Alpine Summit

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

G'Day! Now MOVE!

Those who have read my blog for any sustained amount of time probably know I'm all for racial profiling when trying to prevent hijackings or when looking for criminals. So what I'm about to say is going to sound hypocritical, but bear with me and I'll hopefully explain myself: this is crap.

Two airlines "down under" are under fire after acknowledging their policy of not allowing an unaccompanied child passenger to sit next to a man.

The policy emerged when a New Zealand man said he was asked by airline staff to move because an unaccompanied minor had been assigned the seat next to him.

Mark Worsley was told to swap seats with a woman sitting nearby, who then moved into the seat next to the boy, about eight years old, for the 80-minute flight.

"I was pretty shocked -- I think most people would be," the 37-year-old shipping manager and father of two said Tuesday.

The reason I think this is total crap is because the airline assumes the man is a pedophile right off the bat and that it is incumbent on him to oblige the second party. Their position on this is totally wrong, in my opinion, because it assumes the man is a pedophile and essentially it's up to HIM to prove that he isn't.

That said, I can understand the companies' policy as being prudent and preventative from a business standpoint. I think this is another example where practical application of theoretically prudent behavior diverges. The goal is to prevent any pedophelia going on, but when practically applied, causes the disenfranchisement of a group of people. This is exactly like affirmative action in that respect. All the law says is a business has to take an "affirmative action" to hire a fair mix of diversity--not that they HAVE to hire certain people simply because they're black or a woman or amputees or anything else like that. Unfortunately that's how affirmative action laws are applied simply because businesses don't want to be held liable for wrong-doing. Court costs are non-value added costs and as such, there is an effort to avoid such things.

Now I said this would make me sound hypocritical based on my support for racial profiling, but to me, this policy is like forbidding any arab male between the age of 18 and 40 from even stepping foot on a plane (as opposed to simply taking more care when checking them out). Another way to put this is like saying to an arab: "we have overbooked this flight and a white person will be flying, we would ask that you take our bus service so they can have your seat." It's completely discriminatory and legitimately unfair.

A better policy for the airlines to take would be to either move the child (before they're aware of where they're supposed to sit), or simply monitor the man and child more closely--not that a prudent pervert would try anything in public, but I realize there are idiots in this world.

|

Monday, November 28, 2005

Another Cockroach Rushes to Avoid the Light

John Daly, a community college professor who supports the fragging of American troops (also known as "fratricide") has resigned as professor of the college. This disgusting view of his came to light after attacking a conservative student over e-mail on her views after it became known of a speech she was working to put together. Here's the full original story if you wish to read it. There are many aspects I want to address involving this story, so I guess I'll start at the beginning.


HERNDON, Va., Nov. 18 /PRNewswire/ -- Warren Community College English professor, John Daly, said that "Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors." Rebecca Beach, a freshman at Warren Community College in Washington, New Jersey, received this unexpected reply to a recent email she sent the faculty at her school announcing the appearance of decorated Iraq war hero, Lt. Col. Scott Rutter, on Thursday, November 17 to discuss America's accomplishments in Iraq.

In the email, Daly told Rebecca that he will ask students in his English and writing classes to boycott the event and also vowed "to expose [her] right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like [Rebecca's] won't dare show their face on a college campus." Daly's mean spirited and hateful comments were directed at Rebecca for organizing Lt. Col. Scott Rutter and for hanging up fliers contrasting the number of people killed under communism to those liberated under Ronald Reagan.


So much for academics all being for intellectual freedom and free thought. As is the case with many universities in this country (not necessarily my own) the academics are only for free speech as long as they agree with what is being said--otherwise, it has no place in a setting where debate and enlightenment are the principle reasons for its existence.

Michelle Malkin copied the full text of the e-mail at the end of her post about this incident. It's your usual "Bushitlerhalliburton" leftist crap and I'm not even going to bother with legitimizing his screed with any sort of response. Needless to say, it's all false and easily proven as such. The biggest quote from the e-mail is where the Mr. Daly advocates the suicide of the military.

Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors and fight for just causes and for people's needs -- such freedom fighters can be counted throughout American history and they certainly will be counted again.

When as it EVER been counted on for American troops to kill their own officers to "fight for freedom?" Nevermind that anyway; what's with the "let's kill our own troops" statement? Don't you DARE question his patriotism... you might expose him and his ideology for what it is: anti-patriotic.

So after this big thing happened, the community college convened an emergency meeting after word of the e-mail made it to local and national outlets. This is probably largely due to the Internet and the folks at the Young American's Foundation. You can find the full coverage of this incident on their site. They also have a picture of Rebecca Beach and she's pretty cute! ;)

Ahem. Getting back to the lunacy, here's the official statement of the college:

Warren County Community College has always maintained its commitment to our students to provide a quality education. A recent event attracted national attention this past week. Statements were sent by an adjunct instructor to a student in response to her e-mail.

The College became aware of the impact of the instructor’s comments when it was inundated with local and national opinions from the public. Responding to that, the Board of Trustees and administration moved as quickly as possible to review and address the issue. A board meeting was scheduled for last night to present the issue to the Board; however, while the administration was preparing for that meeting, the adjunct instructor Mr. John Daly submitted his resignation. The Board of Trustees voted to accept his resignation at last night’s meeting.

President Dr. William Austin made clear that the community college is now reviewing and drafting tolerance policies for all employees and we will include this training in our next staff development day.

President Austin also appeared this morning on Radio WRNJ 1510 AM to assure the community that the College will move forward with a sense of enlightenment and resolve with its education mission and also apologized to all whom might have been offended by the incident. He added that, “We are fortunate to have so many brave men and women fighting for our freedom. This Thanksgiving is an opportune time to thank them for their courage and pray for their safe return.”

It's good they decided to hold a hearing about this professor's conduct. Nobody so utterly incapable of critical, rational thought should be in any kind of position to teach higher education to college students. No. They shouldn't be allowed to teach anything to anyone ever. This is not a close-minded "I hate free speech" type of comment either. I say that because such people do damage to those learning from them rendering many of them incapable of distinguishing between real critical thought and mindless paranoia because they are listening to mindless paranoia from someone they are assuming thinks critically.

Had this professor thought his views were critically thought out and rational, he would have fought tooth and nail. Instead, he sank away back into darkness because legitimate criticism (that is, rationally thought out and objective criticism) of his views and his actions completely destroy his argument.

My guess is he'll get offers to teach in at least 4 ivy league schools, and at least 3 California Universities (Berkley comes to mind).

|

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Diet Blogger

I'll be leaving my high-speed internet and daily routine for the Thanksgiving holiday. This means blogging will be light if not non-existent until Monday or so. So come back next week for lots of catch-up blogging!

|

Hot Pedo Gets Reduced Sentence


Unbelievable. Debra Lefave, a child molesting teacher arrested for having sex with one of her sudents, was given a sentence of 3 years house arrest and 7 years probation. Does anyone else notice the double standard here? If Debra was a man, she would be in prison for 10 years. Minimum. Instead, she's given a far more lenient sentence of bon bons and soap operas for 3 years. What did her attorney say about this sentence?

"To place an attractive young woman in that kind of hell hole is like putting a piece of raw meat in with the lions," Lafave's attorney, John Fitzgibbons, said in July of the possibility of jail time. "I'm not sure she would survive."

First off, it's the job of the state to ensure the safety of all its prisoners and I would trust the state to do that in Lafave's case. Second, you cannot say that someone is "too pretty to go to jail" as a reason why they shouldn't go to jail.

The double standard applied to this case is absolutely amazing. I realize that most pedophiles are middle-aged men (occasionally infallible Catholics), but that should not mean that the exceptional cases of 25 year old women should be any different in terms of punishment for the same crime.

Are we to have two different books of law; one for women and one for men? No. We have one law to which all in its jurisdiction are responsible. We have punishments for infractions against those laws and should be applied equitably among those who break them.

I guess I can take solace in the fact that she'll follow in the footsteps of other pedophiles in that she'll never be able to not only teach, but won't be able to get any job where children are involved--essentially voiding her credentials she spent years building. Plus, hopefully, by the time she gets new credentials for a new life/career, she'll still have to admit to being convicted of a felony. Good luck in your new life, Debra!

|

Monday, November 21, 2005

9th Circuit's Latest Insanity

So while checking the blogs, I read about this on Michelle Malkin's site.

A Contra Costa County school was educating seventh-graders about Islam, not indoctrinating them, in role-playing sessions in which students used Muslim names and recited language from prayers, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a lawsuit by two Christian students and their parents, who accused the Byron Union School District of unconstitutionally endorsing a religious practice.

For all my bloviating about religious discrimination being okay as long the religion is Christianity, I think this proves my point nicely. Granted, it's from the land of fruits and nuts, but this absolutely beyond the pale.

I wonder what would happen if the teacher was forcing Muslim kids to be "Christians" for 3 weeks? My guess is that they would play the role of crusaders traveling to the holy land to evict the peaceful goat farmers of Islam against their will or some other similar event that would cast the kids as being evil in some fashion. Malkin has a link to the .pdf of the actual lesson plan here.

I've decided to make my own lesson plan--see if it sounds like I'm trying to force my beliefs on you.

Phase 1(Introduction): First you will read a short history of Christianity, be briefed on future assignments and adopt a Christian name (i.e. "Luke" or "Ruth"). In addition, you will be placed in one of 6 churches and choose a role to play in the church: Pope (leader), Priest (banker), Monk (secretary), or Parishoner (citizen).

Phase 2 (Travel Days): You will follow in the footsteps of the Christ and savior, Jesus, and learn more about his ministry along the way. During your travel, you may earn wisdom cards for knowing things about His life and ministry. There are also quiz cards in order to do better in the exercise as well as bulletin cards which are unfavorable incidents such as being attacked by Jews. You will be racing with other churches to complete the 3 year ministry of Jesus. Winning means getting crucified by the Romans. Occasionally, you will have open market sessions with the other churches where you can trade and buy wisdom cards.

Phase 3 (Salvation Days): This phase will be interspliced with Phase 2 where you will be able to earn more points by working with your church to complete various activities that allow affirmation of faith. Such things include forsaking all others before Jesus, taking communion, praying the Lord's prayer, and evangelizing to others. Also, your group will work together to build a church. You will also have to learn about the 12 apostles and how 11 of them died a martyrs death. You will be able to interview each one in the "meet the disciples" activity. Finally, in the most important activity, you will listen to a companion of Jesus speak about his ministry and why he died on the cross for your sins.

Phase 4 (Festival Days): In this phase, you will do something that demonstrates how early Christians lived. Since Christ's early church was based around the mediteranian, you can choose to demonstrate the cultures of Judaism, Romanism, Greek culture, or middle eastern culture in the first century A.D. This may be a large part of your grade for this exercise.

Phase 5 (Christian Bowl): This phase is your church's last chance to collect more points by compteing against rival churches. Questions used in this phase may be used as questions for the final exam for the activity.

I think any leftist would recognize the "establishment" violations with my plan. Not so with the Muslim exercise though!

One final item: I found this on textbook league; a "resource for middle-school and high-school educators," and "provides commentaries on some 200 items, including textbooks, curriculum manuals, videos and reference books." Here's what it says about this exercise:

From beginning to end, ISLAM: A Simulation directs teachers to deceive their students and to boost Islam by disseminating lies and by falsifying history. From beginning to end, ISLAM: A Simulation requires teachers to indoctrinate their students by feeding them servings of "information" in which historical facts are insidiously intermixed with Muslim myths and Muslim woo-woo. From beginning to end, ISLAM: A Simulation directs teachers to present facts, myths and woo-woo as equivalent, equipotent items. From beginning to end, ISLAM: A Simulation requires teachers and students alike to abandon rationality, to shun analytical thinking, and to embrace the view that any claim about anything -- no matter how fatuous the claim may be -- must be accepted as true.


Not exactly a glowing review if you ask me.

|

Sunday, November 20, 2005

Hypocrites and Republicans

Not to say that Republicans aren't without their faults, but the measure to pull troops out of Iraq, the war cry for Democrats and liberals for several weeks now, was almost unanimously rejected.

The vote, held as lawmakers rushed toward a two-week Thanksgiving break, was 403-3.

Democrats accused Republicans of orchestrating a political stunt that prohibited thoughtful debate on the issue, and nearly all voted against the measure.

That included Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the Democratic hawk whose call Thursday for pulling out troops set off a nasty, personal debate over the war.

"Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on our present course," Murtha said. He said the GOP resolution was not the thoughtful approach he had suggested to bring the troops safely home in six months.

The House action came in a week that also saw the GOP-controlled Senate defeat a Democratic push for President Bush to lay out a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, senators approved a statement that 2006 should be a significant year in which conditions are created for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces.


Murtha was one of the biggest voices against troops remaining in Iraq. Of course, he voted against the measure that would have made all his dreams come true... I wonder why?

Democrats accused Republicans of orchestrating a political stunt that prohibited thoughtful debate on the issue, and nearly all voted against the measure.

The reason Democrats hated this measure is that it exposed the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of their position on Iraq. Their rhetoric has hanged themselves. Republicans called the bluff of the Democrats, and now the Democrats have egg all over their faces. I'm not going to expect them to stop screaming "out now" though; even though they had a chance to get it done.

The Democratic agenda is to simply take a contrary position to the Republican agenda. That's all they do! They offer no ideas of their own--simply criticism for Republican views.

There's a scene in "We Were Soldiers" where the brass finally cave to Col. Moore's ultimatum that he will not leave his men. Moore's response is "they just don't get it, do they? We can't get out. Once they see us piling onto helicopters, they'll attack the ones left on the ground and many more will die." Our situation in Iraq is very similiar in that we can't leave until the job is done. To say you want to phase out troops is simply putting the last troops to leave in greater jeopardy because the job is not done. I wouldn't expect the Democrats to understand that though.

|

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Hitchens on Occam's Razor

Christopher Hitchens has a great rhetorical question about the left in America still shouting the "Bush lied" meme: "What do you have to believe in order to keep alive your conviction that the Bush administration conspired to launch a lie-based war?"

A few little strokes of Occam's razor are enough to dispose of this whole accumulation of fantasy. Suppose that every single Iraqi defector or informant, funneled out of a closed and terrified society by the INC, had been a dedicated and conscious fabricator. How could they persuade a vast organization, equipped with satellite surveillance that can almost read a license plate from orbit, of a plain untruth? (Leave to one side the useful intelligence that was provided by the INC and that has been acknowledged.) Well, what was the likelihood that ambiguous moves made by Saddam's agents were also innocuous moves? After decades in which the Baathists had been caught cheating and concealing, what room was there for the presumption of innocence? Hans Blix, the see-no-evil expert who had managed to certify Iraq and North Korea as kosher in his time, has said in print that he fully expected a coalition intervention to uncover hidden weaponry.

And this, of course, it actually has done. We did not know and could not know, until after the invasion, of Saddam's plan to buy long-range missiles off the shelf from Pyongyang, or of the centrifuge components buried on the property of his chief scientist, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi. The Duelfer report disclosed large latent facilities that were only waiting for the collapse of sanctions to resume activity. Ah, but that's not what you said you were looking for. … Could pedantry be pushed any further?

He makes several great points like this and it's definitely worth the read. I forgot about the Duelfer report as well as the numerous things we found that Saddam wasn't supposed to have (many of them French in origin by the way). Certainly good to remember when I'm having head-to-heads with liberals in the future.

|

Monday, November 14, 2005

What Has the Senate Been Doing?

Last night, my roomate pointed out to me that the Senate ("Republicans" is what he said, though 5 democrats voted for it too) voted on a military budget bill that had an amendment to suspend habeas corpus. He then went off on a tirade and how I should keep this in mind next time I think about voting for Republicans. He also cited an advocacy site mentioning that there have been preliminary efforts to extend this to citizens of the country. Of course, there is nothing of the sort to be found, so I'm calling that a rumor (at best). But then, what's with eliminating habeas corpus to foreign detainees? Peter Lushing has a great post about this at the CrimProf blog. His interest (as is mine) is whether this is constitutional, or a gross violation of human rights. My roomate told me to read Locke in order to see how he thinks the law should be applied--as if Locke's writings are as good as law, it seemed. I'm more interested in the current legal situation and what the law says.

On November 10 the Senate, in what may not be its final vote on the matter, approved an amendment to a military budget bill that would deprive the enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay of federal habeas corpus. The bill would overturn the June 2004 Supreme Court opinion in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466. This action of the Senate has excited much interest as a possible violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

I propose that “habeas corpus” in this provision is not the same, and is in fact of smaller scope, than the statutory phrase “habeas corpus” in the Rasul decision, which construed 28 USC 2241, subdivision (a), granting federal courts power to grant writs of “habeas corpus”. Rasul did not actually focus on the phrase “habeas corpus”; it was concerned with other phrases from the habeas chapter of the United States Code, such as “within their respective jurisdictions”. But the Court was concerned with the scope of the writ. We know, or think we know, what “habeas corpus” in the statute is, but is it the same as “habeas corpus” in the Suspension Clause?

The case for the negative is, to put it in the language of talk radio, the guys in the powdered wigs would have flipped over the idea that habeas extends to foreigners we are in combat with who have been captured and are being held by us abroad. While this crude formulation may hardly be equal to the scholarship the issue demands, it is hard to brush the conclusion off inelegantly though it may have been stated. If statutory habeas does extend to the Guantanamo detainees (an unarguable proposition, given that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the meaning of a federal statute) does it ineluctably follow that Congress may not narrow the reach of the statute without running afoul of the Suspension Clause?


I really have a hard time believing that we are supposed to extend constitutional rights to foreign POWs. To me, it seems as absurd as allowing citizen prisoners to own firearms. Such things may be "intrinsic human rights" but then, I seriously doubt the founding fathers intended to allow foreign prisoners such rights for obvious reasons. My view is summed up quite nicely by Dr. Lushing.

Did the framers intend to constitutionalize a reach of habeas to alien prisoners of war being held abroad? Unlikely.


It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few months with this.

|

Sunday, November 13, 2005

FINALLY!

Finally, Bush is starting to act like the leader I expected him to be. For years now, Bush has remained silent as Democrats levelled baseless accusation upon baseless accusation against him. Yesterday he accused the Democrats of exactly what they're guilty of: historical revisionism. Today he has again stuck it to the Democrats through Ted Kennedy and his record.

"It is regrettable that Senator Kennedy has chosen Veteran's Day to continue leveling baseless and false attacks that send the wrong signal to our troops and our enemy during a time of war."

"It is also regrettable that Senator Kennedy has found more time to say negative things about President Bush then he ever did about Saddam Hussein."

"If America were to follow Senator Kennedy's foreign policy, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, he would be oppressing and occupying Kuwait."

- Scott McClellan, White House Press Secretary

I wonder how much more humbled the Democrats would be if he had done this two years ago. I guess they probably wouldn't be since they take such a frothing-at-the-mouth stance on things to admit they were wrong would be extremely embarassing. Along with the McClellan quote, there is also a list of Ted Kennedy's voting record.

Sen. Kennedy Said Saddam Hussein Was Developing WMDs: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." (Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Remarks At The Johns Hopkins School Of Advanced International Studies, Washington, D.C., 9/27/02)

Sen. Kennedy: "Saddam Hussein Is A Dangerous Figure. He's Got Dangerous Weapons." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 10/6/02)

Sen. Kennedy Now Says The President Manipulated Facts About Iraq's WMDs: "'Instead of providing open and honest answers about how we will achieve success in Iraq and allow our troops to begin to come home,' Kennedy said, 'the president reverted to the same manipulation of facts to justify a war we never should have fought.'" (Deb Riechmann, "Bush Forcefully Attacks Critics Of The War In Iraq," Associated Press, 11/11/05)

Sen. Kennedy Opposed Removing Saddam Hussein From Kuwait. (S.J.Res.2, CQ Vote #2: Adopted 52-47: R 42-2; D 10-45, 1/12/91, Kennedy Voted Nay)

Sen. Kennedy Opposed Removing Saddam Hussein From Power. (H. J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48- 1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kennedy Voted Nay)


Finally, finally, FINALLY! If Bush keeps this up, by the time he leaves office, the Democrats won't have much to criticize. Bush came to office on a platform of "setting a new tone" in Washington. Most conservatives, myself included, figured this would not work because the Democrats define their platform as being "not republican" rather than having any kind of substantive position based on the real situation. It's good to see Bush has apparently seen the light on this--albeit rather late in the game. I PRAY he keeps this up, though.

|

Friday, November 11, 2005

A Day of Rememberance

It's veteran's day and I figured what better way to show support for our troops (past and present) than to do a milblog roundup? I know most people have barbeques and play frisbee and all, but my friends and I are going shooting--thanks guys.

Blackfive has a good post about things that "chafe his cones" which I'm sure means pisses him off. I liked this little tidbit:

If somehow having the intellectual rigor and intestinal fortitude to act in the cause of freedom and liberation rather than debate it fruitlessly makes us morally inferior, so be it! That is not a morality I would shed a drop of anyone's blood for.

Perhaps that's why liberals are always against wars then? Anyway, continuing with the list.

Greyhawk is pulling for project valour-it which is raising money to buy voice-controlled laptops for injured troops unable to type--a noble cause to say the least. There are separate teams for each branch of the military. I must say I'm pulling for Army (first to reach the goal!), though my roots scream Air Force. Anyway, check it out.

Speaking of Valor-IT, the Indepundit is pulling for team Navy (pfft).

There's a long post on "routine excitement" and other anecdotes (such and guys getting stabbed in the leg) at Armor Geddon.

The Common Virtue
has a quick comment about Venezuela threatening to sell its used American equipment to China and Cuba.

Evangelical Outpost had a good post yesterday recounting why he's proud to be a Marine. Consequently, I too am proud you're a Marine. The Marines are a little to "ooh-rah" for me, but that doesn't mean I don't have the utmost respect for them and their job. I also find it interesting how little people actually know about the military. I mean, they don't know much about it-- not that midgets are incapable of knowing about the military. :)

That's about all the linkage I have time for right now, but I'll try and get some more up later in the day.

|

Thursday, November 10, 2005

He's Baaaaaack!

Steven den Beste, one of my favorite bloggers ever, has come out of "retirement" to blog yet again.

Previously known for his verbose and well-worded analyses of current events (some of which are still appliciable today), his new blog is under the redstate.org banner and far less detailed or lengthy as before. This is good for a couple of reasons: first, he'll hopefully not get so burned out as he did when he decided to retire and start talking about anime, and second because it's more appealing to read shorter blog posts (at least, that's the trend I've heard). I added him to my blogroll and HIGHLY recommend you read his stuff regularly--absolute gold.

Right now, a lot of his posts deal with the French riots which are still going on because of France's impotent leaders: namely Sarkozy and Chirac. Far from being the minor nuisance my France-loving roomate tries to paint it as, the riots are spreading. One interesting thing (business-related) that den Beste touches on is how this will affect the value of the euro.

The French economy is already royally screwed up. Taxes are too high, regulation is stifling, and as a result job creation and growth are nearly nonexistent. The government guarantees lavish benefits to the unemployed through its social safety net. If 1% or more of the GDP of France goes away due to a decline of tourism, it means that government tax receipts will fall, while government outlays will rise.

What was that about the "stability pact"? Something about a limit on budget deficits? Forget about it; France will have to borrow, and borrow a lot.

At which point we get into an area I know nothing about: central bank policy and currency values. What I'm wondering is what effect this could have on the €uro, and therefore indirectly on economies of all the other nations which dumped their own currencies and switched to it.

Whatever it is, it can't be good. If the French start running huge and irremediable budget deficits, what's to stop other nations from doing the same? The Euro is becoming less and less popular in Europe anyway. Could this lead to other nations dumping it and returning to national currencies?

The economic crisis in "third-way socialist" Europe is close to being super-critical. Will the French riots be the event which kicks off a total collapse in all the socialist nations of Europe?

If so, the irony meter will peg. The nations which will come out of this the best will be the former Sovbloc nations of the east; while NATO stalwarts like Germany, Belgium, Italy, and France will be the ones which will suffer the most when socialism finally collapses.

And those nasty Anglo-Saxon islands will dodge the bullet yet again.

As usual, he's right--though a little lacking in the finance aspect of things. First off, France's economic policy of lavishing the jobless with money while taxing the workers through the ears has led to this lever-type of economy where even a small amount of increase in unemployment will lead to a double-whammy against the economy. Since not only are there fewer people paying taxes now, but the government has to subsidize more people using fewer funds. Socialism hasn't worked yet, and it never will.

I would not be the least bit surprised if these riots mark the beginning of the death of the euro since France's economic policy will greatly reduce the value of the euro against the dollar (and it's not just France these riots are in anymore, either). This means that the value of the money of other nations will also go down even though they didn't do anything. Looking at it from their perspective, I'd certainly be willing to dump France and her impotency in favor of my old currency for the sake of my own people. France is a ball and chain around the leg of a drowning Europe at this point. Though Europe may try to swim up (expantionary monetary policies), their efforts will be ultimately useless because they're not addressing the real problem of the ball and chain (though they'll still need to swim once the larger problem is fixed).

Really though, the governments of Europe created the EU cheifly to compete with the United States. Once the euro becomes worthless compared to the dollar, they will abandon the euro for their own currency and the US will still be the dominant economic superpower in the world. I imagine they would be too prideful to adopt the dollar as their "gold standard" though. It's more likely they'll choose the pound sterling or feel more at home with the Chinese Yuan.

The irony of it all will be that France, the one ("allied") nation most doggedly against the US and her policies, will be the one to bring about the deimise of the system created for the humbling of that damned upstart: America.

Also, den Beste also points out the Anglo-Saxon nations will "dodge this bullet." Why? Because they insisted on keeping the British pound as their form of currency. Though I think they'll do more than simply "dodge the bullet." I think they'll be getting a gun of their own.

While the rest of Europe slowly circles the toilet bowl, England will be nicely positioned to do the economic rebuilding of Europe through investment and loans, and make a lot of money in the process- off the stupidity of their neighbors. Once again, capitalism wins out and France is yet again proving itself to be irrelevant and worthless (if not downright negative) in the world arena.

|

Monday, November 07, 2005

Bias and France

Michelle Malkin hits another home run. (Not) surprisingly, a book was published in France entitled "Kill, Kill, Kill" where an honorably discharged sergeant talks about war crimes and atrocities committed by his unit in Iraq. The MSM ate it up and crapped it out to the masses. Turns out, though, that none of it is true. The MSM merely accepted what was being spoon fed to them and didn't bother to corroborate the story they were hearing--they were too happy to hear about how our troops are bad people, they didn't want to risk having it not be true (did someone say Dan Rather?).

Our next guest says Massey is lying and he can prove it. Joining us now is "St. Louis Post" dispatch writer Ron Harris. He was embedded with Jimmy Massey's unit in Iraq. Welcome, Ron.

RON HARRIS, "ST. LOUIS POST": Thank you.

COSTELLO: You know, if this guy is lying, that's just vile. Because he's saying some vile things about our men and women over in Iraq.

HARRIS: Yes, that's very true. I mean, he is claiming that marines intentionally killed civilians, that he intentionally killed civilians. And at times, he claims that they intentionally killed civilians based on orders from the superiors. And the fact is, it just isn't true.


Later on, Costello (the interviewer) starts coming up with "what if" scenarios that would make Massey's story true--including calling the Marines liars.

COSTELLO: Yes, but Ron, if there was completely untrue, I mean, this guy has made it into pretty big publications like "Vanity Fair." He's written a book that's bee published in France.

...

COSTELLO: Well, let's face it -- let's say these stories were true. Would the marines -- wouldn't be forthcoming about that. Oh, yes, we killed innocent Iraqi people. They're not going to admit that.


Wow. Vanity Fair and a French book. First off, Vanity Fair isn't really known for its current events reporting. When I think of Vanity Fair, I think of Fall fashions and "6 ways to please him" articles. Secondly, I imagine this book was published in France because there's enough America-hating sentiment over there that the book could sell fairly well. To say that a story MUST be true because it was in several publications like a book written by the accuser, is like telling an athiest God exists because the Bible says so. "This guy says there were atrocities and if you don't believe him, just read his book!" HORRIBLE argument. Then to suggest that the Marines, a group of individuals who live their lives according to a code of honor, are the liars is just beyond the pale. Speaking of his book, why do you suppose Massey would be peddling these lies? Oh right, the one thing liberals profess to hate corporations for: money.

COSTELLO: Why would this staff sergeant, Jimmy Massey, lie about these things, and say such terrible things about his own comrades?

HARRIS: Well, one of the things that has happened -- number one, Jimmy Massey, I don't know why, but I can just speculate a couple of things. Number one, Jimmy Massey was honorably discharged for post- traumatic stress syndrome. The second thing, Jimmy Massey has profited off of this. He does have a book. He has a Web site in which he sells his story on a CD for a hundred dollars. I think it's called jimmymassey.com. So it's been profitable for Jimmy Massey to keep telling this lie.



So there you have it! Lying for money and profit at the expense of the Marines. Classy. Given the track record of America-hating liberalism, I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case.

|

Friday, November 04, 2005

Islam is Peaceful... No, Seriously!

I've been meaning to comment on the riots in Paris for a while now but haven't gotten around to it. Frankly, I find it to be on par with how I think Muslims (and the French) are supposed to behave. That is, I see the Koran saying to wage war and violence cutting this-and-that off of the infidels before (or while) killing them. It seems they're actually living up to their vile "holy" book. Glenn Reynolds has a great roundup of things.

One thing I'm happy about is that the collective smirk is now wiped from the face of the French that they have had on their faces when it came to the United States' shortcomings. Such an example are the '92 riots in Los Angeles where President Mitterand blamed the "conservative society" created by Reagan and Bush.

Back in the 1990s, the French sneered at America for the Los Angeles riots. As the Chicago Sun-Times reported in 1992: "the consensus of French pundits is that something on the scale of the Los Angeles riots could not happen here, mainly because France is a more humane, less racist place with a much stronger commitment to social welfare programs." President Mitterrand, the Washington Post reported in 1992, blamed the riots on the "conservative society" that Presidents Reagan and Bush had created and said France is different because it "is the country where the level of social protection is the highest in the world."


Nevermind that LA is probably one of the most left-leaning cities in the country and could probably be considered on par with European cities in terms of political leanings and social programs.

So why are there riots in the streets of (gay) Paris? Because "three Muslim youths ran from the cops, hid in a power substation, touched something they weren’t supposed to touch and died." (Great summary, Jim!). Now the Muslims blame the cops for their deaths. This seems like a pretty stupid reason to start rioting (at least to non-Muslims), so what other reasons might there be? Oh, the nanny-state socialist utopia with 10% unemployment and the consideration of radical Islam as an acceptable religion! Forgot about those.

The lack of labor market flexibility and other socialist policies have created unemployment at nearly 10%, most of which falls among immigrants. And part stems from the fact that France's estimated 5 million Muslims, out of a population of 60 million, are led by mostly foreign radical imams. Only belatedly has the French state started taking action, pressing for clerics to be taught in France. All this is compounded by the image France projects of itself to its Muslims, which one can surmise is the reason why Muslims see rioting as the solution to any grievance.

Then there's the idea that as long as they're willing to be more violent than France, they can get whatever they want--and they would be right. Chirac as been performing as one would expect the French leadership to perform when it comes to controversey: he rolls over and surrenders.

It's a barely kept secret that Mr. Chirac led the opposition to the Iraq war out of fear of how his Muslim population would react. This fear is a big part of why France portrays itself as America's counterweight and why it criticizes Israel at every turn and coddled the terrorist Yasser Arafat right up to his death. This doesn't elicit thanks from Muslim radicals in France. It turns out to project an image of weakness. Unsurprisingly when faced with some unhappiness they believe they can pressure the French state into submission.

Random thought: if America really is the horrible bastion of unspeakable violence and irrational behavior, why aren't the French afraid to criticize us? But I digress. I find it interesting that submitting to the Muslims is a sign of weakness only emboldening them to try and get away with more stuff. Is anyone surprised? I'm not.

A number of observers of the French scene have looked at population trends and suggested that France is on its way to becoming a Muslim country (one that would, let it be noted, be armed with hydrogen bombs). Some react to this by suggesting a halt to immigration and even expulsion. The better approach is to impose law and order, more speedily to reform the burdensome welfare state, and start integrating the Muslim community. France could also help itself by dispatching troops to help battle the radical Islamists in Iraq, thereby sending a message to Muslims at home and abroad that France is on the side of those Muslims, the majority no doubt, who want to live in peace.

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. It would be nice to see France grow a backbone, but they haven't had one of those since Napoleon. Case in point:

The police respond by firing tear-gas grenades and, on occasions, blank shots in the air. Sometimes the youths fire back — with real bullets.

Now when France can no longer placate their Muslims and are forced to resort to physical enforcement, they respond with BLANKS! Once rioters start shooting at cops, the cops are justified in responding in kind. France is such a joke at this point, I can't see how anyone could consider them any kind of major force to be reconed.

More on this here, here, here, here, and here.

One final thought: France is often held up as a great example of how America should be. Considering the dismal economy of France and the level of radical Islam, do you suppose those people are still singing the same tune? My guess is yes.

|

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Biased? What Do You Mean?

Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette has a couple of examples of the New York Times changing substantive parts of people's statements so it fits their own view of things. I highly recommend you read it. My favorite part is when Greyhawk says this:

One thing should be obvious - you can't trust anything you read in the New York Times. They once proudly boasted of "all the news that's fit to print." It's a shame the honest truth is something they now find unfit for their pages. They are reduced to waging a war based on lies.


No doubt. I gave up on the New York Times a while ago. They give out free sample papers at my school and I still don't feel it's worth picking up, though I will check the business section if I find it lying out somewhere already.

I find it interesting the ones who supposedly support our troops by hoping they fail are the ones trying to make our toops look bad. Real supportive.

By the way, since I haven't said this in a while, anyone who thinks the media isn't liberally biased is either willfully ignorant or incredibly stupid.

|

Racist Who?

So I hear about the racist party making racist ad homenim attacks against their political opponent this morning. The twist is that it's the Democrats making racist remarks about a conservative, Republican, minority.

I thought the Democrats were the party of equality and understanding and all that other mushy stuff? Well I guess they still are, but they have a perfectly good reason for attacking him I'm sure.
Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

Well that's good enough for me!

Seriously now, what is wrong with these people?! Would you expect a Republican to get away with this? I don't think so! Not only would there be outrage all over the left calling for the resignation of the offending party members, but it would be plastered all over the news as more evidence for the racist image of the Republicans.

You NEVER see Republicans, in an official capacity, making racist ad homenim attacks against democrats. I didn't know being racist was okay if you disagreed with their politics! What else are you allowed to do? Oh yeah! Illegally obtain credit reports of your target--it's okay, he's an uncle tom, it isn't like he's a real person.

Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.
But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious."

What gets me mad about this isn't so much that they attacked a conservative black man (though it does make me mad), but that they can be so overtly racist and get away with it after professing to be for minorities. Any Democrat that isn't ashamed of the actions of these people should be ashamed of themselves. Also, any Democrat that has ever criticized Republicans of being racist and doesn't condemn this, is a hypocrite.

Michelle Malkin touches on a few of her own experiences with liberals as a conservative minority. Apparently, it's fairly common to make racist attacks against a minority as long as they're conservative.

Ed Morrisey at Captains Quarters is a bit more articulate than I am on this... mainly because I'm angry and can't find the words. Plus, he's "more experienced" than me in life which probably has something to do with it.

That shows the leadership of the Democrats as they truly are -- a hate-based faith system that takes any means necessary to win elections. Cheating, violence, smears, and now racism are all acceptable as long as Republicans are the targets. If the Republicans happen to be members of minority communities, so much the better.

After all, it's not discrimination when you hate someone more because of the color of their skin or their ethnic background, is it?

Not if you're a leftist Democrat, it isn't.


Which is why I'm not a leftist Democrat. Any group that is okay with smearing someone based on their race is not a group I prefer to be a part of. Not only that, but I'm quite inclined to oppose them.

|

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Religion of Peace (TM) strikes again.

I haven't read LGF for a while so I missed this story. Apparently, three Christian school girls were beheaded in Indonesia. Some "speculate" it was religiously motivated by Muslims; I would say that it's so statistically likely at this point it might as well just go without saying that it was.

They were walking through a cocoa plantation near the city of Poso in central Sulawesi province when they were attacked. This is an area that has a long history of religious violence between Muslims and Christians.

A government-brokered truce has only partially succeeded in reducing the number of incidents in recent years.

Police say the heads were found some distance from the bodies.

It is unclear what was behind the attack, but the girls attended a private Christian school and one of the heads was left outside a church leading to speculation that it might have had a religious motive.


You don't say! I would say given the track record of Islamic violence and militant Muslim's obsession with cutting off people's heads, that it's a pretty safe bet that it was done by Muslims.

I'm wondering why everywhere Islam is (or even in the running as) the dominant religion, that there are numerous religiously-motivated violent acts? Could it be that perhaps Islam ISN'T the nice happy religion Muslims claim it is? Noooo. Now I'm just being intolerant--not observational.

Speaking of the divinity of Islam, lets see how they stand up to an 8-year-old boy (somewhat disturbing). So full of love for their fellow human-being.

Also today, LGF posted a link to this "emperor has clothes" piece by Osama Saeed, a spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain.

Terms such as “sharia” and “caliphate” have important meanings to Muslims quite different from the distorted connotations they often carry in the west. The aim of Islamic law, contrary to popular belief, is not punishment by death or amputation of body parts. It is to create a peaceful and just society, with Islamic scholars over centuries citing its core aims: the freedom to practise religion; protection of life; safeguarding intellect; maintaining lineage and individual rights. This could be the basis for an Islamic bill of rights.

Islam is absolutely antithetical to individual rights, free practice of any religion but Islam (the form they approve of), protection of life (non-islamic life, that is), or exercising intellect (questioning authority equals questioning God so off with your head you wretched unbeliever!). I'm not entirely sure what "maintaining lineage" means so I can't speak to that; but looking at Muslim countries today, none of them save for the ones we've recently liberated, exhibit any of these traits.

LGF also links to The Daily Ablution who says this about the piece:

Many readers are no doubt familiar with the Islamic concept of "dhimmi", a state of "humiliation, degradation and disgrace" (in the words of "one of the most widely used explanations of the Qu'ran today"), in which some non-Muslims will be allowed to live, as long as they pay a special tax to their Muslim rulers, and display their subservience via a variety of other means. Those who do not will be treated as "people of defiance and rebellion"; i.e., killed.

Boy howdy, what a great religion! The more I hear, read, and learn about Islam, the more I absolutely loathe it and pray those who subscribe to it will see the light.

|

Good News from Iraq

The Christian Science Monitor reports about Baquba, Iraq. You may remember it as the city that was utterly lost to the terrorists. The MSM shouted it from the rooftops (as usual) and implied it was evidence that everything was going to hell in Iraq accompanied with the usual (read: tired) "end the occupation now!" tirade.

Well, it seems that not only have we won back the city, but voter turn-out was 60%, the constitution was approved by the population there, and violence has been relatively low.

Last January, Baquba was symbol of everything going wrong in Iraq - and its neighborhood of Buhritz was a symbol for everything going wrong in Baquba.

This city just 50 miles north of Baghdad was crawling with Sunni Arab mortar teams, snipers, and bombmakers. They had made parts of the city their own, killing police when they found them and driving the rest into hiding. Their grip was so strong that only 60 percent of the region's polling places opened for Iraq's first post-Saddam election. In Buhritz, not a vote was cast; some polling sites were torched.

But today, US commanders are pointing to Baquba as a symbol of what might go right. Every polling place stayed open all day for the Oct. 15 referendum that approved Iraq's new constitution earlier this month. Violence was light, while voter turnout was high.


So why is it like this now? That's right! They pissed off the Army and the Army went to work.

There have also been heavy doses of force. In June, Buhritz - a tough neighborhood where kids swim in a murky, trash-strewn irrigation canal fed from the nearby Diyala River - was almost a no-go zone for Risberg's men. They didn't come down except in force, and even then were almost certain to be shot at.

Then on June 17, Lt. Noah Harris of Dawsonville, Ga., and Cpl. William Long of Lillburn, Ga., were killed when their humvee was hit by a roadside bomb in the area, and Risberg decided he'd had enough. "That was the straw that broke the camel's back," he says, pointing to the crater left by that earlier bomb as he rolled through Buhritz with just a three-humvee convoy.

The Army shut down the area for six weeks - basically letting no one in and no one out - and began major sweeps through the area. Risberg said the operation had a twofold objective: To capture fighters in the area and to persuade residents not to support them.

Risberg was helped by Capt. Bobby Ray Toon, from Grannies Neck, Texas, who was directly responsible for Buhritz. In the Army as an enlisted man for 18 years, he recently attended officer candidate school and was put in charge of a company of about 150 men. His experience made it easier for him to make the right calls in dealing with local civilians, problems that take as much political as military savvy.


Imagine! Because we used force, there is real peace in the area. Of course the hippies, I'm sure, probably won't be/aren't happy about this news. This is just a small example of how force is sometimes the better option.

Each time an attack originated in the area, Risberg would have a nearby palm grove shelled, sometimes as often as every 15 minutes the whole night. He'd also further restrict residents' movement. "We were trying to show them that you're going to help us clean up this area or you're going to pay the price,'' he explains. "I didn't care which."

When local families complained that the shelling frightened their kids, he'd tell them to help hand over insurgents - only then would the shelling stop. They also replaced the local mayor and the town council, who seemed sympathetic to the insurgency. Eventually, he and others in his battalion say, the approach got results.


Before you think "oh those oppresive troops went in and ousted the mayor they didn't agree with," remember not to assign moral equivalence to their islamic motivations and the Army's ultimate democratic motivations. The "results" they refer to is a 60% voter turn out (as opposed to 60% of polling places opening) as well as lower violence and Iraqi police with background support from the Army maintaining order.

The Army has turned over control of the city to the Iraqis and are now playing second fiddle which is EXACTLY what Bush said we would be doing. This is hardly the behavior of an imperialist nation (control the population by force for the economic and military benefit of the homeland).

This whole article is great evidence that Iraq is not a quagmire or utter failure, and therefore evidence that the liberals (once again) are wrong about their outlook on this war. Read the whole article because it's a safe bet that you won't hear anything about this from the MSM.

|