Sri Lanka rejects help from Israel

Share

One of the first nations to organize massive relief efforts for the victims of the recent tsunami was Israel.

Israel loaded several planes with relief supplies destined for Sri Lanka along with a team of 150 medical professionals and rescue workers. On Tuesday, 28 December, the government of Sri Lanka rejected the assistance being offered by Israel. They later agreed to accept the food and other supplies but will not permit the 150 member team of volunteers to enter the country. A small team of doctors from Israel’s Hadassah University Hospital will however, accompany the delivery of medical supplies. Additionally, a separate aid package from the Israeli humanitarian organization, Latet, is sending its own shipment of over 18 tons of food, medicine and other supplies to tsunami victims.

Michael Moore is No 1 Afterall

Share

Finally Michael Moore gets the recognition he deserves.

Moore has been named No. 1 on FilmThreat.com’s “Frigid 50.” According to FilmThreat.com, "The Frigid 50 ice pack have left audiences cold with their overbearing personalities, poor career choices and chronic inability to stop making fools of themselves.” How they chose Moore with such heavyweight competition from the likes of Ben Afleck, Sean Penn and Susan Surandon, is unclear but Moore was a fine choice indeed.

They were kind enough to offer a bit of advice to the “filmmaker,”: “Remember, it's not always about you. Lose the chip on your shoulder.”

Violent Indecent Bacchanal Entertainment (The Vibe Awards)

Share

Perhaps you have heard the news that a few awards were given out last night during the taping of the second annual black-tie brawl known as the Vibe Awards.

I certainly could say more but why give these clowns any more free publicity.

The Ultimate Win-Win

Share

Former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu once observed that peace in the Middle East is beyond our reach because the world has been complicit in the duplicity of the Arabs desire to obtain a unilateral win-win situation in their acrimonious relationship with Israel. Basically, the Arabs have developed a plan wherein they can launch a war of annihilation against Israel, loose the war, then demand that Israel surrender. The Democratic Party and other elements of the American Left have obviously been reading their playbook.

The Democrats used every conceivable tool in their arsenal in an attempt to destroy George Bush and the political right. They may not have invented the ad hominem, but they certainly perfected it. Despite their best efforts, they lost resoundingly at the polls. Now, rather than accepting the decision of the majority of Americans, they are insisting that the President accept their ideas using the common “uniter, not a divider” sophistry. In other words, they started the war, lost the battle, and now demand that the Republicans surrender notwithstanding. That’s what I call hubris!

To borrow a phrase from Governor Schwarzenegger, why should we listen to losers?

"How can 59 million people have been so dumb?"

Share

For the first time since 1988, a presidential candidate has garnered a popular vote majority. The popular vote spread was nearly 4 million in fact. One British “news” paper, the Daily Mirror asks in its headline, “How can 59 million people be so dumb?” (click here to send them a few heart-felt, expletive-laden messages)

Yes, George Bush has been re-elected as President of the United States. The people punctuated that message by increasing the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, the Senate and several state governing bodies. The American people have made it clear that they will not allow the feelings, passions, and desires of the people across the pond to dictate the direction of their government.

Perhaps however, the word “dumb” is actually an acronym: Decidedly Unimpressed by Mindless Bureaucrats. In that case I consider this a rather fair question.

The vast majority of the American people know the danger of career politicians, bureaucrats if you will. Therefore, they chose to trust their future to a political philosophy that holds that government is not the solution to our problems, rather government is the problem.

George Bush and his cabinet members, in contrast to his opponents and detractors, believe that the strength of America lies in the wisdom of its politicians to get out of the peoples’ way. In America, the politicians sit in the driver’s seat to be sure. But they are not there as all-seeing, omnipotent leaders rather politicians are merely chauffeurs, taking the American people where the American people choose to go.

A better question would be: How can 55 million people have been so foolish?

Reader Question - Social Security Reform

Share

Will the President’s social security reforms include putting members of Congress into the same plan the rest of us will have?

In short the answer is, “No.” The President’s plan for Social Security reform does not include a provision to place members of the U.S. Congress under same. This is a matter of law, not a matter of policy.

One of the most important doctrines implied, though not expressed, in the Constitution is the doctrine of the “separation of powers” between the Legislative and Executive branches of government. That being said, the President does not have the authority to propose legislation that would affect Congressional members. Additionally, the Legislature is the only body with the authority to actually draft legislation. Therefore, even if the President desired such a change, it would still be left to the discretion of the Congress as to the scope thereof.

Part of the legislative changes adopted by the Republican-lead Congress following its 1994 electoral victory was to agree that Congress would not enact legislation to which it was immune. This was part of the Contract With America. In principle this means that they should take the initiative and apply to themselves whatever changes are implemented. I can think of a plethora of legal and fiscal reasons why this should not be done however it is still valid, in principle.

Reader Question - Union Violence

Share

I need to know a little history on whether there were violent clashes between union and management members, along picket lines during the 1920's and 1930's.

Also, was there a communist connection to the general labor unrest in that time period...a la the AFL-CIO?

It is a well-established fact the early days of the Labour Movement was marked by a violence that, were it to occur today, would be called by its rightful name, "terrorism." The three most popular incidents which worked to turn public attention against the Labour Movement were the Homestead Riots, the Haymarket Massacre and the Pullman Strike. The only incident in which the government took proactive measures to address the problem involved the Pullman Strike lead by Eugene V. Debs (founder of the Communist Party USA). Grover Cleveland used the forces of the US Army and Navy to ensure that this rail-workers' strike was brought to an end. This however did not end the violence of the Movement. The US government did not take specific legislative and enforcement measures to end Labour violence until the 1970's.

The Labor Movement unofficially began with the Freemasons. The Freemasons however spawned two offshoots shortly after the Civil War: The Knights of Labour and the Knights of the Imperial Klan (KKK). Both were secretive social organizations whose membership was limited to white males and neither was opposed to the use of violence to achieve its objectives. The primary differences between them is that the KOL did not exclude Catholics from its ranks and at times defended the rights of Jewish and Italian immigrant workers. KOL was founded by a Marxist named Uriah S. Stephens. Another Marxist, Samuel Gompers, interested in bringing the Labor Movement into the mainstream sought to organize the official labour unions under a single umbrella. This was the beginning of the American Federation of Labour.

It is important to point out here that many encyclopedias euphemistically refer to the Communist Party USA as the Socialist Party USA. These were actually two separate organizations. The Socialist Party was formed by Communist Party members dismayed over the party's support for and loyalty to Joseph Stalin. The two groups remained bitter enemies for most of the 20th century. This relationship was strained even further by certain members of the Socialist Party's support for HUAC and the McCarthy hearings.

Halliburton’s “No-Bid” Contract: Fact or Myth?

Share

What is really meant by the use of the phrase “no-bid” when describing Halliburton’s contracts associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom? What is implicit in the statement is a claim that Halliburton was awarded a contract that included a blank-check for the services they provide and that said contract was awarded in contravention of the competitive bidding process. Unfortunately the truth is quite the opposite.

The Pentagon, with few exceptions, has traditionally conducted logistics and reconstruction services through its own forces under the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. However, in the early 1990’s, in an attempt to reduce standing forces and costs, the Pentagon developed the U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (a.k.a. LOGCAP). LOGCAP provides for a multi-year agreement with the Pentagon wherein a company agrees to be on-call to provide any and all services needed as bid. The operative phrase there is “as bid.” Companies wishing to do business under a LOGCAP Agreement must submit bids for same. The contract, once awarded, becomes a standing agreement for a pre-determined period thereby alleviating the necessity of obtaining competitive bids each time a need arises.

In 2001 KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root), a subsidiary of Halliburton, won a LOGCAP Agreement. Under this agreement KBR was called-upon in 2003 to provide post-war oil well fire containment and reconstruction at a maximum cost of $1 billion. The Pentagon reasonably presumed that the Iraqis would torch or otherwise destroy their oil wells as happened in Kuwait during the 1991 Gulf War. While there were some oil well fires, the numbers thereof was nowhere near that which was expected. No competitive bids were solicited as said service fell under the parameters of an existing LOGCAP Agreement. Describing the KBR agreement as a “no-bid contract” is therefore a misnomer.

Many Conservative pundits have argued that the Clinton Administration issued Halliburton a no-bid contract for its efforts in the Balkans. Under the strictest meaning of the terms Halliburton’s deal with the Clinton Administration does fit the definition of a no-bid contract. Halliburton’s original LOGCAP Agreement issued in 1992 actually expired in 1997. To quote Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, “The Clinton administration nonetheless awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to continue its work in the Balkans supporting the U.S. peacekeeping mission there because it made little sense to change midstream.” In fact, Al Gore’s Reinventing Government Panel praised Halliburton for its work in military logistics in the 1990’s.

Additionally, it is noteworthy here that under LOGCAP Agreements, the Pentagon determines the amount of compensation, not the company. The company is under obligation to provide the needed services within the budgetary constraints established by the Pentagon even if its costs exceed the value thereof.

While the use of the expression “no-bid contract” with respect to U.S. efforts in Iraq fails to measure up in most cases, such contracts do exist. Government entities occasionally award contacts to specific companies without obtaining competitive bids for a host of reasons. It is almost impossible to resist the urge to attribute such deals to some form of political favoritism as the recipients are at times, large campaign contributors and/or otherwise associated with government power brokers. Notwithstanding, there are legitimate non-nefarious reasons why a company would be awarded such a “sweet-heart” deal.

Certain companies have experience and capabilities in particular industries which makes them ideal candidates for providing certain services in an efficient and cost-effective manner. In many cases it is the sheer size and reputation of a company that affords it a competitive edge. This is particularly so when a government agency has a limited amount of financial resources and/or a project that must be completed within a short period of time. It is advisable under these circumstances to seek out a company that will agree to provide the needed services within existing budgetary constraints rather than taking the time to shop for competitive bids. Some of these are known simply as ID/IQ Agreements. Both Halliburton and Bechtel have been recipients of same.

ID/IQ Agreements are basically contracts to provide specific products and services at a fixed-price for an indefinite delivery period and in an indefinite quantity. Contrary to Congressman Henry Waxman’s assessment this type of agreement is not “bad for taxpayers.” In actuality this is a mutually beneficial arrangement for the government and the company involved. The government has established a ceiling above which it will no go and the companies then compete to provide the products and services at or below that level. Real-world costs are dynamic, not static and when costs exceed the agreed-upon maximum, the overrun must be absorbed by the company. On the other hand, when costs fall below the agreed-upon maximum the company can factor in a reasonable markup. The safeguard against unconscionable markups is found in the ability of the government to conduct unannounced audits. As you may recall this procedure is what lead to the finding that Halliburton had overstated its costs on several invoices to the Pentagon. I call this a substantial tax-payer benefit. When a private company overcharges the tax-payer we are able to recoup the costs however when the government is the service provider that tax-payer has little or no recourse.

For these and other reason, Halliburton has been awarded no-bid contracts for work in Iraq.

In a war logistics is of utmost importance and time is of the essence. The idea of the perfect, unalterable plan of war and occupation only exists in the minds of Leftist politicians. Real wars on the other hand, are fluid and unpredictable. Military personnel and their civilian overseers have to ready and willing to make split-second decisions which can sometimes mean the abandonment or reorganization of existing goals and timetables. It has been said that “no plan of battle ever survives the first engagement with the enemy.” How true this is. For a plan of battle is only as good as the willingness of your enemy to comply.

The Death of Democracy

Share

Louisiana District Court Judge William Morvant, took it upon himself to overturn a voter-approved constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Tuesday, October 05, 2004.

This should a serve as a warning like no other to all Americans that their Democracy “of the people, for the people” is fast becoming a Democracy by the courts for the courts. It was bad enough when courts overturned the acts of legislators on grounds having more to do with the judge’s ideology than jurisprudence. Now they have gone so far as to overturn a constitutional amendment passed by 78% of the electorate who bothered to take part in the process.

The reasons for the judge’s actions notwithstanding, the court should not have had jurisdiction to rule on a constitutional amendment. The sole reason for the amendment was to protect Louisiana’s existing laws banning such unions. These laws are not in the State’s constitution rather are the result of legislative actions and prior judicial rulings. Supporters of the amendment correctly believed that it was in their best interest to put this matter to a vote of the people in the form of an amendment to the Louisiana constitution to avoid the possibility of a judge following the path laid out by those in Massachusetts. Unfortunately the courts have proven that they view themselves as being above any and all laws.

For this democracy to survive we have to reign in the power of the judiciary. We have allowed the courts to assume powers never imagined by this nation’s Founders and unless and until we establish reasonable boundaries for judicial review no vote of the people or acts of duly elected legislators will be worth the paper upon which they are printed. This is the beginning of the death of our Democracy.

The End of Ideology?

Share

I recently had the pleasure of reading The End of Ideology by Daniel Bell, one of the four “New York Intellectuals” as they were called. I came across this particular gem by sheer accident while browsing a local bookstore that specializes in rare and antiquarian books.

Bell essentially agued that the problem with the intellectual community of his day (early Cold War era) is that it was ideological. He did not argue that some of those who comprise the intellectual community were ideologues, rather he opined that ideology was itself the culprit. With all due respect to Mr. Bell, he could not have been more wrong.

We all have ideologies, or a basic world-view. What is a world-view but a conceptual framework born of our environment, our knowledge and our experiences. This framework provide us with a basis upon which we live our lives and view our world. Ideology includes, but is not limited to, religion, culture, politics and philosophy. The problem with some intellectuals is not that they have ideologies but that they allow their ideologies to control their view of the world rather than guide it. The difference manifests when despite reason, logic, facts and evidence we begin to cut and trim reality, so as to make it fit within the parameters of our world-view. In essence our world-view serves as a prism through which we filter our view of reality whether past, present or future and as a result we become Ideologues.

What really spurred Daniel Bell’s treatise was the inability of Communist and Fellow Travelers to come to grips with the fact that the realities of Communism, particularly the Soviet Union, was at odds with the fanciful image they so passionately wanted to believe. They had given up the scientific search for the truth that was and had become engineers endeavoring to create a truth that never existed.

It seems the old adage is true: those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it.

Im Baaack!!!

Share

It's been a while but I am back in action just in time for Election 2004. I promise to be here at least twice a week or as often as world events mandate. Thanks for being there and continue sending me your questions.

Have We No Compassion to Spare?

Share

I spend much of my time answering other people’s questions. So let me take a moment to ask one. Why has there been so much silence among Americans over the recent incident of terror in Russia?

In case no one noticed, Muslim terrorists took more than 1000 people, mostly children, hostage in a school in Russia. Three days later the world became witness to the unconscionable brutality of these people when they systematically detonated explosives and fired their weapons taking the lives of nearly 400 hostages. Aside from the fact that the media has not given this incident the coverage it deserves, more appalling is the fact that our elected officials, from the White House down, have been shockingly and inexcusably silent. I am given little comfort by the fact that Donald Rumsfield issued a statement today condemning the incident.

A dear friend of mine who is Russian, is outraged at this. So am I. She does not understand why no one seems to be even marginally concerned about this. Nor do I. She cannot fathom something such as this occurring in the US and receiving a similar response. Nor can I.

When terrorists attacked the US on September 11, 2001, Americans justifiably expected and received blessings and support from the rest of the world and more importantly, condemnation of the acts of terrorists. Why are Americans so silent in the face hundreds of dead and injured children? They were not caught in the crossfire. They were the targets.

A Blessing and A Malediction

Share

It’s time for major news services to invest in a few economists. Every time I read an article about business and economic issues, it seems that the persons writing the articles either know very little about the subject matter or worse, don’t care to get the information straight.

I read today the article from Reuters Staff Writer, Andrea Hopkins entitled U.S. CEOs Who Outsource Get Bigger Pay Hike-Survey. Before I take her to task, let me give her due credit for having identified the source of the study as the liberal Institute for Policy Studies (emphasis mine). This is certainly a step in the right direction (pun intended).

Apparently the liberal Institute for Policy Studies has found that “executive pay at the 50 firms outsourcing the most service-sector jobs increased 46 percent in 2003, while the average CEO got a 9 percent raise and regular workers saw a 2 percent boost in pay.” In my professional opinion, Duh!!

Corporations and by extension corporate executives have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders. They are not in the welfare business. The sole purpose is to make decisions that enhance productivity, efficiency, and profitability. It stands to reason then that those who do this best will be handsomely rewarded for their efforts. Much like the production worker who receives a bonus or other benefit for having exceeded production quotas. It’s called an incentive. Additionally, CEO remuneration is reflective of experience and responsibilities that the “regular worker” to use their vernacular, does not posses. I am certain that the statisticians and researchers at the Institute for Policy Studies do not sit around lamenting the fact that they are compensated at a much higher rate than the receptionist.

Ms. Hopkins quotes the Institutes as saying, “The fact that leading outsourcers make more money than average CEOs is one more reflection of a perverse system that rewards executives for making decisions that may improve their bottom line while hurting workers and communities.” This statement obviates the nature of the problem we face in not providing our youth with a firm foundation in basic economics. Unlike the Institute, most corporation are not non-profit entities. It is their duty to make decisions that “improve their bottom line.” They are not being rewarded for “hurting workers and communities” as the Institute suggests. This is the kind of analysis you get from those who see the economy microscopically as opposed to macroscopically. Such a person might conclude that commercial air travel poses greater risks than automobile travel based on the fact that the number of people who perish in a single airliner crash is exponentially greater than the number who perish in the typical automobile accident.

They go on to say that “it was not able to calculate the exact number of U.S. jobs affected by outsourcing last year because shipping jobs overseas has become such a sensitive political issue that firms try to avoid reporting such jobs losses.” The reason they cannot ascertain the number of US jobs lost to outsourcing is has nothing to do with corporation hiding the numbers, rather, it is because the number of jobs lost is either matched or exceeded by the number of jobs gained. Companies do not outsource out of a desire to hurt employees. They are not taking the savings and packing them away in mason jars to be buried in the South 40 for a rainy day. Outsourcing fees up capital resources which allow the companies to move them into avenues where they are most effective. This can include everything from increasing employee benefits to research and development into new products and services. Additionally while consumers benefit from lower prices and better products and services, the overall economy benefits from an influx new investment capital, which invariably leads to more jobs.

They make this way too easy.

Have We Become Them?

Share

I have been castigated today for my last post regarding the jeering of the Alexandra and Vanessa Kerry at the MTV Music Video Awards.

Some people have raised the “CNN” argument that the jeering was directed towards both the Kerry daughters and the Bush daughters. I take it these people did not watch the show. The jeering erupted when the Kerry daughters began speaking and was noticeably absent when they tossed it to the Bush daughters. If it were meant for both wouldn’t the crowd have been more or at least equally raucous when the Bush daughters began speaking? Just a thought.

Another response is that the jeering was coming from young nihilist who objected to having their fun interrupted by a political message. Fair enough. This explains a good deal of the jeering however I have it on good authority that a considerable amount of it was specifically meant for the messengers, not the message.

Still others claim that there were no Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians in the audience. I’m starting to believe that people on our side of the political divide are extremely naïve.

I recall a Barbara Streisand concert in New York several years back. Barbara is known for engaging in political monologues and basic social commentary during her shows. Everyone expects this and no one is offended. It’s here style, you might say. But during one such speech she asked how many people in the audience were Republicans and nearly half the audience applauded and waved. She didn’t seem surprised by this at all as she said, “See. Republicans are the only people who could afford my tickets.” Everyone laughed and no one was offended (as far as I could tell). This was classic Barbara Streisand. The point of course is that non-Leftists do attend the concerts, films and awards shows of people they do not agree with politically. The difference is that we are starting to voice our disagreement with these so-called celebrities when they cross the line. Linda Ronstadt, Don Henley and Woopie Goldberg discovered this first-hand.

I have no problem with holding their feet to the fire when they go on the attack. I do however have a problem with attacking Leftists simply because we have a difference of opinion. It is shameful when they do it to us and even more so when we repay the favour.

I do not like seeing children throw tantrums yet I accept the fact that children will do so. But I am shocked and offended when adults do the same.

So I’m A Softie. You Got a Problem With That?

Share

I sit here with a mixture of glee and sadness in the wake of the MTV Music Video Awards. For those who bothered to watch, it was a real departure from the explicit language, partial-nudity and simulated sex-acts that have become a staple of MTV programming in recent years. That was the glee.

On the other hand, as a Conservative, I found it extremely distasteful and inappropriate that Alexandra and Vanessa Kerry, daughters of Presidential hopeful John Kerry, were wildly booed last night. To all of my Republican/conservative/libertarian friends out there, shame on you.

I find it unacceptable that we should ever sink to the low levels of decorum exhibited by the political Left. While I also found it inappropriate to have booed Hillary Clinton at a post-9/11 celebration in New York, that reception was at least understandable. Senator Clinton has made some rather inflammatory remarks about both the President and Republicans/Conservatives. It is therefore understandable that she would receive a rather cold welcome in response. But I have yet to hear of the Kerry daughters saying anything that would warrant such a reception. Are they not allowed to support their father? We generally consider Ron Reagan an embarrassment for his father so do we expect the Kerry daughters to be John Kerry’s “Ron Reagan?”

My friends, I am proud to see that Leftist celebrities and politicians are now being held accountable for the vilification of the Right. It gives me more joy than you could possibly imagine to see the likes of Linda Ronstadt and her ilk publicly shunned. But let’s keep in mind that in voicing our discontent we need not lose the moral high-ground.

To Alexandra and Vanessa Kerry, I apologize on behalf of the entire political Right.

News of the Wierd

Share

In my line of work, I am forced to read news reports form all over the world from various sources. So occasionally a story comes along that proves that evolution can sometimes work in reverse. I will henceforth call this section, NEWS OF THE WEIRD. I will make every effort to present these stories at least once each week. Please note that these are all legitimate news stories. The only thing I have added is of course my own commentary at the end of each.

No one ever said that learning about your world couldn’t be fun:
______________________________________________________________
Blazing Bunny Spreads Fire at Cricket Club
Sat Aug 14,12:30 PM ET LONDON (Reuters) - A rabbit set alight by a bonfire at a British cricket club got its revenge when it ran burning into a hut and set it ablaze destroying costly equipment, the club said on Friday.

Members of Devizes cricket club in Wiltshire, western England, were burning dead branches when a rabbit caught up in the waste sped burning from the flames spreading a fire which destroyed lawnmowers and tools worth $110,000. "

After it had been going 5 minutes, the rabbit shot out of the bonfire on fire and went into the hut which is our equipment store," club chairman John Bedbrook told Reuters.

Two fire engines were called to extinguish the blaze. The rabbit's skeleton was discovered in the charred hut.

"The firemen were certainly concerned about the rabbit. They felt sorry for it," said Bedbrook.

I’m sure that you're asking what I'm asking: why didn’t someone think to film this? – The Phillipian

Limbless Woman Sues Air France Over 'Torso' Snub
Mon Aug 16,10:00 AM ET NEW YORK (Reuters) - A wheelchair-bound woman with no limbs sued Air France for discrimination on Friday, alleging she was kept off a flight by a gate agent who told her a "torso cannot possibly fly on its own."

Adele Price, 42, a British citizen, sued the airline in Manhattan federal court seeking unspecified damages.

The suit states that she had bought a ticket in 2000 for travel between Manchester, England and New York. After Price had checked her luggage, she alleged that she was stopped by an Air France agent who told her that "a head, one bottom and a torso cannot possibly fly on its own."

I don’t know about you but I would love to have been present when they were having this discussion. I could be suing Air France for sudden loss of bladder control. I’m just guessing here that this Air France agent will not be nominated Humanitarian of the Year. – The Phillipian

Inmate Loses Court Bid to Grow Hair
Fri Aug 13, 8:51 AM ET SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Californian prison officials can cut the hair of an inmate despite his objection that to do so would violate his Native American religious beliefs, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday.

Philip Henderson had maintained that cutting his hair, except under extraordinary circumstances, would defile the creator.

But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals backed a lower court ruling that said the California Department of Corrections’ reasons for requiring short hair – such as making inmates easier to detect if they try to escape – were justified.

“We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment and its conclusion that the CDC’s hair length regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests,” the three-judge panel ruled.

Now I know that I can be prone to a prepubescent sense of humour but, am I the only one who chuckled at upon reading, “penological interests?” – The Phillipian

Anarchists' Convention Debates Voting
Mon Aug 16, 7:46 AM ET ATHENS, Ohio - A group of anarchists is taking an unusual step to make its political voice heard — going to the polls.

Look, Socialists own and operate multi-bullion dolour corporations, animal rights activists wear leather shoes and jackets, and NOW vehemently defends male Democrats accused of sexual misconduct. So why cant the Anarchists vote in an election? Leftists are masters in the art of consistent inconsistency. – The Phillipian

The 11th Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Judge

Share

“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be either good or evil.” - Hannah Arendt

“The first casualty when the ethical core of society evaporates is freedom. Law (government) fills the void -- directing by threat of force those aspects of life that formerly were governed by our ethical standards.” - Lawrence Reed

“I think perhaps people in the universities have externalized the idea of vice and virtue. Instead of seeing vice and virtue as personal categories to be used by individuals to guide their own actions, vice and virtue have become exclusively political concepts. A bad person is someone who offends prevailing sensibilities.” - Dinesh D'Souza

Ok I have had it. I’ve tried desperately to refrain from bringing this up but I believe that the other side has so saturated the public mind with its morally bankrupt value system that most are now thoroughly convinced that people who think the way I do are the new Salem Witch Hunters. What has me so in a huff you ask? The PSA’s (Public Service Announcements), which admonish us not to judge others. While I find them all to be somewhat odious, this particular PSA was run immediately following a news story regarding the resignation of Governor James E. McGreevey.

This announcement has the actor saying, “unless you’re sitting on a bench and banging a gavel, you shouldn’t be judging anyone.” So we are now required to perform a morality lobotomy and turn over our common sense and sound judgment to a lawyer in a black robe? I want everyone to know here and now that I am extremely judgmental. I pass judgment on people, places and things. My judgments are based upon my personal experience, my knowledge of the world around me and a firm foundation of Judeo-Christian values. I submit to you that the problem in Western Culture is not the fact that we judge, rather that we have suspended any and all forms of reasonable judgment. We have completely abdicated our moral responsibility to distinguish right from wrong and good from bad. This is a prescription for Societal Insanity.

Persons charged with the commission of a violent crime may still claim in a court of law that he/she is "innocent by reason of insanity", temporary or otherwise. Insanity is determined by the inability of a defendant to distinguish right from wrong. How then, are we as a society to determine who among us is insane if we collectively allow ourselves to become devoid of our ability to judge.

Some people claim that Jesus proscribed judgment. This is total malarkey! What Jesus was warning his followers against was hypocrisy. He warned that we must be cautious in our judgment of others, as we will be held to the standards to which we hold others. This is exactly as it should be.

When we have completely lost, not just our ability, but more importantly our desire, to pass judgment we will have lost the moral foundation of our system of jurisprudence and that is but a short step away from the loss of civilization as we know it.

It never fails that whenever I attempt to see the inherent goodness of man, my vision is obscured by mankind.

Into The Fire: A Report From The Front Lines

Share

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." - William F. Buckley

Courtesy of the fine people over at Pop-Up USA, I had the esteemed pleasure of once again, presenting the conservative message to those who wander along Third-Street Promenade in the People’s Republic of Santa Monica (California), and what a fine cast of characters they are.

Pop-Up USA is a grass-roots organization unaffiliated with the official Republican Party however that has not stopped them from proudly displaying the Bush-Chaney 04 posters, much to the chagrin of a few Promenade regulars. The mere sight of a Bush-Cheney banner can cause convulsions of hatred to spew forth from the mouths of Leftists everywhere. I fully expected to see levitation and heads doing 360’s. Alas, what they lacked in visuals was made up for in vitriol.

The most interesting exchange of the day occurred when a woman describing herself as a Green Party candidate for Santa Monica City Council approached me asking why I “support someone like George Bush.” I asked that she explain what she meant by “someone like George Bush,” to which she answered, “Someone who lied to the American people, turned our long-time European allies against us, and has done everything he could to ruin our environment.” So there you have it. This is what substitutes for reasoned debate on the Left.

As for the “Bush lied” rhetoric, I have given-up explaining the obvious. I accept the fact that his is merely politico-speak brought to the fore by those who lack the intellectual acumen to engage in a civil manner. I place this on the level of resorting to vociferousness. Instead I thought there might be a chance at salvaging this discussion by concentrating on her other two points: Europe and the environment. I took great pleasure in explaining to her that the Left’s much-loved Europeans have always harbored a level of haughty contempt for Americans though they have historically held those on the political right to a particular level of disdain. She reluctantly agreed. Additionally, the Europeans understand that the only places where they still have power beyond their borders are the United Nations and NATO. Notwithstanding, it cannot be denied that much of the European hatred directed towards America in general, George Bush specifically, is driven by politics. They wear the mask of international mandates yet all one need do is reflect upon they deafening silence they exhibited when former President Bill Clinton bypassed the United Nations and NATO in his decision to intervene in the war in Bosnia-Herzegovinia. Even Howard Dean supported that one. President Bush is a Republican and is therefore the embodiment of all that they despise, namely, an unequivocal rejection of collectivism.

Before we could get to her issues regarding the environment, three women from the UK who apparently did not know that I was there in support of the Bush-Cheney ticket joined us. They allowed the older of the three to do their bidding and a fine job she did indeed. She was remarkably cordial. She stated that it was “sad that so many innocent Iraqis are dying but what else could we do?” Another of the three (I’m guessing her daughter) excitedly directed everyone’s attention to my Bush-Cheney 04 button and suddenly her entire demeanor changed (for the worse).

She now charged that George Bush not only lied to the American people, he actually assisted in planning the attacks on 9/11 so that he could get extra money for the CIA (I have to admit that I had not heard this one before). I asked if she thought George Bush was evil and to her credit she agreed emphatically, and proceeded to punctuate her position with the expression, “he is truly an evil and disgusting person.” Well, at least she still considers him a “person.” I’m guessing she was educated by DSK (Dean, Sharpton & Kenney, et. al.).

Not to be outdone, we were joined by my favourite Bush-hater of them all, Alexis. Now it is difficult to explain Alexis as one can only get a true sense of the man by actually meeting him. Alexis is French and comes complete with the expected mixture pomposity and arrogance and a cigarette to boot. Straight out of Central Casting. I know that may be all that need by said but allow me to add that Alexis gave new depth to rambling dissertations likely resulting from chemically induced paranoia.

Due to these constant interruptions, I was never able to get to the essence of my Green friend’s environmental concerns, however, she managed to sink to the level of her comrades by declaring that I was a “token of the Republican Party.” I asked if she meant that I was in a sense a mind-numbed robot directed by the Republican Party. “Of course,” she said. I inquired further, “do you believe that black people are incapable of seeing and making connections regarding social and economic issues? Perhaps we are too stupid to draw our own conclusions and would not know what to think were it not for the Democrats and Republicans?” “It appears so,” was her answer. What more can I say?

Well my friends, I dove into the fire of the intellectually bankrupt and all things considered, I’m a happier man for it.

Our opponents on the left are dedicated to one thing: the defeat of George W. Bush. Such single-focus fanaticism rarely proves successful. That, however, is no reason to become complacent. We have an uphill battle on our hands and while I believe that we will prevail, we cannot back away from the fight. This is why grass-root organizations like PopUp USA are so valuable.

A Lesson In Civics

Share

Nat Hentoff, a noted expert on The First Amendment, has, in his latest article entitled Valedictorian of the Year, committed the same error that nearly all civil libertarians commit when addressing the issue of Freedom of Speech/Expression. By defending Tiffany Schley’s right to free speech, Mr. Hentoff completely ignores her duty to accept responsibility for the choice she made.

Tiffany Schley, is the valedictorian of the High School of Legal Studies in Brooklyn. In this capacity she naturally had the privilege of addressing the graduating class at its public ceremony. The word privilege is very important here. The school took steps to insure that her address would be appropriate for the event and apparently there was no issue as to the school’s actions up to this point. However, Tiffany proceeded to give the address she originally penned which was a litany of attacks, legitimate though they may be, on the school’s administration and faculty. An assistant principal cut the microphone on her speech.

Now Mr. Hentoff argues that this is evidence that “the nation's public school students are learning far less about what used to be called civics.” No Mr. Hentoff, students are learning far less about what used to be called civility. Tiffany may have been correct in what she said however the focus should not be on whether she could but whether she should. The mere fact that one has a right to make certain utterances or engage in certain acts does not mean that same are appropriate in every venue. If this young lady wanted to state her issues in the school paper, I would be solidly in her corner were the school to attempt to censure her. However, she chose a venue that was intended to commemorate her and her classmates’ achievements and turned it into her own political soapbox. Talk about narcissism. Perhaps she might benefit from The Death of Right and Wrong (©2003 by Tammy Bruce / Three Rivers Press).

Mr Hentoff, and other civil libertarians, do a grave disservice to our nations’ core principals of free speech when they use it to defend the indefensible. In fact, I can usually gauge how indefensible a position is by the fact that the only argument in favour of it is “I have a right to say it.”

I am not questioning her legal right. I am only questioning the moral and ethical foundations, which guide it. Tiffany Schley knowingly and willfully engaged in an act of civil disobedience. Fine. But she should be made to understand that such a choice carries with it certain responsibilities and a certain level of personal accountability. This would be an appropriate lesson in civics Mr. Hentoff.