Shit. I don't know what part of the real story behind the Abramoff investigation is most disgusting:
And to anyone who wants to cut her slack because she notified the ex-wife of Scanlon's newfound stolen wealth, remember that if he'd kept his promise to marry her, I'm sure she'd have been perfectly happy to keep the ex-wife in the dark about it all until the end of time (self-serving little bitch).
How painfully ironic that liberals are afraid that Republicans like DeLay are spying on little ol' you and me using the NSA warrantless wiretapping program? Puhleeze! This guy can't spot the spies in his own office, you really think he's capable of minding our business?
What's worse, that they do all this or that they do it all without any personal investment in the outcome or the issue at stake? I'm hard pressed to answer that one!
Combine bribery, the protection rackets, high-stakes gambling and blackmail and you have LOBBYING. That it's legal at all is amazing to me. That we continue to allow it to be legal when we know full well what is going on, who is really shaping our future (hint: it's not our elected officials) is even more astounding. We are pathetic aren't we?
Lying today--whether it's in politics or sports (witness Barry Bonds) is only wrong if you get caught. There's no reward for those who admit to a lie before being caught in it, and if there were, how would we know? No one does that. Instead, people add lie upon lie, deny that they lied in the first place until faced with a mountain of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, and then they simply shrug, look contrite and say they're sorry and we're all supposed to give them a virtual hug and accept their apology.
Disgusting, truly disgusting.
Anyone else out there sick of all the tired, overused arguments against illegal immigration reform? Had enough of euphemisms like "undocumented workers," or of having people simply drop the word "illegal" from the conversation altogether to make you sound anti-ALL-immigration?
ME TOO.
Here are some of the most annoying arguments and statements I've heard this week, and here are my snappy (or snippy as the case may be) comebacks to them. Please note that there are different comebacks for the same arguments, depending upon who's making the argument in the first place.
If you find that any of them will save you from pulling one more chunk of hair from your head, or from losing it entirely and putting your foot through your TV (or up someone's ass), your fist through a wall (or in someone's face) or your gun in your mouth (or someone else's), feel free to use them, as often as necessary.
To the agribusiness/construction/sanitation or other mass employer:
"I don't go to work and pay taxes to subsidize your business. If you can't afford American workers, maybe you shouldn't be in business."
To the politician:
"I don't work and pay taxes to subsidize your campaign" (see above)
AND
"I don't go to work and pay taxes to buy you votes."
To the (most likely) illegal immigrant or his/her children:
"If wanting to keep out lawbreakers and their spawn makes me racist, then I guess I'm guilty as charged. Funny though, I didn't realize there was an entire race of people known as "lawbreakers."
To the politician, limosine liberal or other bleeding heart/ass-kissing type:
"So I'm racist for wanting to welcome only immigrants who come here legally, but you who agree that we 'need' to exploit illegal workers to prop up our economy, you're not? Tell me, do you pay your gardener/nanny/housekeeper minimum wage and cover their insurance costs and taxes yourself? I rest my case."
To all:
"Then tell them to carry the American flag to their next protest rally, not the MEXICAN one!"
Or:
"If they have such a great work ethic, why did they cheat to get in to the country in the first place?"
AND...
"Tell it to Janice who was robbed and threatened for almost two years by illegal aliens. Tell it to the countless vitims of rape, murder, robbery, narcotic trafficking, gangs violence and vandalism--people who, in addition to being victimized in these ways were often racially targeted because they looked 'anglo.'"
If you ask me, they are all in critical condition at the moment, and it's time to stop the bleeding before critical becomes terminal.
I've wanted to blog about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION for a while now, but this finally lit a fire under my butt to do it:
...after weeks of sitting on the sidelines, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) jumped into the immigration debate Wednesday. She declared that Republican efforts to criminalize undocumented workers and their support networks "would literally criminalize the good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."
OK, let's just put aside for a moment that Hillary Clinton obviously doesn't have the first clue what Jesus would want or would do because she has consistently voted against laws that would ban partial-birth abortions. Far be it for me to make her mistake and presume to know what Jesus would want, but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that--if forced to choose-- he'd opt for saving an innocent voiceless unborn child of a mother who would "choose" an abortion so late in pregnancy (a child mind you who could survive outside its mother's womb and be raised by someone who would want it) rather than extending a welcome hand to a person who is knowingly breaking the law of the land into which he or she is trying to sneak. Just a wild guess perhaps, but an educated one, how's that?
Instead, let's take her statement apart factually.
Who offers the most "aid" to illegal immigrants? Or, put another way, who makes it possible--indeed enticing--for them to come here illegally in the first place? Is it the odd priest who gives them bowls of free soup and a mattress to sleep on? Or is it the huge agribusiness/construction company/cleaning crew outsourcing company that recruits, hires and exploits these people? I'm gonna go with option B, how 'bout you?
It would ordinarily be odd, even bizarre, that a Democrat--the kind who wants socialized medicine, appears to abhor privatization of Social Security, and generally sneers at big business as the inherently evil puppet-masters of the Republican Party--would oppose a law that would make worker exploitation illegal. But then there's nothing "ordinary" about Hillary Clinton or the Democratic party she hopes to represent in '08.
See, she wants desperately to unite the exploiters with the true Samaritans without us noticing. She doesn't want us to question her sudden defense of those who do the most to "aid" illegal aliens because deep-down, she appreciates their work! Not only does it get her cheap fruit and veggies by the pound, it gets her campaign contributions from the exploiters and cheap votes from those they exploit.
Our job then is to call her on it, to tell her that whatever Jesus would or wouldn't do about this particular issue, he sure wouldn't obfuscate or dissemble. He sure wouldn't pretend that his church was the victim when in truth the illegal immigrants themselves often are. He sure wouldn't secretly prop-up huge corporations and greedy politicians so they could continue to exploit and manipulate poor people for personal gain.
That's the dirty little secret about illegal immigration in general--that those who say the American way of life and economy depend on it are really saying that the American way of life and economy depend upon EXPLOITATION! We depend upon a permanent underclass of underpaid workers, that's what they're saying. Whether they are right or left, white or hispanic, they are saying the exact same thing and pretending it's compassion, caring, "aid." What a crock of shit!
And even Bush--who says we can have guest workers who apply for jobs "no American wants"--is running full-tilt from the fact that there are no jobs no American wants, only WAGES no American can live on! Sadly, that's largely because it's more to a citizen's benefit to live on welfare than to earn a couple of bucks (at most) an hour, driving to work in an un-registered, un-insured beater with five other people, and going home to a one-bedroom, one-bath apartment shared with those same or five or six OTHER people. If we want to bring back the right to contract freely to the Constitutional rights enjoyed by actual American citizens, that's fine, but as long as welfare is around, don't count on Americans working for what illegals will take.
So what if Bush and the politicians couple the guest worker plan with laws requiring the payment of minimum wages to these guest workers? Not only will there suddenly be plenty of Americans who want the jobs, the employers will find new and more secretive ways to import cheap ILLEGAL labor to make up the losses to their bottom line. And if they don't, suddenly only the very rich would have weekly lawn service, new home construction would grind to a screeching halt, and food at the grocery store would cost as much as movie theater popcorn.
If, on the other hand, a guest worker plan doesn't stipulate higher wages, healthcare and OSHA reg. adherence, well then, there would be a backlash from both sides of the aisle so loud it would be deafening. Might as well call it off-shoring, the only difference would be that American taxpayers would be covering the healthcare and education costs, and sharing already strained resources with the "offshore" labor force right here within our own borders! That would be ludicrous. Where is Lou Dobbs on this point I wonder?
And if even if the politicians can get away with not paying the minimum wage to these "guest workers," if we allow them to "earn" citizenship, we'll end up with millions of new citizens (probably at least 12Mil of them in the first however-many-years the provision stipulates it would take to earn the privilege) who would suddenly command and demand higher wages, better conditions, and/or all the entitlements citizens get if they can't make their own way (welfare, medicaid, federal grants for education, etc...). Terrific. And when their children--who would be Americans mind you--grow up and can't find work, but are used to being "aided" or taken care of by the government that allowed their parents to be lured here in the first place, what we'll have is rampant unemployment and disaffection. In other words people, we'll be France.
I'm not trying to be glib here, I'm serious. France is no more "humane" than we are about immigration, believe me. They imported cheap labor to do the dirty work they didn't want to do, at a cheaper rate, and now they are paying the price. Their "guest workers" have had kids, their kids have gone to French schools, speak French even, and they don't see why they or their parents should be exploited anymore. They want what the native-French elite have always had, and they want it now, and in order to give it to them, the entire French people have to suffer a little, be taken down a peg. There just aren't enough jobs and resources to go around. And who do you think will do the dirty jobs now? That's right, a new crop of illegal immigrants and guest workers, swelling the ranks of French society even further. This is what is in store for us if we don't do something NOW.
And I haven't even touched the notion of homeland security for real in this piece either! Never mind the economic implications long-term of doing nothing, what if just one terrorist with a dirty bomb gets through on either border? What if he poisons the air and property in a major economic center for years to come with toxic radiation? Not only will our economy suffer dramatically, it will be a major blow to the environment as well! Maybe that's the tack we have to take: Save the environment, stop illegal immigration!
But what can we do with people like Hillary invoking the name of the Lord in defense of illegal immigrants and those who would "aid" them in breaking our laws? How can we overcome the greed and self-interest of so many?
Personally, I think it's going to take a 9/11-type catastrophe that clearly originates out of this problem. Perhaps it would be a dirty bomb, perhaps mass riots or a serious movement to "take back California for the Mexicans," I have no idea. I just know that most people aren't going to be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to avoid the eventual francification of this nation without suffering an even greater sacrifice forced upon us as a result of ignoring the problem for too long.
In the meantime, beware of people like Hillary. She is calling for nothing less than the continued exploitation of millions of people, in large part to fuel her own personal goal of becoming the first female President of this country. And when she ivokes the name of Jesus to do it, she is proving what a low-quality human being she really is.
I'm no scientist, and I don't know what the heck we can do about this, but global warming DOES scare the crap out of me.
The problem I have with it though is that I do not see it as a partisan political issue. In short, I think BOTH parties are wrong about what we should do about our role in it.
(Some) Republicans want to ignore it, downplay it or pretend it's not happening at all. They want their big business cronies and sponsors to be able to pollute with greater impunity because it's good for bid-ness.
(Most, if not all) Democrats want us to sign Kyoto immediately and to take drastic measures (unilaterally I might add) to curtail greenhouse gas production here in the U.S.A.
The problem with the Republican approach is obvious. Denial is not a river in Egypt (that would likely become and ocean if the warming continues), it is dangerous.
The problem with the Democratic approach is less obvious, but just as important to examine. Signing Kyoto would do nothing more (and nothing less) than put the U.S. in an unfavorable economic position relative to the other signers AND it does not include the world's biggest current polluter: China.
If "two wrongs don't make a right," then the argument that they are a "developing nation" and have a right to an industrial revolution like we had is completely bogus. The clear difference is that during our industrial revolution, we had no idea what we were doing to the environment, nor were we doing it on as large a scale. The population of the U.S. during the mid-late 1800s was a grain of sand on the beach compared to the Chinese population, and even smaller than that compared to the population of the world as a whole--the world the Chinese want as a market for the goods they want to now mass-produce with their factories.
HOWEVER, having said that, it is important to stress that we are not innocent bystanders either. We love going to Wal-Mart & Co. to buy a pair of jeans for $10, shoes for $20 and all manner of crap for even cheaper than that. Where is it made? In those same "developing" economies like China that are the world's current big polluters.
I know what Democrats and environmentalists say--that we in the U.S. use more energy than those countries combined, but they aren't being 100% honest. Yes, we do, but not all of that energy we use is being pumped out into the environment as toxic gas (anymore). We have made huge strides in the past 50 years to clean our air and reduce emmissions. Not so in other countries, some of them without China's "excuse" either. I remember when I lived in Europe in the late '80s you couldn't walk down a city street in most of the major cities without choking on exhaust fumes. The restrictions were nowhere near what they were here, cars weren't "tested" for their output, nor were fuels formulated according to the same strict rules we had and still have. We may be pulluters, but we are not alone, so we should not be alone in trying to correct the problem.
Now don't think I'm suggesting we should stop buying things from polluting nations. That would set us on a course that would create other problems--geo-political instability for a start, possibly even war! China is a massive nation with a lot of mouths to feed. We're not likely to convince them to change their dirty ways without incurring some other problem, possibly far worse in the very near term.
Same holds true with other restrictions we might put on ourselves. Don't want to cut down oxygen-producing (pretty) trees? Make it illegal? Timber industry somewhere else will gain jobs and money (we'll lose both), we won't stop using wood that's for sure. Don't want the Chinese pumping out crap into the atmosphere? Shit, they mow their own people down with tanks when it suits their fancy, what do you think it will take for them to stop polluting the air we all breathe? Even if all their citizens suddenly became infertile because of toxins, they'd probably see it as free birth control. Don't stake your hopes on them caring, and if we put stiff tariffs on their goods? Well, like I said, they'll either punish us some other, more immediate, even less savory way, or they'll take their business elsewhere (best case).
And then there's the dirty little secret no one wants to discuss, because everyone (liberals in particular) still wants to believe that we humans are in control of the environment, the planet, of human destiny itself. That is that "God," or nature or whatever you want to call it isn't playing a role in all this too. Even (honest) scientists will tell you that one volcanic eruption (like Mt. St. Helens for example) will put more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than all the auto-emmissions Americans have ever put out there. Forest fires don't help either (but tell that to those who are against forest management to prevent them). And then there are the unknowns, like the possibility that some of the climatic change was destined to happen anyway, we just happen to be the unlucky bastards alive when it's first noticeable in a single generation.
I submit to you that all of these factors are important, and that is why I see no politician able to offer a solution. We have to start thinking as humans, not as conservatives, liberals, Americans, Chinese, Europeans, etc... It is the one time when national and political boundaries MUST blurr if we are to survive as a species. If not, we will (literally) go the way of the dinosaur.
Many people say that we have to make the first step because we are the last super-power, that others will follow our lead. I say hogwash. I wish it were true! That would be easy and one would wonder why we hadn't done it YEARS ago. Sadly, I think what needs to happen can't happen because it would put us in a position where it would be too late to take advantage of any newfound willingness to work together to heal the planet: Things have to get worse. The sad thing about us humans is that we have a tendency to act or be willing to act en masse only when our lives and the lives of those we love are or have been directly affected. Until then, we love to think it's someone else's problem. We also have a tendency to think there is safety in numbers. If we look around and see everyone else just going about their business as if nothing is wrong, we do the same. Don't believe me? Walk down a crowded street in a major city and yell "help!" Then check your watch and note the time it takes for someone to come to your aid. The more people there are around, the longer it will take. If it's rush hour, don't expect anyone to come at all.
That's what we're facing now--the environmental equivalent of rush hour. Case in point? The West Coast of our own nation is in desperate need of more POWER to sustain the way of life of the population out there. But how? Coal fired plants? Even though they can burn way cleaner than ever, no one wants them--perception is still that they are dirty, coal mining is dangerous, etc... How about nuclear power? Eeeew, scary! Three Mile Island fears take over, no one wants one in their backyard. Wind farms? Well, I can't comment too much on the way the people of the West feel, but John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are opposed to them in MA because they would mar the VIEW! (Out West there's probably a group against them for other environmental reasons, like some little birdy whose habitat will be threatened by the turbines).
So starting in the very near future, American humans on the West coast will likely have to endure rolling black-outs and power rationing because they don't want to take any of the necessary steps to produce the power they need. Of course the irony is that many of their reasons are environmental, but the net result is we are more dependent on foreign oil than ever (also a fossil fuel, duhr), and less likely to sacrifice in other areas that could truly help the environment long-term.
The planet is ailing, to be sure, and we as humans need to do something "STAT" to help her, but we're so busy rushing around doing other things, we can't stop long enough to even process what's at stake, never mind do anything to fix it. Add to that how terrifying it is to even think about and you have a human population that will likely suffer greatly before ultimately adapting to our NEW environment (if we are ingenious enough and there's time) or perishing from the Earth for good.
Most of us console ourselves with the notion that we'll be long dead before that happens, that we won't "feel" it, but those of us with kids, who'd like to have grandkids someday, should be worried about them. It's no longer a problem for our great-great-great-great grandkids, it's a problem for those we're likely to know and love, and if that doesn't scare us into action, I'm afraid nothing will.
(Tune in later when I will examine illegal immigration and how it feeds this problem as well!)
I think we ought to put people like those rescued peace activists on notice that if they CHOOSE to go back to Iraq to continue their "work," the U.S. and coalition forces will not be lifting a finger (or a rifle) to help them if they are captured. I mean, wouldn't want to risk firing a shot at anyone now would we?
Morons.
[Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for covering this so thoroughly.
Whenever I feel even the slightest twinge of longing for my former home in the People's Republic of Taxachussetts (as unlikely as it would seem, it happens for a nanosecond or two here and there--I did have some friends there after all), I just pop over to Bruce's site and am set right (another intentional pun).
OK, this is the kind of thing I never expect to read (or hear) from someone on the left (a liberal, a Democrat, pick the label you like best). One member of a self-identified group openly criticizing one of his own and demanding his immediate resignation.
In fact, one of the things I loathe most about liberals is their inability to find fault of any kind with one of their own (other than Joe Lieberman of course, and that's only because he's not liberal enough).
Trent Lott praises an old man on his birthday at a private party? He has to go.
Dick Durbin compares the U.S. military to Nazis and Stalinist Gulag keepers on the Senate floor? He stays.
Rush Limbaugh criticizes the media for being in love with Donovan McNabb because he's a black QB? He's gone within 24 hours.
Bryant Gumble mocks the Olympic athletes and says the coverage is boring because it's too white? He stays.
Jimmy Carter dubbs the election of Hamas as "valid?" The left says "Well then it must be so!"
George Bush dubbs the election of an Iraqi parliament "valid?" The left says "He's a fool, what a joke!"
Pat Robertson says radical Islam is "satanic?" All hell (ironically) breaks loose on both sides of the aisle.
Hillary Clinton claims to know what Jesus would do about illegal immigration? She's an icon of compassion for the left.
Do I really need to go on???
There seems to be a total lack of self-awareness on the left. There's a good reason or excuse for every blunder, every slip of the tongue, every grandiose claim. I'm happy to say the same is NOT true for the conservatives with whom I identify.
How much do you wanna bet this woman killed her husband in a fit of psychosis brought on by the improper use or discontinuation of use of an anti-depressant?
Why am I guessing this? Well let's see:
Now I'm not typically a person who buys into the whole "It's not my fault, xyz made me do it" defense, but if this does turn out to be a case in which anti-depressants figure prominently, I won't be surprised. People can sing the praises of psycho-pharmacology all day long, but I say BEWARE. Yes, it works for some people, but for many it does nothing or wreaks havoc, even kills.
I didn't kill anyone, or myself, but I had a bad experience with three different anti-depressants. Whenever I see stories about people going berzerk while taking them I think "there but for the grace of God go I." My step-mom died and for 6 weeks I seemed "fine." Then the first day of week 7, I fell apart. I literally didn't get out of bed for two days. Blew off work, blew off everything and everyone. Friends, family and my boss thought I'd run away or died. People were banging on my door and I still wouldn't answer. I can't even remember who finally called and coaxed me into answering (those were the days of answering machines you could hear even if you didn't answer the phone), but when I did finally emerge, my internist prescribed Prozac. I took it and felt MISERABLE. I couldn't sleep at all, felt totally wired and was convinced I was being watched. I called the Dr. and shared my paranoia and complaints and he switched me to Paxil. I very quickly became almost narcoleptic, falling asleep at the wheel and nearly killing myself and some drivers around me while driving to work. Lucky for me, I only wrecked the car.
After that, he put me on Serzone. Now I could sleep, and at the proper times, but I lost all sense of "desire," be it for sex, food, entertainment, you name it. I felt pretty numb. I asked to go off it but he said no, that numb was better than self-destructive (apparently staying in bed is self-destructive, but driving in a drug-induced semi-coma is merely an "unfortunate side-effect"), and since I was still a person who thought doctors knew what they were talking about, I listened. I kept listening for almost two years, but I finally got sick and tired of feeling "blah" and decided to take myself off the medication. Thankfully I figured the Doctor warned me to take the pills as directed for a reason, so I told him I was going off, no ifs ands or buts, and needed to know what to do. He told me to wean myself off the meds gradually, so I did--very slowly cutting back the dose by cutting pills in half, then fourths, and then finally skipping them entirely.
My first week off I felt like a million bucks. I literally felt like I'd wasted two years of my life feeling NOTHING. Rather than simply offering me a half gallon of Haagen Dasz and some counseling, this doctor had "drugged" me out of my sadness, but had replaced it with something not much better. Sure, I didn't feel desperately sad, but I didn't feel anything else either.
My point is this: SSRI drugs might really be helpful IF (and I stress IF) the doctors who prescribed them were:
Of course I'm speaking completely out of turn since I have no clue what this woman's motive may or may not have been, but I'm making a prediction that we'll be hearing the word "depression" before the investigation is over, and if that's the case, I'd bet meds were involved in her bizarre behavior.
Either that or her friends, family and neighbors didn't know her AT ALL.
Found this over at Schmalz und Grieben and laughed my ass off (in a sad "Gee, wish I didn't find this so funny" kind of way). He found it over at discarded lies, apparently put there by a commenter. Hilarious, and accurate.
"Democrats are bad because they're socialist nanny-Statists who won't stop whining about the 'poor' and 'disenfranchised' until everyone in the world is earning the exact same income (regardless of productive output), and each and every minority group has representation in government exactly equal to their proportionate share of the population (because equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity)."... Democrats are bad because they can't be taken seriously where matters of national defense are concerned.
"You wanna bash Bush for incompetant handling of the war? Fine. Here's what Democrats could be saying that would make me sit up and listen: 'Bush's handling of Iraq has been incompetant in the extreme—not enough troops, not enough body armor. We want to give new recruits to the military a big ass signing bonus, to make sure we hit our recruitment targets, and increase defense spending to make sure our troops have all the latest badass equipment with which to crush our enemies.'
"But instead, it seems it's a constant stream of whining and checking their watches ... 'Isn't it time to get out of Iraq yet? Are we there yet? I gotta go potty!' Grow the fcuk up and give me winning solutions, not just more and more criticism with no answers offered..." — DL poster Lewis
Was I right, or was I right? Just picturing the likes of Nancy Botoxi or Scarry Reid whining that they need to "go potty" had me rolling (although I'm sure both wear Depends by now).
Baldilocks has a simply marvelous post examining the idea of impeaching Bush. It is a must read for anyone who hopes the Dims take back control in November, and for Repugs who are working harder to distance themselves from the President than they are to represent the people who elected them to office.
Here's a sample:
I suppose vengeance is an only-too-human trait. But to what long-term end would partisan vengeance lead? Assuming that the Democrats take back the House--or assuming that, by off chance, a barely Republican-controlled House votes to impeach President Bush in regard to the NSA program, what can be expected?
- All aspects of the very classified program in question will be laid before the American public--and before the enemy, al Oaeda, which it was designed to monitor
- Many of the operational techniques of the NSA will receive identical exposure
- The program in question will be rendered useless
- If the president is found guilty of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' for approving the program, he will be forced to step down from his office and Dick Cheney will become president
- Much of the American public--most of whom approve of the program, but even some who didn't initially do so--will be very disillusioned by the Congress they have put into power
- Much of the military's morale--especially that of those in Iraq and Afghanistan--will plummet
- We pull out of Iraq and, probably, Afghanistan
(If vengeance is theirs, one might figure that the Democrats might have something brewing for a President Cheney as well. After all, the third in line for presidential succession is the Speaker of the House. In a Democrat-controlled House...well, you guessed it.)
Let's say that the Democrats get back at the Republicans for all of their misdeed--real and imagined. George Bush goes home to Texas and Dick Cheney goes home to Wyoming or to wherever. (I don’t think that the Democrats would dare incarcerate either man, though I could be wrong; some of them have already said and done things beyond the specter of imagination--mine, at least).
What happens after that? Will my Democrat relatives laugh and say something like "haha! We got your president and your vice-president?" Maybe, and they will be right. But what will happen after that? What will happen to all of us?
What is the long-term Democrat goal for our country and its place in the world if all they (may) hope for comes to pass?
With the Democrats and far-left mudslingers, who the heck knows? As far as I can tell, they just hate all things GOP, Bush especially, and would rather cut off all our noses to spite his face than come up with viable alternatives to his policies. They ask us to put them in charge instead simply because he's "bad" or a "liar" but they disavow their own mistakes and lies in the process.
How many of them--for example--saw the same intelligence that Bush saw pre-Iraq? How many of them agreed that Saddam had WMD? How many of them now take responsibility for our being in Iraq for that reason? ONE: Joe Lieberman
Anyway, I've rambled on for long enough. My point is simple really: it's very dangerous to root for a side when you have no idea what that side will do for you other than kick the other side out of office. Winning for winning's sake is pretty hollow. When you add to that the fact that the side refusing to clearly state what they stand FOR (as opposed to AGAINST) typically supports measures that would grant them--if they had it already--more rather than less power, it becomes hard to take seriously their angst over alleged civil rights violations. Just think how quickly the Democrats would move to take away every privately owned gun in the country--so that only they and the military they controlled had weapons-- and ask yourself if you really mind a government that lets its people have guns while it works silently to listen to a few cell phone calls between people in hostile countries and people here. Think about it, if you didn't have the right to own a gun--ever--how could you possibly hope to protect your right to privacy if someone tried to take it from you?
Answer: You couldn't.
Think about this and all the other points here when you go to the polls, and be careful what you wish for. As the saying goes: You just might get it.
After listening to tidbits of Bush's press conference the other day, I found myself both relieved and discomfitted all at the same time. I was relieved that the guy finally showed some passion for the policy that has dominated his presidency for the past four years, but I was discomfitted by the fact that even now, even after it's so obvious that major mistakes were made, the President isn't taking action consistent with a belief in his own rhetoric: We MUST win in Iraq, period.
Foremost example? Don Rumsfeld still has a job. OK, I know, I used to love the guy, but not because he was some brilliant military genius. I loved him because he was in-your-face direct with the media, and anyone who knows me knows I loathe the media. I liked the way he parsed their questions to make clear their true meaning (i.e., "Isn't it true Mr. Secretary that you suck, Bush sucks and the USA in general sucks?"). I also liked his optimism in the face of so much pessimism. Isn't it too bad that my craving for public figures who don't mince words got in the way of my listening to the meaning behind those words? I'd say so.
Rumsfeld has been mischaracterizing this war for so long it's as though he--and not the media--is working overtime to ensure we are all disappointed by our progress. By continually calling the period we're in now the "Post-war" period, Americans have come to expect a whole lot less killing than we see--on all sides. By insisting that things are better than we think, he's setting it up so the media will have an easy time refuting his claim. His verbal evidence is easily trumped by their powerful visual claims. Let's face it, the visual aftermath of a bombing is a whole lot more powerful than the verbal claim that it was just one event in a nation of millions of more positive events every day. As long as we're not seeing those "positive" events, what he says doesn't amount to a hill of shit.
It's the old business of getting people's hopes up only to have them dashed. Oddly enough, we did the same thing to the Iraqis it seems. We told them they'd be free. We didn't say "Oh, except you Sunnis and military men who lived privileged lives under Saddam."
Yet that's what we meant, isn't it? When Paul Bremer fired the entire Iraqi Army without pensions and instantly rendered a large portion of the militarily trained (and most-likely-to-be-armed) male popluation unemployed and bitter, what did we think would happen? Didn't we think they might be more easily lured to the dark side of insurgency?
We also told the Iraqis they'd be safe, but did nothing to stop the looting that went on right after major combat stopped. I'm not talking about protecting museum artifacts here, but rather everyday places like homes and shops. The last thing we needed were people thinking wistfully about the "good ol' days of 'security'" under the Saddam regime. I mean, let's face it, if you weren't being hauled off and killed by the regime itself, if you kept your nose clean and your powder dry, you didn't have to worry too much about being hauled off and killed by anyone else. A strange paradox perhaps, but one we obviously didn't consider. Whether we like it or not, for some, the devil they know is better than the Zionist ones they don't.
What's that? Does this mean I've been won over by the dark side myself? Does this mean I think it was a mistake to go in the first place?
HELL. NO.
This is the part I don't get. I don't get where the people in the middle are these days--those who agreed the President had no choice but to hold Saddam "to account" (as he said), who weren't sure there were WMD, but who didn't want to take a chance on being wrong, who were sure that Saddam would--if he didn't already--happily deal with Al Qaeda, either to save his own power or skin, or to simply get back at the USA for taking Kuwait away from him. Where are we in this argument? Seems all I hear are those who are deathly afraid of the whole Iraq issue--Democrats who want to focus instead on Presidential censure, homeland security at our ports, corrupt lobbying practices (perpetrated ironically equally by their own people), and Republicans who don't want to appear too supportive of a policy-gone-wrong that they lose in November--and those who can't stop repeating the same old line about how things are really better there than we think.
ENOUGH ALREADY! We're not stupid. How about some truth? Things in Iraq SUCK. They probably will suck a little more before they get better, but there's still a chance for them to get better if we all hang in there and make some key changes to our policy over there. If we keep hanging on to a plan that isn't working, whether to save face or to remain loyal to its crafters, we are all doomed. We need to admit to a few mistakes and hurry up and change course before the bad guys wake up and figure we might (and plan their counter-attack accordingly).
What am I suggesting? Shit, I'm not sure. I suppose I'd fire Rummy first. It's past time. Second I'd start talking turkey. I'd tell the Iraqis--publicly, so Americans can hear it too--that it's time for them to not only step it up on the defensive side, but also to step it up politically. If they want to be Iran's puppet, keep going the way they are going, but if they (we'd be talking to the Sunni population mostly) want to have a chance at a country bigger than the size of a thimble (what the Sunni--those who'd be left after the inevitable slaughter or enslavement anyway), they'll start participating fully right about NOW. If they want to keep fighting Americans or killing Shi'a (or killing Sunni), they can be assured of one thing: We will pull out, but they will be left with a giant red bull's eye on their backs. That's what happens to countries that suddenly become the property of nuclear dictatorships, and if they keep going the way they are going, and we do pull out, that's exactly what they'll be.
Let's not forget, there was a fairly large and powerful group of people within Iraq who asked for our help, who wanted us there, who prayed that we'd come. I think they have to take responsibility for getting what they wished for, and for not blaming us for the less-than-savory side-effects of that wish. This means they share in the blame for any "failure" to stabilize the country. It's not all on us just because we did the heavy lifting.
Americans want to hear this. Every American who's lost a loved one over there in particular wants to hear that Iraqis are not some mindless group of sheep depending on us for their safety and security (and future independence and prosperity). They sure as hell want to stop hearing Iraqis blaming us for any mess they are now in.
Of course the left and anti-war crowd loves to hear Iraqis blame us. They feed on it like maggots on a corpse. They somehow think it provides them with vindication, proves they were "right" to have opposed going in the first place. I realize I'm digressing from my point for a moment but I have to ask: WHAT WOULD THEY HAVE DONE INSTEAD?
Well and good to recognize and try to correct mistakes we can correct now that we are there, but at least accept the reality that we are there and we can't go back and undo that one fact. What joy can anyone derive from patting him or herself on the back now and saying "see, we were right, we never should have gone!"
To say that is to relegate over 20Mil people to a life under a horrible dictator. To say that is to accept the possibility that a guy who at least wants WMD, a guy who at least tells his top generals he already has them (and is convincing enough that they believe him), will someday get them and pass them off to terrorists. To say that is to deny the proven fact that Saddam did have relationships with terrorists from Islamic Jihad and Hamas to Abu Nidal. To think he would not have extended a helping hand to Al Qaeda if it meant holding onto power for himself and his family (like the Saudi royals do with terrorists who threaten their kingdom) is to live in a fantasy land.
So what should we have done? Keep working through the UN, ignoring their obvious complicity in the Oil-for-Food scandal? How could we have trusted anything they'd report? How can we now act like they would be any more reliable or any less impotent than they are proving to be in the case of Iran, or proved to be in the case of North Korea? How many examples do the naysayers need before they realize we had to do something militarily in Iraq, if only to maintain any credibility with the enemy we desperately need to scare as best we can.
What I want to hear, need to hear, and am not hearing is an alternative plan for NOW. Like I said, I hear the same old same old from Rummy and the President, and the same old same old from the dailykos and moveon crowd too. Where are the folks in the middle? Where are those who say "OK, whether it was right or wrong to go, we're there now, and here's what we need to do to WIN!"
There will be no special medals or awards given out to the team who was right in the first place--ALL war (and I do mean all) is based essentially on a miscalculation by one side or the other. The point we have to remember is that the miscalculator doesn't have to lose. Case in point? The US Civil War. The North thought it would be a cake-walk. They'd roll on into the South with their superior firepower, superior armaments and superior manpower and it would be over in a matter of days or weeks. Almost five years later and hundreds of thousands of American dead later, it was over. Lincoln was loathed for going, even by his own party, but he held firm, and thanks to his resolve, so did the Union.
We may be facing a similar situation now, the big question is, how will history tell this tale? If we just keep shying away from the issue, assuming it will just go away (Republicans) or lauging at it as some kind of proof-positive that our President is a chucklehead (Democrats), we all lose.
I mean it. We will all be in serious danger if Iraq devolves into chaos. We can't afford to allow Iran to control almost 1/2 of the world's oil supply. We also can't afford to allow what will soon be a nuclear power to be in spitting distance of the Saudis, certainly not with such close ties to terrorism. If we don't succeed in Iraq, we'll be facing no less than total world war on a grand, possibly nuclear scale. Iran will use its weapons against Israel, they've said so, and if they control so much of what is so vital to our economy, there will be no choice but for us to sit back and let them. Problem is, if they succeed at destroying Israel, I'm sure Israel will destroy them back--I'm sure they have at least one dead-man's switch on their nukes, and then you're looking at a radioactive middle east and an American economy in ruins--we're talking depression-era bad folks.
And what then? What happens when the weather systems we've been facing destroy another section of the country, only there's no money to rebuild it? What then? Will we be faced with rampant looting and chaos like we now see and either ignore or laugh off in Iraq? What will we do? Even if we open up our emergency supply of oil, or drill in ANWAR, we're fucked.
I realize this is a very gloomy way to look at things, but I believe we have to think long and hard about worst-case-scenarios. This is a very big deal. It's not just a tipping point for an election over here, nor is it an opportunity for bragging rights--for either side. Nothing less than the survival of the map as we know it and stability as we know it is at stake--right here at home.
And lest you think we could have avoided all this if we'd just left Saddam in power, just imagine how much easier it would have been for Iran to get nuclear weapons sooner if we were not knocking (literally) on their back door. Just imagine how much easier it would have been for terrorists like Zarquawi to use Iraq as a training center for attacks in the USA if he weren't so busy fighting our soldiers and Iraqis in Iraq?
We could sit around all day and argue the merits of going or not going, leaving or staying, but one thing is clear: Such conversations are pointless.
OK so I promised to add a link to a fellow blogger's site, but I can't get into bloggrolling to add the site so I'll put a link here for now. When I get it back up and running, I'll add the link properly.
In the meantime, here's a plug for Street Cow, the self-proclaimed "quickest waste of time on the web."
I dunno, I don't think a place where you can get a laugh and some serious truth all at once is a waste of time, but what the hell do I know? I'm a chick who can't sleep, I could be delusional.
Go check it out.
Can I just take a moment to vent about moms who BRAG about how their kids are potty trained? Seems to me this is not some major accomplishment on the part of the parent, but rather the child, and last time I checked, there weren't too many kids walking up to get their diplomas in a DIAPER, so eventually they all manage to get the gist of it.
I'm peeved only because it seems as though I can't turn around without hearing someone discussing their toddler's toileting habits. Don't get me wrong, I want Emma to be out of diapers, much more for her than for me. If she's still in them this summer, she can't go to 99% of the summer fun stuff for kids her age.
I know what you're thinking, I'm just pissed because I'm jealous that these moms have kids who don't need diapers anymore. They don't have to spend the money on them and they don't have to figure out how to dispose of them. Nope, that is NOT it. As for me, truth-be-told, I'd just assume KEEP her in the diapers a little longer. I have an infant after all, and as selfish as it sounds, it's way easier to simply change a diaper when you're out with both kids than to figure out how to take a toddler to the potty while carrying in a carrier or pushing an infant in a big double stroller. I mean, it's not like little kids give you a lot of notice even once they've figured out the whole potty situation, and it's not like everyplace you go has a public facility, and then there are accidents in public and the car seat to worry about cleaning. If you ask me, it's as scary for me as it probably is for her. I'd rather go the cold-turkey method and stay home for a few days until she's pretty reliable than "train" her over a period of time and worry about all that.
Besides, it's not like having a toddler who's potty trained entitles a mom to stop touching poop. Mastering the art of going in the toilet is a far cry from mastering the art of cleaning one's ass thoroughly. If we parents didn't step in and help, ours would be the "smelly kid" in preschool (as Adam Sandler calls it).
Bottom line? I wish people would stop taking credit for and bragging about this developmental milestone. To me, its as ludicrous as bragging that your child is crawling or walking or talking. Seems to me the only reason to brag about something like this is to make other parents feel inferior, and after watching Discovery Health Channel's "Raising 16 Children" last night (a reality series about the Duggar family), I feel inferior enough as it is! I mean, these people have 16 of the most well-behaved, normal, bright kids you've ever seen, and I'm stressed and harried with two??
The day some Oscar recipient thanks their mom for potty training them successfully at the tender age of 2, I'll change my tune, until then, let's give it a rest, shall we?
And no, it wasn't that of her own "fetus."
This badass Mama followed proper gun-totin' protocol and warned the intruder probable rapist/child-molester/crack-head/meth-addict that she had a gun, and when he responded that he had one as well and started shooting, she fired back killing the bastard.
I don't think charges will be filed against her. This isn't Massachussetts or New York (or Great Britain for that matter) where she'd be seen as the guilty party for using a (gasp, I daren't even type the word) gun to take the (worthless meaningless waste of a) life that tried to take her own and those of her children (unborn included).
One wonders what would have happened in one of those states if she had been the victim instead, and if the "intruder" had killed her and her unborn child. I'm gonna guess he'd be charged with only one murder, not two because in places that don't like guns--oddly and ironically enough--they value the life of a scumbag rapist/child-molestor/crack or meth-fiend more than that of the unborn.
Yes folks, the irony is that in those states, the same people who claim to represent a woman's right to "choose" are on the side that fights tooth-and-nail to ensure that people like her will not have the ability to save themselves or their unborn children if doing so requires the use of a firearm.
I know what you're thinking... . "C'mon Deb! Isn't it a stretch to connect this shooting with the abortion issue?"
Perhaps, yes, perhaps it is. But hey, the AP chose to feature her status as a pregnant woman in the headline (for dramatic effect I'm sure), so why can't I use it to explore an irony I hear every time the "choice" people open their pie-holes to speak? It's the same kind of irony that presents itself when these same folks oppose the death penalty. It's not whether I'm for or against abortion or guns, it's whether I'm for or against the CHOICE--the real choice--to defend life.
When the "choice" people figure that out, then maybe we can have a civil conversation.
The only comment I've had in weeks, to a post I slapped up in a minute or so about the Dubai ports deal and this is what it says:
So THIS is your logic?"We've already turned control of our airport over to an anti-american, Islam-controlled tyranny; let's hand over the sea ports as well!" ??
Past mistakes don't justify repetition. The appropriate response to such information is "throw ALL the bums out."
OK, let's talk about "logic" for a second.
Is it "logical," for example, for not one, but TWO NY Senators to get all exercised about a foreign Arab-owned company owning leasing rights to terminals AT our ports (emphasis to stress distinction between reality and what you've heard these same Senators saying about them "owning" or "controlling" these ports), but NOT to utter a peep about the same entity owning the same rights at our airports?
Is it "logical" for these same two clowns to vigorously oppose ANY (and I do mean ANY) racial profiling of the passengers or workers at those same airports, but to openly practice racial profiling in a business deal? Last time I checked they were claiming that despair and poverty caused people to turn to terrorism, not having multi-millions of dollars and the desire to make more (even though we all know neither is the case--radical Islam is the cause, economic circumstances have little to nothing to do with it).
Is it "logical" (or should I say "reasonable") to rant and rave about how "diplomacy" could have and should have kept us out of war in Iraq (or anywhere for that matter), while simultaneously slapping our best middle-eastern ally in the face by essentially telling them in plain English "we don't want your kind here--we don't trust you"?
Is it "logical" to canonize internationalists like JFK (the man for whom the airport is named in the first place) and then turn around and insist that the USA can and should keep foreign investors out of our country, especially if they are brown skinned and come from a place that has "A-RAB" in the name of the country itself?
Is it "logical" to turn a blind eye to the fact that Bill Clinton is an EMPLOYEE of the leadership in Dubai, whose "salary" is desposited into the JOINT bank account he shares with his blowhard wife, but to praise her (and/or her Republican partners in crime) for "saving" us from the terrible security risk of foreigners A-RABS knowing what we're doing with our critical infrastructure?
Spare me. There is nothing "logical" about anything that has gone on with regard to this deal. I was in no way suggesting that we should allow Dubai to own the leasing rights to these terminals just because they've done so in the past. I think we should have allowed the deal to go through, but for much more "logical" reasons (e.g., there is no LOGICAL, or should I say "rational" reason it shouldn't have).
There might be good and rational reasons to oppose the ports deal, but political opportunism isn't one of them. In my opinion, neither is a fear of Arabs or Muslims, especially those from Dubai, one of the most westernized places in the Middle East, second only perhaps to Israel! They wanna be Western like Eminem wants to be black. I don't love the fact that they boycott all things Israeli, but we've done (and continue to do) business with countries whose policies towards Israel are far worse, and the French, Chinese, Russians and Germans were all doing business with Saddam even AFTER we went to war in Iraq. Should we force divestiture of their interests here too?
As for foreign investment in the US in general, we want it. We ought to want it, especially in big il-liquid shit like ports, big buildings, etc... Let them own shit they can't take with them, why not? If we need it, we can just take it back, what are they gonna do about it? In the meantime, we get their money. And frankly, given the size of our deficit these days, we could use it.
Wouldja believe the UAE?
Yup.
And can you guess where?
JFK Airport, conveniently (and oh-so-ironically) located in the home state of (you guessed it) Chuck-the-shmuck Shumer and Hillary-the-pill Clinton.
Is there something more "safe" about foreign ownership of air terminals? Last time I checked, the 9/11 terrorists didn't sail cargo ships into the twin towers, they FLEW AIRPLANES!!!
But I guess when there's no political hay to be made, "homeland security" is as relative as morality for these two.
Oh, that's right... There were plenty of Repugs who jumped on board this political (sinking) ship (pun intended), and frankly, they are just as bad--no, WORSE--for doing so.
This whole issue shows Washington politics at its worst--so-called "elected officials" who leap at the chance to prove that our best interests are as far from their minds as a solid grasp on reality.
Expect to see this tasty tidbit reported in the MSM at about half-past never.
[Hat tip to Say Anything for the link]
Bennish (newly neatly coiffed to look less like the pot-smoking uber-liberal communist anti-American Bush-basher that he is) appeared on the Today Show today with a whole new angle to his story, and Matt Lauer (in his typical idiotic uncritical group-think peddling way) went right along with it.
Bennish's new argument is that he was trying to get students to think critically--that he was trying to create "cognitive dissonance."
Well I happen to know what cognitive dissonance is--I have a Masters in Education myself--and the key to using it successfully is actually ALLOWING your students a chance to challenge what you're doing or saying when you create the dissonance. If all you do is rant and rave (as Bennish obviously did, it's all there on tape for all of us to hear), you're just preaching, not teaching. Bennish knows this and is working hard to convince the rest of us otherwise, probably in an attempt to try his case in the media and start a "Save Bennish's Academic freedom" letter writing campaign.
I have to wonder what Matt Lauer would say or do if--instead of bashing Bush and espousing communist views--Bennish was a Biology teacher attacking the pro-choice movement for pushing the mutilation of women and the murder of innocents? Or what if he were pushing intelligent design and ranting about the evolutionists? I wonder if the "cognitive dissonance and critical thinking" angle would work then?
I'm guessing NOT.
Question: How is it that Hollywood is so willing to take credit for positive social change in this country (and the world) but not for any negative influece it may have? I'm just thinking of all the times Hollywood denies that their products have ANYthing whatsoever to do with the increase in teenage smoking, pregnancy, sexual promiscuity, violence and disrespect for adults and authority figures...
Then there's the negative perception that people around the world have of us, our morals, our values, etc... I suppose these views have NOTHING to do with the version of America put forth by Hollywood, right?
In essence, we're supposed to believe Hollywood is able to selectively control the perception of the images they create. That's just fascinating, and, if it were true, I'd have to also wonder why they weren't working overtime to change the perception the rest of the world has of us. I mean, after all, they are so much more capable of influencing societies for the good than the military and governments, right?
Michelle Malkin has published Colorado "Geography" teacher Jay Bennish's rant on her site and it's a good thing! Apparently he advocates the bombing of North Carolina--my home-sweet-home--by countries whose populations are addicted to cigarettes:
What is the world's number one single cause of death by a drug? What drug is responsible for the most deaths in the world? Cigarettes! Who is the world's largest producer of cigarettes and tobacco? The United States!What part of our country grows all our tobacco? Anyone know what states in particular? Mostly what's called North Carolina. Alright. That's where all the cigarette capitals are. That's where a lot of them are located from. Now if we have the right to fly to Bolivia or Peru and drop chemical weapons on top of farmers' fields because we're afraid they might be growing coca and that could be turned into cocaine and sold to us, well then don't the Peruvians and the Iranians and the Chinese have the right to invade America and drop chemical weapons over North Carolina to destroy the tobacco plants that are killing millions and millions of people in their countries every year and causing them billions of dollars in health care costs?
When teachers like this are molding young minds, is it any wonder that only 1 in 1000 High School graduates polled could correctly identify all of the freedoms actually granted by the Bill of Rights (and only 8% could correctly identify 3 out of the first 5).
Wanna laugh? Those who got them wrong didn't even identify Freedom of Speech as being on the list!
Guys like Bennish may be right, but for the wrong reasons. We shouldn't send our best and brightest off to war. Why should they die protecting freedoms we don't even know we have?
Pathetic, truly pathetic.
I didn't vote for Newspaper Editors did you? I didn't have a choice as to which of them would be making decisions about what information ought to be "classified" did you?
Nevertheless, at least one of them thinks he and his kind are the right folks to be making such decisions, in his words, "not the government."
[Culled from the findings of the guardian of our freedoms himself, Emperor Misha]
"We do not want to inadvertently threaten human life or legitimately harm national security in our reporting," [Leonard Downie Jr., executive editor of The Washington Compost] said....and here it comes, the three-letter word that automatically renders the preceding sentence meaningless:
"But it's important...in our constitutional system that these final decisions be made by newspaper editors and not the government."Read that again. No, really, read it again.
It’s important in our constitutional system that the final decision as to whether something should be classified is made by newspaper editors rather than elected representatives of the people.
Yes, he really is saying that.
Scary, truly scary. If you're not as terrified as I am, read the rest of Misha's post and then consider the problem again.
While you're at it, ask yourself if we would have, if we COULD have won WWII if we had to fight it today, with the level of so-called "transparency" so-called "journalists" are demanding?
I'm gonna go with NEIN, NIEMALS (for those of you who don't speak German, take a moment to reflect on the countless "secrets" than ensured it would not end up being your native tongue).
So George Clooney just won Best Supporting Actor for Syriana--a movie borne of the liberal conviction that we went to war over oil, a movie that glorifies terrorism as a legitimate means to an end--and in his acceptance speech said he was "Proud to be out of touch" with Mainstream America (that's you and me kids).
According to George, Hollywood dared to talk about AIDS when it was just being whispered about elsewhere, and Hollywood gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar when blacks were sitting in the back of theaters. In both cases implying of course that Hollywood invented AIDS awareness and the Civil Rights Movement.
Perhaps someone ought to tell George that as much as people in Hollywood have suffered from AIDS, and as much as Hollywood has--on occasion--covered the topic, it was a group of parents of victims who started the AIDS quilt, and it--probably more than any other display--made America aware of AIDS. Rock Hudson hid his disease, and by the time he died from it and Elizabeth Taylor became the one-woman-AIDS crusade, the rest of us were pretty well aquainted with the problem.
Perhaps someone ought to tell George that as much as Hattie deserved her Oscar, it was a CHRISTIAN PREACHER (who very much believed in God and Jesus Christ) who was the strongest force behind the Civil Rights Movement, and as near as I can tell, Hollywood was still segregated to a very large degree until quite recently--or has he forgotten that it took until two years ago for a black woman to win Best Actress? Meanwhile, back in Mainstream America, black men and women have become Supreme Court Justices, Astronauts, Surgeons, CEOs, Cabinet Members, shall I go on?
George Clooney made it pretty clear in his speech that he considers those of us who would be proud to call ourselves "Mainstream" to be beneath him and his elite uber-sophisticated crowd. Those of us who grow up, get regular jobs that don't make us rich enough to own villas on Lake Como in Italy, get married (and stay that way for longer than it takes to make it to the cover of People magazine), have kids (and raise them ourselves rather than pawning them off on nannies while we cavort across Europe and other exotic places), believe in God (the same God who inspired the Civil Rights leaders and marchers) and don't get off on patting ourselves on the back for reading other people's words while pretending to be other people and getting paid fabulously for the farce of it all, are nothing more than racist homophobes who never lifted a finger (never mind shed a drop of blood, sweat or tears) to make the world a better place. Nope, we're just LUCKY that the beautiful people in Hollywood can take time from their busy schedule of self-congratulatory feasting to help us see the error of our ways. Gee, I wonder if he considers us bright enough to "get" that he's insulting us? I also wonder if he realizes that while he and his set are busy pretending to be noble crusaders fighting against oppression and ignorance, there are hundreds of thousands of young "Mainstream Americans" out here in the REAL world risking life and limb doing it for REAL. They're called soldiers, not actors.
Well George, I won't mince words and hide insults within compliments for myself--FUCK YOU and everyone who agrees with you. FUCK YOU for thinking you're better than people who do more every day to make the world a better place than any of your piece-of-shit movies ever will. FUCK YOU for thinking you can stand up there in front of literally millions of people and insult the majority of your fellow citizens while simultaneously claiming to be amongst the only community who really cares about us! Too bad your sense of irony isn't as well developed as your EGO.
Public schools are FAILING our kids--minority kids worst of all. And what happens when parents (who give a shit) are given a choice as to whether to support these failing schools or to take their "business" elsewhere?
You got it! They go elsewhere, as they should and as they damn-well have a right to in my opinion. The "state" does not have some intrinsic "right" to be the sole educator of our children. The sooner we get that through our collective skulls, the better of our kids--and our entire society--will be.
MINNEAPOLIS -- Something momentous is happening here in the home of prairie populism: black flight. African-American families from the poorest neighborhoods are rapidly abandoning the district public schools, going to charter schools, and taking advantage of open enrollment at suburban public schools. Today, just around half of students who live in the city attend its district public schools.As a result, Minneapolis schools are losing both raw numbers of students and "market share." In 1999-2000, district enrollment was about 48,000; this year, it's about 38,600. Enrollment projections predict only 33,400 in 2008. A decline in the number of families moving into the district accounts for part of the loss, as does the relocation of some minority families to inner-ring suburbs. Nevertheless, enrollments are relatively stable in the leafy, well-to-do enclave of southwest Minneapolis and the city's white ethnic northeast. But in 2003-04, black enrollment was down 7.8%, or 1,565 students. In 2004-05, black enrollment dropped another 6%.
Black parents have good reasons to look elsewhere. Last year, only 28% of black eighth-graders in the Minneapolis public schools passed the state's basic skills math test; 47% passed the reading test. The black graduation rate hovers around 50%, and the district's racial achievement gap remains distressingly wide. Louis King, a black leader who served on the Minneapolis School Board from 1996 to 2000, puts it bluntly: "Today, I can't recommend in good conscience that an African-American family send their children to the Minneapolis public schools. The facts are irrefutable: These schools are not preparing our children to compete in the world." Mr. King's advice? "The best way to get attention is not to protest, but to shop somewhere else."
It would do the anti-voucher, anti-school-choice crowd well to consider the following:
Minneapolis families seeking to escape troubled schools are fortunate to have the options they do. That's not the case in many other states, where artificial barriers -- from enrollment caps to severe underfunding -- have stymied the growth of charter schools.The city's experience should lead such states to reconsider the benefits of expansive school choice. Conventional wisdom holds that middle-class parents take an interest in their children's education, while low-income and minority parents lack the drive and savvy necessary. The black exodus here demonstrates that, when the walls are torn down, poor, black parents will do what it takes to find the best schools for their kids.
Do you think ANYONE on the left EVER considers the hypocrisy of their various positions on when and how we ought to be free to "choose?"
I'm guessing NO. NOT. EVER.
I love this piece in the WSJ.
It takes hard work to drive anyone away from California's sunshine and scenic vistas, but politicians in Sacramento have been up to the task.The latest Census Bureau data indicate that, in 2005, 239,416 more native-born Americans left the state than moved in. California is also on pace to lose domestic population (not counting immigrants) this year. The outmigration is such that the cost to rent a U-Haul trailer to move from Los Angeles to Boise, Idaho, is $2,090 -- or some eight times more than the cost of moving in the opposite direction.
What's gone wrong? A big part of the story is a tax and regulatory culture that treats the most productive businesses and workers as if they were ATM machines. The cost to businesses of complying with California's rules, regulations and paperwork is more than twice as high as in other Western states.
But the worst growth killer may well be California's tax system. The business tax rate of 8.8% is the highest in the West, and its steeply "progressive" personal income tax has an effective top marginal rate of 10.3%, or second highest in the nation. CalTax, the state's taxpayer advocacy group, reports that the richest 10% of earners pay almost 75% of the entire income-tax revenue in the state, and most of these are small business owners, i.e., the people who create jobs.
You guessed it! Meathead himself!
And things may soon get worse, thanks to Rob Reiner, who played the liberal "Meathead" on the "All in the Family" sitcom in the 1970s and now plays the same part in real life. He and his rich Hollywood friends have put an initiative on the state's June ballot that would add a 1.7-percentage-point income-tax surcharge on "millionaires" with income over $400,000, with the proceeds earmarked for universal pre-school.
But I digress...
This isn't Mr. Reiner's first foray into confiscatory tax politics. Last year he sponsored a ballot initiative narrowly approved by voters that imposed a percentage-point income-tax surcharge (to the current 10.3%) to pay for government mental-health subsidies. And in the late 1990s he helped to pass an initiative to raise the state's tobacco tax by 50 cents a pack to pay for children's health care.
All of this has contributed to the trend of wealthy taxpayers disappearing from the state. State finance office data indicate that the number of Californians reporting million-dollar incomes fell to 25,000 in 2003 from 44,000 in 2000. That decline has cost the state $9 billion a year in uncollected tax revenues. The dot-com implosion of 2000 and 2001 no doubt wiped out many paper millionaires, but migration out of the state to escape its hefty tax premium has also played a role. Republican Assemblyman Ray Haynes notes that the average high-income individual can buy a newly built house in neighboring Nevada and pay for it just from the money saved in a year of not paying California taxes.
What brings in more revenue is the creation of MORE TAXPAYERS, not the garnishment of wages (what it is really) of the few high-income ones. Even I--a person with no background in economics whatsoever--understand this like I understand that two plus two equals FOUR!
The state has been here before, as a new report from economist Arthur Laffer reminds us. In the early 1990s under Republican Governor Pete Wilson, the state raised its top income-tax rate to 11%, triggering one of the worst fiscal crises in the state's history. Tax revenue fell as high-income people fled the state, while public debt exploded. That tax surcharge was removed in 1995, but now the state's politicians want to do it all over again.Well what do we expect from the same people who say--with a straight face--that the reason communism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is that it's never really been tried properly? History is not their strong-suit.
This is the best evidence I've seen in a while that taxing people and business to death not only doesn't produce prosperity for anyone, it can even create economic hardship for everyone.
Can you imagine what would happen to California if the Bush tax cuts (as they are called--should be called the "Bare-Minimum-Should-Have-Been-Done-Long-Ago tax cuts") aren't made permanent? It will be the Un-Gold-Rush with the modern-day equivalent of wagon trains spreading out from California with people heading TO the prairie to find prosperity.
Kinda funny if you think about it.