Raging Right Wing Republican

For those of us who are politically informed, and therefore Republican.

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Tax Gouging

No, "Big Oil" is not conspiring to fix prices and generate huge profits.

Oil prices are high - though in inflation adjusted terms, not as high as in some periods. The reasons for this have nothing to do with the nefarious activities of "Big Oil." It is caused by rising demand from the expanding Chinese and Indian economies; a lack of supply caused by low investment during the 80s and 90s when crude prices fell to below $10 per barrel at one stage; a lack of refining capacity for the same reason; regulations designed to cut pollution, which raise production costs, the interruptions to supplies from the Middle East because of the conflict there, and finally, an element of speculation from hedge funds and the like.

It's called "supply and demand," and a few familiar friends of ours have played a certain hand in ensuring that our supply is short when our demand is high.

Democrats have suddenly become shocked - shocked! - at high gas prices. Indeed, after years of obstructing every means of energy production, the Democrats have suddenly embraced the issue because it's another "blame Bush" mallet. Their denunciations of "Big Oil" and Republicans are crudely transparent opportunism.
  • This is the party that stopped the nation building nuclear plants.
  • This is the party that toyed with carbon taxes.
  • This is the party of Al Gore, now right in the middle of publicizing An Inconvenient Truth, "by far the most terrifying movie you will ever see."
  • This is the party that won't let oil companies prospect for oil off the left and right coasts.
  • This is the party whose activists prevented the US from building new petroleum refineries.
  • This is the party that filibusters against drilling for oil in an arctic wilderness that just happens to be right next to a major oil pipeline with spare capacity.
Ask them what to do, and what answers do we get? More domestic oil? Ooh, no, we can't disturb the pristine ANWR breeding ground of the world's largest mosquito herd. More nuclear power, like the French? Ooh, no, might be another Three Mile Island. Er, OK, you're the mass transit guys; how about we go back to wood-fired steam trains? Ooh, no, we're opposed to logging, in case it causes global warming, or cooling, or both.

The fact of the matter is that "Big Oil" makes just nine cents on the gallon of gas today, whereas the government taxes rake in an average of 46 cents on every gallon of gas.

The anti-pollution regulations have also caused oil companies to be denied permits to build new refineries, which has contributed to the lack of supply. Why search for more oil when, until only recently, it's been an unprofitable enterprise? So the next time you pass a hippie, kick his ass, because he's more to blame for high gas prices than Exxon is.

"Patriotism is the Highest Form of Dissent"

How many times have you heard some mealy-mouthed granola eating liberal hide behind this platitude as they railed against America?

Too bad it's fake:
"There are a number of quotes that we do not find in Thomas Jefferson's correspondence or other writings; in such cases, Jefferson should not be cited as the source. Among the most common of these spurious Jefferson quotes are: 'Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.'"
Dissent is not patriotic per se; it must be couched constructively and in respectful terms. How can you listen to those who mockingly jeered Vietnam veterans as they returned home from the war and think that they love their country?

We have marxist apologist and pseudo-historian Howard Zinn to thank for tying this phony quote to the war on terror. Sadly, many teachers and professors have their students read his People's History of the United States and so brainwash them into thinking that American history is one long struggle by rich white men to oppress everyone else and expand their own wealth.

Assimilation

Oil Price "Gouging"

Andrew Sullivan:
"...conservative government really is dead, isn't it? A conservative government would simply say: we have no control over global oil prices; consumers reap what they sow; companies should be left alone; and if your wallet is empty because of all that gas in your SUV, you've learned a useful lesson in self-government. If only Margaret Thatcher were around to punctuate that lecture with a swipe of her handbag."

Er...

I'm watching Meet the Press's roundtable on gas prices.

Russert, challenging Energy Secretary Sam Bodman: "Oil demand is up. Supply is down. So why are prices rising?"

Restructuring the Army

Rumsfeld has always taken a lot of heat for his management style, but the truth is that he's just what the military needs at this stage in history. He's a transformer, and such institutional bureaucratic backlash is something to be expected when you ruffle more than few general's feathers who's jobs reside in the stability of the status quo. The Christian Science Monitor documents just how extensive the changes really are:
By giving these smaller units more resources, the Army is making them more self-sufficient - and that gives Pentagon leaders more options. In the past, the smallest unit the Army could send to any global hot spot was a division of nearly 20,000 troops. By pushing its resources downward, now the Army can mobilize individual brigade combat teams as small as 3,500 troops.

It is a fundamental change brought about by a new security environment. During the cold war, the threat was a massive war against the Soviets, so it made sense to organize the Army into a few massive pieces. Today, however, America is faced more and more with smaller conflicts, and the Pentagon is convinced that this requires smaller pieces that can be moved around the globe more easily.

Yet the changes are already echoing beyond the arcane matter of military organization into soldiers' everyday lives.

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Gas Gluttony

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Gettin' Paid

If women offer equal work for 23 cents less on the dollar, why does anyone bother hiring men?

Don't fall for the feminist claptrap.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

On the Panic in the Streets over Gasoline

First of all, the Democrats wailing and whining about the high prices have forgotten they are supposed to be friends of the Greens. Higher gas prices means less driving, which means less greenhouse gases. Why isn't Nancy Pelosi cheering gasoline prices?

When I was in Paris, I noted gasoline was roughly 2.55 Euroes per Liter. You tell me if I did this right:
There are 3.78 Liters per gallon.
2.55 Euros equals $3.17
$3.17 x 3.78 Liters per gallon = $11.98 per gallon
Also, I was at the gas station earlier so I bought a bottle of water. 99 cents. 16.9 fluid ounces.

For those who slept through this in third grade, there are 128 ounces to the gallon. 99 cents for 16.9 ounces = $7.50 per gallon. For water.

Somebody get me Nancy Pelosi on the phone.

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

The Liberal Line

We are horribly dependent on foreign oil. But we shouldn't develop domestic oil or boost our refining capacity. We need a gas tax to wean Americans from foreign oil, but high gas prices are an outrage. We need alternative forms of energy, but we shouldn't use nuclear power. We need renewable, sustainable energy, unless it spoils the view of rich liberal icons.

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Bin Laden Changes the Subject

Osama bin Laden has released a new tape, which has been summarized here, at least as revealed in the fragments broadcast on al Jazeera.

Apart from the list's comical aspects, it is fascinating for its omissions. Why didn't bin Laden talk about Iraq?

Less than two and a half years ago, al Qaeda broke the news to the Taliban that it was diverting its resources to Iraq so as to humiliate the American "Crusaders."
All this was on the orders of bin Laden himself, the sources said. Why? Because the terror chieftain and his top lieutenants see a great opportunity for killing Americans and their allies in Iraq and neighboring countries such as Turkey, according to Taliban sources who complain that their own movement will suffer... Bin Laden believes that Iraq is becoming the perfect battlefield to fight the "American crusaders" and that the Iraqi insurgency has been "100 percent successful so far," according to a Taliban participant at the mid-November meeting who goes by the nom de guerre Sharafullah.
Al Qaeda drew a line in the sands of the Sunni Triangle, and the United States Army and Marines walked right across it. First, al Qaeda tried to kill Americans, per bin Laden's orders. It failed. Then al Qaeda went after America's allies, and succeeded in only turning public opinion against itself in every Muslim country it attacked. After thirty months of battlefield defeats and political embarassments, bin Laden won't even mention Iraq in one of his rare public utterances, and he rallies his troops to fight a war where American soldiers aren't. How humilitating. How delightful.

Al Qaeda has lost in Iraq, and bin Laden is desperate to change the subject. He and his organization are at grave risk of being discredited, and when that happens it will be much harder for al Qaeda to attrack recruits, raise money, or deal with governments.

Bin Laden Resurfaces with New Tape

Fox News was discussing it earlier. To briefly summarize, Osama made the following points:
  • Hamas: despite the fact that he and Zawahiri warned the Palestinians not to take part in elections in general, the victory of Hamas shows that there is a "Crusader Zionist War against Islam." Cutting foreign aid to the Palestinians because of Hamas' victory proves that war.
  • The public in the West and the US, despite their warnings, continue to reelect these Goverments, and send their children to fight against al-Qaeda. The civilians are therefore part of the war against Islam. They are responsible for any harm that would be caused to them.
  • Sudan: The Bashir Government is failing in stopping the Crusader War in Sudan. The Crusaders (Britain) have pushed the southerners (Blacks) to separate. The US has armed them and is supporting them. And now, because of tribal tensions in Darfur, the Crusaders are planning on intervening there. Osama then calls on the Jihadists to fight in Darfur and southern Sudan.
  • Long war: He calls on the Jihadists, particularly those in Sudan and the Arabian peninsula to prepare themselves for a long, drawn out war.
  • Danish Cartoons: He asks the Danish government to hand over the cartoonists to al-Qaeda.
  • Saudis: He criticizes the Saudi monarchy for refuting the idea of a "clash of civilizations" and maintains that there is a clash led against Islam by the West.
  • Arab Liberals: He calls on Jihadists to silence any arab and muslim liberals. A list of targets has been established, but it was not aired.
  • Education: He warns that any change that would affect the educational curriculum in the Arab and Muslim world will be met with vengeance.
  • Arab TV: Warns against the TV stations that would air "Crusader propaganda."
  • Truce: Osama offered a truce to US and Europe, but since the public refused to accept it, we can only blame ourselves.
A more detailed analysis may follow.

On the Generals Against Rumsfeld

By now you must have heard about the six retired generals who have come out against Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.

My response: So what?

There are over 4700 retired general officers in the US and if there were seven times as many of them complaining it wouldn't even make up 1% of the total. And that's not counting the generals that are in the military right now. They support Rumsfeld. These retired generals are out of the loop.

This is a story that should've been buried on page A-14 and then forgotten about. I wonder why the press is playing it up so much?

"You need to be disinfected"

Watch the hate.

Republicans Need Not Worry

The Democrats have neither a message nor a messenger.

To make the kind of gains Reagan Revolutionaries Gingrich & co. made in 1994, Democrats have to nationalize the November midterm elections. But there's a problem: they're short on ideas, talent and cash, which is everything they need to win.

Saturday, April 22, 2006

John Kerry, the Politician's Politician

John Kerry has a self-serving article in the Boston Globe commemorating the 35th anniversary of his testimony against the Vietnam war before the United States Senate. Kerry writes, "Thirty-five years later, in another war gone off course, I see history repeating itself." I do too, but just not the history repeat that has occured to John F. Kerry.

John Kerry joined the Navy in 1966, when the Vietnam war was by no means unfashionable. A few years later, public opinion changed and John Kerry's opinion, as it is wont to do, changed too. More than three years ago, when public opinion favored a war on Iraq by 3 to 1 margins, John Kerry voted for the war (before he voted against it!). John Kerry masquerades as a high-minded statesman guided by principle. His principles, strangely, generally seem to mirror the latest public opinion poll. To some degree, this is the sin of just about all politicians. But John Kerry seems even more of a politician than the other politicians.

John Kerry could have stood against President Bush's war of choice in Iraq. But that would have imperiled his presidential bid. Today, he could stick by his unpopular vote to authorize sending Americans to fight in Iraq. But that doesn't fly in Massachusetts, doesn't fly in the Democratic presidential primaries, and increasingly, doesn't fly in the country at large. So, he does, in the most amorphous manner possible, the popular thing. But what's popular yesterday isn't necessarily what's popular today, and what's popular today isn't necessarily what's popular tomorrow. Chasing polls isn't always good politics. It's never good leadership.

There's no virtue in sticking with a failed policy. But John Kerry will never be accused of this flaw, so thoroughly credited to his 2004 vanquisher. John Kerry the politician is, in C.S. Lewis words, one of the "men without chests." But he pretends otherwise on the campaign trail. He has all the gestures down pat - saluting upon accepting the Democratic nomination, delivering speeches as though every word were Churchillian, and speaking in that Ivy-League/Boston Brahmin accent. But his actions are those of a politician, not those of a statesman. John Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, yet claims to be opposed to same-sex marriage. He voted for the war in Iraq, but poses as an opponent. He voted for the Patriot Act, but campaigned against it. He stands for nothing. He stands for everything. It's no wonder that the "flip-flop" chants at the Republican National Convention hit home.

On Iraq, Kerry could have stood against the war when it really mattered. He didn't. Now that America is three years into Iraq, and the American people have reversed their collective stance on the war, Kerry has, seemingly at least, reversed his stance too. Kerry could have thrown a touchdown pass in standing against the war in 2002 and in 2003. Instead, he punted. Now he wants to play Monday Morning Quarterback.

There's no risk in that, and that - risk - is what this boring politician avoids most of all. And without risk, there is usually no leadership, and no reward. Perhaps this is a lesson lost on rich kids who spent their summers in France, falls and springs at Swiss boarding-schools, young adult years at Yale, and adulthood in the U.S. Senate. Rewards didn't come from risks then, so why start taking chances now? John Kerry never led public opinion on Iraq. He followed it. By taking the safe route, he helped push so many young men and women down the unsafe route.

Kerry writes in today's op-ed: "It was clear that thousands of Americans were losing their lives in Vietnam while politicians in Washington schemed to save their political reputations." History does indeed repeat itself. And I hope the history of election '04 does as well.

Tortured a Kid Half to Death? Hey, No Problem!

If you want to see yet another example of the "every culture is equal" garbage gone absolutely mad, you need only look to this wonderful story from the Grand EUrinal:
A BANGLADESHI woman who shook a baby boy so violently that he suffered brain damage walked free from court yesterday because a judge conceded that she did not know how to behave in the West.

Rahella Khanom, 24, caused the five-month-old boy in her care to suffer fractures to his breast bone and ribs as she tried to rid him of evil spirits, Southwark Crown Court was told.
Somebody should show Rassholla how we rid idiotic scum of stupidity in the West by shoving a stick of dynamite up their asses and lighting the fuse. The judge should get the alternate "pour molten lead down the throat" cure.
The injuries inflicted on the child over several weeks had caused one side of his brain to shrink. It was believed that the boy would have been screaming in agony for eight weeks because his injuries went untreated.
"But she didn't know any better! She's not guilty of anything other than refusing to subscribe to the fascist and Imperialist culture of the West!"

The innocent child who was almost tortured to death, screaming in agony for weeks, could not be reached for comment.

Friday, April 21, 2006

Rise in Gas Prices Correlates with Bush's Drop in Polls

One tracks the other almost perfectly. If you showed this to a statistics professor he'd probably flunk you for faking the data.

I'm sure it'll upset Bush's most extreme critics who think he's down because the validity of their criticisms has sunk in, that he's out-of-touch, arrogant, Hitler, etc., when it just turns out that he's unpopular simply because folks have to cough up three bucks a gallon at the pump.

It'll be interesting to see how Bush's popularity polls if and when gas prices decrease in price. Will the correlation work the other way as well? If Bush gets a resulting bump, regardless of the events in the news cycle, then Karl Rove can be replaced with a trained chimpanzee so long as that trained chimpanzee carries a sign that says, "Do whatever it takes to get cheap gas to the public!"

A few million barrels released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would do nicely to test this... around October, I'm thinking.

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Can the GOP get this Lucky?

Remember the Golden Rule when considering Republican reelection prospects: they run against Democrats.

And look who's riding to the rescue! I missed him.

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Iran to Give Palestinian Authority $50 M

Just as the United States and Europe cut monetary aid, Iran comes through to fill the breach. Birds of a feather:
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki announced the aid package during a conference held in Tehran in support of the Palestinians.

The promise of funds comes a few days after the United States and Europe announced they were cutting aid to the government led by the Islamic militant group Hamas.

Mottaki said the decision was made based on Iran's firm and long-standing policy of supporting the Palestinians, the broadcast said.
Now, anyone and everyone knows Iran supports terror groups throughout the Middle East, especially ones that like to kill Jews.

Yet, not everyone may know that Hamas is officially regarded as a terrorist organization by the United States Government. So, if anyone still wanted yet another "smoking gun" to pin on Iran, here's one served up on a silver platter.

Not that anyone is likely to ever be convinced or anything.

Suicide Bombing of Tel Aviv

Of course, Hamas cheers.

Why are these people so stupid? Don't they know that they could have had a state years ago?

Would it have been everything they wanted? No. But it would have been a start, and hell, if they wanted to continue their war to destroy the rest of Israel later, they would have had a better foundation to do so. Instead, they insist on fighting a war they cannot win.

Excuse me, by "fighting a war," I mean "slaughtering innocent people enjoying a meal on Passover."
"I was about to get into my car, and boom! There was an explosion. A bit of human flesh landed on my car and I started to scream," she said.

Her car was 50 yards from the explosion and its windshield was smeared with blood.

A "legitimate response."

Monday, April 17, 2006

Comfortably Dumb


An artist's rendition of the day
Palestinians want to live in peace.

Entertainers. Can any waft of logic pierce the overpowering scent of narcissicism in their deviated septums? Looking to succeed where Jason Alexander, Danny DeVito, Rhea Pearlman, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston and Edward Norton failed, Roger Waters thinks his tortured vocals and now decades long musical impotence will tear down the wall that has helped save Israelis from Palestinian suicide bombers that rained the Intifada on every pizza parlor and Seder supper.

Succumbing to pleas from his Hamas co-conspirators after they threatened boycotting his "peace" concert from being held in Tel Aviv, Waters helped put it all in perspective in the manner that's kept him so culturally relevant since embarking on his solo career:
"I am happy to play to anybody who believes in peace. I don't discriminate between any of my fans, wherever they live. Being an Israeli does not disbar from being a human being."
Glad we cleared that up. Israelis are humans. Recognizing their statehood can't be far behind!


Woohoo! Play Brain Damage!

How Expected

The week the deranged president of Iran again calls for the annihilation of Israel and once again denies the Holocaust ever happened liberal James Carroll draws the only logical conclusion: Bush is a lunatic and this administration is run by "deeply frustrated, angry, and psychologically wounded people."

10 Days of anti-American Propaganda

This weekend I turned on "10 Days That Changed America," a documentary series on the History Channel, which is one of my favorite channels to watch. I was really dissappointed when the episode on the Mystic Massacre (the massacre of Indians by English settlers and Indian allies in 1637) was so incredibly slanted, pro-native american and anti-settler. They almost entirely gloss over any Indian attacks on settlers, making it sound like simple harrassment raids when nothing happened but some barrels overturned (when in fact settlers were killed). There was even a 10 minute segment on how the Pequots were able to revitalize their tribe by turning to bingo and gambling. How is this important to the subject at all? They should have titled it "Poor Pequots, aren't they great!" Certain facts are overlooked, like the word Pequot is derived from an Algonquian language phrase meaning "the destroyers." You really think they got that name by accident? There are good reasons that the Mohegans and Narragansetts sided with the settlers and participated in the rade on Mystic. I'm very dissappointed with the History channel, as I usually expect more from them. Like maybe some balance?

Time's Top Ten Best Senators

Here's their totally radically shocking! list:
  • Thad Cochran
  • Kent Conrad
  • Dick Durbin
  • Ted Kennedy
  • Jon Kyl
  • Carl Levin
  • Richard Lugar
  • John McCain
  • Olympia J. Snowe
  • Arlen Specter
Excuse me while I offer my personal opinion:

Time magazine is on crack.

Durbin and Snowe have the combined candlepower of a flintspark. Levin is a hack. Kennedy is a drunk womanizer. Kyl's a disappointment. Specter is a slippery worm. McCain is the ultimate self-serving preening media hound.

Seriously, the only name on there that I believe definitely belongs on the list is Dick Lugar. Cochran and Conrad are class acts, but that alone can't justify them as the ten best. The rest of the list includes names I'd include on the worst list, along with John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Lincoln Chaffee, Robert Byrd and Ted Stevens.

Warped Incentives

So perverse is the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill that it would give illegal invaders who've been here for the last five years an automatic path to citizenship, while denying that benefit to legal high-tech workers who've been working here for five years. Ponder that for a moment.

Sunday, April 16, 2006

The New "Racism"

It used to be that racism in hiring meant refusing to hire an otherwise fully qualified applicant simply because he had the wrong skin color.

Now, on the other hand, "racism" means "not hiring a minority, whether he's qualified or not."

Happy Easter

Christ is risen, so goes the Easter holiday. And most Americans recognize it. You have to wonder what liberals are thinking when they constantly deride the religious beliefs of their fellow countrymen, insofar as their electoral success is concerned. "Vote for us, you idiot!" has never worked out very well as a campaign strategy.

Unfortunately, there's some Dan Brown acquolytes in there, too. 13% think the Crucifixion was an orchestrated conspiracy. The article brings up the Da Vinci Code as a possible cause for this lunacy, and if it could actually have this sort of affect on public opinion then maybe it shouldn't be regarded as just a story after all.

Saturday, April 15, 2006

"That Book Grabbed My Ass!"


From Ohio State University, another shining moment for the politics of the academic left:
Scott Savage, who serves as a reference librarian for the [Ohio State] university, suggested four best-selling conservative books for freshman reading in his role as a member of OSU Mansfield’s First Year Reading Experience Committee. The four books he suggested were The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian, The Professors by David Horowitz, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye’'or, and It Takes a Family by Senator Rick Santorum. Savage made the recommendations after other committee members had suggested a series of books with a left-wing perspective, by authors such as Jimmy Carter and Maria Shriver.

Savage was put under "investigation" by OSU's Office of Human Resources after three professors filed a complaint of discrimination and harassment against him, saying that the book suggestions made them feel "unsafe." The complaint came after the OSU Mansfield faculty voted without dissent to file charges against Savage. The faculty later voted to allow the individual professors to file charges.
The politics of "diversity." The politics of "tolerance." The politics of "give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever."

Friday, April 14, 2006

Moussaoui Trial Exhibits

...including very graphic photographs the mainstream media will of course never dare to show.


Yes, that used to be a living human being. They improved on Hitler, turning commercial buildings into creamatoria the quick and dirty way.

The Pope: Still Too Catholic

Speaking as one who is non-Catholic, the following statement has a lot to recommend it:
At the Third Station of the Cross, where Jesus falls for the first time, Archbishop Comastri has written: "Lord, we have lost our sense of sin. Today a slick campaign of propaganda is spreading an inane apologia of evil, a senseless cult of Satan, a mindless desire for transgression, a dishonest and frivolous freedom, exalting impulsiveness, immorality and selfishness as if they were new heights of sophistication."
Times Online notes "some will regard their emphasis on sin and the dark side of human nature as retrograde". Oddly enough!

CASE CLOSED: Saddam Recruited Terrorists to Strike America

Once again, the Iraqi intelligence files are proving invaluable in demonstrating that the Bush administration was absolutely right that Saddam was a terror monger and that his removal was a logical and proper extension of the War on Terror.

As explained in a must-read post from April 10, he initially posted a memo, dated March 17, 2001, from a brigadier general in the Iraqi Air Force who requested a list of volunteers from all units under his command for suicide attackers. A principal purpose of the initiative was to attack American targets. Here is exactly what the Iraqi memo said:
The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.
That's the end of that.

Thursday, April 13, 2006

The Truth About the Deficit

If you use the accrual method of accounting - which is the method your employer uses - and not the cash method of accounting - which is the method our Government uses - the deficit for FY 2005 was $760 billion and not $319 billion.
Tick tock.

Student Fights American Flag Ban

By calling in the ACLU. The "enemy of my enemy is my friend," I guess.

But I would be much more comfortable if we could all acknowledge that displaying the American flag should not have to be considered the "exercise of free speech." Because if the ACLU succeeds in defending the display of the flag on those merits, then there is nothing exempting display of the Mexican flag in school - or the Nazi swastika, or the hammer and sickle.

Displaying the flag shouldn't have to be protected under the first amendment - it should be a given. You want to burn the damn thing? Fine, we can take it. But to ban display of it, in America?

Go to hell, and take your Mexican flags with you.

28 Puppies Seized at Mexican Border

We can't stop their people, but we sure can stop their puppies.
SAN DIEGO, California (AP) -- More than two dozen puppies were seized from a motorist who tried to smuggle them into the United States from Mexico in his minivan, authorities said.

Many of the 28 puppies were infested with parasites, dehydrated and too weak to stand, said Dawn Danielson, director of the San Diego County Department of Animal Services.

"It's going to be touch-and-go for a lot of these puppies," Danielson said.
I don't want to deny that these Mexican puppies are dogs just like American dogs, and thus have certain inalienable canine rights. And I'm sure American dog owners enjoy Mexican puppies because they will do the jobs that American dogs won't do, like "go fetch," and "roll over." Have you tried to get an American dog to "gimme paw" in the last decade? They simply ignore you and go back to sleep in their puppy pavilions.

But I say we deport these Mexican puppies. If Mexican puppies want to come to America, they can wait in line, just like the German shepherds, Scottish terriers, and English sheepdogs.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Actual Science Disputes Theory of Man Made Global Warming

Does global warming exist? Yes. Did we cause it, and is there anything we can do to alter the Earth's warming and cooling cycles? No. That's environmentalist superstition. There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998:
For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate. . . .

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. . . .

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.
It hardly needs pointing out that in the seventies environmental alarmists created a public scare over "global cooling," demanding that we immediately take drastic steps to protect the earth by, essentially, de-industrializing, or else the earth would freeze over.

The ink had barely dried on the "scholarly papers" predicting a new ice age before some of the exact same environmental "scientists" began scare-mongering over "global warming" in the late eighties, demanding that we immediately take drastic stesp to protect the earth by, essentially, de-industrializing.

They have an agenda. They don't like industrializing. They don't like cars. They don't like oil. They don't like the idea of cities, with humans living in a non-natural state, although, of course, just about every single one of them lives in a major metropolis.

Whatever the evidence, whatever the temperature, they always offer the same cure: We must stop building, creating, producing so much damn wealth and civilization and comfort for human beings. The disease and diagnosis is ever-changeable, but the recommended treatment never changes.

This is not science; it is socialism masquerading as science. It is Marxist Rousseauian "natural state of man" utopianism, and a cult of the worship of Earth as "Gaia."

The Earth is here for the benefit of human beings, not vice versa.

In Case You Need More Convincing: Iraq Did Seek Uranium In Niger

In fact, it had previously bought it from the same country.
In the late 1980s, the Iraqi representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency—Iraq's senior public envoy for nuclear matters, in effect—was a man named Wissam al-Zahawie. After the Kuwait war in 1991, when Rolf Ekeus arrived in Baghdad to begin the inspection and disarmament work of UNSCOM, he was greeted by Zahawie, who told him in a bitter manner that "now that you have come to take away our assets," the two men could no longer be friends. (They had known each other in earlier incarnations at the United Nations in New York.)

At a later 1995 U.N. special session on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Zahawie was the Iraqi delegate and spoke heatedly about the urgent need to counterbalance Israel's nuclear capacity. . . .

In February 1999, Zahawie left his [ambassadorial posting at the Vatican] for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981, as confirmed in the Duelfer Report. In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein's long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious. Italian intelligence (which first noticed the Zahawie trip from Rome) found it difficult to take this view and alerted French intelligence (which has better contacts in West Africa and a stronger interest in nuclear questions). In due time, the French tipped off the British, who in their cousinly way conveyed the suggestive information to Washington. As everyone now knows, the disclosure appeared in watered-down and secondhand form in the president's State of the Union address in January 2003.

If the above was all that was known, it would surely be universally agreed that no responsible American administration could have overlooked such an amazingly sinister pattern. Given the past Iraqi record of surreptitious dealing, cheating of inspectors, concealment of sites and caches, and declared ambition to equip the technicians referred to openly in the Baathist press as "nuclear mujahideen," one could scarcely operate on the presumption of innocence.
Maybe Saddam just wanted to buy some of those prized Nigerian racing-goats all the world is always talking about.

He then notes the infamously crude forgery surfaced claiming that Iraq had purchased uranium after 1999 visit. The forgery was immediately recognized as such, and based upon that, Mohammad ElBaradei, the "see no evil" head of the UN's atomic bomb watchdog group, proclaimed that the Iraq-Niger uranium connection was in fact discredited.

But Hitchens notes the fact that there was false proof for something hardly disproves it, especially when there is so much indisputable proof. If a forged notorized statement emerges proclaiming the sky to be blue, the fact of the forgery hardly transforms our skies to some sort of Mongoesque electric pink-and-yellow.
A NATO investigation has identified two named employees of the Niger Embassy in Rome who, having sold a genuine document about Zahawie to Italian and French intelligence agents, then added a forged paper in the hope of turning a further profit. The real stuff went by one route to Washington, and the fakery, via an Italian journalist and the U.S. Embassy in Rome, by another. The upshot was-follow me closely here-that a phony paper alleging a deal was used to shoot down a genuine document suggesting a connection.
Unbelievable. Time Magazine is eager to play country-lawyer for Zahawie, uncritically reportinng his claims of no Iraq-Niger uranium talks without revealing he was Saddam's little uranium buyer.

Liberal Bleeding Hearts Blacker than Hard Hearted Conservatives

Lots of lofty leftist feel-good rhetoric; less actual sacrifice for others:
Do young leftists exhibit any more heart than young right-wingers?

[...]

Let's dispense with righteous rhetoric and look at what really counts: behavior, starting at the level of heart in personal relationships. Consider two groups of people under age 30: those who say they are liberal or extremely liberal, and those who say they are conservative or extremely conservative. According to General Social Survey in 2004, liberal young Americans are significantly less likely than the young conservatives to express a willingness to sacrifice for their loved ones. For example, progressives under 30 are significantly less likely than young right-wingers to say they would prefer to suffer rather than let the one they love suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for the one they love. (The practical implication of this is that you might want your daughter to marry a Republican.)

This pattern persists at the community level. Young liberals in 2004 belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood. These differences were not due to demographics such as age or education. Imagine that you picked two people, both under 30, from the American population. Imagine they had the same education level, same household income, and were of the same race and gender. The only difference was that one was a self-described liberal, and the other a conservative. Based on nationwide data collected in the year 2000, the young conservative would donate nearly $400 more per year to charity than the young liberal.
I for one am sick of the mercenary capitalist winner-take-all belief system of liberals.

Criminalizing Self Defense

The soft approach to crime taken by liberals has had a corrosive impact on society. Nowhere is this impulse more prevalent than in Great Britain. The pacifistic obsession with championing the criminal's "rights" at the expense of his victim's has led London to a crime rate that has been increasing for years.

Disarming the victim, trying to "understand" the plight of the lawbreaker, and lightening the punishment for crime - the exact opposite of the zero-tolerance approach taken by Rudy Guiliani, who is widely credited for returning law and order to the streets of New York - only encourages crime. By late 1990, England's crime rate rose to the point where it was worse than France, Germany, or the USA.

British law prohibits self defense - all forms of self defense. If violent crime were a boxing match, the criminal would have the right to threaten and use lethal force while the victim would be restricted to Marquess of Queensbury rules.

Guess who always wins.

Saturday, April 08, 2006

Immigration Reform

Readers who have followed the Senate wrangling over the immigration bill may have been confused by some of the jargon being thrown around. In a spirit of public service, I offer the following brief glossary of some of the terms you have been hearing.

"legalization" ~> amnesty

"guest worker plan" ~> amnesty

"temporary worker plan" ~> amnesty

"path to citizenship" ~> amnesty

"out of the shadows" ~> amnesty

"comprehensive reform" ~> amnesty

I hope that helps clarify things.

Thursday, April 06, 2006

"Let Moussaoui Live" Because the Death Penality is Bad, and Stuff

There are, I think, principled reasons to oppose the death penalty. Richard Cohen gives us none of them in his column today.

He says that we should not execute 9/11 conspirator Zacharias Moussaoui and gives several reasons, among them: 1) because Moussaoui wants to die; 2) because it would make him a martyr; 3) revenge is bad and killing Moussaoui can not in any way be called justice because Richard Cohen said so; 4) because Europe generally has outlawed the death penalty and they know better than us; 5) our death penalty is every bit as capricious and barbaric as that of Afghanistan; and 6) if we outlawed the death penalty, other nations would follow our good example and outlaw their death penalties.

I'm on a tight schedule, so I don't have time to address why Cohen's column is a ginormous puff pastry of liberal platitudes and fantasy-creation greater than that of J.R.R. Tolkien, but I may be able to later in the day.

In the meantime, see what you can do with his "arguments" in the comments.

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

The Cure for Media Bias...

. . . is competition, according to the authors of a study described in Slate (!).

Widespread liberal criticism of Fox News has always been a pet peeve of mine, as if by virtue of putting a different spin on things they are simply lying to their viewers, unlike those paragons of journalistic integrity such as CBS News. In my experience, I've found the news on Fox News to be just about the same matter-of-fact reporting as you would get on CNN, MSNBC or elsewhere. The conservative "bias," as it were, comes from the analysis provided by the Fox talking heads. The most important element of bias is always in the choice of stories reported, and Fox News is refreshing insofar as they cover stories neglected by the other media outlets, shining a light on information that would otherwise never see the light of day.

I long ago accepted that the media tries to bullshit me. Duh. The remedy to that is not to poke your holes in your ears whenever Brit Hume shows up on screen, but to embrace such competition as good for the educated consumer of information. As long as you obtain information from competing sources - whether it be CNN, Fox News, blogs, or your local paper - you'll be in better shape for having that information available. And best of all, the different viewpoints will enable you to spot bias from both the left and the right.