Politics, War on Terror

Boortz Pops a Rivet

Neal Boortz:

How long was it going to take before a Defeatocrat came up with this one? John Murtha—our favorite moonbat from Pennsylvania—says that the terrorists arrested in the JFK plot were a product of the war in Iraq. Basically, if we had not gone into Iraq, this terrorist plot would never have come about. He is the boat with 9/11 conspiracy theorists and all those who sympathize with “freedom fighters” and the “peaceful” religion of Islam.

What has this man been smoking? If this was the excuse for the JFK plot, than who does he blame the 9/11 attacks on? He does not understand that the fundamental hatred of terrorists is not based on our presence in Iraq.

This is a complete non-sequitur. Murtha may be right or wrong. But the concept of “blowback” does not in any way support 9/11 conspiracy theories or provide comfort to terrorists. It’s a simple fucking fact. (And you thought fatherhood would make me lighten up.)

Have conservatives even read the 9/11 report? Being aware of blowback doesn’t automatically mean you’re even against the War in Iraq, least of all against the War on Terror. Blowback can be worth it — blowback can be a cost of war, just like dead American soldiers is a cost of war.

But to sit around and pretend that blowback doesn’t exist? To be frank, Boortz, that’s First Rank Moonbatism.

Culture War, Politics

Pills

Reason on a drugstore that refuses to stock contraceptives. This is becoming a weird battleground where Leftists assert women have a “right” to get the pill and Rightists assert pharmacists have a “right” not to dispense medication they don’t agree with.

To me, the issue comes down to ownership. The people who own the store get to decide what medication is sold there. If you don’t want to give birth control to women, don’t work there. You don’t have a “right” to pick and choose the medication you dispense for your employer any more than I have a “right” to tell my boss I won’t do the work he assigns. But I both of us have the freedom to quit and get a different job.

But by the same token, if a store refuse to carry birth control, don’t shop there. Women don’t have a “right” to demand a store carry birth control any more than I have a “right” to demand McDonald’s sell healthy salads. But we do have the freedom to go to another store.

Use it.

Politics, Socialism

On Your Own

Conservatives are piling on Hillary’s comment that Bush wants an “on your own” society while she wants a “we’re in in together” society.

There are three pieces of specific bullshit I’d like to address that everyone seems to be missing.

  • To call the current Administration an “on your own” society is horse manure. They didn’t leave Terry Schiavo on her own. They don’t want to leave three-week old feti on their own. They have jacked social spending through the roof, created the biggest expansion of socialized medicine in forty years and created or supported faith-based initiatives, bans on gay marriage, federal control of education, federal marriage counseling, etc. etc. The problem with this Administarion is that they won’t ever leave us “on our own”.
  • Second, we can not “be in it together” under government any more than Mr. Clinton could “feel our pain”. Suffering, tragedy, loss, struggle, desperation, adversity are things we will all face, no matter how much the Hillarys of the world try to coddle us. And no matter how sanctimonious Mrs. Clinton gets, that suffering can not be shared. How can she share my suffering . . . she doesn’t even know me! And given government’s record on these affairs, government can’t even ameliorate pain and suffering, let alone prevent, cure or share it. Only in the extreme circumstances of the Four Horsemen — things like natural disaster, drought, war, crime wave, etc. — can the blunt instrument of government help (when it’s not sending truckloads of water away from starving people).
  • Most importantly, the one thing everyone is missing on Hillary’s “on your own” nonsense is the insulting tacit implication that only government can help people. The United States is, in terms of private donation, easily the most charitable nation on Earth. But in HillaryWorld, there is no such thing as private charity; no such thing as private organizations like the Red Cross or Salvation Army; no churches or community centers; and vanished are the millions of Americans who donate billions of dollars and billions of hours to helping their fellows. (Granted, many liberals thinks this because they themselves give so little of their time and money to charity). No, in HillaryWorld, if government isn’t there to catch you when you fall, you’re “on your own”.

    • This contrast between “on your own” and “we’re in it together” has provoked a response from conservatives — real conservatives — because it exemplifies everything that’s wrong with liberal thinking. It is condescending, arrogant, presumptuous and ignorant.

    The only surprising thing is that it wasn’t President Bush that said it.

    Science and Edumacation

    Raise Your Hand!

    At least, if you’re not in England.

    Teachers should not ask pupils to put their hands up if they can answer a question in class to stop quiet children falling behind, according to government advice.

    …

    Education Secretary Alan Johnson said: “We need to make sure that no-one is left behind at any point – from the most gifted and talented children at the top of the class, to the quiet child who is well-practised at hiding from the teacher’s gaze at the back of the class.”

    Bzzzt. Wrong. This again reflects what’s wrong with public schools — the notion that everyone needs to move at the same pace and respond in the same fashion. If only they could march down the halls in lockstep…

    I was a shy kid. I never raised my hand. And my education turned out just fine, thank you.

    The report found that it is often boys who fall behind in English at primary school, while girls were more likely to be found among those struggling to make progress in maths.

    Teachers felt that children suffered because parents stopped helping with homework when maths, in particular, was becoming too complicated.

    Notice no excuse is given for the boys’ struggles in English. This, of course, could never mean that there might be genetic sex-based difference in verbal and mathematical ability.

    The methods included choosing which child to question in class instead of inviting all the pupils to put up their hands if they know the answer.

    Children could also be given 30 seconds “thinking time” before being asked to answer or told to discuss questions in pairs before answering, the Department for Education said.

    Drawing on my four semesters as a college teacher . . . which is four more that most of the idiots opining on this . . . I actually would always use that first method, but in a way that any educator would flinch over. I would choose a student and if they didn’t know the answer, I’d throw it open. Kept them on their toes. It also made them speculate a little bit at times, which was cool.

    As for the 30 seconds of thinking time, I never had 30 seconds to spare — even in a three-hour lecture.

    A three hour lecture.

    Civil Liberties, Politics, Science and Edumacation, Taxes and Spending, War on Terror

    Friday Linkorama

    Taxes destroy an old amusement park. I hope the city thinks its worth their art subsidies and other waste.

    The internet weights about the same as a grain of sand.

    Cato on why we should be leery of Rudy:

    Here’s why: Throughout his career, Giuliani has displayed an authoritarian streak that would be all the more problematic in a man who would assume executive powers vastly expanded by President Bush.

    His support of water-borading is another reason. If Kerry were president right now, I’d support Rudy. But we need someone to repair our government’s adherence to constitutional principles.

    Finally, Congress is pushing back against the CIA gul-, er, prisons. Four of seven Republicans. Let’s hope this is just the beginning.

    The border agent decided the TB man didn’t seem sick so he just let him in.

    Yeah, we’re going to stop terrorism by closing the borders.

    Politics, Taxes and Spending

    Turning the Barrell Over

    Cato has the goods on the latest garbage:

    Eager to avoid the bad publicity of legislative earmarking, lawmakers are secretly calling or writing bureaucrats and demanding that they fund their pet projects by fiat. These projects-via-telephone, or “phonemarks,” are the hottest new gimmick on the Washington scene.

    Executive branch officials can dole out millions of dollars with impunity. And they avoid the scrutiny of the public, since they are done quietly and without any disclosure.

    But . . . but . . . but the Democrats are good?

    Now for a secret. The big problem in Washington isn’t earmarks. They’re just a symptom of the real problem: policymakers who believe the federal government should be all things to all people. Pork projects – disclosed or not – are inevitable in such an environment no matter what you call ‘em.

    Term limits. That’s the only way to stop this.

    Politics

    UN=BS

    The UN just proved, once again, that they have no business being trusted with any real power:

    Zimbabwe was recently elected to chair the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), to the dismay of human-rights groups and nations, like the United States, that would like the United Nations to take its responsibilities seriously. This election is more than a travesty; it is a cruel demonstration of disregard for the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe on the part of the U.N. and those African countries that helped Zimbabwe to the chairmanship.

    Seriously, I can understand — sort of — why liberals get excited about world government. Actually, I can’t. The Constitution of the United States is so vastly superior to anything else out there, I can’t imagine anyone would want to trade it in.

    Anyway, doesn’t reality have to intrude on liberal fantasies at some point? When the UN is appointing Robert fucking Mugabe’s government to figure out how to run Africa, doesn’t that tell you that something is deeply deeply wrong with this institution?

    Civil Liberties, Politics, Taxes and Spending

    NYT Hypocrisy

    Raise your hand if you’re surprised by the hypocrisy Neal Boortz has demonstrated in the NYT:

    It’s no surprise really. The New York Times came out in support of “a new 4 percent tax on income above $200,000 a year for married couples and above $100,000 for single taxpayers.” But liberal hypocrisy rears its ugly head when you consider the tens of millions of dollars the Times received in tax breaks, just so they could build their fancy headquarters in Manhattan. Oh and not to mention that they seized the city property by abusing a little power called eminent domain—and then viciously criticized the Supreme Court decision expanding eminent domain powers as “a set back to the ‘property rights’ movement.” For a paper that is so renown, I guess it lives by the saying “Do as I say, not as I do.” Too bad I can’t tell the IRS that when they come knocking on my door.

    The NYT actually runs some very good articles on science and the economy. But their editorial board basically gets faxes from the DNC and republishes them.

    OK, maybe they don’t. But could you honestly tell the difference?

    Politics, Socialism

    NOPEC

    Cato takes apart the latest stupidity on oil, the idea of passing an anti-trust law against OPEC.

    econd, what exactly gives the Congress the right to impose its economic regulations on state-owned companies that, for the most part, aren’t doing business in the United States? Do all national governments have this right, or only the United States? If the former, what’s to prevent Saudi Arabia from declaring it illegal for U.S. banks to charge interest on loans — an activity ostensibly banned in many Islamic countries? If the latter, then it’s a naked statement that U.S. policy is premised upon the idea that the biggest guy on the playground makes the rules for everyone else whether they like it or not. That is, might makes right.

    There is no limit to Congress’ arrogance. Or stupidity.

    Immigration, Politics

    Bits and Pieces

    Rather than write one big immigration post, maybe I’ll just let out bits and pieces as I respond to others’ bullshit:

    The labor market (and health inspectors) would no longer determine who came here; quotas were imposed on immigration from specific countries to reflect the ethnic composition of the nation in 1890. The apparatus of state was strong enough to enforce these restrictions, and, in any case, there was no market demand for immigrants during the depression of the 1930s and no way for them to come during World War II.

    This is laughable, especially coming from a conservative. Had there been no market for immigrants, the government wouldn’t have needed to act. And this policy led, indirectly, to the deaths of millions in the concentration camps when America refused to admit Jews in a wave of xenophobia.

    Then there’s Boortz:

    Strengthen the borders and make Americans get off their lazy butts, turn off American Idol, get off of welfare and fill the demand of these market forces.

    Unemployment in this country is about 4%, which is extraordinarily low.

    Then there’s Peggy Noonan:

    Should all legal immigration stop? No. We should make a list of what our nation needs, such as engineers and nurses, and then admit a lot of engineers and nurses. We should take in what we need to survive and flourish.

    Again, a Right Winger is saying that government should decide what our economy needs, rather than the market. We do need skilled people. But we also need low-wage workers.

    Of course, one way to diminish the need for low wage workers would be to diminish the agricultural subsidies which keep unprofitable businesses going. In many ways, it could be argued that illegal immigration is simply another business subsidy.

    Politics, War on Terror

    DHS=BS

    You’re kidding me:

    Claims of terrorism represented less than 0.01 percent of charges filed in recent years in immigration courts by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, according to a report issued Sunday by an independent research group.

    This comes despite the fact the Bush administration has repeatedly asserted that fighting terrorism is the central mission of DHS.

    The Transactional Records Action Clearinghouse said it analyzed millions of previously undisclosed records obtained from the immigration courts under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Of the 814,073 people charged by DHS in immigration courts during the past three years, 12 faced charges of terrorism, TRAC said.

    Those 12 cases represent 0.0015 percent of the total number of cases filed.

    “The DHS claims it is focused on terrorism. Well that’s just not true,” said David Burnham, a TRAC spokesman. “Either there’s no terrorism, or they’re terrible at catching them. Either way it’s bad for all of us.”

    First off, the group is a little off in their criticism: one of DHS’s primary duties is handling immigration. They replaced the INS in that respect. Every step Sue and I took to get her Green Card dealt with DHS, not INS.

    However, they are absolutely accurate in that the Bush Administration has always represented DHS as an anti-terrorism agency. To quote from the official announcement of its formation:

    The mission of the Office will be to develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks. The Office will coordinate the executive branch’s efforts to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks within the United States.

    But to lift a paragraph from my immigration post:
    Continue reading DHS=BS →

    'Culture'

    Two More

    Just watched two more of 2006’s best films. The Queen actually isn’t great, but Hellen Mirren’s performance was easily the best of the year.

    Pan’s Labyrinth has to be in the mix with Children of Men and United 93 as my best picture of 2006. Simply beautiful. I can now see how Children of Men lost the Best Cinematography oscar (although it still should’ve taken Best Editing). I’m annoyed that Ivana Baquero did not get a Best Actress nomination. I haven’t seen the other films (apart from bits of The Devil Wears Prada, but it’s hard to imagine all four of the other performances were better than the mesmerizing turn the 11 year-old spaniard put in.

    I noted last year that the critics’ favored movies of 2005 was loaded with downer movies. The best you could say about some of them was that they were “hopeful”. And before you say “critics always like downer movies”, that’s not always the case. It wasn’t in 2004 or 2003 or most years.

    2006 looks like more of the same.

    Astronomy, Sports, Mathematical Malpractice, Whatever Else Pops Into My Head