The Blue and Silver Standard

On Independence Day

2009-07-04T11:10:00.004-04:00

Happy 4th of July, everybody! As you go about the day eating those greasy American food staples, watching fireworks, and celebrating the Greatest Country in the world, I thought I'd offer you a little extra...motivation. From the beginning of the 1970 classic Patton:

Okay, so maybe it's not the most appropriate clip for today, but it's still Patton, right?

On a more serious note, please take the time today to stop and say a quick prayer of thanks for our Founding Fathers; remembering that, back in 1776, they selflessly pledged their "lives, [their] fortunes, and [their] sacred honor" for the cause of our Freedom.

God Bless America.

The Political Obituary of Mark Sanford

2009-06-30T18:04:00.002-04:00

The story of Mark Sanford and his incredibly un-majestic fall from grace has now officially gone from strange and stupid to disgraceful. After starting off the week by comparing himself to King David - in what may quite possibly be the most transparent attempt at Social Conservative pandering ever witnessed - Sanford has now followed up by saying he feels like Jimmy Stewart at the end of It's a Wonderful Life, refusing to shut up about unnecessary details of his personal life, and, now, telling us that his Argentine Mistress is his "soul mate" - despite the fact that he still really wants to work things out with his wife.

Because that's clearly what every woman wants you to say (to the National Press, no less) when you're trying to save your marriage: "I really love this other woman, but I'll try and make it work with you, dear!"

Jenny Sanford, if you're listening, please don't take this scumbag back. Ever. He doesn't deserve you. Hell, he doesn't deserve the hooker that Eliot Spitzer slept with.

In retrospect, it having been nearly a full week since Sanford admitted he lied to his family, staff, and the people he works for, the hypocrisy of this whole situation is both disappointing and disgusting in the truest sense of those words. Indeed, having spent the last 6 years in the trenches, defending Governor Sanford as best I could, this whole scandal has stung me perhaps a little bit more than it otherwise would have - or should have, for that matter.

No more. Never again will you find me down in the arena, as Teddy Roosevelt would have put it, fighting on behalf of the man who was stupid enough to think that, as a public figure, he could have gotten away with something like flying to Argentina for a fling with his mistress. Or who thought it would be okay to take State funds to finance such travels. Or who thought that, despite being entrusted by voters with the responsibilities of the Governor's Office, he could vanish, leaving an entire State without a Chief Executive in one of the most brash examples of Dereliction of Duty I've ever seen. Or who successfully attained the highest Office our State has to offer by promoting family values and then attempted (and continues to attempt, natch) to destroy his own family. Or who made his reputation on being a 'straight-shooter' and then proceeded to purposefully lie to his staff, family, State employees, and constituents. Or who called on Bill Clinton to resign in 1998 and now vows to stay on 'till the bitter end, thus engaging in the kind of absurd hypocrisy only found in politics.

Of all the issues arising with this story, however, the most offensive, on a personal level, is simply that Mark Sanford committed adultery, betraying his wife and kids; and that he is now using this personal transgression to embarrass the State of South Carolina, and those of us he was elected to represent.

To be even more blunt, Mark Sanford should resign the Governorship of South Carolina; in part because, if he is to save his marriage and do what is best for his 4 young boys, he clearly needs some 'away time' to straighten out his messed up personal life. Maybe he's having a mid-life crisis. Maybe he's really in love with another woman. Maybe he needs to spend some time on Bull Street. I don't know. But what I do know is that all of the things he claims he's trying to do - and that he should be doing - vis-a-vis his family are in no way being helped by the continued media circus surrounding him (which he keeps making worse by being totally and utterly incapable of either shutting the hell up or letting a level-headed spokesman write out a coherent statement for him to read).

However, more important to the question of resignation are the politics of the issue; because, let's be honest, adultery is a disgusting thing to do, and denigrates your personal character, but it doesn't affect your abilities to be a Statesman and shouldn't be an impeachable offense. And yes, fellow Republicans, that includes when Bill Clinton does it. However, Mark Sanford, as noted above, improperly used State funds and, by all reasonable accounts, committed what amounts to Dereliction of Duty on his most recent 5-day jaunt to Buenos Aires. Those are both grounds for legal disciplinary action.

Moreover, and of the greatest concern at this point, Mark Sanford is disgracing the Office, State, and People that he represents. He may want to stay on and fight it out, but the fact is that he has no political capital left to work with. He already had a dysfunctional relationship with both the State Legislature and Judiciary (many would say non-functional...), but he was still effective because he had, as always, the support of the people. Indeed, throughout his time in office, both in the House of Representatives and in Columbia, Mark Sanford has always been consistently conservative - and his votes and actions have always reflected the views of the conservative South Carolina constituents he has acted on behalf of.

He no longer has our support. He lost it when he betrayed our trust and our values.

Over 50% of South Carolinians now want Governor Sanford to resign. For the sake of his State and with the servant's heart that I still believe he came to politics with in the first place, he should do us the courtesy of heeding our wishes and acting, as always, on our behalf - one last time.

ObamaCare Debunked, Part II

2009-06-22T17:22:00.005-04:00

Political optimism from people of my ilk is hard to come by these days; however, more and more, I'm slowly getting a sense that people are beginning to see ObamaCare for what it is - and rejecting it. Of course, with the way the President and the majority of Congress think, it still could pass anyways, despite the fact that people's attitudes towards health care are basically the same as they were in 1993-4; when they tried to force HillaryCare down our throats.

Anyways, the real reason I'm posting now is to direct your attention to a fine article over at Investor's Business Daily examining the myth that Medicare and Medicaid costs have risen at a slower rate than private health care costs. Needless to say, it's actually been the reverse, as Medicare and Medicaid have seen the highest increase in costs. This fact is significant because the great Hope-y One has cited Medicare as the example that his own 'Universal Helath Care' plan will follow. To quote:

"The centerpiece of President Obama's plan is a "public option," described by Tom Daschle as "a government-run insurance program, modeled after Medicare." The president asserts that this new Medicare-like program would cut costs.

But there are nearly 40 years of experience to consult, and they offer a resounding rebuttal. Across the years, Medicare's costs have risen far more than the costs of privately purchased care.

A new study I've completed, published by the Pacific Research Institute, takes all health-care spending in the United States and subtracts the costs of the two flagship government-run programs, Medicare and Medicaid. It then takes that remaining spending and compares its cost increases over time with Medicare's cost increases over time.

The results are clear: Since 1970 — even without the prescription drug benefit — Medicare's costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector."

Indeed. Of course, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention over the last, oh, let's say 15 years. Medicare and Medicaid costs have been growing at outrageous rates; further proving the absurdity of Obamarama's claim that he can reduce costs through more massive government spending. Simply put, it's kind of like trying to cure ballooning deficits with $trillion 'stimulus' packages - i.e. it's something that won't work, but that Obama will do anyways.

Furthermore, and more importantly, this article illustrates a concept that we have brought up here before: namely, that when it comes to solving the problem of rising health care costs, conservatives are the only ones with a solution that actually addresses and deals with this problem.

What Obama and other liberals have proposed is designed to give you enough money to be able to afford the higher cost. In other words, they just want to make sure you can cover it; and thus, whether or not their Government plans actually lower costs is irrelevant, so long as they can claim the number of uninsured Americans has decreased.

Nevermind that, for the umpteenth time, the problem is the cost, not the insurance, and the goal is the cure, and not coverage.

Conservatives want to introduce more competition into the market, drive down Doctors' costs with Medical Malpractice reform, etc., and, in the process, make the actual cost of health care more affordable - even if you don't get that fat check from the government to help you pay for it. This is why conservative solutions make better sense on healthcare, as they are more in line with what is actually needed.

And that would, of course, be those lower costs and higher cure rates - neither of which any Government-run health care program has ever done as well as the private sector.

Nikki Haley in 2010!

2009-06-17T16:32:00.009-04:00

Having been both busy with life and severely disheartened by the very real probability of ObamaCare, several issues on which we here at the BSS would have happily bloviated, profusely, have been ignored over the last couple of months. Not least of such topics is the ongoing race to be the Republican nominee for South Carolina Governor in 2010. So far, this primary race has attracted 5 candidates; including, as of last month, State Senator Nikki Haley, of whom we have been highly complementary in the past.

To get right to the point, Haley is exactly what I look for in a politician; and thus, obviously, who I plan on supporting in the primary.

For those of you unfamiliar with the rest of the field, and interested in learning of its crappiness, here's the rest of the list. It consists of 3 genuine, South Carolina Good ol' Boys and some Libertarian Furman professor:

- Andre Bauer, our Lt. Governor, who's most famous for using legislative privilege to get out of speeding tickets and....uh...oh, yea! Sucking up to Senior citizens for votes.
- Gresham Barrett, a U.S Representative, who voted for the bailouts, said he would do so again, and yet still tries to claim the mantle of 'fiscal conservative' (He also got booed at the Greenville Tea Party).
- Henry McMaster, our state's Attorney General, who recently made himself look like a moron when he sued Craigslist in order to....try (unsuccessfully) and pander to voters. He also makes bad TV commercials about identity fraud.

(Finally, let's be honest, I'm sure the Furman Prof is a great guy, but the Alan Keys of the world are of no concern here)

Anyways, if you're one of those establishment Republicans who believes in the power of money and connections over that of people and liberty, then by all means vote for one of the 'Big 3' candidates.

However, if, like us, you believe in small, transparent government, in true fiscal conservatism (not our growing-the-state-budget-at-record-levels, State government, kind of fiscal 'conservatism'), and truly reforming South Carolina's corrupt state government, then you might want to give Nikki Haley a look.

Here's the website: Haley for Governor.

I must say, it's nice to have someone in this race I can get excited about.

Also of interest:

A good interview with RedState

On ObamaCare

2009-06-11T23:59:00.000-04:00

Earlier today, while glancing at a television tuned to CNN, I happened to notice our President, on TV, doing what he does best - reverting to campaign mode. Only, this time, his campaign mode was a townhall meeting on the subject of the Socialized Medicine that he is about to hoist upon us, so I decided to give him a listen and see what he might have to say on the topic.

Needless to say, I was not impressed.

Rather than go over the basics of why government-run health care is not a good idea, again (browse past selections, if you so desire...), I thought I would simply address two points made by Obama himself, earlier today, in Wisconsin.

First, he tried to pass of the government-sponsored insurance plan he has proposed (something that even the liberal AMA has come out against) as simply another competitor to private insurance. Using all the key words that a true Capitalist likely would, The President did his best to explain to us commoners how government run health care will actually lower the cost of private insurance, and thus be beneficial to all.

The problem, of course, is that government is no ordinary competitor. The government can keep prices artificially low, as it not only has the power to print money, but also to dip into the funds of the US Treasury. In other words, the government can deficit spend to its heart's content, print as much money as it needs to run this "competitor," and raise taxes to finance its operations. Ordinary, private insurance companies, on the other hand can do none of these 3 things. Simply put, the problem with the President's argument is that he's trying to say the government's entry into the health insurance market isn't unfair to other competitors, despite the fact that the government is the very organization tasked with making the rules in that market.

In other words, it's like letting a referee play in the very same game that he's officiating.

It's not normal, and it gives the referee unfair advantages over the other players. Capitalism may not be the most gentle (for lack of a better word) economic system around, but it absolutely requires that all potential profit-makers be given the same opportunities as the others at the start of the game. (Hence the conservative belief in equality of opportunity over equality of outcome.) When the ref is playing, that simply doesn't happen.

The second issue I took with the tomfoolery I saw in Obama's speech was his continued insistence on the need to cut deficits. Indeed, the man desperately wants you to know that fiscal responsibility is important to him, too.

It is the type of thing that only a politician could say with a straight face.

The tortured logic that Obama continues to use, in which he claims that spending new, radically higher amounts of money on healthcare will actually reduce deficits, is beyond preposterous; indeed, it is a violation of the basic laws of mathematics. A trillion dollar deficit, plus additional spending, plus a still-tanking economy only equals a bigger deficit. That is, unless Obama plans to ~~break~~ shatter his promise not to raise taxes on 95% of Americans.

Of course, this is what we all should have come to expect from Obama and his team by now; afterall, ever since they've been in office, they've simply taken advantage of the personal popularity of the President to push every major item on the liberal agenda despite using some of the most asinine and downright idiotic justifications that anyone has ever heard. So let's be clear, this healthcare plan has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility or anything remotely resembling the concept - it is, plain and simple, Obama pushing his backdoor attempt at socialized medicine now, while he has the votes in Congress.

And so, with apologies to the Canadians, who will just have to deal with their own shitty system now, since, after this plan, ours isn't going to be worth driving south for, I guess all that's left to do is just buckle down, folks, because this behemoth of tortured logic and spending stupidity is coming, like it or not. It's "Change," afterall.

A Party Gone Clubbin'

2009-05-28T15:13:00.002-04:00

Several months ago, after the 2008 election, and amidst the mass "THE GOP IS DEAD, HOPELESS, OMG, OMG!!1!!" hysteria, I wrote that the Republican Party had one major flaw that it needed to fix: its inability to multi-task. In the interim time period, however, I have come to realize that there was another, equally important, point, that I seem to have inadvertently overlooked.

Before doing so, let me first note, for the umpteenth time, the Republican Party's remarkable ability to eat its own. Indeed, if the last 7 months have shown us anything, it is most certainly that no organization on earth knows how to self-destruct quite like the GOP. And this leads in nicely to the real point I'm trying to make today, which I will begin with the following question: have you noticed anything about the faces participating in all of these (self-destructive) discussions about the future of the GOP?

How about the fact that they're all old - and familiar.

Think about it. Who do you see on the talk shows and writing the columns about these things? Newt Gingrich. And Karl Rove. And Colin Powell. And Dick Cheney. And, seriously, how many times have you heard some 'analyst' introduced by the phrase "former (Insert former Republican President here) appointee..."? Are these the people who we should have leading the Republican Party into the future? The same people who've been leading it for the last 20 years? Sorry, but no matter how good or bad your message is, if you keep dragging the same old chumps out on stage to present it, there's only one word that can be used to describe it: stale.

And stale is not the kind of message that a party which just lost the youth vote by a 2 to 1 margin needs to be putting out there.

Of course, if it's not just the same old folks out presenting the message, it's the relatives of these folks. And if it's not those folks, well, then it's the same old 'experts' in newspaper columns and weekly magazines who you've been reading for years. In other words, it's a bunch of self-styled experts who don't really have any actual qualifications to make them any better arbiters of 'the direction of the Republican Party' than you or me.

Simply put, the GOP has a Good ol' Boy problem.

Indeed, whether it's the self-designated 'experts', the same 'prestigious' last-names, or the same, tired old faces of yesteryear, the fact remains that this continuing argument about what is wrong with the GOP, where it needs to go, who it needs to include, (etc., etc.); is all being hashed out by what more-or-less constitutes a Good ol' Boy club. Moreover, and unsurprisingly, while these folks spend a great deal of time fighting amongst themselves on the Sunday talk shows, they all do tend to agree on each others relative level of importance.

Now, the reason all of this matters is that the very idea of a GOP Good ol' Boys club is completely and utterly antithetical to the conservatism that (supposedly) remains the bedrock of the Republican Party. You see, Conservatives believe in earning what you have and keeping what you've earned - but Good ol' Boys don't earn things, they're given them.

Most importantly, however, the Good ol' Boys contradict the fundamental conservative belief in small government. You see, conservatives don't believe in small government because of some dogma we hold. Nor is it because we hate the inefficiency and bureaucratic red tape that comes with big government (although we do dislike these things). No, conservatives believe in small government because we understand, as per the famous axiom, that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

In other words, we believe in limited government because we understand the abuses of power that are bound to happen without those limits. We believe in the inherent fallibility of man, which is why we believe it foolish to trust him with something as dangerous as power. It is from this rudimentary conception of man and government that we derive a belief in things like checks and balances, limited government, (small R) republican government, and Federalism.

The Good ol' Boy system is inherently at odds with these ideas, because a Good ol' Boy system is fundamentally about collecting and retaining power, not limiting it. Furthermore, having such a system makes it more difficult for the Republican Party to get out its limited government message; because, simply put, it's hard to take the Party's 'small government' rhetoric seriously when it both fails to stand up for small government and is represented by a group of folks whose organizational principle contradicts the fundamentals of that idea.

Here, of course, is where the Sarah Palins and Bobby Jindals of the conservative movement come in. They are the ones who will rescue the GOP - not Colin Powell, or even (much as I love him) Rush Limbaugh, for that matter. These new faces are the ones who are successfully putting conservative principles into action, instead of just squabbling about them.

It's Tim Pawlenty using a unique political maneuver to not only prevent the Minnesota state legislature from raising taxes, but also get the spending cuts he needs to balance his state's budget. It's Sarah Palin significantly reducing Alaska's operating budget in each of her first 3 years in office. Or Bobby Jindal working for ethics reform in Louisiana, of all places.

That is how the Republican Party returns to power: by looking to its young faces and returning to its bedrock principles.

Of course, if you're not in the Good ol' Boys club, you probably didn't need me to tell you that, anyways.

For Memorial Day

2009-05-25T01:26:00.004-04:00

As has become somewhat of a tradition around here, in honor of Memorial Day I'll offer up one of my favorites, John McCrae's In Flanders Field:

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.

Thank you, Vets. And may God Bless those serving today.

Choosing For God

2009-05-13T23:59:00.001-04:00

It's not often we take the time to deal with abortion here (mainly because it's not one of our big issues, but also because, in America today, being pro-life, apparently, means that you must hate condoms, birth-control, and women, and will be ready to breath Baptist Hellfire upon those who disagree; and, frankly, I just tire of dealing with that stupidity), but today will be an important exception, given this news that recently came out of the socialist paradise Sweden.

For the record, we don't support abstinence-only stuff, but rather, the comprehensive approach, while also being of the opinion that, really, it's not the government's job to teach kids that kind of stuff anyways. Furthermore, sparing you our usual discussion of how freedom is intricately linked with the responsibility to take the consequences of the choices you make with said freedom, we'll also simply note that choosing to have sex means you have to accept the consequences of sex, up to and including pregnancy. Basically, too often, abortion becomes a bailout for people who are too stupid to either control their urges or figure out how to use a condom properly; and, well, you know how we feel about bailouts....

(Before you get the impression that we're some kind of asshole robot, with no ability to perceive the true complexities of life, please note that we do believe in exceptions for rape and when the mother's life is in danger.)

Anyways, back to the Swedes. Ah, yes, those wonderful Swedes and their wonderful socialist government. Only, now, that government has gone so far as to give its citizens the genuine opportunity to play God. You see, since abortion is legal in Sweden for the first 18-weeks of the woman's pregnancy (Somewhere in the '2nd Trimester' in American legal lingo), the Swedish Courts have now ruled that women can now 'choose' to abort or not based solely on the gender of the child. Meaning that gender-based abortion, or the ability to choose the sex of the child you raise, is not only available, but has the full legal backing of Swedish Courts.

Too bad all of the Kings and Queens of yore didn't have this option, because then they wouldn't have had to bother raising all those damned daughters, they could have just killed everything until they got that coveted 1st-born son!

But hey, why should we worry? Afterall, those Europeans have all but forgotten about God - they've moved beyond that stupid idea - so why not start to take over his job?

On a more serious note, the idea that one could select the gender of one's child (for that's what they've, essentially, been given the power to do) does reek of the 'playing God' dilemma that we seem to, increasingly, run into these days. Moreover, the simple fact of the matter is that allowing people to gender-select their children is a terrible idea. Don't believe me? Just ask the Chinese, who, using a combination of abortion, infanticide, and forced sterilization, have ridden their 'one-child' policy, and the historical preference for male offspring, to a massive gender imbalance. In other words, they've been using gender-based abortion, and it got them 30 million excess dudes.

Now, maybe Sweden, progressive nation that it is, won't, as a result of this ruling, have a massive (and dangerous) gender imbalance in 20 years - but that's not the point. The point is that bad, unexpected, and unintended things happen when governments and citizens try to play the role of God and manufacture the kind of children that they want. Obviously, abortion in the United States has not gotten to such a place, yet. Nevertheless, examples like China and now Sweden are exactly why we should be trying our best to limit abortion and tighten the legal restrictions around it. That's because, simply put, when the 'choices' you get to make should really be God's, well, that's just an awfully slippery slope.

The Alaska Fund Trust

2009-04-24T21:59:00.001-04:00

As those of you who have been keeping up with all the recent news regarding our favorite Alaskan here at The B&SS will likely know, since returning from the Presidential campaign last fall Sarah Palin has been unable to avoid the continuing politics of the campaign. The RINOs, Obamabots, and Good ol' Boys from Alaska (and elsewhere) have kept up their slew of attacks against her.

Clearly she must scare the piss out of them.

Unfortunately, in pursuing this course, these political lowlifes have turned to a weapon that we here at B&SS are all too familiar with: the frivolous lawsuit. Indeed, Governor Palin has been hit with an onslaught of bogus legal cases since last fall, all of which have been crap suits that eventually amount to nothing. Nevertheless, during this process, the good Governor has found out one of the real tragedies of these frivolous lawsuits, namely that they are insanely expensive - even when the charges brought against you get laughed out of court - and Sarah has now racked up over $500,000 in legal fees defending herself from these bogus suits.

The Doctors of this country welcome you to their world, Governor.

See, this kind of crap is exactly why we need a Loser Pays legal system in the United States. The reason these kinds of cases get brought is because trial lawyers (or politically motivated lawyers...) will take on such cases pro bono; knowing that it is of almost no risk to either them or their client and, potentially, offers a very high reward. Low risk, high reward - exactly the kind of formula to entice people to do something more often than they otherwise would, exactly the kind of incentive structure that does not need to be present in a legal system that is supposed to be operating on the sole incentive of the noble search for justice.

A Loser Pays system helps alleviate these problems because, under its auspices, the only way folks would bring charges against someone is if they actually thought they had a legitimate complaint - instead of just an insatiable greed for money they've done nothing to earn or, in Sarah's case, the desire to bleed someone dry solely for the sake of grinding some bullshit political axe.

Anyways, coming back down off the soap box, since getting a Loser Pays system to help out honest people like Sarah is just a fantasy at this point, I offer up to you the next best thing - which is to go to her newly created Legal Defense fund and chip in a few bucks to help her out!

In true Sarah fashion, the Alaska Fund Trust, as it's called, is a beacon of transparency and good, honest citizen-governance. All donors, and the amount they donate, will be made available to the public, no donations of more than $150 will be allowed, and no lobbyists (of any stripe) or foreign nationals will be allowed to contribute. (All these regulations are self-imposed, by the way, and not required by law for a fund like this one.)

Ok, enough said, here's your link: Alaska Fund Trust

Sorry, But You Have No Lifelines

2009-04-17T21:40:00.003-04:00

Glancing through the headlines over at ESPN, today, I noticed an article that contained the family of Andrew Gallo's response to the backlash against their son, who recently killed Angels pitcher Nick Adenhart in a car accident. Basically, the family of this guy, especially his Dad, is particularly upset, because they feel their son has been portrayed negatively in the media and that he has been made out to be a "bad kid" and a "monster."

First off, let's just account for all the little details, shall we? Mr. Gallo did not simply kill Nick Adenhart in a car crash; he killed him in a car crash during which his BAC was 3 TIMES the legal limit. In addition to being a drunk driver (who killed not just Adenhart, but 2 others), Gallo also decided that it would be a good idea to flee the scene (on foot); so instead of calling an ambulance and trying to help the people he'd just run into, he jumped out of his car and ran away. Better yet, this arrest is his second traffic-related violation, with the first being a....DUI back in 2006.

Sounds like a great guy to you too, huh?

Nevertheless, in the spirit of the semi-post-modern, personal-responsibility-be-damned era in which we live, Andrew Gallo's father has come out and decided to set the record straight by blaming everyone but his son for what happened. You see, poor Andrew is no normal kid (notice, the spin starts right here, as, despite being 22 years old, Gallo is dubbed a "kid," instead of an adult, to help him retain that aura of child-like innocence). His parents divorced, and he took it hard. Plus, he has a good friend who is an alcoholic. Heck, he is an alcoholic. And besides, he's been "devastated" by what happened and, of course, he "never meant to hurt anybody, ever."

In short, what Andrew's Daddy is trying to say, without actually saying it (for the sake of subtlety, I suppose), is that the accident is not his son's fault. Don't blame my poor, innocent, helpless boy - blame the circumstances.

What utter bullshit.

Sorry Mr. Gallo, I don't care if your son never meant to hurt anybody - he did. In fact, he effing killed somebody; 3 somebodies, to be exact. Besides, this wasn't your typical, everyday car crash. You see, sir, your son was drunk. In fact, he blew 3 times the California limit for BAC, which is 0.08, meaning that his BAC was around 0.24, which, for those of you keeping score at home, is somewhere between "wasted" and "passed-out" on the drunk scale. And while that particular level of BAC may make for some great entertainment at your local college frat party, it makes you a spectacularly shitty driver and a complete freakin' moron if you actually try to test those shitty driving skills on a road.

Moreover, being an alcoholic doesn't excuse young Andrew from the responsibility of this crime. Alcohol is not necessary for survival. It cannot open its own bottle, nor can it force itself down your throat. Ultimately, you are the one who decides what goes in your body; which makes you responsible when what goes in has adverse effects on the world around you. At some point in his life, Andrew Gallo decided to become an alcoholic through the drinking habits that he, himself, developed, of his own free will. Those choices led him to the bottle, and that bottle led him, quite literally, to the scene of the crime.

That is no one's fault but his own.

Lastly, I don't care if he took his parents' divorce hard - over half of the marriages in this country end in divorce, but you don't see great numbers of the kids from those marriages running out becoming alcoholics and committing vehicular manslaughter, do you?

Simply put, there is no excuse for Andrew Gallo, as he chose to get behind the wheel of that car, despite knowing how much he'd had to drink. Furthermore, he also chose to have those drinks in the first place; and, moreover, chose to drink where he would need a ride home, without thinking to, oh, I dunno, designate a driver or call a cab.

Going out and drinking alcohol does not make you a bad person. Having had a painful childhood doesn't either. Heck, even being an alcoholic doesn't necessarily make you a bad person. Vehicular manslaughter while driving drunk, however, does. And there is simply no way around that fact.

On April 15th

2009-04-13T23:59:00.004-04:00

Ah, taxes, such wonderful things. Indeed, nothing like having to file one's tax returns, is there? Sadly, this year, I had the, uh....genuine pleasure of getting to file my own tax returns for the very first time. And I must tell you that I have come away from this experience with a new appreciation for all things aimed at cutting, simplifying, or eliminating taxes. Moreover, I have also come to the conclusion that it is high time for the 16th Amendment and the IRS to die brutal and painful deaths.

I'd even be interested in suspending the 8th Amendment for duration of the execution process.

Seriously though, my tax returns were, supposedly, relatively easy to file - and they still frustrated and confounded me. Consequently, I can't even begin to fathom how the average taxpayer is able to go through all of this hassle and not come away thinking that taxes should be lower, that the tax code should be seriously simplified, and that the IRS should burn in Hell. I mean, how you could not come away from such an experience with a high level of sympathy for the Ron Paul conception of taxes is beyond me.

Finally, I would just like to publicly acknowledge my Father and many other adults who, for years, have been telling me that: "Everyone's a Democrat until they start paying taxes."

You were right. And I say that not because I didn't believe you before, but because now I understand why.

(And just in case you need a time-of-year-appropriate laugh, some P.J. O'Rourke:)

"I'm a 47-year old middle-class male with a job. Every hippy-dippy thing that's thought up - from heroin addiction to special vegan lunch lines in the local high school cafeteria - I get to pay for. Of course I'm a Republican.
"The mystery of Government is not how Washington works, but how to make it stop."

Taking Statism Global

2009-04-02T18:30:00.002-04:00

Having now poured stimulus upon stimulus into their respective National economies, and begun the long and arduous process of setting said economies on the road to bankruptcy, the leaders of the world's greatest economies have spent the last several days gathering to see if they could strike a deal to take their failed policies supra-national. And so they have. We are now set to get a new $1 trillion global stimulus package to complement the, now, $10.5 Trillion that the United States has already appropriated/spent on various bailouts, stimulus, and TARP projects over the last half-year or so.

(For those of you keeping score at home, our national GDP was $14.3 trillion last year - meaning that, if President Obama gets his wish and we do get a 'TARP II', we'll have kindda spent our whole, entire economy in order to, uh, save it. Because that clearly makes sense.)

Apparently TANSTAFL has been replaced as the one, hard-and-fast economic rule by a new one, which rests on a firm belief in the ability of deficit spending to cure all ills - the actual numbers be damned!!

As far as this new, global stimulus is concerned, its basically an extension of all the quasi-socialist/genuinely statist bullshit we've been getting here in the United States. We're going to give some more government bureaucrats the ability to regulate and restrict bankers' pay and bonuses - because, damn it, if some red-meat populism is good, more is even better. And nothing stokes populist fires (and poll numbers...) like hating on evil corporations, bankers, etcetera.

Nevermind that it's actually counterproductive as an economic policy.

Of course, having already gotten on the 'regulation' bandwagon with the banker stuff, it only made sense for these folks to take that a step further with other institutions. Thus, we are also going to get a new set of stricter and tougher regulatory policies for hedge funds and credit agencies. Because, again, nevermind the actual relationship between government regulation and economic growth, let's do it anyway.

We're also going to give more power to the IMF; because, clearly, what we need in order to solve these economic problems, and prevent them from happening ever again, is more input from international government bureaucrats whose own chain of command is somewhat murky. Finally, in this time of economic hardship and ballooning deficits, we're also going to take $100 billion and give it to poor countries; in other words, all the little tyrants running fake democratic countries in sub-Saharan Africa are having trouble in this economic climate too, so let's give them some cash.

And that's about it, more bullshit spending that inches us further away from a free-market system and transfers power and money from people to bureaucrats. Only this time, it's gone global. Change, indeed.

This Is Your Government...

2009-03-30T23:51:00.002-04:00

...and this is your government on stupid. Ahh, yes, nothing like the sweet smell of government takeovers to start your week off right, huh? Indeed, having decided that Chapter 11 was too harsh for it to accept and that 'bailout' was its only option, GM now gets to find out the hard way what us free-marketers were warning them about all along - that public funding for your business also means public management of your business.

Not that the folks at GM have any illusions about what they're getting into though, Rick Wagoner was happy to go, and he'll take the $20 Million dollar retirement package that comes with termination of his job to go with him thank-you-very-much, and the new CEO has already said he knows that he's not going to be the one who's actually in charge.

The result is that President Barack Obama, the man who is a lawyer by training and a Law Professor/Community Organizer/Professional Campaigner by vocation is now fully and totally in charge of running, nay saving, the 9th largest corporation in the entire world. Oh yes, and he'll be accompanied in this task by a Treasury Secretary who can't properly fill out his tax returns and has an entire staff of people who are....yet to be appointed by the President. (And likely Congress too, but you really don't want us to get started on those fuckers right now.)

Anyone else really wish a guy like Mitt Romney, who, you know, understands this kind of shit, was President right about now? Of course, Mitt suggested, way back in December, that we shouldn't have bailed these bastards out in the first place because, shocka, by not making them file for Chapter 11 we were 'bailing them out' of the serious internal restructuring that they needed to do to remain viable. Instead, with bailouts, we would just be turning them into another welfare recipient (albeit an insanely expensive one).

Here's the thing though, as the nice little parting gift that former CEO Wagoner got helps to demonstrate, by bailing these assholes out we have subsidized their bad decision-making process. Instead of being forced to account for the $38 billion in losses they took last year by doing things like eliminating bad Union deals, cutting out their CEO's golden parachute, or generally figuring out what the hell they were doing so terribly wrong that it cost them $38 Billion, they're going to simply sit around and wait for whatever the government's next batch of instructions are. Moreover, how can we possibly blame them for doing just that?

Afterall, by giving them this bailout(/subsidy) we've now incentivized this corporate laziness; because now the company's money isn't coming from it's ability to sell automobiles, but rather its ability to grovel like a cheating husband at the feet of its new Government overlords. In other words, we're expecting this company to be able right the metaphorical ship despite having eliminated the incentives that might make it profitable again, and having turned its management over to people who have neither a direct financial stake in its future profitability nor the proper credentials to hold such positions.

Brilliant.

Of course, that, in a nutshell, is why the Government shouldn't run businesses - because their intervention, particularly on this massive of a scale, screws up the profit motive that is the driving force of capitalism. And honestly, if you don't understand why that's a bad thing (or why Capitalism is a better corporate manager than the effin Government), then you're either a hippie, a fascist, or a communist - in which case you'd be too far gone for me to give a damn about you at this point anyways.

Now, with apologies for all the cussing above, and in an attempt to make you feel even worse, here's the internet's newest viral video star, Daniel Hannan, a Conservative Party member of the European Parliament for England, on how, in addition to spending ourselves into oblivion, the Anglo-Saxon world now has to endure the additional humiliation of having the Germans and the French being the ones telling us that we must step away from the bailout trough:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(For those of you who have, sadly, missed out on the Daniel Hannan craze, please, for the love of God, go watch this short video of the speech he made eviscerating Gordon Brown (and bailouts) at the European Parliament last week. I promise it'll make your day.)

***Update***

Irony alert: the new CEO of GM now says that Chapter 11 actually looks pretty good. It only took them a few months, a government takeover of their management structure, and a few billion taxpayer dollars, but at least they might finally be on the right track...

"When Did Things Get So Twisted"

2009-03-24T22:30:00.006-04:00

Just in case you watched President Obama's national press conference earlier tonight, and have finally given up on trying to figure out how, exactly, he's going to be able to make good on his promise to cut the deficit with, uh, massive increases in spending, and where, exactly, he got the information that led him to believe the Dollar was doing well, I do believe I've got you an antidote!

It's Sarah Palin and a speech that she gave recently in Anchorage to the Alaska GOP's Lincoln Dinner (sans Teleprompter). Sadly, the audio is quite poor, and the Alaska GOP managed to omit two parts (one in the middle and the end), which is rather disappointing. Nevertheless, it's a great speech in which she finds time to wax poetic against the stimulus and get in some good shots at the "goofy defenders of wildlife," among others. I'll put my favorite of the 11 clips up here - it's the one where (starting at about 2:30 in) she rails against the stimulus:

The rest of the videos (in their proper order) can be found here.

Political Correctness Strikes, Again

2009-03-24T00:01:00.002-04:00

As usual, I appear to be a few days late to chime in on a controversy that consumed at least part of the minds of the blowhards, er, pundits on TV over the past weekend. Anyways, in case you did miss it, last week President Obama decided that, with the economy, and confidence in it, heading further south than where I wish I was fishing right about now, he needed to go and speak directly with the American people on...The Tonight Show.

Because we all know that Jay Leno is going to be ready with the tough questions that Americans want answered.

Nevertheless, while he was there, the President, in a moment of self-depreciation, made what could only be classified as a somewhat formulaic-yet-still-humorous 'retard' joke in which he compared his bowling skills to those of a Special Olympian.

Cue the outrageously outrageous moral outrage of the United States Political Correctness SWAT team.

Indeed, while, admittedly, the outrage from the Fat Cats in the Media and the PC Police was noticeably less than it would have been had, say, George W. Bush made such a remark (although, since they considered W to be retarded, I'm not sure if they could have logically done this...), it was still there; in fact, the outrageously outraged Republicans trying to point out the double standard probably managed to more-or-less make up the difference with their zeal. Indeed, even my beloved Sarah Palin got in on the outrage and managed to shoot of a statement about how much she loved and respected the Special Olympics and how Obama needed to be more careful with his words and.....yea, you probably read the news too, so no need to rehash all of the bullshit.

What seems to be missing in all of this, of course, is the fact that it was a joke, and that taking jokes like this seriously - even if he is the President and is supposed to be 'more careful' with his choice of words - and getting pissed off or angry about them just....well, let's say it brings to mind a certain title utilized by Shakespeare.

Something about 'ado' and 'nothing.'

I mean, people seriously need to learn to develop a sense of humor and just laugh/chuckle at something like this. And seriously, who hasn't, at some point in their life, made a kind of off-color (even offensive!! *gasp*) joke like the President's? Granted, yours was probably funnier; but still, I think I recall something pertinent from the Bible that may apply here - something to do with 'casting stones' and 'sin.'

(Yes folks, retard jokes, Shakespeare, and Jesus, all in one post about Obamarama - that's just the kind of brilliance I offer here.)

A certain wise man once said that "if we couldn't laugh we'd all go insane" - and something tells me that getting all up in arms like Napoleon invading Russia over a joke like the President's is fast approaching the territory which offers tangible proof of this maxim.

Malpractice Reform in SC?

2009-03-23T21:59:00.001-04:00

Last Month, some of the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives did a great thing by sponsoring a new bill (H. 3489) that would help bring some needed legal reform to our State. The legislation is a tort reform bill that would help insulate S.C. businesses from all those frivolous lawsuits that we talk oh-so-fondly-of on this blog. Needless to say, I'm a strong supporter of this bill, as pretty much every State in the Union could use some kind of tort reform for a whole host of reasons. However, as you might expect if you know anything about S.C. politics, the bill has run into some problems up at the Statehouse.

As per the legislative process, it was sent to one of the House's subcommittees; unfortunately, all but one of the members of this subcommittee just happen to be lawyers. Consequently, the members of this subcommittee haven't bothered to get the legislative process for the tort reform bill going; preferring, instead, to leave it swimming in the abyss that is Subcommittee Hell

Lawyers opposed to meaningful tort reform; you're shocked, I'm sure.

Anyways, here's the legislation's sponsors' site - One Law Suit Away - so you can go read up on the bill and see (for those of you in South Carolina) if your State Legislator comes down on the right side of it.

The New Iraq

2009-03-17T23:36:00.005-04:00

I suppose we'll get to see just how permanent all of this is whenever Obama finally does pull all of the troops out, be it in 16 months or (as per the S.O.F.A) December 2011, but, for now, this ABC News report should make you feel pretty good about how things are going in Iraq right now:

I think that speaks for itself.

Thanks, General Petraeus.

Sanford in 2012?

2009-03-03T16:22:00.004-05:00

Could my good Governor, Mark Sanford, wind up as the Republican nominee for President in 2012? And, if so, might he actually win? Well, The American Conservative seems to think that, if the great behemoth of Hope n' Change turns out not to be the very Will of God it has thus far promised, Governor Sanford, thanks to his "stringent free-market philosophy" and "elegiac demeanor," might be well positioned to do both of those things:

Mark Sanford is easy to overlook. If Republicans need a champion in the Obama era, there are more colorful candidates than the South Carolina governor. He doesn’t play electric bass, or to the Religious Right, like Mike Huckabee. He has made no attempt to rewrite the GOP’s almost forgotten small-government playbook like Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty or Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal. Though he is popular, Sanford seems incapable of playing a red-meat populist like Sarah Palin. He looks plain, his philosophy is old, and he has an elegiac demeanor that seems incompatible with electoral politics.

But unlike many other Republican politicians of his stature, Sanford recognizes that there are limits to ambition, that government treasuries are not bottomless, and that no ideology can captain the globe. If the promise of “hope” in the form of bailouts fails to revive the American economy, Mark Sanford will be the GOP’s most dangerous man in 2012.

In recent weeks, he has become the unofficial spokesman against Obama’s trillion-dollar economic stimulus plan.....While cable’s talking heads shout at him, he somberly quotes Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek. He worries aloud that the bailouts represent a 'crisis of American civilization.' "

Here's the link to the full article, which is interesting both as a profile and 2012 look-ahead.

Insofar as the question of a run itself is concerned, it's been asked before and Sanford has repeatedly denied that he's got any future political plans after his term as Governor is up. Nevertheless, the race might actually set up rather well for him; since his term as Governor will end in January 2011, giving him a full year before the Iowa Caucuses to get a campaign up and running. Plus, he'd be an easy favorite in the all important SC-GOP Primary.

Will he? Who knows - and honestly, at this point, it's way too early for me to care all that much about the 2012 Elections. Besides, Sanford already has an important day job; and it's not going to be getting any easier over the next 2 years.

If At First You Don't Succeed

2009-03-02T17:52:00.001-05:00

...then try, try again, right? And hey, if it just so happens to involve a few billion dollars of (yet to be earned) taxpayer dollars, well, so be it. Alas, while this attitude probably doesn't behoove folks like you and me, who will have to pay for all of these bailouts (plus interest!!) at some point in the future, it seems to be working out fabulously for the fine folks struggling to run AIG; who, it was announced today, are set to get a second round of bailout money from our Federal Government.

So, let's recap, shall we? Last fall, under the watchful eyes of President Bush and Secretary Paulson, we decided to sink billions of dollars in AIG because it was "too big to fail" and we needed it to turn around. Now, after we gave them all this money, they have come back to us to report $61.7 billion in 4th-Quarter losses, the largest loss ever reported by an American company. And, naturally, we decided it would be a really good idea to reinvest another $30 billion in this failing business.

Well, at least now we know why all the former Wall Street people now working in D.C left Wall Street - as the kinds of business decisions they're making on behalf of the government would have gotten them fired in the business world.

Seriously though, at what point does all this bailing out finally end? Hell, after we've gone in and bailed out AIG once, why shouldn't we go in and do it a second or third or even fourth time? Better yet, when do we reach the point where a company failing is finally less important than our government's checkbook failing?

Of course, such rhetorical questions help indicate the problems this kind of government intervention inherently entails; namely that, if you do it once, there's nothing to keep you from doing it again. Indeed, given the rationale that you used the first time around (i.e. 'too big to fail'), you're pretty much compelled, rationally at least, to repeat the bailout the second time around, too. Afterall, if it was too big to fail the first time, how can it not be the second (or third, or fourth) time around as well?

So how do we escape from this trap that our political logic has led us into? Well, as I see it, there are only two ways: either the company is fundamentally restructured so that it becomes, metaphorically speaking, small enough to the point where it can fail; or it ceases to fail and, once again, becomes a successful company. Unfortunately, by bailing out companies like AIG in the first place, the government makes it unlikely that either of these things will happen. That's because, through the bailout, the government has absolved AIG of its financial losses; losses which were incurred because of poor business decisions. In other words, somewhere along the line AIG took a risk that didn't pan out - which is o.k, because risk taking (and, yes, the occasional failure) is a part of business. Now, normally, AIG would be forced to take those losses, which would, most certainly, cause serious problems for the company.

Through the bailout, however, the government has decided to prevent AIG from having to go through the painful process of dealing with its bad business decisions. The problem is that companies, like people, aren't going to learn from their mistakes if they don't have to deal with the negative consequences of them. Screwing up and taking big-time losses are what cause companies to restructure and come up with a new business plan. Consequently, by using the government to bailout an AIG, you make it more likely that this company will fail again in the future because you've eliminated the gusto, if you will, of the market forces that would normally force it into severe restructuring.

And that, of course, means more bailouts - ad infinitum, I suppose - and also indicates to us that the bailout, like so many government programs that came before it, is self-perpetuating. Proving once again the validity of Reagan's maxim that government doesn't solve problems, only subsidize them.

On The Gaza Casualty Numbers

2009-02-23T23:40:00.001-05:00

One of the more interesting statistics that I've heard tossed around in the aftermath of the recent Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip is the comparison of total casualties on both sides. As you might expect, the Palestinians, as in the past, had significantly more casualties in this war than the Israelis did. (Sorry, I don't know the exact numbers of the top of my head, so you'll have to google it yourself.) The argument, as I've heard it, essentially amounts to a knock on Israel for being excessively brutal or using, in what has become the new favorite catchphrase of UN policy wonks, 'disproportionate force.' In other words, Israel must be more of a bad guy because they're killing so many more Palestinians than the Palestinians are killing Israelis. Yet, simple as this logic may sound, I feel it has a couple of important flaws.

The first problem is that arguing casualty numbers in this way fails to take into account the nature of the Gaza Strip itself; namely, that it's rather small and really crowded. That combination, no matter who's shooting or what they're shooting, is going to result in higher casualty numbers for the Palestinians in Gaza because more people in less space makes the likelihood of collateral damage increase exponentially even in the most precise and well-planned attacks. This fact, in my book, can't really be blamed on either side, as it's just a reality.

Another obvious thing that should be noted about the discrepancy in casualty numbers is that they likely stem directly from the drastic differences in firepower. Simply put, the Israelis have bigger and better guns. No matter how accurate, a Hamas rocket will never be able to do as much damage as Merkava Tank. Moreover, this fact doesn't make the IDF the 'bad guys' - it just makes them the more technologically advanced military in this particular war. Indeed, I'd be willing to venture that, if given the opportunity, Hamas would happily kill many more Israelis; just because, at this point in time, they can't doesn't make them morally superior.

Nevertheless, I do think that, when looking at a war, it's important to try and distinguish, even at a rudimentary level, between good and evil. However, it's war, so people are going to be killing each other - that's just part of it (some would say the point of it...), so we can't distinguished based just on the act or its success rate. In order to truly gain a moral perspective on war, we have to look at what surrounds the killing, and that's why I think that, particularly in this case, intent matters a great deal. Afterall, it's one thing to kill civilians while targeting the enemy's soldiers; it's an entirely different thing to aim exclusively at the civilians from the get-go.

And I suppose this is why the statistical difference in casualty numbers does not increase my sympathy for the Palestinians; because, when I look at the "why" behind the actions of the Gazans' elected representatives, Hamas, I don't exactly see morally superior motives.

All You Need To Know...

2009-02-12T17:07:00.005-05:00

...about the stimulus, you could probably learn from this chart, right here:

Based on my reading of that chart, I get:

Reagan - more-or-less budget neutral: 0% change
H.W. Bush - same as Reagan: 0%/-0.5% change
Clinton - slightly budget positive: +4% change
W. Bush - slightly budget negative: -4% change
Obama without stimulus - slightly budget negative: -5% change
Obama with stimulus: significantly budget negative: -10% change

Either with or without the stimulus, President Obama has already negatively affected the budget deficit, as it relates to GDP (what Democrats bragged about during the Clinton years), to a greater degree than any of the last 5 Presidents.

To be fair, of course, President Obama hasn't had a full term yet, and both Reagan and H.W. Bush started out increasing these deficits but finished by decreasing them. However, in their worst years, Reagan and Bush, Sr. increased the budget deficit by 2% and 1%, respectively; Barack is not only working on between 5% and 10%, but is well on his way to creating the biggest one-year increase in the budget deficit over the last 30 years.

These new heights of deficit spending come, naturally, at the same time that the long term deficit is also reaching new heights (depths, really...), and the future costs of programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are beginning to increase exponentially.

Now, I'm no economist, but I am a young, budding taxpayer - and I'm pretty sure all this means that I'm about to get screwed.

Happy Birthday, Ronnie

2009-02-06T18:57:00.003-05:00

The Gipper would have been 98.

He won the Cold War and vanquished the "Evil Empire" without firing a shot, revived a stagnant U.S Economy and lead it into the modern age, restructured our tax code for the better, and made the United States, once again, the Greatest and most Free Nation on Earth.

He was the Greatest President of the 20th Century.

One can only imagine what he would have thought of the horrific "stimulus" packages the current President and Congress are trying to pass. And while those folks continue to try and hash out the final details of how, exactly, to spend the next few generations of American taxpayers' dollars, all for the stated goal of helping us "Ordinary Americans" in this time of recession, I think it appropriate to remember some of the wisdom of Ronald Reagan:

"The 9 most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
"The Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves; tax it. If it keeps moving; regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
"Government doesn't solve problems - it subsidizes them."

Indeed.

We miss you, Mr. President - and we sure could use some of your principled leadership these days.

Masking Mediocrity

2009-02-04T17:44:00.005-05:00

Ah, the joys of "free" healthcare:

"A former soldier pulled his own teeth out with a pair of pliers because he could not find a dentist to take on NHS patients...

He said: 'I've tried to get in at 30 dentists over the last eight years but have never been able to find one to take on NHS patients.' "

Lovely, huh?

The great thing about this story is that it's a perfect example of why the type of "Universal Health Care" system desired by President Obama, other liberals, and even some 'Conservatives' (hello, Mitt Romney...) here in the U.S won't, ultimately, work.

Many a time during the campaign, when asked to defend himself against charges that his Healthcare plan was a thinly veiled attempt at socialized medicine, President Obama responded by saying that, since those who so desired would be able to opt out and get private health insurance, his plan couldn't be dubbed socialized medicine. Indeed, the point of the "universal" part of his plan, he argued, was simply to ensure that those millions of uninsured Americans would never have to go without, thanks to the government sponsored insurance he would be offering.

Well, guess what? In the U.K, people with the financial resources do have the option of getting private healthcare; and furthermore, in a manner that would seem to dovetail nicely with President Obama's plan, those who can't afford such a luxury are given all the health coverage they need via the NHS. Nevertheless, despite being fully provided for by their government, the British folks who were supposed to have been saved from the pain of being uninsured by the almighty hand of a government health care program still aren't getting the health care that they need.

Indeed, despite having a truly "Universal" system of health coverage at his disposal, Ian Boynton was unable to do something as simple as find a dentist to examine his toothache.

What this particular story illustrates so well is a point, which I have made on many an occasion before, that neither socialized medicine nor Universal Health Care (not that the difference is all that substantial...) will solve the current Health Care problems in the United States. This is due the fact that, like all big-government programs, they are inherently flawed solutions because they fail to address the real problem facing the system. In this case, both in the U.K and U.S, the real problem is that Health Care is to expensive. What Socialized Medicine and Universal Health Care both do to address this problem is to offer you either "free" or insanely cheap Health Insurance to make sure that you have enough money to cover this high cost. In other words, instead of directly addressing the problem of expensive health care, and trying to bring down these high costs, these programs are designed to simply mask it through government welfare.

Of course, the problem with masking crises instead of confronting them is that they tend to fester and come back - usually with a much greater degree of monetary pain than they hit you with on the first go-round.

That's why, if we want to try to offer real health care reforms here in the United States, we can't fall into the trap of simply offering up ideas that don't address the real problem. If we want to make Health Care in the U.S better, we need to look at solutions that will actually reduce the costs of health care and thus make it affordable to an even greater number of Americans - without us having to give them a welfare check, first. Two quick and easy ideas to jumpstart such a change would be to allow insurance companies to compete across State lines and to reduce our Doctors' operating costs through Medical Malpractice reform.

Just anything but Big Government, please. Because, afterall, I can already pull my own teeth out with pliers for free - and I don't even have to bankrupt my country's future in the process.

Score One For W

2009-02-03T15:38:00.006-05:00

But, but, but....I thought that George W. Bush was turning American attention away from hunting down Al-Qaeda because he was so maniacally focused on avenging his Daddy in Iraq??

Alas, to the deep disappointment of Bush-haters everywhere, our former President did not forget who attacked us on 9/11, and he never stopped hunting them

"CIA-directed airstrikes against al-Qaida leaders and facilities in Pakistan over the past six to nine months have been so successful, according to senior U.S. officials, that it is now possible to foresee a "complete al-Qaida defeat" in the mountainous region along the border with Afghanistan...

The CIA has been using drone aircraft to carry out attacks on suspected al-Qaida and Taliban targets in Pakistan for several years, but such attacks were significantly expanded last summer under orders from President George W. Bush."

The way that 4th Generation Warfare is fought ensured that the destruction and incapacitation of al-Qaeda would be neither a quick nor easy process; however, with a strong resolve and continued dedication, it was always possible. Moreover, like nearly everyone in the United States after 9/11, from top-to-bottom in the U.S Military and across the political spectrum, President Bush had some things to learn about the evolution of war over the last 60 years; but, now that he's safely stashed away in Texas, we continue to hear more and more about just how well he and his top advisors came to understand the delicate and difficult nature of the tasks they were facing in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East. Given the orientation of the U.S Military in 1999, and the general uselessness of Donald Rumsfeld, the fact that we have evolved our tactical and strategic capabilities to the point of being able to bring al-Qaeda to the brink of collapse is no small feat.

Finally, and this is for you President Obama, please note that while George W. Bush had no problem actually ordering military strikes within Pakistan, he never felt the need to talk about them on national TV or announce them to the world (and, by extension, our enemies). On the other hand, during his campaign, President Obama always talked about how he would send troops/drones across the border into Pakistan - apparently forgetting that one of the most important elements in any war is secrecy. So, for future reference Mr. President, be more like George W. Bush: do what you have to do to win, but try and keep the plans out of the news.

SC Rep. Nikki Haley On Transparency, Spending

2009-01-30T02:17:00.004-05:00

Prior to today, I'd heard good things about SC State Representative Nikki Haley, but haven't really had a chance to hear her talk or learn anything about her first-hand; having now done that, I must say, I'm deeply impressed.

Unlike seemingly the vast majority of "Republicans" in the SC State House, Rep. Haley isn't part of the Good ol' Boy network, nor is she the average Democrat turned RINO, willing to spend my great State into financial catastrophe. In fact, she's probably the greatest advocate that true fiscal conservatives have right now in all of Columbia. She's also just managed to piss off the establishment and score a huge victory for voters with her recent, and ongoing, crusade for much-needed transparency in our State Government.

Anyways, I've posted a video below of her talking about some of the issues (as well as some fundamental conservative principles) at a sort of 'Meet your State Rep' event she recently did. It's kind of long, but if you want to understand some of the fundamental problems with South Carolina State government, and how to start fixing them, or if you just want to listen to a damn good speech about why transparency, real spending restraint, and public interest/participation are important when it comes to government, take the time to listen.

Well said, ma'am - and keep fighting for South Carolina voters, even those of us who aren't in your district!

Done In By Google Earth?

2009-01-30T00:31:00.004-05:00

I don't smoke, and I'm not totally sold on the need to end the War on Drugs, but this, nonetheless, kindda scares me.

Don't get me wrong, Google Earth is awesome (as well as addictive and time consuming); but the idea of law enforcement being able to use it to search people's private property seems, to me, at least, a really....bad precedent. I mean, theoretically, if the police want to come search my house, they need a warrant, and to get a warrant they need probable cause - meaning, of course, that, in order to search my property the old-fashioned way, the police would have to follow a certain procedure that still gives me, as a citizen, some degree of Rights protection.

However, to use Google Earth you just need internet access and basic computer skills - not a warrant. Consequently, the police could, theoretically, search my property without obtaining any kind of probable cause first. Of course, if they tried to use that evidence in court, they might find themselves in violation of the 4th Amendment. (Although they'd probably need a pretty decent lawyer to make such a case.)

In any case, the whole concept is way too Big Brother-ish for me.

I know Google has had some issues with Privacy Law in the past, and I realize that this happened in Switzerland and not the United States; but still, I tend to think that this kind of police work should be illegal. Afterall, telling the Judge "We saw it on Google Earth" really doesn't sound like a probable cause that respects people's Rights.

The Party Of 'No'

2009-01-27T17:39:00.006-05:00

Newsflash: Republicans on Capitol Hill may have finally rediscovered their balls and brains.

Maybe.

After spending the last week talking about how they need to come together and vote for this $825 billion stimulus package, if only for the sake of being bipartisan and showing support for our new ~~Jesus~~ President, the House GOP leadership may have begun to realize that, even if the Lord Messiah himself commands votes of 'yea,' a shitload of pork and other politically motivated spending projects won't actually rescue the U.S economy from recession. Moreover, they seem to have realized that, in addition to being a massive pile of crap, the bill can, in fact, be opposed in the form of a 'nay' vote.

And it's about freakin' time too, huh? The National Debt is over $10 Trillion, the largest programs in the Federal government (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) are in the process of going broke, the federal budget hasn't been balanced in years, and finally the House Republicans seem to have figured out that we can't continue to spend money like teenage girls in a shopping mall because - surprise - we don't have any. President Obama can't deficit spend his way into economic stability any more than President Bush could; and if he wants to pilot the ship towards the abyss the Republicans should at least have sense enough to jump overboard before it gets there.

Oddly enough, the Democrats are trying to warn Republicans away from voting 'nay' because then they will risk becoming "the Party of 'No,'" over the next few years. Of course, in making this threat, the Democrats seem to have forgotten that the Republicans' biggest problem over the last few years, one which the Dems themselves have criticized us for, was, essentially, becoming the Party of 'yes.' For years, Republicans in Congress became a rubber-stamp for any spending bill that President Bush sent their way, on everything from No Child Left Behind to the prescription drug bill. Furthermore, in doing so, Congressional Republicans lost sight of what brought them to power in the 80's and 90's in the first place: fiscal responsibility.

Moreover, being staunch supporters of fiscal responsibility in conjunction with the tax cuts Republicans so love, directly translates into the need to also be the Party of Small Government. For better or worse (I think for better), being the Party of small government - which is what the Republicans are supposed to be - means saying 'no' and saying it often. It means believing in things like balanced budgets, accountability, and responsible, restrained government spending; all of which even the most powerful SONAR couldn't locate in this craptastic "stimulus" bill. That's why Republicans need to take a principled stand and vote against it.

Finally, over the next four years, if Republicans want to effectively oppose President Obama's liberal agenda, they really do need to become the 'Party of No.' They need to oppose his policies - not the man, the way Democrats did with George W. Bush - and articulately explain to the American people why, from a principled perspective, they simply are not down with atrocious bills like this stimulus. And who knows, by saying 'no' to most of the big government projects and a New Deal-like spending agenda, they just might rediscover what it means to be the Party of Ronald Reagan.

Dubya, Still My President

2009-01-20T00:58:00.003-05:00

With my post-election politics fatigue finally having worn off, and with the period of exams, holidays and back-to-school craziness finally over, it's back to blogging about politics just in time to say goodbye, here in its final 12 hours, to the 8-year presidency of George W. Bush. It hasn't always been the smoothest of rides these past 8 years, and it remains to be seen what history's final judgment on them will be, but, it seems appropriate to at least reflect on what an old-school conservative's view on them might be.

There certainly have been some serious counts on which I have disagreed with this President. Immigration jumps immediately to mind. The Prescription Drug Bill (the largest spending bill in Federal history) and his lack of fiscal discipline also do.

Moreover, he has recently been, unfairly, blamed for the recent economic collapse, which has its roots in a housing crisis that has been building, quite literally, since the Carter Administration; and while he has certainly played some part in it, I believe that where history will truly haunt him is on his response to it. His absurd belief that he could "save" the free market by betraying his free market principles has made the economic policy of his last 6 months virtually indistinguishable from that of the liberal President-elect, and has done absolutely nothing to help end the economic downfall. Big government doesn't solve problems, it only perpetuates them, and I think that President Bush's all-to-frequent forgetting of this fact has done more damage to his Presidency than anything else.

On the more positive front, one would be hard pressed to find a President, including the Old Gipper himself, who was a greater friend, both in word and in deed, to the pro-life movement than the 43rd. His outstanding judicial appointees have certainly played a large role in securing that legacy, but, from a conservative point of view, this is certainly an issue for which he, personally, deserves a good deal of praise. Furthermore, as Israeli President Shimon Peres himself hinted at in a farewell phone call with Bush earlier today, there has probably never been an American President who has been a greater friend of Israel than George W. Bush - and in my book, that scores high marks.

There are other issues, of course, which I could hash out in trying to evaluate the 8 years of President George W. Bush; but continued discussion of such points will, ultimately, be of little relevance to his final legacy. This is because the final verdict issued by history on the success or failure of the 43 President of the United States will be intricately linked to the wars he started in Afghanistan and Iraq - although I suppose that, in his heart, that is exactly the way he would want it to be.

President Bush's beliefs on the power of Democracy and Freedom to improve peoples' lives and bring peace have made him, perhaps, the most openly idealistic President since Woodrow Wilson - far to much so for my tastes on many an occasion - but these beliefs have led him to begin the arduous process of creating stable democratic governments in two countries whose relative political histories are the antithesis of such ideals. It certainly remains to be seen whether these experiments - for that is what they are - will work in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I suppose even I, myself, am only cautiously optimistic about their potential success; but if 20 or so years from now Iraq and Afghanistan are stable, relatively democratic countries, history will be kinder to G.W. Bush than his recent approval ratings have been. On the other hand, if Iraq falls back into chaos (or if Afghanistan remains there), then history's ultimate verdict will most certainly be failure.

I have a firm belief that it is inappropriate to judge the worth or value of a war before it is over, so I will put this aspect of Bush's legacy to rest by simply noting that, while I, personally, agreed with the decisions to begin both wars, the jury is most definitely still out on both counts.

One part of the Bush Presidency that, on a somewhat personal level, I will always value was his re-election campaign. That's because, during those long months on the campaign trail, Dubya, while a very imperfect practitioner of them, stood up for me and my values. When there was talk of things like 'culture wars' and 'fly over country,' W stood up and said that, while many in the media might have sneered at them, those conservative values and ideals were his values and ideals, and that they were worth fighting for. He has never been, as I just mentioned, anywhere near a perfect practitioner of these values, but he wasn't ashamed of them (as John McCain sometimes seemed to be), and in fighting for them he fought for me - and I will always appreciate that.

However, more than anything, these last few years, George W. Bush has kept me safe, and for that I thank him. I know that, in the past, I have spared no opportunity to make fun of things like airport security; but the fact remains that since September 11, 2001 there have been no Islamic terror attacks on American soil. There's been a good deal of luck involved in that, as I suppose there always is, but a good deal of skill too, thanks in no small part to the tireless efforts of the good folks who work at places like the CIA and the FBI. But if, as me and many others have stated in the past, the blame for the mistakes of the past 8 years is to be laid at the feet of Dubya, then some of the credit for the successes also lies with him - afterall, he was "The Decider."

With the politics now out of the way, I'll conclude this little retrospective by noting, perhaps to my own personal surprise, that while I haven't always agreed with him on politics, I have come out of these last 8 years with an immense respect for George W. Bush as a man and as a leader. Does this mean I think he'll go down as a great President? No. But the Reagans and Churchills of this world come around all to infrequently, so I can hardly fault him for that.

And so, adieu, Mr. President - and enjoy Texas.

Learning To Multitask

2008-11-21T20:04:00.003-05:00

So, with the election now some two weeks in the rear-view mirror, we've all had time to listen to the various pundits, politicians, and activists running around on TV screaming about the coming era of doom for the GOP. Apparently, the apocalypse has already happened - only it came in the form of a political party losing an election, and there was no mark of the beast. Indeed, if you've gotten so tired of hearing, 'The sky is falling! The sky is falling!' that you momentarily thought that you were either experiencing Deja Vu or a glitch in the Matrix and being flashed back a few years to when Al Gore first came out with An Inconvenient Truth, well, you can be forgiven.

Yes, we lost the election - badly.

No, it's not the end of the world as we know it (cue R.E.M...)

Strangely, some people on the right have been so badly shaken by a mere five point swing in the electorate that they have gone so far as to wonder whether the United States is even a centre-right country anymore! Don't worry, it is. But even if it wasn't, that wouldn't be the end of times; afterall, the GOP is the Party of free markets, so if the market for political ideology has changed, the GOP will adapt to meet the demand. Markets always have a funny way of working things like that out.

And the electoral crisis was not as bad as some people seem to think it was. The youth vote was not any higher than it has historically been (it only flipped Indiana and North Carolina for Obama), and even its complete absence would not have affected the ultimate outcome of the election. The turnout was not any higher than it was in 2004, when the GOP was the big winner; and the margin of defeat, given the political climate, was not at all as devastating as the media would have you believe.

More absurd - nay, most absurd - is this idea that the GOP lost the election because it has become something along the lines of 'too Christian;' with the suggestion being that the GOP needs to get rid of its Evangelical, social conservatives before it can move on to bigger and better things. Well, pardon me, but this sounds like a suggestion that we're supposed to extend our life span by cutting off our own head. The only reason the GOP had any semblance of power to lose in this election in the first place is because of the Evangelical movement. It's no coincidence, folks, that both Reagan and the Evangelical movement rose to prominence in the 1980s - the two were intimately connected. Social conservatives make up the most reliable, and possibly largest, voting block the GOP has, and putting them out to pasture would be nothing more than a sure-fire route to an even smaller minority.

Nevertheless, the GOP's problems can be traced, in some ways, to the Evangelical movement - although not necessarily through any fault of theirs. You see, for the last several years, in part thanks to President Bush - although I think he's become more a scapegoat than anything else - the GOP has become maniacally single-minded. Either we were talking about and fighting for the War in Iraq, and only Iraq, or we were talking about gay marriage and only gay marriage. In other words, the GOP has spent recent years focusing mainly on a few issues, at the great expense of others.

Thanks to President Bush's self-designation as a 'compassionate' conservative, the primary focus of the last 8 years has been social issues, and the results have been superb. Two excellent Judges, the partial-birth abortion ban, as well as several other, smaller steps towards the overturn of Roe v. Wade. And ditto on gay marriage; heck, even in this election, a gay marriage ban passed in California. The GOP has devoted great efforts to these issues and, largely, won the battles. This fact is particularly true for Iraq as, thanks to Republicans in the Senate and the President, the retreat was never sounded with the result being an emerging victory.

There is no great shame, as some in the GOP seem to think, in having succeeded, ironically enough, to the very point that those issues became irrelevant to voters in the '08 elections.

Of course, in working so hard on these issues, the GOP managed to neglect, uh, well, most everything else; particularly fiscal conservatism. And while I'm on the subject, let me echo the sentiments of P.J O'Rourke in advising the collective Party that fiscal responsibility is not just cutting taxes - any old fool can do that. It's a combination of cutting taxes, reducing spending, eliminating waste, decreasing corruption and balancing budgets.

And on those counts, just 1/5 ain't o.k.

The same could be said of healthcare, Social security, and a whole host of other issues which the Republican Party has basically forgotten about in recent years.

So what's it all mean? Well, the Republican Party has a multitasking problem. That's right, for all our supposed business acumen, we Republicans seem to have forgotten how to do something as basic as managing all the items on our own daily planners. You can't govern on just one or two important issues; indeed, single-issue parties have a history of becoming, well, history. Consequently, this is what Republicans must change between now and November 2010 (to say nothing of November 2012). They must learn to deal with all of the issues that voters are concerned about. And yes, you annoying-ass, beltway-bred, cocktail Republicans that includes continuing to stand up for socially conservative values on behalf of us crazy-ass-backwards Southerners (who, by the way, excluding the apostates in North Carolina and Virginia, are the only people you can really count on right now...).

So there you have it, my quick GOP-recovery plan. It doesn't involve performing CPR, or some kind of Buddhist retreat, just a little bit of common sense. Learn to multitask, and show the American people that you can simultaneously govern like adults and care about all of their various issues.

And one last thing - stop blaming Sarah Palin. She was the best damn thing that happened to this ticket. How some of these idiots keep going around talking about how the GOP has to totally change its image while simultaneously cursing our use of a female, from Alaska (who actually balanced her budget...), with a track record of battling corruption and getting things done as the VP candidate is beyond me. I mean, seriously, do these people not realize what the exact problems with the GOP, that they're complaining about, are? All of the things that we need changed in Washington are the exact things she's managed to do as Governor in Alaska. Open your eyes people!

Hell, come to think of it, maybe, before trying to bring back the Grand Old Party, we ought to boot out the idiots first.

Whose Money Is It?

2008-11-19T12:13:00.004-05:00

The money phrase from the Congressman is right up front:

Hear that? It's not your money - its Congress'. And they're going to do what they damn well please with it.

Incidentally, the Congressman claiming that the bailout money is the copyrighted property of Congress caucuses with the, ahem, Republican Party.

And these people wonder why they keep getting smashed in elections....

Post-Mortem

2008-11-05T20:17:00.003-05:00

Well, let's be honest, we all kind of knew that this could turn out to be a really....bad day - and so it has. First off, congrats Barack, you won and have now probably inspired a whole new generation of African-Americans (among others) to actually give a damn about politics and their country. That's no small feat.

Second off, the good news (what little of it there is): Namely, that Democratic gains in both the House and the Senate were not as severe as forecasted. The minimum number of House seats the GOP was supposed to lose was 24; at this point it looks like we'll lose either 19 or 20. Not good, for sure, but not catastrophic either.

In the Senate, the Democrats are going to fail to get their 60 seat supermajority. We already have 40 seats, with four results still pending. In Georgia, assuming he stays above 50% when the last 1% of precincts report in, Saxby Chambliss will retain his seat. Norm Coleman has already eked out a narrow victory in Minnesota, but law requires it go to a recount before being made official due to the razor-thin margin. In Oregon, Gordon Smith, surprisingly, has a chance to hold onto his seat, for (as I write this) 76% of the vote is in and he is virtually tied with his Democratic opponent at 47%. And finally, in what has to be the most interesting result of the evening, it appears GOP Senator Ted Stevens, he of the 7 felony convictions, will win his re-election bid. In all likelihood the Senate will kick him out when it reconvenes, and then Gov. Palin will pick a replacement to serve for 2 months until a special election is held. With the right pick (Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell!!), this seat should stay in the GOP column.

Nevertheless folks, start battening down the hatches - for the countdown to Jimmy Carter Deux is on!

On a more personal note, let me now thank Senator McCain and Governor Palin for their campaign; as it was an honor and a pleasure to volunteer on their behalf, even if it was, ultimately, a losing effort. Theirs was probably the most uphill campaign any Presidential candidate has ever had to run - and that includes when Gerald Ford ran with Nixon's resignation hanging around his neck. As I said back before the South Carolina GOP primary, there was no Republican candidate who could have done better, win or lose, in this election than John McCain. If McCain couldn't win this election, no Republican could have. The fact that he ever even had a chance is a testament to the man and his determination. It hasn't always been the best-run or most effective of campaigns; but, in my mind, it will forever be associated with the masterstroke of Sarah Palin.

Don't forget her, folks. As Ahnuld would say, she'll be back; and I really believe that she will one day be my President. And Governor, whenever you do decide to run again, you've got my (S.C Primary) vote - and, rest assured, I'll be ready and willing to work my ass off for you.

But now let's get back to good ol' Johnny Mac. As you may know, I haven't always agreed with the man, on both style and substance, but I have come to respect him immensely over the last few months. As I watched him giving his concession speech last night, and listened to him talk for one last time about his country, I realized something; and that's simply that they just don't make many Men like that anymore - and it's a damn shame.

His has been a life of hard knocks, one of ups and downs, and yet one with the kind of rugged character that we have come to expect from those in his generation. Above all, however, his has been a life about self-sacrifice for greater and more important causes.

Country First. I hope one day I understand that as well as he does.

His Name Is Ahhnuld....

2008-10-31T23:04:00.003-04:00

...and he is here to pump you up:

If you want any more reason to shut off the TV and ignore the media, read this post by a former Hillary (now, McCain) supporter on how the Obama campaign is able to use the media to its advantage. Bottom line, go out and vote.

P.S. Just across the wires (as they say), the daily Zogby Poll: McCain 48 - Obama 47

On Healthcare in '08

2008-10-28T00:01:00.002-04:00

So far in this election, John McCain has not been particularly good at deflecting the Obama campaign's attacks and, in some cases, outright lies about his proposed policies, to the detriment of McCain's campaign. Perhaps the single best example of this phenomenon is the issue of healthcare; on which Obama, who has what amounts to Socialized Medicine as his plan, has somehow managed to gain the upper ground. So, in the interest of clearing the air, lets take a new look at these 2 Candidates Healthcare proposals.

First up is Senator McCain, whose healthcare plan, despite what Senator Obama may say, is actually an excellent plan that will help to reduce the cost of healthcare both to you and the government that your tax dollars finance. However, given that I am somewhat lazy, and also rather busy these days, I will, in the interest of time, direct you to an excellent article which effectively analyzes McCain's plan: here's the link. Also, if you want to do some more reading, you should certainly check out the McCain/Palin (emphasis on the Palin) website, where they dig in and disprove all of the various smears that the Obama camp has directed towards their plan (link here).

However, lazy and time-pressed though I may be, I do want to go through a few crucial aspects of the Obama healthcare plan myself; if only because, for some strange reason, I sadly neglected to mock the Obamarama plan for healthcare catastrophe during the Democratic primaries, paying attention only to the Hillary and Edwards versions. So let's get to it.

In the very first bullet point of his helathcare plan (straight from the campagin website), Obama states his intention to mandate that insurance companies give "all Americans, regardless of their health status or history [] comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums." Lovely. Who doesn't want to help out sick people, right? Unfortunately, what this idea reveals is that, apparently, Obama does't understand what, exactly, health insurance, well, is.

Allow me to explain: Health Insurance consists of an insurance company, essentially, making a bet with you that you won't get sick. Thus, the more likely you are to get sick, the higher your health insurance will likely be. This is not because the insurance companies are mean, evil bastards, but rather because the likelihood of a sickly person getting sick (and thus the insurance company losing the bet and having to shell out dough for hospital bills) is fairly high. Consequently, mandating, as Obama wishes to do, that insurance companies must make what will, essentially, amount to sure-loss bets, will only drive up the cost of everyone else's health insurance, since the insurers will be looking for ways to cover the losses they are almost certain to incur on these high-risk patients.

The second scary part of the Obama healthcare plan comes from his desire to "[require] large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care." In other words, more government mandates on private companies. This time, however, he wants to force companies to offer their employees a type of benefit.

Think about that for a second; he's going to force people to give their employees benefits. Never mind that benefits are not a necessary part of any job, but rather one of many things that employers can offer, if they so choose, to entice people to work for them. In other words, as I've said time and again here, if an employee wants benefits, like healthcare, he should become employed by a company that offers them - not have the government step in an mandate such a thing. Moreover, this aspect of the Obama plan assumes that the choice of the employees themselves on the matter of their own health insurance is irrelevant. After all, what if the employee doesn't want to get his health insurance through his employer, since he or she changes jobs often, and would rather have a larger paycheck with which to purchase a private insurance policy? Or, better yet, what if an employee of one of these large companies doesn't want health insurance at all? I suppose the answer to such queries, in terms of the Obama plan, is something akin to that of the aforementioned John Edwards healthcare plan: "you don't get that choice."

In any case, the final major area of concern in the health care plan of our Lord, The Messiah, Barack Obama the Holy One, is the area where his roots and true colors as a believer in socialized medicine shine through. It is the creation of what he dubs "a National Health Insurance Exchange." In this proposal, after making all the appropriate political nods to private insurance, the Obama plan includes the creation of "a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage." In other words, while he's driving up the cost of private insurance and employment-based coverage with all these government mandates, he's going to be offering you a really, really cheap program that the government will pay for.

Perhaps, you see where this is going, huh?

Basically, since the government can keep its health insurance prices artificially low (thanks to the Treasury backing they will receive), people are going to naturally drift towards the government-run healthcare since it's going to be the cheapest option around. It is, admittedly, a rather well-laid trap; but still, it is one which ultimately will lead to more and more people relying on the government dole for their health insurance - but hey, no worries, Obama's going to roll back the Bush tax cuts and refuse to cut any of your other taxes, so there should hopefully be enough money for it, right? So hey, when Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security all go broke, at least you'll still have your French-style healthcare around!

What it all adds up to is this: the Obama healthcare plan is nothing more than a massive government interference in the private market, and one which will cost our flat-out-broke government to incur large and increasing additional costs every year. Furthermore, it is also one which will hand the government an increasing degree of control over your healthcare.

I know Obama is too slick to ever use the term himself, but that sounds an awful lot like Socialized Medicine to me.

Of course, on the other hand, you have John McCain's healthcare plan; which will place an emphasis on giving you, as an individual (independent, even, of your employer), a greater degree of choice, not cost the government increasingly large sums of money, and potentially help to reduce the long-term costs of both Medicare and Medicaid. The choice shouldn't be that hard.

So vote for 'Medical Capitalism.' Vote McCain/Palin.

Vote For Your Self-Esteem

2008-10-27T23:15:00.003-04:00

Recently, I was talking with a friend of mine about the Presidential race, among other political topics; and during this conversation I finally realized what the true essence of the Barack Obama Presidential campaign is, and why it's so inherently offensive to me. In the past, both on this site and off, I have relished the all-too-frequent opportunity to chastise America's Airport Security policies post-9/11. After terrorists took advantage of our airports and airlines to successfully execute the worst terrorist attack in American History, our response was to make people feel safer without making them, in any real way, actually safer. Instead of doing security checks into people with suspect backgrounds or questionable behaviors, we take away your toothpaste and make sure the name on your ID (which surely couldn't be faked....) matches the one on your ticket. In other words, if ever a moron tries to execute a terror attack on the United States of America - we will catch his dumbass!!

But I digress.

Besides, as noted above, I'm not here to bitch about how, as a general rule, over 60% of the test runs conducted by the FBI manage to successfully smuggle various illegal items past the TSA; no, I want to talk about the great Lord Messiah Obamarama. You see, I realized that I so viscerally dislike his campaign because it is, essentially, operating along the exact same lines as all of those faux security measures we enacted after 9/11. In other words, the great godsend of Hope n' Change is, like its airport security counterpart, designed, not with an eye towards common sense or logical policy, but with the acknowledged goal of making you feel better about yourself (and, in the case of Obama, politics). The analogy further holds when we consider that, in both cases, the long-term effects are most definitely bad for your country.

I mean, just look at his major campaign slogans; 'Hope' and 'Change'. Both of them promote the idea that Obama is a good candidate primarily because his Presidency will, well, make you happier and more proud of yourself. Basically, he wants you to vote for him because it will improve your self-esteem.

Awesome. That means that, with a President Barack Obama, we're going to get the chance to take the biggest educational problem of the last thirty years, the emphasis on children's self-esteem over their actual academic progress, and see if it can fail catastrophically as a governing strategy too!

Damn. I'm just.... so. frickin. excited.

Alas, folks, that's exactly what the Obama campaign has become to people across this country, a means of emotional expression that they have never quite had before. It's a campaign where the young and idealistic can encounter someone as naive and idealistic about the real world as their own sheltered selves. It's where the ageing hippies of the 60s can finally see a candidate who seems to believe that peace, love, and a few trips on LSD can change the world for the better. It's where....well, you get the idea

This is not to say that Obama doesn't have policy proposals; its just that, unfortunately, such things take a distant backseat to the emotional crap we mentioned above when it comes to the Obama campaign. Indeed, if you need more proof, just ask an Obama supporter why you should vote for him; you'll probably get an answer along the lines of how Obama is going to usher in a new era of 'Post-racial' politics, or 'Post-partisanship,' or 'a renewed faith in ourselves,' or, above all, a 'New Era of Politics.'

Now, even if we are to put aside for a moment the fact that there is nothing at all in Obama's record that would indicate to us that he is capable of such things, and assume that all of these things should be the ultimate goal of the next President of the United States; one is compelled to point out that, while sounding nice, such things are nearly impossible to translate into genuine strategies of governance - which is what Obama would have to do should he, in fact, become President.

But hey, who am I kidding? All of those things sound good, right? And I'll bet they make you feel good too, huh?

Gingrich Compares Media To Pravda

2008-10-23T18:41:00.004-04:00

Newt goes Hydrogen-Bomb level nuclear on the News Media:

That, folks, is about 500 layers of pure awesomeness (Pravda!!!) - not to mention honesty. Indeed, aside from FOX News, every single one of the major media outlets and newspapers has been so blatantly biased towards Senator Obama that it goes beyond simple dishonesty and shame. As Newt points out, these people want Obama to win so badly that they are willing to go to any length to try and make that happen.

To quote Mark Twain:

"Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media, for they will steal your honor. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse."

Vote McCain/Palin.

The Wonderful World of Barack Obama Supporters

2008-10-13T12:31:00.004-04:00

You may or may not care for Howard Stern, but this is just brilliant - and sad, I suppose.

And no worries, there's (surprisingly) no vulgarity:

Ain't Identity Politics grand!

What's really sad is that they didn't ask these idiots about some complex aspect of Barack Obama's healthcare or tax plan; they asked them about something as f-ing obvious as his running mate or his support for the Iraq War. Say what you will about redneck bible-thumpers, but at least they're able to recognize whether their candidate is pro-life or pro-choice...

On Socialized Medicine

2008-09-27T22:20:00.004-04:00

***The following is an article I wrote for a publication here at school. I thought I'd put it up here too, particularly since it deals with one of this blog's favorite topics. However, be forewarned, I ripped off a few lines from myself, so you might recognize one or two of the sentences.***

One of the most important, consistently discussed issues in American election-year politics over the past several years would, in my view, have to be that of Health Care. Furthermore, insofar as this particular issue is concerned, an increasing number of Americans seem to favor the introduction of some kind of “Universal Health Care” program. However, in my estimation, such a program is nothing more than a thinly-veiled offering of socialized medicine, and thus, like its counterparts in Europe, Canada and other ‘western’ nations, an inherently bad idea. Certainly supporters of “Universal Healthcare” want to differentiate their programs from socialized medicine – for they remember the catastrophic downfall of Hillary Care’s 1990’s inauguration – but let’s be honest, any system which requires hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and contains mandates for either employers, insurance companies, hospitals, Doctors, or regular folks is a socialized system. As, to the best of my knowledge, there is only one organization in the country which can grant such sums of money, without so much as a thought, and easily gain the compliance of the various actors mentioned in “universal healthcare” proposals.

No bonus points if you guess what it is.

Yet, putting the labeling deception of its proponents aside for a second, let’s turn to something that even the supporters of universal healthcare admit: these plans will cost money. No one is entirely sure where all of the money will come from, but they just assume it will be found. Never mind the fact that even the current government-run, but much less inclusive, Medicare and Medicaid programs are over budget and running out of funding. Never mind the fact that raising taxes on the rich or eliminating Earmarks would account for only a small increase in revenue; or that the government is already running a multi-trillion dollar deficit – we’ll figure it out.

However, as we sit on the eve of a massive $700 Billion bailout, we have to be, if we want to be sensible and realistic about our generation’s financial future, looking for ways to significantly decrease the amount of money that our government spends. Saying we can add this or that expenditure and still make things work out is about as reasonable as Napoleon’s decision to invade Russia. Nevertheless, as problematic as the financial burdens of this system may be, they are, in my view, the least worrisome of the three major issues that a socialized medical system brings to the table.

One of the major faults of a socialized medical system was perhaps best illustrated by Rudy Giuliani’s quip during the primary debates that Canadians would have nowhere to go for treatment if Americans were to socialize healthcare. While many perhaps saw this as an allusion to the waiting lines that often develop in places like Canada, it is more enlightening when thought of in terms of healthcare quality. Europeans and Canadians, despite the “free” nature of their own systems, often do come to the United States; because, simply put, the American healthcare system and its Doctors are more likely to cure them than their own socialized systems. Indeed, across the board in terms of things like cardiovascular disease and cancer, the United States healthcare system has consistently higher cure rates than its more socialized (or should I say more ‘Universal’) counterparts. And this is despite the fact that, due to skyrocketing obesity rates, Americans are, comparably, more likely to get these diseases in the first place.

In my mind, this has and always should be the goal of a healthcare system: to cure the highest possible percentage of the sick. Worrying about paying for an expensive cancer treatment certainly is a big issue, but receiving free treatment for cancer, in which the quality is so low that it won’t keep you alive, is a bigger issue. Thus, as any good capitalist will understand, they key to improving the American system will lie in our ability to reduce government interference in the Doctor-Patient interaction and to increase the competitiveness of the market. This combination will increase the quality of the services provided by Healthcare professionals and decrease the cost. Afterall, the highest quality healthcare in the world at a reasonable cost is a much more laudable goal than 100% coverage and inferior quality care.

However, leaving aside cost and quality for a moment, there is one other major, philosophical, problem with socialized medicine. Any “universal” system is also, as proponents will happily tell you, all-encompassing. It makes sure that the things you need are both done and provided for you. A fact which ultimately makes it another in a long line of ill-conceived, nanny-state programs that result in the removal a populace from its own sense of personal responsibility and the often times harsh realities of life (and its finances). When this estrangement between the individual and responsibility occurs, people no longer become accountable to the consequences of making a bad choice. Furthermore, by deferring such accountability and, indeed, personal choices to the government, you also defer an aspect of your freedom to the government. This is because the kind of freedom espoused and celebrated by our Founding Fathers becomes quaintly irrelevant if it comes without responsibility and consequences – as the concepts are inextricably linked.

This fact is why ‘Universal Healthcare,’ in addition to its terrific costs and inferior quality, is an unconscionable solution to the flaws in American Healthcare. For any system that's ‘all-encompassing’ is simultaneously all-controlling; and when crucial aspects of your life have government controls on them, you don't have near as much freedom.

Doing Stalin Proud

2008-09-22T17:58:00.002-04:00

Well, it seems more or less official at this point, the Federal Government of the United States has decided to dip into the ~~treasury fund~~ your tax dollars and offer up $1 Trillion to help bail out all of these companies that have been floundering over the last few weeks. That's right, $1 Trillion - the same amount we've spent over the last 5 years fighting the War in Iraq - all in just a few weeks.

I know, not what you voted for either, huh?

Well, I was going to write a little blurb on why I don't like this massive bailout plan, but then I came across this audio of Judge Andrew Napolitano, of FOX News, ranting on this very topic. So I'll just have you listen to his rant instead - it's brilliant:

Indeed. However, before I go, let me just put in one quick word of my own. It should be noted that part of the reason all of these companies have been failing in the first place is because of the idiotic policy of what amounts to corporate welfare. In recent years, big American companies have gotten used to government bailouts - whenever they go just a little bit to far, the government is there to help them out, and make sure they don't totally collapse - what we're seeing this week is new only in the sheer scale on which it's being done. The problem is that by continually bailing out companies, big or small, the government creates a welfare net that these companies can (and have) come to rely on.

As a result, these companies have become fairly certain that, if they screw up, the government will be there to offer a helping hand. Consequently, they can continue to take bigger and bigger risks, risks that they probably wouldn't take if they had to operate entirely on their own, which result in them getting into massive financial messes like the ones taking center stage this week.

It is, if you will, Corporate America's replica of the catastrophe of the European welfare state.

Just as increasing social services to the point of absurdity (a.k.a Europe) causes one to lose a sense of responsibility about one's own life, this kind of corporate bailout program causes companies to forget what it's like to have to be responsible for one's own decisions and to have to deal with the consequences of poor ones. Bailing out people who make stupid choices, be it the crack addict on welfare or AIG, is not a solid foundation for economic prosperity; it is socialism, pure and simple.

In fact, come to think of it, AIG et. al. are a lot more like that welfare crack addict than you might think - the only difference is that AIG's drugs are legal.

McCain Gets It Right On Malpractice

2008-09-18T19:18:00.003-04:00

I was just watching a video over on CBS's website of a townhall that McCain and Palin did yesterday, and as I was listening I began to think; "you know, if I was at one of these things, I'd love to be able to ask McCain his opinion on Medical Malpractice Reform." Well, almost as soon as the thought had passed through my head, lo and behold, a young Doc from Grand Rapids steps up and asks Senator McCain that very question.

Here's the link, the question comes almost right at 13 minutes into the clip, so feel free to skip on ahead to it.

McCain, thankfully, understands that "absolutely, absolutely, we need to have medical malpractice reform" in the United States. He also rightly noted that this malpractice reform has "got to be part of any reform of helathcare in America." Indeed, he went on to call it "one of the most compelling issues" that we face. Amen. It's so nice to finally hear a politician say that, in order to truly reform our bloated, expensive, and expanding healthcare programs, we have got to focus on preventing Trial Lawyers from suing the very Doctors which that helathcare system relies on, out of business!

With Palin on the ticket, I'm already very much 'on-board,' so to speak, but if I needed any extra assurances, this good answer should do it. Indeed, one can only imagine what the Lord Messiah Obamarama, who once worked for a big Chicago law firm, thinks of possibly limiting the amount of frivolous lawsuits his trial lawyer buddies, such as the now-disowned John Edwards, could file against one of their favorite targets.

Quite Frankly My World, I Don't Give...

2008-09-13T22:54:00.002-04:00

The rest of the world just loves Barack Obama, did you know? Yes, folks, just like in 2004 when the rest of the world begged us to elect good ol' Waffles Kerry, the pre-US Presidential election poll of world opinion shocks, awes, and thoroughly astounds us all with the revelation that the rest of the world is in favor of electing the Obamarama. Indeed, to quote the survey's chairman, "Large numbers of people around the world clearly like what Barack Obama represents."

How they managed to figure out what, exactly, he represents, based on the meaningless political BS he spouts 24/7, is still unknown.

(Maybe there was some kind of secret code in that speech to ~~the 4th Reich~~ 200,000 adoring Germans, that us Americans couldn't understand, that told them what his real plans are.)

Thankfully, of course, not a single one of these people gets to actually vote in the November Elections. Nope, they have to sit back and watch while this mysterious "Republican voter" class of Americans does its best, over the next 7 weeks, to get another one of these Cowboy-ish types in the White House. (Ok, so John McCain doesn't exactly qualify as cowboy; I know, but we must play along with the International stereotypes).

Indeed, it must be frustrating for these people, especially the Europeans, to sit around, knowing they've got it all figured out, and see America vote, time and again, against their best judgment. No matter who/what/when/where, it seems, we're always voting and doing it wrong. Which, in my mind, brings up an interesting question: why is it that the rest of the world seems so intent on criticizing us for our, supposed, flaws? Afterall, we're the ones who have the strongest economy, the strongest military, the richest populace and the freest society that the world has ever seen. We've been, and still are, beating them - so why on earth would we want their advice? Better yet, put in terms the rest of the world might understand, would the Italian National soccer team, be soliciting the advice and imitating the in-game strategies of the American National soccer team? The 5-0 difference in number of World Cups won would seem to indicate, um, "no".

You see, this disconnect is the thing I'll never understand about the America-bashers, both here and abroad. They always seem to criticize America for how we do things differently from the rest of the world; however, the possibility that all the things we do differently directly correlate to why we're better, never. crosses. their. minds. Never mind the possibility that it's precisely because America has avoided European-esque politicians, like Barack Obama, that she has been able to become the greatest and most powerful Nation in world history. No, that just couldn't possibly be it; at least, not in the minds of Obama-loving foreigners.

Ultimately, of course, the rest of the world wants Obama to be President, not because they think he's the best choice for the citizens of the United States; but rather, because he's the best choice for them. Indeed, in the survey, an even greater majority of respondents believed that relations with the United States would improve under an Obama Presidency (as opposed to a McCain one). Now, the international, pro-Obama crowd would have you believe that this fact is due to the greater degree of 'soft power' (and friendlier diplomatic personality!) expertise that Obama would bring to the Oval Office. They're wrong. And they're wrong because 'soft power' simply does not exist independent of 'hard power' - the latter at which Obama both stinks and knows little of. The world wants Obama because they know getting concessions from the U.S.A will be easier under President Obama. They know he'll work in support of their agendas - and he'll do it all under the foolish guise of "making America a leader of the international community."

Because, apparently, winning both World Wars and the Cold War, being the only remaining superpower and having the most money and most powerful military didn't already earn us that position by default. Oh, no that's right, we have to be a moral leader in the international community - you know, like Germany - which is really rich coming from people who not only are moral relativists, but refuse to label Islamic Jihad as a violent evil.

Somehow, of course, lost in all this feel-good bullshit is the reality that, since the US is the world's one and only superpower, the rest of the international community's natural self-interest will inherently be served by reductions in American power. Any concession we make is their gain. Obama will make more of those concessions; therefore, they want Obama.

Moreover, in my experience there are only 3 reasons that countries deal with other countries; they either 1) want another country's money, 2) want the protection of their army, or 3) are scared of that army. This is why the world likes Obama, even if they don't/can't/won't admit it. Obama will make that army a lot less scary.

Overall, that's why American opinion usually diverges so sharply from the rest of the world on issues like these: we have different interests. (Hell, a lot of the people who vote for Obama in this country will be doing so for reasons that run counter to the brilliance of the International Intelligentsia.) We American voters, as a general rule, look out for and vote in the best interests of our country. We choose candidates who, we feel, will be better at making America continue to stand out from the rest of the international pack.

We like being different. And hey, it's worked out pretty darn well for us so far - don't ya' think?

You Gotta Love These SC Dems

2008-09-10T17:20:00.004-04:00

Earlier today, the Chair of the SC Democratic Party joined the long line of Democrats who are so freaked out by Sarah Palin that they just start tossing personal smears around like Santa would candy at Christmas. Quoth some idiotic woman who probably has far too much power over my own goddamn State Legislature:

[Palin's] primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.

Note to SC Democratic Party: We realize you're freaked out, shocked, surprised, concerned, yada, yada, yackity about Sarah Palin - but seriously, get over yourselves. McCain could have picked an f'in sweet potato as his running mate and he still would have won South Carolina.

That's what happens when ya'll nominate a hard left Euro-socialist who thinks we "cling" to guns and religion as your Presidential candidate. Afterall, we South Carolinians happen to like our guns and Bibles, thank you very much.

Moreover, in these remarks, which I guess must be Ms. Fowler's desperate attempt to remain relevant on the national Democratic scene, the lovely chairwoman also recycles the tired line about how Senator McCain made a mistake in picking Palin because she's not going to win him the female vote.

Sheesh, for the last time, Palin was not picked to win over disaffected Hillary voters still trying to rock the sisterhood! She was picked for people like me; Bible Thumpin', gun-totin', abortion hatin', uneducated, patriarch lovin', rednecks (hey, that's the way the international press has characterized us the last 2 weeks!) - in other words, Conservatives. Any disaffected Hillary voters Palin brings in are just a welcomed bonus.

Anyways, with that little rant out of the way, Ms. Fowler, you can go back to controlling my faux-Republican State Legislature now.

And Reagan Smiled...

2008-09-04T16:54:00.003-04:00

With Governor Sarah Palin's acceptance speech now behind us, I think we can all have full confidence in the fact that John McCain made the right pick for VP. Indeed, with one hell of a speech, her arrival on the National political scene has truly been announced, much to the (very apparent) chagrin of the liberal media.

Now this grocer's daughter and devoted mother who is despised by the press, has risen to become, more-or-less, the standard bearer for her Party.....er, no, wait, sorry. That grocer's daughter part belongs in Margaret Thatcher's life story, not Sarah Palin's; although I suppose you can probably understand why I might have gotten a little bit confused, eh? Yes folks, with what could only be described as an 'iron' resolve and assured sense of self that must have surely made the Iron Lady, herself, proud, Mrs. Palin not only stood up to her detractors in the media and in the Obama campaign in her speech last night; but coolly mocked them - and practically dared them to pick more fights with her.

They had derided her experience as a small-town Mayor, so she gave them a quick lesson in what Mrs. Thatcher must have meant when she commented on how interesting it was "that the things that [she] learned in a small town, in a very modest home, [were] just the things that," in her mind, "[had] won the election" for her Conservative Party.

They have harpooned her family, and the perfectly normal ups and downs it has been through recently, so she stood up for them, proudly; perhaps with a little bit better understanding of what Maggie meant by stating that a "woman who understands the problems of running a home [would] be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country."

Furthermore, and to get away from the Margaret Thatcher quote references for a second, she got in several great shots at Barack Obama, laying into his inexperience, a man who, having already been pulverized by Palin warm-up act Rudy Gulliani, must have been feeling pretty beat up after last night.

But let's get back to those Thatcher comparisons for a second, shall we? The comparisons work for several reasons. First, Palin's got a willingness to take on the establishment for the sake of reform that resembles the one Prime Minister Thatcher had when she brought down Great Britain's crippling Union beauracracy. She also has this unique ability to frighten her opponents in much the same way Margaret Thatcher scared the living daylights out of people like (former French President) Francois Mitterrand. Moreover, Governor Palin also seems to posses the confidence that comes from knowing ones political actions are rooted firmly in sound political principle. Finally, and most importantly, she's got a toughness that perhaps even Ronald Reagan lacked - that being, I suppose, the toughness that comes from being a woman playing what has, historically, been very much a man's game.

Put simply, Mrs. Palin has served notice that she is here to stay, that she will not be done away with easily, and the she will be a force for conservatism in American politics. However, to be fair, much as I love Mrs. Palin, she has a long way to go before she actually becomes the second coming of Margaret Thatcher. That, as the Iron Lady would certainly point out, can only come when she has consistently delivered, on a national level, the results that she has so far managed to produce on both the local and State levels. Nevertheless, as we saw last night and have seen throughout the last week, the tools, drive and stubborn will necessary to accomplish the, undoubtedly difficult, tasks she has set herself are all there. The conservative movement in America may have just found what it has been looking for in recent years - although we will have to find a new metal to start her nickname with, since Iron is already taken.

Maybe gold will do; afterall, that's what Americans went to Alaska to find in the first place, right? And her speech last night certainly stood out, much they way gold always has, to the ~~30 million-some-odd~~ 37.2 million (!) people who watched it. But then, the 'Golden Lady' just doesn't seem to me like it will strike fear in the hearts of media-idiots all across America quite the way it should. And given their collective level of intellectual prowess, perhaps it really is only fair that they receive an appropriate warning for someone like Governor Palin.

Although, you know, come to think of it, even those in the media should have been able to pick up on the signs that came out of her speech last night. Indeed, I think it's safe to say that, after last night, Sarah Palin's critics in the Media, and those on both the Left and even on the Right, have been sufficiently warned: this Lady, is definitely not for turning.

Obamination - The Song

2008-08-29T22:03:00.003-04:00

Both hilarious and spot on:

Co-written and performed by a friend of mine - and worth putting out there.

And, yes, it really is available on iTunes...

An Outstanding Choice

2008-08-29T16:30:00.006-04:00

It's official; I no longer have to vote for John McCain - I want to!! Earlier today, Senator McCain made the decision of a lifetime by selecting Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, as his running mate. Aside from shrewdly knocking Senator Obama's acceptance speech right out of the headlines, Senator McCain, I think, has accomplished more than he could have ever hoped for with this excellent VP pick.

In selecting his VP, there were 2 main things that McCain needed to do; first, he had to reassure his Conservative base that he wasn't deserting them for the General Election, and, second, he had to maintain the image he has as a reformer, and thus, as an appealing candidate to moderates. Palin accomplishes both of these tasks for him, plus a little more. (Indeed, perhaps the only pick that could have been better was Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a man who made clear from the get-go that he was in no way interested in the #2 spot.)

Insofar as the first is concerned, look no further than my opening sentence, above. Conservatives everywhere are excited about this pick; McCain didn't just reassure them, he energized them. The Evangelical/Social Con community - which was the base of the Bush/Cheney '04 victory - has been buzzing all day about the selection of Palin. This is huge for McCain because it adds an important element to his campaign in which he has, thus far, been sorely trailing the Obamessiah in: Grassroots networks. Afterall, the root of the Karl Rove strategy was always to simply turn out as many Republican voters as was humanly possible and hope it was enough. That massive 'ground game'/grassroots machinery is still around; the problem, up until now, for McCain has been that it was run by the SocialCons, and thus, didn't really want to go to work for him. Now it will happily do so. Consequently, that huge advantage Mr. HopeChangeandSunshine has had from "energizing" new, young voters is now gone; as the SocialCons not only begin to make up that gap, but bring the operational experience and knowledge that they gained in the successful 2004 campaign. This grassroots participation could be essential in a swing state like Ohio, where McCain will need all the help he can get, come November.

While I'm on the subject of Mr. HopeChange, let me note that the Palin pick also provides an interesting area of contrast to him on the second area I mentioned: furthering the message of reform. In his speech last night, Obama kept constantly referring to the change he wants to bring to Washington by repeatedly used phrases like, "I will..", "I am going to..", and "I promise that..."; on the other hand, in her introduction speech today, Mrs. Palin kept using phrases like "I have..", "I did..", and "I am..." - note the difference in tense there. Mrs. Palin reinforces the message of reform because she, like Senator McCain, has an actual record of fighting corruption and waste. She's already been doing it, and is continuing to do that, right now, in Alaska. In fact, fighting corruption and waste, within her own Party, is how she made a name for herself and rose to the Governor's Office in the first place. Contrast that with Senator Obama who rose to prominence thanks to the Daley's Chicago Political Machine and has spent his time in elected office, uh, making speeches and running for President.

The contrast couldn't be more obvious.

Finally, there is one other thing that the selection of Palin does that will have a lasting impact on the American political scene; whether intending to or not, McCain has changed the future of the Republican Party and set it back on track. Indeed, the choice of Palin indicates the rise of a new generation of Republicans - a generation which comes with an entirely new direction from the big-spending, big-government 'Pubs we've come to know the last few years. This is because, at her core, Palin is, like Bobby Jindal, a reformer; she's interested in fighting corruption, reducing spending (and not just taxes), eliminating waste, and empowering individuals. In other words, and take note here Obamarama, real and useful change. She believes in limited Government not just because she thinks saying so will get her re-elected, but because she's seen the terrible excesses and awful consequenses of what happens when it's not limited and wants to prevent them from happening.

Bobby Jindal now has some welcomed help in the role of Party savior that has been thrust upon him, for Mrs. Palin is a game-changer, in the very best sense of the words.

Kudos to John McCain for making one hell of a pick.

The Obamessiah

2008-07-26T22:02:00.004-04:00

Hilarious:

Although, in reality, it's a bit scary given that, well, that's the way all of his ~~supporters~~followers really do look at him. Kindda creepy, too.

On Political Islam & Globalization

2008-07-26T20:51:00.001-04:00

When thinking of political Islam, the first think that comes to my mind is the fallacy that many people believe when they assume that it is in some way a new phenomenon. Since it began back in the 600’s Islam has always been inherently political, as it spread across the Arab world not through grassroots action but rather by top-down conquest. This type of spread can be deemed political because the primary definition of ‘the State’ is, simply, 'legalized force;' and thus, we can say that Islam came to today’s Muslim world via the enterprises of the State.

Now, in the time since the original Islamic conquests, Islam has remained, more-or-less, within the Muslim world (although not for lack of trying) and thus, the only part of the world that Muslims were familiar with was Islamic. And, naturally, the governments there were Islamic and the society was Islamic. In other words, without the interconnections of today's world, the 'world' as nearly all Muslims knew it was as perfectly Islamic as it, perhaps, could have been. However, with the arrival of the information age and the immediateness brought by globalization, the Islamic world began to shrink and come in much closer contact with the rest of the world. With this increased awareness of the non-Islamic world around it, Islam had to take on a new international, or even supra-national, form in order to maintain its political dominance over Islamic peoples.

Part of the reason it became necessary for political Islam to evolve in the face of globalization was the need to combat the new ideas that flowed in over satellite television sets (etc., etc.) from liberal democracies like the United States. Ideas like freedom of the press and human rights and equality before law presented a challenge to the old Islamic political order because this order is very much illiberal in the Western/Enlightenment sense of the word. Indeed, Islam, as historically constructed, is not only political but, within that political (and societal) structure, directly contradictory to nearly all the basic tenants of 'Western' society as it has been constructed post-Enlightenment; and this is primarily because there is no clear distinction between the secular and the sacred within Islamic society.

Thus, what many in the West, and seemingly some within the Islamic world as well, want is for Islam to have a ‘Reformation,’ of sorts, which will enable Islamic-majority countries to become more compatible with liberal democracy; and thus, by extension, come to possess a great number of human rights and freedoms not found under old-style Islamic regimes. What the goal of this reformation ought to be is the introduction of a genuine division between the secular and the sacred within Islamic society. Only with the creation of a separate, secular, public sector of life can true liberal democratic principles be allowed to flourish and Islam become adapted to the modern world around it.

In my mind, this seems to be the ultimate question that is being answered right now in Iraq: whether or not an Islamic society is, in fact, capable of such a transformation. Indeed, right now there seems to be nothing against the proposition that, 'if Iraq is incapable of stabilizing into some kind of a democratic society, even if it is in a somewhat bastardized form, then Islam itself might be incapable of doing so.' Put more simply, Iraq will tell us whether or not Islam is capable of a 'Reformation.' The question cuts even deeper than this for Islam, as without these changes political Islam, and thus Islamic countries, will remain handicapped within the International community, unable to efficiently tap into the economic benefits of modern society.

The modern political Islamic movement, what's been called Radical Islam, is a response against all of these things. It is a movement which hopes to preserve the traditional role of Islam as the authoritative voice of politics within Islamic nations. Without this divide into secular and sacred Islam retains a great degree of control over politics and thus over the Islamic subjects under said Islamic governments. Put another way, modern governments open people up to other ideas and other faiths; and a large part of Islam is insecure enough in the power of its own message to feel the need to react by trying desperately to prop up and maintain the old power structure.

Consequently, if the Radical Islamists we face in places like Iraq and Afghanistan are indeed, as I have claimed, reactionaries hoping to protect the traditional place of Islam within politics and society, then the key to defeating them lies, as I have often claimed, in the support of things like Democracy in Islamic countries. These things, if successful, will shatter the traditional role of Islam within politics; and if liberal, Western, and Modern principles and ideas become accepted within the political system, then they can slowly become accepted within Islamic society as well.

The Unique Strengths Of John McCain

2008-05-14T23:41:00.003-04:00

I'll be honest, the thought of John McCain as the Republican Presidential nominee doesn't excite me near as much as I suppose it should. I disagree with him on several issues, including such things as immigration and global warming. However, all those political differences aside, the more I think about it, the more I've come to realize that McCain is the perfect candidate for the Republicans in 2008. No matter how hard they searched, the GOP would not have been able to find a candidate better suited or more likely to give them a victory in November. This is not to say that he will, in fact, win this November, but rather to say that no one would have been able to do better, as the Republican Presidential nominee in 2008, than John McCain will, win or lose, do. In my mind, this is the largely the case due to the following 3 reasons.

1. He's a very media savvy politician. Much as it may disgruntle staunch conservatives, McCain's past status as a media darling with the traditional mainstream media outlets has given him a better knowledge of the media's modus operandi than almost any other Republican out there. Witness his response to the New York Times' attempt, earlier this year, to smear him with rumors of an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist, where he got out front of the story and managed to make the Times look even more foolish than it normally does and gain some brownie points with that oft-estranged conservative base. In an election where he will likely face Barack Obama, a true media-darling, McCain's skill at managing and manipulating the media will be a huge campaign asset.

2. His Reputation. Like it or not, one of the unique things about the United States, in comparison to most other countries, is that we tend to have very few political radicals. Much to the chagrin of many hard-core conservatives (and liberals), most Americans do, in fact, tend to be 'in the middle' or at least have strong centrist tendencies - and John McCain fits the bill of what many of these folks are looking for almost to a T. He is an independent/moderate Republican with a reputation for getting things done; and voters know this, and like it. Indeed, it's quite ironic that, in an election cycle where so much attention has been focused on "change," one of McCain's biggest strengths will undoubtedly the lengthy résumé of his political career. To put it another way, Americans seems to, for whatever reason, view John McCain as an 'Experienced Agent of Change,' if you will; and so, all of the reservations that they may have otherwise had about a guy with as long and detailed of a résumé as his, they simply will not have about McCain.

3. The constant criticism He receives from fellow Republicans. Yes, my good conservative friends, the more you keep criticising McCain, the more likely you make it that he will win in November. Indeed, this November, as the House GOP leaders seem to have just figured out earlier today, Republicans are going to have a good-ol'-fashion-can of whoop ass opened up on them in the Congressional elections. They're going to lose a few more seats in the Senate and take big losses in the House; moreover, it's a trend that's likely to continue right on down the line to local elections as well. The reason for this is that the GOP 'brand,' as we refer to it in politics, had been badly damaged. Lots of folks are going to be going to the polls this November saying to themselves "I just can't take more of the Republicans" and thus pulling the lever for the Democrats. Therefore, the more John McCain is seen as being different from or, in some cases, downright hostile to, that brand, the more likely he is to win. As McCain continues to receive criticism from other Republicans for not being conservative enough, he not only continues to pad his aforementioned reputation as an Independent, but, more importantly, he is also able to further distance himself from all of the brand-issues the GOP is going to be having in November.

In my opinion, these three factors, taken in combination, make John McCain a very formidable General Election candidate for the 2008 Presidential race - in spite of the many things he will have going against him. Indeed, I actually believe that McCain has a fairly decent chance to win the Presidency, particularly when one couples his characteristics as a person and candidate with the ugly mess that the Democratic Primary has become. Moreover, I think that, contrary to what I would have assumed just a few weeks ago, Obama (who, for all intents and purposes, will eventually be the Dem nominee) actually makes an easier General Election opponent. Crazy, I know, given Hillary's Everest-sized negatives, but between his recent gaffes and Hillary's continuing, remind-the-Reagan-Democrats-why-they-once-voted-Republican campaign, Obama seems much more vulnerable to me now than he once did.

I know, I know, Obamarama still has his magically-invincible HopeChangeLoveandPuppies thing going on, but John McCain has ready all the tools to give him one hell of a fight.

A Unique Commencement

2008-05-04T15:26:00.004-04:00

Man, I hope that when I graduate, we have a commencement speaker that is as good as P.J O'Rourke. Writing in the LA Times today, he offered his own version of a commencement address. Instead of encouraging young graduates to go out and 'follow their dreams' and try to 'change the world' he offers more practical advice; telling them to go out and get rich, forget about 'fairness,' and learn the true meaning of the 10th Commandment.

Indeed. To quote his introduction:

"Don't moan. I'm not going to "pass the wisdom of one generation down to the next." I'm a member of the 1960s generation. We didn't have any wisdom.
We were the moron generation. We were the generation that believed we could stop the Vietnam War by growing our hair long and dressing like circus clowns. We believed drugs would change everything -- which they did, for John Belushi. We believed in free love. Yes, the love was free, but we paid a high price for the sex.
My generation spoiled everything for you. It has always been the special prerogative of young people to look and act weird and shock grown-ups. But my generation exhausted the Earth's resources of the weird. Weird clothes -- we wore them. Weird beards -- we grew them. Weird words and phrases -- we said them. So, when it came your turn to be original and look and act weird, all you had left was to tattoo your faces and pierce your tongues. Ouch. That must have hurt. I apologize."

Heh. Make sure to read the whole thing here, it's both dead-on and hilarious.

On The Deification Of French Healthcare

2008-04-21T19:52:00.006-04:00

Great. Just when we're at the point in our Nation's history when, thanks to the two Democratic Presidential candidates, we might actually be unfortunate enough to get saddled with Socialized Medicine in the next few years, ABC has decided its time to try and re-introduce another round of deifying the French Healthcare system into the American media. Afterall, us idiots in the American proletariat might not be smart enough to, you know, buy into all this socialized bullshit, so we need to be shown just how amazingly-wonderful-awesome the French system is so that we'll be more willing to take that last step over the edge and into the abyss.

I chose the word abyss in that last sentence because, in fact, that's exactly where adopting a French-style Healthcare system would lead us to: the bottom of a very dark and scary abyss. But alas, Ms. Mary Cline, a freelance writer living in Paris, doesn't see it that way at all; which means it's time to examine her short article on French healthcare and dispel her of such bullshit notions. (Yes, we like to pretend that the people at ABC News might, actually, read this pithy blog. Just keep quite, and don't shatter our illusions of grandeur.)

The first and most obvious problem with Ms. Cline's assessment is her admiration of just how cheap, in many cases "free," visits to French hospitals and Doctors are. Sadly, this is, to an extent, true; at least for Ms. Cline. You see, Ms. Cline is not a French citizen; she's an American who just happens to be staying in Paris; which means that she doesn't really pay taxes to the French government, because she files her taxes with the IRS. Thus, while the system is "free" to her, it's really not. She is, in actuality, a leech on the backs of French taxpayers, who are financing all of her healthcare for her. If any of this sounds familiar, it should, as this is one of the biggest problems we have in the United States from illegal immigration - namely, that the illegals become leeches on all of our social services, which costs us more and more money, all while they, as undocumented workers, don't actually contribute anything to the financing of such programs.

But hey, considering we're running up deficits and that all of our big time programs are going to be going bankrupt in like 20 years, what better way to improve the American Healthcare system than to adopt a system which not only doesn't solve that problem but in fact exaggerates it?! Of course, herein lies one of the fundamental lies underlying the myth of the French system, that its money supply is somehow endless - it's not. The rising costs of this "free" and "cheap" system, are one of the reasons why France has a national debt which is some 65% of its GDP. In other words, it only seems cheap to idiots and fools like Ms. Cline, who have no understanding of how exactly it is that governments raise money to pay for such fantabulous programs.

(As a side note, its kind of funny that when talking about how wonderfully cheap French care is, she's giving the example of when she took her son in to get stitches; which, as we all know, is just a horribly expensive, outrageously difficult, and monumentally impossible procedure to do in our meek, stupid American Healthcare system.)

Then, after amusing us with anecdotes about her son's stitches experience, she regales us with some statistics which are, apparently supposed to make us bow down before the almighty behemoth of Socialized Medicine. First, she tells us that the French system is ranked number one, 36 spots ahead of the damn U.S, on the World Health Organization's list of best health care systems.

Ah, yes, because, as we all surely know by now, there is nothing on this planet as infallible as a rankings system devised by an organization that is a subdivision of the United Nations. They would never have an agenda. Nope, not the UN.

On a more serious note, it should be pointed out that the study Ms. Cline cites came out in June of 2000 (link here), so it's kind of outdated. But, more importantly, one of the primary means that it uses to measure the quality of the overall health system is how fairly the financial burden of medical care is distributed. In other words, this rankings system is inherently biased towards more socialized systems because these will, naturally, be more likely to have "progressive" (read: Marxist) mechanisms in place for income redistribution.

Next up, Ms. Cline attempts to throw around one of Socialized Healthcare supporters' favorite statistics: life expectancy. Because life expectancy is higher in France than it is in the United States, they argue, France has better healthcare. The argument, however, is false; and that is simply because other factors go into life expectancy besides just the quality of the healthcare one receives. Americans are much more likely than Frenchmen to be fat and overweight, a fact which significantly affects life expectancy, but is a result of lifestyle choices made by the individual citizens, and not their national healthcare systems. Americans have lower life expectancies because they make poorer lifestyle choices, not because they have worse healthcare.

Ms. Cline then goes on to discuss her experiences with receiving Breast Cancer treatment in both California and Paris and decides that her French experience was better. She makes this decision based on the how much more lax the French system is, mainly because they'll let her stay longer in the hospital. This conclusion presents two problems; the first is, obviously, financial (there's a $$ reason American hospitals don't like to keep patients longer than is necessary) and thus, was discussed at the top of this, now rather long, essay. However, the second problem with this conclusion is that it's based entirely on anecdotal evidence, and, thus in need of an important correction. You see, if Ms. Cline had bothered to do any real research on Breast Cancer treatment, she would have likely arrived at a different conclusion. She would have discovered that most all of the technologies and medicines that are used to treat Breast cancer were developed in none other than the American healthcare system. She would have also discovered that, despite the fact that American women are more likely to get Breast cancer than French women, they are also less likely to die from it. Meaning that, shockingly, the American system not only is able to take care of more breast cancer patients than the French system, but also more likely to cure the ones it gets.

Based on this data, the survival rate for breast cancer is 81.2% in the United States vs. 76.6% in France. (As an aside, even the raw numbers here indicate that American women are less likely to die from breast cancer (19 vs. 21.5); again, despite the fact that they are 9% more likely (101.1 vs. 91.9) to contract it - a phenomenal statistic.) Moreover, these statistics showing survival rates are even more impressive (at least for the United States) when applied across the board to all forms of cancer. Basically, the bottom line is that, while the Doctors in France may be friendlier and more accommodating, they're also less likely to keep you alive - which, in my book at least, is a hell of a lot more important than being 'happy' with the nursing staff.

Finally, Ms. Cline really gets me shaking my head when she pines about how her husband once had to wait "several hours" to be seen in a Manhattan Hospital because they couldn't track down his insurance company. This causes her to go on and assert that such a travesty would never befall one in Medical-Heaven-on-Earth, France. Indeed, she claims that

"There's no question you'll be treated in France. Everyone is."

Right, sure. Although, something tells me that the over 14,000 people who died in August 2003 in France during that fantastic heat wave would beg to differ. I mean seriously, you're bragging about this healthcare systems' ability to treat all of its potential patients when 14,000 people died on its watch, mostly from simple dehydration? Is it really that difficult to inject people with fluids and monitor them afterwards? Hell, I know how to do that, and all I have is basic training in First Aid - and I probably won't ask for you tax dollars if you come up to me and ask for help either.

Of course, there are other issues that Ms. Cline doesn't even mention in her article that I could bring up. I could talk about waiting lists, and how the elderly usually don't get seen (most of those heat wave victims were old folks), how under-skilled their Doctors are compared to ours, how our medical technology and equipment is superior to theirs, and, of course, I could go into even greater detail about the financial burdens of "free" French healthcare; but, at the end of the day, Ms. Cline makes perhaps the most eloquent argument against the French Healthcare system when, towards the end of her article, she comments on how it is "an all-encompassing cradle-to-grave system."

Indeed.

It is, ultimately, another in a long line of ill-conceived, nanny-state programs, designed to remove a populace from its own sense of personal responsibility and the often times harsh realities of life (and its finances). But by removing people from responsibility for themselves, you remove them from personal choice in matters of everyday life - afterall, how can you be trusted to make choices for yourself if you can't be held responsible for those choices? - and when those two things come together, the diminishing of both responsibility and choice, your personal rights and liberties are not far behind them on the path away from freedom.

Any system that's "all-encompassing" is simultaneously both all-knowing and, most importantly, all-controlling - and when your very health is being controlled (by a government agency, no less), you don't have near as much freedom.

Because It Works

2008-04-18T21:19:00.006-04:00

It's been a while since we've done an article on tort reform and the need for it, insofar as the Medical Industry is concerned - but, now, we get to fix that particular mishap. Five years ago, in 2003, the Great State of Texas passed Proposition 12, which capped damages in Medical Malpractice lawsuits; and so, with 5 years now in our rearview mirrors, the Texas Medical Association has done a nice little piece on the many benefits that reform has provided to Texan Healthcare. Here's some of the highlights:

- "Charity care rendered by Texas hospitals rose 24 percent in the three years following the passage of Prop. 12."
- The number of Doctors in the state has been rising at higher-than-normal rates
- This Doctor growth is especially true for specialists, particularly those most affected by malpractice abuse, such as obstetricians and orthopedic surgeons.
- "Hospitals are upgrading equipment, expanding their emergency rooms, launching patient safety programs and expanding their level of charity care"
- "All major physician liability carriers in Texas have cut their rates since the passage of the reforms, most by double-digits. Texas physicians have seen their liability rates cut, on average, 24.3 percent"
- "Claims and lawsuits in most Texas counties have been cut in half"

So as you can see, this system has worked out well for everyone except, well, the trial lawyers who used to make millions on these lawsuits. On the other hand though:

- Hospitals are better able to care for the uninsured, and are able to afford better medical equipment to do it with.
- Doctors don't have to pay as much for malpractice insurance (and thus, can make more money).
- Patients now have an increasing number of Doctors from whom to seek treatment, and they don't have to have the financial burden of rising malpractice insurance costs passed on to them (since they are the consumers in this business).
- And, finally, taxpayers don't have to finance near as many of these bullshit lawsuits with their hard-earned cash.

In other words, everyone who matters, wins.

Seriously, how long will it take the rest of the country to figure this stuff out? If you want to make the American Healthcare system better, the way to do it is not Socialized Medicine (a.k.a Universal Healthcare); and there are 2 primary reasons for this. Number 1, it doesn't do anything to address the real problem, which is rising health insurance costs; and, number 2, it does absolutely nothing to improve the quality of the actual healthcare services being offered.

As demonstrated by Proposition 12 in Texas, Malpractice reform does, in fact, address both of these problems. By reducing the cost of Malpractice insurance and increasing the number of Doctors competing for patients, it reduces the fees Doctors will charge their patients for care; and by increasing the number of Doctors and freeing up hospital funds from fighting frivolous lawsuits, it increases the quality of the care being given to patients.

This is what Capitalism does people, and this is why it works! Competition breeds increases in quality and decreases in price; and, furthermore, when Doctors and Hospitals don't have to be looking over their shoulders every 2 seconds, worrying about potential lawsuits, they're more likely to give charity care - and this is why tort reform is crucial, because it so obviously has these positive effects on Health Care in the United States.

God, I feel like I'm just repeating myself over and over again - hell, if you already understand the basic principles of market economics you're probably screaming at me to finish this damn post already. But I think I'm going to say it one more time, just for emphasis: tort reform enables Capitalist forces to better enter the healthcare market, which is good, because Capitalism works!

Ok, there, I'm done now - kind of like some of Texas' healthcare industry's problems...

Barack Obama - Elitist Snob

2008-04-12T15:08:00.004-04:00

The best part about following politics is when one of these idiots running for public office slips up and actually tells you what they really think about the voters they're trying to woo, and you get to sit back and watch them try to deal with the fallout. And now, much to the pleasure of this blogger, Mr. AudacityOfChangeHopeSunshinePuppiesAndUnity, Barack Obama, has done us the courtesy of providing such a viewing opportunity.

To quote Obamarama himself from a fundraiser he recently held among his true kindred, San Francisco multi-millionaires:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Yes, small-town America, you heard that right - Barack Obama thinks not only that you're bitter xenophobes, but that your beliefs in God and your 2nd Amendment Rights are merely a crutch that you hold onto because, well, you're just too stupid to see how enlightened and wonderful the US of A would be if we were all just anti-gun, open-borders, atheists.

To be fair, you honestly can't blame him for thinking that religion is a crutch for bitter people; afterall, he did spend 20 years listening to that preacher of his who thinks that 9/11 was a government conspiracy to keep black people oppressed (or something like that). If I went to that Church, I'd probably associate religion with bitterness too. Which is really too bad, because, at its core, the true message of Christianity is one of the least bitter and most genuinely hopeful messages the world has ever heard. But hey, what would I know, I'm just one of those immigrant-hating, gun-loving rednecks who has to use the Christian faith as a crutch to help me overcome my bitterness. So I probably can't provide any real perspective....

As a side note, for your own enjoyment, it's absolutely hysterical that Obama included "anti-trade sentiment" as one of the things that us bitter rural people cling to, given that one of the major parts of his platform has been his stringent denouncement of things like NAFTA and the Colombian Free-trade deal. In other words, he's upset that they're holding the exact same positions as his campaign.

However, the real key, in my opinion, to Barack's remarks though is the part where he mentions guns; because this is, far and away, the most revealing and disturbing part of his comment. To Obama, guns are just a crutch that people lean on when they are bitter about losing their job - or, to turn that around and put it a different way, if everybody was happy, and the world wasn't so screwed up, rural folks wouldn't need or want guns. And herein lies the ultimate problem with Obama and the rest of the anti-gun lobby; to them, guns are not enjoyable or respectable or useful in any way. As far as they're concerned, guns are just things purchased by stupid rednecks with inferiority complexes because they either don't know any better or just have an innate desire to kill people. It never occurs to them that guns might actually be useful in deterring/preventing crime, or that some folks might actually enjoy hunting or taking a trip down to the local shooting range without having it give them the desire to shoot up their local high school the next morning.

No, in their minds, guns are bad; and if we just banned guns, we'd reduce crime to nothing. In other words, to Obama, guns are yet another example of something that, were you to just let him and all the other bureaucrats in Washington take care of, could be taken care of. It's very European, if you think about it; for, deep down, Obama believes he knows what's best for these rural voters. But why, you ask, does Obama think he knows this? Simple. In his mind, these voters are too blinded by their own damn bitterness to understand the 'reality' surrounding gun ownership, and thus unable to know what's best for them.

How very telling a glimpse into the deepest, darkest parts of Barack Obama's political soul.

Not only is it a revealing glimpse of the real Barack Obama, but it is indeed a reminder of why the man is truly unfit to be President, and just how far outside the mainstream of American political thought he is. It reminds of this because it highlights that Barack Obama is not an average American left-winger, but a European, Social Democratic one. The Barack Obama's of the world think that you and me are just a bunch of sheep who have gone astray and need to be led back to the correct path by a well-trained government elite who know what's best for us and will surely make things work the way they ought to. They are, more or less, Socialists.

Some of us, however (and in America, I think it's actually 'most of us'), still believe in what the Founding Fathers taught us all those years ago. We know that government is not best administered from the top down, but rather, from the bottom up; and furthermore, we know that, ultimately, people are better suited to make decisions for themselves, not their governments (especially one run by a one-term Senator and his favorite bureaucrats).

Indeed, in America, Constitutional and Natural Rights matter - too bad Obama hasn't figured that out.

Michael Monsoor - American Hero

2008-04-08T20:00:00.002-04:00

Michael Monsoor, a Navy SEAL, has become the 4th American to win the Congressional Medal of Honor for his service in the War on Terror; when, earlier today, President Bush presented our Nation's highest Military Decoration to his parents at the White House. Monsoor received the Medal for action he took on Spetember 29, 2006 which ultimately cost him his life. To quote:

"...Monsoor was part of a sniper security team in Ramadi with three other SEALs and eight Iraqi soldiers....an insurgent fighter threw [a] grenade, which struck Monsoor in the chest before falling in front of him. Monsoor then threw himself on the grenade....'He never took his eye off the grenade, his only movement was down toward it,' said a 28-year-old lieutenant, who suffered shrapnel wounds to both legs that day. 'He undoubtedly saved mine and the other SEALs' lives, and we owe him.' "

I should note that, after the grenade was thrown, Petty Officer 2nd Class Monsoor could have escaped and saved his own life; but instead chose to remain, and sacrifice himself for his comrades-in-arms.

The only thing I can think of to say is; 'Thank you, Good Sir, and may God bless your family and friends.' Aside from that, words simply fail me.

(The video of the entire ceremony is linked here, if you would like to watch it.)

Reality Punches Hillary In The Face - She Fails To Notice

2008-04-04T15:33:00.001-04:00

You just gotta love listening to Democrats talk about the economy; I mean, even someone like me, who's economic knowledge is pretty basic, can find these huge gaping wholes in the very premises of their arguments. Exhibit A, today, is none other than everyone's favorite sniper-fire dodging, former First Lady, Hillary Clinton. Last night, in an appearance on Leno, she was talking about why she continues to keep on truckin' with this campaign of hers, and she told some sob story about a little boy who's mother makes minimum wage; and how she keeps on going on because she knows she can "really help" people like this mom.

(Here's the actual video. If you really feel like watching, the story starts at about 3:23 in; otherwise, I've summarized it below.)

Basically, this little boy told the Hildabeast that even though the Democratic Congress recently raised the minimum wage, his mother still wasn't making anymore money because - get this - they cut her hours after the minimum wage increased! After saying this, in almost those exact words, Hillary goes on, unfazed, to some new point - completely unaware of the fact that she just got smacked in the face by a perfect example of why raising the minimum wage doesn't work; and why it doesn't actually increase people's overall earnings.

You see, an employer already has a specific budget for employee salaries that is calculated into his overall budget; and he's not just going to increase that budget in direct proportion to every single increase in the minimum wage; afterall, he's trying to make money and turn a profit in his own right. Thus, a minimum wage increase leads to one of two outcomes in a typical workplace: either A) the employer will have their employees work less time, for the same amount of pay; or B) they will fire some employees and give those that remain higher pay, but with longer hours.

Most employers choose Option B) because it makes things easier for them, which is why increasing the minimum wage will generally cause increases in the unemployment rate. In the case of the young Hillary supporter's mom, it seems the employer didn't want to fire anyone, so he chose Option A); which, if you think about it, could be beneficial to this woman - if she were to use the extra time she now has to, say, get a second job. Working more! Now there's a sure-fire way to make more money! Of course, that's not how Hillary (or any welfare liberal, for that matter) sees things. Heck, she's probably already formulating some new 'free' handout, 'free' training program, or other ill-conceived piece of Legislation to 'solve' the problem.

Reagan once said the 9 scariest words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" - but, personally, I think "Don't you worry, Hillary Clinton is here to help" sounds infinitely more frightening.

Hey, At Least 15 Of Them Are Responsible

2008-04-02T19:49:00.001-04:00

Just recently, Citizens Against Government Waste came out with its annual report detailing the cost and exact number of pork-barrel projects each member of the House of Representatives and the Senate received (You can see the info yourself here); and I am proud to report that one of my Senators, Jim DeMint, was one of only 5 Senators to waste $0 of your tax money on pork-barrel projects.

(Unfortunately, the other two members of my Congressional delegation didn't do quite as well: my other Senator, Lindsey Graham, was 67th in terms of dollar amounts, and had his 59 projects total $99.2 million; and my Congressman, Henry Brown, had only 17 projects for $31.5 million, and managed to be in the top third of the House's porkers.)

However, you'll also be happy to know that another one of those 5 Senators who didn't request pork money was the Republican nominee for President, John McCain (who has never requested a pork-barrel project during his entire Congressional career); a fact which should indicate to you that the man does have a pretty decent sense of fiscal responsibility about him - something which we could use in the Oval Office come next January.

On the other hand, you'll be disappointed to know that, well, only 5 out of 100 U.S Senators didn't request pork projects. Oh, and you'll be further disappointed by the fact that this 5% success rate is actually the higher of the two houses of Congress; as only 10 out of the 435 members (a measly 2.3%) of the House of Representatives were able to refrain from wasting your tax dollars.

But hey, a few million here, a few million there, what's the difference, right?

Blinded By Love Of Bipartisanship

2008-03-31T23:59:00.006-04:00

Earlier this month, I authored a nice little post on how Bill Richardson was smoking something strong when he said that Barack Obama's foreign policy would be a return to the bipartisan, universal-love-fest, audaciously hopeful, unifying foreign policy of a bygone era; and now it seems its time to write a quick follow up to that since, as of this past weekend, that bullshit line is now being parroted by the candidate himself. Yes folks, Mr. AudacityOfHopeMan has claimed that his foreign policy platform is:

"...actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, [and] of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan." [emphasis added]

Yea, right.

I think the Gipper will forgive me for paraphrasing one of his old lines when I say: Senator Obama, you're telling people that you've got a foreign policy that's like Ronald Reagan's. Well let me tell you something, Senator. I knew Ronald Reagan. He was a friend of mine. And Senator, you're no Ronald Reagan!

Seriously, as I've said before, Reagan's foreign policy was not the kind of bipartisan yuck-fest that Senator Obama is trying to make it out to be.

As I noted while raking Governor Richardson over the coals, President Reagan's foreign policy was laughed at by most Democrats - that is, until it worked, and the Soviet Union fell, and Communism was reduced to the "ash heap of history," just like Reagan said it would be. Causing the Democrats to do a little 'revisionist' history and pretend like they were on board all along.

Thankfully, most of us know better.

Furthermore, in this little speech, Senator Obama praises H.W. Bush's handling of the First Gulf War; but, as no less an authority than Margaret Thatcher has noted, it was H.W's failure to remove Saddam the first time, when he had the chance, that created the set of circumstances which led to the Second Gulf War. If Pops had finished the job - and not stopped halfway - then W never has to invade Iraq in 2003. But hey, Obama-rama's got an agenda to push, so why bother to think things through, right?

The next point to be made about these remarks is to, again, reiterate that there was nothing warm, fuzzy, and bipartisan about a great deal of Cold War policy. It, too, was a product of politics (hence the word: policy); and thus, while the personalities may not have been as memorable, it was still every bit as partisan as the foreign policy we have today.

Finally, I want to note one last thing about Obama's statements and point out why, aside from the matter of partisanship, his 'return to a traditional foreign policy' is an incredibly stupid idea. And that is simply this: The Cold War is over, as is the lovefest of 90's idealism. The world is a different place now than it was then, and while 9/11 certainly has made this especially so, this fact would be true even if 9/11 had never happened. Interacting with Nations, IGOs and NGOs on an International level means being flexible and, while learning from your past, living, thinking, and, most importantly, acting in the present (with the future in mind). Using the 1960's foreign policy to respond to the 2000's problems would be the height of both ignorance and arrogance; primarily because, and you would think this would be obvious; the 2000's are not the 1960's. The times change, and thus American Foreign Policy should too.

It's too bad Senator Obama is to naive to understand something as basic as that.

I Love My State

2008-03-21T22:08:00.004-04:00

Where else in the country would an add like this:

...even get airtime, much less actually be a smart politcal move?

South Carolina: where George W. Bush still isn't political poison, and an anti-war protest against the unpopular Iraq War, on that war's 5-year anniversary, considers 70 people a "larger than expected crowd."

The funny thing is, according to the article, most of those 70 who bothered showing up for the protest were calling "for a quick - but not immediate" [emphasis added] troop withdrawal from Iraq. Yes, folks, that's right, even our anti-war protesters have conservative streaks.

We have our problems down here in Redneck paradise, but it's still a pretty nice place to call home.

The Success of Partisanship

2008-03-21T16:59:00.005-04:00

Not to long ago, before the Democratic Presidential contest had become the Hilldabeast-Obamarama dogfight that it is now, I used to tune in and watch some of those old Democratic Debates, with all umpteen of the candidates, to give myself a good laugh. When I did that, no one was able to provide bigger laughs than New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, whose wildly (and in some cases, disturbingly) idealistic view of the world made him a ready source. The Governor was back on TV today, giving his endorsement to Barack Obama, and while watching him speak, I was given a nice chuckle or two and again reminded of his general, all-around stupidity.

At one point during this speech the Governor was talking about foreign policy, and he went into the standard Barack Obama talking point about how, after 8 years of W, the country needs someone who is a "uniter" and who can "repair America's image" in the rest of the world. Then, in order to prove his point, he harkened back to the Cold War, and talked about how, back then, we had this policy of Containment which, in his words, was not "Democrat or Republican, but American." In other words, in Gov. Richardson's mind, the Cold War was a time when the country never, ever, but never had partisan disagreements about foreign policy.

Right.

First of all, lets just get one simple thing straight - Containment was a Partisan policy, as it was created and first used by President Harry S Truman, a Democrat. Sure, it was later adopted by Republican Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, but it was, originally, Truman's policy - something which shows you how stupid Richardson really is; as it would have been better, if he was going to praise Containment, to point out its roots in his own party.

Secondly, I find it incredibly ironic that Gov. Richardson, he of the 'I'll have us entirely out of Iraq in 30 days' (or whatever it was), would praise Containment. Afterall, it was fear of Communism spreading to the rest of Southeast Asia and LBJ's desire to contain it within North Vietnam that got us involved in the Vietnam War. And as we all know from the last 3+ years of Democratic talking points, Iraq is bad because it's Vietnam, and nothing in history was worse and more misguided, evil, stupid (etc., etc.) than American involvement in Vietnam. But hey, when you're Bill Richardson, why not come out and praise the policy that got us involved in a war which you feel is exactly like the 'misguided' one we're in now; it's not like the media is going to call you on it. Afterall, you're a minority and a Democrat - hell, you could probably join Eliot Spitzer in the prostitution scandal business and they would still try and avoid asking you questions that might be a bit too hard. But I digress...

The final point I'll make about the good Governor's dim-witted reference to Containment is the most important; and that is that, ultimately, for all the bi-partisan goodness that it may (or may not) have been, the policy of Containment failed. It was a failure because, in the end, the guy who won the Cold War, Ronald Reagan, won it not by sitting back and simply trying to 'contain' the Soviet Union but by calling it the "Evil Empire" and doing everything possible to defeat and destroy it. During the 1960's and 70's, something like 13 countries had become new Communist nations; but Reagan, with the Grenada invasion in 1983, began toppling Communist regimes. For decades we'd been told the Soviet Union was here to stay, Reagan told us it could be gone in our lifetimes.

Now, I could go on about how Reagan's foreign policy was different from Containment, but in doing so I (again) digress from my original point. You see, when Reagan was in office, implementing his new strategy for dealing with the U.S.S.R, the Democrats were kicking and screaming at every turn, and saying all sorts of nasty things about his intelligence along the way. Most importantly, however, they didn't believe what he was doing would work; meaning that they made Reagan's Cold War policy a partisan issue. And this brings us to the hillarity of Bill Richardson, who wants us to get excited about Containment, which didn't work, simply because it was 'non-partisan' and fully approved by the French - despite the fact that the evil, divisive partisan strategy was the one that ultimately won the War.

Makes for an ironic analogy to the present day - don't you think?

Boycotting Beijing?

2008-03-17T16:44:00.002-04:00

As the current violence in Tibet worsens, and the Chinese authorities there become more oppressive in their attempts to stifle the residents there, it is becoming clearer to many in the West that awarding China the 2008 Olympics was, indeed, a terrible idea. Moreover, it seems that this realization has also begun inspiring quiet rumors about some European countries potentially boycotting the Olympics.

The Olympic boycott was a tactic that was employed by the U.S and the U.S.S.R in the 1980 and 1984 Summer Games, respectively; and, while it certainly has the effect of casting a certain degree of public humiliation on the boycotted host Nation, the tactic is, by and large, rather ineffective. Obviously, this is true for a number of reasons (chief among them the fact that an Olympic boycott doesn't have any real effect on the internal politics of the boycotted country); however, there is one significant reason that I find worth mentioning. That would be the simple fact that a team or athlete has the opportunity to make a much bigger statement through their actual presence and participation.

For example: while Jimmy Carter may have been awfully proud of his boycott of the 1980 Moscow Summer Games; I think its safe to say that the U.S Men's Hockey team, which played in the Winter Games that same year in Lake Placid, had a much more significant political and cultural impact on the U.S-Soviet Cold War rivalry. I mean, afterall, who doesn't believe in Miracles?

Heck, for an even better example, who do you think ultimately made a bigger political statement at the 1936 Berlin Games: Adolf Hitler, with his 'Aryan Supremacy' propaganda; or Jesse Owens, a black man, and his 4 Gold Medals?

The point is that skipping out on the Olympics is a stupid idea; because, among other things, it pre-empts any opportunities one might have to attain the greatest of feats in amateur athletics - that being those victories which transcend sports, entirely.

In The Footsteps Of Fidel

2008-03-02T18:31:00.001-05:00

With the recent retirement of Fidel Castro from his long held position of Dictator in Cuba, there was, in some respects, an important and symbolic change in the International political system of the Western Hemisphere. This is not to say that there will be any genuine regime change in Cuba anytime soon - there won't be, Raul will ensure the continuation of Communism - but rather, that Fidel Castro's long-standing grip on power has made him more than just another Communist tyrant; he has become an institution, and, more specifically, an institution of Anti-Americanism in Latin America.

For over 45 years now, Fidel has been the leader of any and all anti-American sentiments in this region. Any Latin American political or rebel leader looking for inspiration for, or affirmation of, an anti-American platform could look confidently to Fidel Castro, who stood defiantly against the United States, year after year, despite his location a mere 90 miles off its coast. Now, with his departure, that clout, that image, is gone. Sure, Raul will likely continue to inundate Cubans with anti-American propaganda, and, sure, he'll likely continue at least the basics of Fidel's anti-American foreign policy; but at the end of the day, Raul simply does not command the attention of his older brother - nor, more importantly, does he have anywhere close to the same aura about him. Thus, with the departure of Fidel, a new page really is being turned over in the politics of the Americas.

Enter, Hugo Chavez.

With the slow, drawn-out exit of Castro from the world stage, Chavez has recently been trying hurriedly to step up and fill Fidel's old shoes. He's doing this because he knows that, in much of Latin America, there are few better ways to build a quick consensus than to loudly and violently beat the anti-American drum. Indeed, thanks to decades of CIA/Cold War meddling and some of the strangest love-hate relationships in the International system, anti-Americanism has a built-in, Latin American support block that anyone of modest political talents might easily summon.

However, tapping into anti-Americanism to win a particular election or policy referendum is an entirely different beast from building a dictatorship off such sentiment - and the latter is the field in which Fidel Castro has written the book. Between demagoguing U.S-supported neighbors and constantly raising the specter of a possible American invasion, Fidel was able to maintain power in the face of a collapsing economy (and society) thanks, in part, to his tactic of overwhelming Cubans with a fear of the monstrosity and evil of American power. That the world might not have been as Fidel portrayed it was, of course, utterly irrelevant.

Thus, with a keen eye towards history, and a thorough understanding of this fact, Chavez, earlier today, must have done Fidel proud when he ordered Venezuelan troops to his nation's Colombian border; for, by doing so, he gets a nice two-for-one on the anti-American front. First, since he can portray Colombia, a U.S ally, as an American puppet regime, he can easily assert that Colombian opposition to FARC - a rebel group which Chavez, naturally, supports - is something the government is doing, not because it's in Colombia's best interests, but because of requests form its American masters. The second thing he does by generating a military standoff on the Colombian-Venezuelan border is to create a nice little win-win situation for himself. If Colombia heeds Venezuelan troop's presence, the FARC can quickly retreat into Venezuela, where Chavez can help support them in their efforts to destabilize Colombia's democratic government. On the other hand, if Colombian forces decide to pursue FARC rebels into Venezuelan territory - even if it's just 1 mile in (as it was in Ecuadur) - Chavez would be able to counter-attack; an action which would likely provoke American involvement, since we have a security agreement with Colombia.

Translation: In the event of a Venezuelan attack, the U.S Navy would likely end up lobbing Cruise Missiles at Caracas to get Chavez to back down; an act which would hand Hugo the biggest propaganda coup in Latin America since the Bay of Pigs Invasion - a disaster which, oddly enough, was a propaganda coup for none other than Hugo's predecessor in the role of Chief Latin American, anti-U.S agitator: Fidel.

All this means that the American Government will have to tread carefully when dealing with these Colombia-Venezuela tensions; because, after Fidel, the last thing we need in Latin America is become a political tool of his potential protege.

To Stand "Athwart History, Yelling Stop"

2008-02-27T15:17:00.005-05:00

A Titan has passed. William F. Buckley, Jr., founder of National Review, and the leading Conservative intellectual of the 20th Century, died today at the age of 82.

Determined, as he wrote in 1955 in the first edition of National Review, to stand "athwart history" and yell "stop" at the, seemingly inevitable, left-wing onslaught, Mr. Buckley re-cast Conservatism as an intellectual movement; thus providing the ideological basis for the political movement that culminated with the Reagan Revolution.

To quote George Will:

"Before there was Ronald Reagan, there was Barry Goldwater, and before there was Barry Goldwater there was National Review, and before there was National Review there was Bill Buckley, with a spark in his mind."

Indeed. Rest in Peace, good sir - and thank you.

Change You Can Be Scared Of

2008-02-24T21:04:00.008-05:00

Finally, something from a Barack Obama stump speech that I can believe! Apparently, yesterday at an event in Austin, Texas, Obama was trying to fend of the label of 'liberal' that he has been pegged with. In doing so, he put forth this whopper of a line:

"There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure everyone has healthcare."

And you know what, folks? He's right; there is nothing liberal about 'Universal Health Care' - only something Socialist.

But hey, we shouldn't say things like that, because, they wouldn't be nice, and they would tear down the facade that has been Mr. Obama's entire campaign. I mean, Obama is nothing more than a master masquerader, who has donned the cap of 'uniter' just long enough, and well enough, to gain a serious following of folks who actually believe his empty-yet-grandiose rhetoric.

The emptiness of this rhetoric was perhaps epitomized by his wife, Michelle, a few days back, when she claimed that Barack Obama was the only man who could "save our souls;" a statement which makes her sound like one of those idiots from the Bible helping to proclaim one of the many false prophets that God warns of.

(As an aside, if I'm looking to have my soul saved, I'd sooner ask the homeless drunkard on the street corner than a freakin' politician.)

Sadly, the analogy is more accurate than laughable, because a false prophet is exactly what Obama has become (or perhaps always was). He walks around telling us how he will bring back hope, bring people together, work across the aisle, and, most importantly, bring about "change;" but, in reality, he has the most left-wing and the most partisan voting record of anyone in the Senate. If Obama gets to the White House, he'll be as much of a uniter as George "I'm a uniter not a divider" W. Bush has been. He will be, as some on the right have described him, the next Jimmy Carter - just with more nice and a little more socialism.

In a sense, it's a good thing Obama's campaign has "hope" as its main selling point; because after 4 years of an Obama Presidency, Americans would be needing a lot of it - it's not like they'd have much else worth bragging about.

For those of you who do give a rat's behind about where your country might be in 4 years, here's some actual facts on some of Obama's, uhh, more interesting positions, that you should be aware of:

-He supports 'Universal Health Care' (a.k.a Socialized Medicine) with all the fervor of a good socialist.
- He wants to sit down and have direct talks with people like Iranian President Ahmadenijad. ('Peace through conversation,' maybe....???)
- He was a very strong advocate of gun-control while a State Senator in Illinois, and has not changed his position on that issue one bit since then.
- He didn't have to flip-flop on Drivers Licenses for Illegals (like Sen. Clinton did) because he had already come out in full support of such measures.
- He has always gotten the full 100% rating from Planned Parenthood, and while still a State Senator, he voted against a law requiring life support for fetuses that survived abortion procedures.
- He was "extremely concerned" by the Supreme Court's decision to ban partial-birth abortion, and has consistently voted against banning it.
- He has voted against lowering taxes every single time the issue has come up during his short stay in the United States Senate. This includes votes against repealing the Death and Alternative Minimum taxes; as well as votes against extending tax cuts on Estate, Capital Gains, and Dividend taxes.

...and I could go on; but I won't. Instead I'll just say that, ultimately, the conclusion you'd have to reach after looking at this man's actual positions, beliefs, and principles would be this: Barack Obama is not a great unifying force who can lift up America. Rather, he is a genuine Democratic Socialist (in the European sense of the term) who would be better suited to bring about the political unification of France than of the United States.

Oh no, wait a minute, I forgot, even the French were smart enough to reject this kind of smooth-talking, empty-suited, hard-left bullshit.

Dear God, stick that in you pipes and smoke on it for a minute: a year from now, we (The United States!) could have a President who is more liberal than the President of France!

Conservatives who continue to hold a grudge against John McCain for various reasons ought to think about that before November rolls around. In the meantime, I think I'm gonna be depressed.

The Case Against Kosovo

2008-02-20T23:59:00.007-05:00

For those of you who haven't been following the news recently, earlier this week a tiny little region of Serbia (which you may remember from a little bombing a few years back) named Kosovo declared its independence. The announcement, coming after 9 years of UN/NATO administration (which hasn't stopped, by the way), was welcomed by all of the usual suspects in the "West," including the U.S, and openly disdained by the various Slavic Nations in the "East," most notably, of course, Russia. Indeed, with separatist rebels of their own to worry about in Chechnya, Putin's men have been out and about condemning the independence declaration and promising to veto any sort of international recognition for Kosovo that might come up for a vote at the U.N.

In other words, Russia is doing what Russia does best, obstructing Western interests - and the scary thing is that, for once, I agree with them.

Kosovo should not be an independent state and the most important reason for this is precisely the one that the Russians have been giving in all of the Pressers they've been holding the last 3 days; namely, the potential snowball effect that Kosovo's independence can have on all of the various ethnic minority regions in Europe and Central Asia. Indeed, given all the various ethnic minorities that live in countries throughout the Balkans and Central Asia, from the Checheyens, right on across the board, the declaration of Kosovoian (?) Independence has far greater ramifications than just the writing of an additional chapter to the tumultuous story of Albanian-Serb relations.

But come now, you insist, who are we to step in and try to prevent these folks from having their Democratic rights? Indeed, you might have an argument, if it weren't for the fact that this declaration is motivated largely by a desire for some kind of ethnically pure (a.k.a non-Serbian) country. Oh sure, they'll probably talk about things like the principle of self-determination; but at the end of the day, Kosovo wants independence because it's full of Albanians and they don't want to be under a government that's largely made up of, and run by, Serbs. I mean, let's face it, like most other ethnic groups in the Balkans, the Serbs and Albanians hate each other, and have killed enough of each other over the last decade or so make that obvious even to the most ardent of peace-loving Hippies. But them hating each others' guts to the point of killing each other is not, in this case, a very good justification for independence. Here's why: you see, the dirty little secret of territorial-ethnic conflicts like this is that, no matter how hard the do-gooders at the EU, UN, and NATO try, the problem of ethnic minorities can never be fully resolved. There's always some ethnic group who gets left behind after the partition, and ends up becoming the new dissatisfied minority.

And, alas, such is the case in an independent Kosovo; where not all of the population is, in fact, Albanian. Oh, sure, 90% of it is - but, uh, that other 10% is still Serbs; which means that all the creation of this new country does is turn the tables around by making the Serbs the ethnic minority.

In other words, the Albanian Kosovars aren't really solving the problem; they're just making sure that they have a better hand to play when the game re-starts. Indeed, unless these people want to keep dividing up their part of the world until it's in small, Medieval-style fiefdoms, they will continue to have this same problem - if on a somewhat smaller scale.

Here, of course, is where we encounter a second problem with the new nation of Kosovo: its size. Because, as these various 'rebel' regions in Europe and Central Asia try to (or do) break away from their mother countries, they become smaller and smaller; and thus, by extension, weaker and weaker. Now, certainly there are countries like Luxembourg, Monaco, and Switzerland who fare quite well despite their size; but those guys have something that neither Kosovo nor any of these other new-nation wannabes do - money. This means that these are small, essentially defenseless countries who, in addition to coming from countries that weren't particularly wealthy to being with, have the added bonus of being dirt poor.

In other words, we're allowing the creation of new, additional countries that we're going to have to help finance the security and basic economy of. To put it another way, we're basically taxpayers sitting around watching welfare recipients breed, and actively encouraging the process.

Thus, at the end of the day, Kosovo's declaration of independence will just make the Balkan situation that much more complex, and, perhaps not surprisingly, create a good deal more problems than it solves.

It's kind of depressing when you think about it.

Rah, Rah, Wake Forest, Rah.....

2008-02-18T00:47:00.004-05:00

86-73 - Read it and weep Dookies.

Yea, that makes for a pretty darn good day, if I do say so myself.

Oh, and just for the heck of it:

Go. Deacs.

A "Political Stimulus Package"

2008-02-09T18:32:00.001-05:00

Once again, Jim DeMint gets it right:

Indeed. It's just too bad that no one else in our government seems to have the guts to stand up and say this kind of stuff. But, I suppose that's just the wacky world of the welfare state - once you start giving people money from the public treasury, you just can't stop; everybody loves 'free' handouts. Besides, most of these people begging for 'stimulus packages' are too stupid to realize they're bankrupting the Country anyways.

1984 2008

2008-02-04T23:43:00.001-05:00

As we've noted before in this forum, one of the key issues surrounding the Democratic Presidential primaries this year is the question of which candidate has the most awesomest Orwellian plan for "Universal Health Care." Indeed, the issue has become front-and-center in the Democratic debates with Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton duking it out for the right to be the "I-care-for-you-the-mostest" candidate. The only real substantive difference between the two's policies is that Mr. Obama's apparently allows a few blessed souls to avoid the impending 'U.H.C' catastrophe while Mrs. Clinton's takes the more communistic approach and vows to leave no one behind. The only problem, of course, is that Mrs. Clinton has failed to specify exactly how she plans on enforcing the Health Care mandates that her system promises.

(Gosh, who'da thunk, a politician with a plan and no explanation as to how it might actually work.....)

Thankfully though, Mrs. Clinton was on ABC yesterday to assure all of us in the proletariat that she most certainly "[has] an enforcement mechanism" in mind for this (surely genius...) health care plan of hers - and she was even willing to expound upon this rhetorical talking point (unusually rare for the current meaningless platitude war that is the '08 Dem Presidential primaries). On tap for Mrs. Clinton's potential enforcement plans were "[garnishing people's wages], some other mechanism through the tax system, or automatic enrollments."

Because clearly the best way for us to try and stave of a possible recession is to jack up taxes on the middle-class workers who refuse to voluntarily accept her health care mandates. Alas, with these pro-"Universal Health Care" folks, raising taxes is always fair game - never mind the fact that some of these people probably can't afford health insurance on their current salary because their taxes are too high as it is.

Obviously, Mrs. Clinton's answer was, to be blunt, not particularly heavy on specifics (a fact which Mr. Obama was quick to point out), but let's be fair; she was indeed justified in claiming that "there are a number of mechanisms" which could be used to bring her plan to fruition. Indeed, this, sadly, is the reality of social democracy - the government is big and powerful enough to coerce a good deal out of you, including money for misguided "universal health care" programs.

But hey, it's for your own, personal Health Care for godssakes - so don't mind the dark beady eyes and toothbrush mustache staring down at you from the telescreen; afterall, he's there for your own personal good!

Here, naturally, we hit upon the reason that Mrs. Clinton refuses to directly articulate her means for enforcing these Health Care mandates - because the only agency that can enforce these mandates is the Government; and this would deny her the facade of claiming, as she has in the past, that the program is "not government run." Indeed, it would, in effect, be an admission that the program is not "universal health care;" but full-blooded Socialized Medicine. Moreover, as she learned in 1994, most Americans aren't willing to accept Socialized Medicine; they're smart enough to know that socialism is a bad idea. This is why, in the aftermath of the massive failure of HillaryCare I, the socialized medicine movement here in the United States cleverly changed its rhetoric. No more would Americans be asked to suffer European-style, Socialized Medicine. No, instead, they would be asked about "universal health care" and told of the "millions of uninsured" (especially children!!!) who desperately needed help - it would be presented to them as a sob story.

No longer would it be, as it was in Europe, a top down movement forced upon the majority of citizens "for their own good;" but rather, it would be portrayed as a great, grassroots effort by the lower class to get what they rightfully deserved - indeed, were owed - in this, the wealthiest Nation in history.

And this was the story that Americans would slowly buy into.

Never mind that, even if under different pretenses, they were actually being sold the same damn bill of goods (by the same saleswoman, no less!); the marketing was different, more likeable, so they bought it. Thus proving, with all due respect to Shakespeare, that, in American politics, what's in a name does matter - at least to the many gullible voters we have.

Ignorance is strength, if you will....

Never, Never, Never, Ever Give Up

2008-01-30T16:25:00.001-05:00

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

2008-01-29T17:12:00.001-05:00

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...

2008-01-26T01:37:00.001-05:00

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

2008-01-25T23:59:00.001-05:00

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

2008-01-21T23:30:00.001-05:00

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

2008-01-16T00:00:00.002-05:00

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

2008-01-15T02:00:00.001-05:00

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...

2008-01-14T17:02:00.001-05:00

....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.

Your Tax Dollars At Work

2007-12-18T18:22:00.001-05:00

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

2007-12-08T21:03:00.001-05:00

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....

2007-12-03T16:02:00.001-05:00

....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

2007-11-27T14:20:00.001-05:00

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!

2007-11-20T14:54:00.001-05:00

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

2007-11-13T18:01:00.001-05:00

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

2007-11-09T02:49:00.002-05:00

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

2007-11-01T14:55:00.001-04:00

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

2007-10-30T16:33:00.001-04:00

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!

2007-10-27T21:39:00.001-04:00

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

2007-10-26T20:23:00.001-04:00

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

2007-10-18T01:01:00.001-04:00

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?

2007-10-17T13:33:00.002-04:00

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

2007-10-15T00:07:00.003-04:00

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?

2007-10-11T11:22:00.001-04:00

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"

2007-10-01T23:05:00.001-04:00

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

2007-09-17T23:26:00.001-04:00

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

2007-09-12T17:31:00.001-04:00

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!

2007-09-07T17:39:00.001-04:00

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

2007-09-04T00:55:00.001-04:00

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

2007-08-28T14:58:00.001-04:00

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!

2007-08-20T22:13:00.001-04:00

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.