Policy, Not Race

Here's an article by Ross Balano in the KC Star which outlines my thoughts on voting for Obama.

So the race card has been played again this election; nothing new about that either. Democrats do it every election cycle. But I thought Obama was supposed to transcend race.

Now again, if you aren’t liberal, you must be some kind of racist, right? After all, there’s no other reason why anyone would not vote for Obama, correct?

So let me get this straight. With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy:

If you don’t want higher taxes, you might be a racist.

If you think we should drill for more domestic oil, you could be a racist.

If you believe we should secure the borders, you might be a racist.

If you believe in the right to keep and bear arms, the sanctity of life or winning the war on terror, you just might be a racist.

Heck, if you don’t vote for Obama, you must be a racist.

I, for one, am tired of this old routine.

Let me be very clear: The problems with Obama have nothing to do with the color of his skin. Rather, it has to do with positions, beliefs and associations and the lack of any substantial experience that would qualify him to be president.

As I've mentioned before, my objection to voting for Obama comes clearly from not agreeing with his policies and nothing else. I happen to think he's the epitome of Cool.

Although I've seen several articles on a national scale posit the belief that if you don't vote for Obama, it MUST be because you're racist and worse, watch out if he loses. All hell will break loose, because it must have been stolen from him...Bullshit. I don't vote for Buddhists, because they're Buddhists. I don't vote for Texans, because they're Texan. I don't vote for whites, because they're white and I don't withhold my vote just because a candidate is not white. I'm tired of hearing this nonsense. There will be Crackers out there who will not vote for Obama just because he's black, but also there will be others who DO vote for him just because he IS black. All of these people are ill informed and ignorant.

I feel fortunate to have friends on both sides who are not so shallow. We've had discussions on this topic and I'm glad to say we've all moved to a better place where color is not a factor to judging a person's merit.

Please, be informed and vote on merit. If America wants to vote in a Dem, then let it happen. We'll survive (although God help us if both the President AND Congress are Dems . . .). Obama is a good man, just not my cup o' tea.

Peace.

Debate 092608

OK, I'm back...

I've refrained from blogging during the lonnnnng political season because it's been just that, lonnnnng. How I wish we were limited to no more than six months of campaigning. I'm a political junky but man, this has been tiring. And we're not even going to bring up the Sarah Palin issue. (maybe later!)

So I watched the debate. I came in thinking McCain was going to be in trouble. He's old... He's a curmudgeon. Yet, he held himself together without blowing up. I think he scored points on the economy by pointing out Obama's earmarks. I'm still wondering how Obama is going to cut taxes on 95% of America, those under 250K while increasing spending by billions of dollars. Does he expect 5% of America to pay for all that? Quite frankly, I don't believe him.

I've heard how the middle-class has been shrinking for the past 10 yrs. Has no one thought that it's shrinking because to "upper-class" has increased? From what I've read, the lower class has shrunk along with the middle class. So, where do these people go....

Back to the debate. I think Obama shows he's a bright man. He's in charge of the facts and a very good 'debater'. McCain's strength is his experience, especially in foreign policy and military issues. Obama's very personable while McCain is not.

As I've discussed with friends, I'd be honored to vote for Obama if I shared his beliefs. I think he's a good man, but I've studied him and truly believe he's not for me. Being a Libertarian, I feel he's for increasing Government's intrusion into our lives. McCain at least shows an inclination to get Government off our backs.

I don't think I'll have a candidate I'll be truly satisfied for years to come...

Now, a bit about the post debate discussion - I normally watch MSNBC and Fox. I applaud MSNBC's move of getting Olberman off as the face of these programs. I watched him on both conventions as truly was revolted. While I do think Fox is more on the conservative side, besides their 'opinion' talking heads, I think they can be some what objective. During this 'silly' season, MSNBC has shown me that they really are on the left. Olberman has tried to portray himself as next Edward R. Murrow but he's so in the pocket for the Dems that I have to disregard anything he says, just like Hannity. But at least Hannity doesn't try to portray himself as a 'newsman'...

Anyway, the post script on MSNBC has been mixed. Matthews has been a bit harsh, repeatedly leading on how McCain didn't look at Obama. how troll like McCain was and bringing up a load of 'talking points' that Obama missed. On Fox, the scooped MSNBC by having Bidden on right after the debate. Wallace tried to 'get' him on the experience issue but Bidden adroitly deflected the issue. I just can't wait for Maddow...not!! I can tell you how she's going to spin it... wanna bet?

Overall, I think McCain has to consider this a victory since he came in as an 'underdog' when it comes to debating. He scored some points while not blowing up. Obama scored some point by his knowledge and his skill.

Man, I can't wait for this to be over...

Financial Bailout

As I've mentioned before, I have little or no sympathy for those who've mortgaged their lives for a better house while those of us who have sacrificed with smaller dwellings saved and worked for a better life. While I've always questioned the massive payout clauses to departing CEOs, I've never begrudged them anymore than I would a sports athlete or movie celebrity. It's what the market pays out. Shareholders are ultimately responsible for those golden parachutes just as fans are responsible for the sport salaries.

I do scoff at the political gamesmanship currently en vogue in Washington. Democrats are aghast at what's happened even though their leadership was in charge of 'oversight' while the present administration's laissez faire only contributed to the nod-nod-wink-wink of the money shell game. All are culpable and yet we are left holding the bag.

I still don't know how I feel about bailing out the financial crisis. Being a Libertairian, I feel failure is the best medicine. We don't have a significant debt since we've made a conscious effort to live within our means, but we'd still feel the pain caused by those frivolous buffoons. And yet...I'd be willing to suffer if it righted the ship.

Below is an excellent article by Victor Davis Hanson, pls enjoy:

Dr. Frankenstein's Wall Street

By Victor Davis Hanson

When the mortgage bubble burst, Americans were "shocked" at how many Wall Street buccaneers had been gambling in a vast pyramid scheme with someone else's money. Paper fortunes were made buying and selling questionable sub-prime mortgages on the silly assumption that such gargantuan inside profiting would always expand -- even as the number of homebuyers able to buy overpriced properties was shrinking.

Now after the recent crash in sub-prime mortgages and the stock of several investment firms, a trillion dollars in "assets" could be nearly worthless. An already indebted American government must restore some sort of trust to banks and markets by either printing money or borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign creditors to guarantee loans.

All that remains of this Ponzi scheme is the election-year blame game. Republicans charge that important financial firewalls were dismantled by the Clinton administration while insider liberal senators got shady campaign donations in exchange for aiding Wall Street. Democrats counter that the laissez-faire capitalism espoused by Republicans for two decades encouraged financial piracy while tax policy favored the rich speculator over the middle-class wage earner.

But no one dares to ask what really drove the wheeler-dealer portfolio managers. Who re-elected these shady politicians of both parties? Who fostered the cash-in culture in which both Wall Street profit mongering and Washington lobbying are nourished and thrive? We citizens did -- red-state conservatives and blue-state liberals, Republicans and Democrats, alike. We may be victims of Wall Street greed -- but not quite innocent victims.

Let me explain. The profiteering was not just the result of a few thousand scoundrels on Wall Street or in Washington, as greedy and as bonus-hungry as many of them no doubt were. Look at the housing market as a sort of musical chairs in which everyone profited as long he grabbed a seat when the music stopped. Then those left standing -- with high-priced loans and negative equity when the crash came -- defaulted and stuck taxpayers with debt in the billions of dollars. But until then, most owners who had sold homes cashed out beyond their wildest dreams.

Thousands of dollars in past profits are still in sellers' bank accounts or were spent on their own consumption. If the shaky buyer at the bottom of the pyramid should not have borrowed to buy an overpriced house, then the luckier seller higher up hardly worried that the cash-strapped fool was paying him way too much with unsecured borrowed money.

We created the cultural climate for this shared madness. Television shows advised how to "flip" a house after putting in cosmetic improvements. Real-estate seminars and popular videos convinced us that homes were not places to live in and raise a family but rather no different from piles of chips on a Vegas table.

We created the phony populist creed that everyone deserved to own a house. So lawmakers got the message to relax lending standards in service to "fairness." But Americans forgot that historically nearly four in 10 of us aren't ever ready, or able, to sacrifice for a down payment, monthly mortgage bills, home maintenance and yearly taxes -- and so should stick to renting.

The problem went way beyond real-estate fantasies. Five-percent interest as a return on our money was once considered pretty good -- especially inasmuch as a factory or farm on the other side of the banking equation could not really stay in business paying 10 percent in interest to banks for its necessary borrowing.

But soon retirement-account holders and institutional investors began to expect as a given 7, 10 -- and even 20 -- percent "return" on their portfolios. Wage earners and professionals alike compared the glossy brochures that appeared in the mail, and then jumped to this 401(k) investment or that mutual fund to "maximize" retirement portfolio earnings.

How Wall Street managers, eager for more multimillion-dollar bonuses, planned to deliver on their promised sky-high returns no one asked. But it often proved to be more by hook-and-crook shell games than by financing new productive businesses or by extending credit for the production of real goods in vital plants.

In a larger sense, this zeal for quick profits and easy money reflected an oblivious too-good-to-be-true culture in which we drove larger cars but demanded more oil drilling from everyone except ourselves. We expected both expanded government entitlements and lower taxes.

Our government borrowed ever more money from foreign creditors, because it was a collective reflection of our own profligate financial habits. Of course, we should reform Wall Street and Washington -- and punish severely the crooks in both places. But Americans should remember that Frankenstein was not the name of the monster but of its creator.

Premier League Predictions!!

I've been smitten with English League soccer for the last couple of years. Here's my hand at the year end table.



1. Chelsea - one of my two fav teams. Just too much firepower.

2. Manchester United - the hated ManU . . . one can hope for relegation, eh?

3. Liverpool - Torres, Gerrard? `nuff said.

4. Aston Villa - great moves off season.

5. Arsenal - beautiful football peters out over the long haul.

6. Tottenham - a lot of offense, but gave up a lot, too.

7. Portsmouth - Crouch and Defoe may click after a time.

8. Everton - didn't do squat in the off season.

9. West Ham Utd. - average last year, average this year.

10. Sunderland - greatly improved, tough manager, Keene.

11. Manchester City - owner turmoil, should self destruct.

12. Blackburn - new manager, up four levels. Can Ince keep it going?

13. Newcastle - my other fav team, but a whacked team. Who knows where they'll be.

14. Wigan - team as tough as their manager, Bruce.

15. Fulham - scrappy team who made improvements.

16. Middlesbrough - in the mix for relegation.

17. West Brom - relegation battle to the last day?

18. Bolton - just not impressed, manager will probably be the first to go, too.

19. Hull City - my heart says they stay up, but my head says down for the drop.

20. Stoke City - nobody could be as bad as last year's Derby, right?


These predictions are always a challenge. The August transfer window is still open and there are still rumors of pending transfers. In addition, the January transfer window allows those still hanging in there to make a bold move. I just hope Newcastle doesn't implode.

Personal Responsibility

Several years ago during the high times of this decade, my wife and I made a choice. We were torn between moving from our 'cracker-box' rambler we'd owned for 10 years to a more up-scale neighborhood or refinancing it from a 30 yr to a 15 yr mortgage. It was tough. Our current school district is the worst in our county. Therefore we make a conscious choice of sending our children to a parochial school where they get a top-notch education. Some of our friends call us 'education elitists'. We wear that moniker proudly!! So, if we moved just two mile into the newer developments, we'd be able to consider public education.

Well, we chose to re-finance and were able to pay the same monthly mortgage payment as before and stay in our 'cracker-box'. We made the informed and correct choice.

Meanwhile, all around us, folks who decided to upgrade are struggling. I have NO sympathy for them. We knew what we were doing and so did these people.

Here's an Op-ed piece from Glenn Beck where I agree 100%. Whether it's people who doubled their mortgages to get a piece of the high life or states who think changing the rules only apply to 'other' states, our collective mindset for personal responsibility has evaporated as surely as the value of housing market.

We are doomed.

Obama in the Real World

As an opened minded chap, I really do look at all the candidates to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses for the real world. I'm not locked out of them just yet. But that's not to say I'd really vote for all of them.

Appeal Experience Philosophy Electability

Obama McCain McCain McCain

McCain Clinton Clinton Obama

Clinton Obama Obama Clinton

I guess I'm most satisfied with McCain, but his age predicates him selecting a strong VP. If he chooses someone like Huckabee I'd be disappointed. But I've heard scuttlebutt that there's talk of a McCain/Condi Rice ticket. Now THAT'd be a fun Presidential race, eh? McCain/Rice v. Clinton/Obama.

I absolutely love the fact that we have an opportunity to pick between a woman and a person "of color". I just wish they were not so liberal. Being a fiscal conservative/social liberal, I have no choice but to pick McCain. As Hillary has already said, "I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all." We know she has grand ideas, but all of them will be coming out of my checkbook. With Obama, we know he's the most liberal Senator currently sitting. However, what will he do once he's in the Real World? Obama sounds great. I enjoy his speeches, so positive and uplifting. Unlike John Edwards, who is renown as an orator, but became so negative with his 'two Americas'.

Here's an article by Michael Totten discussing Obama's Syria policy. Once again, he's spot on. Is Obama just using the Bush-hating rhetoric - “Washington musts rectify the wrong policy of President George Bush in Lebanon and resort to an efficient and permanent diplomacy, rather than empty slogans” - to get elected or is he really that naive to think ALL of the Arab world and world in general is wrong in dealing with Assad and Syria. I hope he's just using the anti-Bush language and once in office (maybe) he'll begin to realize life is not so simplistic.

Senator Barack Obama went on the record about the never-ending political meltdown in Lebanon, and for a moment there I thought he might have it just right.

“The ongoing political crisis is resulting in the destabilization of Lebanon,” he said, “which is an important country in the Middle East. The US cannot watch while Lebanon’s fresh democracy is about to collapse.” So far so good. “We must keep supporting the democratically-elected government of PM Fouad Siniora, strengthening the Lebanese army and insisting on the disarmament of Hezbollah before it leads Lebanon into another unnecessary war.”

This is all excellent, so let’s get something out of the way. Barack Obama is not a leftist. He is a liberal. The difference between an American liberal and an American leftist on Lebanon is enormous. I can’t tell you how many Western leftists I’ve met who ran off to Beirut where they endlessly excuse or even outright support Hezbollah. (They are “victims” of Zionism, they aren’t pro-American like those icky “right-wing” bourgeois Maronite Christians, etc.) Some of these Hezbollah supporters, tragically, are journalists. They put me in the right-wing “imperialist” and “orientalist” camp for no more than saying what Barack Obama just said.

Obama’s problem isn’t that he’s on the wrong side. His problem is he’s the latest in a seemingly limitless supply of naïve Westerners who think they can reason with Syria’s tyrant Bashar Assad.

“Washington must rectify the wrong policy of President George Bush in Lebanon and resort to an efficient and permanent diplomacy, rather than empty slogans,” he said.

“What is bizarre about this sentence,” Lebanese political analyst Tony Badran said to me in an email, “is that the Lebanon policy has been precisely that. While Sen. Obama’s statement — and indeed conventional wisdom — tries to paint all Bush administration policies with the old brush of arrogant unilateralism, in reality, the Lebanon policy has always been a multilateral policy of consensus, through the UN security council, through international law, and through close partnership with European and regional allies like France and Saudi Arabia. It is unclear how Sen. Obama wishes to ‘replace’ that. The current policy is as consensual, multilateral and internationalist as you can get. What you need to replace ‘hollow rhetoric,’ as he put it, is not more ‘diplomatic engagement,’ it’s more tools of pressure.”

This is exactly right. Pressure of one kind or another is the only thing Bashar Assad, or his more ruthless father Hafez Assad, ever responds to.

Syria has exported terrorism to almost all its neighbors – to Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, and Turkey. So far only Turkey has managed to put an end to it once for all, and did so by threatening to invade. Turkey could smash Syria to pieces almost as quickly and easily as the Israelis were they so included. So that, as they say, was that.

Likewise, Assad withdrew all his occupation troops from Lebanon in 2004 after a million Lebanese citizens – almost a third of the total population – protested in Beirut’s Martyr’s Square and demanded their evacuation. It wasn’t the protest, though, that forced Assad out. It was what he felt was extraordinary pressure from the international community, most pointedly from the United States. “I am not Saddam Hussein,” he said at the time. “I want to cooperate.”

I doubt the Bush Administration threatened an invasion of Syria. It wasn’t necessary. The United States had just pulled the trigger in Iraq.

“We have,” Tony Badran continued, “as have our allies and friends, tried talking to the Syrians and the result is always the same: disastrous failure. Mr. Obama might think that his own personal charm is enough to turn Assad into a gushing 14 year old girl at an N’Sync concert, but he should pay close attention to the recent experience of one of our closest trans-Atlantic allies, French president Nicholas Sarkozy.”

Sarkozy thought he could achieve what Obama says he’ll achieve. After finally getting over the learning curve he decided, as have all others before him, that the only solution is a united Western front against Syria. That united Western front would join the already existing united Arab front against Syria. Every Arab government in the world is aligned against Syria already. The only Assad-friendly government in the region is the (Persian) Islamic Republic of Iran. All Arab governments are ahead of Obama, just as they were ahead of Sarkozy, who refused to listen when they warned him.

Assad is not going to break the Syrian-Iranian-Hamas-Hezbollah axis because Obama talks him into it over tea after everyone else who has ever tried has failed utterly. Obama could be counted on to iron out at least some differences with European diplomats and Republicans in Congress, but that’s because they’re democratic, civilized, and basically on the same side. Syria is an enemy state and acts accordingly. Assad isn’t a spouse in a troubled marriage on the Dr. Phil show. Obama is no more able to flip Syria into the Western camp than Syria can convince the U.S. to join Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

Common ground does not exist. We have nothing to talk about because what Assad wants first and foremost – Syria’s re-domination of Lebanon and its absorption into its state-sponsored terrorist axis – is unacceptable for everyone involved from Barack Obama to Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Seniora to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

A united Arab-Western front against Syria might be effective. That’s what Assad is afraid of, and it’s the reason he continues to pretend what he wants is just “dialogue.” As if he just wants a friend and Bush is mean for not listening, as if “dialogue” is a cry for help so someone can help him kick his terrorist habit. There is always another sucker, somewhere, who thinks he or she can talk sense into the man and is willing to sabotage a united front in order to try.

Everyone who has ever tried to reason with Assad at length will tell you what I’m telling you now. It’s not a “liberal” or “conservative” thing, it just is. Obama is like the smart and popular college kid with a bright future, yet who still needs time to learn how the world works. He hasn’t acquired any foreign policy experience or expertise, and unfortunately his advisors are failing him here. They, of all people, should know this by now, yet they do not.

Obama desperately needs an advisor who understands Syria, and if he wants one who isn’t conservative he could could far worse than bringing on board political analyst and blogger Abu Kais, a Lebanese Shia who moved to Washington during his country’s civil war and is a Democratic opponent of the Bush Administration.

“Murder has been profitable in our country, and in the region,” he wrote last month after assassins murdered anti-terrorist investigator Wissam Eid with a car bomb. “No one is going after the killers – their harshest punishment to date took the form of ‘initiatives’ and ‘dialogue.’ Lebanon, once again, is where anything goes, a free killing zone sanctioned by its enemies, and by friends who talk too much and do nothing.”

Something About Bill

I've never had a hardon for Bill Clinton like the Republicans. I thought he was a pretty good president, considering what other presidents have done in the past. I thought his many peccadilloes were disgraceful but not worthy of impeachment.

But I've grown weary of him like never before. His grandstanding and greater-than-thou attitude during this campaign season is revolting. He's using his past presidency as if gives him the right of anointing the next president, oh and she just happens to be his wife. His righteous indignation is laughable.

I've enjoyed the Democratic kerfuffle over racism and sexism in this race. I think it truly wonderful that a political party in America is seriously considering the nomination of both a 'person of color' and/or a woman. It's also truly a shame that for political reasons only I can not vote for either of them. I really wish I could, but I feel both of them are nothing more than socialist. The old white men don't thrill me either...

But I'm off on a tangent, back to Bill.

What a pompous ass he's become. His attitude is so condescending and pejorative. I find it insulting. The Bill and Hil show has become a tag team now. You just know they'll be one in the White House. This is something I dread even more than just Hilary.

Football in a Snow Globe

That was some game.

The forecast on Friday called for cold but no snow. However, when I turned on TV on Saturday and saw the snow, I knew we were doomed. The Brett seems invincible in snow. The Packers didn't need any help but got loads from Marcus Pollard. (photo by Jeff Hanisch/US Presswire)

He's not solely to blame for the loss and considering Seattle is 0-8 in postseason road games since their only road win in 1983.

Is ANYONE going to stop The Magical Tom Brady? His performance was wonderful. What a show it'll be Brett v. Tom! Of course, they both have to get through one more game...

NFL Playoffs

OK, time to see if the Seahawks are for real!!

Seattle 23 Packers 21
Pats 28 Jax 10
Colts 24 Bolts 14
Giants 21 Cowboys 20

Go Hawks!

A Little Diddy on Immigration

I'll delve into the morass of immigration probably at a later date, but here's an article from Victor Davis Hanson. It is short and concise and lays out a political plan for both the Dems and Repubs. It is a measured plan for which I can buy into:

What then might an astute candidate advocate?

Close the border now through fencing, more agents, employer sanctions, enforcement of the law and verifiable identification. Restore faith in the melting pot by insisting that new legal arrivals learn English and the customs and protocols of the United States.

Explain to the Mexican and Central American governments that using the United States to avoid addressing internal problems -- while making easy dollars off the backs of their own expatriate laborers -- is over.

Finally, deport aliens who have broken the law, are not working or have just arrived. Some illegal aliens will not like the new atmosphere of tough enforcement and will voluntarily go back home. Others may have criminal records or no history of employment and should leave as well.

We, as a nation, need to come up with a reasonable plan. One that closes the boarder, punishes the employer and allows those here to prove and earn their stay.

So Sad - Where's the Outrage?

I can't express my outrage enough when I see stories as outlandish as the one in Texas or the one recently in Canada. These are classified by the media as "Honor Killings", but I just can't call it that. There is no 'honor' in murdering your child or worse your children over some misguided belief of false pride. This 'pride' is not necessarily Muslim in origin, but Islam has embraced it with a blood lust. I tried searching the net to find any non-Muslim 'honor killing', but couldn't. Either it's virtually non-existent or just plain old murder. To murder your children takes a monster.

Here's a story from a couple months ago that should have had women all over the world uniting in outrage, but except for a few nights on the news cycle it was not as unifying as I'd have hoped. This is another example of Islam's misogyny and don't tell me I'm 'misunderstanding' Islam. Women are treated as chattel and you can't tell me different. It disgusting and I'm ashamed that women here and all over the world have not united to call these people out.

There is no cultural relativism with either the 'honor killings' nor Islam's misogyny. Both are wrong and evil, pure and simple.

Sticking to my word, here’re a few thoughts for today:

>How `bout them Seahawks!!

Got all caught up in this game. Nothing like the playoff on a blustery winter day. Man, that was a great first half and a nerve wracking third quarter. But Hasselbeck is a stud. On to Green Bay next weekend. I like our chances since our defense is playing so well.

> EPL Football --

Man, I’m hooked on English football! I’ve been watching matches most weekends and recording ones I can’t watch live. I got hooked a bit last year, but am absorbed this year. Since I don’t have any ties or know anybody from England to attach my banner to what ever teams have caught my fancy.

Last year, I landed on Chelsea and Wigan. I wanted to pick one of the top four (Chelsea, Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool) and one from the ‘commoners’. Not exactly how I chose Chelsea. I like Terry and Lampard from the World Cup, but I think it was subconscious. The others’ colors are primarily red while Chelsea is blue. Also, I couldn’t find myself rooting for Man Utd since it would be like rooting for the Yankees. So I decided to root for the Blues.

Picking Wigan was pretty simple at the time. They had the only player in the league with the last name of McCulloch. Lee McCulloch was a pretty good striker from Scotland. So, it was a no brainer. But he went back to Scotland and joined the Rangers.

That left me in a bind. I had no loyalty to Wigan, so I decided to pick another team. I narrowed it down to Everton, Reading and Newcastle Utd. I like the way Everton plays and almost picked them, but chose Newcastle.

My logic in choosing Newcastle has been outted as faulty. Here’s my problem- I decided to choose Newcastle since it’s the region Dick Francis used to write about. He’s a mystery writer and former jockey. I love his books and his subject deals with horses and horse racing. Now here’s the problem – Dick Francis writes about Newmarket and NOT Newcastle . . . what a boob. I figured this out about four months into the season. Oh, well. I’ll keep rooting for them (at least for this year!!)

Back to Blogging

Howdy! OK, here's the deal. I plan on takin' up the blog again. Let's see if I can post more than 13 times in two years, eh? That's quite pathetic really.

It's not that I haven't had much to say, but found myself just burnt out from politics and worldly crap. I find myself with more time on my hands now that I've quit drinking. Sad but true. My high blood pressure finally caught up with me. Thirty years of imbibing was truly a grand time, but when I became a walking time bomb (155+/100+) it's time to stop. So, I'm on 2 months sober with barely a twinge. Wish me luck.

Anyway, get ready for some more drivel. This can't be helped with the political season upon us. I just can't believe how much is riding on white bread Iowa and recalcitrant NH. Iowa is nothing but a popularity contest with who can turn out the most supporters. Oh the madness. More on this later. I don't want to get carried away on my first post back in the groove!

Did Churchill Have the Right Idea About Iraq?

Did Churchill Have the Right Idea About Iraq?

By Shannon Monaghan

Shannon Monaghan studies history at Yale University and writes for the History News Service.

On Sept. 1, 1922, Great Britain's colonial secretary, the man responsible for the administration of the British presence in Iraq, wrote a scathing letter to his Prime Minister on the miserable state of that country and Britain's interests there. He closed his letter with these crushing lines:

"At present we are paying eight millions [in] pounds Sterling a year [the equivalent of half a billion dollars today] for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having."

The name of that colonial secretary? Winston Churchill.

The phrase "history repeats itself" is overused; the greater tragedy is that in this instance the cliche is entirely appropriate. President Bush appears to think that he can somehow escape the lessons that the past can teach us and that history will treat his misadventure in Iraq well. Experience does not bode well for his hopes.

By 1922, Churchill had no such illusory hopes about Iraq. In fact, he declared the task of managing the country "impossible."

Little has changed since Churchill came to that sobering conclusion. Like those who would today challenge the American president on Iraq, Churchill paid a price for his view. His prime minister severely rebuked him, and refused to allow even the notion of withdrawal to be brought before his cabinet. It took Great Britain ten years more of harsh lessons before it finally granted that nation its independence.

In making his case to Prime Minister David Lloyd George, Churchill argued that Britain's course of action in Iraq was a waste - a waste of money, effort, time and political capital. The difficulties with Britain's stance that Churchill emphasized are those that the American public faces day after day, month after month, year after year.

Churchill declared the Arab officials of Iraq's British-backed King Feisal "incompetent." He noted the gross over-expenditure of monies in the region by the British government, which "it is almost certain Iraq will not be able to pay." Furthermore, he lamented that "no progress has been made in developing the oil." He was worried about British troops and desperately concerned about increased Turkish influence in the region and a potential Turkish invasion. He insisted that "there is scarcely a single newspaper . . . which is not consistently hostile to our remaining in this country."

In fact, Churchill strongly advocated immediately removing the British presence in Iraq if the provisional Iraqi government did not co-operate. Furthermore, he pointed out that in Britain the party had "no political strength to face disaster of any kind," and that the British public's opinion of the situation was so poor that a newly formed government at home would have to order "instant evacuation" to gain immediate support. After reciting at length this litany of failures, Churchill crisply stated, "Altogether, I am getting to the end of my resources."

One need only to turn on the news to realize that the United States is futilely struggling with the very same problems that Churchill struggled with - and more. The U.S. government and its military leaders cannot find a solution to the problems besetting the Iraqi government, the development and allocation of the country's oil, the influence of Iran and other countries in the region and sectarian violence. U.S. military forces face unrelieved dangers. Public opinion at home has soured on the war. Americans, like Britons in Churchill's day, have reached the end of their resources.

Ironically, Bush declared in 2004 that "I've always been a great admirer of Sir Winston Churchill, admirer of his career, admirer of his strength, admirer of his character -- so much so that I keep a stern-looking bust of Sir Winston in the Oval Office." If the President so admires Churchill, he should heed that great man's warnings about involvement in Iraq and remove American troops from that nation now.

A True Hero

Not often in our lives do we really see a Hero. We try to equate the movie image with real live, but that truly is not the case. Movies, as expected, are nothing more than a hyperbole of life. I know we’ve often heard of courage with soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade, but these heroes are ‘trained’ to sacrifice for the ‘greater good’ of the team.

But the actions of Liviu Librescu during the massacre at Virginia Tech are truly heroic. Here is a 76 year old man who ‘just’ happened to be a Holocaust survivor who give his life to safe his entire class on the official Holocaust Day acknowledged throughout the world (except in the Islamic/Arabic world).

I know there were others who showed heroism during this tragidy, but I am in awe of Mr. Librescu. Could I, would I try to barricade a door and look in the eyes of a mass murder and throw my body and soul to save a group of students??? It is said that Cho was able to push open the door(s) a bit as he was trying to enact his destruction.

I can’t imagine what Mr. Librescu saw in Cho’s eyes. Mr. Librescu would have been around twelve years old during his incarnation by the Nazis. Can you imagine as a young lad to witness the horrors of the concentration camps and then experience this? I wonder if the dead eyes of Cho were the same as those of the heartless guards. After hearing and seeing Cho’s unbelievable post-mortem manifesto, I’m even more impressed by those who sacrificed themselves.

After this horror, I choose to not acknowledge the devastation wrought by Cho, but the honor Mr. Librescu.

God Bless.

Can Secular West Understand?

I was raised in pretty much a secular home growing up. I never remember going to church until I moved to Texas at the age of twelve. My early years were spent in So Cal, from Torrance to Encino. Once in Texas, I was required to go to Baptist church weekly. Can’t say it helped much as some people may attest… Today whudda thunk I’d attend Catholic church every week (albeit as a “practicing non-Catholic” as my wife calls it) AND send my children to private Catholic school??? More on that in future posts!

My original point was going to be growing up in a secular home, I’ve always given the benefit of the doubt when it came to religion to the believer. I was one of those dope smokin’ slackers in college that took up every religion that I could came across. I read the Bhagavad-Gita, the Vedas, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Daozang and the Book of Mormon; I thought all these religions were all basically good at heart. At times, I thought the Christian church was the least worthy of all the major religions due to its bloody past.

I never really studied Islam during this time and thought it was just a step child of Judaism and Christianity and thought Mohammad was just another prophet. I don’t think I’ve EVER been so naïve.

During Islam’s Golden Years, I have no doubt it was a thriving social and cultural leader, but that was between 700 to 1200 years ago. Now they’ve, and yes that is a massive generalization to say this, but I’m speaking from North Africa to Indonesia, devolved into a series of societies with petroleum and terrorism as the primary export.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I came across an article by Shlomo Engel today which I thought included several valid points.

The current war between Islam and the West is over the most fundamental cultural values of the two civilizations.

Followers of Western culture believe in the supreme value of human life, civilian rights, complete freedom of thought and human spirit, genuine pluralism of beliefs and views coexisting side by side, equal status of men and women, and a free economic and intellectual market that is constantly improving as a result of competition and the individual's right to advance.

Western culture also believes in the power of words and persuasion, the use of force as a last resort only, individualsism, limitless self-criticism and public criticism, and all other values of freedom and equality.

On the other hand, followers of the Islamic culture believe in one religion and one opinion meant to overtake the world through a Muslim crusade of blood and infidel bodies.

The well known duty of spreading Islam by the sword reflects the essence of this belligerent, murderous culture, which is willing to sacrifice millions of human beings (both Muslims and infidels) whose value is insignificant on the altar of the Muslim ideal of conquest and force.

In such a belligerent, violent society, there's of course no room for civil rights or any status for women, or any aspiration for education that is not zealously religious.

What is so amazing with today’s West is the lack of acknowledgement of Islam’s fundamental mistreatment of women.

It's difficult to point to a significant social movement by Muslims that espouses the values of education, freedom, equality, and peace. On the other hand, millions of Muslims are quick to avenge and destroy and kill and burn over any caricature or utterance they do not like.

Muslims are almost completely absent from the scientific and academic world, not to mention the Muslim woman.

This religious zealotry is unrelated to economic and social status, and is true for residents of luxurious palaces in Saudi Arabia as it is for residents of refugee camps in Gaza and Lebanon.

It is to be expected that merely presenting this war of civilizations will immediately elicit the regular derogatory insults of racism and fascism that are so much liked by Muslim fanatics and their innocent supporters in the West.

The Western world's great openness created a situation whereby the blatant, anti-democratic racism and inequality that is built into Muslim culture receives the same status and legitimacy as other Western cultural values.

Under this cover, the violent and fanatic aggressor allows itself to fight Western culture in its own home by demanding rights of equality and freedom that it doesn't believe in, but is glad to utilize in order to achieve its own destructive objectives.

[…]

The realization that a democracy must defend itself against those threatening to ruin it, even at the price of undermining the rights of those fighting against it, is a required condition for a victory by the sons of light against the sons of darkness – a war faced by the entire world, and particularly in Israel.

This is not just Israel’s fight but all of ours. Until we recognize what radical Islam is bringing to the West, we’re in dire peril being blinded by our sense of fairness which these folks don’t seem to fathom.

Jimmy Carter's Folly

I’m sure most of you have seen Jimmy Carter’s book tour and subsequent explanation or rationalization of all the factual errors. It’s a shame how he’s turn into such a flamin’ anti-Semite, but then chances are he’s always been one.

Carter has always been considered somewhat of an intellectual, but his blatant dishonesty is beyond the pale.

CARTER: Page 57: The 1949 armistice demarcation lines became the borders of the new nation of Israel and were accepted by Israel and the United States, and recognized officially by the United Nations.

FACT: The 1949 armistice lines separating the West Bank from Israel never became permanent borders recognized by Israel, the United States or the U.N. Security Council. On the contrary, the Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement of April 3, 1949 specifically notes that the lines are not borders: "The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto."

CARTER: Page 190: [The barrier] is projected to be at least three and a half times as long as Israel’s internationally recognized border ...

FACT: The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs notes that "Because of its meandering path into the West Bank, the [total 703 km length of the route] is more than twice the length of the "Green Line" – 315 km."

CARTER: Page 50: Perhaps the most serious omission of the Camp David talks was the failure to clarify in writing Begin's verbal promise concerning the settlement freeze during subsequent peace talks.

Washington Post Op-Ed, Nov. 26, 2000:

Prime Minister Begin pledged that there would be no establishment of new settlements until after the final peace negotiations were completed.

FACT: Begin promised—and delivered—a three month settlement freeze. At a Sept. 17, 2003 symposium at the Carter Center, Israeli jurist Aharon Barak explained he was in the relevant meeting, had been the only one taking notes, and that his notes showed that Begin had agreed only to a three month freeze. Off camera Carter is heard to state, "I don't dispute that." William Quandt then added that while he had not been in the meeting, Cyrus Vance (Jimmy Carter's Secretary of State) had been and told him immediately afterwards that Begin agreed to a three month freeze. (See details and video clip here.)

Too many more examples to list, but pls review the numerous factual errors.

Red State Mentality

Stumbled upon an interesting snippet from Inside the Beltway buried deep. John McCaslin brings up an interesting comparison which I've not heard of, yet.

"Weather Bulletins" from both North Dakota and Colorado are making the rounds on Capitol Hill, about how the regions are recovering from 90-mile-per-hour blizzards that dropped upward of 44 inches of snow, broke trees in half, knocked down utility poles, cut power to tens of thousands, closed roads and stranded motorists in lethal snow banks.
Nevertheless, say the creators of the bulletins: "George Bush did not come. FEMA did nothing. No one howled for the government. No one blamed the government. No one even uttered an expletive on TV. Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit. Our mayor did not blame Bush or anyone else. Our governor did not blame Bush or anyone else, either. CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC did not visit — or report on this category 5 snowstorm. Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards. No one asked for a FEMA trailer house. No one looted. No Larry King, no Bill O'Reilly, no Oprah. ... "
It goes on and on and on, but you get the message.

Could this be the middle America work ethic verses the urban entitlement syndrome?

Happy New Year!!!

Happy New Year! ! !

I’ll try to begin bloggin’ again shortly.

Mexico Threatens Suits Over Guard Patrols

I've been so delinquent in blogging due to apathy, sorry...but this just gets me. The Mexico govt has the audacity to threaten us with lawsuits for enforcing our laws and borders.

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico - Mexico said Tuesday that it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops on the border become directly involved in detaining migrants. Mexican border officials also said they worried that sending troops to heavily trafficked regions would push illegal migrants into more perilous areas of the U.S.-Mexican border to avoid detection.

So because we make it more difficult for them to cross, they're threatening to sue us...

Look, we need to truly be compassionate about the whole immigration process. I mean, if you have children raised as Americans, we really shouldn't force them back to their 'home' country. But then again, before we do any reformation, we REALLY need to be able to seal up the border as much as possible.