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.