I listen, obviously, to a lot of news talk radio. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck, Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingraham, and even Air America if I can find it (for comic relief).
I've never, however, bought merchandise from their websites or gear stores. No "Factor gear" from Bill O'Reilly. No newsletters. No subscriptions to program webcams. None of that. Maybe a book or two that I could have gotten at a bookstore. But no merchandise.
That's changed. I made an exception. I ordered a "Club G'itmo" t-shirt from the Rush Limbaugh EIB store.
On the front it says: Club G'itmo.
On the back it says: "Your tropical retreat from the stress of Jihad".
Funny. Satirical. And it makes a point.
I bought the shirt as a reaction to the outrageous statement made by my Senator, Dick Durbin, on the floor of the U.S. Senate where he compared the US military run detainee camp at Guatenmo Bay Cuba (G'itmo) to the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot and their treatment of prisoners. It was inaccurate, inappropriate, and deeply offensive.
Limbaugh has been running a satire since then about "Club G'itmo", making the point that the treatment of these 500 animals taken from the battlefield trying to kill Americans is actually pretty good, comparatively. Despite the overblown stories in the media about abuses at G'itmo. If a Koran was abused, as the stories claim, it's only because they have a Koran because we provided it to them. We give them prayer mats. We let them pray 5 times a day. And they get dietary meals sensitive to their religion that are better than what our troops are eating in the field. Hence, the effective satire of "Club G'itmo" to counter Durbin's anti-troop tirade.
So, I bought the shirt. It's bright orange, and sure to draw attention.
Today, I got to wear it out into public for the first time. I had to shop in some department stores and I wondered if the shirt would elicit comment. Not on the first wearing, however. There will be more outings in the shirt, to make my statement.
I'll have to find Senator Durbin's office in our area and wear it there to register my contempt for his statement and offer my opinion that he should resign.
So, I'm now initiated into Club G'itmo. Thanks, Rush.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Sacrament Theory Proved
Liberal reaction to President Bush's selection of Judge John Roberts as a Supreme Court nominee prove that Rush Limbaugh and others have been right all along in one particular explanation of liberalism that goes like this:
Simple. True. Abortion rights are the be-all and end-all of modern American liberalism. Hence, liberal pro-abortion activists at NOW, NARAL, et. al are lining up to slander Judge Roberts before the first hearing has been held.
You don't have to look far on in any 24-hour news cycle to find this theory borne out.
For example, the newspaper I read on Friday as I ate my lunch prominently featured the results of a poll that asked three questions:
1. Do you like Bush's pick of Judge Roberts?
2. Do you think that Roberts should be confirmed?
3. Do you think that Roberts should reveal his views on abortion to Congress during the nomination hearings?
All day that day, on every media outlet, the press was playing up a slight majority favorable on question number 3.
Nobody asked this question: why was question 3 in the poll as the sole question on policy?
Don't you want to know Judge Roberts' views on other topics? On:
- the limits of the role of the Federal Government
- the viability of military tribunals in the War on Terror
- private property rights vs. the ability of the government to take your property
- taxes
- other cultural issues such as the definition of marriage or the proper role of religious expression in the public square
Don't you want to know about those things and the hundreds of other issues that come before the court?
So, why did the poll - drafted by liberal media outlets, with probable influence from liberal interest groups - only ask about abortion?
Simple. Because it is the overriding and defining liberal sacrament.
And the coming Supreme Court battle that the left will launch against the nominee will make that abundantly clear.
The sole sacrament in the temple of liberalism is abortion.
Simple. True. Abortion rights are the be-all and end-all of modern American liberalism. Hence, liberal pro-abortion activists at NOW, NARAL, et. al are lining up to slander Judge Roberts before the first hearing has been held.
You don't have to look far on in any 24-hour news cycle to find this theory borne out.
For example, the newspaper I read on Friday as I ate my lunch prominently featured the results of a poll that asked three questions:
1. Do you like Bush's pick of Judge Roberts?
2. Do you think that Roberts should be confirmed?
3. Do you think that Roberts should reveal his views on abortion to Congress during the nomination hearings?
All day that day, on every media outlet, the press was playing up a slight majority favorable on question number 3.
Nobody asked this question: why was question 3 in the poll as the sole question on policy?
Don't you want to know Judge Roberts' views on other topics? On:
- the limits of the role of the Federal Government
- the viability of military tribunals in the War on Terror
- private property rights vs. the ability of the government to take your property
- taxes
- other cultural issues such as the definition of marriage or the proper role of religious expression in the public square
Don't you want to know about those things and the hundreds of other issues that come before the court?
So, why did the poll - drafted by liberal media outlets, with probable influence from liberal interest groups - only ask about abortion?
Simple. Because it is the overriding and defining liberal sacrament.
And the coming Supreme Court battle that the left will launch against the nominee will make that abundantly clear.
Liberals Suddenly Discover Respect for Security
If it wasn't so outrageous, it would be funny.
I'm talking about the liberals' sudden discover of respect for National Security in the Karl Rove affair. The smell blood in this story. To achieve the end of taking down their archenemy - Karl Rove, who is 2 for 2 in defeating them in Presidential elections - they will embrace any position, consistent with their past behavior or not.
For example, liberals on leftist websites are falling all over themselves to decry the incredible betrayal of national security by exposing a CIA agent. I'm sorry, aren't these the same leftists who on any other story would be ranting about the bad reputation that America has in the world because of rogue CIA operations that train terrorists like Osama bin Laden? The same leftists who passed laws when they had control of Congress to handcuff the CIA and limit their effectiveness? But now, when it fits with their agenda of taking down Bush and Rove, they will sing of the critical role of the CIA in our nation's security.
Another example: Liberals are mad. Hopping mad. They want Karl Rove's security clearance pulled now - no waiting for the results of the special prosecutor's investigation. How, they ask, can a person work in the White House if there is any suspcion about their deservedness of a security clearance. Almost any day now you can find politicians like Chuck Shumer or angry White House press corps members like Helen Thomas find a microphone and demand that Rove's security clearance be pulled.
I can only laugh. Hysterically. Spewing out my drink funny.
Let me hold in my mind for a minute the visual spectacle of an angry Helen Thomas, in the White House briefing room, lecturing White House Press Secretary Scott Mclellan about the need to pull Rove's security clearance.
The reason this is hysterically funny is that for months, if not years, after President Clinton took office his Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers did not have a security clearance. She wouldn't bother getting one. Neither did a large percentage of the White House staff, including members of Clinton's National Security Council staff.
I refer you back to the excellent book by former FBI agent Gary Aldrich entitled "Ulimited Access". Aldrich was the FBI agent assigned to the White House with the primary function of vetting staff for security clearances. As you would guess, the FBI is not in the habit of assigning that post to incompetent morons. Aldrich and his partner were highly regarded veteran agents assigned to a high profile and sensitive post in the White House. They took their role seriously.
Aldrich writes in his book that the Clinton Administration virtually nullified the security clearance procedure, mainly because a large percentage of them could not qualify for the clearance. Clinton brought to the White House a contingent of 60's radical lefties who had issues: drug usage, radical protest pasts, communist affiliations, whatever. Mostly drug use. Aldrich relates stories of interviewing staffers about their current drug use frequency and getting answers like 400 times a year.
How did the Clinton Administration respond to the fact that many of their staffers and policy makers could not qualify for a security clearance? They basically voided the policy and allowed permanent staff to walk around with visitor's passes for months on end.
Any wonder how Chinese government front company agents walked into the White House with bags of cash in exchange for permission to buy nuclear missile technology? It's because the White House security policy was trashed under Clinton. Hence his title, Unlimited Access.
So, do you think that when Helen Thomas was questioning Dee Dee Myers in the press briefing room that she made a stink about Myers attending policy meetings in the White House without a security clearance? Of course not. But now, she wants Rove's clearance pulled and delivered to the press on a silver platter.
Hypocrites.
By the way, did Aldrich receive praise as a whistle blower for alerting us to the trashed security system in the White House - the way the press is currently heaping praise on Joe Wilson as a hero? Of course not. In fact, the White House squad led by partisan political hack George Stephanopoulis organized a call campaign to pressure all of the network news shows to cancel interviews with Aldrich. Which they promptly did. The book was a best seller, despite a mainstream news media blackout.
They also managed to cause significant damage to Aldrich's reputation. So, where was Helen Thomas and the leftists bleating about the damage caused to national security by a White House smear campaign against a reputable FBI agent? Nowhere. They were in the scrum piling on.
Hypocrites.
I just have to laugh.
I'm talking about the liberals' sudden discover of respect for National Security in the Karl Rove affair. The smell blood in this story. To achieve the end of taking down their archenemy - Karl Rove, who is 2 for 2 in defeating them in Presidential elections - they will embrace any position, consistent with their past behavior or not.
For example, liberals on leftist websites are falling all over themselves to decry the incredible betrayal of national security by exposing a CIA agent. I'm sorry, aren't these the same leftists who on any other story would be ranting about the bad reputation that America has in the world because of rogue CIA operations that train terrorists like Osama bin Laden? The same leftists who passed laws when they had control of Congress to handcuff the CIA and limit their effectiveness? But now, when it fits with their agenda of taking down Bush and Rove, they will sing of the critical role of the CIA in our nation's security.
Another example: Liberals are mad. Hopping mad. They want Karl Rove's security clearance pulled now - no waiting for the results of the special prosecutor's investigation. How, they ask, can a person work in the White House if there is any suspcion about their deservedness of a security clearance. Almost any day now you can find politicians like Chuck Shumer or angry White House press corps members like Helen Thomas find a microphone and demand that Rove's security clearance be pulled.
I can only laugh. Hysterically. Spewing out my drink funny.
Let me hold in my mind for a minute the visual spectacle of an angry Helen Thomas, in the White House briefing room, lecturing White House Press Secretary Scott Mclellan about the need to pull Rove's security clearance.
The reason this is hysterically funny is that for months, if not years, after President Clinton took office his Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers did not have a security clearance. She wouldn't bother getting one. Neither did a large percentage of the White House staff, including members of Clinton's National Security Council staff.
I refer you back to the excellent book by former FBI agent Gary Aldrich entitled "Ulimited Access". Aldrich was the FBI agent assigned to the White House with the primary function of vetting staff for security clearances. As you would guess, the FBI is not in the habit of assigning that post to incompetent morons. Aldrich and his partner were highly regarded veteran agents assigned to a high profile and sensitive post in the White House. They took their role seriously.
Aldrich writes in his book that the Clinton Administration virtually nullified the security clearance procedure, mainly because a large percentage of them could not qualify for the clearance. Clinton brought to the White House a contingent of 60's radical lefties who had issues: drug usage, radical protest pasts, communist affiliations, whatever. Mostly drug use. Aldrich relates stories of interviewing staffers about their current drug use frequency and getting answers like 400 times a year.
How did the Clinton Administration respond to the fact that many of their staffers and policy makers could not qualify for a security clearance? They basically voided the policy and allowed permanent staff to walk around with visitor's passes for months on end.
Any wonder how Chinese government front company agents walked into the White House with bags of cash in exchange for permission to buy nuclear missile technology? It's because the White House security policy was trashed under Clinton. Hence his title, Unlimited Access.
So, do you think that when Helen Thomas was questioning Dee Dee Myers in the press briefing room that she made a stink about Myers attending policy meetings in the White House without a security clearance? Of course not. But now, she wants Rove's clearance pulled and delivered to the press on a silver platter.
Hypocrites.
By the way, did Aldrich receive praise as a whistle blower for alerting us to the trashed security system in the White House - the way the press is currently heaping praise on Joe Wilson as a hero? Of course not. In fact, the White House squad led by partisan political hack George Stephanopoulis organized a call campaign to pressure all of the network news shows to cancel interviews with Aldrich. Which they promptly did. The book was a best seller, despite a mainstream news media blackout.
They also managed to cause significant damage to Aldrich's reputation. So, where was Helen Thomas and the leftists bleating about the damage caused to national security by a White House smear campaign against a reputable FBI agent? Nowhere. They were in the scrum piling on.
Hypocrites.
I just have to laugh.
Can we Please Stop Calling it a "Leak"?
Washington liberals and the White House Press Corps, allies in promoting liberal causes, continue to be aflame in their fervent attack on Karl Rove. They've concocted a compelling scandal meme that goes something like this.
That's my summary of the left's case against Rove. I think I've accurately conveyed it.
Here's the major problem with the whole story: there is no "leak".
Why? Because Valerie Plame does not fit the definition of a "covert operative" in the relevant law that was written to protect CIA operatives. What you need to know, and the media is not making clear in it's reporting, is that not everyone at the CIA is covered by the leak law. The definition of an "operative" is clearly spelled out in the language of the law. You have to have been posted overseas, in a covert role that the Agency is making affirmative efforts to protect, within the last 5 years.
That's important, because Valerie Plame does not meet that definition.
Was she a CIA employee? Yes. Was she a covert operative? No. She had been posted overseas years ago, but had been manning a desk in Washington for longer than the law covers. Therefore, to reveal that she works at the CIA is not a "leak". Let's quit calling it that. There is no crime here.
The remainder of the scandal meme falls apart as well.
Was Karl Rove calling around to reporters to smear Wilson? No, the reporter called him about a different story. At the end of the call, Matt Cooper asked a "oh, by the way" question. He asked if it was true that Dick Cheney sent Joe Wilson on the Africa investigation. (That was a relevant question becuase everyone in Washington was asking why Cheney would have sent Wilson, a partisan Democratic hack, on a sensitive investigation.) Rove replied that the story was incorrect and that Wilson's wife, who works at the agency arranged for the trip. That's a scandal? A scandal deserving of the label of treason that the leftists have applied? Give me a break.
Was Wilson a patriotic whistle blower? No, he was a hack Democratic operative who went on to work in the Kerry campaign. His investigation, conducted by talking to people at a hotel swimming pool, was a sham. He never filed a written report. He never was paid for a report. In short, he was an attack dog whose story was discredited by a bipartisan Senate report on the matter.
This is a story that has been completely distorted by a press corps hostile to President Bush and by partisan Democrat opponents of the President. Simple as that.
We can kill this story by using truthful words, starting with no longer calling it a "leak".
Joe Wilson, conscientious public servant, wrote a whistle-blowing op-ed piece in the New York Times claiming that the Bush Administration was lying about a claim that Sadaam Hussein was trying to buy nuclear material in Africa. Wilson had gone to Africa and debunked the claim and was bring it to America's attention as a patriotic duty. The White House goon squad, led by Karl Rove and company, went on the attack to discredit Wilson with the press. As part of this viscious partisan attack on Wilson, the goon squad tried to misdirect the press by incorrectly claiming that Wilson's wife Valerie Plame, not Dick Cheney, sent Wilson to Africa - thereby intentionally "leaking" and compromising her role as a covert CIA "operative" in a partisan political smear campaign.
The correct response to this politically motivated "leak", according to various leftists, is one or all of the following:
- indictment of Rove for treason
- conviction
- execution
- removal of Rove's security clearance to work in the White House.
That's my summary of the left's case against Rove. I think I've accurately conveyed it.
Here's the major problem with the whole story: there is no "leak".
Why? Because Valerie Plame does not fit the definition of a "covert operative" in the relevant law that was written to protect CIA operatives. What you need to know, and the media is not making clear in it's reporting, is that not everyone at the CIA is covered by the leak law. The definition of an "operative" is clearly spelled out in the language of the law. You have to have been posted overseas, in a covert role that the Agency is making affirmative efforts to protect, within the last 5 years.
That's important, because Valerie Plame does not meet that definition.
Was she a CIA employee? Yes. Was she a covert operative? No. She had been posted overseas years ago, but had been manning a desk in Washington for longer than the law covers. Therefore, to reveal that she works at the CIA is not a "leak". Let's quit calling it that. There is no crime here.
The remainder of the scandal meme falls apart as well.
Was Karl Rove calling around to reporters to smear Wilson? No, the reporter called him about a different story. At the end of the call, Matt Cooper asked a "oh, by the way" question. He asked if it was true that Dick Cheney sent Joe Wilson on the Africa investigation. (That was a relevant question becuase everyone in Washington was asking why Cheney would have sent Wilson, a partisan Democratic hack, on a sensitive investigation.) Rove replied that the story was incorrect and that Wilson's wife, who works at the agency arranged for the trip. That's a scandal? A scandal deserving of the label of treason that the leftists have applied? Give me a break.
Was Wilson a patriotic whistle blower? No, he was a hack Democratic operative who went on to work in the Kerry campaign. His investigation, conducted by talking to people at a hotel swimming pool, was a sham. He never filed a written report. He never was paid for a report. In short, he was an attack dog whose story was discredited by a bipartisan Senate report on the matter.
This is a story that has been completely distorted by a press corps hostile to President Bush and by partisan Democrat opponents of the President. Simple as that.
We can kill this story by using truthful words, starting with no longer calling it a "leak".
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Good Choice!
I've been meaning to write about President Bush's pending nomination of a Supreme Court justice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.
I would have offered two pieces of advice:
1. Don't hurry. Democrats are going to pounce on whoever you nominate. So don't give them months to beat up your nominee. Announce the candidate as late as you can and limit the savaging of your candidate. Let your opponents sweat it out.
2. Don't necessarily appoint a woman to replace O'Connor, just because she was a woman.
I was amazed at the argument that he should do just that. Are they saying that there is a de facto "woman's seat" on the court in perpetuity? Why? Where is that in the Constitution? So, don't cement that thought by purposely picking a woman. Pick the best candidate.
Since I didn't get to this until tonight after President Bush announced his nominee - Judge Roberts - I'll just say this:
Good choice. Well done. Let's vote and confirm and move on.
I would have offered two pieces of advice:
1. Don't hurry. Democrats are going to pounce on whoever you nominate. So don't give them months to beat up your nominee. Announce the candidate as late as you can and limit the savaging of your candidate. Let your opponents sweat it out.
2. Don't necessarily appoint a woman to replace O'Connor, just because she was a woman.
I was amazed at the argument that he should do just that. Are they saying that there is a de facto "woman's seat" on the court in perpetuity? Why? Where is that in the Constitution? So, don't cement that thought by purposely picking a woman. Pick the best candidate.
Since I didn't get to this until tonight after President Bush announced his nominee - Judge Roberts - I'll just say this:
Good choice. Well done. Let's vote and confirm and move on.
The Sin of Hypocrisy
It's got to be hell when you're a liberal and you think you have the President's henchman in your sites for the takedown, and all of your facts fall apart.
The media and the left have totally gone over the edge on the Karl Rove - Leakgate story. They thought they had their archenemy, Karl Rove, taken down in a scandal for leaking the name of a CIA agent. A few problems though:
- First, it's clear if you've been following all of the evidence, not just the press briefings or the Democrat talking points, that their has not been a crime committed here. Period. All you have to do is listen to the folks who wrote the relevant law about divulging the name of a CIA agent. Victoria Toensing and colleagues who drafted the law have been clear on the talk shows that this case does not in anyway violate that law. End of story. Or at least it should be.
- Second, the Rove haters have allied themselves with Joe Wilson, the CIA agent's husband and supposed "whistle-blower" who took on the Administration about Sadaam's nuclear program. The problem is that Joe Wilson credibility has been thoroughly damaged by, among other things, the Senate's bi-partisan investigation into the matter which concluded that Wilson misrepresented every aspect of this case and is not credible. That hasn't stopped the left from lionizing him and completely tying their credibility to his.
- Third, after all of the facts have deserted the left on this one, they have fallen back on their favorite charge: hypocrisy. In fact, in can be fairly asserted that the left's one recognized cardinal sin - amongst a group that regularly discounts the existence of sin - is hypocrisy. They love to take a person of character, someone who espouses a standard, and "catch" that person in a contradiction of the standard. Then they leep out from behind the bushes and yell "Hypocrite!". Remember, for example the case of William Bennett, author of "The book of Virtues". A year or so ago Bennett had an issue with gambling. He didn't hurt anyone. He didn't lose money he couldn't afford to. In fact, I'm not sure why it was even news - other than the fact that liberals could point at him and yell hypocrite. They don't, in and of itself, think gambling is wrong. They just gleefully loved catching Bennett in a supposed act of hypocrisy.
The same is true of Rove gate. After all of the facts have failed them, after it's clear that no law has been violated, after it's clear that Bush is not going to fire Rove short of an indictment, the press is left yelling hypocrite. For days now they have been trying to argue that President Bush has changed his standard of ethics from firing anyone if they "were involved" in the leak, to firing them "if a crime has been committed". The press has been trying to trump up a case of cover up because of this alleged moving of the goal posts. The problem is that Bush did not change his standard. But that's all the press is left to shout about: hypocrisy. Ridiculous.
As infuriating as it is, it is useful watching the press and the Democrats join hands in marching off the credibility cliff with Joe Wilson.
The media and the left have totally gone over the edge on the Karl Rove - Leakgate story. They thought they had their archenemy, Karl Rove, taken down in a scandal for leaking the name of a CIA agent. A few problems though:
- First, it's clear if you've been following all of the evidence, not just the press briefings or the Democrat talking points, that their has not been a crime committed here. Period. All you have to do is listen to the folks who wrote the relevant law about divulging the name of a CIA agent. Victoria Toensing and colleagues who drafted the law have been clear on the talk shows that this case does not in anyway violate that law. End of story. Or at least it should be.
- Second, the Rove haters have allied themselves with Joe Wilson, the CIA agent's husband and supposed "whistle-blower" who took on the Administration about Sadaam's nuclear program. The problem is that Joe Wilson credibility has been thoroughly damaged by, among other things, the Senate's bi-partisan investigation into the matter which concluded that Wilson misrepresented every aspect of this case and is not credible. That hasn't stopped the left from lionizing him and completely tying their credibility to his.
- Third, after all of the facts have deserted the left on this one, they have fallen back on their favorite charge: hypocrisy. In fact, in can be fairly asserted that the left's one recognized cardinal sin - amongst a group that regularly discounts the existence of sin - is hypocrisy. They love to take a person of character, someone who espouses a standard, and "catch" that person in a contradiction of the standard. Then they leep out from behind the bushes and yell "Hypocrite!". Remember, for example the case of William Bennett, author of "The book of Virtues". A year or so ago Bennett had an issue with gambling. He didn't hurt anyone. He didn't lose money he couldn't afford to. In fact, I'm not sure why it was even news - other than the fact that liberals could point at him and yell hypocrite. They don't, in and of itself, think gambling is wrong. They just gleefully loved catching Bennett in a supposed act of hypocrisy.
The same is true of Rove gate. After all of the facts have failed them, after it's clear that no law has been violated, after it's clear that Bush is not going to fire Rove short of an indictment, the press is left yelling hypocrite. For days now they have been trying to argue that President Bush has changed his standard of ethics from firing anyone if they "were involved" in the leak, to firing them "if a crime has been committed". The press has been trying to trump up a case of cover up because of this alleged moving of the goal posts. The problem is that Bush did not change his standard. But that's all the press is left to shout about: hypocrisy. Ridiculous.
As infuriating as it is, it is useful watching the press and the Democrats join hands in marching off the credibility cliff with Joe Wilson.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Feeling Patriotic
I love the 4th of July.
Sharing traditions together. Watching the town all come out together for a day of recreating in the park. Feeling honored as a veteran, and honoring those serving now. Enjoying fireworks after dark.
If you can watch amazing fireworks in a stadium, set to "Proud to be an American", and not feel proud to be an American - then I really feel sorry for you.
I'll say God Bless our country, our leaders, and our troops and their families.
Sharing traditions together. Watching the town all come out together for a day of recreating in the park. Feeling honored as a veteran, and honoring those serving now. Enjoying fireworks after dark.
If you can watch amazing fireworks in a stadium, set to "Proud to be an American", and not feel proud to be an American - then I really feel sorry for you.
I'll say God Bless our country, our leaders, and our troops and their families.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Concert of Guilt
Hey, I love a good concert as much as anybody. Which is why I tuned in briefly here and there to watch some of the Live8 concerts this weekend. I can get down with the music.
I can't however, get down with the large doses of liberal guilt driving the event. Once again, we have mega rich celebrities lecturing all of us how about how cheap we are in neglecting poverty in Africa. Hey, can you turn the music down for a minute and remind me how many Range Rovers and Hummers and Rolls Royce's it took to get your posse to the stadium? I've forgotten, since the last time I watched MTV's "Cribs" how many rides with 21" rims you have parked outside of your mansion. Okay, you can resume lecturing me about poverty. Idiots.
Here's an excellent article putting it all in perspective for you. It's called "Aid to Africa Redux", by Herb London. It asks the excellent question of what happened to the $2 billion raised the last time in the Live Aid concerts, and to the $25 billion that Western countries have poured into Africa in the last decade.
It's a simple answer. Warlords stole it and used it as weapons against their enemy tribes or stashed it in Swiss bank accounts. Until you can fix the problem of corrupt warlords in Africa, more aid won't help. It was said best this way in the article:
As Peter Baur, the father of development economics once noted, "foreign aid is little more than poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries."
But you won't hear that on MTV, or on any of the mainstream news coverage of the event - where liberal guilt will trump facts.
But, hey, music is music and I can enjoy a good concert.
I can't however, get down with the large doses of liberal guilt driving the event. Once again, we have mega rich celebrities lecturing all of us how about how cheap we are in neglecting poverty in Africa. Hey, can you turn the music down for a minute and remind me how many Range Rovers and Hummers and Rolls Royce's it took to get your posse to the stadium? I've forgotten, since the last time I watched MTV's "Cribs" how many rides with 21" rims you have parked outside of your mansion. Okay, you can resume lecturing me about poverty. Idiots.
Here's an excellent article putting it all in perspective for you. It's called "Aid to Africa Redux", by Herb London. It asks the excellent question of what happened to the $2 billion raised the last time in the Live Aid concerts, and to the $25 billion that Western countries have poured into Africa in the last decade.
It's a simple answer. Warlords stole it and used it as weapons against their enemy tribes or stashed it in Swiss bank accounts. Until you can fix the problem of corrupt warlords in Africa, more aid won't help. It was said best this way in the article:
As Peter Baur, the father of development economics once noted, "foreign aid is little more than poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries."
But you won't hear that on MTV, or on any of the mainstream news coverage of the event - where liberal guilt will trump facts.
But, hey, music is music and I can enjoy a good concert.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Battle for the Court
I'll have a lot to say in the coming weeks on the inevitable battle over the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee to replace retiring justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Here's three things I know today:
1. It will be a battle. The left will demonize, and I use that word purposefully, any nominee that Bush puts forward. Whoever it is will be instantly labelled an extremist and will be fought. How do I know? They have already started doing it, and Bush hasn't even nominated anyone. NOW, for example, has already called for a march on the capitol by their membership to oppose right-wing extremist judicial nominations.
2. It's a critical battle. The court decisions this year make it clear how critical the courts are in formation of policy now in our nation. The composition of the court is critical to both sides.
3. The battle will be joined. No more Robert Borks, where the left in this country succeeded in demonizing a qualified jurist with smears and vitriolic hyperbole because the right was not mobilized to fight back and the Reagan Administration was not prepared for the fight. No more. There is an organized right now. There is an alternative media now. It will be a fight, and we're here for it.
Bring it on.
Here's three things I know today:
1. It will be a battle. The left will demonize, and I use that word purposefully, any nominee that Bush puts forward. Whoever it is will be instantly labelled an extremist and will be fought. How do I know? They have already started doing it, and Bush hasn't even nominated anyone. NOW, for example, has already called for a march on the capitol by their membership to oppose right-wing extremist judicial nominations.
2. It's a critical battle. The court decisions this year make it clear how critical the courts are in formation of policy now in our nation. The composition of the court is critical to both sides.
3. The battle will be joined. No more Robert Borks, where the left in this country succeeded in demonizing a qualified jurist with smears and vitriolic hyperbole because the right was not mobilized to fight back and the Reagan Administration was not prepared for the fight. No more. There is an organized right now. There is an alternative media now. It will be a fight, and we're here for it.
Bring it on.
Battle for the Court
I'll have a lot to say in the coming weeks on the inevitable battle over the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee to replace retiring justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Here's three things I know today:
1. It will be a battle. The left will demonize, and I use that word purposefully, any nominee that Bush puts forward. Whoever it is will be instantly labelled an extremist and will be fought. How do I know? They have already started doing it, and Bush hasn't even nominated anyone. NOW, for example, has already called for a march on the capitol by their membership to oppose right-wing extremist judicial nominations.
2. It's a critical battle. The court decisions this year make it clear how critical the courts are in formation of policy now in our nation. The composition of the court is critical to both sides.
3. The battle will be joined. No more Robert Borks, where the left in this country succeeded in demonizing a qualified jurist with smears and vitriolic hyperbole because the right was not mobilized to fight back and the Reagan Administration was not prepared for the fight. No more. There is an organized right now. There is an alternative media now. It will be a fight, and we're here for it.
Bring it on.
Here's three things I know today:
1. It will be a battle. The left will demonize, and I use that word purposefully, any nominee that Bush puts forward. Whoever it is will be instantly labelled an extremist and will be fought. How do I know? They have already started doing it, and Bush hasn't even nominated anyone. NOW, for example, has already called for a march on the capitol by their membership to oppose right-wing extremist judicial nominations.
2. It's a critical battle. The court decisions this year make it clear how critical the courts are in formation of policy now in our nation. The composition of the court is critical to both sides.
3. The battle will be joined. No more Robert Borks, where the left in this country succeeded in demonizing a qualified jurist with smears and vitriolic hyperbole because the right was not mobilized to fight back and the Reagan Administration was not prepared for the fight. No more. There is an organized right now. There is an alternative media now. It will be a fight, and we're here for it.
Bring it on.
Monsters Amongst Us
Watching the BTK serial killer recount his murders - stalking and strangling at least 10 innocent people - in a cold and dispassionate manner in a publicized court trial this week reminds us that there are indeed monsters among us. Monsters that don't look like monsters, but look just like us. Chilling.
Listening to the recorded confession of Mr. Couley in Florida - who abducted, sexually assaulted, and then buried alive Jessica Lunsford - reminds us that there is evil in this world.
If you are a parent of young kids, as I am, it's a chilling week.
Fortunately, the rescue of the two abducted kids in Idaho this morning gives hope as well.
As for the evil, for these monster murderers, swift execution is warranted. As for the other monsters, yet to be caught.
Listening to the recorded confession of Mr. Couley in Florida - who abducted, sexually assaulted, and then buried alive Jessica Lunsford - reminds us that there is evil in this world.
If you are a parent of young kids, as I am, it's a chilling week.
Fortunately, the rescue of the two abducted kids in Idaho this morning gives hope as well.
As for the evil, for these monster murderers, swift execution is warranted. As for the other monsters, yet to be caught.
Words Mean Things
I've been wanting to write for a while now. So much has happened this summer to comment on, and so little time.
I missed several stories to comment on:
- Sen. Dick ("the turbin") Durbin's outrageous comments from the floor of the U.S. Senate equating U.S. soldier's treatment of detainees at Gitmo with Nazi atrocities, the Soviet gulags, and Pol Pot's killing fields in Cambodia. It was a deeply offensive and heinous comment, exposing the Democrat party's true thinking about the War on Terror and their knee-jerk tendency to label America as the worst offender in history. It was appalling and it deserved a resignation.
- Supreme Court rulings allowing the seizure of private property by local governments and disallowing the display of the Ten Commandments. This year has been an awful year for the Court, with one disastrous and activist decision after another being decided wrongly and not in the spirit of the Constitution.
- Gitmo itself, with the left in this country (Democrats, mainstream media, academics) throwing everything they have to undermine our war efforts in order to bring down the President that they clearly despise. They're in hyperbolic overdrive as they whine and wring their hands and moan and wail about the damage that Gitmo has done to our reputation around the world. In fact, it is the assaultive hyperbole that is harming our reputation.
The connecting thread in all of these stories is the damage done to political discourse in this country by the abuse of language on the part of the left. Words mean things, specific things, or at least they used to until the demagogues on the left got hold of them. Their talent, their particular talent honed to a sharp edge during 30 years of the abortion debate, is to take words and stretch and abuse them until they have stripped all meaning out of them and they are just useful weapons.
Some examples, from recent stories:
- Gulag: Dick Durbin and his crowd can repeat every day of the year, as they do, that our terrorist detainee camp at Guantanemo Bay in Cuba (GITMO) is a "gulag", but that doesn't make it true. As many on the right have now reminded them, the gulag was an chain of hundreds of camps where dissidents were sent to be worked to death or starved. Millions died at the hands of brutal communist tyrants.
Somehow, the no. 2 ranking Democrat leader in the U.S. Senate cannot tell the difference between that, or the Nazi death ovens, and the treatment of violent terrorists at a U.S. military base. Nor can Time Magazine, which ran the gulag analogy with a barbed wire photo in a cover story about Gitmo. Appalling.
Durbin's comments, and Time Magazine's story (as with Newsweek's Quran trashing story before it), have been picked up by Al Jazeera news network for propaganda purposes in the islamic military world. Nice. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It's appalling.
By the way, I shouldn't have to say this but because of the distortion of words on the left, I will - Gitmo is not a torture gulag. It's an extension of the battlefield in a global War on Terror. Stop undermining it.
- Terrorist: apparently, so soon still after 9-11, this word has fallen out of favor with our elite media. They prefer a word that blurs morality a little better, in order that they can make moral relativistic connections between them and us easier. The new term is "insurgent", implying that the daily murderous bombings in Iraq are the work of ordinary people rising up to throw off our illegitimate occupation. Again, that is a worldview of people that despise President Bush, not an accurate news reporting description.
They are not insurgents. It is not the regular citizens of Iraq that are attacking our troops still in Iraq. Those people are going about building hospitals and schools, with our help, and setting up a government and and a constitution. The bombings are being committed by terrorists pouring over the border from Iran and Syria. Islamic terrorists. Some are Al Qaida, in fact. Terrorists, not insurgents. Get it right, already.
- Quagmire: Teddy Kennedy likes to step up to a microphone every other day and declare our efforts in Iraq to be a "quagmire". Saying this constantly does not make it true. It's only been two years since we started this effort, and we're making incredible strides toward building a democracy in a region that was formerly a threat to us. If you are so history challenged that you think that this pahse of the War on Terror is a quagmire, you should take time to reflect on this 4th of July weekend on how long it took our own country to go from the Declaration of Independence to an approved Constitution. 11 years. You could look it up. Or you could just keep listening to Teddy Kennedy and company blather on about quagmire, and undermine our war effort the process. Nice.
- Extremist: The Democrats have promptly labelled every nominee that President Bush has made for appeals court leve judges to be "extremists". Every one. They fought them tooth and nail with fillibusters for 4 years, stepping in front of a microphone every chance they got to call them right-wing extremists. Clearly, a dispassionate review of their records indicate that they are mainstream conservatives. But, thanks to the collaboration of the mostly-Democrats in the media, conservative now equals "right-wing extremist". Or, to say it another way, extremist = not liberal.
- Private property: for more than two hundred years it's been a foundational principal of our country that one of the keystones of liberty is the right to own private property. It's one of the defining elements of freedom. It's your land. Your neighbors can't take it away from you. The rich guy down the street can't get it from you if you don't want to sell. And, especially, government can't take it away from you except in the most compelling circumstances for "public use". We've believed that for two hundred years. Until last week, when a liberal activist Supreme Court drove a truck through the strict meaning of "Public use", completely destroying the meaning of the term. Now, the court ruled, governments can take your private property and give it to another private interest if the public benefits in some way, like higher property tax revenue. It's a serious blow to freedom from tyranny.
I'm telling you folks, these past weeks have not been the "War of the Worlds", but the war of the words. If we don't want to let the left in this country continue to undermine the War on Terrorism and degrade freedom, we have to start calling B.S. on their distortion and destruction of the meaning of some really important words.
I missed several stories to comment on:
- Sen. Dick ("the turbin") Durbin's outrageous comments from the floor of the U.S. Senate equating U.S. soldier's treatment of detainees at Gitmo with Nazi atrocities, the Soviet gulags, and Pol Pot's killing fields in Cambodia. It was a deeply offensive and heinous comment, exposing the Democrat party's true thinking about the War on Terror and their knee-jerk tendency to label America as the worst offender in history. It was appalling and it deserved a resignation.
- Supreme Court rulings allowing the seizure of private property by local governments and disallowing the display of the Ten Commandments. This year has been an awful year for the Court, with one disastrous and activist decision after another being decided wrongly and not in the spirit of the Constitution.
- Gitmo itself, with the left in this country (Democrats, mainstream media, academics) throwing everything they have to undermine our war efforts in order to bring down the President that they clearly despise. They're in hyperbolic overdrive as they whine and wring their hands and moan and wail about the damage that Gitmo has done to our reputation around the world. In fact, it is the assaultive hyperbole that is harming our reputation.
The connecting thread in all of these stories is the damage done to political discourse in this country by the abuse of language on the part of the left. Words mean things, specific things, or at least they used to until the demagogues on the left got hold of them. Their talent, their particular talent honed to a sharp edge during 30 years of the abortion debate, is to take words and stretch and abuse them until they have stripped all meaning out of them and they are just useful weapons.
Some examples, from recent stories:
- Gulag: Dick Durbin and his crowd can repeat every day of the year, as they do, that our terrorist detainee camp at Guantanemo Bay in Cuba (GITMO) is a "gulag", but that doesn't make it true. As many on the right have now reminded them, the gulag was an chain of hundreds of camps where dissidents were sent to be worked to death or starved. Millions died at the hands of brutal communist tyrants.
Somehow, the no. 2 ranking Democrat leader in the U.S. Senate cannot tell the difference between that, or the Nazi death ovens, and the treatment of violent terrorists at a U.S. military base. Nor can Time Magazine, which ran the gulag analogy with a barbed wire photo in a cover story about Gitmo. Appalling.
Durbin's comments, and Time Magazine's story (as with Newsweek's Quran trashing story before it), have been picked up by Al Jazeera news network for propaganda purposes in the islamic military world. Nice. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It's appalling.
By the way, I shouldn't have to say this but because of the distortion of words on the left, I will - Gitmo is not a torture gulag. It's an extension of the battlefield in a global War on Terror. Stop undermining it.
- Terrorist: apparently, so soon still after 9-11, this word has fallen out of favor with our elite media. They prefer a word that blurs morality a little better, in order that they can make moral relativistic connections between them and us easier. The new term is "insurgent", implying that the daily murderous bombings in Iraq are the work of ordinary people rising up to throw off our illegitimate occupation. Again, that is a worldview of people that despise President Bush, not an accurate news reporting description.
They are not insurgents. It is not the regular citizens of Iraq that are attacking our troops still in Iraq. Those people are going about building hospitals and schools, with our help, and setting up a government and and a constitution. The bombings are being committed by terrorists pouring over the border from Iran and Syria. Islamic terrorists. Some are Al Qaida, in fact. Terrorists, not insurgents. Get it right, already.
- Quagmire: Teddy Kennedy likes to step up to a microphone every other day and declare our efforts in Iraq to be a "quagmire". Saying this constantly does not make it true. It's only been two years since we started this effort, and we're making incredible strides toward building a democracy in a region that was formerly a threat to us. If you are so history challenged that you think that this pahse of the War on Terror is a quagmire, you should take time to reflect on this 4th of July weekend on how long it took our own country to go from the Declaration of Independence to an approved Constitution. 11 years. You could look it up. Or you could just keep listening to Teddy Kennedy and company blather on about quagmire, and undermine our war effort the process. Nice.
- Extremist: The Democrats have promptly labelled every nominee that President Bush has made for appeals court leve judges to be "extremists". Every one. They fought them tooth and nail with fillibusters for 4 years, stepping in front of a microphone every chance they got to call them right-wing extremists. Clearly, a dispassionate review of their records indicate that they are mainstream conservatives. But, thanks to the collaboration of the mostly-Democrats in the media, conservative now equals "right-wing extremist". Or, to say it another way, extremist = not liberal.
- Private property: for more than two hundred years it's been a foundational principal of our country that one of the keystones of liberty is the right to own private property. It's one of the defining elements of freedom. It's your land. Your neighbors can't take it away from you. The rich guy down the street can't get it from you if you don't want to sell. And, especially, government can't take it away from you except in the most compelling circumstances for "public use". We've believed that for two hundred years. Until last week, when a liberal activist Supreme Court drove a truck through the strict meaning of "Public use", completely destroying the meaning of the term. Now, the court ruled, governments can take your private property and give it to another private interest if the public benefits in some way, like higher property tax revenue. It's a serious blow to freedom from tyranny.
I'm telling you folks, these past weeks have not been the "War of the Worlds", but the war of the words. If we don't want to let the left in this country continue to undermine the War on Terrorism and degrade freedom, we have to start calling B.S. on their distortion and destruction of the meaning of some really important words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)