Planet iCount

Viking Pundit

Sat, 17 May 2008 16:34:09 +0000

My senator, America's senator - Prayers up for Ted Kennedy

Dissecting Leftism

Sat, 17 May 2008 12:47:47 +0000

The madness of government intervention in the food business

Yet another appalling example

The United States and Japan are poised to strike a deal that will remove one of the most widely reviled distortions in global rice markets and could send prices plummeting in the coming weeks. The move, which will flood the market with an estimated 1.5 million tonnes of high-grade American rice that is sitting in Japanese silos, comes amid continuing rice export restrictions by some of the world's biggest suppliers and rioting in countries where the population cannot afford the price increases.

Senior government sources in Tokyo told The Times that Japan had received permission from Washington to begin exports from its giant, but largely hidden, mountain of unwanted American rice to countries that need it most. The exposure of the vast Japanese rice surplus has emerged as one of the chief imbalances of world rice markets and an effect of the complex and wasteful lattice of rules, subsidies and pacts that have knocked global agriculture markets so badly out of kilter.

Rice experts say that the move could defuse temporarily one of the principal catalysts of the food-price crisis - the perception that the world is running out of rice - and the panic and hoarding that has accompanied it. With commodities traders sniffing that a US-Japan deal was imminent, rice futures ended the Asian trading week in a dramatic nosedive as the prospect of a sudden supply surge and bullish harvest forecasts routed speculative money from the market.

The collapse came as think-tanks and food experts called on Japan and the US to urgently unwind one of the biggest "invisible" distortions in global rice markets: a quirk of World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules that obliges Tokyo to buy rice it does not need and that eventually rots in storage. The WTO rule, its many critics say, effectively turns millions of tonnes of high-grade American produce into feed for Japanese hogs and chickens.

Researchers at the Washington-based Centre for Global Development (CGD) said that if that distortion were removed, and the 1.5 million tonnes of unwanted US rice were released from Japan's storage silos, the crisis that has sent the price of the crop that feeds half the world surging up would be solved instantly. The centre has suggested that rice prices could halve by the end of the month.

Standing in the way of that, however, has been a rule that prevents Japan from re-exporting its reserves of US rice without permission from Washington, which has not been forthcoming until now because of the fear of domestic political repercussions from the US rice industry.

Source

*************************

The Rust Belt Should Be Bitter

And better, for that matter

In the firestorm touched off by Barack Obama's comments about those who "cling to" guns and religion out of economic resentment, most analysis missed a crucial point: The "bitterness" felt in the so-called Rust Belt is mainly a product of high-tax, highly unionized states.

While there are pockets of prosperity in Pennsylvania, upstate New York, Ohio and Michigan, a good deal of this area is economically depressed. That's not because of Washington's policies (or lack thereof). These policies aren't killing Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada and Florida.

While southern states do have problems, their governments generally don't smother economic growth by layering on ever-rising taxation, regulation and expenses. They don't permit workers to be forced to join closed-shop unions. No one in D.C. - Obama, Clinton, McCain or Superman - can fix the Rust Belt's self-inflicted wounds.

Western New York offers a prime example. Despite proximity to major markets, a long international border with a major trading partner, a well-developed transport system, untold natural splendors and a well-educated workforce, the Buffalo area's population shrinks every year. Why? High taxes, high government costs and forced unionization are major factors.

New York state is run by and for its public-employee unions, particularly teachers, but several others as well. The unions collect dues and then recycle a significant amount of what they collect into politicians' campaign funds. These contributions (plus state electoral law, which seems designed to protect incumbents and hobble challengers) produce tax-and-expense structures that drive employers away. To varying degrees, the same is true for much of the Rust Belt.

Mr. Obama referred to the ire of poor folks who've been given false promises in the past by national politicians. The real falsehood is the notion that federal programs or subsidies can overcome a state's own ruinous policies.

Source

********************

ELSEWHERE

There is an interesting new site called Climate Data Due Diligence which looks critically at Warmist "science". Click on "Reports" to see their latest.

UK: Call for sell-off of Royal Mail: "The postal regulator has called for Royal Mail to be partly privatised to safeguard the quality of the UK's mail delivery service. Postcomm warned that Royal Mail's financial difficulties would worsen unless bold action was taken. Nigel Stapleton, Postcomm's chairman, told the BBC that without private sector involvement, Royal Mail may require a government subsidy." [Privatizing the post-office! An excellent idea!]

Oil in England's green and pleasant land? "More than 200 communities in the English countryside may be sitting on billions of pounds of undiscovered oil, according to prospectors. Scores of greenfield sites across southern and eastern England are being mapped for viability as world oil prices soar. The Government has received 60 applications from 54 companies to explore 182 plots, but is keeping the details confidential because they are commercially sensitive. Villages, hamlets or new estates will learn about a prospector's interest only if permission is sought to drill or extract oil. The Times has learnt that rural locations from the South Downs to the Lincolnshire Wolds have been designated potential oilfields. There is a 70-mile stretch of small oil deposits in limestone and sandstone from Poole in Dorset, through Hampshire to West Sussex, and pockets in Surrey, the East Midlands and South Wales".

For more postings from me, see OBAMA WATCH, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN.

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here

****************************

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)

****************************

Right Thinking: The New Heretics

Sat, 17 May 2008 09:38:00 +0000

If true, this is a new low, even for fundietards.

One of the unexpected bits of news yesterday was Douglas Kmiec’s report that he (a pro-life, conservative, law professor who is supporting Obama) had been barred from Communion. He joins Kathleen Sebelius in the small but growing group: “not at my Communion rail.”

Here is a response by Catholic Democrats.org on these two most recent outcasts.

“So, with the Democratic governor’s political star rising, the registered Republican Archbishop of Kansas City revived the use of Holy Communion as a political weapon to take her down. He publicly called on her to stop taking Communion with her Catholic community, because of her widely-known opposition to the use of criminal law in dealing with abortion. In a Catholic newspaper column, Archbishop Joseph Naumann indicated that he had made the request because he had been angered by her vetoes of several Republican bills restricting abortion in Kansas. In her most recent veto message, Gov Sebelius offered a detailed description of the lengths to which she had gone to address the abortion issue constructively, and lauded the success her administration had achieved in decreasing its incidence.

“Coincidentally, a California law school professor and Constitutional scholar, Douglas Kmiec, who is one of the country’s most outspoken opponents of abortion, found himself denied Communion because of his public support for Senator Obama. Prof Kmiec was attending a Mass prior to giving a speech to a group of Catholic businessmen, and reported on the website CatholicOnline that he was singled out because of his prominence as an Obama supporter. By this standard, anyone who expressed public support for President Bush could be excluded at Communion, given Mr Bush’s support for torture and the Bishops’ recent inclusion of torture (along with abortion) in their Faithful Citizenship document as ‘an intrinsically evil act.’

“The common thread in these two stories is that individual Catholic authorities took it upon themselves to judge that an association with a Democratic presidential candidate was sufficient cause for a subtle form of excommunication from the Catholic community. ”

Look, if this priest wants to think that Obama is the antichrist, that’s his right. But denying communion to someone based on who they vote for? Seriously, WTF?

Update by Lee: One of the most interesting revelations to me from living in China is to see that, despite two diametrically opposed political ideologies, the exact same dynamics are at work in both of them. There are issues which are generally non-political which are tied into political ideology, and if you don’t think the correct way on an issue you will be looked down upon. In China, a country which has a fiercely nationalist identity, the issue is Tibet. You cannot find a Chinese here who thinks that Tibet is not legitimately part of China. If a Chinese were to speak out and say, no, they should be independent, they would be scorned and looked down upon as a virtual traitor to China itself.

Many of you may have heard this story. There is a Chinese girl currently attending college in the US. One day a photo of her was taken at a rally wearing a Free Tibet t-shirt. This photo ended up going out as part of a news wire story, where people in China who recognized her saw it. The name and address of family of this “traitor” immediately began making its way across Chinese BBS systems and blogs, to the point that her family has had to go into hiding, fearing for their lives.

When I say that I often see eerie parallels between China and the way things are headed in America, this is a good example of what I am talking about. The term “political correctness” is an old Marxist/Leninist term. There was “correct,” but then there was “correct according to party ideology.” Being correct according to the ideology was more important than making the correct decision based on logic and thought. While we all know what “politically correct” means in contemporary terms, what we are seeing in the quoted story is, literally, an updated version of Marxist political correctness.

We see more and more of these types of things happening. Why? Because fundamentalist Christianity is becoming too infused into the political process. So, rather than having to adhere to the rules of the ideology of Marxism/Leninism, politicians are now expected to adhere to the rules of the Christian faith. This is the new political correctness. Same dynamic, different ideology, same result.

According to the story at least, the number of abortions performed in Kansas has gone down. Assuming this is correct, should the governor be lauded for this by anti-abortion people? If their goal is to stop abortions, while they might not agree with her support for abortion rights, she should at least be acknowledged as one of the good guys for taking her state in the right direction. Apparently not. Why? Because while her decision was logically correct in reducing the number of abortions, and certainly correct in terms of secular government, it was not “politically correct” to the rabid Christian lunatics who are running the show at the GOP these days.

We live in a secular country. Faith and religion are supposed to be important but separate from politics. As the two become more and more intertwined, we’re going to start seeing more incidents of this sort of thing. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to see, in the coming years, certain politicians actually excommunicated from their respective churches because they don’t vote according to the strictures of their respective ideologies. Marxism is alive and well in America, it’s just called Christianity.

(Standard disclaimers apply: this is not an attack on all Christians or even the faith itself, only the way that the faith is now being used as a cudgel to achieve certain political ends.)

by West Virginia Rebel

Right Thinking: The Followership Of The Brand

Sat, 17 May 2008 06:54:00 +0000

Looking at the current political landscape, it’s hard to argue with this.

Could the party pivot from the president? I spoke this week to Clarke Reed of Mississippi, one of the great architects of resurgent Republicanism in the South. When he started out, in the 1950s, there were no Republicans in his state. The solid south was solidly Democratic, and Sen. James O. Eastland was thumping the breast pocket of his suit, vowing that civil rights legislation would never leave it. “We’re going to build a two-party system in the south,” Mr. Reed said. He helped create “the illusion of Southern power” as a friend put it, with the creation of the Southern Republican Chairman’s Association. “If you build it they will come.” They did.

There are always “lots of excuses,” Mr. Reed said of the special-election loss. Poor candidate, local factors. “Having said all that,” he continued, “let’s just face it: It’s not a good time.” He meant to be a Republican. “They brought Cheney in, and that was a mistake.” He cited “a disenchantment with the generic Republican label, which we always thought was the Good Housekeeping seal.”

What’s behind it? “American people just won’t take a long war. Just – name me a war, even in a pro-military state like this. It’s overall disappointment. It’s national. No leadership, adrift. Things haven’t worked.” The future lies in rebuilding locally, not being “distracted” by Washington.

Is the Republican solid South over?

“Yeah. Oh yeah.” He said, “I eat lunch every day at Buck’s Cafe. Obama’s picture is all over the wall.”

How to come back? “The basic old conservative principles haven’t changed. We got distracted by Washington, we got distracted from having good county organizations.”

Should the party attempt to break with Mr. Bush? Mr. Reed said he supports the president. And then he said, simply, “We’re past that.”

We’re past that time.

Mr. Reed said he was “short-term pessimistic, long-term optimistic.” He has seen a lot of history. “After Goldwater in ‘64 we said, ‘Let’s get practical.’ So we got ol’ Dick. We got through Watergate. Been through a lot. We’ve had success a long time.”

Throughout the interview this was a Reed refrain: “We got through that.” We got through Watergate and Vietnam and changes large and small.

He was holding high the flag, but his refrain implicitly compared the current moment to disaster.

What happens to the Republicans in 2008 will likely be dictated by what didn’t happen in 2005, and ‘06, and ‘07. The moment when the party could have broken, on principle, with the administration – over the thinking behind and the carrying out of the war, over immigration, spending and the size of government – has passed. What two years ago would have been honorable and wise will now look craven. They’re stuck.

Mr. Bush has squandered the hard-built paternity of 40 years. But so has the party, and so have its leaders. If they had pushed away for serious reasons, they could have separated the party’s fortunes from the president’s. This would have left a painfully broken party, but they wouldn’t be left with a ruined “brand,” as they all say, speaking the language of marketing. And they speak that language because they are marketers, not thinkers. Not serious about policy. Not serious about ideas. And not serious about leadership, only followership.

For my own part, I think what happened was that traditional Republicans made a devil’s bargain with Bush Republicans over the war, and when it became clear that Bush Republicans were not going to follow the messages of smaller government and less spending the traditional Republicans tried to break away, but by then it was too late. They were stuck with each other, and beholden to a base that called them traitors for daring to challenge Bush the Second. Bush Republicans tried to squeeze them out with the help of like-minded pundits and commentators, and for a while that worked. Now that traditional Republicans finally have more freedom to say what they want, the Bush Republicans seem bent on leading the entire party to defeat. It’s like being on a Ship of the Damned with a captain (or a group of officers) who won’t face reality that a sickness has overtaken the crew. It’s a real-life Shakespearean tragedy-one in which we, the audience, are also being dragged towards the final act against our will.

by West Virginia Rebel

Right Thinking: The War On Common Sense

Sat, 17 May 2008 02:51:00 +0000

This is the Republican Party. This is the Republican Party on stupid.

WASHINGTON – RNC Communications Director Danny Diaz released the following statement today:

“Barack Obama’s pledge to stop Executive agencies from implementing laws passed by Congress raises serious doubts about his understanding of what the job of the President of the United States actually is. His refusal to enforce the law reveals that Barack Obama doesn’t have the experience necessary to do the job of President, or that he fundamentally lacks the judgment to carry out the most basic functions of the Executive Branch. What other laws would Barack Obama direct federal agents not to enforce?”

And here’s the statement from Obama that had them so riled up:

Obama Pledged To Stop The Drug Enforcement Administration’s Raids On Oregon Medical Marijuana Growers. Willamette Week: “Would you stop the Drug Enforcement Administration’s raids on Oregon medical marijuana grows?” Obama: “I would because I think our federal agents have better things to do, like catching criminals and preventing terrorism. The way I want to approach the issue of medical marijuana is to base it on science. And if there is sound science that supports the use of medical marijuana and if it is controlled and prescribed in a way that other medicine is prescribed, then it’s something we should consider.” (James Pitkin, “Six Minutes With Barack,” Willamette Week, 5/14/08)

And the GOP wonders why they’re getting their asses kicked.

by West Virginia Rebel

Viking Pundit

Sat, 17 May 2008 02:27:18 +0000

Leave me alone, I'm a family man - Sorry for the light posting, but this week has been a whirlwind of bake sales and polite sitting. Tonight my kid had a band concert which ran a bit too long between music, dance numbers, and general tomfoolery on a sixth-grade level. The highlight of the night was seeing a band called The Primate Fiasco which played a kind of hepped-up Dixieland jazz. They'll be

Right Thinking: Taunting Your Way To Prison

Sat, 17 May 2008 01:46:00 +0000

I saw this on the wire yesterday but forgot about it. Thanks to Rich for reminding me:

In a highly unusual use of a federal law generally employed in computer fraud cases, a federal grand jury here on Thursday indicted a Missouri woman accused of using a phony online identity to trick and taunt a 13-year-old girl, who committed suicide in response to the cyberbaiting.

The woman, Lori Drew, was charged with one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing a computer without authorization and via interstate commerce to obtain information to inflict emotional distress. Each count carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

Ms. Drew lives in O’Fallon, Mo., where, according to the indictment, she created a MySpace account under the name Josh Evans in 2006. Prosecutors said she used the social networking account to contact a young girl named in the indictment as M.T.M. with sexually charged messages from “Josh.” The girl, who has been identified by her mother as Megan Meier, was a former friend of Ms. Drew’s daughter.

After a few weeks of chatting, “Josh Evans” began to send Megan nasty messages, via the MySpace account, ending with one that suggested “the world would be a better place” without her. Megan, believing she had been rejected by “Josh,” committed suicide in her home.

Like the legal experts, I’m a little dubious that will stand up in court as no one crossed state lines, apart from a few electrons. I’m still stunned that Missouri officials didn’t think there was anything here worth prosecuting.

by Hal_10000

Right Thinking: The Chamberlain Stratagem

Sat, 17 May 2008 01:06:00 +0000

Everyone and his grandmother these days is comparing talking to ... well, anyone ... with Neville Chamberlain’s surrender of Czechoslovakia in 1938. I tire of this nonsense. This entirely unoriginal slur has been thrown at everyone who even burbles “negotiation” since, oh, about 1945. Apart from the Godwin’s Law aspect, I think the Chamberlian comparison to most situations in general and to the Iran situation specifically is ridiculous and ignorant. Allow me to indulge myself. (Most of this is based on William Schirer’s excellent book).

First, there is a huge difference between talking to someone and giving them everything they want. The problem with Chamberlain wasn’t that he talked to Hitler rather than invade (which could have been a disaster); it was that he surrendered everything on the negotiating table—without even consulting the Czechs. His attitude was “what do you want to prevent a war, Mr. Hitler?” A comparable situation to Iran would be if they demanded that Israel cease to exist and we just agreed to that. Obama is not going to do that, no how much Boehner might twist his words.

Second, in 1938, Chamberlain was facing a rebuilt and remilitarized German state that, a year later, would prove too powerful for France and Britain combined. In fact, the reason he conceded so much was that, even then, a war would have been long and bloody (Schirer’s fantasies about defecting German generals aside). The military ambitions of the Nazis were openly stated; their military capability strong.

We don’t face anything near that situation right now. The United States has more conventional military might than the rest of the world combined and there is no danger of us being surpassed anytime soon. If it ever came to war, we would thrash the Iranians—whose industrial and technical capacity is puny—without even breaking a sweat. The United States has not lost a conventional war in living memory. Our problem has been guerilla-style terrorism during the occupation—such as we are facing in Iraq now and would face doubly in Iran if we ever invaded.

Even if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon—which the hysterics were saying was going to happen several years ago—we would still outgun Iran by thousands to one. And we have a basic missile defense. We could knock an approaching missile from the sky and turn Iran into a cinder if we wanted to. To be honest, the nuclear weapons in Pakistan are more of a concern to me.

The Iranians certainly know this. And their people know it too. This is why they are trying to constantly stoke paranoia and fear into their populace. This is why, in my opinion, they’re hoping we bomb them one day. Nothing unites a badly-run country than fear of the other.

I just don’t see the Chamberlain comparison. We are in a vastly superior strategic and military position. We face an enemy that can barely hold their own country together let alone invade anyone else. Our biggest problem right now is a guerilla war in Iraq (which my be turning a corner), a problem that Iran certainly has a great deal of influence over.

What precisely are people afraid of if Obama talks to Iran?

Update: To add one point, just because I don’t think talking to Iran is intrinsically bad, doesn’t mean I buy into the whole “they’ll make nice if we do” nonsense. You negotiate from a position of strength and moral certainty. I do agree with quite a bit of Manwhore’s excellent post last night. The problems we have in the Middle East do no stem from misunderstanding and American aggression. The arise from religious fundamentalism and tyranny. But concession being bad does not mean that chest-thumping is good.

Update II: Reading some of the commentary on the whole Obama=Chamberlain meme, I think there’s one point being lost. The problem with the Munich Dictate wasn’t that it “encouraged Hitler” or persuaded him that “the Allies were weak”. It was quite specific, actually. Chamberlain made the worst possible concession at Munich—giving them the Sudetenland in exchange for a vague promise not to make war. This effectively neutered the Czech army and led to the easy conquest of the remainder of Czechoslovakia. The history of World War II might have gone very differently had the Nazis been facing an entrenched and determined foe on their southeast flank in 1939.

by Hal_10000

Right Thinking: Hey Mr. Dj

Fri, 16 May 2008 14:23:00 +0000

Much to the delight of our readers, I have been very busy and unable to comment or post lately. Well, the result of that effort just earned me a raise, and I am in a probationary period to get a promotion. Needless to say I am pretty jovial right now.

Astound me with today’s mix. No rules, just right. :)

Let’s have some fun today!

by right_thinkingrequest@hotmail.com

Right Thinking: Obamaniacs Anonymous

Fri, 16 May 2008 14:13:01 +0000

I’ve noticed a particular zeal about demonizing the GOP lately, both here and elsewhere. These emotional screeds are most of the time boiled down to an angst about current events. For example, one person who’s opinion I hold dear is going to vote for Obama because he ties the GOP to rampant gas prices. I can’t really get through to him that this is an issue that doesn’t have much to do with politics, nor is it the job of the government to check these issues. I can’t really get through to him, and I find it a challenge to get through here from time to time. In the abscence of being a prolific and influential writer, I found an article that sums up the way I feelBarak Obama’s America..

But I should try to do the responsible thing: follow the trail from Obama’s announced principles and policies to their probable effects, based on how we have learned that the world actually works.

The number one issue, orders of magnitude greater than others, is what will happen in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other sources of worldwide terrorism — suicide bombers, haters of Israel, and would-be destroyers of the United States and her allies. What will happen in Iraq? What will happen in Iran? What will happen in Pakistan?

Our Democratic party ever since George McGovern’s candidacy in 1972 has wished and wished, like an undisciplined child, for a benevolent world of peace, in which we could “talk to” and “reason with” those leaders whom earlier administrations had learned they could neither trust nor deal with as rational, benevolent partners. Earlier administrations had also hoped that other leaders of nations respected us, and meant us well. Events like the bombing of the World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole, and September 11, 2001, plus the subsequent fury and irrational cruelty of jihadists around the world, disillusioned them. But not, apparently, Obama; nor many members of the left-wing generation he represents.

I have said this numerous times, and maybe this forum is a great one to say it once again. None of the problems in the Middle East are new. the lockerbie bombing, the USS Cole and the WTC bombing are events that have taken place for decades. I find it mind boggling that we disregard this information when we talk about Obama’s foreign policy strategies. It’s simply ignorant to believe that Obama’s gamble will work out for us.

I’ll go out on a limb and agree with Lee about this much. We need to be wary of losing our own liberties in our zeal to destroy our enemies. They are the foundational success of prosperity here. Now, that said, we also need to accept that our problems won’t disappear no matter what political stance we take. Obama’s daydreaming solutions to the country’s woes are vomit inducing to say the least. Murderers do not need a hug, anymore than the midwest cling to guns and religon as a form of escape from a poor job market. (I love that statement, because that’s been the mantra of the left on how to deal with insurgents, and look at how well that works out)

The partisans of the welfare state demand peace, in order to pay for its insatiable need to keep handing out more and more benefits. That is why left-wing statists take peace as their natural inheritance. They cannot go on without it. They do not intend to pay any price for it; there are no funds left for that.

I hope this comment rattles around for a minute, because it’s brilliant. Now do we see that even the feel good wishes for peace are as corrupted by the democratic party as the left says saber rattling is the fundamental flaw in conservatism? It’s true. Democrats must champion peace because they can’t afford to give hand outs and intervene on the world stage. For anyone who are Europe worshippers, this also is the number one reason that our European relatives take the stances they do. They can ill afford to commit anything to the world because they have an obligation to cradle society. the parallels are apparent.

Given the historical record of the last 200 years (and more), what can we expect from this nursery-room fantasy? An untypical, even unprecedented era of peace? Or, on the contrary, the salivating determination of enemies to celebrate our visible moral weakness, and to slay their hated enemy while we bow our heads, standing there as weak and frightened supplicants? When a head is lowered from weakness, they strike it off.

In my experience, unwillingness to fight earns one contempt, further furies of terror, and truly bitter war. But perhaps other observers trust human nature more than I.

If the United States shows signs of weakness, surrender, and a one-sided departure from Iraq, the rejoicing of those who predicted that they would in the end defeat us will profoundly strengthen their resolve for the next battle. Further, without an offensive thrust in Iraq, any military forts or airfields of ours would be sheltered in a defensive enclave — announcing to those who hate us that they should keep killing two or more Americans every day, drip, drip, drip, until the American people cannot stand it any more. Weakness once shown invites fiercer aggression.

This is the Oracle speaking folks. We have engaged in war. We show weakness, and a lack of determination, we will create more enemies than we ever thought we had before. We are the world leaders, and we need to act like it. standing up to tyranny as long as it doesn’t interfere with American Idol only serves to expose America as an insincere nation even further. If we want to win over the world, we stick Iraq out and make it a better place, an ally, and a prosperous nation. We don’t and the world wags the finger and makes refernces to Viet Nam.

His policies on quasi-universal health care will change all the incentives in our current health system — and for the worse. Studies show that a high proportion of demands for health care are the result of personal behaviors — eating or drinking too much, not exercising enough, leading a dissipated life, not taking advantage of preventive care, spending health dollars heedlessly (because they are paid by the State, not the responsible individual).

Many older doctors will leave medical practice rather than become employees of the State, constantly regulated, badgered, and demeaned. The idea of medicine as a proud, independent, inventive profession will be profoundly wounded. In hospitals, paying benefits for patients (even if they practice irresponsible behaviors) will demand ever more dollars, which must necessarily be pulled out of research and invention. Long bureaucratic lists of those needing particular operations will force even the neediest patients to wait long months before they can get care.

Universal health care is a dream, people. I lived in Sweden who boasted a “cradle to the grave” philosphy of government run health coverage. Having my own experiences there as an immigrant, I can say the system is truly flawed. I was denied health care, and not because I was an immigrant. I was denied health care because my doctor went to play golf at 4pm.

how could something like this happen? (I had tonsilitis, and was deathly ill) It happened because the doctors didn’t need to concern themselves with patients health, they were tools of the government. We make parallels to the DMV, and it’s 100 percent correct. DMV service sucks balls because it’s priority is not a service to you. As a matter of fact, it’s wealth is generated by creating droves of bullshit and red tape to steal your money. All by government mandate.

Seeing as how this country was founded on individual merit, our society will be poised to exploit government stipends from day one. Expect it. Also expect a litany of rules to qualify yourself for treatment. When I lived in sweden, the one topic that scared me sober about social medicine was a project I did to bolster “self health” as the Swedes dubbed it. Basically it was a kind way of saying cover your own ass, there are limits to “free” medicine. the first discussion we had about it in our group was how to deal with smokers.

It was completely valid. some thought smoking should either be prohibited, or that you shouldn’t get medicine for it’s consequences. It wouldn’t take a genius to figure out Obama himself would get a little pissed about that dilemma. If I’m to pay for your medicine, I have a say in the way you live your life. don’t be surprised when Manwhore strikes a devilsh grin and tells all of the well wishers it should be a law for them to keep a journal of what they eat to determine if they have lived well enough to enjoy free medicine.

At any rate, I hope a couple of examples like these are enough to convince you how easily this solution presents immediate problems and threats to freedom.

My most hopeful moments derive from imagining that Obama, as president, will be dissuaded from acting as he now says that he will. In that way, God will once again take care of those who are drunk on statist illusions, and He will once again take care of the United States, despite itself. It is when I take Obama at his word that pessimism floods over my heart.

Let me add to this statement by saying Obama might be impeached by an already pessimistic public because he will compound America’s problems. His wife will learn just how “mean” Americans will be when you don’t deliver on a dream.

by right_thinkingrequest@hotmail.com

Right Thinking: A Cup O’ T

Fri, 16 May 2008 13:57:00 +0000

And the latest cause that fringe nutbars have discovered is:

Seems that one person’s smut is another person’s morning latte.

A Christian group based in San Diego found grounds for outrage over the new retro-style logo for Starbucks Coffee.

The Resistance says the new image “has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute,” Mark Dice, founder of the group, said in a news release. “Need I say more? It’s extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves Slutbucks.”

The group, which claims more than 3,000 members nationwide and has found a place on the fringe advancing various conspiracy theories, is calling for a national boycott of the coffee-selling giant.

The logo will run on Starbucks cups for “several more weeks,” said company spokeswoman Bridget Baker, and will live on as the logo for Pike Place bags of coffee.

Apparently this group is run by a guy who sees himself as a real-life John Conner. You know, the guy from the “Terminator” movies. I’m not sure how cyborgs and lattes figure into Bible prophecy, but apparently this guy does and has made Starbucks his next target.

by West Virginia Rebel

Right Thinking: Obamaniacs Anonymous

Fri, 16 May 2008 13:31:00 +0000

I’ve noticed a particular zeal about demonizing the GOP lately, both here and elsewhere. These emotional screeds are most of the time boiled down to an angst about current events. For example, one person who’s opinion I hold dear is going to vote for Obama because he ties the GOP to rampant gas prices. I can’t really get through to him that this is an issue that doesn’t have much to do with politics, nor is it the job of the government to check these issues. I can’t really get through to him, and I find it a challenge to get through here, and I find it a challenge to get through here from time to time. In the abscence of being a prolific and influential writer, I found an article that sums up the way I feelBarak Obama’s America..

But I should try to do the responsible thing: follow the trail from Obama’s announced principles and policies to their probable effects, based on how we have learned that the world actually works.

The number one issue, orders of magnitude greater than others, is what will happen in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other sources of worldwide terrorism — suicide bombers, haters of Israel, and would-be destroyers of the United States and her allies. What will happen in Iraq? What will happen in Iran? What will happen in Pakistan?

Our Democratic party ever since George McGovern’s candidacy in 1972 has wished and wished, like an undisciplined child, for a benevolent world of peace, in which we could “talk to” and “reason with” those leaders whom earlier administrations had learned they could neither trust nor deal with as rational, benevolent partners. Earlier administrations had also hoped that other leaders of nations respected us, and meant us well. Events like the bombing of the World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole, and September 11, 2001, plus the subsequent fury and irrational cruelty of jihadists around the world, disillusioned them. But not, apparently, Obama; nor many members of the left-wing generation he represents.

The partisans of the welfare state demand peace, in order to pay for its insatiable need to keep handing out more and more benefits. That is why left-wing statists take peace as their natural inheritance. They cannot go on without it. They do not intend to pay any price for it; there are no funds left for that.

Given the historical record of the last 200 years (and more), what can we expect from this nursery-room fantasy? An untypical, even unprecedented era of peace? Or, on the contrary, the salivating determination of enemies to celebrate our visible moral weakness, and to slay their hated enemy while we bow our heads, standing there as weak and frightened supplicants? When a head is lowered from weakness, they strike it off.

In my experience, unwillingness to fight earns one contempt, further furies of terror, and truly bitter war. But perhaps other observers trust human nature more than I.

If the United States shows signs of weakness, surrender, and a one-sided departure from Iraq, the rejoicing of those who predicted that they would in the end defeat us will profoundly strengthen their resolve for the next battle. Further, without an offensive thrust in Iraq, any military forts or airfields of ours would be sheltered in a defensive enclave — announcing to those who hate us that they should keep killing two or more Americans every day, drip, drip, drip, until the American people cannot stand it any more. Weakness once shown invites fiercer aggression.

His policies on quasi-universal health care will change all the incentives in our current health system — and for the worse. Studies show that a high proportion of demands for health care are the result of personal behaviors — eating or drinking too much, not exercising enough, leading a dissipated life, not taking advantage of preventive care, spending health dollars heedlessly (because they are paid by the State, not the responsible individual).

Many older doctors will leave medical practice rather than become employees of the State, constantly regulated, badgered, and demeaned. The idea of medicine as a proud, independent, inventive profession will be profoundly wounded. In hospitals, paying benefits for patients (even if they practice irresponsible behaviors) will demand ever more dollars, which must necessarily be pulled out of research and invention. Long bureaucratic lists of those needing particular operations will force even the neediest patients to wait long months before they can get care.

At any rate, I hope a couple of examples like these are enough to convince you how easily this solution presents immediate problems and threats to freedom.

My most hopeful moments derive from imagining that Obama, as president, will be dissuaded from acting as he now says that he will. In that way, God will once again take care of those who are drunk on statist illusions, and He will once again take care of the United States, despite itself. It is when I take Obama at his word that pessimism floods over my heart.

by right_thinkingrequest@hotmail.com

GOPUSA: NEWS -- House rejects bill funding Iraq, Afghanistan wars