Monday, December 31, 2007
Governor Bill Richardson is the Democrat Party candidate most qualified to be President (far more so than the front-runners of his Party) and of course I wouldn't vote for him because his ideas aren't quite up to good quality. He has some of the most foreign policy and the best executive experience of the candidates in his Party and all of that doesn't detract from the fact that his vision of the world is just plain stupid. When Pakistan PM Bhutto was killed his view was especially simplistic and Mark Steyn put it all in stark contrast with an intelligent approach to foreign policy. In a way it is fortunate and unfortunate that Governor Richardson is one of the least viable and least visible candidates.
In the stampede of instant experts unveiling their Pakistani solutions-in-a-box, some contributions are worthy of special attention. Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who is apparently running for the Democratic presidential nomination, was in no doubt about what needs to happen in the next, oh, 48 hours:Briefly setting aside the invasive nature of such a foreign policy maneuver, Mark Steyn analyzes the make-up of Governor Richardson's supposed coalition.
“President Bush should press Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should be formed immediately... It is in the interests of the U.S. that there be a democratic Pakistan that relentlessly hunts down terrorists.”
Wow. Who knew it was that easy?
Except maybe it isn’t.
A “broad-based coalition” of “all the democratic parties” would be a ramshackle collection of socialists, kleptocrats, tribal gladhanders and Islamists. Whether this is the horse to back if you’re looking for a team that “relentlessly hunts down terrorists” is, to say the least, uncertain.The rest of the article duly puts down Bill Richardson as a brief burp but that is only in the concluding paragraph and the thrust of the entirety of the piece is about Pakistan and its complicated politics and geographical and military struggles, especially against an "Islamist" (read: "evil Muslim", "Muslim terrorist", "Islamofascist") threat that actually has sympathizers within the ranks of the Pakistani military and the Pakistani military intelligence agency. Whatever you can say about Pakistan with any degree of optimism you will not find an easy solution. Before let's jump to any conclusions about the nature of Islam itself or the ease of Pakistani geopolitics, Mark Steyn can swiftly compare Indian Muslims to Pakistani Muslims for the allure of jihad:
No people are immutable. It’s worth noting that Muslims next door in India are antipathetic to jihad. Yet they are ethnically and religiously indistinguishable from the fellows in Islamabad wiring up one-year old babies as unwitting suicide bombers. The only reason one’s an Indian and the other’s a Pakistani is because of where some British cartographer decided to draw the line in 1947. Since then, Indian Muslims have been functioning members of a modern pluralist democracy, while Pakistani Muslims have been mired in incompetence, backwardness and dictatorship, and embraced jihadism as the most viable escape route.That's a rather drastic oversimplification of history, yet the results are somewhat inarguable. The Indians do their damnedest to shape and live up to their national identity as pluralistic and a society made up of multiple non-blending cultures, ethnicities and faith-based belief-systems. Pakistan is based on a more homogeneous vision with no need for pretense or (genuine) principle regarding multiple groups with a pluralistic society supporting wildly divergent points of view. I won't say it's evil in and of itself but the political system in Pakistan certainly yields more economic pains and dictatorship effects than its Indian neighbor-rival. It generally is a damaged world that drives a devout Muslim to violent Jihad, in order to fix that world, right the wrongs and render a correction upon injustice. But what do I know? Perhaps a coalition of fools, tyrants, and thieves really can rebuild a country more in line with American interests and morals.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
I admit I'm not fully informed on how an Iowa Caucus works but I sure as heck hope that most of the able Iowans have the sense to vote for this man, with his tangible policy plans and longterm philosophical background and history, rather than the squishes, politicians, and calculating contenders.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Remember the importance of His birth and His purpose.
I hope no one visits this blog on Christmas day. What a waste that may be.
On the other hand I don't celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December (as much as I will on the day I celebrate Christmas with family) so I may be thinking of you.
Good night, all! Good morning!
Kirk's ready to make like a tree and leave, but Spock has other ideas. Clearly something must be done about this planet full of sentient life that was just sitting there minding its own business. What's the solution? Why, naturally, carpet bombing.Hilarious! Carpet bombing! I love these European sensibilities right here!
Yes, it's death from above courtesy of the U.S.S. Enterprise, as it torches the planet and all of its leafy green inhabitants from (very) low orbit. I guess that whole Prime Directive thing is really more of a guideline than a rule. Spock's really into it, too:
the preference for smaller rather than larger government is not as ample as it used to be (emphasis mine). The strongest case against big government has been its failures in the 1970s, typified by gas lines and stagflation. But the median-age voter in 2008 was born around 1964, so he or she never sat in those gas lines or struggled to pay rising bills with a paycheck eroded by inflation. That demographic factor helps explain why Democrats today are promising big-government programs, unlike Bill Clinton in 1992, when the median-age voter remembered the 1970s very well. America has enjoyed low-inflation economic growth for 95 percent of the 2008 median-age voter’s adult life. This is a record unique in history, which neither party is addressing particularly well. Democrats promise tax increases on at least some high earners (by not extending the Bush tax cuts past 2010), though tax increases are not the usual prescription for an economy that may be headed toward recession. Republicans, facing an electorate half of which doesn’t remember the 1970s and most of which has not appreciated the generally good economy we’ve had since 2001, have yet to muster persuasive arguments for their policies.A great point: " You can write three or four scenarios for how the Democratic race will go; you can write 60 for the Republicans."
Also good: " Thompson, who led in Rasmussen’s national polls last summer, before he officially announced, is the closest to the Republican mold,"
In a way I think it emphasizes yet again why Mitt Romney should never be President.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Saturday, December 22, 2007
While he is more than delighted to discuss ancient civilisations, he becomes more taciturn when asked about his part as the eponymous cyborg law enforcer in the sci-fi classic RoboCop, which just celebrated its 20th anniversary with a commemorative special edition DVD. “I have no interest in talking about RoboCop,” he states sternly. “I’m very happy to have worked on RoboCop and very happy to leave it behind.”
What isn't strictly an interview but a monologue is this bit with Steven Grant regarding Frank Miller's Robocop, a comic book adaptation of the original script for Robocop 2, which means that the comic is a adapting a Frank Miller work yet it isn't genuinely an adaptation of the film. This is even if you are not taking into account what a comic book adaptation of a film is actually adapting. Steven Grant wrote the comic book (nine issues published by Avatar).
Friday, December 21, 2007
Naturally this could be an innoculation against constant charges by right-wing activists that he is an "immigration squish", or as Jim Geraghty put forth in a hypothetical quote: "How much of an immigration squish can I be, I was endorsed by Tancredo!"
I'm not certain it will actually move all of Tancredo's followers. Not that Tancredo's followers are much of a swing vote statistically but the word of (the) Tanc is practically a street credential and a very practical testimonial regarding an individual's purity of intention/motivation.
That does not actually mean that Mitt Romney is really not an "immigration squish" or that his proposed, purported, notional, or hypothetical policy ideas are pure, good, right-headed, or Conservative. CNSNews.com's headline for this story should put various doubts into light: Romney Would Allow Illegals to Stay for Unspecified Time. It's natural to question Mitt Romney's consistency on policy, especially between claims, history, and present day reality. For someone who claims that he is against amnesty and sanctuaries, is he really?
I think I want to pick through this article again when I have more time.
Which is also, according to Rush, why they are laying off Mike Huckabee.
So as I say, Rudy's claim that he is the only one that beat Hillary Rodham Clinton for a run at the Oval Office (presumably because of his 9/11-based celebrity status) is a myth and lie. My claim is closer to the truth: a Republican Presidential candidate's inability to defeat this woman is an unusual exception; "any Republican candidate can beat Hillary if we unite behind him (and we will)."
Which logically leads to Rush's second claim regarding the ("Mainstream") media: that they are attempting to divide us and our (right-wing) voter coalition(s).
what was the second thing on the list, checked off?
"Find, Destroy AtlantisThat had me laughing out loud of a change. I still say it now, even if it doesn't make any sense. That was it. It's so difficult to watch that crummy shark-jumped program.
I like this bit.
McCain's fate is not entirely in his own hands. He needs an assist. He needs Huckabee to defeat Romney in Iowa, where McCain will be waxed, then to come back and beat Romney himself in New Hampshire. Two losses by Romney in states where he has invested millions would put his campaign on life support. (emphasis mine)Ultimately Mr. Buchanan puts it down, in his predictions, to a race between "Mike and Mitt". Tastefully put the race would be between Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney but I'm not feeling tasteful right now. The race would be between
Tax Hike Mike and Multiple Choice Mitt
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Although I will tell you upfront, at one point Tom Tancredo was my horse in this race.
(00:46:18) Arndt: Tancredo drops out
(00:46:24) Arndt: hopefully swings to Fred
(00:46:41) Arndt: Team Fred is boosted by angry right wingers
(00:46:59) Arndt: Mitt and Huck swoop in and fool them into thinking they're nativist
(00:47:18) Arndt: Huck and Mitt fuse into Conservative AntiChrist figure
(00:47:38) Arndt: Craig Ferguson and Alice Cooper defeats the Fusion villain in pitched battle of music and comedy
(00:47:45) Arndt: the world narrowly avoid the apocalypse
(00:48:02) Arndt: then Roger Ebert passes gas and ignites the flame pockets
(00:48:14) Arndt: bikini babes all die. remaining males commit suicide
(00:48:40) Arndt: Fred Thompson and hot Trophy Wife repopulate the earth
(00:48:58) Arndt: John McCain and Rudy Guiliani come back and grab all the guns
(00:49:13) Arndt: so the Family must challenge the Fredmega Man
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Bad news: Roger Simon reports that Fred Thompson is genuinely "lazy" and not "laconic".
So is the Fred Thompson cause doomed or not?
UPDATE 6:47 PM: Roger Simon is not Roger L. Simon, so I have no reason to trust the fellow. Also, as Jonathan Adler indicates, the article's account of the firehouse visit doesn't "square with the video". There's a video!
- Bret Stephens at the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal discusses Theodore Roosevelt's Great White Fleet, and reminds us that a Show of Strength can be risky, because showing your power often leaves certain areas unprotected, but the Great White Fleet was a exhibition for the purposes of self-defense. While in today's world our Navy cannot be used to thoroughly assault our primary enemies where it counts, and attempts to implement a suitable/adequate plurality of Littoral Combat Ships have proven to be less than thrilling, threatening, or useful, the symbol of the act still applies, or should. Fellows like Ron Paul may wish to draw down military power as a parallel to draw down government power but one of the greatest ways to fend off attacks is a prevention based on fear. If enemies abroad fear our ability to strike back and obliterate those they hold dear, then perhaps they would strongly consider less violent actions. But then that's why I don't believe we should simply withdraw from the Iraqi theatres, which is among the only reasons I vote against Congressman Ron Paul. I also keep in mind the possibility that China would assert a capability to strike out abroad.
Whatever the procurement problems or tactical issues, a supremely powerful Navy is not a luxury the U.S. can safely dispense with. In September, ships of the People's Liberation Army Navy made their first-ever port calls in Germany, France, Britain and Italy, and Chinese admirals are frequent guests on American warships. "The Chinese Great White Fleet is not too far off on the horizon," says a senior Navy official in a recent conversation.Demonstrating a will to use power can assure others as to the best use of their own power.
China's current rise, like America's a century ago, is not something anyone can stop. It can be steered. Making sure our vision for the Navy stays true to Teddy Roosevelt's is one way of ensuring the Chinese don't make the mistake of steering it our way.
- I have spent a disproportionate number of brain cells attempting to divine why Alan Keyes was running for President this month, or to some extent why he ever does. It is not inappropriate to posit that he is as Conservative as me, as much as that can be a virtue and as a potential POTUS his views and policies are the notions, philosophically closest to my own. That said he is a terrific speaker and a horrible candidate. As a speaker of high caliber the high price point is worth it.
- I cannot believe that I had to read it here instead of figuring it out myself. Alan Keyes runs for President, or any higher office as of late, in order to increase his demand as a public speaker so he can raise his prices. Given that he stole (was granted) time in the last Republican debate and that he absorbs tiny bits of attention (and money) that could be slightly useful to Conservative candidates that are viable, his presence and demand for attention is more destructive than useful.
- One could at least argue that Tom Tancredo is running as a protest candidate now and that Duncan Hunter runs as a sort of fulfillment to the commitment to volunteers and donors. The silliness comes when these two dyed-in-the-wool Conservatives, the two most Conservative members of Congress and the US House of Representatives, are accused by Ambassador Keyes of being among "the elites". I'd like to see how the two least popular yet most principled candidates are elites doing damage to whatever cause that Alan Keyes is supposedly championing now. This isn't over, of course.
- Fascinating that as Alan Keyes supposedly drives people to be more Conservative and loving, like me, his example for his kid has to a "Queer" anarchist.
- Speaking of bad parenting Lynne Spears' sixteen-year-old daughter is pregnant from her eighteen-year-old boyfriend. I wonder if Lynne Spears is still planning on writing a "Christian parenting book." UPDATE: The book has been put on hold. This is a surprise.
- Lynne Spears is the mother of Britney Spears and I don't care to spell out what kind of young adult, child, or human that particular celebrity is, yet Britney Spears' younger sister is also a celebrity of sorts, although certainly not habitually selling merchandise with a sexual angle. Apparently Jamie Lynn Spears is the star of "Zoey 101", a program on Nickelodeon that I have never heard of or seen. According to the radio the child has been sexually active with her adult boyfriend that she met at church. An anonymous teenager on the radio bemoans that the child Spears is demonstrating as a "bad role model" and as someone who wasn't responsible enough to be abstinent she certainly is. Regardless of age or maturity when you are on television and young children, teenagers and the twelve-year-olds look up to you, you are a role model with some responsibility and duty towards virtue. That she is a poor role model should be stated and set aside. She is responsible enough to carry the baby to term and intend to raise him or her. Then that she is taking responsibility, as is the minimum expectation, for her actions is something that should be said and set aside as she is a poor role model for your children and she should be set aside out of the spotlight. As Joshua Elder, let's just "leave it at that."
- Jeopardy superchampion Ken Jennings insists that his religion should stop being battered from this politically-based push to the limelight. I say it could stand some honest assessment and criticism from smart people and even some morons. Attacking those of Mormon faith for simply being Mormon, of course, is wrong. That we have an opportunity to discuss Mormonism without fear should be celebrated and that people would shame those of anti-Mormonism belief under the shroud of defending against bigotry is annoying and destructive. Ken Jennings is a decent guy and this is illuminating.
- Time Magazine has appointed a former member of the KGB to be their Person of the Year for 2007. If I have to point out how wrong that is, yet fitting with Time's tendencies, I'll do it in 2008. The runner-up is a highly-successful politician/confidence man and a former children's author.
- Is a man fortunate to be in this position or is it a place of moral confusion? I don't know if I am a man to hold people accountable on this, although in my weaker moments I would envy him. In my more logical moments I recall that a woman could come between me and the Lord.
- I can't view this video from my home, given the dial-up connection, but I am curious what Alan Keyes said to Sean Hannity that is original, and I am still annoyed that Hannity defends the inconsistent Conservative.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
I have no clue why she wants to be compared to a horse.
As an additional note, it simply reminds me of Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears where those that protect, the Secret Service, receive such great antipathy from those that they protect. Moreover I'm not altogether certain about chain of command but the First Lady has no place in it, in part because the Secret Service is a branch of the Department of the Treasury and not simple rent-a-cops.
Not that I am saying that being crude and impolite must disqualify one from holding our nation's highest office. I am saying that character counts, and how one treats people (or an expensive tool for the public trust) for a pain of sunglasses is perhaps indicative of how she will serve the public trust.
While I'm on the subject of indications, I'm going to go way off on a limb and rant that we still have no sold indications of how Mitt Romney would act as President.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
1. We gather together
to ask the Lord's blessing;
he chastens and hastens
his will to make known.
The wicked oppressing
now cease from distressing.
Sing praises to his name,
he forgets not his own.
2. Beside us to guide us,
our God with us joining,
his kingdom divine;
so from the beginning
the fight we were winning;
thou, Lord, wast at our side,
all glory be thine!
3. We all do extol thee,
thou leader triumphant,
and pray that thou still
our defender wilt be.
Let thy congregation
thy name be ever praised!
O Lord, make us free!
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Supposedly it is live is on CNN. It is also supposedly broadcast live on multiple other stations. I wonder how many stations are re-broadcasting the program tonight? I know CNN isn't.
Purportedly this debate, being the last before the Iowa Primary is the most important for the Iowa voters. I fail to grasp how the majority of the Conservative-living GOPmen and womenfolk will be in a position to watch the debate.
I'm not at all confident that this one more televised debate is relevant anyway.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Not that taking a human life is necessarily fascistic.
I'm not the first and foremost man, in fact I am the most reluctant, to condemn mere hypocrisy. However it would seem to me that the most crushing and damning counterintuitive stance of your average pro-abortion activist, is that while their anti-life stance uses the words hinting and outright implying liberty, that is "Freedom of Choice", the result of an abortion is one less person to make a choice. Rush Limbaugh once stated on the air "Life comes before liberty. Without life there is no liberty." If taking a life unconditionally on the basis of personal whim removes possibility of liberty through the deprivation of life we, that is I, find that the preservation of innocent life at the natal and/or fetal level to be absolutely vital to maintain liberty.
Which is, of course, what draws the line between an absolutely Libertarian stance on abortion. To preserve life we grant liberty, but Libertarian thought usually doesn't make it that far in today's politics. To remove regulation is best, yet damn the loss of life that regulation would prevent. I think some would enjoy some level of regulation. I thought the old-tyme Constitution-era speech involved "liberty or death" (emphasis mine). A Conservative embraces that life exists first to make that choice. There's hardly any liberty in putting the death before life.
This entry is sort of obligatory yet there lies truth. The other truth is that there are the Progressives who would act simply because they suddenly can. The ability itself creates the right to utilize the ability. Is that how a particular freedom is born?
Monday, December 10, 2007
Friday, December 07, 2007
addressing the US Congress
It is important to realize that while President Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war on the Empire of Japan on December 8th, and the Congress had made that declaration on the same day (with only one vote against, "a state of War has existed" since before that declaration, and during the attack on an American naval base, against American military presences, American allies, American forces, and on American soil. Note how "War" has been capitalized; It's a special condition, distinct even among times of hostility. To have War formally for our country the Congress of the United States must declare war as only the Congress has that power, not the President or any of the Executive Branch. The President did ask and it is important how he phrased it; in the provocation began the state of War. Even wars between any nations are certainly legally only wars as the countries involved formally declare it. Yet objectively a state of war exists obviously between two powers. That's the point of December 7th. Congress declared War on December 8th. War obviously began as the Japanese Empire began their aggressions on December 7th and started taking lives. We commemorate what occurred 67 years ago today, even recognizing that so few of our defenders back then are around today. So few people today appreciate the sacrifices and events from back then.
We mustn't forget. Vigilance is necessary. War and evil doesn't only act and wait for Congressional legal acknowledgment. It's not the date of our declaration of War that people remember as the beginning of the Second World War, it's the Day of Infamy.
I took time out from hiatus for this.
This is for very personal reasons.
Merry Christmas, all.
Hiatus continued. I hate my reason for the necessary hiatus.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
I love Johnny Cash.
This is a great song.
Two great things of taste that taste good together... I know, who cares?
I'm busy. I'm time crunched. I'm sorry. I hate this. I hate this status quo. Pray if you got the religion for it.
HI - AY - TiS.
I'm not sure I'll have any hits left.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
This article, Rich Lowry on FairTax on National Review Online, makes me think even more critically about my beloved Fair Tax.
One of those goes on the updated blog roll soon.
I stay up too late and this is not the time.
I get more freedom here or with anything of my own.
I signed on to make a Townhall blog ditty in order to have an avenue that promotes my writing quick and easy. Something that announces my stuff nice and cool somehow. Instead whatever crap I write, or high-quality sugar treats, get lost in the shuffle of utter crap.
So I could use it to write direct responses to whatever crap Hugh Hewitt spews out (he used to be good), but no one would read it anyway. Doesn't it just look stupid? It's not really mine so I won't really use it. My writing goes here; and other places that are mine.
ALSO: How difficult is it to link Hugh Hewitt's defense of Mitt Romney's religious freedom and theological judgment with... bigotry!? Not very.... although I think the results are to the contrary of Mr. Hewitt's conclusions.
Monday, December 03, 2007
The point is: when I have time in the future I will launch an article, or a series, about that great inconsistency among the left-wing types pursuing an ideal of diversity. Now it is common knowledge among Trekkers, Star Trek fans, that "IDIC" stands for "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations". What exactly that means is never truly explained to my satisfaction as far as I can recall, but it is the highest moral standard of the Vulcan people (I think).
Now I love actual diversity for all it's worth. I love going to Grill Mountain and deciding between tacos and Macaroni and Cheese. I truly appreciate that there is a multiple number of medical professionals going over a sick man's problems. There is more to it than that, of course, but ultimately it all goes around a theme. How does a leftist view diversity? Is the proof to the lie of the self-labeled tolerant self-proclaimed lover of diversity that of his antipathy to those of diametrically opposite, let alone different views? I will take that discussion found on Peter David's weblog and expand on it, to the extent that I will pluck quotes of ideas to make my point. What is the true diversity of idea, mind, thought, fact, membership, presence, and attendance? I'm certain we won't find out in this project, but I'll get some ideas down in words to be read later.
"He has signed the pledge and he has promised to veto and oppose any efforts to raise income taxes if he was President. And at the debate he said that he would support the veto of any tax increase, so that was good too… So he's made that commitment."It makes sense that we welcome converts.
"Now, Club for Growth has been rough on him because of his period when he was governor. We had arguments with him when he was governor because he supported too much spending and too much taxes as governor… It's one of these things that as governor he's had a bad track record on taxes and spending, but as a candidate for President he is running as someone who will not raise taxes in the future and who is talking about fundamental tax reform such as going to a retail sales tax or the so-called fair tax. So some people say 'If you've changed your mind, we don't like you,' but that's not my position. I believe that when people say I used to be pro-choice but now I'm going to be pro-life and here's why, if they can make a credible argument as to why they have switched in their position, I think we should accept converts. That's what winning looks like... f they can make a credible argument as to why they have switched in their position, I think we should accept converts."Huckabee has a dangerous misunderstanding of free trade. Also Mister Norquist has a vital point on the Fair Tax and whether it can succeed result in the dismantling of the Infernal, I mean, Internal Revenue Service.
The retail sales tax will do many things for you. Aboloshing the IRS is not one of them. It will go to a flat rate tax. It will exempt savings. Those are both very good, very powerful pro-economic growth things but if you're taking 20 percent of GDP, 20 percent of the economy away from people and giving it to the government there is no polite, cheerful non-intrusive privacy respecting way to do that. Instead of having the IRS looking at your pay stubs, you'll have the IRS standing around the back doors of Wal Mart making sure people don't sell stuff out the back door. You need a similiarly sized police state to collect the sales tax as the income, Yes there won't be an IRS. It'll be called the Sales Tax Compliant Police.Well worth exploring. The Fair Tax must be explored to its full extent.
Friday, November 30, 2007
I'm trying to make the point that although I am not a Libertarian by any stretch of the imagination or any exaggeration of reason, my vision is one for liberty, that which any good American would love and embrace, and that my instincts are often borne from a libertarian perspective, and some of the instincts are just libertarian regardless of the perspective. Ultimately it's an entirely separate issue whether one fits the bill for Libertarian identity, when the drive is that a libertarian view put into the forefront may be just the thing to protect your fellow Americans from personal, incremental, and small-scale tyranny.
Let me sit here and ask you, which is more natural, just seems more natural, you have what you have, keeping what is yours, be it that what was given to you or whatever trinket, item, artifact or land tract you purchased? The alternative situation is total strangers taking (what you believed is) your stuff simply to fit the legal code that's presently set in stone. Which of those alternatives feels more 'right', to you? Does it make more sense for a dog to follow his master loyally and to eat what is given him or for a man to start biting a dog? Analogy aside it's really quite simple. How is the world supposed to work best aligns the words that we generally use. "Mine" in mine and will be used presumably for good. Tax codes don't really respect the common language.
Just try a single voice, if that is what we pessimistically imagine, attempting to bring Truth to Power.
In today's session we briefly examine, highlight if you will, the difference between a Conservative and a Libertarian. I only assume the role of "the Libertarian" the same way Bruce Wayne is "the Batman". He does not literally grow wings from his sides but he has assumed a mantle, a title, for an effect. Note my effect. So while wearing my title, for this series, we all must be reminded that I am a Conservative and thus I have a philosophy my own to drive forth, and my libertarian drive is actually bridled and controlled quite effectively by a higher ethos.
The sharpest essence of Libertarians and the Libertarian movement is the future, and an ideal that is the perfect and making the perfect the enemy of the good. Libertarians seek liberty above all else, liberty for all in the country, regardless of the cost. Conservatives don't look to the future. They don't have the same resemblance to Progressives that Libertarians have. Conservatives look for the lessons of the past, to the lessons of the past, to save the present and shape the future. As a Conservative I don't look to merely achieve a shiny ideal blindly, but to test and re-test and establish a working system and to protect an establishment that I believe to be good, honorable, and just. Conservatives believe in freedom, too! You'll find that a good Conservative believes in liberty as a final stage step in that great idealistic box of future. The difference is that while Libertarians believe in liberty regardless of cost and without condition, Conservatives seek a sort of equal protection of justice (not equality in a certain state but), equal justice, an equal protection under law, rendering a good sort of society secure in its values set to enjoy its freedom.
next, in Part III, coming in 2008, we examine the most direct philosophical contrast between the Progressive and the Libertarian.... or we'll go with the reality of ownership versus "we just rent here". I haven't decided which yet.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
So I fantasize that I have enough stuff written that it would take a library to contain it all.
It is useful enough that there is a Ron Paul Library. His Presidential campaign refers to it as "excellent".
I like him; I'm still not voting for him. Am I spelling "Neville Chamberlain" wrong?
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
But since no one I know would or does live-read this blog, there's no point in live-blogging it!
I will be watching it tonight, though, in a party hosted by the Michigan State University College Republicans. As prudence and posterity dictates I will jot down notes as I watch the program.
Naturally all should be rooting for Fred Thompson and watch how he does. One hopes that he does not disappoint.
That's irrelevant to me at present; in the presented fiction the car is the Ford Timelord and the sentient automobile inspired the creation of an entire musical video. Historical accuracy demands that I mention that the Timelords was the name of the band for one if not two (and possibly two) albums. Normally this band goes by the moniker of KLF.
KLF - Doctorin' the TARDIS
Add to My Profile | More Videos
The M.O. of KLF is to make songs, mostly obscure in the end, by sampling EVERYTHING. The next video is the Timelords.... doing the song live, intercut with the above video, I think. I could be wrong. It's hard to care, exactly, if I am wrong.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
Larry Kudlow praised Fred Thompson:
Good for Fred. Good for his excellent, broad based, tax-cut plan — including a flat-tax option and a corporate tax cut.Senator Thompson noted his new tax plan, which included an end to that death tax that has bothered me lately.
Good for him for snapping back at Fox’s Chris Wallace when he tried to pull a fast one by citing Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer as proof-pudding that Fred can’t win. Good for Fred for mentioning National Review and Investor’s Business Daily for speaking positively about his candidacy. (So, is it true that Fox is dedicating itself to Rudy?)
Good for Fred for showing fire, energy, and animation throughout the interview. It’s the same fire in the belly that I witnessed in our CNBC interview earlier this month.
Look, I have no idea whether Fred can win the GOP nomination. Frankly, I have no idea who is going to win it. And as I’ve written here before, I’m not picking sides. However, I do want a strong and determined Republican field. And I certainly think Fred has regained his footing.
I vastly prefer positive policy visions to down-in-the-mud trashing. (I know, I know, criticizing each other on the issues is a key part of politics.) But my great hope is that the Republican contenders will emphasize their key policy visions as the race heats up.
All around a good deal.
On the other hand, the seeming feud between these two candidates was covered even earlier today by that same Byron York, regarding Rudy Giuliani's choice of cronies and consistently Mitt Romney's authenticity. It's% a case of dueling narratives actually -- "The Cronyism Narrative" and "the Authenticity Narrative"; guess who owns which and which refers to whom?
What I find more compelling is “'Campaign Trail Mitt vs. Governor Mitt,'” which is part of Team Rudy's authenticity narrative.
- He "'has a strong record of showmanship as opposed to actual performance.'"
- On his "relationship with the Massachusetts state legislature, Rappaport said of the former governor, 'His word is no good…Mitt Romney would say one thing in a meeting and literally go out of the meeting to the press and tell the opposite story. There was no desire in the legislature to be accommodating to him because they couldn't trust him.'"
- Romney "'will be clear today on what he believes today, and he'll be clear tomorrow on what he believes tomorrow, but they may be different things.'"
Mr. Rappaport's endorsement is only relevant as it reveals possible bias, but I would be more willing to suggest that his bias is what part of what fed his endorsement. I've maintained that my biggest problem with Governor Romney is that he is the hardest candidate to trust on claims, promises, and positions, so why not highlight the testimony of the former leader of the Republicans in Massachusetts if it supports my fears and suspicions?
UPDATE (11/26 3:08 PM): Mitt Romney's spokesman strikes back in the most generic fashion. It just isn't a campaign's standard operating procedure to respond to charges directly when they can simply claim that being negative is a bad thing, and despair for the "nastiness"; what a gaggle of putzes. Of course such a comeback wouldn't be complete without self-serving promotion of values and vision, including a lie about grassroots and a rather truthful point about possible Republican contrasts with Senator Clinton.
- Jedd Babbin describes the relevance of this particular even and issue to the Hillary Clinton Presidential campaign.
- Timothy Wheeler is assessing the stuff and the anti-gun rhetoric of the American Academy of Pediatrics and "its war on gun owners."
Senator Lott has been a true friend, consistently reaching across the aisle to serve the interests of the people of Mississippi and to help me serve the interests of the people of Nevada. He and I have also served proudly together as Leaders, ensuring that the Senate serves the nation’s interests. Senator Lott is one of the strongest defenders of the institution of the Senate and one of the most pleasant Senators I have ever worked with. I am proud to have worked side-by-side with such a distinguished public servant as Trent Lott and I wish him well as he leaves the Senate.This has been retrieved from National Review Online's The Corner, as Kathryn Jean Lopez bemoans bipartisanship.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
I like Mike Huckabee but this only reassures and affirms my biases against Huckabee's candidacy for President. I hope I can make time follow up on this, and other questions in December.
But no, I am not from Arkansas. This blog is written from the suffering home state of Michigan.
On a related note, back in August NRO tackled the Fair Tax and how it's inherent complexities make it an issue unfit for 2008, especially for so-called serious candidates to engage.*
* for the record, I am a properly registered Fair Tax supporter and Apologies Demanded is properly registered under the Rolls for Fair Tax Fans. I just don't believe that it is the right choice right now. Executed improperly, even slightly, the Fair Tax could cause a disaster.
Monday, November 19, 2007
facing a $2.9 trillion federal budget and 5,120,688 civilian and military employees, Hillary Clinton is ill-equipped to become president of the United States, commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces, and leader of the free world.Deroy Murdock makes a point of analyzing her specific lack of executive experience, and leadership experience with the exception of her leadership of the Wellesley College Republicans and her presidency of the student-government body.
In contrast here is the most Presidentially equipped Presidential candidate, resume-wise.
Bill Richardson was elected New Mexico’s governor in 2002. He handles a $13.7 billion budget, guides 20,816 state workers, and serves 1.9 million constituents. He was a U.S. House member between 1982 and 1996. He also gained valuable global expertise as United Nations ambassador from 1996 to 1998. Under Presidents Clinton and G.W. Bush, Richardson has negotiated nuclear issues with North Korean generals and helped free American citizens, soldiers, and dissidents from Cuba, Iraq, and Sudan. As Energy secretary from 1998 to 2000, Richardson addressed Arab-oil dependency and nuclear non-proliferation, and maintained America’s atomic arsenal.I would never vote for Bill Richardson; partisanship aside I find his politics abhorrent and his views on the war blind and shortsightedly stupid. His politics are still not too far to the Left or anywhere to the Right of the Democrat Party or its candidates and yet he is apparently boorish, and the Democrats' Hispanic candidate for President (and completely qualified in a different world, one not wrought by a terror war) is completely ignored in favor some young guy, a relative child. Deroy Murdock also contrasts the other (non-Barak Obama) much-ignored candidates and finds them to be greatly more qualified than Senator Clinton, as well as four GOP candidates, three of which are dropping executive experience of one sort or another. The one that isn't is war hero and Indian Affairs Committee Chair John McCain.
Whatever history Germany may claim to have, based on the feats and accomplishments of German and ancestors of Germans with feats going back to battles with Roman, and that little gap between 1933 and 1946, the fact remains that whatever history of modern Constitutional government they have goes back to the late eighties and reunification. How many Constitutions and governments have they had before that? Just how many different Germanies have there been between the American Constitution and now? Maybe it is Germanys. I tell you in the twentieth century we see the Second Reich toppled, the Weimar Republic phased out, Hitler's regime in flames, the half-conquest by the Soviets and the resistance to communism by the West, and then reunification. Now that is an old essay I wrote.
England claims to be old. When was their last Constitution ratified? What tradition do the English call to when a massive change is put forth?
Europe is "The Old World". They are that last old city port that the massive ships of exploration left from when Columbus came to discover The New World. The New World existed as its own little entity but we know that its own nascent, independent, proprietary civilizations aren't civilizations in the sense of spanning the globe, reaching out, and contacting other empires and marveling at their own respective wonders. Surely the only thing the tribes that would be called Indians had in common with Europeans protocolonialists is that they have all the natures of men, including but not limited to the practice of making the environment their own and using the natural resources to their own ends. Who reached what first determines "discovery" and certainly it is in this country that so much New reaches out to encroach on the old.... and we see the Old World as Old, and the original. How can we not see our cousin the Europeans as living in the shoes of our forefathers, as we're the wicked relatives who left to walk the earth? The Americans left. Those who would have children that spread across The New World and would come to identify with this place as their homeland certainly tend to embrace Manifest Destiny as a practice in their personal lives and cultural exuberance if not by proper name or with close recognition of the concept.
So life keeps changing but in The New World the new twists are just twists of old concepts and traditions, or the lie is put forth that the new actions are simply good steps of an old dance. What do Starbucks have to do with ye olde coffee shoppe of the twenties? Nothing! The cafe and/or diner isn't dead but it certainly is so that because the distribution and sale of coffee quickly has led to the new style "coffee klatch" as a grandfather to the grandson doesn't mean that they have anything in common any more than some folk have in common with their progenitors. From my experience the new-style mocha art house simulations (they are chain establishments after all, don't let the book shelf fool you) are likely bursting forth from the beatnik-encouraging, poetry-reading, sit-on-the-couch-and-chat places I have only read about from the fifties and sixties. But those places still served coffee. To some extent everything we see now still must hearken back to the prior time!
If you don't hearken and don't stay in the habit of maintenance of hearkening, what comes then? Damages untold and unanticipated? We fantasize about going back in time surely and certainly because we wish to place ourselves, however temporarily and for wahtever reason in the midsts of the traditions we so aspire to holding high, perhaps in a futile attempt to see it as something pure, in a pure form, with a view towards it however more pure than now; we see what we have as an outgrowth or maybe a tainted version of what was quite possibly, theoretically a better idea realized in something wonderful. Only, of course, a progressive, a leftist (a "liberal" in modern parlance to realize and refer to the Left) would see it as perfectible and the future version a perfected not tainted adaptation of the old. Like all visions of childhood we remember what we saw as a child saw it and assumed that adult eyes on the same event in the same time would see with the same sense of wonder; and we might.
Looking at those attempts from the outside one can establish his own sense of malaise but more importantly there is the development of judgmentalism. We build our own tendencies to judge other people in a negative manner, a path approaching that of cynicism. It's malaise because we no longer engage in our own wonder because our own sense of reality is so grounded we refuse to leave for even a second and in brief instants we imagine something magical but refuse to stretch out and it is like seeing rainbows while being colorblind. (Can the colorblind even see rainbows?) A slight expectation for something better combined with an inability to envision that something better could be malaise. The inherent pessimism screams! The sight of another with vision just before the rejection of the person with vision simply because he has vision in a world where you cannot grab for a second vision of your very own... hurts. The hopelessness amounts for a very second and you move on.
Perhaps that is an imperfect parallel. But see it as the future of The New World. For better or worse our own future is an outgrowth of our own past and nostalgia itself is the fuel or the spark of new creation, however barely new that creation may be. The almost-cynic condemns that nostalgia and quite nearly curses any attempt to look back, seeing a life only in the terms of the future, without realizing that attempts to re-live glory days or realize lost dreams are in part what a wondrous future may be based on. Perhaps I am wrong.
The point is that sovereignty is looking back at what is ours, realizing it is ours, and defending it. The Europeans lose that and to some extents in individual nations have lost that because they have their respective losses for their modern inability to look back. Some American looked around and said 'this is mine' and laid down his life quite nearly to defend it. Did a European? What a question! Four hundred years ago, three hundred years ago there were English, Frenchmen, Dutch, Germans, Prussians, Russians fighting for their respective people, beliefs, and territory and the concept of uniting them as Europeans with common European interests, as if Turkey may not be included lest it taint their European sensibility was unheard of! Now the borers blur, Europe has its own Europe, multi-paged not-quite-accepted-or-ratified Constitution, parliament/council, laws and other such bits of real government without a true united culture, yet the so-called individual nation-states within it refuse to take the steps to preserve their own respective cultures. Of course that would involve looking back and the left-wing progressive hates looking back; apparently they are afraid they will see a lost spark of humanity and the sudden burst of envy would burst their brains. Or their hearts would shatter: a broken heart borne of and/or from lost virtue.
Indeed said European Union exists only as an intended counterpoint to the United States, to gather the forces of the disparate countries to face off economically, compete with a nation that realizes its own culture and for better or worse regardless of true realization or otherwise will live in its culture and fight to defend it.
The irony being that the collective entity, the so-called supernation that exists without looking back and won't look back is still The Old World and is seen by The New World and its denizens "as Goethe and Mozart and 12th century castles and 6th century churches," and the birthplace of culture and we treat that with reverence. That culture is gone. The instrument of preservation of the works and plots of the people is at times often the government, for that which governs is charged with keeping the people that love and live and read safe from the evil outsiders and certainly Europe has not entirely done that.
Am I condemning my cousins in the east? Yes, and no. The important point is Thanksgiving. America exists because there is that grand tradition of liberty and justice. Our nostalgia is what fuels our visions of a better world and it's the American vision of a better world that has led to great innovations and defenses of notions older than our Constitution itself, even when the so-called great powers of the rest of the world are totally re-writing their traditions and instituting new constitutions, new constitutional governments with cracked versions of respect and love for the old ways (because we don't want to offend anybody, least of all the new people referred to as 'normal' in the present day society). Perhaps the world will see and perhaps it won't but who can truly complain when "the Americans" swoop in with a mighty hand and sweep the enemies of justice and disorder aside?
If a grown man is stronger than a young boy and a developed tradition stronger than the novelty started last year we compare America and Europe and see that for the east "the Continent’s governing mechanisms are no more ancient than the Partridge Family." Who is the young boy now?
We celebrate Thanksgiving thanking God for the old traditions that we hug and love and celebrate and despite the urge to reject them and pervert them at least we realize that way back when there is something there, and we 'taint' what we taint because it is there to taint. But it's not ending there. What was once a small urge to be our own bosses and our own nation has led to shared national ethos and the drive to defend them, even when it really is going abroad to another land risking much to defend principles, just to avoid the chance that the assault would spread, move on, and take us on at our own borders.
We thank God we still have borders. America has grown and miraculously so many of our traditions have stayed the same. The globe-spanning empires of The Old World have shrank and their peoples struggle to remember what they must hold as dear. God willing we remember what we hold dear. Thanksgiving isn't about the big big world or how America and Americans relate to the English. Thanksgiving never had any basis in war and antagonistic blood-baptized revolution. It's about sitting down, realizing that there is a vision, and being thankful that we can realize that vision. Surely it's about simply being here, but being here with the knowledge that we stuck to our guns and our principles remain intact. Wasn't that the point of the Plymouth expedition?
Note especially in terms of expeditions to The New World how fortunate the Pilgrims really were for what they accomplished and why.
Our blessings are manifest and certainly quite nearly unique from The Old World and the rest of the New.
Mark Steyn, not an American at all, certainly put his tribute and summary of Thanksgiving and our national age much better than I have, certainly more concise and with greater beauty than my meager capabilities could allow.
"a regressive tax on food"? We don't do that here! It isn't in my stack of expectations.
Democrat Bill Clinton did it because he's a liberal. He's a leftist. What is Mike Huckabee? He's a "Compassionate Conservative". I like Mike Huckabee and I've met him. I like President Bush, too, but we really don't need more government like that. Seriously: how much more similar do we need between leftists and thought-of rightists when the tax results are the same?
Who moved Arkansas back from the brink? "This is where freshman Democratic governor Mike Beebe comes in."
Mike Beebe, in his first year as governor, has delivered the biggest tax cut in Arkansas history, one that has lifted a burden from the backs of the state’s poor and middle class. Neither Clinton nor Huckabee can ever say that.Good to remember.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Rather than face that his own higher principles and cornerstone of his infamy are wrong, the Presidential candidate would rather stab his supporters.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Jonah Goldberg compares notions of diversity and media rejection for the sake of ideological preference.
Now, the Republicans are genuinely different and I hope to go into that later, as well as list how Mr. Goldberg does it but I don't have time today.
His criticism of the Democrats reflect more or less exactly my complaints about the execution of diversity at Michigan State University and more specifically Michigan State University James Madison College.
the Democratic Party is the party of real diversity — defined as a black, an Hispanic, a Southern white guy, and a woman who all believe pretty much the exact same thing.What am I supposed to learn from someone of a different skin color? I still don't know.
Lisa Schiffren at NRO questions the entire Corner to the notion of leaving religious beliefs out of the Primary inquisitions, explicitly asking questions about discrepancies between Governor Romney's actions and the tenets of his religion (as well as hinting about discrepancies between each candidate's actions and his or her purported God-centered creed). She also notes that we should probably be more aware about specific differences between the Mormon demands and traditions:
on the very narrow matter of the Mormon religion, reasonable questions exist for the naturally curious. The Mormon church was founded about 150 years ago, with highly specific and interesting divergences from mainstream American Protestant theologies. Even now there are a mere 13 million or so adherents worldwide. Those of us who struggle with our own religion, and the authority behind the law are naturally curious about how someone comes to embrace a brand new religion.I only note that any non-Mormon who insists that Mormonism is yet another Christian/Protestant denomination is speaking out of ignorance and is being broadly insulting to both Christians and Mormons. If you are a Mormon and you believe that the title of "Christian" belongs to both you and I, then you are welcome to that belief, but I won't listen to any attempts to persuade me until after Christmas.
Victor Davis Hanson discusses American public ignorance of American military success(es) in Iraq.
Kathryn Jean Lopez argues that Hillary Rodham Clinton is clearly a professional politician and she shouldn't be underestimated in this arena.
Running parallel to VDH's message of public ignorance is the NRO Editorial regarding leftwing and Democratic Party denials of military progress in a foreign land.
I hope I can make the point in a later post to properly follow up on my comments on Social Security below. As it is, part of my intended follow-up is Ramesh's Corner post about Democrats and Social Security.
More on most of this stuff later.
The proper mail addresses:
To send news releases to individual editors or reporters, please consult the staff list by department.
It is not necessary to call or e-mail the recipient to make sure they got your release. They will call you if they want to follow up.
If you do not know whom to send your release, you can e-mail it to the appropriate department:Metro: firstname.lastname@example.org
The Detroit NewsThe contact page has more information, including specific departments and reporters.
A MediaNews Group company
615 W. Lafayette Blvd.
Detroit, MI 48226
phone: (313) 222-2300 / fax: (313) 222-2335
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to provide content protection for so-called “premium content”, typically HD data from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical support overhead, and hardware and software cost. These issues affect not only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server). This document analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry.That's the Executive Summary of A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection, written by Peter Gutmann of University of Aukland. Technological Progressives are a more irritating strand of the cursed and destructive breed, for the most part because Technological Progressives are capitalists. Like all Progressives they reach forward and outward to develop based on a self-driven need to develop with a broad justification that any change must be better than the status quo, without heed to unanticipated consequences. You know the Hammond character from Jurassic Park? The book, not really the movie. He was a fictional Technological Progressive (as Michael Crichton's books are crawling with that sort of character). He anticipated all sorts of possible consequences, headed them off quite successfully and then something he didn't anticipate occurred and his guests started getting eaten by dinosaurs. In real life most Technological Progressives work for the major software companies. They create more powerful software and more complicated software without much heed for how this will actually effect how previously constructed (and standard) software works, or if it works. This is generally done to sell more stuff, regardless of how it hurts the people who have purchased stuff already; these capitalists don't need to take heed of how it will hurt their loyal customers, because ultimately computer users are slaves who need to purchase new software to heal these old wounds.
As for Progressivism in a broader context, Hillary Clinton claims to be a "Modern American Progressive". Woodrow Wilson is one od this century's founders of Progressivism as a movement and to some extent is historically the most famous Progressive. Historically I would put forth that Franklin Delano Roosevelt is the most destructive Progressive, as far as government, economics and public policy goes. Your mileage may vary.
also: Slashdot reported in August that playing music on your Windows Vista system slows it down. The basic pillar of Microsoft Windows' promises: multi-tasking, has now been violated.
He attacked Warren Buffet’s tax-hike proposal on the rich as totally wrong, and Buffett himself as nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic party.Larry Kudlow also reported about the nature of Senator Thompson's Iowa campaign. The only reason that Sen. Thompson's Iowa campaign matters to me at all is this: MIGOP Chairman Saul Anuzis is working to set up a second GOP Presidential debate in Michigan. The only way to successfully lobby for a Presidential debate in one's own state is to make it unique and to make to make it distinct, especially in regards to voices, and the number of voices. The hook is that the top three winners of the Iowa Caucus are the only candidates invited to (hypothetically) debate in Michigan. It is appropriate at this time to winnow out the supposedly lesser candidates. Debates take time and if a standard one is approximately two hours long it is more useful and substantial if the time is split between the three most likely candidates and not everyone who purchased a spot on the ticket. Thus while I would normally declare campaign resource allocation to any state besides Michigan as irrelevant to my interests, as the entire Tancredo Presidential campaign is now the least relevant campaign in my field of view, that the results of actions in Iowa directly impact Presidential candidate appearances in my state, it's directly relevant.
He agreed with Dick Armey that the GOP will lose if it departs from the first principles of limited government and lower tax rates.
He called the farm bill “disgraceful” and would veto it if he were president.
He said Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic candidates are wrong on taxes. He noted that the top 5 percent pay 60 percent of all tax collections now; that the tax code is progressive enough; that there’s plenty of economic mobility in the country; that for those who have fallen behind, the problem is poor education, not tax rates; and that America is the freest, most prosperous, most powerful nation in the history of the world.
Thompson is a staunch free trader. He stood firmly behind his Social Security reform plan that would slow down future benefits and provide for private savings accounts.
On inflation, he said he’s not worried about today’s reported 3.5 percent increase in the consumer price index for October. Nor is he overly concerned about the weak dollar. Ben Bernanke is doing a good job, he said, though he refused to say if he’d reappoint the Fed chair.
On politics, the former Senator made it clear that he will continue to attack former mayor Rudy Giuliani’s support of federal funding for abortion, gun control, and sanctuary cities.
He said you might as well say what you believe is right; that life is too short for the aggravation of not telling the truth.
It was a lively interview, and Fred Thompson is not afraid to mix it up. I went at him. He came right back at me. It was great fun. He’s a serious and impressive man. Much stronger than when I interviewed him back in June.
The interview airs tonight at 7PM Eastern Time on CNBC. I hope I can catch it. Better yet, I hope that it is on YouTube.
On a related note, Ramesh from NRO comments about a Brookings Institute's detractor of Fred's Social Security plan. Let me clear this up. As a candidate Fred Thompson naturally has a plan to deal with our country's Social Security SNAFU (The Editors of National Review Online, in general, approve of Senator Thompson's policy plan). "Jason Furman, a liberal economist at the Brookings Institution" has (apparently negative) criticism of the plan. Ramesh Ponnuru doesn't understand his friend's criticism and assesses Fred Thompson's plan as sound.
Barak Obama actually claims that "that Thompson's plan 'undermines' the promise that Social Security made to seniors and characterized it as an effort to privatize the government retirement system. 'If we simply ask higher income Americans to contribute a little more, we can shore up Social Security for generations to come,' he said."
Barak Obama is younger than Fred and his career is ultimately less mature and his judgment is weaker for the lacking. He also carries a leftist ideology into the policy argument, which is why he insists that innocent citizens carry a burden for a system that shouldn't require those citizens to put addition cash in. That is why Barak Obama's points should be dismissed outright, but not before taking the words away from the inexperienced junior senator. Barak Obama won't defeat the anointed one's race for the Democrat nomination; he, personally, is irrelevant. As a voice of typical Democrat politics and ideology his words are useful to highlight a Democrat approach and how harmful it is to the American citizenry.
I think I'll deal with that next.