Never, Never, Never, Ever Give Up

In the aftermath of the 2006 mid-term debacle and saddled with a very unpopular Republican President, many of those in the Republican Party are getting the feeling that, no matter what happens in the Republican primaries, this is going to be the Democrats year to take back the White House.

But now, in this dark hour, a potential savior looms on the horizon. Witness, ladies and gents, the next coming of......Ralph Nader!! Yes folks, that Ralph Nader - the very one who handed us the 2000 election on a silver, f-ing platter - has decided, after Dennis Kucinich's and John Edwards' departures, to form a Presidential Exploratory Committee.

Now folks, in order for him to move from the 'exploratory' stage to the 'actually running (and siphoning off Democratic votes)' stage he has to be convinced that he can raise enough money to get on the ballot in all 50 States. So you know, if you happen to have $20 lyin' around.....

Hey, I'm just sayin'....

Spartanburg's Hero

As is typical, President Bush invited several folks to be his guests at last nights State of the Union speech; thus affording them the opportunity to sit with the First Lady in the House Gallery while the speech was being delivered. This year, one of those guests was Marine Lt. Andrew Kinard of Spartanburg. Lt. Kinard was in Iraq on October 29, 2006 when an artillery shell exploded underneath him and cost him both of his legs; thus, causing him to endure several months of surgery, rehab, and recovery. Finally, he was able to go home to Spartanburg last October where he was greeted with a true hero's welcome - the story is linked here, and it's definitely worth the read.

Despite all the pain and hardship Lt. Kinard has had to overcome, he has remained upbeat, strong, thankful, and, in the process, come to utterly embody 'heroism.' To quote Lt. Kinard's sister, Katherine:

"[He] resonates with us as a hero because he puts himself last - not first. He chose to put himself in harm's way when he didn't have to; and when he faced the reality of certain dreams shattered, with the loss of his legs, he stood up and said; 'This does not define me'."

Indeed. America is privileged to be represented by such extraordinary individuals.

From The Department Of Duh...

Here's a real shocking story out of Great Britain, it seems that a full two-thirds of Brits who are about to be approaching their later, retiree years have no plans to save up any money to help pay for any of the medical care they might need in their old age. The even bigger shocka, the reason they're not saving is because most expect the government to just give them money when they need it.

What a surprise, raising a bunch of people on government handouts causes them to stop being responsible for themselves. Indeed, conditioning people to expect government welfare does, in fact, create a disincentive for saving (or making) one's own money. It's really not that hard to figure out, assuming you have a basic understanding of human nature and a little bit of common sense. I mean, would you save your money for retirement if you knew the government was going to give you whatever you might need anyways?

Alas, this is why, many years ago, Benjamin Franklin disliked the idea of public welfare - because he knew that people would just take advantage of the system and use it to avoid responsibility for their actions and futures. Plus, allowing people to live freely without having to seriously plan for their futures, and, instead, expecting the government to bail them out, creates nothing more than a nation of government-owned slaves.

Afghanistan, NATO, And The Problem Of Pervez

Earlier today, in an interview with CNN, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan was able to talk about what is, currently, the most sobering aspect of the "War on Terror" - namely that, while we have significantly turned things around in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has, simultaneously, begun to slowly worsen. There appear to be two main reasons why this is the case, one of which President Karzai hit on in his CNN interview and the other of which was noted recently by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The first problem in Afghanistan, which Secretary Gates talked about in the LA Times not too long ago, is that non-American NATO troops are, to be blunt, ineffective. They, like many of the US troops who first went into Iraq, have little or no experience in counter-terrorism warfare; and thus, struggle with combat operations. However, the problem with NATO troops extends beyond the soldiers simply being 'green' (indeed, if that were the case, it would hardly be either unexpected or insurmountable); the problem is that other NATO troops, especially the European ones, are overburdened with very restrictive Rules of Engagement.

One of the biggest problems with counterinsurgency is the inability, while engaged in operations, to distinguish between enemy combatants, neutral civilians and friendly locals. Consequently, when archaic European definitions of combatants and civilians (from all of those conferences they've held in response to the atrocities of WWII) are applied to the modern battlefield, those troops are severely restricted in their ability to effectively fight the enemy and curb his malicious activities. And this is the problem our NATO Allies suffer from both in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Consider for example, the British Navy hostages taken by Iran last year, who were prevented from defending themselves by the Royal Navy's restrictive ROEs. Further consider the case of the German pilots, whose ROEs prohibit them from fighting after dark. While the United States is not perfect in this regard, it certainly has the most liberal ROEs of the NATO countries; a fact which presents us with a huge advantage over our Allies when it comes to actual combat operations.

The second major problem in Afghanistan, referenced earlier today by President Karzai, is, in a word, Pakistan. Indeed, the hard, and perhaps unspeakable truth about the war in Afghanistan is that unless NATO, or someone else, is unable to go in to the mountainous, northern regions of Pakistan and really clean them up, it will be damn near impossible to ensure long-term stability for the nascent Afghani democracy. The nether regions of Pakistan are the tribal areas where the Taliban and al-Qaeda have long maintained a high level of popularity. This is the area where Osama bin Laden, and all other top al-Qaeda and Taliban officials, are most certainly hiding out. More importantly, they are also the areas where al-Qaeda is able to continue to operate their infamous terrorist training camps.

As long as those training camps are allowed to flourish in the Pakistani mountains, Afghani democracy's viability is in serious doubt. President Karzai knows this. All the American troops who have fought there likely know this fact all too well. Heck, both President Bush and Pakistani President Pervez Musharaff also likely know this fact.

Of course, the problem is that here we have hit a kind of Catch-22: Musharaff seems to be unwilling to really go after the al-Qaeda terrorists hiding in his country, mainly for fear of loosing further popularity and his grip on power; however, the United States cannot push for Musharaff's resignation or overthrow, as he is our best bet to prevent Pakistan's nuclear weapons from falling into terrorists' hands.

In other words, we can't live with him; but couldn't do without him.

Yet, something must be done to reconcile Musharaff to the aggressive anti-jihadist policies he practiced immediately after 9/11 and which he (falsely) claims to pursue today. I don't claim to have the answer to what that is - but surely one must be found. Otherwise, Afghanistan will wind up on the fast track to becoming a failed state.

Ch-Ch-Ch-Ch-Change

Heh.

Welcome to the vapid world of primary politics - where empty words and pointless platitudes are all the rage!

Massachusetts: Even More Bonkers Than Previously Thought

Here's an old news story that didn't get near as much coverage as it should have. Apparently, about a month ago, the Massachusetts Supreme Court handed down a medical malpractice ruling that makes Massachusetts Doctors responsible not only for their actions, but for the actions of their patients as well. You see, David Sacca, a 70-something-year-old man who underwent cancer treatment, fell asleep while driving and hit and killed a young boy; and, while driving, Sacca was taking a drug which listed drowsiness among its side-effects. Moreover, his Physician, Dr. Roland Florio, apparently forgot to warn Sacca of this possible side-effect - and so the family of the dead boy is suing Dr. Florio for negligence.

That's right, this family is suing, not the guy who killed their son, but the Doctor of the guy who killed their son. And, according to the Massachusetts Supreme Judiciary Court, that kind of lawsuit is perfectly alright - meaning that, soon, Dr Florio will be defending himself from a charge of negligence, despite the fact that he might never have met, seen, or even heard of the plaintiffs (much less treated them).

So yes, now, apparently, every Doctor in Massachusetts now has to worry about not just how they treat patients, but who they treat at all; because, now, if your patient does something stupid while on a treatment or medication that you prescribed, you, good Doctor, could get sued.

Because clearly patients cannot be expected to be responsible for themselves.

Besides, if we can't blame Doctors for everything, where the hell are all these damn lawyers going to make their millions?

Ranking the 'Pubs

Well, well, here we are about midway through January 2008, and, with New Hampshire and Iowa in the bag, the South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary is nearly upon us. Of course, the Republican race for President is quite a horserace this year, although ultimately only one of these animals will represent us in November. After long months of thought and having closely followed this race from the start, I am finally ready to make my bets and pick my favorite. Thus, here are my rankings of the Republican candidates starting with the one I'm endorsing, and moving on down, in order, of who I'd vote for after that, if so forced.

1. Fred Thompson - Fred is my guy, and I'm going to vote for him in the primaries Saturday. Yea, I know he's run a really bad campaign up to this point. Yes, he has to finish either 1st or a strong 2nd in SC to remain in the race. And yes, he's going to need a strong, late surge to accomplish that. But let's take a step back and give this thing an honest look - primaries are, first and foremost, where you vote your principles. Sure, in the general election, you oftentimes have to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils (think '04), but in the primaries you don't have to do that. The primaries are where you get to try and make your voice heard, so that by the time the general comes around, the stench won't be near as bad - and that's why I'm picking Fred on Saturday.

He's the only candidate who's offered up real, believable plans for dealing with the major issues. He's the only guy with a plan that deals with Social Security, to try and prevent it from going bankrupt and save the people of my generation (who apparently have to pay for all these dang Baby Boomers) some money. He was also the first of the big boys to come out with a legit border security plan (click here for the details), and unlike some of the others in this race, Fred is not a new convert to the right side of this argument.

Moreover, on all the other important conservative issues, Fred gets it right as well. He voted for the Bush tax cuts and believes in the need to not only cut taxes further but overhaul the current tax code. He was endorsed by National Right to Life and has a 100% pro-life voting record. He had one of the most pro-gun voting records in Congress during his tenure in the Senate. He understands the need for growing the military and keeping it strong. And, finally, he understands the true meaning of Federalism and States' Rights (and the importance of this concept to the very structure of the Constitution), setting him apart from most everyone on the political stage these days. He is an actual conservative on all the important issues - and, more importantly, a trustworthy conservative on all of these issues.

These aforementioned reasons, along with others, are why I'm voting for Fred Thompson to be the Republican nominee for President.

2. John McCain - The key word here is electability. McCain is likely the Republicans' best shot at winning the 2008 election. He pulls Independent voters like crazy, partly because he has a reputation for, well, voting like one. He, naturally, has the best credentials on foreign policy and other military matters (the guy is, least we forget, a bona fide American War Hero), and given that we are, in fact, at War, those credentials mean more than they usually do (even in the generally pro-strong national defense Republican primary).

Of course, McCain has a rather broken relationship with 'true' conservatives on many issues; but at least when he does go into 'Maverick' mode, he doesn't try and lie to you about it and pretend that he agrees with you (*cough*Huckabee*cough*). Besides, on the one issue on which he ticked off Conservatives the most, immigration, he doesn't differ much from the current President - which means that, ultimately, he can't do anymore damage to the issue unless he miraculously scrapes up 60 votes in the Senate (which is highly unlikely). So, yeah, at the end of the day, Senator McCain is far from a perfect candidate but he's rock-solid on the issue that matters the most, and is, at least, better than those below him on this list; plus, if you're looking for a winner, Johnny Mac is your guy.

3. Rudy Giuliani - Rudy is the guy who was originally supposed to be all the things that McCain has now become. Sometime late last year, McCain surpassed him as the National Security/sure-winner candidate. In reality, both McCain and Giuliani are very similar on the big issues; with the only real differences being that: (a) Giuliani is more anti-gun, (b) he talks a better talk on immigration (the walk is still questionable), and (c) he has a better history of sticking up for Conservatives/Republicans than McCain (who has a penchant for throwing us under the bus when it suits him) does. The big gamble with Rudy, and the reason I put him below McCain, is that he is a moderate social liberal - and while that doesn't really bother me, there are a whole lot of folks in the Religious Right who really might consider running a 3rd Party, 'bring-back-the-Inquisition' candidate if he's the Repub nominee.

4. Mitt Romney - I'll be blunt, I still simply do not trust this man. I've watched nearly all the Republican debates, and almost every time, after watching his performance, the word that comes to my mind is 'plastic' - in other words, fake and over-polished. Perhaps the best example of this is his position on health care. Sure he says all the right things about the need for free-market health care, when behind the podium; but, while Governor of Massachusetts, he enacted what amounted to a 'Universal Health Care' program - one complete with those insurance mandates that I abhor so greatly. Indeed, so far, I have seen nothing to convince me that the health care plan he instituted in Massachusetts is any different from Hillary's new health care plan - and if that's not enough to scare a man away from voting for Mitt, I don't know what is.

5. Duncan Hunter - I have no freakin' idea why he's still in the race. He's polling less than 1%, and, at this point, has no chance at anything (including the VP slot) - and yet, I'd still rather throw my vote away by giving it to him than vote for either of the 2 retards that follow.

6. Ron Paul - Ron Paul would be a great candidate if it was 1920 and we still had the ability to believe that isolationism worked. Unfortunately, here in the modern world, not a single iota of this man's foreign policy ideas (or at least what I've heard) make sense. To make matters worse, the guy has a whole host of really excellent domestic policies; and, had he chosen to, he could have used his extreme fiscal conservatism to pull the other candidates closer to his positions on these issues (like Tancredo did with the issue of illegal Immigration). Instead, Paul decided to be a whiny-ass crank, making a mockery of the Libertarian movement he supposedly represents.

7. Mike Huckabee - Wow, where do I begin? I can't even tell you how much I despise what this man stands for. Yes, I ranked him below even Ron Paul, because, honestly, I'd rather worry about a greater threat of jihad than have to listen to the Huckster tell me how much he loves Jesus every day of his god-danged presidency. Seriously, Mitt Romney is the Mormon in this race, but Huck's the only candidate I can picture as one of those idiots knocking on your door at 8:30 Saturday morning asking you if you've "found Jesus." Well, no, wait, Huck doesn't have the courtesy to wait 'till Saturday to ask you if you've found Jesus. He spends every minute he's on television doing something to that effect. Indeed, Mike Huckabee is everything anyone ever hated about the Religious Right all rolled into one lying, liberal idiot from Hope, Arkansas. I'd say Huckster reminds me of that other 'man from Hope,' but that would just be an insult to Bill.

Mike Huckabee raised the overall Arkansas tax burden 13% while governor. He gave free education to illegal aliens. He opposed vouchers and increased spending on public education. He seems to know nothing about the most basic parts of American foreign policy. But hell, I could write for hours on all the things I dislike about Mike Huckabee, and since this post is already kindda long, I need to stop and simply leave you with the two ways in which he grates on me the most.

The first is the way in which he uses Christianity as a political tool. As a Christian myself, this is particularly annoying. He makes all Conservatives who are Christians look bad by reinforcing the negative stereotypes people have about us. Moreover, those of us who, for example, believe in Evolution but still get a bit annoyed when Christmas celebrations become multi-cultural shams, essentially get shrugged out of the debate on God's role in America when people like Huckabee come along and cast such debate in terms of The Next Inquisition vs. Idiotic, Multi-Cultural Atheists. Furthermore, the Huckster continually calls himself a "Christian Leader" - and he does so in much the same way that Rudy calls himself a "strong leader," or that Mitt calls himself a "business leader." In other words, he makes being Christian a political aspect of a person's candidacy.

Oh, he would never admit that he does it, and when asked about it he would turn the issue around and ask what the problem is with his being Christian - and, in and of itself, there is nothing wrong with him being Christian. The problem lies with it being the central issue of his political campaign. Why? Because it raises a rather difficult question: how does one make a political argument against God? Herein lies, I suppose, the 'genius' of the Huckster; one simply cannot make a political argument against God without gravely offending the mindless evangelicals who have been lining up behind Huck all over the country. It is a cheap, dirty, political trick which, like all other forms of identity politics, has but one intention: the maintenance of power for those in charge. As such, Mike Huckabee has made himself the Al Sharpton of Evangelical Christians.

The second big problem I have with Huckabee is the way he explains away his liberal record as Arkansas governor. When called on this record, Huck never denies that it is liberal; preferring instead, to say that it was necesarry in order for him to "govern" effectively. Well, forgive me Governor, but I'm just not of the school that believes you have to compromise on your core principles just for the sake of 'governing.' I don't care how Democratic your State Legislature was. Notice, sir, that Mitt Romney was Governor in Massachusetts, and he isn't making the same stupid excuse (indeed, he doesn't even have these kinds of questions hanging around his head to begin with). Furthermore, I'm tired of hearing you tell me about how Democratic your state was in one breath, and then how you "must've done something right" since you were re-elected (twice!) in the next. Someone who kept getting re-elected by a bunch of Democrats shouldn't be the Republican nominee for President.

Well, there you have it, my personal opinions on the remaining '08 Repub Candidates. It turned out to be a lot longer than I intended - c'est la vie. Now all that remains is to wait 'till Saturday and see if enough of my fellow South Carolinians agree with me.

It's Their World...

....you're just luckless enough to be living in it. Yes folks, welcome to the Lawyers' world, where being the only dipshit in the country who didn't realize that steroids were/are big business in MLB makes you eligible for some easy money. Because, clearly, since it seems likely that some of the big boys on your team took steroids (and you paid $25 for a seat to watch them play) you deserve a little refund (plus whatever else you can get out of it).

Heck, I suppose Vegas should now start taking bets on how long it is until some lawyer comes up with a multi-million dollar class action suit against one of these teams. Seriously though, I hate Barry Bonds as much as the next normal baseball fan (probably more so, since I'm a Braves fan, and Hammerin' Hank actually earned his place in history), but if you were naive enough to think that your team was immune from the rampant steroid abuse in MLB, well, let's just say that a ticket refund is probably that last thing you need to be worrying about.

Finally, I would just like to note how incredibly appropriate it is that the guy bringing this lawsuit is a fan of none other than the Evil Empire itself.

Damn Yankees.