Your Tax Dollars At Work

Every year the United States sends millions of dollars to the United Nations (at some 22% of their $4.19 billion budget we are its largest contributor) and, unsurprisingly, the United Nations has been doing what it does best with that money - wasting it. Indeed, corruption, fraud and mismanagement have recently caused the United Nations to waste some $610 million of the money it was supposed to have spent on peacekeeping.

That's right folks, the United Nations has been using some of your American tax dollars so that it can rig financial bids, bribe locals, give bureaucrats kickbacks, and other wholesome things in places like Congo, Haiti and Peru. And it does all of this under the auspices of 'peacekeeping;' or, in other words, sending soldiers from one 3rd world country to another 3rd world country in order that they might do nothing. (Well, that is, assuming that bumming free liquor off the locals counts as nothing.)

Of course, the dirty little secret is that the United Nations shouldn't be doing peacekeeping at all; and it's primarily because that's simply not what the organization was set up to do. The United Nations was never supposed to be a beacon of Human Rights and Democracy, for God's sake one of its founding members was Joseph Stalin's Russia. It was simply set up to prevent another World War. Consequently, the U.N is geared towards and prepared for the handling of inter-state conflict - and not ethnic violence, insurgencies, or NGOs like al-Qaeda. Put simply, the United Nations was created to help solve European problems - and this was done on the, obviously mistaken, premise that other international problems would be like Europe's.

Indeed, it's no coincidence that probably the two best examples of the U.N's effectiveness, The Korean War and The First Gulf War, fit a classic European template: one Nation-state invades another, violating the other's national sovereignty, and thus has to be stopped. However, nearly all of the problems the U.N faces these days, be it Hezbollah in Lebanon or genocide in Darfur, have absolutely nothing to do with questions of inter-state war or violations of national sovereignty. As a result, the U.N is unable to solve them effectively, and ends up getting mired down in a sea of corruption and incompetence instead.

I, for one, am tired of having the United Nations waste it constituent states' money on peacekeeping projects, that it has neither the ability nor the capacity to fix, and wish it would just avoid them altogether. Afterall, it's simply not what the organization was cut out for.

Of God And Communism

In the face of the overwhelming success of its capitalist economics over the last decade or so, China's communist ideology has begun to lose some of its luster. Make no mistake, the government is as totalitarian as ever, and it still claims to be communist and pretends to worship "Chairman Mao" (as all the Chinese still call him); but, in actually, the Communist Party of China has a political ideology which is simply all over the map. So, with Mao's Little Red Book becoming more politically and economically irrelevant, the Chinese have begun turning, at an exponential rate, to the world's all-time best selling book: The Holy Bible.

Indeed, Amity Printing, China's only government-authorized Bible publisher, has already published some 50 million copies and, after it moves into a larger factory next year, is set to become the world largest publisher of the Christian Bible. And all of this in country where, just 25 years ago, simply bringing a Bible through customs could get you thrown in jail; and where, even today, the book is not sold in bookstores, but only through a Church-managed distribution system.

As far as Christianity is concerned, China is, in some ways, the last frontier for the faith. At various points in history, Christian missionaries have come, usually alongside European armies, and set up shop in coastal Chinese cities, but thier attempts largely failed. Thus, particularly after the institution of atheism as the official State religion in 1949, China was left as a vast, almost entirely untapped market for the message of Christ.

Of course, I've never been much of a religious missionary, so my extent of concern over the religious implications of this news extend no further than the satisfaction which comes with the knowledge that millions of others, having heard the same message as me, came to the same conclusion. However, there are, potentially, far greater and more tangible political implications to this news; and that seems to be what satisfies me most about it.

Indeed, one need look no further than the fall of Soviet Communism in Poland to witness the effect that Christianity can have on Communism. In Poland, where nearly 90% of the population is Catholic, the Catholic Church and then-Pope John Paul II are, rightfully, credited with being one of the primary forces that toppled the Communist regime there. Indeed, Pope John Paul II, himself a Pole, is seen by many as a member of a triumvirate, along with Ronald Reagan and Margret Thatcher, that led the charge against Soviet Communism during the 1980's; ultimately bringing about that ideology's end. Put simply, a strong Christian community does not mix well with Communism; in fact Christianity proves quite degrading to, even openly hostile to, Communist ideology.

The main reason for this stems from Communism's dependency upon atheism. In order to promote communism and make it viable, the concept of the 'great socialist state', or some similar idea, must be promoted. This is because in order to make communism work you must convince everyone within your country that there is nothing greater than social equality. In other words, when the people go out to work, not for money, but to help support the State, the commune, etc., they have to believe that economic equality amongst all really is the greatest of goals; otherwise, they wouldn't be effective workers and would undermine the entire viability of the system. As we know, of course, this kind of steroid-boosted, all-encompassing egalitarianism is quite contrary to human nature - which is why the people of a society must be indoctrinated with it. Consequently, the indoctrination of belief in the 'great socialist cause' becomes crucial to the continuing function of any Communist state.

That is why religion, especially Christianity, poses a serious threat to Communism. It deprives the State of its doctrinal monopoly on what the ultimate goal of a person or a society should be; and it gives them hope for something better than the Communist ideal. Indeed, by its very definition, Christianity transcends anything that Communist propaganda could throw at people. Think about it, how could one be excited about doing one's part for the betterment of socialism if the do-all, end-all of life was not, in fact, the State? Christianity, then, gives people something bigger to believe in - something bigger than, not only themselves, but Communist ideology as well.

In China, this 'great socialist state' ideal is, in some ways, similar to that of Stalinist Russia; mixing a bit of Nationalism with socialist ideals and blending that with a personality cult surrounding the dictator. The only difference is that in China, unlike Stalinist Russia, the 'cult of personality' has been maintained long after the dictator's death. And that's why Mao, even when official government policy contradicts his actual teachings, continues to have god-like status in China - he has to. As long as Mao (or something like him) is maintained, the unifying ideological force of Chinese Communism remains; but without that ideal, the system begins to fall apart, people begin to question why they make the sacrifices they do, and human nature reveals itself.

Thus we can begin to see why the Chinese government has, in the past, been so afraid of the Bible and why an increase in Chinese Christians is a positive sign. Jesus Christ, or rather belief in him, immediately transcends the myth of Mao and anything it may offer; thus relegating that myth, the central and most important tenant of Chinese Communism, to, at best, second place in those believers' lives. Most important, the adoption of this position (or any similar one) by a great percentage of Chinese would be a death kneel for Chinese Communism. Now, at only 4-5% of the country's population, Chinese Christians have a really long way to go before they turn their country into the second coming of the 1989 Polish Revolution; yet nevertheless, it must be admitted that The Bible's newest popularity surge can only mean good things in days to come.

Because It's Just So Dang Fun....

....to make fun of Le French. Although, with this video, I don't really have to make fun of them - they kind of pull it off all by themselves!



Now go forth and feel très intelligent. Well, at least compared to this douche.

Anything You Coerce, I Coerce Better

Finally, after months of silence on the issue, the bastion of this Presidential Election's socialist talking points, John Edwards himself, has risen to the challenge of proving to you, the concerned men and women of that 'other' America, that his Socialized Medi..., er, Universal Health Care program is several degrees of mastery above those of his closest rivals for the title of best able to mimic Eurotrash, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. Of course, in differentiating his plan from theirs, Mr. Edwards was not trying to sling political mud. No, he was "[talking] about what we need to do for healthcare;" you know, to make it better for all Americans - because he's always looking out for you, the common man. It may be from the window of his $6 million, 28,200 square foot mansion that he's looking out for us common folks - but, rest assured, looking out for you he is.

Anyways, back to what he actually had to say about the good Senators Obama and Clinton's health care plans (this talking about them, of course, came after he said that he "[didn't] want to talk about them" - which really forces one to admire his brilliance at constantly speaking out both sides of his mouth at the same time).

Edwards' problem with Senator Obama's plan was simply that it did not sufficiently expand the role of the federal government; because, per Mr. Edwards, "it just does not cover everyone." And by gosh, who would want to be left out of all the fun and excitement that comes with Universal Health Care. Why, not covering everybody would mean that some people might not get to spend months, even years, on medical waiting lists! They might not have the pleasure of having to drive hundreds of miles to find a mere Dentist! And worst of all, they might miss out on paying the massive tax increases that would be necessary to support such a system!!!

Yet, we must give credit where credit is due; Mr. Edwards has hit on a rather important nugget of information here; as this marks the first time in many years in which Senator Obama has actually been to the Right of someone on issues of public policy.

Another stroke of genius from Edwards comes in his criticism of Madame Clinton's Health Care policy (which, for those of you who remember correctly, is, in her words, most certainly not Government-run). In this case, Edwards says that while her plan does have the proper mandates to force Health Care down all of our collective throats, she forgot to come up with a "way to enforce the mandates" - and hey, what good would big government be if it didn't have a massive bureaucracy around to make sure you did as you were told? Of course, Mr. Edwards' idea of enforcing his mandates amounts to making sure that "every time you come into contact with the healthcare system or the government you get signed up." In other words, if you show your face in public, we will keep tabs on you - like in a police state, only, in this case, it's to make sure you get free Health Care, which is a good thing, so don't worry about it.

No word yet on how he plans to deal with the first invasion of privacy lawsuit that gets slapped on him when he forces your Doctor to turn over all your private info to his government.

The amazing thing is, Edwards continually criticizes President Bush for wiretapping phone lines, calling it a violation of peoples' right to privacy. ("Pot, meet Kettle.....").

Finally, in what was, perhaps, the best part of Mr. Edwards' little talk about his Universal Health Care plan, he decided to take questions form reporters, presumably so they might help him clarify his brilliant plan to those of us living in the 'other' America. While doing this, one of the reporters asked him what would happen if someone didn't want to get involved in his Health Care plan. Mr. Edwards' response? I kid you not: "You don't get that choice."

Indeed. One could hardly think of a better way to so succinctly summarize the folly of Universal Health Care.

So Much For An American Version!

Finally, definitive proof that Socialized Medicine just won't work here in the United States! In New Zealand, this past weekend, a British woman, looking to join her husband there, was denied entrance to the country because she was too fat. The reason her excessive weight was a problem? Well, according to the New Zealand Government, their universal health care system cannot take on anymore overweight people because it cannot afford to provide care for them.

That's right, socialized medicine in New Zealand has come under too much financial strain from the burden of the overweight and obese.

Now, in New Zealand, 50% of all adults are either overweight or obese; whereas, in the United States, that percentage has 'stabilized' at, ahem, 66.2%. So, if New Zealand officials feel they must deny long-term entry to overweight folks to preserve their Health Care system, imagine the problems we might have with such a Health Care system in this, the most vastly and disgustingly overweight Nation in the world?

But who the hell am I kidding? The people who want an American, socialized Medical system won't be concerned with the potentially devastating costs from the obesity epidemic - they'll just jack taxes way up to pay for it all.

But hey, at least it'll be free, right?

Socialized Medicine - Continuing to Impress

Imagine: you're laying on the table in an O.R in an Australian hospital, about to go into surgery, feeling pretty good, given that your surgery is "free" and whatnot, and then, YEECH, a cockroach runs up onto the operating table with you!! Ah, well, if you go in for surgery at Sydney, Australia's RNS Hospital, you won't have to imagine, as it's actually happening.

Gosh, just gives you all sorts of confidence in their sanitation procedures down there, doesn't it?

Of course, this isn't the only thing going wrong at the RNS Hospital; other problems there include an operating table which broke in half, while a patient was anesthetized on it, because it was so old, and (the whole reason they're having to investigate the hospital in the 1st place), a woman miscarrying in the hospital's E.R bathroom after having waited 2 hours to see the Doctor.

Lovely, isn't it?

Indeed, like all businesses run by the Government, it seems Australian Healthcare has become inefficient, sloppy, and poorly managed - and why not? It's not like they have any competition for the services they offer. Thus, the government can afford to be negligent with things like hospital sanitization; they're petty, time-consuming, and not really necessary in a stagnant market.

Well, that is except at election time, when the Pols will have to, at the very least, pay lip service to better Healthcare in order to rack up a few extra votes (and hey, whadda you know, Australia has Parliamentary elections soon!).

But hey - it's "free," so no worries, right mate?

On War - And Idiots

You know, sometimes it's scary who we elect to be our leaders in this country. Sometimes it's a guy like Strom Thurmond, who's dead 20 years before he gets out of office, other times it's a guy like John Edwards, who's a conniving, closeted socialist, and other times it's a guy like Chris Dodd, who's just plain stupid. With Dodd, however, the most frightening aspect of his stupidity is not that it got him elected to the U.S Senate, but that it's deluded him into thinking that he deserves more. That's why he is running (quite unsuccessfully, I might add) for the Democrats' Presidential Nomination. This quote, from a speech he made earlier today, is why he shouldn't be running for the Democrats' Presidential Nomination:

"....In fact, [the trial of the al-Qaeda terrorist Zaccarias] Moussaoui is the perfect victory. Our system is shown to be fair. The court struck a balance that protects both our values and our security. We didn't lose anything. Moussaoui ultimately showed himself to be a fool--deranged, a joke, hardly someone that we'd think of as a great Middle East martyr. Ultimately he's imprisoned in a place where his name will be forgotten forever. How is that not a great victory?"

Compare that case to the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who organized the attacks of 9/11. He was held in a secret prison, where he claims he was tortured severely. Whether he is lying or not, by our actions we have allowed Khalid Mohammed to claim the moral high ground. Khalid Mohammed plays martyr to a world that is inclined to believe it.

Torture does not work....."

Yes folks, you read that right, Senator Dodd, a man who wants to be President, believes that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11, has the "moral high-ground" against us. And why does he have the moral high ground? Because he was 'waterboarded' while in U.S custody.

Since there is clearly such moral parity between making an admitted terrorist endure a painful drowning simulation and masterminding the death of 3,000 innocent civilians.

Seriously, what planet is Dodd from? It would be a stretch to call Khalid Sheikh Muhammad a human being, much less one who could hold any kind of moral ground - even at the below-ground level. I think he'll find that many people, myself included, are somewhat sympathetic to his position on the issue of 'torture' - but telling all those people that they are the moral equals of terrorist masterminds doesn't strike me as a great way to win converts to your cause.

Ultimately, however, for all the problems with his style and presentation, there is one thing which the Senator's words make abundantly clear, and it is the thing that makes his status as an elected official so damned frightening - and that is how the Senator completely and utterly misunderstands our enemies. Read that first paragraph in the above quote again - you'll see an underlying sentiment there that, somehow, these Islamic fascists we're fighting actually care how we treat our prisoners of war.

Really? Does the Senator think that giving Zaccarias Moussaoui a fair trail makes it any less likely that an American Soldier captured by al-Qaeda will be beheaded? Does he think that potential jihad recruits in the Middle East will look at the U.S's fair trial of Moussaoui and go, 'geez, since they convicted him at a jury trial, the Americans must be the good guys'? Surely he's observant enough to realize that they'd be more likely to call the whole thing a pre-arranged Zionist scam than to credit America for having done the right thing.

And remember, just because it's the right thing to do, doesn't mean they think it's the right thing to do.

Indeed, Al-Qaeda doesn't care what we do when we catch their little terrorists; they just care about whether or not we catch them. The only time Islamic Radicals find our trials useful and 'convincing' is when they can use them for their own propaganda purposes - which is why Al-Qaeda explicitly directs jihadists, once they get to court, to claim they were tortured and abused while in prison. No really, it's in their freakin' training manual.

And that's what's scary about Chris Dodd - he really thinks they care about what we do, and, more importantly, he thinks that they will respond to it in a rational, Western way. Just look at what he said about Moussaoui; he claimed that, as a result of the damage done to him by the trial, he was "hardly someone that we'd think of as a great Middle East martyr."

Well, whoop-de-doo-da Senator, of course WE don't think he'd make a great martyr, but, again, it doesn't matter what we think - it matters what THEY think; and we don't have much of a say-so in who they think will make a great martyr. Indeed, this is one of those times when multi-culturalism is actually quite useful; because in order to defeat someone in a war, you have to understand where they're coming from and be able to think about things from their perspective - irrespective of how flipping crazy they are.

You know, come to think of it, for an open-minded, multi-cultural, liberal, Mr. Dodd sure has one hell of an arrogant, western perspective on the situation.

And herein lies the problem with many on Mr. Dodd's side: their Eurocentrism. They still seem to be operating, as most Europeans are, with the built in assumption that war and politics fall within the realm of the Nation-State and the rational actor. It is, if you will, a Clausewitzian perspective on a decidedly non-Clausewitzian world; and thus, it is a perspective which has fostered a fundamental misunderstanding of our enemy and his goals on the part of many of our leaders.

This is not the 18th or 19th Century, and the battle against Islamic radicalism is a far cry from the Napoleonic Wars in which Carl von Clausewitz learned the lessons that shaped his famous theories, including those in On War. But times change, and war does too - it, of all things, certainly hasn't remained stuck in the past.

It would be helpful if our leaders might somehow figure that out too.

The News You Need To See

A bombshell news item out of Iraq today, albeit one you likely won't read in any newspapers or see on TV. Thankfully, however, we have Michael Yon, the tireless, freelance reporter, to give us the full story from Iraq. And the story that he reported earlier today is a stunning one; and that is that, according to the leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party "Al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated."

Read the whole thing here.

And, for you doubters who might be a bit skeptical of the IIP's leader, consider this story from, of all places, the Washington Post just a few weeks ago. The U.S Military harbors similar sentiments on the state of Al Qaeda in Iraq - but, after President Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' fiasco, haven't come forth due to reservations about the political consequences of making such statements.

The task is not finished and there's some serious work left to be done - but the defeat of Al Qaeda sure would make things a hell of a lot easier. And for that, we offer the sincerest of thanks and the heartiest of salutes to General David Petraeus - the man who seems to be doing the impossible.

A Reason To Care

One would think that by now, given all the statistics that have been compiled and predictions that have been made on the subject, Washington politicians would have realized that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Welfare reform is an issue that needs to be brought to the forefront and dealt with immediately. Sadly, of course, they haven't, and our oversized, bloated federal programs remain on track to create a fiscal catastrophe in the not-so-distant future.

Thankfully (or rather, frighteningly), we have evidence of what will happen if we continue down this path towards Democratic Socialism. The evidence, of course, is Europe. We have the high unemployment rates in France and Germany, the horrors of Britain's National Health Service, and the stagnated growth rates in Scandinavia, all of which, understandably, should warn us of the perils of Democratic Socialism. Even more frightening than the consequences of such programs, however, are the solutions that one must implement if one refuses to downsize or privatize these massive programs in the face of a rapidly ageing population. The obvious one is to increase the tax burden on the young and force them to finance the handsome pensions of their parents' and grandparents' generations; and in Britain, that's exactly what they've decided to do.
This article, from The Times, reports a shocking new statistic: that British college graduates could lose up to one-half of their starting salary to taxation. What a terribly large amount of money to have removed from one's paycheck to help finance government welfare programs - but, unfortunately, this is what has to happen in Britain. With declining birthrates, increased spending on welfare programs, and increasing longevity, increasing taxes on the young is one of the few ways to make the numbers work. The reason is simple; one of the most profitable taxes, from a government perspective, is the income tax - and old people don't work! So, youngsters will begin to see less and less of their paychecks if the system is to be maintained.

There is, of course, another downside to this that any good supply-sider will have already recognized; and that is that drastic tax increases on your workers' paychecks translates into less disposable income. This, in turn, means that people will be less likely to spend money and contribute to the overall economy. In other words, as President Reagan proved, higher income taxes means less overall economic productivity and an all-around, weaker economy.

And that brings me back to the United States, a country where we still have the pleasure of deciding whether we want our future to be like Britain's (or France's, or Sweden's....) or if we want it to be, well, as American as it's always been.

It's hard to talk about things like privatizing Social Security; or to tell our Senior citizens that they just might have to endure a benefit cut; hell, these days it's becoming hard to simply oppose, outright, all forms of socialized medicine; but at the end of the day, these are the things that we need to talk about - and must do. Especially considering that the alternative is figuring out how to distribute a massive tax burden.

Because Power Is Fun - And Profitable!

Surprise, surprise. It seems that one of Myrtle Beach's State Senators, Luke Rankin, who has dedicated himself to opposing workers' comp reform in the S.C. State Legislature, just so happens to be making a bundle from workers' comp-related litigation fees at his law firm! Gosh, it's no wonder he's not too fond of workers' comp reform; I suppose I'd probably be the same way if I was making $659,200 over a 3 year period ('04-'06) off the stuff.

Of course, I already knew that Senator Rankin was a self-serving kindda guy - he is, afterall, the man who switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party right before the 2004 elections, not because he had an ideological change of heart, but because he wanted to hold on to as much power as he possible could. Indeed, after a few other Democratic-to-Republican defections following the 2000 elections, the results of which had left the State Senate evenly split, the Republicans had gained control of the S.C Senate, and it had become clear that in the 2004 elections, for the 1st time since Reconstruction, the Republican Party was going to win a legitimate majority. And ol' Luke wasn't about to be left in the Minority.

The sad thing is, he may not be done with these kind of stunts; as he is one of 4 Republican State Senators who, having just switched to the Republican Party after 2000, it's rumored will happily switch back to his original party if the 2008 Elections go the Democrat's way.

A man of principle, that one. Too bad the principle is himself.

Cold War Redux

You know, you'd think that, since Putin's whole gig revolves around trumping up the awesomeness that is Russia, he wouldn't exactly be quick to bring up one of their more humiliating foreign policy episodes of the past half-century; but he's welcome to make Cuban Missile Crisis analogies if he wants to.

Of course, in one very distinct way, the current situation to which Mr. Putin refers, the U.S's attempts to install a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, is quite different; namely in that Russia deployed actual missiles to Cuba, not a shield to protect against the launch of such missiles. Their's was an act of aggression, ours is one of defense.

Nevertheless, there is one important similarity here - one which Putin either has not understood or not thought through.

The reason that Khrushev lost the Cuban Missile Crisis was because he bluffed, and President Kennedy called him on it; and, naturally, when they then had to lay down their cards Kennedy had the better hand. Of course, in the 40+ years since 1962, the gap between the Russian and American hands has only grown - as we have a much greater advantage over Russia now than we ever did during the Cold War.

Which means that if President Bush were to simply call Mr. Putin's bluff, Putin would be screwed; and surely he's not foolish enough to think of President Bush as the 'backing down' type. (If he did, he would certainly be one of few.) So unless Putin's counting on Congressional liberals and U.N/E.U political 'elites' to intervene on his behalf (which, given their recent history, he very well may be), something tells me this isn't one of his better moments.

Hopefully, the Bush Administration will recognize this, and plow ahead in its negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic on the installation of the Missile Defense shield. Why? Because, after nearly 100 years of having to deal with German expansionism and Soviet communism, not to mention the U.S turning it's back on them after WWII, the Poles and Czechs deserve our military support.

And after all, Russian autocrats become tiresome rather quickly.

Maine Gives SexEd A Makeover

Ah, the strange things that can happen when your Moral Compass goes batshit and just starts spinning in all sorts of.....crazy directions.

Please, feel free to give that article a second read folks, because I can assure you that allowing birth-control pills to be given out in Middle Schools is one you haven't heard before.

Clearly it's in the best interest of our society to encourage little 11 year-olds to run around and have sex, Right? Especially when, assuming the parents have o.k'ed their child's treatment by the school Nurse, the parents of the kids don't have to be notified that their Middle-school-aged daughters are receiving birth-control.

Fun, no?

Oh wait, better question: given that the legal Age of Consent in Maine is 16, doesn't that mean that these School Board Members and Schools are aiding and abetting in Statutory Rape?

Oh, the joys of Modern Society....

***Update 10/26***

It seems that the answer to my above question is, indeed, 'yes' - giving birth control to someone underage is illegal; and the Cumberland County DA has stepped in to, ahem, remind these idiots at the Middle School that they have to report anyone having sex who is underage. I was, however, wrong on one point, as it seems that the legal age of consent in Maine may be 14 and not 16. Either way, there are still kids as young as 11 in the school in question....

Why Does He Even Bother?

This article brings to mind that ol' story about President Bush and the Pope.

You know, the one where the two men are riding down the Potomac in a boat with several other diplomats and such, when the Pontiff's white hat thing blows off into the river. President Bush then calmly climbs over the side of the boat, walks across the top of the water to retrieve the hat, then walks back and hands it to the Pope. The headline in the media the next day: "Bush Can't Swim!!!"

Seriously, the number of civilian and Military deaths in Iraq is going down, so what do these brilliant reporters decide to write a story about? Why, how these declining casualty rates have negatively affected the funeral businesses in Iraq!

Spin that war coverage, baby - spin that shit like your life depends on it!

Come to think of it, it's no wonder most people in this country are opposed to The War - when you get media coverage as crappy as this, it's hard to be a fan.

As Painful As Pulling Teeth

Ah, the wonders of Socialized Health Care, they just never stop coming:

"[In the U.K,] large numbers of people are going without dental treatment and some even report extracting their own teeth because they cannot find an NHS dentist in their area"

Gosh that sounds like fun, having to pull my own teeth out because I can't find a dentist - hey wait a minute, I guess this means you really do get free health care under socialized medicine!! I mean, you're certainly not going to pay yourself for doing your own Dental Work.

But hey, at least this dental shortage has spawned some of that good ol' creativity:

"Some of the respondents show considerable ingenuity. 'Filled own teeth - clove oil and Polyfilla,' said one in Essex. Another fixed a crown with Superglue and a third used a screwdriver to scrape off plaque."

There's some crafty ol' chaps still left in Britain, yes sir; and good thing too, because I can't say I really expect their MPs to do anything about it - anything that will work, at least.

Indeed, one Liberal Democrat spokesman, quoted in the article, noted that "this survey shows the system is at breaking point." Really?!? Maybe it's just me, but if you have a system that's been around for 8 years (as this one has) that's supposed to provide Universal Dental Care, and people are still having to pull their own teeth, the system ain't at a 'breaking point' - it's already busted.

Moreover, the solution of the London politicians, whether Liberal Democrat, Labour, or even Tory, will be to 'reform' the program - you know, make some changes so that the NHS will 'work better' and 'be more responsive to peoples' needs,' and all those other tried and true slogans politicians use. But none of the reforms they can propose will work.

Why? Because, ultimately, the problem isn't a kink in the system - it's the system itself.

Say What Now?

Reason number 234,125,906,866 that Hillary Clinton shouldn't be President, via a FOX article about candidate screw-ups on the campaign trail:

...and in South Carolina, where the H is silent in Horry Country, the names matter. Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who mastered most of the names during her husband's campaigns, goofed by calling the state's coastal area "the lowlands" rather than the preferred "Lowcountry."

Bitch. Seriously, the lowlands?? What, does she think I live in Holland or something? Please, it's the South Carolina Lowcountry, plain an' simple.

'Course, Hillary ain't the only one that's screwed up on the S.C campaign trail. Fred Thompson thought the man in the Governors Mansion was Mark Sandford, as opposed to the real guy who's there - Mark Sanford.

And John McCain left one crowd quite puzzled when he told them that, despite his conversion from the Episcopalian Church to the Baptist Church, he "didn't find it necessary" to be Baptized into his new Church - and this to a crowd composed entirely of not just Baptists, but Southern Baptists. I'm guessing he didn't win any converts with that one.

In addition to amusing anecdotes about candidate screw-ups, FOX also offers some sage advice to candidates for future trials along the campaign trail:

...don't assume food comes ready to eat, as candidates in South Carolina have done. In that state, political barbecue means roasted pig and hands-on messiness. "You peel shrimp and shuck oysters," said Romney political consultant Warren Tompkins. More than 20 years later, some remember when Walter Mondale didn't peel and got more than a mouthful.

Yes indeed, all visitors to S.C would do well to realize that, sometimes, the seafood ain't exactly 'cooked to order.' Although we do understand that eating the shrimp's shell is acceptable in some parts of the world - but imitating the French probably ain't a winning campaign strategy in the Lowcountry.

"We Are In A War"

Earlier today, with limited pomp, circumstance, and media attention, Marine General Peter Pace left his post as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Before riding off into the sunset, however, General Pace had some parting words for his and, by extension, the War's critics.

"I just want everyone to understand that this dialogue is not about 'Can we vote our way out of a war.' We have an enemy who has declared war on us. We are in a war. They want to stop us from living the way we want to live our lives. So the dialogue is not about 'Are we in a war' but how and where and when to best fight that war to preserve our freedom and to preserve our way of life and to do so with the least damage to our own society and the least damage to those who we're fighting against so we can put the pieces back together on the end of this. We will prevail. There's no doubt about that."

The emphasis was added to highlight the most important point, one which many on the anti-war side continually fail to grasp, and that is this: no one has ever defeated an Islamic Jihad by running away. Politicians in the United States, including the President, are fond of downplaying the influence of religion on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the larger, so-called, War on Terror - but they do so at their own peril. The label of 'Terror' is a misnomer, as we are not out to eliminate the threat of terrorism; indeed, to do so would be an impossibility. Given this, I have long thought that this war should be called either the 'War on Islamic Fascism,' or, in more 'PC' terms, the 'War on Islamic Fundamentalism.'

Indeed, like it or not, we are in a Religious War. And it is a Religious War because they have defined it as such - and to ignore them would be a disaster. Indeed, as Carl von Clausewitz wrote in the famous, On War:

"The supreme, most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish, by that test, the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into something that is alien to its nature."

Or, in the simpler words of Sun-Tzu's The Art of War; "know thy enemy." I sense a similar warning from General Pace to those in Washington, and throughout the U.S, who wish us to believe that this War is something we can end simply by leaving Iraq.

Now, this war is not a Religious War in the Medieval sense of term, where one religion battled another; but a more modern one, as we find the battle lines drawn not between two religions, but between one religion, Islam, and the Secularists, who oppose its agenda. Of course, Islam fighting a Religious War is nothing new - Islam has been at war with the infidels since Muhammad and his first Muslim converts began attacking Arabic caravans traveling across the Arabian Desert in the 620's. It then continued with a frenzy until, finally, in 732, Charles Martel sent the Islamic warriors into retreat at the Battle of Tours. But Islamic jihad did not vanish - it only rested and regrouped. In 1453, the hordes of Muhammad finally overcame the walls of Constantinople, and with them the Byzantine Empire, thus beginning, yet again, a march of Islamic warriors towards the heart of Europe. As before, they were turned back by Europeans, this time while trying to siege the city of Vienna in 1683. Despite being forced into retreat yet again, the Muslims held on as long as was possible, until the crumbling ruins of the Ottoman Empire were finally destroyed in the First World War.

Then, sometime during the middle of the 20th Century, around the time many Europeans were reeling from their own disastrous experiments with the likes of Fascism and Imperialism, and others about to reel thanks to their experiments with Communism - Islam began to rumble again. Influenced by everything from Nazi ideology to the polarity of the Cold War world, Islam became re-acquainted with its warrior jihad of old; and slowly began to channel this spirit through organizations like Al-Qaeda, ultimately culminating in what should have been an obvious sign to all in the West that a new onslaught of jihad was back, and taking aim at them: the 9/11 attacks.

With that loose framework of the three major 'waves' of Islamic jihad, I now come back to General Pace, and, specifically, the last part of his remarks which I quoted above. Here, in discussing the eventual "end" of this War, he hints at what we are doing differently in this phase of the fight against jihad. In the past, the solution to Islamic jihad has been simply to kill as many Muslims as was feasible, and, eventually, through military strength, beat the jihad back into Arabia and out of your 'world.' As you can see though, setting aside, even, the fact that Arabia is no longer 'out of our world,' this strategy has proven vastly ineffective at preventing future assaults of jihadists. This time, we are attempting to address this problem - and doing so by attempting to reform the Islamic world from within. Just as the Renaissance and the Enlightenment were able to temper and eventually eliminate 'Crusaders' and able to moderate Christianity, we are planning to use similar ideological tools to temper jihadists.

It is, in all respects, a phenomenal and over-whelming task. We are hoping that by instituting Democracy we can not only beat back, this, the third wave of jihad, but also pre-empt a potential fourth wave; although given history, it seems unlikely that the latter might be possible. Yet, one thing is clear; Democracy would be, in most all respects, a death blow for the third wave of jihad. It would not end it, but it would certainly be its Tours. That is the significance of the battle of Iraq in this greater War on Islamic Fascism; and, whether he meant to or not, it is what General Pace hinted at today when he talked about putting the pieces of, not just our society, but their society back together when this War is over. He's hoping that pieces of the Iraq we put back together will be new ones. 'Enlightened' ones, if you will. He's asking people to not give up on this vision, and he's not asking because he feels it's the better choice between continuing the fight in Iraq and ending the War. He's asking because he knows that, if we want to win, in the end, we have no choice.

After all, we are in a War - whether we like it or not.

The Bitch Is Back

Drum roll, please, Ladies and Gentlemen! For today is a momentous day in American history!

Yep, get ready folks, HillaryCare is back!

Because, prior public response be damned, The Socialist Revolution must go on!!

All that remains is for her to pull off this magic act of convincing voters that she is, in fact, sufficiently 'moderate' enough to be representative of more than just the people of San Francisco; thus enabling her to bring the re-birth of this great catastrophe to its full and inevitable conclusion.

God save the USA.

HillaryCare, naturally, had to come back with a bang, and so it did. Right out of the gate, she dove headfirst into the classic Hillary/Socialist position of outlandish ridiculousness. Don't believe me? Check out what she said about her proposed plan for 'Universal Health Care:'

"This is not Government-run."

No really, she actually said that. Honestly, the sheer laughability and idiocy of that remark could, by itself, stand alone as a testament to the idiocy of her program - but I just-so-happen to be in the Hillary-bashing mood, so I'll continue. This non-government-run program is going to cost the Federal government a cool $110 Billion (money which they obviously won't control - because it's not government-run. Really, I swear). I mean seriously, she thinks the Federal Government is going to magically drop $110 Billion smackaroos on something and not retain at least some degree of control over how that money is used?!?!? The implications of Government bankrolling, to any degree, a certain system are not difficult to determine. Just look at similar initiatives in our own country. In the 1960's, many Doctors signed on to the Medicare and Medicaid programs proposed by LBJ; they, at the time, believed it would not seriously infringe on their control of the manner in which they treated their patients.

They were naive.

Soon after the programs began, the Government used Medicare and Medicaid, specifically, and pay attention here Mrs. Clinton, the money they spent on those programs, to demand (and get) ever-increasing control over the Health Care system. In other words, even if the beginnings of Mrs. Clinton's program are in some way benign, they won't stay that way - that's not how Governments operate; particularly when money is involved. The fact is, Governments, unchecked, naturally grow and increase in size; and it's because they're trying to. Our job, as citizens is to try our best to stop feeding the beast, not serve it a five-course buffet.

But let's get back to that $110 Billion for a second, because, you know, that kind of money doesn't just materialize in thin air - somebody has to pay for it. Naturally, this means a tax hike; and not just any tax hike, mind you, but a tax hike on the rich. Indeed, she actually said, in no uncertain terms, that those better able to pay for health insurance should be forced to help those who aren't so able.

Steal from the rich and give to the poor - the classic Robin Hood mentality.

Of course, at the end of the day, Robin Hood was never anything more than a petty thief; albeit one who tried to absolve himself of his crimes by doing the Medieval equivalent of giving the booty to charity. Moreover, while Robin Hood may have felt like he had some higher moral imperative, thus causing him to give the money away, it is highly unlikely that a Government would feel a similar sense of moral purpose. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, there has yet to be a historical recording of a government that showed a more lasting interest in helping people than in helping itself.

The very term 'Moral Government' strikes me more as an excellent example of oxymoron rather than as a genuine historical entity. But hey, with $110 Billion a year on the line, why not let Hillary have a shot at reversing all of human history. It's not like its all that much money anyways....right?

Wasteful spending, increased taxation, and this, brand-new, benevolent government are all essential for any good 'Universal Health Care' proposal, but, to make sure you know she's serious, Hillary throws in some other goodies too. Like the part where she wants the Government to mandate that all Americans get Health insurance. Because, you know, whether you want to or not is irrelevant - when Hillary's Government decides what's best for you, you will comply.

Furthermore, since it's always fun to impose additional regulations on private business, Hillary is going to require (a.k.a mandate) all employers to offer some form of comprehensive Health Coverage to their employees. Sheesh, they're called benefits, and not necessities, for a reason! If you think health insurance is important, look for a job that offers it; but health coverage is in no way a mandatory part of an office business plan. It's simply one of the many tools a business owner may use in his quest to hire the best workers. The decision making should be left to employers and their potential employees - not the whims and beliefs of some self-anointed Queen.

In the end, one has to wonder how a program with all these 'mandates' can be passed off as "not government-run." Perhaps it's another one of those quirky Hillary things, but, to the best of my knowledge, there is only one organization in the country which can collect extra taxes from people and also force them to comply with the aforementioned policy mandates. No bonus points if you guess what the organization is.

The lesson, I think, to borrow from Shakespeare, is that 'that which we call a colon, by any other word, would still be as full of shit.'

The Right Man

These past few days, I've been trying as to watch as much of the testimony of General Petraeus as has been possible. During the snippets that I have caught, a few things have struck me. The first, and one which was, perhaps, not unexpected, was the degree to which many of the Senators and Representatives opposed to the war refused to listen to the General; preferring, instead, to do something akin to plugging their fingers in their ears and going 'la, la, la, I can't hear you!' like a bunch of third graders. In any case, it certainly is not the mark of a mature adult to hire someone to do a job for you, ask him to come back and file a report about that job, and then proceed to tell him that, while you think he's the best in the world at the job, you're not actually going to either believe or listen to any of the information that he reports back with.

Seriously, if you don't care what the guy has to say, don't make him come to D.C and give you a report. I mean, I know the only clock that politicians care about is the one counting down the time until their next re-election campaign - but I'd say the leader of multi-National forces in Iraq has a hell of a lot better things to do with his time than spend it blathering to a bunch of idiots with the maturity level of kindergarteners who won't give a damn what he says in the end anyways.

General Petreaus shouldn't have to waste his time on petty politics, he has something a bit more important on his hands - it's called a War.

Furthermore, I couldn't get over the gaggle of politicians who kept telling the General that they respected his integrity and thought the world of him - and then turned around and told him that the statistics he was presenting to them were incorrect, or that the information he was giving them was false. Now, maybe I'm just an ol'-fashioned Southern boy; but if you call someone a liar and accuse them of committing perjury - I think it's safe to say you've called their integrity into question.

On a different note, I must say, I'm damn glad that General Petraeus is the man leading our military in Iraq right now, these past few days, despite all the BS that has been laid at his feet by these politicians, he's handled himself with dignity and honor and proved himself not only to be an ingenious commander but an upstanding man as well. He had answers for all the crappy, politically-motivated questions that were tossed his way, and he refrained from stooping down to the level of the anti-war, vote-groveling politicians when he could have easily done so (and smacked them around a bit). Moreover, when he was asked about the inexcusable, newspaper attacks on his character by some elements of the anti-war movement, he responded simply by noting that generations of soldiers had fought to give those people the Right to say what they wanted - even if they are a bunch of stupid jerks.

Class and the ability to lead with one's actions instead of one's words are rare traits on Capitol Hill - and while the General may not have dazzled Congress with his example of supreme character, he may very well have made an impression were I'm guessing he would most like to, in the homes of ordinary Americans. Indeed, history tells us that Americans, as a whole, are typically much more impressed by silent leaders, like Washington, than they are by politicians up on their high horses, pontificating about what we should or shouldn't do. Let's hope the same is true this time around too.

I suppose we'll find out soon enough anyways.

Euros Discover How To 'Live' Even Longer - Pretend!

It's pretty clear, to someone like me, that incentives work - it's why I'm a Capitalist. But, as me or any other capitalist could tell you, part of the trick is not just incentivizing people, but incentivizing the right things. Take this story, for example. It seems likely that the woman had an excellent incentive: making some easy money. Usually, of course, one would expect the money to be earned through traditional, benign means (such as hard work) - and not by keeping one's dead Aunt mummified in the house in hopes of keeping her annual Government pension coming in.

Alas, such is the reality of Modern-day Europe and its socialist States: welfare programs are so huge and lucrative that they spawn instances like the one mentioned in the article. The sad thing about this poor Austrian woman is that she got caught after only one year - the Frenchmen who pull similar stunts usually squeeze out at least a few more years worth of dough.

Sadly, most Europeans (and by extension, their governments) don't understand the, rather simple, fundamental issue at stake. Government-payout programs incentivize laziness rather than productive labor; and as a result, actually make it useful to keep dead people around.

It's kindda creepy if you ask me.

Saving The Planet: One Tax At A Time

With Great Britain's continual build-up of inefficient social welfare programs, sickening political correctness over radical Islam, and recent retreat from the Military arena in Iraq, many American Conservatives might be wondering if the British people are beginning to slowly lose the political common sense for which they are known. Then, however, we read stories like this, which give us a slight bit more faith in our Allies across the Pond.

It seems that Britons have begun to accrue some doubt concerning their government's motives when it comes to tax increases aimed at offsetting carbon-emissions. You see, the British Government believes that part of its job is to help the British people atone for their 'sins' - and of course by 'sins' what I mean is 'sins committed against the almighty global warming gods.' So in an effort to pay for what amounts to a National CO2 offset, the British Government has decided to force its citizens to pay for carbon-offsets via taxation - because, hey, what better way for the government to solve a problem than to raise a tax, right?

Well, actually, its really taxes. But hey - details, schmetails.

Nevertheless, a new poll suggests that some 2/3 of Britons feel that their Government is using environmental issues as a front, and that behind this front they are simply raking in extra tax dollars. And, as it turns out, those 2/3 of Britons are right. It seems that the U.K Parliament is taking in far more in environmental taxes than it might need in order to pay for the Nation's carbon offsets.

The estimated cost of this off-set scheme? 11.7 billion Pounds. The amount of money the Government raked in in eco-taxes? 21.9 billion Pounds. A full 10.2 billions Pounds more than they actually needed.

(For us Americans, that would probably be, like, somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 billion, given the exchange rate and all.....)

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Needless to say, this system the British Government came up with to try and reduce Britons' CO2 emissions hasn't really done anything other than, well, swell the coffers of the British Parliament; and, hell, that's assuming that this whole carbon offsets-purchasing program isn't a big crock of bullshit to begin with. (Which it is.)

So, Americans, beware of the Global Warming doomsayers who warn of catastrophe if we don't increase our taxes on gasoline use; because the only thing that the government does to any great degree by increasing these taxes is increase its available funds - evidence the extra 10 billion Pounds sitting around Westminster Palace.

Finally, there's no question that we need to reduce our consumption of oil - much of that foreign oil serves as a financial lifeline for Islamists - however, the way to do that is most certainly not through increased taxation.

Besides, the idea that we (or our government) could buy 'indulgences' to atone for our sins so went out of style after the Protestant Reformation.

Private Health Care Still Working

Well, that is, if you assume that, when a patient gets something like cancer, the best Health Care system will be the one that keeps the most patients alive. Which, if I may say so, seems a pretty fair assumption to make.

Here's the link.

The important info is in the table on the right side, which shows the survival rates of all cancer patients in European Countries by gender. For good measure, they threw in the United States' rates and, unsurprisingly, they were the highest rates for both males and females. The margin was much smaller for females than it was for males, but I'm guessing the Americans who make up that slightly-more-than 1% edge in female survival rates would caution you against calling that percentage insignificant.

Moreover, if you were to go by the numbers, you might say that there are some things that those in Universal Health Care paradises could learn from us - things such as, you know, how to better cure their patients - but, fortunately for Europeans, a good socialist doesn't have to let facts and figures get in his way.

One other thing to note is that this study, done by The Lancet, calculates the survival rate based on how many of a Nation's cancer patients have survived their cancer 5 years after their diagnosis (with the research being done between 2000-2002). When one expands the research beyond that 5-year period, and looks at the ultimate mortality rates from cancer diagnoses, the United States puts a great deal more distance between itself and many of its, more Socialistic, competitors. At least, that is insofar as some of the most common types of cancer are concerned.

(Indeed, the article I linked to above doesn't quite do the United States' advantage in some areas of the 5-year study justice, for a better look at the numbers click here)

At the end of the day, of course, irrespective of the margin or time frame, the lesson to be learned remains the same: American Health Care does a better job of curing cancer than its European counterpart - despite being less socialized in its nature.

This is not a coincidence.

Natural Selection - It Really Works!

This video brings to mind something that Darwin once said.....



....you know, the part about how less evolved members of a species tend to die off and not reproduce.

When Do-Gooders Attack

Here's a simple question for you: To whom does the ultimate responsibility for your own health fall? Stupid question, right? In a reasonable world, your own health would be your own responsibility. Indeed, unless you are a young child, you have the freedom to choose what it is you eat, how much you exercise, and whether or not you smoke cigarettes. On top of being able to choose what exactly it is you do to your body, you, theoretically, can also choose when and where you do these things. In Surfside Beach, South Carolina, however, that's about to change.

Earlier this week, in the name of everyone's health and well-being, 4 of the 7 members of the Surfside Beach Town Council voted to outlaw smoking in public buildings. Barring a miracle, this bill will soon become law when, assuming all Council Members vote the same way, the second vote on it (which Town Council rules require) comes on July 24. Those supporting the bill have cited both concerns over second-hand smoke exposure and concerns over violations of, to quote the Ordinance's sponsor Judy Tuttle, people's "right to clean air."

Whatever the Hell that is.

Indeed, ever since the world discovered that, much to our surprise, smoking something filled with an addictive drug was, in fact, bad for one's health; cigarettes and the companies that make them have become some of the easiest targets for the word 'evil' since Adolf Hitler. Of course, as so often happens in America, anyone and everyone's righteous anger over cigarettes is somewhat misplaced. No doubt, it's easy to pick on a company like RJ Reynolds because, hey, they make cigarettes, and cigarettes are bad for you, and cause health problems, and these evil people not only make them but have the gall to market them, as well; yet, at the end of the day, making a product and marketing it is what all companies do, even ones like Anheuser-Busch, whose products can be equally as bad for your health.

Furthermore, and more to the point, it's much easier for all these people to decry an evil company rather dealing with their Aunt, Father, or friend who consciously decided to pick up a smoking habit back when they were 18. Consciously was the key word in that last sentence. Everyone in this country who smokes, does so of their own free will and at their own risk. If anyone is to blame for the ill-effects of second-hand smoke, it's partially those who actually smoke the cigarettes. Yet, to make them the sole culprits would be both irrational and irresponsible.

As non-smokers, we choose with whom we associate ourselves and which public places we frequent. Consequently, if I as a person am deeply concerned about the effect which second-hand smoke might have on my health, then I should probably avoid dating someone who smokes or frequenting Sports Bars. The government should not be the one looking out for my health - if I'm not sensible enough to take that responsibility upon myself then I better be prepared to pay the price when I age. Nevertheless, by proposing this smoking ban, that is exactly what the Surfside Town Council is doing: making the government, and not the citizens themselves, partially responsible for people's health.

Egregious as it might be, however, the Surfside Town Council's willingness to create a Nanny-state and relieve ordinary folks of the responsibility of their own health is not even the biggest flaw in this particular piece of legislation. Indeed, the biggest concern, for those of us worried about individual liberty, arises from the ease with which the Town Council feels it can regulate people's right to do what they please.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way trying to support or condone smoking, but the fact of the matter is that smoking a cigarette is not illegal, thus leaving people free to do so. It may be bad for your health, but that simply does not give the government a right to regulate it. We have, in essence, a right or, if you will, a freedom to screw up our lives which is every bit as valid as the freedom we have to succeed and make something positive of our lives. We have the freedom to choose and must live with the results, it's simply not the government's job to try and hold us by the hand if we make the wrong choice. In a similar vein, since when can a government, at any level, step in and tell a private business, such as a restaurant, what they may or may not allow within the confines of their property? If a restaurant owner wants to have smoke-free premises, that's his choice, but it's simply not something that the government can mandate.

As American citizens we have been given a truly unique and awe-inspiring brand of freedom, but with that freedom comes responsibility and with responsibility comes consequences. These three things are inter-related and will be forever connected; thus, when any part of the American government, be it the U.S Congress or a simple Town Council, as in Surfside, tries to eliminate or alter one of the three they will do so to all three. The Surfside Town Council believes that it is a Government's place to step in and try to alleviate us of the responsibility to manage our own health and to try and eliminate the unfortunate consequences of others' poor ability to do so; what they have failed to realize, however, is that in doing so they are also compromising and eliminating some of these same people's freedoms - and that is most certainly not their job.

Those Crazy Brits

Q: What happens when big government gets between an Englishman and his cigarettes?

A: He uses his (classically British) sense of determination to get around it in any way possible; which, in this case, happens to mean turning his Pub into an Embassy for some remote Caribbean Island. (story)

20 bucks says that, by the end of this week, a cannabis joint near you will check into whether or not the Dutch already have an Embassy here in the U.S.

If He Finds Himself In A Dogfight....

...I hope to God that whoever it is that's battling him (in the '08 GOP Primary or the General Election) will destroy Senator Graham with an attack add like this:



Of course, the problem that we opponents of Senator Graham have always had, remains - that being: who do we run against him? The conventional wisdom, for the last few years, was that Thomas Ravenel would be the man who was both willing and able to do it; however, given his recent..... um.... situation...... well, let's just say that getting charged with intent to distribute cocaine is no way to start one's attempt to unseat an incumbent U.S Senator.

The search goes on, I suppose, but if someone in the South Carolina GOP wants to present a serious challenge to Lindsey in the '08 primary, they're going to need to get in on the action soon.
Oh well, for now, at least, I remain optimistic.

Because It Couldn't Possibly Be Their Own Fault

I guess that once one becomes a fervent believer in the religion of global warming, blaming that religion's 'apostates,' if you will, for the world's problems is a logical next step. Well, at the very least, it is for the UN Secretary General, who, in Sunday's edition of the Washington Post, blamed the genocide in Darfur on, you guessed it, global warming.

No, seriously, he did.

But hey, some religious nutbags believe that 9/11 was God's punishment to us for tolerance of gays, others, that genocide in Darfur is God's punishment for not taking global warming seriously enough.

Or, at least, I suppose that's how the logic would go.

Philosophically speaking.

Thing is, religious extremism, no matter whether your religion is Christianity, Islam, or Global Warming, is unbecoming, stupid, and, well, a serious problem for those of us with brains enough to have remembered that age-old wisdom about taking things in moderation.

However, there is another, more important, and perhaps predictable, feature of Secretary Ban Ki Moon's editorial of which one should take note. That, of course, is the startling lack of responsibility he gives the very organization which he heads.

You know, the one dedicated to the principles of Human Rights, World Peace, and whatnot.....

Never mind that millions of people died in a genocide while his United Nations stood by and did practically nothing - just blame the whole shin-dig on global warming. Because, you know, when it comes down to it, that's a hell of a lot easier than looking into why your organization failed so miserably in attempting to stop or lessen the violence in Darfur.

With those kind of passing-the-buck skills, Mr. Moon will fit in quite nicely as the new head of the UN.

Moreover, Secretary-General Moon and his fellow global warming faithful will never be in short supply of that one thing which religious nuts of all kinds share in common: stupidity.

And So It Begins....

In the aftermath of his strong stance on behalf of Ted Kennedy and illegal aliens everywhere, it appears that some of my fellow South Carolinians have reached their limit with our good Senator Lindsey Graham. In the past few days, a couple of new blogs have popped up which concern themselves exclusively with evicting Lindsey Graham from the U.S Senate when he stands for re-election in 2008.

Here's the links for you:
- Dump Lindsey Graham
- Boot Lindsey Graham
And for good measure, similar sentiments from one of our fellow Carolinians of the Northern variety:
- Lindsey Graham Countdown Clock

Senator Graham has developed a rather mean liberal streak during his time in the Senate, and he has certainly ceased to represent the majority of South Carolinians - who are true Conservatives. Consequently, I must say, it's nice to see my fellow South Carolinians take issue with this man, and begin the arduous process of a grassroots campaign against him. Of course, while for many in South Carolina (and around the country) it seems to have taken the recent Immigration bill to make them fully realize the extent to which Lindsey Graham is a pathetic excuse for a Senator, some of us had this figured out quite some time ago.

You see, before he got into politics, Lindsey Graham made his fortune as a Trial Lawyer, and not just any kind of Trial Lawyer, but the kind who makes the big bucks suing Doctors through Medical Malpractice lawsuits. Indeed, Graham once secured a $5 million dollar payout in one of his Malpractice cases. The fact that he made some serious money in such a fashion would, naturally, make him somewhat hesitant to support, oh, say, tort reform. And indeed, back in 2003, Graham's very 1st year in the Senate, he was one of only 2 Republican Senators to oppose President Bush's proposed tort reform bill. Furthermore, aside from voting against the bill, he actively campaigned against it, and made clear that he would actively campaign against any such future legislation.

After discovering those few nuggets of information, those of you who've been reading this blog for any period of time will understand why I vowed long ago to never vote for this man - ever.

Given all this, the game now becomes one in which the move falls to South Carolinians, as they must find a solid Conservative who will be both willing and able to beat Graham in the Republican primary. Of course, given the State we're talking about, I highly doubt there'll be a shortage of such folks!

So here's to the 111th Session of the United States Congress (set to begin in 2009); a Congress which will feature Jim DeMint as the Senior Senator from South Carolina.

Bush Makes Good on Promise

Way back when he was campaigning for President the 1st time around, back in 2000, then-Governor George W. Bush made a promise to the American people. He assured them that, once in office, he would be a "uniter, not a divider." Many people, particularly on the left, have been sarcastically/mockingly referring to this remark for the 6+ years of his Presidency. Sadly, their fun is now at an end. Now, finally, President Bush has made good on this promise to unite us all. With the coupling of his proposed immigration "reform" bill and the War in Iraq, both Republicans and Democrats have now, at long last, become united - united in their strong dislike for President Bush's policies.

I'm guessing that wasn't the kind of unity he was planning on - but hey, a politician coming through on a campaign promise happens so infrequently, we might as well try to focus on the positive, right?

Yes indeed, since he has become adamant about giving amnesty to Illegals and not bringing our border security up to par, the very grassroots Conservatives who campaigned for him, stuck up for him, and took heat for supporting him, have now been officially bitch-slapped by him.

Oh, and those grassroots Conservatives? They're hitting the President's Party where it hurts - the wallet, as RNC small-donor contributions are down by an estimated 40%!

I guess not contributing to the RNC is another thing on which Republicans and Democrats can now agree.

So congratulations Mr. President for making good on your promise; I just hope this wasn't what you really wanted.

The Poppies Blow

On this Memorial Day, in honor of all Americans who have served their country, I offer up one of my favorites: In Flanders Fields.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep,
though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Before I conclude, I'll just add one more thought from my favorite General:

"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the [soldiers] who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived." ~ G.S.P

Thank you, Veterans.

It's Tough To Give It Up

Yesterday, the South Carolina State Legislature concluded a rather contentious round of Judicial Elections by selecting S.C Appeals Court Justice Donald Beatty to the State's Supreme Court. Of course, in typical South Carolina fashion, in doing so, they unapologetically passed on a Judicial candidate who, to quote The Sun News, had "[more] experience [and a higher] Bar Association rating:" the Chief Justice of the State's Appeals Court, Kaye Hearn.

In other words, the S.C State Legislature didn't feel that it needed to select the most qualified Justice for the position. You see, the winner of this State Supreme Court nomination, Justice Beatty, happens to be black, and, thanks to the fact that only 1 African-American has served on the State Supreme Court since Reconstruction, in recent years the Legislature has taken some heat for the lack of 'diversity' on the Bench. So to be blunt, the election of Beatty to the S.C Supreme Court was the purest form of Legislative politicking and political ass-covering. Indeed, to make matters worse, the 3rd Candidate for the position, Appellate Court Justice Brian Williams, necessitated multiple rounds of balloting for the position, because a solid block of Legislative Republicans refused to vote for Beatty, whom they deemed 'too liberal'. In fact, at the end of the day, the Justice who, on paper at least, appeared to be the most qualified candidate for the job ended up a distant 3rd in a contest of 3.

Confused yet? Heh, you probably should be - the politicking, bargaining and outright vote-swapping which go into South Carolina Judicial Elections have become notorious in the last decade. Indeed, the blatant dubiousness of the behind-the-scenes action that went into South Carolina Judicial Elections prompted, back in 1997, the creation of a Judicial Merit Selection Committee; in order that South Carolina's abominable method of Judicial Selection might be made somewhat less worse.

See, South Carolina, along with Virginia, is one of the last 2 States in the Union which select the Judges for the top 3 State Courts (Supreme, Appeals, Curcuit) via an election within the State Legislature. As you might expect, this particular system not only invites but enourages the practice of cronyism; and, indeed, of the 14 Justices serving on South Carolina's Supreme and Appeals Courts, 9 of them were, at one point in their lives, members of the State Legislature. In neighboring States (excluding Virginia, of course) similar Courts have generally between 0 and 2 members with such experience - despite the fact that all such States have more than 14 Judgeships available.

Moreover, on top of the blatant cronyism found in this Judicial Selection method, one of course finds the aforementioned occurrences of vote-swapping, bartering and deal-making. While these are, unsurprisingly, typical features of the Legislative (lawmaking) process, one would think that when it comes to selecting Judges for something as important as your State's Supreme Court, Legislators might go out of their way to burden themselves with the efforts necessary to determine and select the Judge best qualified for the available position. Afterall, the Judicial Branch of Government is, in theory at least, supposed to be the most objective and impartial of the 3 Branches. Sadly, this is not the case in South Carolina. Politics, interest groups, and in-State regional influences are what determine the awarding of South Carolina judgeships - not credentials.

The dubious nature of this politicking got so bad that, in 1996, even the typically lackadaisical residents of South Carolina were forced to take notice and demand reform. The result was the adoption of a new State Constitutional Amendment, the following year, mandating that all Judges 1st be approved by a Judicial Merit Committee before being voted upon by the State's General Assembly. Of course, in a political maneuver that would have made even the slickest of Lawyers quite proud, the new amendment was worded such that 6 of the 10 people sitting on the Merit Committee are none other than elected members of the State Legislature.

In other words, the core nature of the system remains the same, South Carolina's State Legislators, exclusively, select our State's Judges, and thus the flaws of the old system remain with us in the new - and that's why South Carolina needs a change. Legislative Selection of Justices is, to put it mildly, an outdated and downright terrible method for selecting Judges. I mean, if the 3 branches of Government are to be equal, doesn't it seem a bit irrational that one of the 3 would be entirely a function of another? But that's what South Carolina has - the Judiciary Branch of the South Carolina Government really is just an extension of the State Legislature. Couple that fact with the fact that the S.C Governor remains one of the weakest such officers in the Country, and you have what is, relatively speaking, one of, if not the, most powerful State Legislature in the Union.

When it comes to Judicial Selection, there is, admittedly, no easy answer. However, there is one, very clear, wrong answer - Legislative Selection. South Carolina would greatly benefit by changing its Judicial selection process to something which closely resembles the Federal model. In other words, Gubernatorial appointment with State Senate approval. In doing so, this State would go a long ways towards solving the two problems I mentioned above: the dependency of the Judiciary and the weakness of the Chief Executive.

Not that I expect the issue to be raised anytime soon, especially by the State Legislators who stand the most to lose by a change in the process. Besides, change is something that rarely happens quickly in South Carolina politics - something which, given its people and the all-powerful nature of its State Legislature, should come as no great surprise.

The 2008 GOP Race Comes Home

Last night I watched the 2nd Debate between the Republican Candidates for President, and while I can't say I was all that impressed, this was certainly much better than the 1st one on MSNBC, which was basically a contest to see who could say "Ronald Reagan" the most. Part of the reason for that, of course, was the fact that FOX hosted this debate, and they did an awesome job. The questions were tough, the format was good, and the only real flaw was that they seemed to completely ignore Duncan Hunter. The debate was hosted right here in the great State of South Carolina; although, despite this fact, the candidates, surprisingly, weren't overbearing in their attempts to pander to South Carolina's social Conservatives.

Alright, well, enough with the blah, and on to some real (well-sort of) analysis of the candidates!

Ron Paul would be golden if he could just manage to utterly and completely avoid talking about foreign policy. Seriously, the guy nails fiscal issues and domestic policy on the head....but then he starts talking about 9/11, Iraq, Iran, and other International issues and I suddenly get this burning desire to smack him in the head with a baseball bat.

On the other hand, he could be Tommy Thompson, who makes me want to wail on his ass with a baseball bat every time he opens his mouth. Please, GOP, if you have some decency left in you, do all that you can, use the Police if necessary, to prevent this man from coming on stage at the next debate. He adds abso-freakin-loutely nothing to the debates - and he....Just. Needs. To. Go.
For that matter, Jim Gilmore can also be banned from coming up on stage. While he's not nearly as irritating as Thompson, his presence on stage, like Thompson's, serves no purpose other than to waste air time that could be spent on other, more important, candidates.

As much as I like the guy, Tom Tancredo (who after bombing in the 1st debate, did very well last night) has absolutely no chance at the nomination. Zippo. None. However, I do hope that he stays in the race so that he can keep chiding the other candidates on Illegal Immigration.

Duncan Hunter, as mentioned above, was completely and utterly ignored. Honestly, I think he got 4 questions total during the entire 1.5 hours. He nailed what he got, but it's hard for a lesser-known guy to make headway when he gets no airtime. Brit Hume, you must work on this for next time.

Sam Brownback is just another run-of-the-mill, big-government Republican. Unless you really dig the hardcore evangelical thing, there is absolutely no reason to let this guy back into the debates. I don't dig the hardcore evangelical thing. Therefore, I think he should join Gilmore and Thompson on the sidelines. Besides, he has no chance anyways.

John McCain, so far, has looked extremely defensive in these debates. For him, that's not good, since his campaign numbers, recently, seem to have been going in the wrong direction. He needs to take a new, more aggressive approach. He's certainly not my favorite of the candidates out there, and won't be voting for him, but I have to admit, I do admire (and agree with) the principled stand he has taken on Iraq and on foreign policy in general. You gotta admit, at the end of the day (despite Rudy's whole "I was Mayor on 9/11" thing) McCain does have the most credibility of this batch when it comes to National Security issues.

Speaking of Rudy, he clearly had the line of the night when he smacked down Ron Paul's childish "blame America for 9/11" argument. Clearly, National Security is Rudy's forte and he looked very comfortable there tonight. However, there is this little problem he has; that being this whole 'pro-choice' position he's got going - and he got crucified for in this debate. Rudy's chances of winning the nomination now sorely rest on his claim (which he, interestingly, hinted at on stage tonight) that he is the only Republican nominee capable of beating Hillary in the general election. Unfortunately, he may not have the chance to prove that. In my opinion, tonight, Rudy lost any chance he had of winning the crucial S.C primary. In this State, a fair number of Democrats are more pro-life than Rudy, and for most of the Republicans, this issue ranks pretty high on their list of importance. Put another way, South Carolina doesn't have some of the Nation's strictest abortion laws for nuthin'.

Mitt Romney treaded water tonight. Not near as great a performance as he had in the 1st debate, but he didn't really hurt himself. Of course, given how low his poll numbers are in S.C (he's polling behind 2 guys who haven't even declared yet!!), that may not be what he wanted or needed. Indeed, while Massachusetts may have been ready for a Mormon Governor, it appears that the South is still not ready for a Mormon President. It sucks and it's unfair, but it still may be his doom.

The former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, was, in my estimation, the man who clearly came prepared tonight. In the past, I haven't thought highly of his chances, but he turned in a standout performance tonight. His comparison of Congressional spending to John Edwards in a beauty parlor was the most memorable line of the night, and he clearly, more so than any other candidate, helped himself up there last night. He scored some good points with S.C voters when he took Rudy to town on abortion, he had excellent responses to the challenges/though questions that were posed to him, and of all the guys who were there, I thought he was the winner.

However, overall, as I said earlier, I'm still not, in any way, overly impressed with this GOP field. However, the coming of late entrants into the field may be a saving grace. Here, of course, as political junkies will surely know, I'm speaking of former Tennessee Senator and long-time actor, Fred Thompson. Indeed, while Huckabee was the winner of those present, the overall winner of this debate may just be Fred. In case you haven't heard, Fred has been rumored to be entering the race for some time now, and all indications are that he's going to jump in at some point. He's been polling extremely well among the GOP base, generally finishing in the top 3, despite not having yet declared; and sitting around and letting voters be unimpressed with the current crop of candidates, while they beat up on each other, may be a well calculated, and intelligent, move on his part.

So there you have it, that's my take on South Carolina's 1st 2008 GOP debate; and here's to hoping we have more debates that are as well-run as this one, and, while were at it, here's to hoping Fred Thompson is around for the next one.