Ranking the 'Pubs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's Their World...

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

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

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

Damn Yankees.

Your Tax Dollars At Work

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

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

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

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

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

Of God And Communism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Anything You Coerce, I Coerce Better

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So Much For An American Version!

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

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

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

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

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

Socialized Medicine - Continuing to Impress

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

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

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

Lovely, isn't it?

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

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

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

On War - And Idiots

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

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

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

Torture does not work....."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The News You Need To See

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

Read the whole thing here.

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

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

A Reason To Care

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

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

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

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

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

Because Power Is Fun - And Profitable!

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

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

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

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

Cold War Redux

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

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

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

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

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

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

And after all, Russian autocrats become tiresome rather quickly.

Maine Gives SexEd A Makeover

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

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

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

Fun, no?

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

Oh, the joys of Modern Society....

***Update 10/26***

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

Why Does He Even Bother?

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

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

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

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

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