Coulter Vs. The WWF

The press is giving Ann Coulter way too much attention. No one who can carry on a reasonably logical conversation or develop a cogent thought listens to what she has to say.

People listen to and watch Anne Coulter for the same reasons they watch professional wrestling. Actually, they are probably the same people.

Technorati Tags: Coulter WWF

Good News Will Set Us Free!

After Joe Scarborough whined last Wednesday about the liberal, anti-American bias of the media and the mainstream media's failure to report the successes in Iraq, what was the lead story on Thursday's Scarborough Country? Natalee Holloway. See my previous post "Scarborough and O'Reilly Can Save Iraq."

Now Joe was off Thursday night and a replacement was sitting in, but I don't think that made much difference. These shows are more interested in ratings than news.

When the Iranian embassy hostage crisis occurred in 1979, ABC (one of the mainstream, liberal media companies) started a nightly half hour news show dedicated to the story. They vowed to keep the program on until the hostage crisis was resolved, which they did. I'm sure they never imagined the hostages would be held for over a year, but true to their word, ABC kept the nightly news show on and reported the details of the hostage story every week night. Once the hostages were released they continued the show, Nightline, as a nightly news show.

Fox, to their credit, has dedicated one of their shows to an on-going news event. On The Record, with Greta Van Susteren, has dedicated itself to reporting every detail about the disappearance of Natalee Holloway. They will not stop until the truth is known. They are dedicated to covering this story no matter how long it takes or where the grisly details lead.

I don't blame the Holloway family for trying to keep Natalee's story alive, but if Fox had spent this much time on Jimmy Hoffa, we'd now know who killed him and where he is buried.

Ok all you conservatives. I keep hearing how the insurgents can't beat us in a war (which they can't), so the insurgent's goal is to take a page from the Vietnamese and attack the will of the American people. Many of you are sure that it is only by breaking the will of the American people that the insurgents and terrorists can defeat us in Iraq. You insist that the liberal media are playing into the hands of the insurgents and terrorists by reporting only one side of the Iraq story. The side where things are not going well. So get over there are start reporting the good news. Dedicate a nightly show to all the good things that are happening in Iraq. Promise to keep it going until members of the U.S. armed forces are not dying in Iraq. Keep Americans up beat about the progress of the war. Don't let the liberal media brainwash the American public into thinking this war is not worth the cost. Let us hear about all the good things that are happening. You can present all the good news and counter the bad news that is gleefully reported by the liberal, mainstream media. You show those wimpy, mainstream reporters how real men get the story.

You can do it. Get over there, create a nightly show, tell us the real story. Save Iraq. If you report all the good things that are happening in Iraq, the war is as good as won! We don't need a plan. We don't need competency. We don't need a reconciliation government in Iraq. We don't need an exit strategy. We just need to hear the good news.

The good news will set us free!

Technorati Tags: Political Scarborough O'Reilly Fox News Iraq Liberal Media

Scarborough and O'Reilly Can Save Iraq

Tonight on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Joe Scarborough picked up President Bush's whine that the mainstream media (also known in conservative circles as the liberal media) are failing to report the good news from Iraq. Conservatives are claiming that the failure of the media to provide balanced reporting has led to President Bush's low poll numbers and a growing opinion that we should get out of Iraq. The ground work is being laid to blame the liberal media and Democrats for future failures and setbacks in Iraq.

What world do these people live in? Joe Scarborough has five hours of prime time TV every week. Probably 10 and 15 hours in some markets with rebroadcasts. O'Reilly has the same amount of air time. Hell, Fox has a whole damn network! If the mainstream media is so bad why don't these guys get off their whining asses and move their shows to Baghdad? They could set up their own studios with big windows opening on downtown Baghdad. Live from Baghdad, it's Scarborough Country! The O'Reilly Factor, fair and balanced live reporting of all the good news from the vacation capital of the world, Iraq! Maybe Bill would have to change the name of the show to The O'Reilly Fear Factor.

Joe could report 5 hours of live, good news from Iraq every week. He would be the darling of conservatives. His ratings would eclipse the Super Bowl! At least with those two over there we would get some real reporting and not just balcony interviews.

So here's the challenge to all you blowhard, whining conservative commentators. Get your whining asses over to Iraq and tell us what the real truth is on the ground. I don't mean spend a weekend there. Move there. Give us reporting of the daily successes and prevent the insurgents from winning the PR battle. Save Iraq.

Technorati Tags: Political Scarborough O'Reilly Fox News Iraq Liberal Media

Help Is Coming

I've written several posts on the need to get our population (and the world's) under control. I'm happy to report that it's beginning to look like help is on the way. Bird flu may solve our problem, at least for a few decades. If bird flu mutates in a way that allows easy transmission of the disease from person to person, we can expect many millions of people to die. As a bonus, the strain that a pandemic would place on public health services would probably drain resources from the fight against AIDS with another bonanza of deaths. If we can decrease the world's population by 500 million or, if we are lucky, a billion people, maybe common sense will prevail and the survivors will realize that over population threatens human survival and the world.

And if they don't see the need and figure out how to limit human population to a level that the earth can sustain, we can rely on some future calamity to bring the numbers back down. We can only hope this occurs before we irreversibly damage the environment.


Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Over-Population

We Need Lots Of Plans!

I’m really getting tired of Republicans carping that Democrats complain about Iraq, but have no plan of their own. If they mean a single plan that all Democrats agree on, then they’re right. The Republicans certainly have a single plan they all agree on and look where it’s gotten us. They can’t even acknowledge that “We’ll stand down as the Iraqi’s stand up.” is not a plan, it is a hope, a wish, and more recently, a prayer. I don’t want Democrats to come up with a single plan and I wish Republicans with the guts to take on this administration would express their true feelings. I heard an articulate and reasonable Senator Chuck Hagel this weekend. I’d like to hear more of his real thoughts on the war. We need new ideas; lots of new ideas. Politicians should be encouraged to suggest lots of plans. If the pros and cons of each are discussed with an open mind, we might really figure out what a true exit strategy is.

We don’t need a plan from the Democrats that they will feel compelled to defend lest they be called “wafflers”. If the Democrats could come up with a single plan, what good would it do them? They are in no position to do anything about it. They are in no position to implement any of it. It would just give a single point for Republicans to attack. As the situation changes and new proposals and options are suggested, these ideas would be ridiculed as just more examples of the lack of Democrat’s resolve. Democrats, as individuals, have made many suggestions. Some have actually been borrowed by the administration, but no one is ever going to give them any credit. Democrats should continue to talk about their concerns and ideas, even if they don’t have an all inclusive plan. Not many politicians or people agree with Representative Murtha’s plan to pull out of Iraq immediately, but no one can deny that he has moved the discussion and thinking forward. We need more suggestions.

I recently heard several people on the talk shows suggest that dissent and discussion in this country only strengthens the resolve of people like the insurgents in Iraq. The implication is that opponents should shut up and support the President. Not only would this spell the end of the Democratic Party, it is not how a democracy works. People seem to believe that it is OK to have their phone tapped as long as someone promises security in return. Would they really give up their right to dissent also? Do the pundits realize that governments and citizens that project a single policy or opinion are usually called dictatorships?

Senator Dianne Feinstein was on Hardball with Chris Matthews (MSNBC) tonight. She did an excellent job of laying out the problems in Iraq and suggesting a course of action. For those of you who think Democrats have no ideas, get a copy of her interview. She made more sense in three minutes than the President has in the last three months. I understand that as a Senator she has more freedom to make certain kinds of statements than the President, but that is the very reason we need people like her to speak out.

As the ’08 presidential campaign heats up and a Democratic presidential candidate is chosen, I would expect that the Democrats will try to project a united front with a common solution to our problems. I’m sure that after the Democrat’s presidential candidate is elected, the party will break down into nuanced discussions, heated policy arguments, wishy-washy policies and general political disarray. Just the kind of energy, soul searching, flexibility and responsiveness that keeps a democracy energized.

Technorati Tags: Political President Bush Iraq Exit Strategy

Trees For Schools

The U.S. Forest Service is getting ready to sell about 300,000 acres of land in 32 states to finance the Secure Rural Schools Act (SRSA). This is about 200 square miles of land. This land is typically forest land in national forests. Once this land is sold, cut for wood and/or mined, we can never replace it. There must be other ways to fund these schools.

What do we do in five years when we again need money for SRSA? Sell more land? What do we sell when we run out of forests?

Missouri, where I live, doesn't have any large national parks. The closest we come is our national forests and we don't want to lose them. The Forest Service plans to sell 21,000 acres of forest in Missouri.

One doesn't have to be cynical to believe this sale is more about making resources available to business that funding a program. I'm sure the thinking was "Who can argue with selling a few trees in order to educate children?" Certainly not this administration which is always ready to give business a helping hand. By the way, the Forest Service is already looking for more forest land to sell.

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Forest Service SRSA Environment

Illegals Not Welcome

If we agree that illegal immigration is a problem we must solve and mass immigration of unskilled workers is a problem we should solve, what are some things we can do to solve these problems? (See my previous post 'Is Illegal Immigration A Problem?')

Increasing border security is high on the list. I've heard a combination of proposals. Physical walls. Virtual walls. More agents. All these sound good, but these actions alone will not solve illegal immigration.

If we really want to solve this problem, we must crack down on businesses who hire illegal immigrants. Fines for hiring illegal immigrants must be levied that are commensurate with the size of the business, the number of illegal immigrants employed and the length of time they have been employed. The punishment must be severe enough so that most employers will determine it is not worth the risk to hire undocumented workers.

People who are caught entering the US illegally should have their identity recorded and then they should be returned to Mexico (or the country they entered from). This person would never be eligible for US citizenship, a green card or a work permit. If we make it possible for more workers to enter legally and deny that option to anyone who enters illegally, we can discourage workers from entering illegally.

If someone comes to the US illegally again and are caught, they go to jail and they are no longer even eligible for a visa to visit the US. Repeat offenders would face longer jail sentences.

We should increase the number of work permits for guest workers. A guest worker must have a job before their permit is issued. There would also be a provision that bringing their family with them is not an option, although they would be required to identify their family members before a permit is granted. If their family is found to be here illegally, the penalty would be swift deportation for all. This would give workers an incentive to return home when their work permit or current employment expires. Immigrant workers who have a clean record for some number of work years (6, though not necessarily contigous years) would be allowed to apply for a green card and bring their immediate family (spouse, children and parents they had identified originally) to this country.

Maybe employers of guest workers should have to pay an hourly fee or tax to the government (local, state and federal) for these workers. This would help to reimburse governments for the extra services these immigrants might require. This would also give an incentive for hiring US workers, if they can be found, for these jobs. So, for example, if you hire a US citizen, you must pay them at least minimum wage. If you hire a guest worker, you must pay them at least minimum wage plus $2.00 an hour as a government surcharge.

Better yet, maybe companies who hire guest workers should be forced to pay a certain level of benefits (like health insurance) to ALL their employees if they hire guest workers.

The idea is to give employers incentives to hire US workers, but if they hire guest workers we minimize the financial burden on community resources that provide these workers with services (like schools, health providers, etc.).

I would like to see a requirement that all guest workers be required to have a minimum ability to read, write and speak English. This would make it easier to assimilate these workers as they progress towards a green card and possibly citizenship. Certainly, every naturalized citizen should be required to speak, read and write English.

Guest workers would, of course, be required to obey all laws. Guest workers convicted of a felony and their families would face deportation. We have a right to choose people who we believe will make positive contributions to our country.

Even if we create a plan to stop illegal immigration, there are still millions of immigrants who are here illegally. We need to determine what to do with them.

One idea would be to apply all the ideas above to people who can prove they had a job here before September 1, 2006. If they have immediate family here, they can stay, but they must be documented. Children who are not citizens must show proof that their parents are here legally before they can enroll in a school. The illegal immigrant's current employer must register these workers and agree to pay the extra fees that are required for guest workers. If they won't, the guest worker will have six months to find a new employer or be sent back to their home country. Once there, they can start over as a guest worker under the new rules. Guest workers already here would have to pass the English proficiency test within one year.

Illegal immigrants and their families who started working on or after September 1, 2006 would be required to leave the country and apply for guest worker status.

Some ideas, such as not providing education for children of illegal immigrants, may sound draconian, but without rewards and punishments we cannot solve this problem. Without sufficient incentives, nothing will change. We currently have an undocumented underclass and that is also not fair to these children.

I'm sure people more familiar with immigration issues will come up with other ideas, but I believe that if we really want to stop illegal immigration, we can. At this point it is clear that the US does not really want to stop cheap labor from entering this country.


Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Illegal Immigration

Is Illegal Immigration A Problem?

I do not believe that bringing in or allowing in unlimited, cheap, unskilled labor from Mexico is good for the US. It may be good for business. It may help the US economy in the short term, but I don't think it is good in the long term. Certainly, allowing unlimited, illegal immigration is not good for us.

I am not against immigration. We are a country of immigrants. We have a history of welcoming people, educated and uneducated, who are willing to work hard to make a better life for themselves and their families, but we are a country that faces a population problem and unlimited immigration is a big part of that problem. Also, as globalization forces our least educated (and some of our best educated) to compete against workers in other countries who will work for much less pay, we do not need to import more undereducated people. I respect that most of these people are hard working, good people, but we cannot save the world by building a third-world underclass in the US. We are really hurting ourselves by severely limiting the number of educated immigrants and students who are allowed to enter the US and allowing unrestricted immigration of unskilled workers.

I believe we can solve this problem, but I suppose we first have to agree that we have a problem and what it is.

Is the problem that illegal immigrants flouted our laws and entered illegally? Is the problem that these people are undocumented? What should happen to illegal immigrants and their families who are already here? Should they receive amnesty?

Would the problem be solved if we drastically increased the number of people who are allowed to enter the US to take a job so that illegal entry declines just because it isn't necessary?

Is the problem a porous border that not only allows good people just looking for a job to enter, but also allows easy entry for drug runners, terrorists, etc.

Is the problem the public service costs of illegal laborers? Is it the additional family members they bring who also need services?

Is the problem our law which gives US citizenship to any child born in this country even if the mother entered illegally?

Is our current population level over-stressing our environment and natural resources? The US Census Bureau says that most of the US population growth over the next 100 years will be the result of immigration, not births to current US citizens.

Do illegal immigrants depress wages? We always hear that illegals take jobs that no one else wants. If cleaning hotel rooms paid $20 an hour do you think more US citizens would apply?

Is the problem our dependence on cheap labor. How many people benefit because some people are willing to work for less than a living wage? How much would the average person's cost of living go up if all the illegal immigrants were somehow forced to leave?

Is the problem that a large number of people who only speak Spanish are creating a separate society inside the US? Are we looking forward to a bilingual society and problems like the Canadians face? There is always a tension between English and French speaking Canadian citizens. More than once there have been national referendums asking if Canada should be broken up into two countries. One speaking English, the other French. Is that our future?

Is our porous border the conscious choice of politicians who understand that without cheap labor we would face other problems for which they have no solutions? Is it just easier to let this problem fester than take the political heat for really facing the issues?

Do we need to develop an economic system that does not depend on cheap labor and continued population growth?

Obviously immigration, legal and illegal, raises many issues. These are tough problems and we do not respond to tough problems until we have no choice. Even then we tend to take the path of least resistance. While we may not yet agree on the key issues of the illegal immigration problem, we can all agree that there is a lack of clear thinking and leadership in this area.

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Immigration Over-Population

Why Are His Numbers So Low?

I watched Hardball today and Chris Matthews asked his guests why the country would trust the President on big issues, like invading Iraq, and won't trust him on small issues like the port deal. Duh.

On Fox, I caught part of Neil Cavuto's show on Fox. Boy, is he bad. Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown should start picking on him and give poor Bill O'Reilly a few days rest.

Anyway, Neil Cavuto asked a panel of conservative sycophants why President Bush's poll numbers were so low. The consensus answer was the mainstream media won't cut him any slack.

As I see it, George Bush was a bad choice for President. He never really had what it takes. He was bad before 9/11. To his credit, when the nation was traumatized by 9/11, he and Vice-President Cheney struck the right tone of strength and stability. They reassured the nation that we could weather the storm and make the terrorists pay. He correctly went after the Taliban in Afghanistan. The nation was desperate for leadership and he did an excellent job of supplying it. Unfortunately, it has pretty much been downhill from there. The President that led us into Iraq, who cares more about money and business than people, who only respects science when it agrees with what he already believes, who thinks the environment is just a pool of natural resources waiting to be tapped, who is certainly not dumb but is slow to adjust and compromise is just the type of president we were afraid we were getting when he was elected.

People want a strong leader. They want to believe the man in charge knows what he is doing. They want to give him the benefit of the doubt since to think otherwise means they made a bad choice (twice) and they worry about what the future holds if they can no longer count on him.

What we have now is a President who does not seem capable of explaining his policies and when he tries, he talks to us like we are five year olds that just aren't capable of seeing the obvious truths he is presenting. We just don't seem to understand the obvious and the poor man doesn't know how to make his explanations any simpler for us. His only solution is to repeat his answer only this time he pauses between the words hoping the extra time will allow them to somehow penetrate our thick heads. He must be terribly frustrated. The country is so dense and getting worse everyday!

Why are the President's poll numbers so low? Because he has been doing a bad job and people can no longer ignore it.

Technorati Tags: Political President Bush Polls

What If DP World Were French Owned?

A for profit company will, in most cases, operate in a way that benefits the owners. If management fails to do this, it is usually replaced by the board of directors or the board of directors is replaced by the share holders.

When the owners are a government who may, in some circumstances, have goals other than profit, how much can we depend on their motivations? It has been suggested that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) might deny us access to their ports or airfields if we stop the acquisition of the port contract by DP World. I believe the UAE ports and airfields are considered crucial to the war in Iraq. I haven't heard that these threats have actually come from the UAE, but it does raise concerns about allowing a government owned corporation to control an operation with national security implications. If anyone in the government thinks that there is even a possibility that the UAE might deny us access if this deal fails, that should kill the deal for sure. Better to face the problem now, then have the threat hanging over us.

If DP World wanted to make umbrellas in the US we wouldn't be having this conversation. No one would care that a government owned company were engaged in a business without national security implications. If DP World were a publicly held corporation there would still be questions, but as an international public corporation the questions would be different. Publicly held corporations may or may not always have high ethical standards, but you can generally trust them to go for the money. Even governments who have been allies for centuries can find their self interests sometimes conflict with ours (think of the French). For those who think that the objections to the DP World deal are racially motivated because DP World is an Arab company, ask people how they would feel if DP World were owned by the French government. I suspect the reaction would be just as strong. The possibility that port operations might be disrupted if we had a disagreement with the French government would be unacceptable.

I've heard the argument that a company owned by the Chinese government has been running a port in California. Instead of a 45 day review of a deal we all know is already dead, we should spend the 45 days reviewing that arrangement. If we can't undo it at this point, we should turn the security spotlight on this arrangement. Should the government prepare a contingency plan to take over operation of the port if the Chinese should try to use this company to change US policy instead of generate profits?

Again, I am not suggesting that either the UAE or Chinese companies involved here are anything but businesses trying to make a profit, but we shouldn't compromise national security just to maintain our free market rep. We also shouldn't give ourselves a potential national security problem to pay back the UAE for access to their ports and airfields. I hope that the UAE feels that our use of their airfields and ports is also in their national and regional interests. If we need to pay back the UAE, let's find another way.

Technorati Tags: Political Ports UAE

What Does A Port Operator Do?

Just what exactly will DP World (the United Arab Emirates company causing the recent contoversy) be doing at the six ports it is scheduled to take over? As is usually the case, you first hear a lot of claims from both sides and only well into the story do people start giving you the facts you need to know to have a reasoned opinion.

The opponents concentrate on the resume of the UAE and how we shouldn't trust our ports to another country. The proponents claim that security will still be under the control of the Coast Guard and Homeland Security. I believe it was Secretary Chertoff who reminded us that cargo will still be moved under the watchful eyes of the International Dock Workers. I can believe and appreciate that the dock workers are doing their part, but this is probably the first nice thing a Republican has said about a union in thirty years.

What will DP World actually be responsible for? Scheduling ships in and out of the port? Loading and unloading cargo? Seeing that containers get moved out of the port and onto their next destination? That's the impression I've gotten, but I'd like to hear their duties spelled out. Administration groupies keep insisting that security is still in the hands of the Coast Guard and Homeland Security. Those who have a problem with this deal don't understand that the ports will be just as safe with DP World. If this were a bank, would you hire a reformed crook as a teller? Even if you have the same guard at the front door?

I have to believe that it would be easier for the port operator or an employee of the port operator to out-flank the security, if they were so inclined, than you or I. Could an employee in Dubia working with an employee in New York have a better chance of getting illicit cargo into this country? Common sense says yes.

I'm still not saying this is a bad deal, but I'm tired of administration mouths acting like we are just as secure no matter who is running the port. Critics say this administration has become tone deaf, I wonder if they haven't just lost their common sense.


Technorati Tags: Political Ports UAE

Payback or Payoff?

I take the administration at its word that having six major ports in the US run by a company owned by the United Arab Emirates is not a problem. It sounds like the government has done a pretty thorough job of thinking this through. But for an administration that never misses an opportunity so show how strong they are on national security, their current position seems strange.

The country and politicians from both sides of the aisle are lining up against this deal. It's a no brainer position to take. So why would the President say if the Congress votes to stop the deal he will use his FIRST veto to make sure it goes through? If he doesn't change his position and actually fights to get this deal done, I think we'll all be smelling a rat. If the President keeps fighting for the UAE to get these contracts you can a bet this is a big time payoff or payback for something. I'm not suggesting that there is anything illegal here, but the UAE must have done something REALLY BIG for the President to take such a REALLY BIG political hit.

Hmmm. Do you think that besides operating other countries' ports the UAE might have a side business operating other countries' jails?


Technorati Tags: Political Ports UAE

Mohammed Cartoons

I struggled with the cartoon issue for a while because I thought that printing cartoons that were offensive to Muslims was wrong. Since then I've listened to other opinions.

My understanding is that these cartoons were intended to make a political statement or a humorous statement, and not demean a religion. If that is true, I see no reason they shouldn't have been printed. If a political cartoon offends some people or a lot of people, so what? Political cartoons usually offend someone. If you are offended, there are many ways to express your outrage. Stop reading the publication. Send letters to the editor explaining why the material is offensive or patently incorrect or unfair. You can encourage others to boycott the publication and/or its advertisers. As you can see, none of these includes any kind of violence or threats of violence.

If Muslims in Denmark were extremely outraged, they could protest as explained above or they could emigrate to a country where freedom of speech is not the law or culture and such outrageous cartoons are not allowed. I'm not suggesting that Muslims should not be welcomed as guests or citizens of Denmark, but living in a country obligates you to some acceptance of its culture or at least some acceptance of the legal ways to change the culture or laws. Denmark is a country with free speech. If you just can't accept that, move on. It is not that hard to move from one country to another to find laws and culture that are acceptable to you. Voting with your feet is an honored tradition in the US.

The Danish Muslims who took their outrage to the Middle East are the real villains here. They created a controversy where there shouldn't have been one. The Danes did not force the cartoons to be shown in countries where they would be seen as blasphemous. While the cartoons may not have been appropriate in a Muslim country, they are acceptable in Denmark and many other countries. Even if they are outrageous.

I recently read an article where Muslims in the Middle East complained that they don't get the respect they feel they deserve. They have a culture and religion with a rich history of accomplishments that rivals any ancient religion or culture, yet no one takes them seriously. Of course, that is the heart of the problem. Other cultures have moved on. Modern societies move toward freedom, the rule of law, individual responsibility, tolerance, diversity, understanding, science and reason. Unfortunately, the out of proportion outrage of many Muslims only proves that they are not ready to join the modern world. Burning down their cities and killing their own people does nothing to gain the respect of the rest of the world. It actually isolates them even more. Burning down a McDonald's restaurant to protest a religious infraction is humorous and makes the protesters look foolish. If a martyr's reward in heaven is seventy virgins, what do you get for burning down a McDonald's? A big Mac, fries and a medium diet Coke.

Do some Muslims really believe that if anyone, anywhere breaks one of their religious laws or does something to offend them they have the right or duty to kill that person? If we gave these same rights to all religions the entire world would be at war all the time. Obviously people who believe such nonsense do not deserve respect or the deference they are being given.

I do not approve of reprinting the cartoons just to show the rioters that we can print them or to intentionally offend Muslims. I don't approve of reprinting the cartoons if their content is designed to enrage rather encourage reflection. But I think editors should reprint the cartoons that are not patently offensive to the general readership of their publication when writing stories about the rioting. An editor must decide whether or not the cartoons are truly offensive to a significant part of his/her readers. If they are offensive, don't reprint them; just report their content. But to not reprint the cartoons that are not offensive to the general population is a form of censorship imposed by a religion. In this case a religion that seems to believe it can censor the entire world. That is unacceptable.

Technorati Tags: Political Mohammed Cartoons

Brit, WTHWYT?

On FOX News Sunday, Brit Hume and his colleagues mocked the DC press corps for their response to the Vice-President's shooting incident. They couldn't understand why the press couldn't accept that this was just an accident and have more empathy with the Vice-President's pain.

They failed to mention that Brit Hume asked the most ridiculous question of the week. Vice-President Cheney handpicked Brit Hume to interview him about an understandably sensitive issue and Brit, in his excitement, must have forgotten where he was. He must have thought he had his dream gig and was on Saturday Night Live.

Here is part of the actual interview from the White House web site:

Q How far away from you was he?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I'm guessing about 30 yards, which was a good thing. If he'd been closer, obviously, the damage from the shot would have been greater.

Q Now, is it clear that -- he had caught part of the shot, is that right?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: -- part of the shot. He was struck in the right side of his face, his neck and his upper torso on the right side of his body.

Q And you -- and I take it, you missed the bird.

You missed the bird!!!!!! Who cares what happened to the bird?

Brit! Have you given up your RNC aspirations and joined PETA?

What The Hell Were You Thinking?

Technorati Tags: Political Brit Hume Cheney WTHWYT

Will We Always Be At War?

A few weeks ago, during the NSA press conference, the President promised that he would fight any attempts to disclose more details about the NSA wiretapping program. He said to do so would aid the terrorists which proves, as we've suspected, that there is more to this program than we know. He claims that to reveal more information would only aid our enemies, but cynics point out that it also makes it harder to question the legality, scope and necessity of the program.

The President keeps reminding us that we are in a war. I'm about the same age as the President and I have seen several wars come and go.

The Korean War (Actually, for political reasons, it was called a police action.)
The Cold War
The Vietnam War
The War on Drugs
The War on Poverty
The War in the Balkans
The First Gulf War
The War in Afghanistan
The War in Iraq

I believe in this time frame we also had wars on cancer and the gypsy moth and a few others. I'm not trying to belittle the serious threat of Islamic terrorism, but war is a term that we use quite loosely to describe a condition where we will use our full resources to "win". While you might not put the war on terrorism in the same category as the war on poverty or drugs, you could make a case that the Cold War posed a much more serious threat to this country than Islamic terrorism. The President justifies any action that he wants to take on the fact that we are in a war. At his news conference he vowed to keep renewing his authorization of NSA wiretapping until the threat of terrorism is removed. Implicit in this statement was the assertion, "and I don't care what you think about it".

Does he ever listen to his own speechs? He has already told us that the war on terror will take a long time to win. Does he believe there is any possibility we can win the war on terrorism before his term expires? Does he even have an estimate of when the war on terrorism might be won? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? How will we even know when we've won? Common sense tells us that as long as there are people who are willing to die for their cause there will be terrorism. Terrorism evolves. New groups with grievances will emerge and terrorism is an efficient way for the less powerful to influence the powerful. So even if we destroy al Qaida tomorrow, it is reasonable that some other group will take its place demanding the attention of the world with outrageous acts. The very threat that a group might evolve into another al Qaida will be enough to justify a continued war on terrorism.

The President has said something like, "We have to get it right all the time, the terrorists only have to succeed once." I can understand the logic, but this kind of reasoning will always lead presidents to interpret laws and civil liberties in a way that gives them the most flexibility to do whatever they feel is necessary. As President Bush has shown, presidents are more afraid of being wrong once than on worrying too much about legalities. From a president's point of view, the prudent course is to secretly bend the rules. As the NSA wiretapping issue has shown, if your actions are discovered and your authority is questioned you argue that what you are doing is legal under your expanded war powers. Even if it is not legal, it is essential to national security. Either way, those arguments are easier to defend than trying to explain why some city was blown up on your watch. I can understand why presidents would think this way, but these are false choices and it is the responsibility of congress, the courts, the press and all citizens to make sure the executive branch does not lose perspective. There are fates worse than death. There are more serious threats to the nation than terrorist attacks. I can imagine a devastating attack in the US, but to ignore the constitution to prevent an attack is like making a pact with the devil. Somewhere along the line the devil will need to be paid.

I think you can argue that terrorism will be a popular tool for the foreseeable future. Even if we cleaned up all the loose nuclear material (which we are not working hard enough to accomplish), terrorists will turn to biological and chemical weapons (which as technology improves will probably be easier to create and deliver than nuclear bombs). The genie is out of the bottle; from here on we will face attacks by terrorists using weapons of mass destruction. Does that mean we will forever be on a war footing where a president can place himself above the law by invoking his duty to protect us? Presidents of any party will try. We give them every reason to feel that the fate of the country rests, in the end, on them and them alone. Given that charge it is reasonable to expect that they will use every resource at their disposal to do what they feel is necessary. And while their oath to the constitution should keep their actions within the law, the consequences of a mistake and the glaucoma of power make the dark side almost irresistible. That is why we have checks and balances. That is why we have to ask questions that, to some, may look unpatriotic.

You may believe President Bush to be true of heart and a pillar of virtue. You may accept that whatever the President does, he does with the sole intention of saving lives and protecting the nation. But what if, heaven forbid, a Democrat were elected at sometime in the future and claimed these same powers. Would you be comfortable allowing that president to authorize questionable actions in the name of the war on (fill in the current group) terrorism? Keep in mind that technology to spy on us is constantly improving. How long will it be before the NSA has the capacity to monitor EVERY phone call or email in this country? How large must an attack or a threat be before the use of such technology is rationalized? They may even be able to do that now; how would we know?

I'm not suggesting that we don't try to intercept communications between terrorists. I'm not suggesting that we stop the NSA wiretapping program. I am suggesting that this NSA program exposes the administration's belief that immediate threats are more important than laws, civil liberties and the constitution. I am asserting that "war" does not mean that the checks and balances provided by the legislative and judicial branches are diminished. If the NSA wire tapping is as legal and necessary as the administration claims, they need to prove it to Congress and the courts.

The President and his administration claim that since we are in a war, they have additional power and authority. They claim that some of our constitutional checks and balances don't apply during a war. If the President wants to claim extra powers because we are in a war, I would like to hear how we will know we are no longer in a war. The President keeps telling us this is a new kind of war. OK, how about a new definition of how we will know we have won. Without some definition of how we will know the war on terrorism is over we have basically changed the constitution, probably forever. Aren't you concerned about that?

Technorati Tags: Political Wire Taps War Constitution

Philosophy 101

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, did it make a sound? To non-philosophers that question probably sounds silly. How about another version more in tune with the times?

If you say something that you know is untrue, but there is no way that anyone can prove it is false, did you really tell a lie?

Technorati Tags: Political

Brit For RNC Chair, II

I've written a couple of posts suggesting that Brit Hume of Fox News should replace Ken Mehlman as Chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC). I think the Vice-President seconded that nomination when he chose Brit for his interview this week.

Brit Hume For RNC Chair!

Technorati Tags: Political Brit Hume

Down With Earmarks

Tonight's edition of Now, on PBS, was about Congressional earmarks. If you missed it, you can read about the issues on the PBS web site.

The Now report made me sick.

We've been watching the Abramoff scandal unfold where a lobbyist is accused of buying votes and influence. Instead of voting for issues based on merit, some legislators may be selling their votes to the highest bidder. One of the ways to pay back a lobbyist is to slip an earmark into a bill, often when no one is looking. An earmark is a targeted appropriation. How can you slip something into a bill when no one is looking? You needed to see the Now report.

What we learned this evening is that a similar kind of unprincipled trading of votes for favors by a few is taking place all the time in the Senate and House by almost all members. The leadership in Congress buys votes by giving individual legislators money from the budget to spend in any way they like, usually for projects in their districts. The Senator or Representative then have earmarks added to bills to designate exactly how "their" money will be spent. For example, someone in the leadership says, "Vote for X and we'll give you 50 million dollars in the new highway bill that you can earmark anyway you like." Or in the case of the Alaskan Bridge To Nowhere, 1.5 billion! The money that the Congressman or Senator gets to earmark and spend in his district buys votes in the next election. As was pointed out in the Now broadcast, would it be better to spend 1.5 billion dollars for a bridge to nowhere or spend that 1.5 billion dollars to rebuild the Lake Ponchatrain bridge badly damaged by hurricane Katrina? The Senate decided Alaska needed its bridge more than New Orleans. In the case of the Bridge To Nowhere, the public was at least aware of this travesty thanks to a Oklahoman Senator Tom Coburn.

Trading favors is not new and will continue to happen, but the current incarnation of this bartering is obscene. Most Senators and Congressmen trade votes for future political success and the currency is earmarks in last minute hidden legislation.

Many earmarks happen in the dead of night when no one is watching. Some powerful Senators or Representatives can slip legislation into a bill at the last minute. Although there are rules that require all parts of a bill be made public at least three days before the bill is voted on, that rule is frequently broken. Legislators often find that they have voted for something they never knew was in the bill.

Write your Senators and Representatives and insist that all legislation, including the earmarks, be made public at least three working days before they are voted on. A Senator or Representative should never have to vote on legislation that they or their staff have not had time to review. While that only seems like common sense, that is not what is happening now. Also, all earmarks should be required to include the name of the legislator who proposed it. Another idea is to allow points of order against individual provisions in conference reports that were not contained in either the House or Senate version of the bill (see Power Struggle Over Pork by Jonathan Allen for a better description of these ideas).

Not only will these proposals help stop corruption from outside, like from lobbyists, it might weaken the strangle hold that the political parties now have (see my post Goodbye, Karl) and allow legislators to vote their conscience and not just what the party requires.

Technorati Tags: Political

I'd Like To See A Diagram

No one believes Vice-President Cheney intentionally shot Mr. Whittington, but in all the noise about how the story was handled I've heard very little about the actual incident. Ron Reagan, today on MSNBC's Hardball, gave a few details. This is more than I'd heard up to this point. I'm surprised there haven't been more explanations of the details. Ron Reagan said Vice-President Cheney apparently shot downward into a setting sun. There may be nothing wrong with taking a shot like that, but I would like to hear the details. What was the actual distance between the Vice-President and Mr. Whittington? Maybe, these details were printed somewhere and I missed them.

It is getting harder and harder to determine what is true and what isn't. Whatever the real story was regarding the Vice-President's errant shot, he wounded the truth and public trust as badly as he wounded Mr. Whittington. Who knows what to believe or who to listen to? This would seem to add impetus to the need for a reporter shield law. As the government works harder to control what information we receive, maintaining a strong independent press becomes even more important.


Technorati Tags: Vice-President Whittington

Did I Miss Something?

Last week on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace interviewd Governor Howard Dean, Chairman of the DNC. Here is the final exchange (from the Fox News Sunday web site):

WALLACE: I just want to ask you about this question of the Democratic involvement. I want to put up something from the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. This comes directly from their Web page, and it says, "Here is a detailed look at Abramoff's lobbying and political contributions from Abramoff, the tribes that hired him, and SunCruz Casinos, which is a company that Abramoff owned since 1999."

It lists recipients by the amount of money they received. Well, the top two are the Republican campaign committees. The third and fourth biggest recipients were Democratic campaign committees. And if you go down the list, Democrats received more than $1 million from Abramoff-related interests.

DEAN: There's two points to this. First of all, actually, we — the DNC actually got $100,000-some odd. Now, I can assure you Jack Abramoff never directed that money. It is possible that some of Jack Abramoff's clients may have decided on their own to give Democrats money. The key is...

WALLACE: I'm sorry, did you say, I'm sorry. Did you say that you're sure that Abramoff didn't direct them to give that money?

DEAN: No, what I said was that it is possible that some Democrats got money from some of the — yeah. No, what I'm saying is that Abramoff may not have directed some of this money toward the Democrats.

WALLACE: In fact, he did, sir. We've got evidence of that.

DEAN: But the point is that not one Democrat either knew it or acted on it. Nobody got anything out of the Democrats from Jack Abramoff. No Democrat delivered anything, and there's no accusation and no investigation that any Democrat ever delivered anything to Jack Abramoff. And that's not true of the Republicans.

WALLACE: So if we find — and I just want to — we have to wrap this up. But if we find that there were some Democrats who wrote letters on behalf of some of the Indian tribes that Abramoff represented, then what do you say, sir?

DEAN: That's a big problem, and those Democrats are in trouble, and they should be in trouble. And our party, if the American people will put us back in power in '06, we will have on the president's desk things that outlaw all those kinds of behaviors. Right now it's a Republican scandal. Maybe they'll find that some Democrats did something wrong, too. That hasn't been the case yet.

But our reforms in the Democratic Party are going to be aimed at both Democrats and Republicans. We want to clean up Congress, and we will within 100 days of the new Congress in 2007.

WALLACE: Chairman Dean, we're going to follow up on that. Thank you. Thanks so much for joining us. And don't be a stranger. You're always welcome here.


Later in the show Chris Wallace said that Fox News did indeed have proof that letters were written by Senators on behalf of tribes that Abramoff represented. The clear implication was that Dean needed to crack down on some Democrats and this is a Democrat and Republican scandal.

From the interview it looks like Dean side stepped the first trap, but FNS clearly got him on the second and then after he was off the air and couldn't respond. I watched again this Sunday expecting to hear more about this Democratic scandal. I must of missed something. I didn't hear more explanation about which Democrats had been implicated and details of what they did wrong. Did I miss it? Fox said they had proof and then nothing? If there are Democrats involved in the Abramoff scandal, I want to know who they are.

And if the FNS proof is not there, why wasn't there an apology? Maybe I just missed it.


Technorati Tags: Political Fox News