Stop Protesting the 'Da Vinci Code'

All over the globe, as the movie "The Da Vinci Code" premieres, Christian groups are going out to protest the film. Of course, this is hardly unexpected, as this is merely a continuation of the discontent they expressed with the novel written by Dan Brown. However, I really don't understand why these groups keep going out to protest the 'Da Vinci Code' phenomenon; and I really wish they would just stop.

First off, it's fiction. When someone writes a story that they admit isn't true, there's no need to get angry. It's not like Dan Brown started a revolution within the church; I don't recall seeing any mass streams of 'converts' to the, shall we say, 'Dan Brown form' of Christianity. If, for whatever reason, Dan Brown's outlandish (fictional) claims about Christianity offend you, don't watch the movie or read the book. Furthermore, if the movie does offend you, don't start a protest to tell those of us who want to enjoy it how awful it is. We're just trying to go watch a movie; and honestly, at this point, protesting the 'Da Vinci Code' isn't go to do much.

Additionally, how can all these people be so offended by such a great book? I absolutely loved it. So, lay your sensibilities aside and just enjoy the novel for what it is: a well-written thriller. I, for one, can't wait to see the movie, and if you don't agree with me -- I don't care. And you know why? Because, well, it's just a movie.

Hayden and the CIA

President Bush recently nominated Air Force General Michael Hayden for the top CIA position, a move that has upset folks on both the right and left. The only problem is they have no legitimate reason to be upset. General Hayden is a great choice for the top CIA position, mainly because he knows the intelligence community so well. Of course, this doesn't stop Democrats or Republicans who are facing re-election from questioning the nomination. Most of the dissatisfaction has come from two main points:

The first complaint is the one that comes from the left and bemoans General Hayden's piloting of the NSA's 'Domestic Spying' program. Consequently, Democrats have threatened him with 'though' questioning; and, I'm sure the thought of 'tough' questions from Ted Kennedy has the 4-star General shaking in his boots. Seriously, are the Democrats stupid enough to believe that President Bush (read Karl Rove) would overlook the fact that Democrats will be upset over Hayden's lead role in NSA spying and, thus, question it intensely? The President obviously hasn't overlooked this, instead he must feel that the General is not only capable of handling these questions but will be stellar in doing so. This is why every 5 minutes someone on FOX News is wondering whether the President is "looking for a fight". Of course he's looking for a fight, because he wants to challenge the Democrats on this issue. The only question is whether the Democrats will be foolish enough to play the White House's game.

The second major concern, that Republicans and Democrats both have, is that Hayden is "a military man leading a civilian agency". The hilarity here is watching these politicians try to defend their reasoning behind this opinion. In interviews it usually goes like this:

Interviewer: Do you think Gen. Hayden is qualified for the job?
Sen. Whoever: Yes, and I think that he would be in the top 3 on everybody's list, both Republicans and Democrats
Interviewer: Really?
Sen. Whoever: Oh, absolutely. No one questions his qualifications for the job.
Sen. Whatshisname (from the opposing party): Yes, I agree with you on that Sen. Whoever, he's well qualified for the job.
Interviewer: So, you both seem to like this guy, will you be voting to confirm him?
Sen. Whatshisname: No, not at this point, I have some questions I want to ask him first.
Sen. Whoever: I'm not really sure that putting a military man in charge of the CIA is the right move.....

And the interview goes on, as the Politicians try to explain how and why they don't, 'at this point', plan on voting for a guy who is "supremely qualified" and "one of everybody's top choices". C'mon, where is the logic in that? If he's the best man for the job, give it to him; it really isn't that complex.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not Michael Hayden can restore confidence in, and smoothly and successfully run, the CIA; and, by Congressional officials' own admissions, this is something he can definitely do. Oh, and lastly, I have to give President Bush credit. For all his faults, he is very good at selecting and appointing people for everything from the Supreme Court to the CIA.

Who's the Real 'Evil, Warmongers'

So, its been a while since I've posted, and during that time the following occurred to me:

Democrats often like to call us Conservatives 'Warmongers' but a review of the last 100 or so years doesn't confirm that:

- Since 1898 America has been in 8 Wars: Spanish-American, World War I, World War II, Korean, Vietnam, the Cold War, and the First and Second Gulf Wars
- Only 3 were started by Republicans: The Spanish-American, and the Gulf Wars
- Of the 7 that have been concluded, despite only starting 2, Republicans have ended 5 (McKinley - Spanish-American, Eisenhower - Korea, Nixon - Vietnam, Reagan - The Cold War, Bush Sr. - Gulf War)
- The only War that was won without actual battle, the Cold War, was won by Ronald Reagan, a Republican
- The total number of deaths from all 3 Wars started by Republicans (appx. 5,150) is about seven times less than the number of deaths from the least costly War started by a Democrat (Korea 36,914)
- The 3 wars started by Republicans are (as a percentage of the GDP) the 3 cheapest of the 8 Wars

So, in conclusion, not only do Republicans actually fight less Wars than Democrats, but they are better at doing so, and they are much better at making peace. This does not mean we shouldn't have fought the Wars started by Democrats, au contraire. Rather, it goes to show that Democrats are in absolutely no position to criticize Republicans for being 'warmongers', 'illegally putting the troops in harms way', etc., etc. because, well, they're actually much better at those things themselves.

Reading Into Iran

So, in case you missed it recently, our good 'allies' in Russia came out in support of Iran over the weekend. Sounding an awful lot like the anti-war crowd here in the United States, Nikolai Spassky, head of the Kremlin Security Council said that "diplomacy" was the only way to deal with Iran. He further urged that no sanctions against Iran should be implemented until there was "concrete evidence" that Iran was using its nuclear program for non-peaceful measures. Basically, we should willingly trust a guy who has explicitly denied the Holocaust, predicted the apocalypse, and called for the elimination of an entire country when he tells us he's (honestly) not developing the most powerful weapon known to man.

My immediate response to this bit of news was that this is the reason why we don't let the United Nations dictate our foreign policy. Furthermore, it's why we genuinely don't care when other countries decry our actions and political stances. Other countries, like France, are run by naive idiots like these people at the Kremlin. Seriously, who thinks we can trust Ahmadinejad when he says that Iran is enhancing uranium solely for 'energy' purposes? Yes Moscow, the Nation that sits directly atop some of the largest oil reserves in the world needs 'alternate sources of energy'. When I hear crap like this from international leaders, it makes me glad that my President really doesn't give a damn what they think.

Furthermore, let's be completely honest: diplomacyis not going to work with Iran. As I have said before, the people in charge over there are completely insane. This little stunt they are pulling, claiming innocence, is a way for them to buy more time; and when they do feel like telling the truth, they'll have a nuke to prove it. So let's stop all this talk about diplomacy and sanctions: because they aren't going to work. Using diplomacy or sanctions with Iran would be like having a high school principal call a student to his office for threatening a teacher, and saying: "boy that was really, really, really bad - don't ever, ever do it again" and then letting the kid go without further punishment. I bet that kid is gonna be really scared of that principal saying "no," he'll really learn his lesson. Except that he won't, because he has no reason to. Same with Iran. Saying "NO" really loud and with a grave tone isn't going to accomplish anything.

As for the Russian Government's desire for "concrete evidence" of Nuclear weapons, I thought we learned this lesson in World War II. Wasn't that what Hitler taught us - that we cannot simply close our eyes to the evil around us and hope it goes away? Didn't a, now infamous, British Prime Minister teach us that treaties don't mean much when you make them with the devil? This is, or at least what should be, the beauty of the post-World War II era: the preemptive strike. We learned that it's best to take note of madmen and deal with them before they get their hands on serious power. Remember Mein Kampf, that crazy book published in 1926? Remember how the rest of the world completely ignored it? Remember how well that turned out for them? President Ahmadinejad is writing his own Mein Kampf. Russia doesn't want to read it; they probably want 'peace' ('in our time,' I assume). Let us hope, however, that President Bush learned a lesson from the generation of his father, and takes good notes on his Ahmadinejad.

Trouble in the Neighborhood

As a student at Wake Forest, I have been paying close attention to the ongoing allegations of rape against members of the Duke Lacrosse team. This is not only due to the proximity of our two schools, but because this case has been (or at least should be) of concern to college students around the country. The actual legal case, as far as I can tell, is rather complex, and I will refrain from attempting to apply my not-so-expert opinion to it. However, as I have been following this case, several things I have seen in the coverage have bothered me, and I am compelled to share them.

First and foremost, what the hell ever happened to 'Innocent until proven guilty'??? ESPN, ABC, every newspaper and news organization, not to mention Duke University itself, has told this story, from the very beginning, as if the players had big red 'R's on their chests for 'rapists'. I know that the allegations are very serious, and I know it's not exactly 'cool' to go around defending potential rapists; but they have Rights too, and those Rights need to be respected.

Next, can we PLEASE stop talking about issues of race? If you listened to the media reports on this case during the first week or so, you might have thought that the alleged crime was saying the n-word. Let's remember, there is the possibility that a woman was raped here - and that's just a wee bit more concerning than a drunk college kid calling someone a nasty name. Furthermore, the locals in Durham aren't exactly helping, as they are all protesting because the woman is black. They seem more upset that it was a white man (allegedly) raping a black woman than that it was (or could be), well, a rape. I know that 'race issues' are extremely sensitive for some people, but priorities, folks, please.

Finally, perhaps one of the most annoying aspects of the coverage of the Duke Scandal is the all-out 'bash the rich' session that it has become. Seriously, can I stop hearing about how Duke Students are more 'privileged' than the surrounding Durham community? Maybe, just maybe, the reason the Duke students are so 'privileged' is because they worked hard in high school, were good students, did well on the SAT or were very active in their community and got rewarded with a slot at a top-notch University. Or perhaps the reason all those kids at Duke are so 'privileged' is because their parents worked hard and earned lots of money so that they could afford to send their children to a $40,000 a year University. Why is this kind of success a crime? I'm not saying the residents in Durham aren't hard-working or successful, but should they hate on the Dukies for being so? In fact, considering that about 17% of Durham residents don't even have a high school diploma, maybe they should start taking a cue from some of their (better behaved) neighbors at Duke University.

Well, that's it for now, maybe not the most politically correct of complaints; but honest ones nonetheless. I really hope that this case is solved quickly, although I doubt that will happen. It should be interesting, and let's hope that justice can still be done - despite the media circus that already surrounds this case.

"You and I Have a Rendezvous With Destiny...."

Even back in the 1960's when Ronald Reagan made his 'A Time for Choosing' speech, he understood that it was the ultimate destiny of the West to defeat the "Evil Empire." In the aftermath of his presidency it has become clear to the rest of us that it was his ultimate destiny as our leader to be the man responsible for that victory. Well, okay, not all of us. Some of the friendly folks on the left, the ones who spewed (and continue to spew) venomous hatred for Ronald Reagan, have, for quite sometime now, loudly claimed that it was Mikhail Gorbachev who did this and that Reagan had nothing to do with the downfall of the Soviet Union.

This is an unusually common occurrence in college history courses, as leftist professors (such as mine) frequently have full-scale 'Gorbasms' when attempting to 'teach' the Cold War. The lecture goes something like this: 'The Soviet Union was falling apart, and was going to end at any moment, Gorbachev came along and tried to implement perestroika and make the USSR a Democracy, because he understood the dire situation and wanted to promote the well being of Russian citizens.' Well, at least, that's the jist of a typical liberal Gorbasm. But, as usual, these leftists are simply wrong.

First off, lets just go along with the whole rant and say that Gorbachev did want to end communism. That begs the question of 'how did he rise to power?' The answer is, in two words, Ronald Reagan. Immediately after he became President, Reagan took a new approach to foreign policy; he abandoned Detente and declared that he would be satisfied with nothing less than the destruction of the U.S.S.R. The new rhetoric and new direction that American foreign policy took were well noted within the Soviet Union. In response, the Soviets realized that they would need a new type of leader, someone from outside the old Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev mold. The Party elite in Russia needed someone who could stand up to this 'Reagan' fellow on the International Stage, the man they choose, in 1984, was Mikhail Gorbachev. So you see, the only reason Gorbachev had the power to affect any change within the USSR was Ronald Reagan - without his election the Soviets would have chosen someone else to lead.

Of course, Gorbachev's intention was never to dismantle or 'Democratize' the Soviet Union, he was as much a believer in Communist dogma as Vladimir Lenin. Gorbachev had hoped his reforms would offer temporary relief and enable him to strengthen and re-build the communist regime, he never intended for the reforms to be permanent. Gorbachev never wanted communism to end. The only problem was he didn't realize what would happen when he implemented economic reform. Although someone did. Reagan knew the Soviets couldn't compete, so he forced them to do it. The military build-up of the 1980's, forced Gorbachev to enact changes and new economic policies; policies that Reagan realized would topple the Soviet system.

However, the fact that the Soviet system was weak and in abominable shape brings us to another question: 'Was the downfall of the Soviet Union inevitable?' The answer: yes. It may have been two or three hundred years later, but eventually it would have fallen. The Soviet system was weak, and near collapse, but it had always been that way. The Soviets had a terrible economy in the 1920's, the 1930's, the 1940's, the 1950's, the 1960's, the 1970's and, yes, the 1980's. The thing is, when you have an oppressive dictatorship running the country, you don't need economic success to continue on as a world superpower. All you need is a few nukes, the KGB and a couple of gulags. The point is, when liberals claim that the Soviet system would have collapsed in 1991 with or without Reagan's military build-up, they're lying; the Soviet Union had lived on the brink of collapse for over 60 years. In order for the Soviet system to collapse its economic equation needed to be catalyzed, and Ronald Reagan provided the catalyst.

Ultimately, the reason the left tries so hard to deny Reagan's importance in the destruction of the Soviet Union is because, as always, it puts them on the wrong side of history. When Reagan first said the Soviet Union was "evil" the left derided him, called him the dumbest man alive, said he was a dreamer, said he didn't understand the nature of foreign policy, and concluded that he had lost all perception of reality. Yet they were wrong - and Reagan was right. Within 10 years of the 'Evil Empire' speech, the Soviet Union was gone, just as Reagan said it would be. Exactly as Gorbachev said it wouldn't be. It hurts the left to give Reagan credit, because on the question of the Cold War, on the most important question of the 1980's, he proved them utterly wrong, and in the process, won his greatest victory.

Finally, A Politician Who Understands Immigration

I haven't posted on the recent immigration protests that have been sweeping the nation, mainly because the coverage elsewhere is so in-depth and intense. However, it's clearly a big problem and one that I'm finally going to address, albeit in a new way. I have discovered a speech given in 1915 by Teddy Roosevelt in which he discusses 'Americanism' and 'Americanization.' I have posted some of the more interesting parts below. Normally, I would add my own commentary, but the genius of TR speaks for itself.....

"... There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all..... Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.

....The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else. For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic.

[Immigrants] are expected to do justice as well as to receive justice, [they] are expected to be heartily and actively and single-mindedly loyal to the flag no less than to benefit by living under it.

We cannot afford to continue to use hundreds of thousands of immigrants merely as industrial assets while they remain social outcasts and menaces any more than fifty years ago we could afford to keep the black man merely as an industrial asset and not as a human being. We cannot afford to build a big industrial plant and herd men and women about it without care for their welfare. We cannot afford to permit squalid overcrowding or the kind of living system which makes impossible the decencies and necessities of life. We cannot afford the low wage rates and the merely seasonal industries which mean the sacrifice of both individual and family life and morals to the industrial machinery. We cannot afford to leave American mines, munitions plants, and general resources in the hands of alien workmen, alien to America and even likely to be made hostile to America by machinations such as have recently been provided in the case of the two foreign embassies in Washington. We cannot afford to run the risk of having in time of war men working on our railways or working in our munition plants who would in the name of duty to their own foreign countries bring destruction to us. Recent events have shown us that incitements to sabotage and strikes are in the view of at least two of the great foreign powers of Europe within their definition of neutral practices. What would be done to us in the name of war if these things are done to us in the name of neutrality?"

It is all eerily applicable today.

"History doesn't repeat itself - but it rhymes." ~ Mark Twain

Doctoring and Lawyering: Mixing As Well As Vinegar and Oil

One of the greatest sites on the web is the Manhattan Institutes' Trial Lawyers Inc, which reports on the industrial behemoth that the lawyering business has become and the problems it is creating for American society. I finally got around to doing an in-depth reading of their newest piece, the one on Lawyering and the Health Care Industry, and it contains some truly scary stuff. Perhaps the most frightening was the information they gave about Obstetricians.

Did you know that "of the 46,000 members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 76 percent have been sued at least once, 57 percent at least twice, and 41.5 percent three times or more?!?" Have 3/4 of the Obstetricians in the United States committed such grievous errors that they deserved to be sued? Do 41.5% of the Obstetricians in this country stink so bad at their jobs that they deserved three or more court dates? This means that the United States has either the worst Obstetricians in the world or that lawsuits have gotten out of hand. Now, since Doctors in the United States generally receive more, and better, training than Doctors in every other country in the world, I'm going to assume that lawyers are the cause of these high Malpractice case rates.

Furthermore, in these cases "million-dollar verdicts are now the norm" and the average payout is "$4.7 million;" which is odd when you consider that, according to the U.S Census Bureau, the medical cost of having a baby is between $5,000 and $12,000. So, let's assume that you paid $12,000 to have your baby delivered, and then sued the Doctor for $4.7 million. That would mean that you received, as your court payout, a sum that is over 391 times as large as what you paid for the original procedure. Holy Shiite! Is a person really entitled to that much of a payout?

And that's, of course, assuming that these cases are due to actual 'Medical Malpractice' in the first place. Which they are not. As Trial Lawyer Inc notes: "nearly half of malpractice suits—49.5 percent—are dropped, dismissed, or settled without payment." As for the other 50.5% that do go to court or result in payouts, many are still simply bogus lawsuits. Additionally, the majority of these cases are from Medical Malpractice 'hot spots' such as New York State. As a result Obstetricians in these areas are either, retiring, moving to other areas, or refusing to perform high risk procedures. If the onslaught against Obstetricians continues in these areas, the midwife may come back into style.

You know the crisis for American Obstetricians is bad when the Journal of the American Medical Association carries an article entitled: "Who Will Deliver Our Grandchildren?" Honestly, the information in Trial Lawyers Inc.'s article is warning sign number 2,943,453,234,785 that this country has a problem with frivolous lawsuits. And it further depicts how, in the long run, those lawsuits hurt the patients every bit as much as the Doctors. The reforms passed in some states, like Texas, are working; but it's time to get the ball rolling everywhere. Indeed, it is to be hoped that we as a counrty can get reform started and moving quickly, so that this problem gets solved by the time my Grandchildren come along.

World's Shortest Horror Flick

You read that right folks, just check out the link HERE and you'll get a chance to see the shortest horror movie in history. Seriously, it lasts just over a minute. The basic plot: a woman is at home by herself and discovers that an intruder is about to break in, the police can't get there in time, how will she save herself???

And once you're done watching that classic flick, remember the following:

"A gun in the hands of a good person is no danger to anyone except the bad guys."
~ Charlton Heston

Nazis, Holocaust Deniers, and the Slippery Slope of Relativism and Multiculturalism

For the last few weeks in my World War II class, we have been reading up on one of the War's most prominent aspects: the Holocaust. The book I am currently in the middle of is Deborah Lipstadt's Denying The Holocaust, and it was preceded by selections from The Good Old Days, which gave perpetrator's and bystander's accounts of the Holocaust. While reading both, I was provided with interesting insight into the world of Multiculturalism and Moral Relativism, and offered further proof as to why these two ideas are unrealistic and wrong.

Allow me to start with one of the most startling quotes from The Good Old Days. In the early stages of the Holocaust, extermination consisted entirely of mass shootings, as the gas chambers had not yet been implemented. One of the soldiers who participated in these shootings justified his actions by saying that he "only" shot men and women, but refused to shoot children because that would have been "immoral." Then there is the German officer who thought the world would end if his mistress left him, never mind his wife and children or the thousands of Jews he killed a day. As you can probably tell, both of these Germans have re-drawn their moral lines. To the one, killing "Jews and Jewesses" is perfectly acceptable, but killing children, well, that's wrong. But, hey, who are we to say he's wrong - it's all relative to his Nazi culture. Or how about the, highly distressed, officer? It's not his wife leaving him, or the continuation of the mass murder, that would spell the end of the world, but his mistress leaving him that would - but hey, once again, that's just part of the Nazi culture. And how can we deem Nazi culture 'wrong'? We're supposed to show more compassion and refrain from making harmful judgements.

My most recent reading, Denying The Holocaust, has been interesting for the overt manner in which Lipstadt directly calls out relativism, postmodernism and multiculturalism as being responsible for the acceptance of Holocaust Denial as "the other side" of an argument. While noting that they do have right to say what they like, she points out that they are not 'one side' of the argument or in any way on equal footing with other intellectuals; they are simply lunatics who ignore all facts to promote an agenda. And the reason Holocaust Denial is often seen in this improper way is because of Multiculturalism. Multiculturalism teaches students to treat all ideas 'fairly', equally and to give everyone an opportunity to speak. Naturally, this sort of openness and acceptance leads to the slow acceptance of ideas like Holocaust Denial as something other than complete idiocy.

Additionally, Lipstadt correctly points out that relativism also leads to acceptance of these wacky ideas. In the aftermath of World War II we began hearing about how the bombing of Dresden and the crimes of the Allies were 'equal if not worse' than those of the Nazis. Unfortunately, this kind of thinking persists today amongst Neo-Nazis and Relativist leftists. Of course, Holocaust Deniers have a symbiotic relationship with the aforementioned notion. Denying the Holocaust certainly diminishes Nazi War Crimes and claiming: 'the Allies were evil too,' trivializes the meaning and horror of the Holocaust.

After reading all these things it becomes even clearer that Moral Relativism and Multiculturalism are utterly ridiculous. Multiculturalism, unfortunately, must be applied to all cultures, even that of the Nazis - and Nazism hardly deserves fair or equal standing amongst world cultures. Further it provides an intellectual atmosphere in which anything and everything is accepted; even intellectual fraud and sheer stupidity. Relativism, too, helps foster the 'anything goes' mindset; and it furthers the problem by making it impossible to implicate people for obviously evil and immoral deeds. If all Moral codes are equivalent, how can you convict the man who feels killing Jews and Jewesses is ok, provided he doesn't slaughter children? How can you implicate a people who treat women as property, stamp out all semblance of freedom, and cheer on civilian-targeting suicide bombers? The answer, if you are a relativist, is that you can't; because, once again, that's just their 'culture' and their particular 'worldview'.

Right and Wrong exist and aren't variable from person to person or culture to culture. Cultures and ideas don't all deserve the same treatment and respect. And sure, different peoples, such as Nazis and Americans, may have disagreements about what's right; but disagreements don't mean there's no right answer: they just mean somebody's wrong.

Survey of Cancer Patients Says: 'Private Health Care Works'

Once again, it seems statistics are putting a massive hole in the armor of socialized medicine. Check out This article from the CATO Institute. It simply compares the survival rate of American Cancer Patients versus the survival rate of British, German, French and Canadian cancer patients. And would you believe it, the survival rate of American Cancer patients is, in many cases, over twice as high as that for Patients in the socialized paradises. Just to list a few examples: "less than one out of five American men with prostate cancer will die from it, but 57% of British men and nearly half of French and German men will," not to mention that "just 30% of U.S. citizens diagnosed with colon cancer die from it, compared to 74% in Britain, 62% in New Zealand, 58% in France, 57% in Germany, 53% in Australia, and 36% in Canada."

The numbers for Canada are significantly better than those for the other socialized nations; however this is in no way a positive reflection on the Canadian Healthcare system. What that indicates is that Canadians diagnosed with cancer, who have the means, come to the United States to receive treatment. (Many on the recommendation of Canadian Doctors, as is pointed out in the article)

It's quite simple really: if you want a healthcare system that actually cures patients and helps make their illnesses better, in short one that works, you need Private Healthcare. Socialized medicine merely degrades the quality of the services you, as a patient, receive. Further, it destroys any incentive to develop new Medical technology or new cures. (For evidence of this phenomenon see the 2nd to last paragraph of the article.) American 'Capitalist' Healthcare has better treatments and is able to successfully help more patients in less time than European Socialized care can. And that is not by accident.

Liberals, Frenchmen, and all other socialism lovers can have their crappy healthcare; but if I get old and develop a tumor, I know where I'll be going for treatment.

The Idiot Manifesto

I had the great, er, 'pleasure' of reading Marx and Engel's infamous Communist Manifesto for history class today, and boy was it everything I thought it would be. Stupid, unrealistic, laughable, and hopelessly illogic would perhaps be the most appropriate words.

I must say I truly enjoyed how Marx planned this 'revolution'. Everyone would, voluntarily, just throw away everything, start over and create the real Utopia. Forget old family traditions, any religious values, anything and everything you ever believed or stood for (It's all a slick plan by the Bourgeoisie anyways) and "UNITE." Um, reality check, anyone? Yea that's just going to happen, everyone is just going to throw away the religion and values they've had for hundreds of years because, you swear, in your little 25 page paper, that it's all just a big conspiracy? A wise man once said "You can fool some people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time," too bad he became President 12 years after Marx wrote the Manifesto - Karl could've used the advice.

I also loved how he talks about freeing the oppressed, but at the same time wants to take everything away from the Bourgeoisie. Equality for everyone, except those who used to be in charge: screw them. What ever happened, in this little document, to the rights of the Upper-class? Marx may not like them, but they're people too.

I also was intrigued at how Marx never states what he feels are the rights of individuals. Through reading him, one gets the picture that he believes people have a right to a good job, but that seems to be about it. In fact, he arbitrarily decides that people don't have the right to private property, but he never even attempts to refute the rationale of Locke. This is a crucial point in Marx's 'rationale,' because the right to Private Property in Capitalistic societies is clearly derived from the philosophy of Locke and others like him; thus in order to prove that Capitalistic Private Property is incorrect, Marx would need to disprove the reasoning of Locke.

Next, I was shocked by how completely counter-intuitive his conclusion was. He spends pages and pages telling the reader how selfish, individualistic, etc. man has become through Capitalism. In essence, he proves that mankind can be naturally selfish. So logically, the best system would be one that ignored this observation altogether and had man simply put aside his selfishness for the good and betterment of all. What?? The reason communism has failed, and always will fail, is that it totally ignores the nature of human beings. All it takes to disrupt a communistic system is one person, who wants to achieve more; because that person then works harder or does some other thing to gain an advantage over all the rest. Then all the rest become envious and struggle to themselves achieve the same advantage. Surely Marx isn't stupid enough to believe that everyone in the world will just willingly remain egalitarian. But then again......

Finally, of course, is how magnificently unrealistic Marx's theories are, as we are able to see through the implementation of communism in various places. Russia was able to murder more innocent people than the civilized world ever thought possible, thanks to communism. They were able to produce one of the most backward, underachieving and oppressive economies of all time. Furthermore, communism allowed the peoples of Eastern Europe and the USSR to be deprived of human liberties for over 70 years. In China, communism allowed Mao to weasel his way into the history books as one of the most ruthless dictators of all time, bar perhaps Stalin and Hitler. And in Vietnam, as well as in modern China, communism has been so successful that both Nations find their economies becoming more and more capitalistic every day. And let's not forget that communism has produced super-nice-guy Fidel Castro too.

Indeed, it seems that Ronald Reagan was, as usual, dead on when he dissected the difference between communists and non-communists. As per the Great Communicator: "How do you tell a communist? It's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. How do you tell an anti-communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

What's Wrong With Bush?

I like George W Bush. When all is said and done I think that his forigen policy will rate as best of any President. Domestically, he has at ther very least revived a stagnant economy in the wake of 9/11 and managed to make it the most effecient one in American history, and for this he deserves credit. However, in this second term, thus far, the Oval Office has been devoid of the strong leadership and great ideas that came from it during the first term. The recent speech in support of the ongoing War on Terror was perhaps Bush's best move since being re-elected.

But on a different note, he has abandoned all thought of fiscal restraint in domestic spending in the aftermath of Katrina. He has abandoned the much-needed Social Security Privatization reform he sought not to long ago. He has, as of yet, failed to create a strong stance against illegal immigration. And now, he has absolutely boggled a chance to put a true, deserving justice on the Supreme Court with the nomination of Harriet Miers. While some of the criticism he has received this term is not deserved (see Hurricane Katrina), much of it is, and the President knows how to respond. He just has to do it.

With 9/11, a strong economy, the War on Terror, 2 (and possibly 3) Supreme Court nominations, not to mention an unwanted excess of natural disasters(both national and international) Bush is quickly becoming the most influential person in the post-Reagan era. Thus far he has done well and shown strong leadership. Now is not the time to stop.

Responsabilidad

Will Mexico ever stop complaining about US immigration policy? Seriously, it seems unless we were to declare an open border, the Mexican Foreign Ministry would take issue. Take this new proposition that is coming out of Georgia (and apparently Arizona too). The idea is to tax any money being wired back to Mexico, unless the migrants can produce proof of their legal status. But, noooo, the Mexican Government has to whine like babies about it. It's unfair to the Mexican economy.

Well maybe, just maybe, the Mexican government wouldn't have such a bad economy if they actually, you know, did something about it. There's a novel idea. Instead of spending all their time complaining about the U.S or making brochures to help their citizens illegally immigrate into the States, maybe they could actually, you know, work on comprehensive domestic policy reforms to improve their own economy. In fact, I think we should go ahead and say that any country with an economy as bad as Mexico's needs to scrap their 'Foreign Ministry' altogether. C'mon, if your economy is in such bad shape that you have to help your people leave your country illegally, diplomatic relations shouldn't be high on your priority list.

Furthermore, shouldn't it be some kind of a law that if 1/3 of your citizens live below the poverty line, you loose your right to criticize other Countries' domestic policies? I mean clearly the Mexicans can't exactly be considered experts on the subject, so why do they think the world's most successful economy will take advice from them on how to make things more 'just' and less 'discriminatory'?

As for the bill, I think it's a great idea, because it is a realistic way to slowly eat away at illegal immigration; and it does so by making it less desirable for Mexicans to come here in the first place. Additionally, the laws are hardly unfair or discriminatory because they're taking levying taxes on these folks in an attempt to make them pay for all the education, health care, and welfare services they receive, for free, from the American government. In short, if Mexicans are going to illegally take advantage of the system, we will legally take advantage of them.

BusHitler, and Other Liberal Myths

I was planning on writing about Colorado 'teacher' Jay Bennish as soon as I heard his rather interesting story. Unfortunately, I was able to listen to the audio of his 'lecture' and was unable to stop laughing until just now. In short, Mr Bennish gave an anti-Bush, anti-Capitalist, Postmodernist rant to his geography class, and was unfortunate enough to have it recorded by one of his students. He was suspended, but his students took up his banner by staging a walkout in support of thier rastafarian teacher.

I mention the walkout only because it humors me as much as the rant itself. Like it made a difference? They're just high school kids, stupid ones at that. Most could have cared less about their teacher; they just wanted to get out of class. I know if I was still in high school and someone came up to me and said, "We're leaving class in protest." My only question would have been "For how long? " or "Will it get me out of my Calculus test next block?" But what about the few who actually were sincere? Fight on, brothers! I mean seriously, anyone who has been in high school for longer than, oh say, 2 days, knows that picking a fight with High School administrators is just plain idiotic. (And fruitless, I might add).

But onto a select few portions of Mr Bennish's high-on-emotion, short-on-logic commentary:

First up: the Drug War. After delineating how cruel the United States is to third-world farmers etc, etc, Mr Bennish suggests that China and Iran have as much right to "invade America and drop chemical weapons on North Carolina," to destroy cigarette companies, as we do to destroy cocaine and marijuana crops in Bolivia. The first problem with this argument is that we are not invading South American countries and that we drop plant killing chemicals, not chemical weapons, so his idea seems a bit overboard. Further, as someone who has been, and will be, living literally less than a mile from the R.J Reynolds company headquarters (and who attends a University that gave serious consideration to calling itself 'Reynolds College' instead of Wake Forest) I can't say I'm much a fan of this idea.

The most important difference is that the rest of the world WANTS our cigarettes, we don't want Columbia's cocaine; thus, we have to try to halt the importation of it, and this often means getting to the (physical and theoretical) root of the problem.

Next up: Capitalism. The system that is "at odds" with "caring and compassion" and "Human Rights." Wow, this is where I really started to just die laughing. Was Soviet Communism more 'compassionate'?? Or perhaps he'd prefer the self-destructing French Socialism?? Perhaps, he wants a system that incoporates the 'Workers' more, so that the evil rich people have to show more compassion towards the common guys?? But no, that can't be true, because Hitler tried that (he was originally a member of the 'German Worker's Party') and, as you'll see, Mr. Bennish doesn't much like Hitler. (In fact, he thinks he's almost as bad as George W. Bush)

Most interesting is how Mr. Bennish neglects to mention that the two most generous nations in the world (the ones who donate the most governmental cash) are Japan and the United States: the two most capitalistic societies in the world. And he probably doesn't want me to mention that the massive amount donated by the American government doesn't include all the private donations that Americans make every year through the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, their Churches, etc. How uncaring and uncompassionate of us nasty Capitalist pigs!!

And last, but certainly not least: BusHitler!! On this ludicrous comparison, I will say very little. I have just finished reading Primo Levi's Survival in Auschwitz (detailing how he managed to live for over a year at the most infamous Concentration Camp). When the American Auschwitz opens Mr. Bennish can try this argument with me. (And no, the 3 square meals a day given at Gitmo or the grand total of zero deaths at Abu Ghraib do not count.)

The bottom line, Mr. Bennish epitomizes why most American's can't locate Iraq on the map: in class they get liberal indoctrination instead of, say, geography.

***I would however like to congratulate Mr. Bennish for completing this expansive and lengthy rant without once screaming: "HALIBURTON!!!!!!! "***