Thursday, June 30, 2005
Stay tuned. Film at eleven.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
The computer is centrally located in the family room, where the big screen is located. And that is precisely where the Play Station, XBox, or whatever the hell it is, gets set up. (It isn't easy blogging, when you hear constant rapid fire of high tech game weaponry, in surround sound.)
I will try to get as much up as possible, whenever he is gone visiting.
But, if you have missed some pieces I have posted in the past, like Political Yen/Yang: A Positive Message For Europe, now would be a good chance to catch up.
Meanwhile, I will be around from time to time, reading your blogs, and linking to them whenever possible. (So, do a good job and make my job easy okay?)
Disclaimer: I am tired and feel a bit lazy tonight, so forgive me if I do not dress up this post a little.
But if you click on the link or the title, you can read VARepublicman's followup to the previous piece (on eminent domain), I linked to. You can read the specifics in the article, but I will add that I saw the developer on Hannity and Colmes tonight.
When asked why he chose Souter, he said (I am paraphrasing here) that Souter was appointed by a Republican and should know better.
But that wasn't the best part.
When asked if there might be other justices' homes targeted, he said (again paraphrasing it), that successful hotels sometimes become chains.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Here is an excerpt.
This weekend's Gay Pride festivities in New York City climaxed with Sunday's 36th annual parade down Fifth Avenue. As usual, the raucous affair thrilled some and rattled others, but everyone walked away intact. One would have to fantasize about such an occasion, however, in most Muslim nations where homosexuality remains as concealed as a bride beneath a burqa. When it peeks through, it isn't pretty. While many liberals (and President G.W. Bush) call Islam a religion of peace, "celebrating diversity" is hardly on its agenda.
But by all means don't stop there. Read the entire article for specific heinous atrocities that happen to gays, in Jihadland.
But I just have to ask:
Why do you suppose we hear constant screeching from the left that Americans are guilty of heinous crimes against homosexuals, yet they are conspicuously silent on the things that befall gays, at the hands of the Islamofascists? It makes no sense. To have a sincere and genuine ideology, one must condemn the things that one considers condemnable, in a uniform and consistent manner. That is a concept that seems to escape those in the leftist community.
First of all, I am not against gays. I support their right to the same pursuits of life, liberty, and happiness. I don't believe in discriminating against them in any area and certainly I strongly condemn any and all hate crimes against them.
Secondly, I do not have a problem with them getting partner benefits from any company that wants to give it to them. I have not, nor will I ever, boycott a company that does so. Those companies have saved the American taxpayers a lot of money, when many have been removed from Medicaid and other welfare programs. So, I say more power to them.
But, what I don't like is when the radical, leftist gay lobby tries to force feed it down our throats, by any means they deem appropriate. The Rosie O'Donnell approach does not work and does more to turn off mainstream Americans, than it does anything else. The illegal defiance of the San Francisco mayor by allowing gay marriages (in spite of state law) and the judgment in Massachusetts ORDERING that gay marriages be permitted (by declaring them unconstitutional) were two other approaches that did more to harm the cause, than help it. Gays have it better here than in the vast majority of other countries, especially those that are Muslim.
But that said, I am against homosexual marriage because in my opinion, marriage is between a man and a woman. I might be inclined to support civil unions as a compromise, even though I feel they will further tie up our family court systems, when those with civil unions decide they don't want to be with their partners anymore. But I would have to study any proposal of such, more thoroughly before I would decide.
So, if you are a leftist radical pro-gay that wants to whine and complain about how bad gays have it here, read this article by Mr. Murdock. Then maybe the Rosie O'Donnells of the world can go to Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries and really have something to protest about.
And if you are a right winger who believes that someone died and made you God's judge, jury, and executioner; chill out. Stop printing lists of companies to boycott, because they give benefits to gay partners. If you don't want to shop there, or do any kind of business with those companies, fine. Some of us don't care and are glad that some people are now off government assistance thanks to partner benefits. If you continue your mission to play God, you only give more credibility to the arguments of the fanatics like Rosie.
But Small Pox has been eradicated, you say. Well, it does still exist in government laboratories and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.
Read it for yourself.
Japan and South Korea are going to need each other with North Korea rattling its sabers and the questionable intentions of China, both at the forefront of Asian politics. This is a positive step.
Since Tony Blair began his charge at European Union leadership and reform, the Spanish Socialist prime minister has started detaching himself - in what looks like a series of inconspicuous little surgeries - from the Gerhard Schröders and Jacques Chiracs that Spain judges no longer hold Europe in their grip.
PM Zapatero doesn't seem to trust the French. But he does seem to know and understand that in the end, it will be Britain and the USA that will stabilize Europe.
The PM also understands that new leadership is probably going to take over in Germany, soon. Then France will be isolated even further. I think that even though the Iraq war is still being fought, they now realize that France was willing to risk the reputation (if not the safety and security) of all of Europe, all for the opportunity to make some illegal money and remain in Saddam's pocket.
There is nothing wrong if Zapatero changes his mind and sees the error of ways. As long as he sees that a French-driven Europe is a recipe for disaster, I don't care how he spins it, how he explains it, or even how he does it.
Europe deserves better than leadership under Jacques Chirac, and his Gaullist buddies. Europe just may be ready to draw that conclusion, too.
But hey, read this article. It makes some interesting observations, worthy of further thought.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Do you think maybe a lot of people are sick and tired of supporting liberal Hollywood elitists with their hard earned money?
Sunday, June 26, 2005
1979 was when the Islamists began their jihad. Now, there is apparently an Iranian president that actively took part in the hostile action.
Here is what the world will have to look forward to in Iran:
Over the last year, Ahmadinejad criticized what he termed were concessions by the Khatami government to the European Union regarding its demand for a permanent suspension of Teheran's uranium enrichment program.
Now just imagine if we had to deal with Saddam and this guy, simultaneously. Because you know that this guy will draw back from any deals previously struck (not there were that many to start with). One obstinate terrorist in charge of an oil-rich nation is better than two, and more than enough.
Unless the world (especially Europe) gets tough with Iran, they will be empowered to as they see fit, whenever and wherever they want. This guy (at the urging of the mullahs) will become just as empowered as Saddam, but with the technology to back up whatever threats they decide to make.
When I lived there (1978-80), the German Mark was by far the strongest European currency. Then the wall came down and West Germany had to absorb the debts of the East, not to mention its unproductive socialist workforce.
What does that tell you?
There are many great blogs out there. Many are ran by some pretty intelligent people and many are from people that I agree with. Having the same ideology, being a part of the academic world, and/or having a large popular blog does not impress me nearly as much as a person's ability to seek and understand the truth. Posting a term paper or a thesis every time one posts is not nearly as important to me, as making sound claims complete with verifiable evidence to support those claims, in a reasonably short and concise manner.
I may not agree with every blogmeister I have blogrolled, 100% of the time. And, they may not be the biggest animal in the blogosphere. But, I look for people that have a foundation of knowledge, wisdom, and that have the ability to articulate their views and opinions in a clear and distinct manner. I want independent thinkers, not parrots of what others have thought.
These two blogs meet the criteria and I wholely recommend giving them a read.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
There were two left in the race in the runoff for the presidency of Iran, one was radical (moderate for Iranian) and another was an extremist. The extremist won. Surprise, surprise.
So, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be the new name spewing anti-American venom, real soon.
But we all know that the office of the presidency is a joke, since the real power is held by the mullahs. They have the final say and can overrule elected officials at the drop of a hat. They hold the strings. They call the shots. They rig the elections and they don't have a Howard Dean crying voter fraud.
Rep. Julia Carson (D-Indiana) called for the UN to monitor American elections, last year. But as you might have already guessed, she was conspicuously silent on the Iranian elections (as was the UN). France openly supported Kerry, but you didn't hear Chirac peep one peep yesterday, now did you?
There is not much we can do but understand this, there can never be real freedom in Iran until the mullahs are gone. And, until the world stands up to them and properly ostricizes them, there will be no free and honest elections to form a government that will guarantee it.
Bit by bit, little by little. They take away freedom, never to have that portion they take, restored again. It's so gradual that many fail to recognize it. They are too busy living in the moment to stop and think that this country was built on private property ownership. And today with that right taken away, freedom was set back 50 years. This was one big chunk of freedom lost.
Friday, June 24, 2005
It seems a bit ironic that activist, ultra-left wing, anti-American judges don't just live in California and Taxachusetts. It comforts me to know that we don't have them all within the confines of this nation. I would feel so guilty.
The 13 are accused of seizing Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, known as Abu Omar, on a Milan street on Feb. 17, 2003, and sending him to Egypt, where he reportedly was tortured, Milan prosecutor Manlio Claudio Minale said in a statement.
I guess he had his Cheetos taken away.
Corriere said Italian police picked up details, including cover names, photos, credit card information and U.S. addresses the agents gave to five-star hotels in Milan around the time of Nasr's alleged abduction. It said investigators also found the prepaid highway passes the agents used for the journey from Milan to the air base.
The report said investigations showed the agents incurred $144,984 in hotel bills in Milan, and that two pairs of agents took holidays in northern Italy after delivering Nasr to Aviano.
We can't fool these people, can we?
Now, correct me if I am wrong. If I am a spy for the CIA that supposedly wants to kidnap a person of high interest and turn him over to another government, would I be inclined to use my real name?
But they think they are onto something, so let them practice playing law enforcement. Practice makes perfect, you know.
Italian-U.S. relations were strained after American soldiers killed an Italian intelligence agent near Baghdad airport in March. He was escorting a kidnapped Italian journalist after he had secured her release from Iraqi captors.
Now the truth comes out. The Italians are brown-bagging resentment. They are hurt and they are purposely lashing out as means of getting our attention. They desperately want to make a statement and hurt our feelings back. I feel so bad for them and their pain.
Hey, knock, knock! It was an accident, we are sorry. You have to get past this and move on. You can't keep beating a dead horse.
Germano Dottori, a political analyst at the Center for Strategic Studies in Rome, said it is not unusual for intelligence agencies to have squabbles with allied countries but that he could not recall prosecutors directly involved in investigating or apprehending agents involved.
"At some point the Americans will begin to think they can't trust the Italians," Dottori said.
At some point? It's beginning to look like that point is already here. I mean here we have a tit for tat game, similar to the old games we played with the Soviet Union. Remember when we would expel some of their spies and they would follow by expelling some of ours, a couple of days later?
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Intentions and motives tell the true story of a person's character and are proper criteria to evaluate a candidate, for any office.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Now let me start off by saying that I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton, never have been and never will be. She is a leftist socialist that is triangulating toward the center, purely for political purposes. I don't agree with her ideologically and firmly believe that her mad dash to the middle, is a farce. If I lived in New York, I wouldn't support her or vote for her. And if she runs for President, I will not vote for her.
Having said that, I must also say that I can't condone her opponents for pushing embarassing personal and private life information. I do not care if she was/is a lesbian (anymore than I care about her hubby straying from the marriage contract). I don't care if they have an open marriage and stay married just for the political gain that comes from it. I just don't care.
We have seen both parties get dirty at different points in the past. And we have seen that the outcome of such activities, usually result in a greater likelihood of more dirty attacks. The pendulum swings back pretty hard.
The GOP got personal with the Monica affair, just for spite. I know he lied about it and he shouldn't have. He should have owned up to it and moved on. But the GOP should not have wasted the taxpayers money just to prove that he got a little action on the side. The question should have remained, "Was there wrongdoing in the Whitewater affair?". A lot of money was spent to establish that Whitewater was a crooked deal and all we got was consensual oral sex.
Then the Dems unleashed their revenge on George W. Bush and soon the allegations began flying about his past indiscretions with substance abuse. Again this was irrelevent, as the actions in question occurred many years prior and should not have been a factor. It was just payback for the Monica thing and the pendulum swung back harder.
Just know that there are a wide range of things that Hillary can be judged on that are not personal, that would disqualify her from being president. Will she sell secrets to the Chinese? Will she sell us out to Europe? And will she try to implement a new and slicker version of Hillary care? These are all valid questions. How she spends taxpayer money, the words she uses, and the actions she takes on sensitive issues are equally fair to assess. But unless she knocks off a gas station on her way home from work, her personal life should be left personal.
Believe me, there are enough good reasons for Americans to reject her in 2008. Just leave the rest out, because it really doesn't matter.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Hopefully they will divide further and those that are native Iraqis will resist the foreign Al Qaeda insurgents. By doing so, they can be isolated, defeated, and our forces will be that much closer to coming home.
I cannot imagine there is a lot of grassroots Iraqi support for those that come from outside Iraq and are indiscriminate about who they kill. If all Iraqis (whether they like us or not) will get serious about handling their own affairs and drive those forces out, we can get out that much sooner.
Here is another post on this at Winds Of Change.
Add Chicago Mayor Richard Daley to the list of those who think Senator Dick Durbin should apologize for his comments comparing Gitmo interrogators to Nazis.
And so he did.
(Click on the title for the AP article.)
You see, there are kings and there are kingmakers. The kings are made and (if necessary) unmade by the kingmakers. When the kingmaker tells the king to do something, the king must comply or he will soon be unmade. (Read about the Papacy during the Middle Ages)
The Chicago mayor is following in his father's footsteps by being the most powerful Democratic kingmaker, in the state of Illinois. If you are a Democrat in Illinois and are seeking the governor's office or some national office, you must have Daley's endorsement to have any reasonable chance. This may not be true in House districts far away from Chicago but for the Senate and the House districts in and around Chicago, it is very true.
A press conference is scheduled for later this afternoon.
UPDATE (Jun 21, 2005 12:55 PM) It's official, he is okay.
What's wrong with stating your opposition to the President's policies in the War On Terror, in a manner similar to this?
The president has had some successes in the managing the War On Terror, as well as some shortcomings. We believe, we have better ideas to facilitate better success and can reduce the amount of the shortcomings.
They don't have any ideas. They only have weak and faulty accusations.
Now first of all, I am not an overly religious man (spiritual, but not religious), but let's take a look at why I disagree with Mr. Burnstein's arguments:
.......progressives could help rally support by using religious quotations, from Biblical figures to Erasmus to today’s Jim Wallis, that indirectly offer eloquent support for progressive socio-economic programs. Progressives could ask Americans to consider today’s social problems in light of the golden rule and the admonition that “There but for the grace of God go I,” and to consider that Jesus, Hillel, and other foundational religious and spiritual figures, if alive today, would be appalled at the administration’s proposed cuts to social programs.
Nowhere in the Holy Bible do I find anywhere that Christ was a social advocate for government social programs. He preached the need for VOLUNTARY charity, through private means.
When the rich man came to Christ (note that the man came to him, not the other way around) and asked him what he needed to do to be in Christ's kingdom, He told him to love God with all of his heart and to keep the commandments. The man then told Christ that he had done these things from his youth up. He then told the rich man to go and sell all of his riches, give the money to the poor, follow Him, and have riches with him in Heaven. The man then went away sad, because he had many riches and evidently did not want to part with them. (I paraphrased it, but you can find it in Matthew 19:16-22)
Christ didn't follow him around and hound him to give his wealth away. In fact, we hear nothing else of the man after that. That was not Christ's message at all. He was not sent to convert the Romans or King Herod to social programs through social programs. He wanted His followers to give to the people that needed it, by CHOICE. (The man CHOSE not to, he went away, and as I said before, Christ never asked him again).
Christ also stressed self-suffiency. All of His Apostles (to include Paul) had trades and supported themselves. They asked for no money for themselves and made a clean and decent living, until they were killed. Those in the church that had exceptional means were asked to give to the church for church matters, with some going to the poor. Never did any of the Apostles teach the need for government social programs of any kind. Maybe it was because they recognized that the government would keep part of it for themselves, thus, cutting down the amount that actually would get to those that truly needed it. Private charity did it better then and it does it better now.
The bottom line is that the religious spin in this article by Mr. Burnstein, is extremely flawed and severely weakens his claim. Liberals of this day (socialists) love to invoke the Jesus card, when it suits their agenda. But most of the time, they aren't very accomodating to those that claim the Christian faith, often taking positions that give the impression that they are against Christianity.
Monday, June 20, 2005
First, I have to ask. Is this really any big surprise? I mean, there is no evidence of anything illegal, immoral, or unethical in Mr. Bolton's history, in spite of the fact that they have dug and dug. This is nothing more than an ideological fight.
President Bush (who won the election) is exercising his obligation to nominate the candidate he feels is best suited for the job. The Dems are opposing him for the specific purpose of opposing anything Bush. The only thing they can come with after weeks and weeks of digging, haggling, and wrangling, is he is a hard man to work for. He is hard to work for because he expects loyalty, hard work, and results. What is wrong with that?
Furthermore, the Dems want someone weak so their heroes the French can continue to try and drive the UN train. Because they know that Mr. Bolton will not allow any country to undermine the interests of this country. They are scared of him. They know he will clean house and get the job done, and they just cannot have that under the President's watch (which will result in even more losses in the midterm elections).
For them, playing politics with serious issues doesn't abate even in between elections.
If you haven't seen Europe, get your bags packed and go, while there still is a Europe.
You see, I love Europe. It has the most beautiful scenery, it is rich in history, and the food is great. The average people are really good people, too. You will get a great bargain and see something very special.
But do it now, because it may not be there for long. Soon it will be known as Eurabia and the grand old Europe that I once knew during the Cold War, will be completely gone. Already gone, is the mutual trust and cooperation we once had with them (which is now replaced with mistrust and constant undermining). But more than anything, if you wait too long, the Muslim population will continue to swell and it will not be safe for Americans (or Europeans). The jihadists wll begin to exert even more influence and power, than they do now.
So go. Take your kids if you can afford it. It will be the trip of a lifetime and you will have seen Europe before its impending doom is complete.
Let me just give you a short backdrop to this.
Tony George CEO of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway spent millions of dollars to renovate the Speedway to attract Formula One back to this country. Bernie Ecclestone (the head of F1) called all of the shots, he told Tony to jump, Tony asked how high, Bernie told him, and then he jumped exactly according to Ecclestone's specifications.
Since the very first USGP, Ecclestone and company have done very little to help promote the race (while expecting George to do so) and have acted like Americans should be thankful that they allowed their precious series to grace the American shores. In short, it has been evident from the beginning that they did not care to be here.
In all honesty, F1 doesn't need to be at Indy. They are quite well off from the billions (much of it government money) that the Europeans sink into the series. But then again, Tony doesn't really need them either. He has the Indy 500 and the Brickyard 400, which ensures him of a very comfortable lifestyle for life.
But back to the tire fiasco, that was the center of the controversy. Kravitz has pinpointed the people to blame and those not to blame:
Now, of course, comes the time for apportioning the blame, and the best way to begin is by telling you who isn't culpable in this situation:
Indianapolis Motor Speedway CEO Tony George.
Naturally, people looking for a refund will gaze toward 16th and Georgetown, but, tell me, what else could they have done? They were more than willing to put a chicane on the 13th turn. How could they have been expected to fix this?
I don't blame George and the Speedway folks for refusing to be a part of the postrace victory celebration.
And I don't blame George and the Speedway for releasing a statement that basically said: "Hey, you want your money back, here are the addresses for Michelin and the FIA (Federation Internationale de l'Automobile)."
George was more than willing to do whatever necessary to keep the race intact. He knows the purposes of rules, but he also knows that sometimes you must be flexible. He knows that the show must go on on and that you don't drop the stack of plates to catch the one that is falling.
The Speedway resurfaced the track recently, but Michelin (another fine French company) didn't feel the need to do any testing on the new surface before this year's race. That is one of the most basic necessities needed each time a track is resurfaced and something that other tire companies do with regularity.
No, if we're assigning culpability, it belongs to a lot of other folks.
• To Ecclestone, who couldn't find a way to get his own politically charged house in order. The buck stops with him.
• To Michelin, a company that just got so much bad publicity, the Michelin Man was seen drowning his sorrows in a Downtown Indianapolis pub. Speed TV's telecast, by the way, was sponsored by -- yep -- Michelin.
• To the FIA, which made any kind of compromise virtually impossible by threatening to pull its sanction if a chicane was added. It put politics ahead of the fans. Inexcusable.
• To Ferrari, the only team that was said to be against the addition of a chicane, another decision that killed any hope of saving this race. At one level, it wasn't their fault the Michelin teams were unprepared, but again, it's supposed to be about delivering the product, even if that means making a concession.
In the end, we have Michelin and the FIA (another fine French entity) giving America the short end of the stick. And people wonder why I am so hard on the French and the other Europeans that worship them.
They certainly did not care about putting the best product out there.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
I have two children, one stepson (red-headed, too), a pseudo-son (one whose dad has nothing to do with him, so I have been in that role for him), and a bouncing one-year-old grandson. For me, fatherhood has been one of the greatest gifts from God; and even with all of the pains and heartaches that come with it, it has been well worth it.
So once again, to all fathers I say, have a great day.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
The left seems to have problems in a lot of areas, most notably ideas, priorities, and consistency.
Friday, June 17, 2005
But the thing that stands out is, the process is not going to be a speedy one. To ratify the Constitution, two-thirds of the voters must okay it. And given the fact the draft isn't written yet, it looks to be a long time before Iraq will have a legitimately elected Parliament.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Remember the old Soviet elections (and the old Saddam elections)? Vote yes (or else)?
Well, now we have Iranian elections with a choice between Islamic Extremist #1, #2, #3, et al.
Read the article and ask yourself, "Where are the MSM, UN, EU, and all other bleeding heart liberals, while this sham is about to unfold?"
The only comment I will make is:
The left keeps debating the debates of 2002 (see: beating a dead horse). They cannot find themselves moving on and producing an idea or two. Yet, for some unknown and mysterious reason, they call themselves PROGRESSIVES.
Anyway, the rest, you'll have to read for yourself. Everyone that reads this blog (with any regularity) will appreciate it.
Three senior Hamas members said their group has been talking to European Union diplomats regularly. EU officials denied the contacts, but acknowledged that meetings with Hamas may be inevitable now that Hamas won control of dozens of West Bank and Gaza towns in recent local elections.
This is just one more reason I have so much to say, about the direction Europe is headed. They are in bed with terrorists and are blind to the fact that these people are cold-blooded killers that kill innocent people (at the drop of a hat), solely for the advancement of their agendas.
But the sad part is, they don't even have the integrity to admit it, now that they are caught red-handed. The old " uh, well, no we haven't, but we may have to in the future" response is comparable to a response that a kid caught in a lie, would give.
Well, as you can imagine, Israel isn't too happy either:
"We believe Europeans should be strengthening moderate Palestinians and not appeasing the extremists," said Israel Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev. "Anything that demonstrates acceptance of Hamas as a legitimate player is a problem."
I am with Israel on this.
Hamas is responsible for countless innocent Israeli deaths over the years and for the EU to recognize them, is nothing more than another slap in the face of the overall peace process. To coddle the extremists while ignoring the moderates, only gives legitimacy to terrorism and de-legitimizes those that are against it. It says, "Go ahead. Make enough noise, throw enough fits, and we'll give into you, just to shut you up.".
Israel and the U.S. lobbied hard in 2003 for Europe to include Hamas on its terrorist list. Signs that Europe may now be softening that stance — including calls by some to differentiate between Hamas' political and military wings — have alarmed Israeli officials, who said they've expressed their displeasure to EU officials, including during discussions on Thursday.
Can you imagine the outrage if someday, the EU recognizes and meets with Al-Qaeda, simply because they have won a significant amount of sympathy in the Muslim world? Can you imagine a political wing of Al-Qaeda developing, completely independent of the armed terrorist network?
They got involved in our politics by endorsing Kerry and did everything within their power, to keep Saddam in power (for the specific purpose of lining their own pockets). It's time to reap the reward for sticking their noses in our business.
Chirac has blamed everyone (other than himself) for the EU referendum defeat, but it seems one old French politician is calling it, the other way:
Giscard, who has been harshly critical of Chirac in the past, accused the president of not responding early enough to dissatisfaction with his government and of confusing voters by insisting they vote on the constitution in its entirety, including all previously ratified European Union treaties.
Neither Chirac nor other European leaders have had a strategy for ratifying the constitution, he said. "The present generation of leaders, whatever their strengths, never put Europe at the top of their agenda," Giscard said.
Chirac in particular "didn't encourage people to be supportive of the system of Europe, but to be critical."
This is certainly not surprising, when you consider that France doesn't support friends and allies, very well. Chirac doesn't play well with the US, after all we have done for France over the decades. So, what makes anyone think that they will play well with their neighbors in a unified Europe? All Chirac knows how to do is criticize anything, not French.
He criticized Bush for removing Saddam and undermined the process, all the way through. From the inspections to this day, he has demonstrated no desire to do anything but criticize the US efforts to get Iraq up and running, correctly and safely. He will do this in the EU, anytime, France doesn't get the most benefit for the least contribution. Anytime it isn't credited to France or its bank account, he will throw a hissy fit, just like he is doing right now to get Britain to pay for more than its fair share.
So what does Giscard say needs to be done? It's more what he didn't say:
When asked whether Chirac should have resigned following the outcome of the vote, he did not say no. "I will not comment on that," he said. "I want to keep my distance from the leader of the French political scene."
He noted, however, the decision of President Charles de Gaulle to resign in 1969 the day after the French people, in a referendum, rejected a measure to revise the Senate, create regions and seek support after the student uprisings of May 1968.
"De Gaulle did, De Gaulle did," Giscard said. "The vote was on Sunday and on Monday all the packing was done and he went to Colombey," his longtime residence.
De Gaulle was Chirac's hero. (His anti-American and overall isolationist attitude is taken from a full chapter, right out of the DeGaulle "book of international diplomacy".) One would think that if your hero resigned after an embarrassing defeat, you would do the honorable thing and follow in his footsteps.
Giscard won't come right out and say it, but I will:
"Resign Chirac, resign. The sooner the better. Do it for France and the world."
Some accuse the French president of using the angry back-and-forth over the rebate to distract from the problems he faces in the wake of voters' rejection of a constitution he championed.
Chirac's days are numbered. And, he is going to go down kicking, screaming, and pointing fingers at everyone but himself.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
The only gulag on the island of Cuba is the whole of the area outside of the Guantanamo Naval Base, not that Amnesty International and the touchy-feely crowd would ever notice.
To go read it (and more), click on the link.
Now, I realize that polls are just polls. But the poll that counts in Mr. O'Reilly's realm of interest is the Nielsen Ratings. And it appears that he is winning that one too.
In spite of the fact that he has an ego the size of Texas, he is the king of cable news shows because people perceive him to be a fair and balanced journalist. He shoots straight from the hip and cuts through the rhetoric, in a hurry. I used to watch him a lot, but lately (in his moment of ego inflation) he has developed a tendency to interrupt his guests way too much, even those he agrees with.
That said, it is very hard to think that somebody, somewhere does not think he is a journalist. He functions as a journalist, writes like a journalist, speaks like a journalist, and was hired to be a journalist (regardless of whether anyone likes him or not).
On his two-day tour to Moscow, Berlin and Luxembourg, Blair has said that the shock rejections in two founding member states are a sign that the EU's priorities -- and its finances -- need to be reformulated.
"The context of this discussion is one in which two countries have now voted against the EU constitution. Why? Because people in Europe did not feel that sufficient attention was being paid to their concerns," he said in Germany.
France is backed by most other member states when it argues that the rebate must be reduced to take account of Britain's greater wealth and the needs of the poorer countries of central and eastern Europe.
Sounds like the old Robin Hood "take from the rich and give to the poor" brand of socialism, to me. Britain does better than the rest, so penalize them more for it.
France can't be the main cog economically. So naturally, any position or policy that drags down those doing better than them, is preferable to improving their own economy and attaining the level of competency necessary, to attain such successful status. This has always been France's Modus Operandi. (Read some history, if you don't believe me.)
It reminds me of the old cliche: Misery loves company.
Mustang at Social Sense has some poignant things to say about the "so-called" friendship, we have with the Saudis. But let's think this through.
Right now, like it or not, we need their oil. If we cut ties now, the available supply goes down and our price goes up. And if you think that gas is high now, it would really skyrocket. And then, who would get the blame?
I do agree with Mustang though, the Saudis aren't really our friends. But to be in a position to tell them to stuff it, we first need to get the Iraqi oil fields up and producing to capacity. That would give us the leeway to cut all ties to the kingdom, dry up the American dollar flow into it, and play havoc with their economy.
But make no mistake about my opinion, the Saudis are not our friends, now. In fact, I am not sure they ever were.
Read the whole article, by clicking on the link or the title.
Sounding more like a presidential candidate than ever before, Gingrich was asked about his recent efforts at working
constructively with the likely 2008 Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.
"Just because you plan to beat someone in a future election, doesn't mean you can't work with them now," Gingrich said.
I know a lot can happen between now and then, but it looks like he may be taking a serious look at this.
At first, I let her talk without any static, but when she said she liked Howard Dean, I just had to say something. After she said it, I asked her point blank, "Do you ever want to win another election?". Now keep in mind that this was not a contentious conversation, but I just had to know and it took about a half of a nanosecond to see the sad frustration in her eyes.
But before she could say anything, I said, "Here is what your party must do: Stop campaigning AGAINST something and campaign FOR something. And, get rid of Dean.".
I pretty much let it go after that, but to continue the thought line, here is what else Dems must do to ever have a shot of controlling anything, ever again:
Don't just tell us the President, House Speaker, and/or Senate Majority Leader are inept, tell us where. And if you tell us where, tell us why. But most importantly, do not (whatever you do) fail to tell us how you would do it differently. Negativity lost the election and to continue a prosecutorial indictment of Bush, will only lead to more defeats. To do this the Dems will have to reinvent themselves. There is no other logical way.
A lot of people are beginning to believe the idea that Dr. Dean is where he is, because the mainstream power base wants to look more moderate. Let him loose and the Dems have an opportunity to sell the American electorate, a new and improved, kinder and gentler Democratic party. But if this is true, to do this is running a major risk and it may already be too late.
Dean may be well on the way to dividing the party.
Now that the Dems have him in such a prominent role, they may never get him out. When polls start showing that Dean is driving away the electorate, they will have to remove him in a political coup. This may (in turn) create a backlash the size of Alaska, in the form of Dean and his "no real job" anarchist following, leaving the party and taking a lot of votes with it.
The only choices left to the Dems would be to move towards the center, capture some of the support of moderate Republicans that may become disenchanted if the GOP moves more to the right, stay the course in the War On Terror, and deal with the border situation (and fast). And that won't be easy with the current Democratic leadership.
(And by the way, nominating Hillary is NOT a good idea. She has always been a leftist and to make her look moderate now, would only insult the average, free-thinking American's intelligence.)
Now I know most Democrats that read this don't and won't, believe a word I have just said. They will most likely continue in their MoveOn.Org approach to politics, with it being business as usual. But rest assured that if something doesn't change soon, the Dems will lose more and more. And they are just going to continue to get angrier and angrier, making their politics more and more personal, as times passes.
So just keep it up. Let Howard Dean divide your party and lose some more, if you wish. It's all up to you. President Gingrich may thank you.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Politicians, sections of the French media and business executives note that France's unemployment rate — at 10.2 percent, rising to 23.3 percent among under-25s — is more than twice that of Britain. Some say it's because the British labor market is more flexible than France's. Others wonder whether Britain is doing better because it refused to adopt the euro, the currency used by 12 European nations including France.
Many are blaming the adoption of the Euro. For one thing I don't ever remember the French franc being a solid currency that the world wanted to trade for. And for another, I remember France promoting the Euro as a panacea.
But those that argue that Britain's labor market is more flexible would be closer. Socialism is the root cause. At an under-25 unemployment rate of 23.3 percent, it's a wonder that there has not been a rise in crime and massive demonstrations.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Mark at Witnit is no nitwit. He sees the danger of too much socialism, as is evidenced by the current state of affairs in France. Productivity is always a problem in socialist countries, which is why the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries had very little goods to buy.
Click on the link to read what Mark has to say.
I would like to take a moment and give a plug for a new blog I stumbled onto recently. As my readers know, I look for substance above presentation and from what I have read in this blog, there is plenty of substance.
Mustang, the administrator, is a retired Marine (and teacher) who has a vast amount of experience and knowledge to share with his readers. It definitely will make you think, therefore I highly recommend it.
Saturday, June 11, 2005
You don't need to be the triggerman, to be guilty of crimes against humanity. Hitler, Stalin, Milosevic, and many others have fallen into this category; the left rarely defends them but they sure have a puppy love, dreamy-eyed crush on Fidel.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on her way into the Capitol Hill meeting with Dean that he "ought to stick to organization, raising funds and supporting Democrats, rather than creating friction and splitting the party." She added that she would advise Dean to "cool it."
A Feinstein spokesman said after the meeting that the senator had expressed her concerns to Dean, but in a more diplomatic way.
I rarely agree with Sen. Feinstein's politics. But I have to say she usually conducts herself with a certain amount of class and dignity, even if she is dead wrong. But in this case, she is right. Dean is starting to cause deep divisions within the party that very well could lead to a permanent split.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Most of us that are of the semi-enlightened nature know why he must desperately plead for money. Donations are probably dropping off and now they don't have the Iraqi "Oil For Food" cash-cow scam going on anymore.
Desperate times call for desperate measures, I guess.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Here is part of what Chirac is quoted as saying:
"The time has come for our British friends to understand that they must now make a gesture of solidarity,"
Translation: It's Britain's fault that French voters did not ratify the EU Constitution.
Here is Tony Blair's response:
"Britain has been making a gesture, because over the past 10 years, even with the British rebate, we have been making a contribution into Europe two and half times that of France. Without the rebate, it would have been 15 times as much as France. That is our gesture,"
Sounds to me like Chirac wants to ride first class while paying coach fares. Nothing new here. Just like the guy who never pitches in for pizza but eats more pieces, than those that contributed.
1. Most of Dean’s supporters are young. Some are college students and many don’t have real jobs. Because of this, Howard Dean is going to have a hard time closing the fund raising gap. The ones with the money are going to be the ones that will be calling for his ouster, either directly (by publically calling for it) or indirectly (by drying up the Democratic cash reserves).
2. I know this sounds Machiavellian, but just maybe the Democratic power circle knew he would engage in this kind of activity. By putting him in as DNC Chairman anyway, it gives him the chance to hang himself, while giving the mainstream Dems a chance to look more moderate.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
The only difference is Havana has not been bombed. Who would waste a bomb on it?
Cuba is the model of poverty and is not likely to ever recover until Castro dies. Then there will be the question of the next regime and the direction it takes. Will it stay the course? Will it continue to sink into further despair? Or will it begin to see the err of its ways?
Castro really hurt the Cuban people, when he de-westernized it. He took the main industry, the largest source of revenue (tourism) away. He made reasonably well off people into paupers. He made poor people, even poorer. (Sorry, sugar and cigars are not enough to sustain much of a standard of living. Especially when the owner is the socialist state.)
He did it l by systematically eliminating all people that he didn't trust, especially those that had the ability to think for themselves. Then, he shut the western world off and turned toward a model of freedom and economic stability, the USSR. What a brilliant genius. What a visionary.
Most of the former communist world (at least) has converted to some form of free market and returned some aspects of business back over to the business class. But of the former alliance of economic disasters, North Korea and Cuba have staunchly refused to leave the 50s (the dark age of socialism) and join the new millenium.
Are ready to shut the border down, yet? Or what?
Will we get it done in time?
Everyone should be thinking about this, as 2006 rolls around. Voters should be raising these questions and the politicians should listen to them. The pols that do, will be the ones being sworn in in January 2007.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
They are willing to share the ball and play as a team. They get the ball to the hot hands and every starter is capable of having a great game, on any given night.
That's coaching. That's Larry Brown.
Monday, June 06, 2005
Any candidate that wants elected or re-elected in 2006 had better get on the right side of this issue, and fast. Because polls are showing an overwhelming amount of support for controlling the border (many over 80%). In spite of those numbers, many politicians are practicing the old form of "finger in the wind" politics or they are flat out ignoring them.
But rest assured, after 2006, we will all know which way the wind is blowing on this one.
These same people also tell me I should accentuate the positive and remove all reference of negativity from my critiques of the old world. After all, if I think positive thoughts and say positive things, I will create a more harmonious balance in the realm of my existence, right?
Well, I think I will try. So here goes:
In much of my writings, I have been a little critical of you and your behavior in chastising us for our role in the War On Terror. So for a change I would like to give you some positive feedback:
You don' know just how appreciative I am that you kicked my ancestors out. Your petty wars, persecutions, and inquisitions were too much to bear. You saved my families from having to go through years of utterly ridiculous conflicts, all because you were warmongering spirits that always had to be the ones driving the train.
I would also like to thank you for not starting another world war in the last 60 years. That's pretty good for you. It was only 20 years or so between the last two and you have been so good for 60 now. That in itself was amazing at the time, because before the first world war, you almost regularly had some kind of armed skirmishes going on, if not in outright war.
You see, right now we are fighting something that we didn't start and we are a little tied up with it right now. In addition to the War On Terror, we have Iran, North Korea, and even China on our list of other problems to contend with.
So I hope you all understand that we don't have time to bail you out of another bloody and destructive mess, brought on by your imperialistic spirits. We certainly don't have the money to sink trillions (that's about what the tab would run, today) of dollars into rebuilding what you blew up, trying to take the other country's territory. But most importantly, we certainly do not want to help you bury millions of dead, ever again.
I'd ask you to help, but I don't want to impose too much. I understand that your little experiment (EU) isn't working out too well right now; beside that, your economies are in shambles. You also need to concentrate on the influx of Muslims that are claiming the land they acquire, as forever Muslim. And believe you me, I don't want to get into the way of that either.
No, helping us win the war on terror would be too much to ask and I won't hear of it. Putting pressure on China (to respect Taiwan and work to solve their differences diplomatically), putting pressure on North Korea (to stop acting like a spoiled attention seeking brat and kill this nuclear blackmail thing), and putting even more pressure on Iran (to not develop nukes and give them to terrorists), may stretch you a little thinner than you want, I am sure.
Besides, it really isn't your problem if a nuke from Iran passes through Europe on its way to the US, is it?. That is, unless it accidentally gets set off, right? It's okay, really, it is. I understand.
Anyway, I am glad I got to share these nice warm positive things with you, because I know just how sad some of you are, right now. And to my good friends in France, keep your chin up. That 10% unemployment rate may have to go up a little higher, before it gets better. And times may get a little tough for the government, before long. But, you'll make it. I will be cheering you on.
Stay in touch. We may be busy working, producing things, developing ideas, solutions, and creating wealth for our future (and our children's future). But be sure to write when you can and we will answer when we can, okay?
Sunday, June 05, 2005
I am not going to tell you much about the movie itself, but I will tell you three distinct things about it:
1. It is not just another boxing movie
2. It's an outstanding personal story of James J. Braddock.
3. It depicts how life was lived during the Depression.
As always, you have to credit Director Ron Howard. Kudos also go to the cast for their acting performances. But the story itself, is great and well worth the price of admission.
Keep in mind that, the unemployment rate in this country was 25%, back then. People lost everything, many were reduced to squalor compared to what they were used to. And, watching this movie made me think of how irritated I became, when the Dems used jobslessness and poverty, as a pillar of their failed campaign. I mean think about it, twenty-five percent, as opposed to five? That is nowhere near the magnitude of the Great Depression.
Then, most of those severely affected were at one time hard-working and productive workers. They just fell on hard times and most did not have a choice.
Today, of the five percent (or so) that are unemployed, there is a certain percentage that can't work or have not been able to replace the job they had, with a new one. They would work, if they could. And they will. They will look hard and find one. That's the way they are, you cannot keep them down for long. They didn't have a choice about what got them there, but they are choosing to not wallow in self-pity and are choosing to do something about it.
But with that, there is also a certain percentage that does not want to work, and they don't. They won't and they make up every excuse imaginable, find every loop hole possible, to keep from it. It's their "back" or they are "depressed", or whatever. They do have a choice and they are choosing to lay around and whine about not getting enough assistance, while the government takes hard workers' hard earned money (by force) and pays them to sit on their lazy derrieres.
You can credit Lyndon Baines Johnson's Great Society sales campaign, for raising a generation of government dependent people. This was nothing more than a calculated effort by LBJ and the Dems of that time, to buy votes. Keep the poor, poor and the dependent, dependent. And then when election time rolls around, they'll vote for you. And while you are at it, make more people poor, so future generations will vote Democratic too. Do that by attacking wealth, instead of poverty.
Anyway, go see the movie. You will not regret it. It is a feel good movie that will uplift you and motivate you, if you choose to let it.