserved, all my applications are working including Windows Components such as IIS 5.1, and the new installation activated over the Internet in seconds. I no longer have a single software application installed in violation of the manufacturers license agreement.

Interesting Observation #05629

2006-03-29T22:13:00.000-08:00

Every now and then, but not lately, I have time to enjoy a good video game. Personally, I enjoy so-called fantasy role-playing games such as Neverwinter Nights or EverQuest. I occassionally play what is typically referred to as a first-person shooter, meaning it is pretty much a mindless romp through gratuitous mayhem and bloodshed from a first-person perspective.

In case you didn't know, the U.S. Army is a game developer and their Americas Army series is the most downloaded game on almost every game site that tracks such things. However, this graphic of weekly downloads doesn't tell the whole story, so permit me to put the popularity of the US Army game into perspective. The America's Army game has been downloaded from PC Gameworld 420,736 times. That's almost ten times more than the next closest game, which is the Star Wars title at 45,627 downloads. Virtual Pool (44,528), Virtual RC Racing (34,275), and Sniper Elite (27,853) round out the top five most downloaded games, at least at PC Gameworld.

Jim McDermott's Illegal Wiretapping of Americans

2006-03-29T05:35:00.000-08:00

It seems Democrat Congressman Jim McDermott has his own Culture of Corruption® to deal with before helping clean up the corruption on the Republican side of the aisle (hat tip: RealClearPolitics). The news article reads:

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott violated federal law by turning over an illegally taped telephone call to reporters nearly a decade ago.
In a 2-1 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that McDermott violated the rights of House Majority Leader John Boehner, who was heard on the 1996 call involving former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The court ordered McDermott to pay Boehner more than $700,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and more than $600,000 in legal costs.

Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics goes on to cite a fund-raising letter sent out by McDermott to raise money for his self-inflicted legal fees.

At the same time, Seattle PI columnist Joel Connelly got his hands on a fundraising plea being circulated by Mr. McDermott to help fill the coffers of his legal defense fund. The letter cited Tom DeLay - who has nothing whatsoever to do with the case - and accused the GOP House leadership of "using the courts" to "pursue" him. "We cannot allow Republican leaders to financially destroy a member of Congress who has a proven track record of standing up for endangered democratic values," the McDermott letter said.

I love that quote from Mr. McDermott, "standing up for endangered democratic values". What are endangered Democratic values? Would that be like bill H.R. 163, co-sponsored by McDermott and 13 other Democrats, that would reinstitute mandatory military service with the usual exemptions for their constituents in academia and conscientious objectors? It's not surprising that only one of the co-sponsors, California's Pete Stark, and Rep. John Murtha actually voted for the bill. It would seem those endangered Democrat values became extinct pretty quickly.

Burning Tivo-to-DVD

2006-03-27T20:24:00.000-08:00

The Indigent Girlfriend purchased two Tivo Series II units on the Friday after Thanksgiving. One she gave to her son for Christmas and one she used as a gift for us. Of course, I have all the Tivo units working wirelessly throughout the house and can download recorded shows to my computer.

Well, it is now time to burn one of those recorded shows to DVD and this is proving to be no simple task. The method recommended by Tivo is to purchase the Roxio MyDVD Studio. I use the free version of DeepBurner to simply write backup files to DVD and would probably upgrade to DeepBurner Pro if I ever had a need to burn a video DVD. Having said that, since Roxio offers a 300 MB, 15-Day trial version, I figure I'll give it a try.

In just a few minutes, my download is complete and I begin installing the software... and immediately hit my first snag. Like most software these days, it wants a a serial number before proceeding with the installation. I must've missed where it told me that my trial serial number would be emailed to me, but I know the drill. I check my gmail account and sure enough, there is my trial serial number. Once I entered the serial number, the installation proceeded without further trouble.

The (Roxio) Sonic MyDVD Studio requires a reboot and then it's ready to go. I select the "Get Recorded TV Shows" option, select the episode of Desperate Housewives I want to send to the Indigent Girlfriend's mother, and click the big red "Burn" button. For the next hour, I got to watch a little progress bar tick across the screen while "Transcoding Video", another minute for "Importing Video", then the "Transcoding Audio" began. Fortunately, that only took about a minute as well.

These were followed by a bunch of short tasks that flashed by so quickly that I could not read them. Now it is finally trying to write the files to DVD. So, from the click of the Burn button to when the completed DVD was ejected from the drive was just under 90 minutes for an hour long TV show at the highest quality.

The DVD I burned worked fine on my PC and in all house DVD players, except for the cheapy $30 DVD player in the Indigent Daughter's room. I thought that was an interesting thing to note.

By the way, I think Tivo is pretty cool, but things that should be easy are hard. Things like burning shows to DVD and connecting the Tivo to the home network. It seems to me like the Tivo product is basically old technology using any hack and kludge it can to cling to relevance. My advice would be to get yourself a Media Center PC where all the things that should be easy and automatic, are easy and automatic.

Journalistic Standards

2006-03-27T09:38:00.000-08:00

One thing that caught my eye last week was a follow-up on the CBS cameraman that was detained by our soldiers in Iraq on suspicion of rebel activity. Apparently, his trial in Iraq has been delayed until next month.

Hussein was taken into custody after being wounded by American forces as he videotaped clashes in Mosul in northern Iraq in April 2005. Doyle said he received an e-mail from the U.S. task force at Abu Ghraib saying Hussein "appeared to be instigating a crowd" in Mosul.

At the time of Hussein's arrest, CBS News reported that the U.S. military said the tape in the journalist's camera led them to suspect he had prior knowledge of attacks on American troops, Doyle said. But more details from the military have been hard to come by, the bureau chief said.

"We've been trying for a year to get information," Doyle said.

CBS spokeswoman Sandy Genelius said Hussein has been held in Abu Ghraib prison just outside Baghdad and faces life in prison if convicted.

"All we are seeking is due process for Mr. Hussein," Genelius said.

I last mentioned this CBS cameraman almost a year ago. I share Mr. Doyle's frustration on the lack of information and Ms. Genelius' desire for due process. As I pondered back in April of 2005, I wonder just how much of this camaeraman's previous footage was obtained by CBS? Where is that footage (if any)? Who has seen that footage? And what did that footage show us? Since clarification of these issues is not yet forthcoming from CBS, perhaps the due process that Ms. Genelius spoke of can draw these answers out.

For the Government

2006-03-26T13:27:00.000-08:00

In 1863, when Abraham Lincoln made his address at Gettysburg, he spoke of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people that shall not perish from the earth. Well, perhaps it has not perished, but the government of the State of Oregon is on life support. The State of Oregon is studying a tax-by-the-mile strategy to recapture revenues threatened by new fuel-efficient technology. That's right. We have another example of a government inventing new ways to impose taxes on the people for no other reason than to defend their own revenues.

Eighty percent of Oregon's highway money comes from its 24-cents-per-gallon gas tax. If the state promotes reducing gasoline consumption and consumers tend to buy the fuel-efficient vehicles, including hybrids, highway revenues would take a hit, The New York Times reported. (hat tip: Drudge)

So, while the people continue to labor and innovate in solving problems facing society and the world, our reactionary governments' first thought is only to limit the impact of those solutions on their own power. Let's be honest here. Just like a tax on alcohol or tobacco, this is a "sin" tax; a tax on the sin of manufacturing, purchasing, and driving a fuel-efficient vehicle.

Hunting and America

2006-02-15T19:35:00.000-08:00

The Cheney hunting accident has dominated cable news since it was first reported over the weekend. Andrew Sullivan has been in a tizzy over the story. His opinion is definitely worth reading and I agree that if laws were broken, indeed, the vice president deserves to be held accountable, just as anyone else would be. That being said...

Hunting is a very, VERY dangerous activity, no matter what the conditions are or the game. My grandfather was an avid hunter, and he told many stories of accidents: Some nearing humorous, some very serious, one fatal. These stories led me to hold guns of all types with the utmost respect. I have lived around guns my entire life and as a child never once touched a gun without the supervision of my father. This is the reason stories like these were passed down along with the enforcement of gun rules. Guns can take away life instantly and indiscriminately. And there lies the important aspect about this story.

American society is woefully underexposed to hunting. A reader may ask how can this be, with a new generation of Americans being raised by Grand Theft Auto. The fact is, guns are truly part of half of American society. Truly because they are there and tangible; able to be touched, fired, and injure for real. For the other half, they are distant. Guns are seen in movies and in video games, injuring and killing fictional characters with no consequences to anyone. Guns, for another half of Americans, are used to hunt, or for personal protection or more tragically, to defend turf or "pride" amongst America's troubled inner cities.

This event shows how America lives this double existence. After I heard about the event, I felt sad for Harry Whittington and hoped he'd fully recover. But I was neither shocked nor digusted by the incident. Again, I was brought up with the cold, harsh reality how quickly a gun can ruin an afternoon, or even lives. For a nation-and I would argue rightfully-that has very liberal gun laws, where the right to own a gun is not completely denied nationally, there is a significant portion (ironically, in the media) that are unaware of guns and their often horrible consequences. But, this nation should not be unaware or shocked about hunting. We need to reeducate ourselves about the value and dangers of guns. A truly free society will allow its citizenry (or as the people are called in the 2nd Amendment, "the Militia") to own firearms for our personal protection. But, this same society must again and again remind itself that the main purpose of a firearm is to neutralize a threat with maximum power. Only a balance of this kind can keep a nation vigilant; both for liberty's sake and safety's sake.

USC vs. Texas Revisited

2006-01-07T12:40:00.000-08:00

The reason I say revisited is because by now, everyone knows and has discussed the fact USC lost to Vince You-err-the University of Texas 38-41. I thought about writing this that night, but I was upset and thought it unwise. But I was upset for two reasons that most Trojan fans probably were not. I am not, for full disclosure, a Trojan fan even though I was pulling for their victory. And it is not that I am somehow anti-Texas. My father was a Texan (or still is?) and he has told me stories about the importance of football in that state. I am one to appreciate tradition and have a personal passion for football, so I have nothing but respect for such storied programs.

My frustration has less to do with the outcome (even though I predicted to many a 24 point win by USC) as with the system that surrounds college football. First, I have an utter disdain for the replay system. Secondly, the entrenched East Coast Bias that dominates all sports.

The replay system is the antithesis of all sports. However, it is even more detrimental to scholastic competition. The concept of being a student athlete is twofold:

Character building
Possibility of opening up future doors; be it for college or professional

I want to focus solely on the first concept. Part of becoming a man (or woman) is learning about life. One of the most difficult, but most rewarding lessons concerning life is how unfair it can be. It can deal out the greatest events one can experience (such as the recent birth of my nephew!), but can also be cruel and punishing. There will be a time in everyone's life when they are right, but told they are wrong by those in authority. This will happen when interacting with their parents, teachers, coaches, bosses, and more specifically, referees. How is instituting replay going to teach young men this harsh reality? The only way I see that happening is when the "gods" in the press box decide not to review a touchdown that will hurt the West Coast team.

Sports should also be about human achievement and error. The game, whatever that may be, will never be perfect and nor should it. It is a game played by imperfect vehicles, attempting to maximize their abilities and prove their dominance over their opponent. There is simply nothing more glorious than this human passion. Yet, we want to take error completely out of the game. Adversity? Nonexistent. Unfair calls? Make it a thing of the past. Life lesson? Becoming a better person cannot compete with winning.

The other thing I cannot get past is the East Coast Bias that is obvious in most walks of American life, but really shows during sporting events. Los Angeles dealt with a Northern California bias throughout most of California history, so Southern Californians know what it feels like to be neglected politically and socially. But my more conspiratorial side wonders if Texas was given that touchdown where Vince Young's knee clearly was down before he pitched the football because the officials simply wanted to see USC lose. Although that is probably a bit of a stretch, I really do believe the West Coast will always be neglected from serious talk in college football, as well as all sports. My hope was to see a third straight national championship title break this bias up.

Outside of my petty frustrations, it was one of the best contests I have ever seen. Both teams really proved they were the two best in the nation and both teams could easily have won the game. Vince Young proved he was the MVP of Division IA college football, and possibly even the man who should have won the Heisman. I believe football is one of the great products of American culture. It builds character and helps young men become physically and mentally tough individuals. It is a product that is worth defending and worth agonizing over. So, cheers to the Longhorns. They deserve the great national spotlight.

Easier Than Truth

2006-01-04T08:45:00.000-08:00

I live in California, so I was startled to awake this morning hearing that 12 of the 13 miners were found dead last night. I went to sleep thinking the exact opposite, that miraculously, only one miner had been found dead. I have found the best blog for this story has been Tim Blair, but in particular, this link to Greg Mitchell.

First, my heart goes out to every single family member. I cannot even fathom what they are currently going through. Their collective hearts and souls have been ripped from them. I can only offer my individual thoughts and prayers. If the media wants to do anything to save face, it should stay away from the family members and do no more damage by exploiting this tragedy further.

But that is where I would like to focus this entry. Not on the tragedy per se, but on the media and its coverage. An untruth was spread by the media without any concrete source. Tim Blair's site is by far the best to focus on the media's gross incompetence, but why is the media so completely wrong when it has such a vast amount of human and technological resources?

I would argue for the same reason television, computers, and cell phones have made humans less active and less communicative. The reliance on modern technologies erases our fears of uncertainty. How many of us rush through a green light almost believing with complete faith the opposite red light will protect us from all other traffic? I am guilty of this, just like most of us. We are shocked to the core when we find out an e-mail did not go through, just as we are when we find out our media giants got a story as heart wrenching as this wrong.

But is this not the very problem? We are today more shocked at technological imperfections than human failures. People do in fact say things that are not true. Men and women hear things that are wrong inaccurate. Someone who's unofficial is incorrectly given authority over sensitive information. All of this should be seen as a possibility, but since sending reports or directly reporting live on television is easier than cooking a Pop-Tart, incidents such as these are becoming normal.

(I personally believe journalists should instinctively be skeptical of any and all information [especially of those concerning life and death] that comes their way. Because the modern journalist seems himself as part of the story, rather than observing the story, we have our media participating in inaccuracies instead of correcting them.)

I have always viewed technology as something that will save man from his greatest failures, such as killing and polluting. But we should start to view technology as regressing man's greatest feats, such as mastering all of the world. Man sought to conquer all of the world, and did so because of a drive toward excellence. It was man's greatest qualities that has made all of this world, with its joys and pleasures, possible. Now that we can do almost anything, we need to rediscover the things that brought us to this current destination. Laziness was not one of them.

O Lord, after I have worked my last day
and come out of the earth and have placed my feet on Thy footstool,
let me use the tools of Prudence, Faith, Hope and Charity.
From now on till I will be called to sign my last payroll,
make all the cables in the machinery strong with Thy Love.
Supply all the gangways, slopes and chambers
with The Pure Air Of Thy Grace and
let The Light Of Hope be my guidance and
when my last picking and shoveling is done,
may my last car be Full Of Thy Grace and
give me The Holy Bible for my last shift,
so that Thou, The General Superintendent of all colieries can say:
"WELL DONE THOU GOOD, FAITHFUL MINER
COME AND SIGN THE PAYROLL AND RECEIVE THE CHECK
OF ETERNAL HAPPINESS."
Amen

Best of 2005 - Our Gentle Sons...

2006-01-02T08:07:00.000-08:00

I've developed several keywords when discussing certain types of bureaucrats. For example, I believe we have too many Wilsons at the CIA and far too many Gentle Sons® at the State Department. The following post from April 25 is an introduction to our unfortunate Gentle Sons®:

Encouraging Our Enemies - April 25, 2005

Like the study of most current events, this topic is still relevant today as John Bolton serves at the United Nations and Iran's nuclear enrichment program proceeds while the European negotiators dither.

Happy New Year - 2006 Edition

2006-01-01T07:56:00.000-08:00

Today is the start of the New Year for the world and here at Vagabondia. Personally, I don't make New Year's resolutions because they usually end up being a lot like United Nations resolutions; they're so much wishing and hoping without the discipline and determination to actually see the changes we want.

One thing I would like to change in 2006 is the Vagabondia blog. Mike and Grimacer have been wonderful additions, but my own involvement has been lacking. I'm trying to come up with a plan and a schedule that will permit me to post more regularly.

For this week, I'll be posting the top five posts of 2005. What's that you say? Is it a little late for a "Best Of 2005" list? Absolutely not! As usual, your Indigent Blogger is doing it right where so many corporate media organizations got it wrong. Yes, many mainstream media outlets completed their best stories of 2005 days before 2005 was actually over, but what if there had been an earth-shattering story yesterday or the day before? Not me! I waited until the very end to insure a last minute surge of brilliant posts by the Vagabond bloggers was not left out of our "Best Of" list.

Say tuned for the first of the Best Posts of 2005 (in no particular order).

Kicking the Can Down the Road

2005-12-22T08:24:00.000-08:00

After 9/11, the Patriot Act was put in place to tear down the walls of miscommunication between the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA. Democrats willingly signed the legislation right after 9/11 with smiles on their faces. But it didn't take long before they ran to the nearest camera to start ripping it to shreds.

For the past four plus years they have been harping about what an abuse of power the Patriot Act is. It has become a favorite liberal buzz word, like Halliburton, in their political attacks on the President and his administration. For four years they put up with it, and not once did anyone introduce legislation to fix it. Everyone knew it was due to expire at the end of this year sending us back to the days of September 10, 2001.

Last week the Democrats successfully filibustered this vital piece of legislation leaving America at risk of dropping its guard on January 1st. Fortunately, the Senate today reached a compromise on the Patriot Act that will extend it for another six months.

I don't understand why Democrats have to be dragged kicking and screaming into protecting America. Why do we have to explain to them the reason for invading Iraq three years after the fact? Why do we have to put up with them blocking legislation designed to protect America? Why do we have to beg them to let us put up a fence to secure our borders? I just don't get it. I can understand if you don't agree with the reasons for some of the things we have to do, but for goodness sakes, can't you take one for the team and be a silent objector? Is it so painful that protecting America makes George W. Bush look good?

These people scare me. They claim that they are only preventing an abuse of power. In fact they are willing to sacrifice the security of America in order to undermine a Republican president and congress so they can regain power. People who stoop to such desperate measures to gain power will stoop to even more desperate measures to retain power once they have it. It is at that time that our freedoms will truly be in jeopardy.

Music to his ears...

2005-12-20T00:01:00.000-08:00

Iran's public is now facing a new kind of suppression, as if they aren't feeling it enough. (Stifling political speech was in this past summer.) No longer will Iranians be able to listen to Western music:

Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has banned all Western music from Iran's state radio and TV stations an eerie reminder of the 1979 Islamic revolution when popular music was outlawed as "un-Islamic" under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Today, though, the sounds of hip-hop can be heard blaring from car radios in Tehran's streets, and Eric Clapton's "Rush" and the Eagles'"Hotel California" regularly accompany Iranian broadcasts.

No more the official IRAN Persian daily reported Monday that Ahmadinejad, as head of the Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council, ordered the enactment of an October ruling by the council to ban all Western music, including classical music, on state broadcast outlets.

"Blocking indecent and Western music from the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting is required," according to a statement on the council's official Web site.

...

The ban applies to state-run radio and TV. But Iranians with satellite dishes can get broadcasts originating outside the country.

Ahmadinejad won office in August on a platform of reverting to ultraconservative principles, following the eight years of reformist-led rule under Khatami.

During his presidential campaign, Ahmadinejad also promised to confront what he called the Western cultural invasion of Iran and promote Islamic values.

Since then, Ahmadinejad has jettisoned Iran's moderation in foreign policy and pursued a purge in the government, replacing pragmatic veterans with former military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners.

While I think this is ludicrous, context is required. Right now, the globe has never been this connected. We can talk to anyone instantly, without delay. News and ideas are disseminated almost too quickly, riots can be coordinated as if planned at a HQ (as was the case in France and Australia). The world traditions are reacting against this global world. New ways and ideas are becoming mainstream, taking the place of the "old ways."

This is not similar to the natural changes humanity always goes through when it comes into contact with other cultures. We are at a major crossroads in global society. But as the human experience has proven, freedom will always win. Fascism, in the forms of Nazism, or in today's climate, radical Islam, cannot defeat the human spirit, which both ideologies attempt to do. Communism failed to change human nature, which in the word's of Calvin Coolidge, "is about the most constant thing in the universe..."

Alas, this is another mistake Ahmadinejad is making. It is a list of mistakes that keeps on growing. He, like all fascists, will soon perish and his exiting will give Iranians a chance at freedom. I know freedom is rather cliche in today's world. It does little to comfort the unease in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. It is something former American slaves did not enjoy until 1964, since the breaking of shackles merely led to economic and political slavery. But the ability to be free is an enduring human trait. Yes, most humans follow popular trends and want acceptance from a wider body. The unique are the brave... those who relish in the ability to swim against the current, only to get discouraged when they become the tide. As we enter this brave new world, in which only freedom, in all of its forms, will win, we must attempt to create a society (a global one at that) that accepts human nature and looks for the universal moral code that can control man's darkest side.

UPDATE: A friend of mine brought to my attention his disagreement with my statement that, "... freedom, in all of its forms, will win..." He contests that it does not always win. Historically, "conservative" movements have beaten back "progress." I disagree in a larger context, since the concepts of the Declaration of Independence have been trickling throughout the world. I would consider this document the authoritative statement on human freedom. But the word "freedom" is another point of contention. He states, and I must admit I agree, most men and women do not want "freedom." They want liberty. Most want the tool of making free decisions; free from being forced into decisions and opinions. Most (or, perhaps, many?) want to have their opinion agreed upon by others. Everyone looks for guidance. Sailing with the wind is must easier than tacking. Confrontation is not man's strongest suite, as we all know through playground experiences, since bully's almost always get their way. So, yes, human "liberty" will undoubtedly triumph in the Middle East and throughout the world. I just hope that we start focusing on all of the world. I hear there are problems in Sudan... something about genocide.

Fallen Eagle

2005-12-16T11:31:00.000-08:00

Like I've said before, sports often serve as a microcosm of life and culture here in America. Often more so in terms of racial relations than any other aspect of society. Sports have often served as some of the greatest triumphs and setbacks in the history of race relations. Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in major league baseball was a defining moment in the history of this country. He was the perfect man to be the first African American to break the segregation barrier because he was able to do so with pride and class.

But each step forward is difficult. Progress is often met with resistance. Although African Americans have been playing professional football since before the second world war, as late as the 1980's there was a common belief in the NFL that black players were not smart enough to play quarterback. It wasn't until the 1987 Super Bowl when Doug Williams led the Washington Redskins to a victory over the Denver Broncos that the myth was dispelled. Since then there have been a plethora of black quarterbacks to enter and compete in the league, although Williams is still the only African American to lead his team to a Super Bowl victory as a quarterback.

In some sense, there is still a misconception out there that black athletes just aren't as smart as their white counterparts. Black quarterbacks to this day are still fighting those stereotypes. Many people believe they cannot be effective passers. Many believe they are best utilized as scramblers (quarterbacks who run a lot instead of throwing) like Michael Vick and Randal Cunningham. This week that stereotype is being debated in bloody fashion on the pages of the newspapers in Philadelphia.

When Donovan McNabb was first drafted by the Eagles he was booed because his name wasn't Ricky Williams. But it didn't take long for him to gain the faith of the City of Brotherly Love. He electrified the crowd with his ability to will his team down the field. He led the Philadelphia Eagles to four straight NFC Championship Games and ultimately made it to the Super Bowl last year where they lost to the New England Patriots. One of his greatest weapons when he was first drafted was his ability to run with the ball. But as the years went on McNabb took a beating from all those scrambles and hits. He started running less and throwing more. Over the past six years, his number of rushing attempts have decreased each year.

Since being put in as the starting quarterback, McNabb has been considered the leader of the team. He has always been the team spokesman. He's always been the guy to pick up his teammates when things looked bad. But this year has been a horrible year for McNabb. Injuries have plagued him and his team. His star wide receiver has been banned from the team. Now there are grumblings that McNabb has lost his team in the locker room.

This past weekend, J. Whyatt Mondesire, President of the Philadelphia chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), wrote a scathing article about McNabb in the Philadelphia Sun Newspaper. In the article (sorry I could not find a link), Mondesire analyzes the drop off in McNabb's rushing production and concludes that McNabb is trying to fight the stereotype of the scrambling quarterback that is too dumb to run a passing offense even though McNabb has made no such claim. Mondesire accuses McNabb of "playing the race card" and selling out "by claiming that 'everybody expects black quarterbacks to scramble' (which) not only amounts to a breach of faith but also belittles the real struggles of black athletes who've had to overcome real racial stereotype casting in addition to downright segregation." Mondesire also attacks McNabb by calling him "mediocre at best" and went on to say "And trying to disguise that fact behind some concocted reasoning that African American quarterbacks who can scramble and who can run the ball are somehow lesser field generals ... is more insulting off the field than on."

McNabb responded to these comments in the Philadelphia Inquirer saying, "Obviously if it's someone else who is not African American, it's racism. But when someone of the same race talks about you because you're selling out because you're not running the ball, it goes back to: What are we really talking about here? "If you talk about my play, that's one thing. When you talk about my race, now we've got problems. If you're trying to make a name off my name, again, I hope your closet is clean because something is going to come out about you ... I always thought the NAACP supported African Americans and didn't talk bad about them. Now you learn a little bit more."

Donny, Donny, Donny. I'm sorry you had to learn this lesson the hard way, but the NAACP does not look out for you just because you're black. Ask Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, Michael Steele, and Thomas Sowell. These are all prominent African Americans who the NAACP has either at one time opposed or refused to support. Their message is clear if you know how to read between the lines. They are not for the "Advancement of Colored People". They are for the uniformity of "colored people". You see Donny, they like to have all African Americans fit into one mold, or stereotype if you will. That way it's easier to control them. You broke that policy by starting to act more like a white quarterback in their eyes. Remember these are the same people who sanctioned an event where Oreo cookies were thrown at Michael Steele because he is a "black republican".

Normally the NAACP doesn't concern themselves with these types of issues. Normally they are too busy convincing African Americans they are disenfranchised at the polls and the white man won't let them go to college and make good money. The problem that organizations like the NAACP and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have is with each generation more and more African Americans start to achieve the American dream and the scars of slavery and segregation heal a little bit more. As African Americans become more diversified and some of them start to make it in this country, others will start to wake up and realize they can make it too. People who embrace freedom feel a sense of self-governance and responsibility. People like this are less likely to look to social crutches like the NAACP. It's time the NAACP get with the 21st Century. For goodness sakes, the title of their organization still refers to African Americans as "colored people".

"Bush lied, fingers dyed!"

2005-12-15T18:37:00.000-08:00

That quote above is from a Tim Blair commentator when the first round of voting took place in Iraq. In Iraq today (yesterday for them), they voted again, this time for a permanent Iraqi government. This is a tremendous moment in Arab history. It is a time when either one of two things have transpired: The creation of popular government that will start a revolution within the greater Arab culture, or the placement of a Band-Aid that will not stop a reversion to despotism.

First, these events are momentous for all Iraqis and for all of the brave Americans (as well as all Coalition forces, Iraqi and others) who have fought so long and hard for events such as this. As I mentioned in another post, so much is owed to the men and women that have served in the United States military. (One look at Michael Yon's breathtaking photograph sums up this sentiment. It is the second picture in the slideshow.) It is a moral imperative that no matter what occurs in the next days and months after this election, we should all glorify the work and persons of the United States military that have given millions a chance at personal autonomy when years ago, such a thought was dubious at least, life threatening at worst.

The question before us today is what is to be made of this event in the grand scheme of things. The true implications are, unfortunately, a distant revelation. There is no denying this process is pushing toward dynamic change in the Arab culture. Iraqis are fulfilling the concept civic happiness (see here, here and here), as the American Declaration of Independence so perfectly states. The question is, will this push be victorious, or in vain?

The always insightful Lee Harris at Tech Central Station writes that there is still something missing in Iraq, and that is a "dictator":

Dictatorial is the right word for the kind of power that some single man must be given in Iraq if there is to be any chance at achieving political stability. There is no substitute for political stability, nor can anything of permanent value be done in a society that lacks it. That is why states of emergency are states of emergency: nothing else goes on during them, everything productive and useful grinds to a halt for as long as they last. That is why the only remedy for such a situation is the assumption of absolute authority on the part of someone. A state of emergency is not the time for parliamentary debates or the writing of constitutions or for the deliberation of committees; it is not the time for the sharing of power among the quarreling groups that must be compelled to unite in a common project. Nor can it be resolved by passing laws that no one obeys, or training a better security force that no one commands. A state of emergency needs a dictator.

His argument is well noted and even makes practical sense. The greatest importance to Lee Harris is "political stability" and I could not agree more. How this is best achieved is my point of contention with Mr. Harris.

He argues that the Iraqi government is not a natural, or "organic" political system. This is true in the sense that Hussein's regime was removed by outside force, then a new political process was spurred by this same force. However, the new Iraqi government is organic in the sense that popular vote has decided this current course. (In so much as elected representation is direct.) But that is certainly the crux of the matter. The new Iraqi government is only just now, in this year, becoming a government that derives its power and authority from the ground up. The revolutionary idea of the American Revolution is that government power derives from the bottom up, rather than the top down. This creates a system of trust, which was broken during the American Civil War, then restored by force. But to use this example as Lee Harris has done, the reason a dictator in the Iraqi conflict is erroneous because it cannot be implemented without the usurpation of popular government as was the case during the Civil War. Iraq has just now established popular government on this day. Therefore, dictator (or dictatorial powers) cannot be an option, as it was with the Roman Republic or during the American Civil War. It will only be a path to sustained despotism in a country that understands this power. For the Romans or Americans, dictator, or dictatorial powers were foreign to those currently living, therefore, tyranny was foreign to Cincinnatus and Lincoln. Tyranny is not foreign to any current Iraqi.

So dictator is not a logical option and immediate withdrawl is ludicrous; the course is set. The Bush strategy is the only rational option left for Iraq. Obviously, there have been failures. But this course has given Iraqis hope and many around the globe hope that a stable, democratic Iraq will emerge. Lee Harris himself has called this a "Gamble" and it is in many respects. This is the reason I used that quote as the title of this post. The Iraq war is Bush's legacy to the world. That legacy so far is the voting of millions of Iraqis... but it could also be America's biggest blunder. So as pundits and writers and partisans rush to tell us all why the terrorists are finally defeated or why the world is about to implode, let's give millions of Iraqis and thousands of soldiers a day to celebrate the most important day in Iraq's history... they deserve at least one.

Profiling for Pedophiles

2005-12-02T06:58:00.000-08:00

About a year ago, Mark Worsley got on a Quantas flight in New Zealand. He was traveling with his two year old twin sons. He got on the plane and took his assigned seat next to an eight year old boy. Shortly after takeoff from Christchurch the flight attendant approached him and told him he needed to change seats with the woman two rows ahead of him. When he asked why he needed to change seats the flight attendant told him the airline has a policy of not seating male passengers next to unaccompanied children. Mr. Worsley obliged the flight attendant, but as he sat in his new seat and thought about the situation, he started to realize that the airline had profiled him as a pedophile. The more Mr. Worsley thought about it, the angrier he got. He didn't want to cause a scene on the flight because he was aware you just can't do that in a post 9/11 world. But since the incident Mr. Worsley has been very vocal about the fact he felt he was discriminated against and he has contacted the Nation Party Political Correctness Eradicator, Wayne Mapp* to assist him in getting Quantas and Air New Zealand, which admits to having a similar practice, to change their policies.

Is this a situation of profiling run amuck? I must admit this is a tough one for me to reconcile in my head. I can see the argument for wanting to protect children from pedophiles. While the child is on that plane, they are the legal guardians and can be held responsible for anything that happens to that child. But at the same time I can understand why this man was upset. If it were me, I would probably feel a little embarrassed and angry myself. But after pondering it for awhile, I have come to my own conclusion that the airline has gone too far in this one.

I think profiling can be a useful tool when used properly by law enforcement officials. It is a fact that most terrorists tend to be muslim males of middle eastern decent between the ages of 25 and 35. But they represent a small portion of the American population, so profiling them makes reasonable sense to me. In contrast, these airlines have instituted a policy of profiling fifty percent of the population. When you are talking about such a large portion like that, profiling loses its effectiveness.

That being said, it seems like something that is easy for the airline to do. It doesn't really require any extra resources which pass extra costs onto the consumer. As long as they don't deny access to the plane to anyone, I don't see this as discrimination. Mr. Worsley is trying to turn this into a Rosa Parks type event, but I'm just not seeing that. But there are other things the airline can do to prevent children from being seated next to a sexual predator.

Mr. Worsley was put in a situation where he was made the center of attention on the plane and some people may have perceived that to mean he was a problemed individual. That isn't right. In this day and age, we can single out child predators more effectively than just assuming every male is a potential sexual predator. The United States has set up national child predator databases. Flight passenger lists should be cross checked against those databases and in the event there is a match the suspected pedophile should be seated as far away from the child as possible and the flight crew should be discretely notified to keep the person and child on close watch. The parents of the child should be notified that there will be a convicted sexual offender on the flight with their child and give them the option of choosing another flight. In addition, unaccompanied children should be seated with a flight attendant or other airline official. Beyond that, if the airline wishes to seat unaccompanied children next to female passengers, I don't have a problem with it. But when mistakes are made, all efforts should be made to handle the situation in a discrete non-offensive manner. In the case of Mr. Worsley, that didn't happen.

(* - How cool is it that the New Zealand National Party has a Political Correctness Eradicator? How do we get one of those?)

(Un)Civil Rights

2005-12-01T05:46:00.000-08:00

This morning I was listening to Michael Smerconish on the way to work as I always do. I wish I could find a link to the story he was discussing, but thus far I have been unsuccessful. If I find a link, I'll be sure to post it here, but for now you can go to Mike's website which I linked above and check out his "Must Read of the Day." (Warning - Adult Content) I will try to remember the situation he discussed as best I can.

Today he was discussing an event at the University of Pennsylvania where a male student was looking out his dorm window. Across the quad or the street or whatever, he had a view of another dorm building. In one of the windows, he saw a male and female student engaged in sexual acts. From what I gathered from the discussion Mike had on the radio, the couple was clearly performing an act of exhibitionism. Anybody walking by the building would have seen them. The male onlooker took a picture of this couple from his window. Then he posted the picture on his website.

Now the University is punishing the student who took the picture for sexual harrassment. I didn't catch the punishment on the radio, but I suspect it is probably a suspension. My question to the readers is, does the student deserve to be punished for this?

I can understand if the University is punishing the student for using the university computers or servers to post pornographic material on the internet, but let's leave that out of discussion since the university says the student is being punished for sexual harrassment. Let's say the couple was looking for a thrill and willfully did what they did in front of the window with the intent of wanting to be seen. Now they are upset that their momentary act is frozen in time on the internet. Should this student be punished for giving them what they wanted? Were their civil rights violated by this kid? Let's start the discussion there and then I will add some twists to it.

Update: Here is a link to the Story.

Update #2: The university has met with the student that took the photograph and has decided to drop all charges against him.

Pandemonium Has an Apple Store...

2005-11-26T08:36:00.000-08:00

And it's always Black Friday.

Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering. - Job 26.6

Yes, I have been through the fire and witnessed the writhing mass of a tormented humanity in Pandemonium. It was a winding road that led me there, but I will share it with you brethren (and sistern), if you dare to follow my trail.

As everyone knows, the Gates of Hell are just off Fourth Avenue, right past Dick's Last Resort, but if you want to get to Pandemonium; you'll need to take the Miramar Road exit West off Interstate 805.

The Indigent Girlfriend's brother (Bill) was down for Thanksgiving and went with me to buy some parts for a computer I was rebuilding. So, we went out to my usual hole-in-the-wall asian suppliers and picked up what I needed (Motherboard, CPU, and RAM). It was on the drive back that Bill began telling me about a problem he was having with his Apple iBook. It seems that his iBook G4 would lock-up when recording his gigs (he's a musician). It would also freeze and "stutter" when applying reverb or EQ to multiple tracks using Digital Performer. Since I don't know anything about audio or Apple computers, all that sounded as foreign to me as it did to you. So it was with a great deal of confidence that I told him he needed more memory (RAM) in his iBook.

That's how we ended up in front of the Apple Store at the University Towne Center mall in La Jolla. Looking through the doors, I could only see a writhing mass of people. My mind was already troubled by what Apple Computer could possibly be selling that would attract such a crowd. Even if all nine Apple users in San Diego were in there at the time, who were all these other folks? No matter, I extended my right-arm in front of me, turned my flat-palm vertical, raised it above my head, and began hacking a path through the milling masses of lost souls. Reaching the counter at the back with little injury to ourselves, I asked for a 1GB memory module to upgrade an iBook G4. The clerk checked stock on the computer, gave me a quick "no problem" and went through a back door to the stock room. Bill and I exchanged triumphant grins. Hell, I was thinking we could probably get these "Apple Geniuses" (yes, that's what they're called) to install the memory for us, sparing me the deed of having to open it up myself. I was quite at ease and feeling fine.

That's why I was caught so off-guard when the clerk returned, slapped the boxed memory on the counter and said, "This is 500 dollars."

It took a moment to realize that my heart had stopped beating. My vision blurred and the world lurched under my feet. I knew there was something I should be doing, but I couldn't remember what it was. I was drifting in a dream, standing at the counter of an Apple Computer store in 1988, when the clerk sets a 20MB hard drive on the counter and says, "That'll be 600 bucks". No wait, I am sitting at a desk across from a Farmers Insurance broker who's saying, "Comprehensive coverage for a 19 year old driving a 280Z will be $176 per month." I can faintly hear gagging noises as the real estate agent tells me, "...and this is a great entry level home at just $550,000." What is that buzzing? Is someone calling my name? Is that you Lord?

I opened my eyes to Bill shaking me by the shoulders, mouthing the word that must be my name, calling me back. That's when I remembered what it was I should be doing. My lungs burned as I sucked in my first breath in what must have been minutes. As the last few bright spots cleared from my vision, I saw Bill (for whom money is no object) looking at me as if to say, "Well, should we get it?"

In my head, I was thinking, "Sure, why not. In fact, why don't we ALL just start dropping LSD, having promiscuous group sex in the rain-soaked mud pits of Woodstock, and paying $500 for 1GB memory modules until the fabric of society, commerce, and decency is lost forever!" After declining the purchase, it was with no small amount of desperate panic that I began hacking a path back through the crowd of masochists.

We eventually ended up at Fry's Electronics where we picked up the 1GB memory module for $135 with a $15 mail-in rebate. The serpentine checkout line winding all the way back through the unkempt shelves of the warehouse store was like a little taste of Heaven by comparison. The added memory had its desired effect and all was well. We had looked upon the end of times, waded into the heart of chaos, and walked out again mostly unharmed, if not untouched.

Happy Thanksgiving

2005-11-24T13:11:00.000-08:00

From all of us here, we hope you have a happy and gluttonous Thanksgiving. But we must be remember the mountains (both real and metaphoric) that our fathers have successfully climbed for us to have successive Thanksgivings and dwell on those who today are working so hard to bring "a new birth of freedom" to so many around the world. No better a person to speak on this than President Lincoln, who had to steady a nation on the brink of destruction. This destruction was more than just the division of the Union, but would also result in the continuation of the evil institution of slavery:

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle, or the ship; the axe had enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years, with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-eighth.

A. Lincoln

We as a nation have so much to be thankful for. On the top of that list is our men and women fighting for an ideal not foreign to the American tradition, but something all of our fathers have fought for before. So as we enjoy our Thanksgiving today, let us take a moment to remember those before us and the many who labor for us today.

Computer Problems?

2005-11-24T06:50:00.000-08:00

Eugene Volokh is having problems with his Dell computer, and your Indigent Blogger is here to give you the low down on the break down at Dell. I immediately guessed at the nature of the problems Mr. Volokh would have with Dell by the description of his problem in the first paragraph of his post.

I have a simple problem: The hard drive for my Dell notebook crashed after my computer was out of warranty. I bought a new hard drive, but now I need a boot disk for the Microsoft XP Professional operating system that I originally bought loaded onto my computer. I suspect this happens very often; there ought to be a standard procedure for it.

That is a relatively simple problem but not for the Dell support folks thanks to the cost-saving decision to exclude the original media for the Windows operating system.

I'm talking about the CD that could be used to reinstall Windows (or whatever) on your Dell computer from scratch. This is precisely what you would need if your hard drive crashed or if you upgraded to a bigger hard drive. What Dell provides to its home-user customers instead is a "Disaster Recovery" CD. Dell is right about one thing, the entire concept of the way that recovery CD works is a disaster. Dell makes a mirror image of the operating system as it is before the end-user gets their hands on it, and stores that image on a separate partition of the hard drive. If you own a Dell personal computer (that has not been "re-imaged" through your own corporate IT personnel), you'll be able to see this magical recovery partition by typing compmgmt.msc in the Start-Run command box and selecting Disk Management from the Storage folder. You should see a list of logical "volumes" at the top right, and the physical disk they reside on in the bottom right.

That "recovery partition" is important because it works in conjunction with the recovery CD. The recovery CD "restores" the operating system on a Dell computer back to factory condition by erasing EVERYTHING on the user's partition and reinstalling the "mirror image" from the hidden recovery partition. Since Mr. Volokh replaced his original hard drive, there was no magical recovery partition rendering the recovery CD (and the canned support script walking him through it) absolutely useless. So, Mr. Volokh would need to purchase a new Windows XP CD for two reasons; 1) Dell provides a "Disaster Recovery" CD rather the actual media for the operating system, and 2) the Disaster Recovery CD does not recover from disasters involving the hard drive where the hidden recovery partition is located.

I talked to the person; and finally, finally got a chance to buy a new copy of Windows XP Pro (the software that they knew I had bought with my original system) for a $100 discount off their $309 standard price.

Here we have one of the greatest computer crimes of our time. Most Dell computers sold for home users do not come with the "Professional" edition of Windows XP. The Professional edition is an option for which Mr. Volokh probably paid extra at the time of his original purchase. However, he still received no media for his operating system with his original system. Dell then has the balls to charge him $209 to replace the media he should've received when he purchased his system.

Readers of The Indigent Blogger, brace yourselves! You can purchase an OEM version of Windows XP Professional (the same thing Mr. Volokh just purchased) for $75 from eDirectSoftware. Yeah, bookmark that link! And yes, it is legal software. Yes, I have done business with them on many occassions. No, I am not affiliated with eDirectSoftware in any way. There's even a bonus for Dell users because the OEM media that eDirectSoftware ships to you is currently imprinted with the Dell logo.

How is that possibly legal you ask? Here's an explanation that I wrote for my small circle of customers:

You have an OEM license of Microsoft Windows XP Professional. The sticker affixed to the outside of your computer has your Product Key, which is your proof of ownership and represents your legal license. Do not permit others to use your product key! Using your product key to activate Windows installations on other computers is illegal and could jeopardize your ability to receive free offers, critical updates, and upgrade pricing for new operating systems from Microsoft.

You are permitted to make one backup copy of your media to be used in the event of damage or loss to your original OEM software media. If you purchased your computer from The Indigent Blogger after September 2004, you should be able to simply insert a blank CD-R disc into your CD-ROM drive and type 'makexpcd' at any command prompt. This will create a backup copy of your Windows XP OEM installation media.

The Indigent Blogger cannot replace or repair lost or damaged installation media. In the event that your original hologram CD is lost or damaged, and your hard drive data is lost or damaged, and you don't have a backup installation CD, you may need to purchase a completely new version of Windows XP Professional. Under no circumstances will The Indigent Blogger provide replacement media.

So, the license to use Microsoft software is really tied to those convoluted product keys you have to type in when you install it for the first time. The truth is that you can use ANY media for the same license type of the same product to re-install or add components to an existing installation as long as you have the unique product key. For example, the product key on the "Windows XP Professional OEM Version" sticker affixed to the outside of Mr. Volokh's laptop could be used to install Windows XP Pro (OEM) from the media he will receive from Dell. In fact, he could buy a new OEM version from eDirectSoftware and and install it using the product key on the sticker affixed to his computer years ago when Dell shipped it from their factory.

What will not work is mixing edition or license type. When you buy Windows XP (Home or Professional) off the shelf at a retail store, that is a "Retail" license. The license purchased with most computers or from places like eDirectSoftware is an "OEM" license. There are subtle differences that I will not get into here. Let's say you buy five copies of Windows XP Professional OEM Version from eDirectSoftware and four of the CDs are crushed during shipping. You can absolutely use the one remaining CD to install the operating system on five computers as long as you use one each of the five product keys (received with the media) when prompted during installation. However, if all five CDs were damaged during shipping, you could not use the product keys received with the OEM media to install from the "Retail" CD your wife bought you for Christmas last year. In that case, you would enter the OEM product key and it would be rejected by the retail installation CD.

I realize this is rough reading for any day, let alone Thanksgiving Day, but I thought I would shed some light on how Dell (and most other OEMs) handle your operating system licensing and media and offer some tips on how to protect yourself against their poor practices. I also hope this clarifies how much more important those little stickers and product keys are than the actual CD that comes with your software purchase.

Evolution v. Board of Education

2005-11-22T20:25:00.000-08:00

When discussing the topic of evolution, I would like to avoid the debate over which is right or which is wrong, although I'd like to point out evolution and creationism are simply two sides of the same coin. Evolution states things are always changing and creationism means things can pop out of thin air and be changed instantly. If either is true, permanance is nonexistent.

Two weeks ago the Dover school board elected eight new faces, all of which want to end the previous decision to read a statement on Intelligent Design to biology students.

President Bush, as we know, is for teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom. Lee Harris over at Tech Central Station has a piece about Bush's comments. Here is a portion of it:

Would Darwin have objected to President Bush's seemingly paradoxical comment that both sides in the evolution debate "should be properly taught"? Well that might depend on whether he was permitted to hear the president's justification of his position, namely that both sides should be taught "so people can understand what the debate is about," and the president's further statement: "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is 'yes.'"

With those conditions, the answer, I am confident, is: No, Darwin would not have objected. Indeed, he would have welcomed such debate. Debate is what he, like all great thinkers, lived for.

Darwin would have welcomed such debate because he was keenly aware that the problems he had raised were not capable of being resolved into trivial facts to be memorized like the names of the state capitals or the rules of the multiplication tables. He knew that his theory probed the ultimate questions, and that such ultimate questions could never be given a definitive solution to be taught by rote, and to be memorized by parrots.

What an insult to Darwin's intellectual genius to think that his theory is as obvious as two plus two equal four, or as innocuous as the facts contained in an almanac! Anyone who thinks Darwin's theory is obvious clearly hasn't a clue about its brilliance or its
originality.

So this time Bush got it right, and the critics that are pouncing on his statement are getting it mostly wrong. There is no harm in teaching children to discuss and debate the ultimate questions -- indeed, the greatest danger is that we may raise a generation that is never challenged to think about such questions at all. If an
open-ended debate about evolution stirs up the kids, then, for heaven's sake, let the stirring begin.

Darwin grew up believing in Adam and Eve -- proof that it makes little difference with what opinion we start out with, since all that ultimately matters are the convictions that we discover for ourselves.

I agree 100% with President Bush, Lee Harris and all of those who wish to have Intelligent Design/Creationism mentioned in school. My objections begins where they wish to discuss Intelligent Design and Creationism. Clearly, since neither Intelligent Design or Creationism has any kind of scientific grounding, they should not be discussed by a science teacher. The current assault on science by fundamentalists of all stripes is deplorable. Science has its place in formal education, but that does not mean it holds all the answers to the universe. All this leads me to asking a pertinent question: Why would any conservative Christian want an evolutionist (possibly a non-Christian or an atheist) teaching creation?

Creationism is a tenant of Judeo-Christian teaching. God made Man, therefore we are God's creation living according to his will. But how does any of this concern a biology class? Explaining what the natural order of the world is the goal of the physical sciences (although, that was not its original intent). But explaining how it all started or why it works so perfectly and naturally is the job of others.

The best article I have read about this debate can also be found at Tech Central Station. Frederick Turner writes:

The controversy over intelligent design and evolution is, like many current quarrels, largely artificial, a proxy fight between atheists and biblical literalists over the existence and nature of a divine authority and the desirability of state authority as a replacement for it. Many people not warped in attitude by the exacerbations of the conflict see no contradiction between the idea that the universe, life, and human beings evolved according to natural processes, and the idea that a divine being or beings can be credited with the existence of everything, having set those natural processes going in the first place. The big question is whether nature can give us a moral law that is robust enough to serve a modern democratic free enterprise society -- if it can, that moral law would be acceptable both to believers, who would see it as God's natural revelation, and to unbelievers, who could trust its metaphysical impartiality.

This debate, Creationism/ID vs. Evolution is irrelevant to the truly important questions: What is justice? What is virtuous behavior? What, if any, is the universal moral code? Without asking these questions, what is the point of a formal education?

Les Rues de Feu (The Streets of Fire)

2005-11-08T19:41:00.000-08:00

Special thanks to The Indigent Blogger for inviting me to participate on Vagabondia. I hope you find my writing interesting, but more importantly I hope you find it thought provoking.

The past few days I find myself intrigued with the events going on in France. I don't watch much network news on television or read the New York Times, so I don't know how the mainstream media is covering these events. But gauging by the conversations I have with people, I don't suspect it is getting as much coverage as a Hurricane Katrina or 2000 deaths in Iraq. You can always tell what the big stories are by listening to what people are talking about, and right now people aren't talking about Paris burning. It is getting coverage, but not interest. And I get the impression that when the riots end, they will be forgotten within two days.

I'm curious why this isn't foremost on our minds. Although I was in grade school at the time, I vividly remember the LA riots because they led the headlines for weeks. It was a sexy story of injustice and racism. It was an abuse of power. It was black America versus white America. It was David versus Goliath. The media eats up stories like this. America eats up stories like this. So what gives with the Paris riots?

I must admit, at first glance there is an urge to snicker at our French friends. They claim to be much more enlightened and cultured than us. So to see them struggle with racial issues is kind of like seeing the perfect married couple next door throwing the pots and pans at each other. But before we go having a good laugh at the expense of our dear "allies", we should keep in mind that we may be looking at glimpse of America 30 years from now.

For years now Muslims have been flooding into Europe, and in particular France. I have seen estimates that millions of Muslims have moved to France in the past decade. And France has welcomed them with open arms. France believes that trying to accept Muslims will result in understanding by both sides. They believe this understanding will lead to peace and stability, something all Europeans crave ever since World War II. That is their goal.

But here in America we have different goals. While we also seek peace and stability, ultimately the average American first seeks prosperity. Let's face it, what kinds are sacrifices are you being forced to endure in order to support the war effort? Unless you are in the military, not much. There is no gasoline rationing. No calls to recycle rubber and tin. The average American has not been affected at all by this war. Back during the election the polls indicated the economy was equally important as the war. The average American cares about having a good job, a nice house, a nice car, taking nice vacations, and having lots of Christmas presents under the tree. That's what's important to us.

As America grows in prosperity, the gap between the rich and poor is growing in step. As more Americans get out of poverty and enter the middle class, a vacuum is created at the bottom of the job chain. Middle class Americans don't want to take the $5/hr jobs that Walmart and McDonalds offer. They don't want to break their backs mowing lawns and cleaning toilets. But many immigrants are willing to do those jobs because they still represent a better life than having no job back home.

Like Muslims flooding into France, America is experiencing a wave of immigration from Latin America. Official estimates say millions of people live and work in this country illegally. These immigrants, also known as "guest workers" as politicians have taken to calling them, are willing to take the bottom of the barrel jobs most middle class American workers aren't willing to do. And they don't complain one bit because they are just happy to be in this country and supporting their families.

While these immigrants are thankful for the opportunities America gives them, I suspect the next generation will be a different story. What this generation views as opportunity, the next generation will view as oppression. Those born in this country will begin to ask themselves why they are sweeping floors and digging ditches for less than minimum wage and no health insurance while their white peers work in air conditioned offices making ten times what they do. While their parents look at white America and see people who need services, the next generation will only see people who seek to shut them out of the American dream. They will ask themselves why schools in their neighborhoods don't have the resources that schools in white neighborhoods do. Multiculturalism will soon breed a sense of injustice. And when that happens the streets of Paris will come to America. Viva la France.

Keep Alive 08NOV2005

2005-11-08T06:35:00.000-08:00

I've been pretty busy lately, but I want to try and post something instead of letting the blog go dormant again. While things are slow here, Check out the excellent posts at Every Opinion and the Deep Freeze. Speaking of the Deep Freeze, Mike is the newest vagabond, here at Vagabondia. Expect to see some thought-provoking posts from him in the future. Also, in response to the two questions in this post at the Deep Freeze, the first answer is No. Madonna stopped being sexy to me when I graduated junior high. And the last answer; I would call the paramedics to get the woman the medical attention she obviously needs.

My thought for the day is concerning an item I read about NBC and CBS. No, I actually have something nice to say about them. Of course, it doesn't involve their so-called news departments, not directly anyway.

CBS and NBC have announced deals to offer replays of prime-time programs for 99 cents per episode, shifting television toward a sales model that gained popularity with downloaded music. - AP

In the years before the Indigent Girlfriend came to San Diego in 1999, I would disable the television part of my cable service, only keeping the broadband Internet service. During football season, I would only buy the television service blocks necessary to watch NFL football games. This would include FOX, CBS, ABC, and the fly in the ointment, ESPN. Getting the Sunday night games on ESPN required me to buy the extended cable service, in addition to the basic cable service. Well, what I actually wanted to do is pay for the programming I actually watched instead of paying $80 per month for 40 channels of info-mercials, 20 channels of shopping networks, and another 20 channels of actual programming that was at all interesting to me.

Now, this announcement is progress, but it doesn't quite get us where I want to be. I like the idea of being able to view streaming content and download previous shows over the Internet or a digital television service, but I don't like the requirement of being a full subcriber to a satellite television service. In other words, some of those one and two dollar downloads will be in addition to the outrageous subscription services I'm already paying.

Multiculturalism's Self-Inflicted Wound

2005-10-30T17:53:00.000-08:00

The biggest problem with multiculturalism is how by its very essence it is self-defeating. Case in point, Australian police have been instructed to view some kinds of spousal abuse differently than others (Via Little Green Footballs):

POLICE are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits.Officers are also being urged to work with Muslim leaders, who will try to keep the families together.

Women's groups are concerned the politically correct policing could
give comfort to wife bashers and keep their victims in a cycle of violence.

The instructions come in a religious diversity handbook given to Victorian police officers that also recommends special treatment for suspects of Aboriginal, Hindu and Buddhist background. Some police officers have claimed the directives hinder enforcing the law equally.

Police are told: "In incidents such as domestic violence, police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life and habits of Muslims."

They are told it would be appreciated in cases of domestic violence if police consult the local Muslim religious leader who will work against "fragmenting the family unit".

Why is this policy a defeat for the forces of multiculturalism? For this, let's look to John Locke's "A Letter Concerning Toleration." In it, Locke argues for the tolerance of the several Protestant sects, but not for Roman Catholics or atheists. As Lee Harris argues in his book, Civilization and Its Enemies, Locke's tolerance is very different from our own interpretation of tolerance today. However, this exclusion of Catholics and atheists was far from simply bigotry, but a logical exclusion. How can a nation tolerate those who would attempt to destroy the very tolerance practiced?

Of course, you cannot have tolerance of those who wish to destroy your very tolerate culture. It is quite clearly suicide to do so. This is why the lessons of Locke are so potent and important to Western Civilization's current struggle against the radicals that adhere to Islam. Just as turbulent 17th century England could not destroy itself by tolerating the very intolerant Roman Catholics of the period, the West simply cannot allow certain groups, in this case radical Islam, to corrupt and destroy the very values that have given women certain protections; among them, the ability to prosecute an abusive husband.

If a culture, or possibly more appropriate, civilization, which has based its success on the absorption and assimilation of various cultures that espouse mutual tolerance, bends and capitulates its own values to those who despise tolerance, it cannot and will not endure. The West will have to decide its fate very shortly. Will it continue down this current course of tolerating the forces of anti-tolerance, or will it decide to actually defend itself and more importantly, its values? This is the problem multiculturalism, or what the American Left sheepishly calls progressivism, poses to the West. It unwittingly appeases those who would destroy them, and argues even for added protection to these forces of anti-tolerance. It is a choice that is not easy or painless. Great difficulty and conflict await the world for many years to come, but when the fate of civilization hangs in the balance, difficulty and conflict should be confronted with courage and virtue, as opposed to appeasement and degeneracy.

Andy Rooney and Anti-News

2005-10-25T12:01:00.000-07:00

I was watching 60 minutes many years ago, and I saw Andy Rooney do one of his reports that has really stuck with me all my adult life. He was standing on the banks of the Mississippi River on a sunny day with the waters calmly drifting by in the background. He was trying to explain why most of the news seems to be bad news. He illustrated his point by reporting that the waters were calm, the weather was fine, and there was no indication the river would overflow its banks any time soon. He also pointed that most viewers wouldn't find that news very interesting. This is a point he still makes to this day as he did in a commencement speech at George Washington University earlier this year.

The trouble is by its very nature news is negative. It's always a change from the status quo, an aberration in the course of events, and any change is usually bad. So it's the bad news that's in the newspaper or on television and people don't like that. They blame the messenger. We don't run pictures and report on the Mississippi River on days that it does not overflow its banks and drown people.

Well, it appears there is an exceptioin to every rule. Let's examine a few breathless headlines from the last 24 hours.

"Bush Won't Release All Miers Records" - ABC News

"Bush Refuses to Release Nominee's Papers" - New York Times

"Bush Refuses to Release Details of Miers' Work" - Internatioinal Herald Tribune

Now, all these stories and more than a thousand like them would be news except for one problem. Not releasing privileged documents, especially involving attorney-client privilege , is normal and customary. This is true for all of these rediculous requests for documents, from John Roberts to John Bolton. If the requested documents are not already subject to the Freedom of Information Act or the Presidential Records Act, then no administration has any obligation to provide privileged documents to neither Congress nor journalists. Where a reluctance to hand over documents about John Roberts may have been challenged with the Presidential Records Act, the documents concerning Harriet Miers remain privileged documents. She was (is) Whitehouse Counsel for the President.

So, at the end of the day, these waters remain calm and there is no evidence to suggest they'll be over-flowing their banks any time soon. And yet, the likes of ABC and the New York Times really find this story interesting.

Why do I care? I'm not defending Bush and I certainly don't care enough about the Miers nomination to make this post. I do credit the Bush Administration with attempting to re-establish the proper and constitutional separation between the Executive and Legislative branches of government. Too much executive power had been ceded to the legislative branch, and too much executive power lies in their hands today. The entire notion of filibustering a presidential nomination for any post, by any president, is an abomination! This so-called gang of fourteen are the epitome of everything that is wrong with our government.

That is to say nothing of our national journalists, who are increasingly becoming paid agents of media corporations with their own agendas. The fact that we have ABC and the New York Times running these kinds of headlines about something that is normal and customary is itself, noteworthy. Requests for privileged documents fall into the same category as that age-old question, "When did you stop beating your wife." Of course, if you give a date, then you've beaten your wife, but if you refuse to dignify that question with a response; you refuse to say that you've stopped beating your wife.

Frankly, between the national media and congress, it's a wonder the Office of the President of the United States hasn't been stripped down to simiply a national figurehead, robotically parroting the popular opinion as reported from the latest polls.

Sunday Fun

2005-10-23T09:00:00.000-07:00

Every now and then, I let my hair down and have a little fun here at Vagabondia. AlanK has posted some fun stuff over at AK Land, and I thought I would steal some of his ideas for Vagabondia. He answers a series of questions, that I thought would make and easy and fun post. However, focusing on the easy aspect of the post, I'll be truncating the original 28 questions at AK Land to just the top ten.

LAST MOVIE YOU SAW IN A THEATER: Broken Flowers

WHAT BOOK ARE YOU READING? A Crown of Swords by Robert Jordan

FAVORITE BOARD GAME? Stratego. It's easier and more fast paced than chess.

FAVORITE MAGAZINE? The Week Magazine.

FAVORITE SMELL? Anything on an outdoor grill

FAVORITE FOOD? French Toast smothered in peanut butter, bananas, and syrup.

FAVORITE SOUND? Old school Willie Nelson, like Red-Headed Stranger

WORST FEELING IN THE WORLD? Disappointing my girlfriend

WHAT IS THE FIRST THING YOU THINK OF WHEN YOU WAKE UP? Damn! Time to walk the dogs again.

FINISH THIS STATEMENT. IF I HAD A LOT OF MONEY... I'd go into work with a new car and a really bad attitude!

Ok, so I actually swapped question ten with question twelve, but I figured it was more entertaining. Besides, there are no future children for the Indigent Blogger.

News About Nothing

2005-10-22T08:50:00.000-07:00

You've never read anything on this blog about the Valerie Plame affair, until now. The reason for that is simple. I think it is the biggest bucket of nothing I've ever witnessed. Even if it leads to an indictment of Karl Rove or Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, it still doesn't deserve the reaction it is getting.

First of all, it is assumed that special prosecuter Patrick Fitzgerald will issue indictments because he is not releasing a report. It has long been a wish of the President's political opponents that Fitzgerald would release what they hoped would be an embarrassing final report. However, while Fitzgerald must submit a final report to the US Attorney General, I've heard that the special prosecutor is not permitted to write a final report for public release. This is not an independent counsel (e.g. Kenneth Starr) as the law that created the Office of the Independent Counsel was allowed to expire in 1999. It had expired once before, in 1992, but a new OIC law was established in 1994 under an entirely Democrat government, which also selected Kenneth Starr to serve in that role. Indeed, it was explained to me that the special prosecutor operates much like any other prosecutor. He may investigate crimes and choose to issue indictments or not, but he may not release a public report. Take that with a grain of salt for now as I have not read any statutes defining the scope and constraints of a special prosecutor.

Second, there seems to be a great deal of wishful thinking from Democrats and their supporters. For example, take David Wallechinsky latest submission at the Huffington Post:

...and if it is also true that Fitzgerald has expanded his investigation to include issues beyond the Valerie Plame leak, we may witness the gradual unraveling of the Bush presidency.

Yeah, and if I had been born yesterday, I might be able to believe something like that. If Libby and Rove go down, they will be replaced. Maybe some other folks in the Administration will go down. I haven't followed the story (because it is boring), so I don't necessarily how wide a net could be cast. Having said that, I haven't seen anything, beyond wishful thinking, that could include charges against anyone of substance. Does anyone recall all those years of fishing in Whitewater? Starr was a machine scoring 14 or 16 adjudicated indictments with none overturned, yet the big fish still got away. I think the Democrats are placing too many wishes and hopes on an insvetigation about nothing.

Finally, this all started because of what some call a smearing of Joe Wilson. Keep one thing in mind through all of this, Joe Wilson is a liar. He lied, got caught in his lie, and was thrown overboard by the Democrat Party. The entire fiasco... I'm sorry, did you have a question? Was Joe Wilson, in fact, jettisoned from the grace and favor of Democrat inner circles?

Does anyone remember this web-page? It used to reside at URL www.johnkerry.com/honesty but was scrubbed from the former candidate's site on July 24, 2004 when the entire "16 Words" ordeal imploded. That was the same day John Kerry had his web administrator scrubbing all mention of Sandy Berger from his site, so I guess he figured to scrape two liars from his boots at the same time.

Probably the worst thing to come out of this circle-jerk are the newly proposed shield laws for so-called journalists. I have stated it before, and I will say it again here. I don't know much about Judith Miller, but Dan Rather, Brian Williams, and their ilk are not journalists. They are agents of for-profit media corporations who should be MORE regulated than the average individual with a personal printing press (a.k.a. a blog). If you're interested in the whole Plame affair, Tom McGuire at JustOneMinute probably has the best coverage that I've seen. I recommend you start there for all the CIA-Leak news.

Founding Fathers of Terrorism are French

2005-10-20T14:15:00.000-07:00

Glenn Reynolds from Instapundit has linked to a book named Holy Terror, which suggests modern day terrorism has its roots in France. This is something I've been saying (and writing) for quite some time now. The mention on Reynolds' site brought to mind the last time this topic came up, which was during my blogging hiatus.

Back in July, Col. Oliver North penned an editorial taking exception to a comment made by Brian Williams (Lead Anchor at NBC) during a Nightly News broadcast.

On June 31st, following a report that Ahmadinejad might have been one of those who sacked our Tehran embassy and seized 52 American hostages in 1979, Williams said, "What would it all matter if proven true? The first several U.S. Presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called 'terrorists' by the British crown."

Brian Williams proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that television news anchors are only as smart as the tele-prompter.

Of course, Mr. Williams' comments are absurd for reasons so obvious, even a high-school dropout and indigent blogger can easily point them out. The British would not have referred to American revolutionary fighters, to say nothing of George Washington, as terrorists because, frankly, the French had not yet invented terrorism. The United States began its experiment in democracy by protecting loyalists in a document known, ironically, as the Second Treaty of Paris in 1783. The French began their experiment in democracy a few years later with a decidedly European twist known as the Reign of Terror. The Online Dictionary of Etymology offers the following notes on the origins of terrorism:

1795, in specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France" (1793-July 1794), from Fr. terrorisme (1798), from L. terror (see terror).

"If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis in a time of revolution is virtue and terror -- virtue, without which terror would be barbaric; and terror, without which virtue would be impotent." [Robespierre, speech in Fr. National Convention, 1794]

General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is first recorded in Eng. 1798. Terrorize "coerce or deter by terror" first recorded 1823.

Brian Williams should pick up Terry Eagleton's book, Holy Terror. He then might learn that terrorism is just a long line Euroisms foisted upon mankind, including colonialism, imperialism, fascism, nazism, and communism.

Saddam's Trial: Justice versus Jurisprudence?

2005-10-20T12:01:00.000-07:00

From the day Saddam Hussein was pulled out of his spider hole, there has been speculation about how, when, and where he would be tried. Austin Bay believes it may have been better to try Saddam Hussein sooner and ends his latest post (hat tip: Instapundit) on the subject with the following question:

Would trying Saddam have at least blunted some of the internationalista support for Saddam’s fascist holdouts?

The answer is no, and I'll tell you why. I was debating folks about Saddam Hussein's trial back in December 2003, and the reactionaries on the left who typically support the "freedom fighters" in Iraq were making the same arguments then as they are now. The argument generally implies that this will all be a predetermined show trial to raise the facade of fairness and legitimacy while preventing Saddam from implicating his old allies, namely George H. W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and the United States government (read Reagan Administration). Here is a sample written by Barry Lando published by Salon back in December 2003:

Instead, prominent Americans could find themselves playing a role in what may be a very long, drawn-out and embarrassing trial. Imagine, for instance, seeing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton, and a parade of CIA directors and secretaries of state called as witnesses...

Saddam and his attorneys might begin with footage shot back on Dec. 20, 1983, by an official Iraqi television crew when Donald Rumsfeld arrived in Baghdad as special envoy from President Ronald Reagan. ... According to the official note taker at the meeting, Rumsfeld "conveyed the President's greetings and expressed his pleasure at being in Baghdad" to the murderous tyrant. ...

And so, over the next five years, until the conflict finally ended, the United States supplied Saddam with economic aid and such nifty items as a computerized database for his interior ministry, satellite military intelligence, tanks and cluster bombs, deadly bacteriological samples, and the very helicopters that were used by Saddam to spew poison gas over his own Kurd citizens.

Barry Lando did his research on this one, but he was sloppy. I'll briefly remind everyone that those helicopters were unarmed vehicles sold for civilian uses by a private U.S. corporation and at no time did the U.S. government sell, or permit the sale of, tanks or cluster bombs to the government of Iraq, let alone "deadly bacteriological" samples. Ken Sanders of OpEdNews has a more recent example, written yesterday, of this well-worn and thoroughly debunked argument.

...it seems likely that the Bush administration wants to see Saddam hang while avoiding the embarrassment of airing, for all the world to see, America's complicity in Saddam's most heinous offenses. ... Accordingly, an indignant U.S. struck a deal with the devil and started selling Iraq such chemical and biological agents as anthrax and sarin gas.

Previously, in 1983, after determining that "civilian" helicopters could be weaponized in mere hours and could be used to surreptitiously provide military support disguised as civilian assistance, the U.S. sold Iraq 70 "civilian" helicopters on the pretense that they would be used for crop spraying. All-too predictably, Saddam used the helicopters in 1988 to spray chemical weapons on Halabja.

Mr. Sanders certainly applies a great deal more creative license than Lando at Salon, but the argument is the same. This is a common theme on the left because it coincides with one of their stated goals, to see the United States defeated and punished for its crimes as they see them. These arguments have remained unchanged despite research performed by Ken Guggenheim at the Associated Press who stated the following:

Iraq is believed to owe the United States about $4 billion, including interest. Most of the debt is thought to involve U.S. financing for Iraqi agriculture. Many close friends of the United States provided billions of dollars in military help to Iraq during the 1980s war, but little hard evidence has been published that the United States provided much more than technical military aid.

Keep in mind that is $4 billion out of $120 billion worth of odious debts accrued by Saddam Hussein's government. Even Paul Reynolds of the BBC downplays the significance of US support and rightfully names a couple of other nations who were more prominent in supporting Saddam Hussein's regime.

Two current Western leaders in particular might find their names in the frame - the French President Jacques Chirac and the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But before considering their role, it is important to remember that Saddam Hussein's main supplier was the Soviet Union. He was sent its best equipment - Mig 29s, T 72 tanks, artillery, gunboats and Scud missiles.

The various manifestations of this moonbattery may be easily dismissed, which is where Austin Bay's internationalistas fallback on the human rights canard. Again, we have so-called human rights groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International expressing concern over the credibility and the fairness of a trial taking place in an Iraqi Tribunal. I could link article after article of general brow-furrowing and hanky-wringing over the time alotted to prepare a defense and the level of proof required for a conviction. However, it doesn't take these folks long to get to the real bone stuck in their craw.

"Amnesty International considers the trial as an important first step towards bringing justice and reparation for victims of abuses committed during Saddam Hussein regime, but we insist that the death penalty is not the solution for the problem," Nicole Choueiry, a spokeswoman for Amnesty International said in London.

That's right my friends, and Saddam's execution will not be a silent, painless departure at the point of a needle. In the sovereign nation of Iraq, it's a short drop with a sudden stop for those receiving the death penalty as retribution for their crimes. Folks like the aformentioned Ken Sanders even go further to suggest the rules for the entire Iraqi Tribunal system were established by the Bush Administration for the sole purpose of rail-roading Saddam through their little charade as quietly (for him) and expeditiously as possible. Of course, for all their accusations of hegemony and empire leveled at the US, this is just an example of imperial jurisprudence. After all, how could the filthy savages in Iraq actually administer anything resembling justice?

Our dear friends in the internationalista should heed Mark Vlasic's reminder that Iraq, unlike Afghanistan or Rwanda, is an educated society with a long history of quality jurists, including Hammurabi who authored the first written criminal legal code. Despite all of the bickering over jurisprudence, there is one legal question that only Iraqis can answer with any authority. What is justice for Saddam Hussein?

Could the United Nations or a special international tribunal in Europe answer that question? Is it justice to the victims of Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic cleansing that his trial at the Hague is approaching its fourth year and is in jeopardy of going another four to five years?

Geoffrey Nice, the lawyer prosecuting former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), on Tuesday voiced his concern that the trial against the deposed leader will take another four to five years if the court continues to provide Milosevic with further extensions to present his case.

I understand that Europeans demonstrate an unassailable mastery of judicial procedure and administration, but do they know anything about justice? Is it justice that the International Criminal Court is budgeting millions of dollars for the defense of each of the perpetrators behind the genocide in the Sudan? And that's just for the legal defense! That doesn't include guarding them, housing them, feeding them, and providing them with the best European medical and dental care available. Mohammed at IraqTheModel (hat tip: RealClearPolitics) can shed some light on how Iraqis feel about Saddam Hussein and justice.

“Does he deserve a fair trial?” this was the question that kept surfacing every five minutes…he wasn’t the least fair to his people and he literally reduced justice to verbal orders from his mouth to be carried out by his dogs.

Why do we have to listen to his anticipated rudeness and arrogant stupid defenses? We already knew he was going to try to twist things and claim that the trial lacks legitimacy or that it’s more a court of politics rather than a court of law, blah, blah, blah…

“Why do we have to listen to this bull****?” said one of my friends.
“I prefer the trial goes like this:

Q:Are you Saddam Hussein?
A:Yes.

Then take this bullet in the head.”

Everyone could find a reason to immediately execute a criminal who never let his victims say a word to defend themselves “let’s execute him and get over this” sentiments like this were said while we watched the proceedings which were rather boring and sluggish for the first half of the session.

Even those feelings of retribution and vengeance began to give way to a credible dispensation of justice, that only Iraqis could define.

At the beginning we were displeased by the presentation of the prosecution which was more like a piece of poetry in the wrong time and place and this is what encouraged the defense to give us a worn out speech about objectivity and how the court must not go into sideways; the thing which both the prosecution and the defense were doing.

As the prosecution went deeper into details and facts, the way we viewed the trial began to change an d those among us who were demanding a bullet in Saddam’s head now seemed pleased with the proceedings “I don’t think I want to see that bullet now, I want to see justice take place as it should be”.
We were watching an example of justice in the new Iraq, a place where no one should be denied his rights, not even Saddam.

We’re drawing the outlines of a change not only for Iraq but also for the entire region and I can feel that today we have presented a unique model of justice because in spite of the cruelty of the criminal tyrant and in spite of the size of the atrocities committed against the Iraqi people, we still want to build a state of law that looks nothing like the one the tyrant wanted to create.

That, my friends, is justice! As Mark Vlasic points out, Iraqi jurists have died for this day and Iraq's people are being murdered for this privilege. I wish them good luck and Godspeed.

Inside the Garage of an Evil Mastermind

2005-10-18T06:09:00.000-07:00

I would have never guessed that one of the burning questions in people's minds today is, at least according to the Associated Press, "What's in Karl Rove's garage?" Let's take a look at some of the items listed in the AP article:

Some cardboard file boxes stacked one on top of the other, labeled "Box 6," "Box 4" and what appears to be "Box 7." No sign of boxes 1, 2, 3 and 5.

Clearly, these are the boxes of forged documents and misinformation that Karl Rove has released to the press in an attempt to trip them up and ruin their credibility. Obviously, the numbers are the years of President Bush's administration, and he still has "Box 4" because CBS was good enough to provide their own forged documents in 2004. What next?

A rather large wood crate marked "FRAGILE" and painted with arrows indicating which way is up. On top of the crate, two coolers.

I was wondering where this thing was. This must be the Hurricane generation machine that Bush and Cheney have been using in an attempt to kill all the black people, or at least the ones Bush doesn't like.

A snow shovel leaned in front of another cardboard box.

Keep an eye on this shovel! I suspect it will be an important piece of evidence when investigating why the Harriet Miers nomination had to be withdrawn due to a sudden "accident".

What appear to be paint cans stacked alongside a folded, folding chair.

A tall aluminum ladder.

Rove used these items while painting the Mission Accomplished sign aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. I don't yet understand the significance of the folding chair. He clearly doesn't use it for tanning.

Wicker baskets inside of wicker baskets on top of a shelf running the length of the rear wall. Transparent plastic storage bins crammed with indiscernible stuff. Another cardboard box.

In one corner, the rear wheel of a bicycle sticks out, along with what appears to be a helmet.

Another ladder, this one green, leaning sideways.

They discovered it! Darlene Superville, start making room on the mantle for the Peabody Award! These are the components of the super-secret, ultra-diabolical magneto-kinetic disenfranchisement transponder unit (a.k.a. The Diebold 9000). This is the contraption that allowed George W. Bush to suddenly and mysteriously defeat John Kerry on election night. Well, this and about thousands of Diebold AccuVote electronic balloting machines.

With stories like this, I can only thank God for the good fortune to be able to spend another fine day basking in the fruits of award-winning journalism.

Walmart in Waveland, Mississippi

2005-10-15T08:36:00.000-07:00

Bill Steigerwald of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review believes the federal government could learn a few lessons from Wal-Mart when it comes to disaster preparedness. I agree.

This is a picture of the Wal-Mart in Waveland, Mississippi on the day that it re-opened for business. On the day I took this picture, Wal-Mart was advertising that it was open for business on the local radio stations. Meanwhile, FEMA, the National Guard, and the Red Cross had packed up and left town the night before as Hurrican Rita was blowing by us in the Gulf.

Wal-Mart's re-opening was quite significant for Waveland because it was the ONLY place to spend money in town. Sure, many residents received an emergency check from FEMA or even the Red Cross in some cases, but there was no place to spend money; none at all. Before Wal-Mart, there was no place to buy things like gas, food, or clothes; not in Waveland, Bay Saint Louis, or the surrounding area. You basically had to drive out towards Gulfport, that is, if your car wasn't overturned in a ditch or buried under a pile of rubble somewhere.

The circumstances under which Wal-Mart re-opened in Waveland made an impact on the residents of Waveland as well. For two days, Wal-Mart, the Convoy of Hope (rating) compound, and the Carolinas Medical Center were the only services remaining in Waveland at the time. In contrast, when the Red Cross and federal services packed up and left the area, they drained every gallon of diesel fuel in the coastal area, making it hard for the Convoy (or any other) trucks to get their food and re-supply shipments to us. That made for some dicey moments with a tent full of residents and one small pallet of canned goods to go around. I will say that the National Guard was the first to return AND saved the day with several pallets of Meals Ready-to-Eat (MRE). Those MREs provided practical and psychological relief to the tension felt by the residents and volunteers alike.

Most of the residents thought neither FEMA nor the Red Cross would be returning. Indeed, FEMA was not very popular at all. However, I must be quick to say that this is not a FEMA bashing thread. It was through FEMA that Fire and Police services from other states were arranged for Waveland. FEMA also provided the church compound with drums of diesel fuel without which we would have been dead in the water. We were going through 350 gallons a day. So, FEMA does certain things very well, like arranging public safety, shipping drums of diesel fuel, moving huge generators, forklifts, and other logistical nightmares. On the other hand, there is simply no way FEMA or any other government organization (aside from the military) could come close to competing with the volunteer services I saw in places like Waveland, Mississippi.

Perhaps if there were some sort of initiative to capture the synergy between the two, disaster response in the United States would be that much better. Who would oppose that and for what reasons? That is a debate I would like to see in our national and state legislatures.

Get Your Mid-Life Crisis on EBay

2005-10-13T22:40:00.000-07:00

I saw this and had to pass it along. Being size 34 x 34, they would be a tad baggy in the waste, which of course, ruins the whole purpose of having leather pants. Here is the text from the auction:

You are bidding on a mistake.

We all make mistakes. We date the wrong people for too long. We chew gum with our mouths open. We say inappropriate things in front of grandma.

And we buy leather pants.

I can explain these pants and why they are in my possession. I bought them many, many years ago under the spell of a woman whom I believed to have taste. She suggested I try them on. I did. She said they looked good. I wanted to have a relationship of sorts with her. I’m stupid and prone to impulsive decisions. I bought the pants.

The relationship, probably for better, never materialized. The girl, whose name I can’t even recall, is a distant memory. I think she was short.

Ultimately the pants were placed in the closet where they have remained, unworn, for nearly a decade. I would like to emphasize that: Aside from trying these pants on, they have never, ever been worn. In public or private.

I have not worn these leather pants for the following reasons:
I am not a member of Queen.
I do not like motorcycles.
I am not Rod Stewart.
I am not French.
I do not cruise for transvestites in an expensive sports car.

These were not cheap leather pants. They are Donna Karan leather pants. They’re for men. Brave men, I would think. Perhaps tattooed, pierced men. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say you either have to be very tough, very gay, or very famous to wear these pants and get away with it.

Again, they’re men’s pants, but they’d probably look great on the right lady. Ladies can get away with leather pants much more often than men can. It’s a sad fact that men who own leather pants will have to come to terms with.

They are size 34x34. I am no longer size 34x34, so even were I to suddenly decide I was a famous gay biker I would not be able to wear these pants. These pants are destined for someone else. For reasons unknown - perhaps to keep my options open, in case I wanted to become a pirate - I have shuffled these unworn pants from house to house, closet to closet. Alas, it is now time to part ways so that I may use the extra room for any rhinestone-studded jeans I may purchase in the future.

These pants are in excellent condition. They were never taken on pirate expeditions. They weren’t worn onstage. They didn’t straddle a Harley, or a guy named Harley. They just hung there, sad and ignored, for a few presidencies.

Someone, somewhere, will look great in these pants. I’m hoping that someone is you, or that you can be suckered into buying them by a girl you’re trying to bed.

Please buy these leather pants.

I wish the ten year old remnants of my life's mistakes were worth $102.50. Enjoy!

Dear John er.. Abu Musab al Zarqawi

2005-10-13T08:00:00.000-07:00

The big news this week seems to be the captured letter from al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi. I think Lt. Smash at the Indepundit covers the main points of the 16 page missive very well. John Hinderaker's thoughts on the letter are available at Powerline Blog. Both are well worth reading.

I also have something to add to what Lt. Smash calls the "Iraq equals Vietnam fantasy" expoused by many on the Left and echoed by Zawahiri in the letter. Of course, there are few similarities between the current war with Iraq and the Vietnam conflict. Like Vietnam, the current war has drug on for more than a decade and a premature withdrawal of American forces would result in millions of slaughtered Iraqis. That's where the similarities end. However, there was another recent conflict that inspired the same high hopes and anticipation amongst terrorists, similar to those expressed by Zawahiri referring to the American exit from Vietnam. Somalia. Here's a snippet from John Miller's (ABC) 1998 interview with Osama Bin Laden:

Miller: Describe the situation when your men took down the American forces in Somalia.

So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger.
...
After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim.

The best recruiting tool in the world is victory, especially victory against greater odds. And speaking of Osama bin Laden, remember when his video aired days before the 2004 election? His speech had eerie echoes of Democrat campaign slogans and Michael Moore's latest film at the time. Well, once again a terrorist echoes the arguments of the left: Americans out of Iraq... fight Israel... Iraq is Vietnam...

I must admit that this letter does highlight a major difference of opinion between the terrorists and the reactionary leftists in the U.S. and Europe. Zawahiri and Zarqawi clearly are not the freedom fighters or even insurgents that moonbats like Cindy Sheehan have painted them to be. Why are we not hearing more from so-called "anti-war" protesters about the destruction these terrorists are wrecking in Iraq? The answer is simple. Though the methods may be slightly different, the goals are the same: weaken/defeat the United States and impose an agenda in the absense of U.S. power, by force if necessary.

The truth is that "anti-war" demonstrations were funded and organized by groups that are quite supportive of violence against their own enemies, such as the United States. We all know about duplicitous snakes, such as Ramsey Clark, who funded hundreds of protests against the invasion of Iraq all the while working for Saddam Hussein (he is Saddam's attorney even now). But it doesn't stop there. International ANSWER's coalition of "anti-war" groups includes the League for the Revolution Party (LRP) whose own policy resolution states the following:

We reject pacifism and campaign for the tactics of Trotsky’s proletarian military policy: arming and training the workers under the control of their own class organizations.

Well, at least they're pro-gun ownership! This should be touted in the media at every one of these so-called war protests! The fact that these groups are not protesting war, but they are protesting against democracy and liberty. Take the Workers World Party for instance. Sure enough, they're quick to oppose Bush and "The War", but they also refer to the protesters in Tiananmen Square as counter-revolutionaries and praise the Chinese government for resisting them.

This is not a new discovery. It has been covered in Salon, Front Page Magazine, and many more publications. The fact that it is not new is exactly why I find it so surprising that so many Democrats align themselves with these demonstrably pro-war, anti-democracy, and anti-liberty forces.

* 9:27 AM - Edited for clarity.

Countdown to International Justice (Day 195)

2005-10-11T21:15:00.000-07:00

McQ over at QandO Blog reminds me of my Countdown to International Justice series, tracking the days until the United Nations and the long arm of the International Criminal Court brings swift justice to the victims of genocide in Sudan.

Well, now John Bolton is there and apparently already ruffling French feathers by blocking yet another U.N. envoy from briefing the Security Council on grave human rights violations in Sudan's Darfur region. McQ summarizes:

Well I have to agree with Bolton, how many briefings do you need to know a situation needs remedying? And I'd also point out that the UN determined some time ago that what was happening in Darfur wasn't "genocide". That saved them from having to act. So I'm not sure what the "advisor on genocide" would add to the body of information already available.

I agree. It's not like this stuff is new and we're just now figuring out what is going on. In fact, I'm surprised this is even an issue. After all, on June 06 of this year, 68 days after having the issue referred to the ICC by the United Nations, the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC finally decided that he would investigate the matter.

The Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno-Ocampo, has decided to open an investigation into the situation in Darfur, Sudan.

Mike Hubbell, responding to my Day 31 post, asked what I thought the UN should be doing, rather than violating its own charter with feckless referrals to the completely useless ICC. I responded in the comments:

The UN should stick to its charter, which clearly defines its authority. In both the above mentioned resolutions, it is decided the situation in Darfur constitute a threat to international peace and security, meeting the obligation of Article 39 of Chapter VII. Articles 41 and 42 spell out exactly what measures the UN can take, and those measures include economic sanctions, blockades, and military intervention.

I'm glad John Bolton is taking a stance, and he is absolutely right to do so. After all, unlike France, the U.S. has been ready to call it genocide since the beginning of the year. It only makes sense that the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations would be working from that perspective.

Trouble With Judges

2005-10-09T06:30:00.000-07:00

Few things in politics truly get under my skin. If John Kerry would have won the Presidential Election in 2004, I would have had some concern over his intentions in Iraq; but I would have shrugged and known for a fact that the great bureaucratic behemoth of government would have continued on with little or no noticeable deviation. Judges are becoming another story altogether. They are an odd fit in our democracy. In my eyes, we the people are giving way too much power to the last kind of people that should have any power at all, lawyers.

I made one post about the Judge's ruling in the Terry Schiavo case, expressing agreement. Many pundits, including Glenn Reynolds and Ted Olsen expressed disappointment, dismay, and sometimes outrage at Representative Tom DeLay's threatening remarks directed toward the judiciary at that time.

DeLay issued a statement asserting that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." He later said in front of television cameras that he wants to "look at an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president."

I whole-heartedly agree with Mr. DeLay's characterization of the judiciary but not for the same reasons. Clearly, DeLay's concern is for a judiciary that "thumbed their nose at Congress and the president". Thumbing one's nose at Congress and the President is almost a redeeming quality. It's when members of the judiciary purpose in their hearts to circumvent or thwart the democratic process on the flimsiest of constitutional interpretations that legal recourse against them becomes all too necessary.

Enter Patricia Yim Cowett, Superior Court Judge, bane of democracy, and enemy of the people. Ok, perhaps she's not all that, but I can't help but question her motives regarding the voter approved Proposition A (pdf) and the transfer of the Mount Soledad cross and memorial to the Federal Department of the Interior to maintain as a national veterans memorial.

There has been a cross at Mount Soleded National Park since 1913, but it has not always been a war memorial. After the previous cross was destoyed by a wind storm in 1952, the City Council of San Diego granted permission to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association to erect another cross. In 1954, the current 43 foot high cross was erected and dedicated to veterans of World War I, WWII, and Korea.

The lawsuits to have the cross destroyed or otherwise removed began in 1989 by a busy-body atheist named Philip Paulson. You think busy-body is a cheap shot, just so many extra words thrown in to disparage Mr. Paulson? Philip Paulson is a self-proclaimed "Church-State Activist" according to his name and title as a signatory to the Humanist Manifesto III (pdf). He brought a lawsuit against the City of San Diego to solve a problem that no one else is complaining about. He is so obsessed with the cross on Mount Soledad, he applied for and obtained a permit to assemble at the area around the cross on Easter morning in 1996, for no other purpose than to stick a finger in everyone else's eye. Like I said, a busy-body with way too much time on his hands.

Having said all that, the real villain of this story is Judge Patricia Yim Cowett. Where Paulson is a mild agitant and general muckraker, Judge Cowett has real power, the power to turn a judicial district into a dictatorship. On July 13, prior to the election that would see Proposition A pass or fail at the hands of the voters, Judge Cowett was all in favor of this issue being decided by the democratic process.

"This is a proper subject to place before the voters," Judge Patricia Yim Cowett said after listening to oral arguments. - SD Union Tribune

The judge went on to forewarn that a change in the way the city parkland was used could result in a two-thirds requirement for passage. Could that have been a little hedging for her pre-judgement of the case? Approval for Proposition A ("As it is, Where it is") was polling between 60 and 67 percent right up until the the eve of the election. In fact, when Judge Cowett confirmed the two-thirds requirement just five days prior to the election, my Councilmember, Jim Madaffer, wasn't sounding very optimistic.

"I think it's tough to get 67 percent of people to agree what color the sky is," Madaffer said. "Two-thirds is almost insurmountable odds."

I must admit that even I was surprised when the election results came back on election night showing Proposition A had passed with a 76 percent majority. For those that think we are all just right-wing, fundamentalist bible-thumpers out here, keep in mind that all conservative mayoral candidates received a total of 56 percent of the vote, while candidate Donna Frye (D) received 43 percent on the same ballot as Proposition A. In retrospect, I shouldn't have been all that surprised at the Prop A results because 76.6 percent of the voters approved a similar measure (Proposition F) to save the cross on Mount Soledad in 1992. The cross and memorial on Mount Soledad are not just a passing fancy to a large majority of San Diegans. Fellow San Diegan, Lt. Smash, illustrates why the Mount Soledad cross fits right into the character of this city named after Saint Didacus (Diego) of Acala (hat tip: SMASH in comments).

After all that talk about how "proper" it was to bring this before the voters and the level of approval required to pass the measure, Judge Cowett has now taken the law into her own hands by declaring Proposition A unconstitutional.

Cowett ruled that the donation of the cross to the federal government to be the centerpiece of a veterans memorial, as San Diego voters approved in Proposition A in July, is an unconstitutional aid to religion.

I'm not a judge or even a lawyer. Hell, I'm a just a high school drop out with a little free time and a printing press in the form of a blog. However, even I know that Cowett's characterization of the ruling is simply and obviously wrong. The donation of the cross to the federal government to be the centerpiece of a veterans memorial is not an unconstitutional aid to religion. The donation of the cross to the federal government is the manifestation of people using their democratic franchise to specify how their City would handle a land-use issue. Voters make such decisions all the time, for all kinds of groups and causes. Sometimes voters approve land use for private developers and other times voters reserve land for environmental preservation. Now, for the second time in 15 years, San Diego voters have overwhelmingly declared that the cross on Mount Soledad should remain where it is, as it is; and they have demonstrated a willingness to grant overwhelming approval of any means to that end.

Stupid Media Tricks

2005-10-07T06:45:00.000-07:00

If you peruse the various headlines in Google News concerning comments made by President Bush, you'll notice many such as this:

Bush: "God told me to invade Iraq"

The Guardian (UK) uses this stunt with a headline of George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'. There it is, a direct quotation clearly defined by the colon and surrounding quotation marks as recommended by UK journalism standards. Unfortunately, the text of the article does not support the headline.

George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.

So, here we have the Guardian (as well as the Independent and the Scotsman) directly quoting President Bush even though they're actually quoting a senior Palestinian politician named Nabil Shaath. However, the Guardian article has a more senior Palestinian politician, Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, also present at the meeting failing to characterize the President's comments in the same strong language.

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian prime minister, who was also part of the delegation at Sharm el-Sheikh, told the BBC programme that Mr Bush had said: "I have a moral and religious obligation. I must get you a Palestinian state. And I will."

Even Reuters (and MSNBC) observes enough professionalism to get the headline correct.

Palestinian: Bush said God guided him on war

Now that's much better and a much more accurate depiction or the story being reported. The BBC started all of this non-sense by "convincing" Mr. Shaath to reveal his comments publicly, and they have also printed the denial from the White House.

Election Day Myths

2005-10-06T20:50:00.000-07:00

Will Lester of the Associated Press (AP) wrote an article on a report by political analysts Elaine Kamarck and William Galston enumerating some of the "election myths" the national Democrat Party will have to dispel if they wish to be a majority once more. No, these aren't the kind of "Democrats" that vote Republican, donate money to Republicans, and release reports criticizing only Democrats. Ms. Kamarck and Mr. Galston are true blue Democrats and their politics can be glimpsed in some of their writing, such as Kamarck's Decline of American Greatness or Galston's Peril's of Pre-emptive War.

Those articles and the others like them are mildly interesting, but the body of their work that I find fascinating and absolutely hilarious is the one discussed in the AP article concerning "election myths" long held by the Democrat Party. The article starts by dispelling the old assumptions of better mobilization and an emerging Democrat majority in the form of minority immigrants. However, the point that struck me funny was this one:

The belief Democrats can succeed politically if they simply learn to talk more effectively about their positions.

I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh every time I look at that one. I also can't help but agree completely. When national Democrat candidates start speaking candidly and coherently about their exact positions and policies, voters either melt away or slip through fingers like sand on election day.

I recently thought I heard a blurb on the news about Howard Dean proposing a Democrat version of the Republican Contract With America of 1994. That's a good idea, unless as the Democrat political analysts warn against, the Democrats plan on outlining their actual positions and policies in the document.

Return to Indigence

2005-09-29T06:12:00.000-07:00

I've just returned from Waveland, Mississippi where I was part of a larged team of people handing out hot meals and supplies to residents of the area. I figured this would be a good subject to kick-start my blog into action again. I have pictures, I have stories, I have rants, and I have some advice for any groups preparing to send packages to residents of areas destroyed by Katrina.

Stay tuned...

Independence Day

2005-07-04T12:00:00.000-07:00

From both of us here at Vagabondia, we hope you have a truly wonderful Fourth of July with family and friends and that you all stay safe. That being said, take some time to read both of these very important documents to remind yourselves of just exactly how meaningful this day truly is:

The Declaration of Independence is one of the most important documents in the history of mankind. It is the organic law that the United States is bound to. It expresses the sound doctrine of natural rights and gives us direction towards what President Lincoln called the standard maxim, "...which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere" (Speech at Springfield, Illinois. June 26, 1857). It has given hope to all within America and all who yearn to be free like Americans. It has forever changed mankind and can only be destroyed once the concept of self-government is no longer deemed plausible.

The Gettysburg Address was given by Abraham Lincoln to honor the dead Union soldiers that had fallen at the Battle of Gettysburg, which ended on July 3rd. It is truly fitting that one of the turning points in the greatest American struggle would be a day before its birthday. The battle symbolizes the notion of the struggle to achieve the standard maxim. The Civil War was not one merely of self-preservation, but one of an ideal. It embodies the fact that Americans are willing to risk the blood and treasury of its citizenry for those who do not breath the air of freedom. American independence has not been held within a certain race or contained inside American borders, but has been given to so many across racial and national lines.

Presidential Speech quick take

2005-06-28T20:56:00.000-07:00

I just got off of work so I only caught about the last five minutes of the speech. Afterwards, Brit Hume on Fox News asked Senator John Warner if President Bush is being inconsistent in saying the US is there to defeat the terrorists, but we're leaving the second Iraqis can defend themselves. Sen. Warner did not see the obvious answer to Brit Hume's question, which is if Iraqis are defending themselves, we did win. Would not the United States' exit and a competent Iraqi army defending free citizens and a democratic government be a huge victory for the United States and its allies?

A Warning to Europe

2005-06-26T21:01:00.000-07:00

I came across this interview with reporter Oriana Fallaci (via Peaktalk), in which she assails Europe's slow demise. This demise has less to do with the religion of Islam as it does Europe's own cultural amnesia. The simple fact that Christianity was denied reference in the now rejected EU constitution (while a general statement on its history was made) is proof alone of Europe's refusal to acknowledge what made it great. While you can read the entire interview above, there are a few quotes worth special attention:

Ms. Fallaci speaks in a passionate growl: "Europe is no longer Europe, it
is 'Eurabia,' a colony of Islam, where the Islamic invasion does not proceed
only in a physical sense, but also in a mental and cultural sense. Servility to
the invaders has poisoned democracy, with obvious consequences for the freedom of thought, and for the concept itself of liberty."

Europe is most definitely not Europe anymore. I will not go as far as Ms. Fallaci to blame Islam alone for the demise of Europe. Europeans are to blame for Europe's transformation, mainly by their own indifference towards Europe's cultural destruction. While minorities who happen to be conservatives are considered "self-loathing" in the U.S., Europeans in general truly embody "self-loathing".

The impending Fall of the West, as she sees it, now torments Ms. Fallaci. And
as much as that Fall, what torments her is the blithe way in which the West is
marching toward its precipice of choice. "Look at the school system of the West
today. Students do not know history! They don't, for Christ's sake. They don't
know who Churchill was! In Italy, they don't even know who Cavour was!"--a
reference to Count Camillo Benso di Cavour, the conservative father, with the
radical Garibaldi, of Modern Italy. Ms. Fallaci, rarely reverent, pauses here to
reflect on the man, and on the question of where all the conservatives have gone
in Europe. "In the beginning, I was dismayed, and I asked, how is it possible
that we do not have Cavour . . . just one Cavour, uno? He was a
revolutionary, and yes, he was not of the left. Italy needs a Cavour--Europe
needs a Cavour."

Part of the problem in Europe is the success of cultural nihilism. In my opinion, nihilism breeds a lust for comfort... a life devoid of struggle. But is it not the inevitable struggle between right and wrong that is vital to any civilization's survival?

I argue that nihilism also leads to the diminishing of great men. To be great, one must struggle. However, great men have saved Europe time and time again. Churchill, one of the world's greatest statesmen and leaders, saved Britain and is partially the reason for the Allies eventual toppling of fascism. Those who rise up to defend what is right and fight what is wrong cannot simply yearn for comfort. If all Europe wants is comfort, who shall be the protectorate of their comfort? Europe cannot resist those who reject the European value system. Today Europeans appear to be unwilling to struggle with any new threat. A life of comfort, by its very definition, exempts struggle.

"You cannot survive if you do not know the past. We know why all the other
civilizations have collapsed--from an excess of welfare, of richness, and from
lack of morality, of spirituality." (She uses "welfare" here in the sense of
well-being, so she is talking, really, of decadence.) "The moment you give up
your principles, and your values . . . the moment you laugh at those
principles, and those values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your
civilization is dead. Period."

The values of the West (in particular, the values that have made it superior to all of the civilizations before it) are worth defending. While Ms. Fallaci is very critical of Islam (and with good reason in some respects), the West must clearly understand what it is defending.

The greatest threat to the West that I can see is nihilism. That is its own self-destruction. The West (and particulary Europe) no longer believes in anything... therefore all is embraced and not judged based upon merit. Islamic radicalism is merely feeding on Europe's own indifference; and indifference can be seen as Europe's new philsophical outlook. The problem of indiffernce can be seen throughout history: Europe's collective indifference towards Nazism led to a devastating war. Now again, indifference is leading to Europe's cultural and economic decline.

I do not totally agree with Ms. Fallaci. My take on her is the same as Friedrich Nietzsche: correct diagnosis and observation, but incorrect cure. Europe must awaken out of its cultural coma. It is very similar to what I believe is America's amnesia in defining freedom. Europe cannot truly define what makes it great. One can only mutter "freedom" so many times before the obvious response is "how?" Since this is the case, where is the rush to defend European freedom? Certainly there are no Churchills (although Tony Blair gets pretty close) who can define why certain values must be defended. Europeans instead rationalize terror: "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." Excuses are made for those who would deny basic rights to women and support the abridgement of speech and thought. Somehow, it is the fault of the "imperialists" and their values that have made so many mad at the West. There is no reflection as to why European values are hated by Islamic radicals. The values of the West are worth defending. The problem facing Europe is that no one is willing to defend them and call radical Islam what is is: wrong.

Europe's denial of objective values will further delay the destruction of radical Islam. I am not a fatalist... Europe will survive. It will survive in spite of the likes of Chirac and Schroeder. Once Europe reaffirms the general values that have made it full of political freedom, economic prosperity and cultural richness, it will defeat the very ideologies that wish to end individual liberty.

UPDATE: Reader AlanK comments that Tony Blair has given a speech about the state of the EU. I went ahead and read the entire speech and want to point out a few things. I truly admire Tony Blair's courage in battling international terroism. He has truly been a great statesmen (I'd go as far to say he'll be judged VERY favorably by our generational successors).

Blair mentioned three words that I was happy to read. He mentioned "values", "ideals" and "idealism" several times in his speech. All European leaders must reaffirm what they believe in and give them a sound footing. Only then can they be successfully defended. The problem is, many Europeans still deny there is objective truth and agree with the statement "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." The words listed above have little meaning if they are to be interpreted on a person by person basis.

Also, I do not believe the EU Constitution as written (pdf link) is really a constitution. It appears to be an attempt to enumerate as many rights and privileges to the various groups within Europe as possible. The problem with that was seen by the US Founding Fathers; it is impossible to enumerate all of man's rights. That is why the ratified US Constitution was left without the Bill of Rights but when added, James Madison included the Tenth Amendment. I might add that I disagree with many conservatives' ire over the created "right to privacy." It may not be enumerated, but simply because it is not written does not mean it is not a right to be enjoyed by women. The goal of a national (or in the case of Europe, multinational) constitution should be to specifically lay out what the powers of the EU are, then give the remaining powers to the individual nations.

Welcome to the New Vagabond!

2005-06-25T22:56:00.000-07:00

I'd like to extend my appreciation and welcome to Grimacer, another vagabond poster here in Vagabondia. Although we've never actually met, I've been discussing politics with Grimace for a few years now, for about three years now if I recall correctly. Please join me in welcoming him to Vagabondia. I hope you find him as insightful and knowledgeable as I do.

Speech Denied

2005-06-21T11:16:00.000-07:00

Following up on my previous post of America's amnesia on natural rights, Iran's government goes a long way in proving my point:

TEHRAN (AFP) - The use of text messaging by Iranians to send often highly
acerbic comments on their presidential election choice has worried the
authorities, who are threatening to prosecute mobile-addicts who insult the
candidates.

The use of election text messaging had already become something of a craze
in Tehran ahead of the first round of the vote, where young phone users sent
messages languidly reflecting their cynicism with the whole process.

...

Iran's ultra-conservative judiciary has now threatened to prosecute people who
send text messages with the aim of "denigrating" candidates.

"Unfortunately, the messages are circulating to tarnish the candidates in
the presidential election, which is illegal and constitutes an attempt to
disrupt public order," it said.

State television on Tuesday was regularly broadcasting a statement telling
viewers that to send messages promoting the cause of a certain candidate was an
offence.

It is a self-evident truth that Iranians and anyone else who joins them in the human specie have an inalienable right to communicate with one another. The arbitrary way in which Iran's government would deny them that fundamental natural right under the guise of "public order" should again reinforce America's efforts to promote the religion neutral concept of natural rights.

Impassable gorge? Blame amnesia...

2005-06-21T01:53:00.000-07:00

Personal Note: As this is my first blog entry, I would like to thank The Indigent Blogger for the opportunity to post on this fine blog.

Representative government is without a doubt, the very best governing device man has created. I might personally add the concepts of natural rights-as outlined in the first paragraph of the American Declaration of Independence-is the proper energy for self-governance. But as that decays in our very own system and nihilism runs rampant in Western society, the gap between the West and Middle Eastern civilizations continues to impede political change.

Western civilization values life in a myriad of ways. First, there are those who simply desire comfort and a life devoid of struggle. A term I use to describe this and hope to coin is the "perverted ascension of dopamine." There are those who value life from a more religious perspective... man has no authority over life and death. Only the divine may be the arbiter. Regardless of which category here, or unwritten one belongs to, life has a certain value that cannot be bartered with.

This cannot be said for the radicals currently engaging many fronts in Southern Asia. This story in particular (via AndrewSullivan.com) is the blaring example of the cultural clash that is inevitable:

SHIKMA PRISON, Israel (AP) - A badly burned Palestinian woman
was alternately defiant and tearful Monday after Israeli soldiers caught her
trying to enter Israel with 22 pounds of explosives hidden on her body.

The woman, who suffered serious burns on her hands, feet and
neck in a kitchen explosion five months ago, had been granted permission to
cross into Israel from the Gaza Strip for medical treatment when she raised the
suspicion of soldiers at the Erez checkpoint.

Video released by the military showed 21-year-old Wafa al-Biss
taking off articles of clothing on the orders of soldiers searching for
explosives, and rubbing her disfigured neck with her burned hands and screaming.

The military said she tried to blow up the explosives Monday but
failed and was not injured.

The story goes on to add interesting tidbits. First, she claimed to have wanted to do this. Secondly, she then asserts that it was planted on her "without her knowledge." Either way, this explains the entrenched psyche and philosophy of a minority, but significant portion of Muslims. Either way, be it her individual action or an involuntary plant (such as this), there are those whose sole purpose is to murder anyone who does not share the same standards as fundamental Islam.

Most reading this will feel insulted... all know this and many claim this is exactly why geopolitical change is necessary in the Middle East. Enter Secretary Rice. She recently spoke at the American Univerity in Cairo about the need for change in the Middle East. The changes spoken are presented merely as political, but they must bleed in the cultural fabric of the said region. This push for the liberalization of Middle Eastern doctrine is vital to the success of the War on Terror. On this noble push, everything is hinging.

But while the goals of this administration are indeed noble, unfortunately results have nothing to do with just cause. America's biggest obstacle is the need to reconcile Islam and the self-evident rights of man. This problem of representative government and its implementation into Islamic societies can only be remedied through a political and social philosophy that is religion neutral yet at the same time can be religiously inspired. This brings this post back to the case laid out in the DoI.

Thomas Jefferson, a Deist, tested and proved how to reconcile many reiligious sects with natural rights of man. Natural rights, "the laws of nature and nature's God" universalize basic rights while allowing one to adhere to individual religious persuasion. This would allow Muslims to continue to reject nihilism, but simultaneously reject fundamentalist Islam that would deny so many their basic human rights. America's biggest problem is amnesia... our own forgetfulness.

American, and more particularly all of Western civilization, has far too long flirted with this dangerous belief in nothing. In the process, our most valued treasure, freedom, cannot even be properly explained to those we wish to bring into the 21st century (both for our own security and their own liberation). America has forgotten its very own values that have united it for so very long and made it so very free. Nothing can better explain our failure to present what freedom is to those who need it the most.

If Amnesty International Was Right...

2005-06-18T07:30:00.000-07:00

I've been a relentless info-maniac ever since the September 11 attacks in 2001. In my search for information on various topics, from the alleged U.S.complicity in a massacre of POWs in Afghanistan... I'm sorry, what's that you're asking? How could we be accused of such things before President Bush, in the words of Senator John Kerry, "squandered the goodwill of the world" by invading Iraq? The film was a so-called documentary named Massacre at Mazar and was shown to adoring audiences in Europe. This and a host of other similar stories wasn't picked up by the corporate media in the States because at the time, unlike folks in Europe and the Middle East, a significant majority of Americans supported the war in Afghanistan. Do you see how what WE believe shapes the news that is televised rather than the other way around? But I digress...

Suffice to say, the old Soviet global propaganda machine was weakened by the collapse of the Soviet Union, but neither it nor Communism is close to being dead. Now, where was I? Oh yes, if Amnesty International was anwhere close to being correct in their analogy of a U.S. operated Gulag Archipelago, then they would all be in one right now! You all know about Amnesty International's Irene Khan comparing the Prison Camp at Guantanamo Bay to the Soviet Gulag. You all heard Amnesty International's William Schultz try and back away from that analogy by characterizing U.S. military detention facilities around the world as an "archipelago of prisons". Your Indigent Blogger has cleverly combined the two words into Gulag Archipelago, which is the name of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book detailing his own incarceration, and that of others with him, in the real Soviet Gulag.

Today, Pavel Litvinov is afforded page A19 by the Washington Post Company to relate his experience with Amnesty International's desperate attempt to justify and back their claims about the camp at Guantanamo Bay.

Several days ago I received a telephone call from an old friend who is a longtime Amnesty International staffer. He asked me whether I, as a former Soviet "prisoner of conscience" adopted by Amnesty, would support the statement by Amnesty's executive director, Irene Khan, that the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba is the "gulag of our time."

Litvinov continues in his article, No American 'Gulag', to describe why he sees a significant literal and philisophical differences between American military detention facilities and the Soviet's global system of labor camps.

The word "gulag" was a bureaucratic acronym for the main prison administration in Stalin's Soviet Union. After publication of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago," it became a symbol for the system of forced-labor camps that have been an integral feature of communist countries. Millions of prisoners confined in the gulag had not been involved in violence or committed any crime -- they were there because they belonged to a "wrong" social, national or political group or expressed a "wrong" opinion.

The cruelty and scale of the gulag system are described in numerous books, so there is no need to recount them here. By any standard, Guantanamo and similar American-run prisons elsewhere do not resemble, in their conditions of detention or their scale, the concentration camp system that was at the core of a totalitarian communist system.

Where I disagree with Pavel Litvinov is the part of the article he devotes to heaping praise and gravitas upon Amnesty International. As I was starting to say at the beginning of this post, you won't find me linking to any Amnesty International reports or using them as a source of facts because, simply stated, they're not. In my quest for knowledge since 2001, Amnesty International habitually relies upon hysterical "accounts" and flimsy "studies" to bring attention to issues that may otherwise be worthy of concern. I'll close by reiterating that if Irene Khan and William Schultz were correct about U.S. military detention facilities being the Gulag Archipelago of our time, they'd both be in one right now, breaking rocks at an undisclosed location.

Wine of the Week - June 17

2005-06-17T22:57:00.000-07:00

This week I'm savoring a surprisingly mellow California Pinot Noir (2001) from Sutter Home Family Vineyards. It served quite nicely with my Steamed Dumplings dipped in spicy Soy Sauce. I bought the wine on sale for $3.35 and I believe the Steamed Dumplings are $5.99 at the local Chinese take-out place. On a scale of "Swill" to "Superb", this 2001 Pinot Noir falls solidly in the middle with a rating of "Good". I would certainly add this wine to the collection in the cellar, but I wouldn't displace any wines to make room for it there.

Now we get to this week's indulgent exercise in gratuitous self-pity by none other than yours truly. As many of you may have guessed, I was offered and accepted full-time employment. This getting up every morning, at the crack of dawn, shedding my pajamas for suitable "workplace casual", and putting in eight straight, day-in and day-out is really exhausting. On the positive side, I know 90% of everything I need to know to perform my job duties. Most jobs I had taken on a contracting basis, I was learning 60% of what I needed to know and just making the other 40% up as I went along. Now, that was certainly exhausting as well, but I was doing all of that from right here at home in the comfort of my own computer chair.

Speaking of comfort, I have to do something about the keyboard, mouse, and chair they provided me at work. They're fine enough if I were doing a job that didn't require me to have my ass firmly planted in front of my computer typing code most of every hour of every day. For better of for worse, that's exactly the job I have, and their $10 Belkin Keyboard and Mouse econo-combo ain't gonna cut it. And because the programmers are lined up in narrow row of "stalls", they have the keyboards resting on the desktop instead of on a keyboard drawer, elevating the wrists above the elbows. My problem with the chair is pure personal preference. I don't like chairs with arms, because the arms of the chair almost always interfere with the keyboard drawer.

So, if ever you are considering hiring a programmer or someone else who will spend all day literally at a computer, here are my equipment recommendations:

Ergonomic Keyboard/Mouse: Something like the Logitech Comfort or the Microsoft Natural at about $100 per combo are very decent.

Keyboard Drawer/Mouse Pad: I'm not necessarily talking about the wonderful under the desk keyboard contraptions offered by Kensington, a simple keyboard shelf that slides on rails will suffice as long as it keeps the wrists slightly lower than the elbows. However, keep in mind that the keyboard drawer (or shelf) must be wide enough to accomodate the keyboard and the mouse, which is approximately 28 inches wide at a minimum. Also, head down to Staples and pick up a real mouse pad with a built-in wrist rest.

Recessed Arms/Armless Chair: You might be able to find something to fit the bill for under $100, but more than likely, this item is going to run you between $100 and $150 at most stores. Remember, you're looking for a chair that has either no arms or arms that won't block the keyboard drawer from sliding to ideal typing position. The rounded, hoop-style arms on even the most expensive "executive" office chairs make them ill-suited for computer workers.

In summary, if you don't want to drive into the parking lot of your new business, only to find $1000 worth of executive office chairs piled in a useless heap outside the back entrance, then pay attention to detail and buy your computer workers the right equipment, not necessarily the most expensive equipment.

Wine of the Week - June 11

2005-06-11T05:35:00.000-07:00

This week, I enjoyed a $5 bottle of a Californian Cabernet Sauvignon vinted in 2000 by Round Hill Vineyards and Cellars from a generic appellation. This is a stand-out product well-deserving of space in the cellar. It is surprisingly smooth for a cabernet sauvignon but has a "tang" that hints at a wine that has not yet reached its fullness.

I also sampled a most unsavory wine this week. The calls to close the prisoner camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba were started by the usually thoughtful but often overly sympathetic Thomas Friedman in his article in the New York Times named Just Shut It Down. He wrote the article because he was convinced more Americans were dying because of the negative impact the misrepresentation and misreporting of abuses at Gitmo is having on America's standing in the muslim world.

I am convinced that more Americans are dying and will die if we keep the Gitmo prison open than if we shut it down. So, please, Mr. President, just shut it down.

If you want to appreciate how corrosive Guantánamo has become for America's standing abroad, don't read the Arab press. Don't read the Pakistani press. Don't read the Afghan press. Hop over here to London or go online and just read the British press! See what our closest allies are saying about Gitmo. And when you get done with that, read the Australian press and the Canadian press and the German press.

This call to "Shut It Down" was picked up by Senator Joseph Biden, then by former President Jimmy Carter, and finally by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

I couldn't think of a more misguided or ill-informed suggestion. Later this week, I will be detailing how, according to the much cited Pew Research surveys of international opinions about the United States, American favorability is no lower in late 2004 than it was in early 2002 (except in Jordan). In fact, in one of the nations named by Thomas Friedman, Pakistan, America's favorability rating is five times higher in late 2004 than it was in early 2002. Until then, I urge you to avoid the sour grapes of forces that have failed to capture and hold our soldiers while we have captured tens of thousands of the enemy.

Made It to Second Interview...

2005-06-10T11:01:00.000-07:00

I guess the interview went well as I have been called back in for a second interview this afternoon. I was given the name of the person I'll be meeting with today and know he is the person in charge of the IT budget. The company was having a board meeting while I was there yesterday in a conference room with glass walls, much like a fish-bowl. Anyway, while I was filling out my job application, I was able to see the company organizational chart on the overhead projection screen. I didn't see names of anyone I knew personally, but I did make a mental note of the name of the person in charge of the IT budget.

This could be a routine second interview, just to let the man signing the checks feel comfortable his employees aren't bringing in an axe-murderer, or it could be a meeting to address a problem that was briefly addressed yesterday. This job starts at a salary just over half of what I made at my last contract position. The truth is that this job is probably more suited for a younger, less experienced programmer. I don't believe they adhere to any n-tier or even object-oriented design principles, but I am far from a purist in those areas myself. Anyway, I understand their concern about hiring someone only to have them take a higher paying job a few weeks later.

Face it, if I get the job and someone offers me double my pay a few weeks from now; that will be hard to resist. However, this company offers excellent health and dental benefits, and I have been private-pay on both since 2002. They also offer an education benefit that would go a long way to paying for my Microsoft Certified Solutions Developer (MCSD) training and Project Management Institute certification. I figure it'll take two years to get those completed and paid for at which time, all deals will have to be renegotiated (*wink*).

The fact is that I am not with my friends and former co-workers at the big defense contractor in town is for two, possibly three reasons; 1) I have no college degree and equivalent experience is not accepted, 2) I don't even have my high school diploma or GED but always lie that I do on my job applications, and 3) I doubt I could obtain any kind of security clearance. Now it's true that MCSD and PMI certifications are not going to make those problems go away, and I still wouldn't be hired at the big defense contractor, but those certifications would open a great many other doors locally.

I'll keep you all posted on how the interview goes this afternoon. I do plan on posting a Wine of the Week tonight.

No Blogging - Job Interview

2005-06-09T08:55:00.000-07:00

I have a job interview this morning, so I'll be brushing up on my interviewing skills (like bathing, using mouthwash and deodorant, shaving, etc.) instead of sitting here in my pajama bottoms pouring over political news. Phil Blair, CEO of Manpower Inc., has written a handbook titled Strategies for Success, which he gives away for free. It has lots of good advice about putting together a resume and interviewing tips. One of the tips is to develop short stories as answers to some common interview questions.

That reminds me of an interview I had years ago. The hiring manager had passed me off to one of the middle managers for a more technical one-on-one evaluation of my skills. Before the interview began, the middle manager asked me if I was going to give him canned interview answers, to which I responded, "Only to canned interview questions". I didn't get that job, but I don't necessarily attribute that to a rather awkward interview with the middle manager as he was only one of four persons I spoke to at that company during the interview process.

Anyway, one of the questions this book directs one to expect is "Have you had any problems with previous employers?" Fortunately, I've developed a wonderful little story with which to respond.

Q.: Have you had any problems with previous employers?

A.: Well, before quitting without notice, I had a terrible problem with my boss. In addition to being a full flaming Nazi... Oh, he said he was Austrian, but that's just what you'd expect a Nazi to say after we kicked their asses. Anyway, in addition to being a Nazi, the man stood all of 5'5" off the ground and had the worst case of short man's disease I've ever encountered. He would fly off the handle at reasonable responses to his directives, like "Keep your pants on, Napolean, I'm getting to it". I just couldn't take his unreasonable and violent nature any longer, so I left them high-n-dry.

Yup, I think that's a winner! Wish me luck.

Carter Supports Al-Qaeda Propaganda...

2005-06-08T09:35:00.000-07:00

Perhaps I was a bit hasty in agreeing to voting a straight Republican ticket. After all, that could result in me voting for someone like a Pat Buchanan or a Lou Dobbs; and their protectionist and isolationist vision for the United States is just too outside my liberal leanings. So, I have come up with a better idea. I will work on campaigns and canvas neighborhoods for Republican candidates. I did that in 2004 as a response to the Democrats efforts to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot in California. I walked door-to-door on election night, not even in my neighborhood, getting people to come to the polls and handing out Republican Party voting literature, even though I did not vote their way in the Mayoral race or on many of the ballot initiatives.

Anyway, all this might not be necessary if leading Democrats step up and voice some strong support of our troops at Guantanamo Bay and other areas of the world. Former Democrat President Jimmy Carter has weighed in on the subject. Unfortunately, rather than defending the exemplary work our men and women in service are doing in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Iraq; he instead lends his weighty public voice to reiterate the propaganda from Al-Qaeda's training manual.

"The U.S. continues to suffer terrible embarrassment and a blow to our reputation ... because of reports concerning abuses of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo," Carter said after a two-day human rights conference at his Atlanta center. - CNN International

Yeah, if only those reports were all accurate and not based almost entirely on the testimony of released prisoners, many of whom have only recently began to recall their mistreatment at the hands of the Americans. If the government is going to start shutting down things that are bad for America's image abroad, I have a few suggestions to start with and none of them include the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Aid and Comfort for Our Enemies...

2005-06-07T06:35:00.000-07:00

I've never voted a straight ticket in my life, let alone a straight Republican ticket. Indeed, 2004 was the first time ever that I had voted for a Republican candidate for President of the United States. However, I am on the brink of committing to voting a straight Republican ticket from now through 2008 as a result of the Democrats' unwillingness to triumph over our enemies.

James Lileks made the point on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that prisoner abuses and Koran desecrations led the news two weeks ago and, aside from Newsweek's departing bureau chief in Baghdad conceding victory to the reactionary forces in Iraq, Koran desecrations are leading the news today. Lileks asks if there is nothing else that may have happened in the global War on Terror in those two weeks? Are Koran desecrations and Newsweek's proclamation that "the question isn't when will we leave, but 'how bad of a mess can we afford to leave behind" the only significant events to take place in the entire global War on Terror over the last two weeks?

Democrat Senator Joseph Biden, who plagiarized Neil Kinnock, has called for the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay to be shutdown, presumably freeing 540 enemy combatants to return to the battlefield, according to the New York Times.

"This has become the greatest propaganda tool that exists for recruiting of terrorists around the world," said the senator, Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, on the ABC News program "This Week." "And it is unnecessary to be in that position."

He added, "I think more Americans are in jeopardy as a consequence of the perception that exists worldwide with its existence than if there were no Gitmo."

Biden's admission that the enemy's propaganda machine has succeeded in creating a wholly negative perception of our troops at Guantanamo Bay, with the help of Newseek and other multinational conglomerate media corporations, is in itself a cause for celebration amongst the forces of militant Islamic extremists worldwide. A U.S. Senator, who wants to be President of the United States, has just called for the closing of the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. Now they have us pinned down in the same position as Israel. Any action by our troops is the equivalent of terrorism and a war crime that can only be assuaged by concessions such as prisoner releases; and Senator Biden has accepted those terms.

Democrats George and Jim McGovern are calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, much as we did in Viet Nam (hat tip: RealClearPolitics).

We were early opponents of the US invasion of Iraq. Nonetheless, once American forces were committed, we hoped that our concerns would be proven wrong. That has not been the case.

The United States must now begin an orderly withdrawal of our forces from this mistaken foreign venture. - The Boston Globe

And Democrats wonder why Americans don't trust them with our military? Compare the contrasts. Bush deployed the military to Afghanistan and Iraq because he knew it to be the right thing to do, and is committed to victory in those countries. While Democrats generally want a retreat (or orderly withdrawal if you prefer) from Iraq to create an Iraq-sized Somalia. Yes, let's look at Somalia from the high-level view. It was important enough to send in troops, important enough to have 13 of them lay down their lives, but as soon as the mission became difficult and unpopular; it was no longer important enough to stay.

Unless I hear a heaping portion of pro-American support for our troops and their efforts in Iraq and the War on Terror from Democrats this week, I hearby commit to voting a straight Republican ticket (candidates but not initiatives) from now through the 2008 presidential election.

Corporatism is not Capitalism

2005-06-06T08:05:00.000-07:00

George Will contributed a great column to the Indianapolis Star over the weekend about the federal government keeping poor airlines in flight.

Ronald Reagan said that Washington's approach to intervening in industries is: If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; if it stops moving, subsidize it. Regarding airlines, the policy is: If they are failing, keep them flying; if they are prospering, burden them. But surely Washington, although difficult to embarrass, is embarrassed enough to repeal the Wright Amendment.

Will focuses on the Wright Amendment, but I want to take this opportunity to voice my extreme displeasure over the post-911 airline bailout by the federal government.

The airlines are for-profit corporations and should be allowed to succeed or fail according to market risks and demands. When the government steps in to save one of the big anachronistic airlines to avoid loss of the income taxes, social security taxes, and medical insurance taxes paid by the employees; it places a greater value on that company than the market will bear. That, my friends, is not well-regulated capitalism. It is corporatism and that way lies anti-competitiveness and for-profit fascism.

Retirement...

2005-06-06T07:50:00.000-07:00

No, even though it's been awhile since I've posted anything; I'm not talking about my retirement. But then again, if the government would implement personal retirement accounts, any discussion about retirement would be a discussion about MY retirement. I'm 36 years old and can name no males in my blood line that lived to see the current retirement age for Social Security. So, when Republican Senator Chuck "Ask Again Later" Hagel talks about raising the retirement age, he's not talking about my retirement. He's talking about robbing me of more than 50 years of breaking my back and bending my neck to pay money into a system that will be used for someone else's retirement. When Democrat Representative Robert "Disenfranchised" Wexler talks about increaasing Social Security taxes, I actually agree with him on raising the cap on taxable income for Social Security. However, he is talking about paying for someone else's retirement, not mine.

Michael Barone writes about the looming problems with retirement over at RealClearPolitics. Unfortunately, he is talking about my retirement. He makes some very good points about Social Security and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Not to worry, say opponents of George W. Bush's proposal for personal retirement accounts. The federal government guarantees the benefits. But it doesn't. In 1960, the Supreme Court, in Flemming v. Nestor, ruled that there was no right to Social Security benefits. Social Security, wrote Justice John Harlan, "was designed to function into the indefinite future, and its specific provisions rest on predictions as to expected economic conditions, which must inevitably prove less than wholly accurate, and on judgments and preferences as to the proper allocation of the nation's resources which evolving economic and social conditions will of necessity in some cases modify."

In addition to Barone's evidence that Social Security is not a "right", I'd like to remind everyone just exactly what is the "full, faith, and credit" of the federal government that backs the non-existant Social Security Trust Fund.

full faith and credit -- a pledge of a government to commit its general taxing power to raise funds for payment of obligations. - U.S. Treasury Department

Barone goes on to point out the truly reactionary (or anti-progressive) nature of today's Democrats and the left in general.

Some Democrats attack this plan as hugely risky, because the stock market goes up and down. But the stock market has always gone up over the course of a typical lifetime. The Democrats' more serious argument is that Social Security should be a bedrock guarantee not subject to market risk. But this is antiprogressive: It leaves lower-income workers with less ability to accumulate wealth.

You're damned right it's anti-progressive! Only the well-bred, well-fed, and well cared for are ever going to live to see the retirement benefits promised by Democrats, at who knows what expense to the future worker imposed by the full, faith, and credit of the federal government.

No thanks. Just give me my personal Social Security account, so at least if I die at age 54 like my father, I can at least will my 40 years of hard work and contributions to my daughter, guaranteeing she won't need the government's full, faith, and credit in her retirement. Opposing optional personal retirement accounts is pro-establishment, pro-government, and anti-worker. There is no other explanation for it.

They Ban Books Don't They?

2005-06-01T08:10:00.000-07:00

The California Assembly has passed legislation in a 42-28 vote along party lines to ban public schools from purchasing text books containing more than 200 pages (hat tip: Debunkers).

AB 756 would force publishers to condense key ideas, basic problems and basic knowledge into 200 pages, then to provide a rich appendix with Web sites where students can go for more information.

The text of AB 756 says it could reduce the cost and weight of textbooks. - Sacramento Bee

This bill will likely pass in the Senate since party lines are being held. I don't know what more I can say about this piece of legislation, it speaks for itself. I can only suggest that you go through your house and throw out all the books with more than 200 pages, and you will have an idea of the experience our students will be having in the California education system.

Andersen, Sweeney, and Global Crossings...

2005-05-31T17:38:00.000-07:00

I saw two stories today that recalled my attention to what may be a much larger story. The first is the Supreme Court's ruling overturning the conviction of accounting corporation Arthur Andersen for destroying Enron-related documents (hat tip: Huffington Post). The other story is the New York Times' report of calls for AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney to resign amidst his bid for re-election as head of that labor union.

Take Arthur Andersen and AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, stir in a healthy portion of telecommunications giant Global Crossings, pan-fry for a couple of years and the result is a flaming dish known as the ULLICO Stock Scandal.

In this little number, Sweeney and his fellow labor leaders from other unions form a pension investment corporation called the Union Labor Life Insurance Investment Company (ULLICO). A fews years before Sweeney was protesting against gutting Social Security by turning it over to risky investment companies, he was a member of the board at ULLICO turning a $7.6 million investment into $335 million. Unfortunately, the rank and file due-paying members of the unions were not as fortunate as the executives at ULLICO. Mr. Sweeney and his peers miraculously bailed out of the Global Crossings investments before their retirements and savings shrank to nothing in that company's precipitous descent to worthlessness.

Deep Throat - Do I Care?

2005-05-31T17:10:00.000-07:00

I view this entire episode of the "outing" of the deep throat character as a nostalgic indulgence for my elders and aging journalists wistfully remembering bygone days of investigative reporting. In case you haven't heard, Vanity Fair has published the confession of the person who claims to be the fabled "deep throat" of Watergate fame (hat tip: Huffington Post).

"I'm The Guy They Called Deep Throat" - In a V.F. exclusive, W. Mark Felt, 91 years old and formerly second-in-command at the F.B.I., says that he is the confidential Watergate source who assisted Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein—and helped bring down President Richard Nixon.

Honestly, I don't know that much about the whole Watergate ordeal, so I can't muster much excitement over this latest revelation. I do, however, have some questions about an FBI official secretively cooperating with for-profit media corporations to help bring down a sitting President of the United States.

I think it is abusive and shameful that our Senators are using the CIA and FBI to dig for gossip and watercooler hearsay about presidential nominees. I admit that I don't know exactly what Mr. Felt's role was in the investigation of even if there is anything to this angle of questioning, but I would be disappointed to find that our FBI was in bed with our woeful media corporations at the expense of our elected officials.

France Rejects the EU Constitution...

2005-05-31T09:36:00.000-07:00

As you may know, French voters soundly defeated ratification of the EU Constitution this past Sunday. I'll round up the best information for you and post it here for your enjoyment.

I have a saying, "Corporatism is the gateway to Facism". What I am saying is that by dividing the population into interest groups and devaluing the rights of the individual, the government can then encroach the rights of the individual in favor of the group. The political battling over Social Security and between corporate media and bloggers are some examples of this struggle. The European Union strikes me as particularly corporate and statist. I believe Mark Steyn once compared it to the United States in this way, and I'm paraphrasing, The United States is a government of the people and by the people where the European Union is a government of an elite political class looking to impose itself on a people. One of the first things a corporate group, whether a business corporation or a non-profit charitable organization, must do to become a legal entity is names its officers, including the President, Vice-President, and so on. This is done even before the corporation has employees or perhaps even products. So it is with the European Union, a full government administration with executive and parliamentary branches now attempting to secure a people over which to rule.

Speaking of Mark Steyn, his column in the Washington Times on Monday has some revealing comments by Jean-Claude Juncker, current President of the Europeon Union.

"If at the end of the ratification process, we do not manage to solve the problems, the countries that would have said No, would have to ask themselves the question again," President Juncker told the Belgian newspaper Le Soir.

Don't bother remembering his name, the EU President holds office for only six months and has little power. However, do make note of the actual choice being given to the people here. Vote "YES" and accept the EU bureaucracy and its rules or vote "NO" and be asked again until you vote "YES". Isn't that a tactic used in police and military interrogations? Steyn goes on to illustrate my point about corporatism encroaching upon the rights of the individual quoting from a book by Europhile Will Hutton.

But, having brandished his credentials, Mr. Hutton says it's his "affection for the best of America that makes me so angry that it has fallen so far from the standards it expects of itself." The great Euro-thinker is not arguing that America is betraying the Founding Fathers but that the Founding Fathers themselves got it hopelessly wrong. He compares the American and French Revolutions, and decides the latter was better because instead of the radical individualism of the 13 Colonies the French promoted "a new social contract."

Precisely. And it's the willingness to subordinate individual liberty to what Mr. Hutton calls "the primacy of society" that blighted the Continent for more than a century: Statism -- or "the primacy of society" -- is what fascism, Nazism, communism and now European Union all have in common.

That's why Will Hutton feels almost physically insecure when he's in one of the spots on the planet where the virtues of the state religion are questioned. "In a world that is wholly private," he says of America, "we lose our bearings; deprived of any public anchor, all we have are our individual subjective values to guide us." He deplores the First Amendment and misses government-regulated media, which in the EU ensures that all public expression is within approved parameters (left to center-left). "Europe," he explains, "acts to ensure that television and radio conform to public interest criteria."

Of course, the mention of the French Revolution and the various Euroisms that have been inflicted upon man-kind, one cannot forget the worst product of France, terrorism. The President of the... What's that? You find the notion of terrorism being invented by France outrageous?

One difference between the American and French revolutions that Mr. Hutton fails to point out is that the United States began its experiment in democracy by protecting loyalists in a document known, ironically, as the Treaty of Paris. The French began their experiment in democracy a few years later with a decidedly European twist known as the Reign of Terror. The Online Dictionary of Etymology offers the following notes on the origins of terrorism.

1795, in specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France" (1793-July 1794), from Fr. terrorisme (1798), from L. terror (see terror).

"If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis in a time of revolution is virtue and terror -- virtue, without which terror would be barbaric; and terror, without which virtue would be impotent." [Robespierre, speech in Fr. National Convention, 1794]

General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is first recorded in Eng. 1798. Terrorize "coerce or deter by terror" first recorded 1823.

Now, getting back to the coercion of the European Union, the Dutch referendum on the EU constitution coming up on Wednesday is non-binding on the Dutch government, and the Netherlands' governing party is already moving the goal posts for the conditions under which they would accept a "NO" vote (hat tip: Instapundit).

Unlike France's referendum, which was binding on the government, the Dutch vote is advisory. Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende's governing party said Monday it will accept a "no" verdict only if turnout reaches at least 30 percent and if 55 percent of those who vote reject the charter.

Finally, I leave you with the ever insightful analysis of Gregory Djerejian at the Belgravia Dispatch.

Let's take a quick step back--as the dust begins to settle ever so slightly--and take an initial look at the historic events of yesterday. We might begin by looking backwards a bit. Recall that French political elites have been intimately involved in cobbling together this project of European unification for over half a century now. I mean, it's not as if little Portugal or Denmark said no thanks. France did! As Vinocur says, perhaps the "quintessential" European nation. What a crushing (if not fatal, at least yet) blow to the European project.

Indeed! Read it all.