eViscera

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADVISORY -- the California wildfires

2007-10-25T22:29:00.000-07:00

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADVISORY -- the California wildfires
by Scott Jordan

Some quick googling results in an estimation of on the order of 10-12 tons of fuel per acre of chaparral such as that burning in California; see, for example, http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/rogue-siskiyou/biscuit-fire/feis/46-appendix-b1-fire-behavior-fuel-model-descriptions.pdf and http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rp486.pdf.

The latter link provides some nice measures of CO2 emissions when this stuff burns: around 3200 pounds of CO2 per ton, varying with burn intensity and so forth.

So when an acre burns, it produces on the order of 38,000 pounds of CO2.

About 500,000 acres of California have burned according to the latest news reports on http://news.google.com.

That means about 19,200,000,000 pounds of CO2 have been pumped into the atmosphere during these tragic conflagrations.

Now, a large SUV emits about 700 grams of CO2 per mile, per http://www.sacbee.com/107/v-print/story/427690.html --that's about 1.5 pounds. Driven a typical 12,000 miles per year, that's 18,000 pounds of CO2 annually.

So the CO2 emitted by the California fires is about the equivalent of roughly 1.1 millions large SUVs being driven for a year.

An important point is that that brush and chaparral has an annual life cycle that causes it to die off every year. The dead grass decomposes. That is, bacteria eat it, exhaling CO2, because that's what living things do. In fact, the amount of CO2 exhaled would be roughly commensurate.

So if we really wanted to be environmentally friendly and prevent global warming, we'd take all the burned areas, pave them, and drive SUVs around on them all the time.

This concludes your Environmental Protection advisory. Have a good day.

Back in action

2007-10-25T22:26:00.000-07:00

To celebrate the blossoming election cycle (and wotta show it is, wotta show), we're dusting-off eViscera and will resume regular posting. Well, more frequent posting, that much is for sure.

Got a post coming in a few minutes, in fact. Original content, too.

See you around.

--Scott

AmSpec Blog: War Warning Part 5, United Nations Security Council Plan

2006-05-09T19:23:00.000-07:00

...The Russian position is sophisticated. No one on the UNSC has better intelligence sources inside Iran, inside the Tehran regime, inside the IRGC and Council of Elders, than the Russian military... Russia needs Iran as a wedge between the Wahhabists in the Ummah and the oil-soaked Central Asian client states; also Russia knows that only Iran is capable of matching the connections the Wahhabists have with the Chechen martyrs...

Hm. There are clear parallels with the logic, circa 1991, that helped convince President George H.W. Bush to leave Saddam in place (as a counterweight, ironically, to Iran).

That didn't work out so well.

I'd advise the Russians to study not only recent history but the physical principle of unstable equilibrium. What it would tell you is that such a balancing act is deucedly difficult even when you're dealing with rational people motivated by rational philosophies, and that the slightest perturbation will send the whole mess toppling. Attempting to balance raving nutjobs like the Wahhabists vs. the crafty, hallucinatory Iranian Mahdists is like trying to build a house of cards, in a wind tunnel, during an earthquake, with... well, one card.

Mansfield: A Final Warning from the Islamist Rulers of Iran?

2006-05-09T12:43:00.000-07:00

In Mansfield's emailed newsletter, in commentary I don't find on her website, she notes:

===[begin Mansfield]

I suggest that everyone read this very carefully.

Quoting the letter from Amahdinejad:

-----

The holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on an followers of divine religions and says: [3.64] Say: O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught. With Him and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran).

Mr President, According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine prophets.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point - that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: "Do you not want to join them?"

-----

The gist is this: Iran's President has just officially invited the US to embrace Islam.

This is NOT good

====[end Mansfield]

Wow. "Not good" indeed.

That's an aspect of the letter that you will NOT find discussed in the mainstream media. I missed it completely myself. Yet it's obviously, blindingly evident. And very, very chilling, now that she has pointed it out.

See, inviting an enemy to embrace Islam is, traditionally, reserved as a last warning. For example:

"Ali Ibn Abi Talib encountered a man called 'Umru and told him, `I indeed invite you to Islam.' 'Umru said, `I do not need that.' 'Ali said, Then I call you to fight.' (This was the same policy Muhammad used with those who rejected his invitation.) 'Umru answered him, `What for my nephew? By God, I do not like to kill you.' `Ali said, `But, by God, I love to kill you"' (ibn Hisham, "The Biography of the Prophet", part 3, p. 113; see also Al Road Al Anf part 3, p. 263).

Have a nice day.

A Final Warning from the Islamist Rulers of Iran?
By Laura Mansfield
A Final Warning from the Islamist Rulers of Iran?

By Laura Mansfield

Was yesterday’s letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinezhab to US President George W. Bush a “last warning” of sorts?

That’s a possibility that must be considered in any analysis of the letter.

It is indisputable that Iran’s president has been openly hostile towards both the United States and Israel in recent months.

As word of the letter leaked out, the satire/humor website Scrappleface.com posted the following “translation” of the letter, which they said was written to “George Bush, president of the Great Satan, puppet of Zionists” from “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of peaceful Islamic Republic of Iran”.

Their five-point satire of the Scrappleface version of the letter was as follows:

===>

5. Wipe Israel off the face of the map. Replace with goat ranch.

4. U.S. buys Iranian oil. I make threatening statements causing uncertainty in petroleum markets. We use the windfall profits to pay Russia to help us make nuclear devices, and to pay China to stop U.N. sanctions. U.S. continues to buy Iranian oil.

3. Get U.N. to adopt ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy regarding uranium enrichment.

2. Put Zionists in boxcars. Send back to Europe. Replace Israel with goat ranch.

1. U.S. joins global Muslim Caliphate, ensuring peace and bountiful supplies of enriched uranium for all of Allah’s people.

<===

As it turned out, the reality wasn’t too far from the satire.

The letter was openly hostile and derisive of the US, claiming that the entire world has turned against America. Only minimal reference was made to the nuclear standoff, and no solutions were proposed, leading one of my colleagues to comment “looks like Iran has already adopted the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy regarding the crisis.

The 18 page document details Iran’s complaints against the United States, and rails against US policies both domestically and internationally.

Iran’s president describes the letter as the “words and opinions of the Iranian nation" to assist in finding "way out of problems" facing humanity.

If the letter is anywhere near what is being described by the US Administration, then analysts must question “What’s the point?”

Why create and deliver such a missive in the public eye when there is little chance that the document is going to make any changes in the policies of either country?

Islamic theology documents that no attack can be carried out in jihad without first offering the “unbelievers” the opportunity to “repent” and accept Islam. Only when that overture is rejected can an attack occur.

Al Qaeda has repeatedly issued warnings prior to attacks, although the warning are never specific enough for the West to recognize the exact target or timing of the attack. However, the warning is made.

The Qu’ran documents that Allah even is required to issue such warnings. The following three verses from the Qu’ran are representative of the many that do this.

Surah 50, ayat (verse) 14 of the Qu’ran says:

The Companions of the Wood, and the People of Tubba'; each one (of them) rejected the messengerss, and My warning was duly fulfilled (in them).

Surah 41, ayat (verse) 13 of the Qu’ran says:

If they turn away, then say, "I am warning you of a disaster like the disaster that annihilated `Aad and Thamoud."

Surah 41, ayat (verse) 17 of the Qu’ran says:

As for Thamoud, we provided them with guidance, but they preferred blindness over guidance. Consequently, the disastrous and shameful retribution annihilated them, because of what they earned.

The question must be asked: Is this letter to the Bush Administration from Iran a “final warning” to the United States?

With the internationally accepted belief that the Islamist rulers of Iran and their Al Qaeda partners in terror either already have or are on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, it is imperative that we answer that question.

===

May 9, 2006: Complete text of letter from Iran's President to US President Bush

Mr George Bush, President of the United States of America

For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, specially in political forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God,

Feel obliged to respect human rights,

Present liberalism as a civilization model,

Announce one’s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs,

Make “War and Terror” his slogan,

And finally, Work towards the establishment of a unified international community – a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern,

But at the same time, Have countries attacked; The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the … of a … criminals in a village city, or convoy for example the entire village, city or convey set ablaze.

Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women – as occupation troops – put in harms way, taken away from family and love ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide ant those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of aliments; while some are killed and their bodies handed of their families.

On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with.

Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal, nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the … war on Iran Saddam was supported by the West.

Mr President, You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can theses actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness.

There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.

European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.

Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.

Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times. Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did no exist. The show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?

Mr President, I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established:

- Many thousands were killed in the process.

- Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.

- Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now.

A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory.

Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported?

Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values?

Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands – inside and outside Palestine – whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum?

The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observes have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognise the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.

If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also saying “why are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?”

Mr President, As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them -- many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They dot not have faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies.

It is not my intention to pose to many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well.

Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations.

You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilised for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed.

Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.

Mr President, Don’t Latin Americans have the right to ask, why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear?

The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don’t they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth – including minerals – is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others? Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?

The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d’etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting, the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborates this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating their country’s progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

Mr President, September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.

All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens.

Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems – and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?

All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbours of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people – who had been immensely traumatised by the attacks – some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity – some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?

American citizen lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?

Some believe that the hype paved the way – and was the justification – for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media.

In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly – for the public to, finally, believe – and the ground set for an attack on Iraq.

Will the truth not be lost in a contrive and deceptive climate?

Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values?

Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?

Mr President, In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them.

The question here is “what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?”

As your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty.

Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist – to a larger or lesser extent – in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign – paid from the public treasury – be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?

What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region and in your country. But my main contention – which I am hoping you will agree to some of it – is:

Those in power have specific time in office, and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures.

The people will scrutinize our presidencies.

Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment?

Did we intend to establish justice, or just supported especial interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful – thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs’?

Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them?

Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them?

Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats?

Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it?

Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors?

Did our administration set out to promote rational behaviour, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns.

Intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people’s rights?

And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office – to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets – or not?

Mr President, How much longer can the world tolerate this situation?

Where will this trend lead the world to?

How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers?

How much longer will the specter of insecurity – raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction – hunt the people of the world?

How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people’s houses destroyed over their heads?

Are you pleased with the current condition of the world?

Do you think present policies can continue?

If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states and distinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts were would the world be today? Would not your government, and people be justifiably proud?

Would not your administration’s political and economic standing have been stronger?

And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American governments?

Mr President, it is not my intention to distress anyone.

If prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they have judged such behaviour? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be present? Will they even accept us?

My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Moslems and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect on word and that is “monotheism” or belief in a single God and no other in the world.

The holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on an followers of divine religions and says: [3.64] Say: O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught. With Him and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran).

Mr President, According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine prophets.

“To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases.” “The Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds.”

“The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court” “planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins”. “He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors”. “He is the Compassionate, the Merciful”. “He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them towards the light from darkness”. “He is witness to the actions of His servants”,

“He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast”. “Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds.” “A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants”. And “A good and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves.”

We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvations. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH), and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.

We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well; [19,36] And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serves Him; this is the right path, Marium.

Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers.

The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to Humans.

We again read in the Holy Book: “The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purity them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious.”

All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well. Divine prophets have promised:

The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Haven and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly effected by our actions.

All prophets, speak of peace and tranquillity for man – based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity.

Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world – that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets – and improve our performance?

Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice?

Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected?

Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?

Mr President, History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted

The fate of man to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.

Can one deny the signs of change in the world today?

Is this situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace.

The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the wolrd feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept dubious policies.

The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries.

The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.

The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion.

The people of the world have no faith in international organisations, because their rights are not advocated by these organisations.

Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point – that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: “Do you not want to join them?”

Mr President, Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.

Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda
Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Veering From Bush, Frist Backs Funding for Stem Cell Research - New York Times

2005-08-01T13:24:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON, July 29 - In a break with President Bush, the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, has decided to support a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, a move that could push it closer to passage and force a confrontation with the White House, which is threatening to veto the measure.

Senator Bill Frist, explaining his stem-cell decision, said, 'It's not just a matter of faith, it's a matter of science.'

Unlike many of my fellow pro-lifers, I welcome Frist's gambit. And here's why: this is, I believe, the most fruitful gambit for reducing abortions in America.

See, the pro-life/pro-abort dialog comes down to two fundamentals: (1) The right of the genetically-distinct human under discussion to live, vs. the mother's right to do what she wants to "her body"; and (2) the question of when the genetically-distinct human under discussion actually becomes human, meaning its termination becomes homicide.

The second of those two fundamentals is the pivot of it all. Ignoring the gruesome and horrifyingly legal practice of partial-birth abortion for the moment, most reasonable folks would agree that the line-in-the sand certainly falls at or before cognition, awareness, and ability to suffer pain. And to date, that argument boils down to faith: on the pro-life side we have folks believing humanity exists from the moment sperm meets egg; on the pro-abort side we have folks claiming humanity is established only after birth (or, in the case of Barbara Boxer or Peter Singer, days or even weeks after).

What's needed--and I believe what's achievable--is agreement that if science can prove "humanity" is achieved at or before such-and-such a point in gestation, then elective abortion after that date is homicide. After all, one of the grand purposes of law is to protect the weakest among us from the thundering herd.

And this is, indeed, a job for the Federal Government. We don't leave it to the States to define what a person is; that is a Constitutional principle, and few today take issue with the definition of person as amended. So it is within bounds for the Federal government to take on the issue of where personhood begins, and science--as Frist may be attempting to establish here--is the way to do it. I'm also confident that the line-in-the-sand will move back in the gestation as scientific and medical methods improve, just as viability has.

Abortion isn't going to go away overnight, not with about half of all pregnancies ending in termination in some areas of America. What we can do is reverse the tide, by using science to legally establish the humanity of its victims.

Pelosi: For Whom The Kelo Tolls?

2005-07-05T09:48:00.000-07:00

The American Spectator: Nullification Nancy
By The Prowler
Published 7/5/2005 12:09:06 AM

House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi is known amongst even her Democratic colleagues as one of the less cerebral members of the House. But even her staff was stunned by her seeming inability to understand the recent Kelo Supreme Court ruling regarding governmental property seizures...

When asked about Kelo and its implications, as well as moves afoot by some Republicans in both houses to negate the ruling, perhaps by barring use of federal funds on projects that involved the state or local taking of land, Pelosi responded thusly:

"It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision."

Later, she insisted: "Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression..."

Left unsaid is that Pelosi and her husband--together worth many many millions, with ownership in hotels, vineyards and downtown San Francisco real estate--are precisely the kind of persons who benefit from Kelo.

Unlike the Left, I have a hard time labeling opposing politicians as stupid, especially those with Pelosi's accomplishments. Reagan, Sonny Bono, both Bushes, Quayle... there have been too many worthy folks on the Right tarred with this puerile brush, and most were, in the end, quite brilliant individuals. So I'm not about to start that with Pelosi.

But I'm happy to toss a rude spotlight on how Pelosi stands to benefit from Kelo as a downtown developer type. This, more than any conjecture of idiocy, best explains her halting and incoherent response to Kelo, which included not a molecule of empathy for the "little people".

Pelosi, indeed, is the prototypical limousine liberal. If there is a silver lining to the horrifying Kelo decision, it's how it's leaving the massahs of the Left exposed in their hypocrisy.

New! Improved! Asset Forfeiture for Everyone

2005-06-24T03:38:00.000-07:00

Scott Jordan

It's been grimly entertaining, over the years, watching the Supreme Court proceed tick tick tick down the Bill of Rights, negating one allegedly unalienable right after the other, while monotonically ratcheting-up the powers of the central government.

For example, with Asset Forfeiture legislation in 1984, the Fourth Amendment was shredded as the Feds were given power to seize property on suspicion (yes, suspicion) of a crime, or even if you just have "too much" cash on you when a cop decides to check you out. The Supremes nodded; this is now a major revenue-generation mechanism for the insatiable maw of the Federal Government [1].

Recently the Supremes cheerfully approved the gutting of the First Amendment by approving the worst provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" bill, after President Bush naively signed the evil thing saying there'd be no way it would pass court muster... but obviously no exercise in statism is too distasteful for this Court.

Just a couple weeks ago they tossed much of what remained of the Fourth and large parts of the Ninth and Tenth by finding that desperate cancer patients who grow their own nausea-limiting marijuana are somehow engaged in interstate commerce. And so Federal power over the individual ratcheted up once more.

And certainly the Second was eviscerated years ago, while increasingly unhinged interpretations of the Commerce Clause have been repeatedly leveraged over the decades to inflate Federal powers into an ever-grosser distortion of the federation of sovereign states that was meant to be. And so on and so forth, tick tick tick over the years, accelerating in the past two decades and at a fever pitch now.

And so, with this decision, goes what was left of the Takings Clause and more hunks of the Fourth. Call it Asset Forfeiture for Everyone.

As usual, the beautifully-written and meticulously sourced dissent of Clarence Thomas--typically the most Constitutionally-grounded of the Justices--is well worth reading [2]. No wonder the Left hates this guy so much. As with all conservatives, they attempt to diminish and dismiss him as stupid, even illiterate [3]. Read that dissent and see if you agree. Is there any wonder that that odious coward Sen. Ted Kennedy went on record just a few days ago [4] saying he "rules out" Thomas as Chief Justice when Rehnquist steps down?

My only hope (and, quite possibly, the country's only hope) is that the Court's stark left-vs-right divide--combined the sheer audacity of this decision which illuminates it, and the horror that the issue even made it as far as the Supremes--will hit enough people hard enough that they come to realize what is at stake... and where the fault truly lies. After all, it was Hillary Clinton who said, almost exactly a year ago, in the heat of a national election campaign: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." [5]. Indeed, it's started.

--------------------

Notes:

1. http://www.usdoj.gov/marshals/assets/assets.html

2. http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD1.html

3. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/05/judges.reid.frist/

4. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/commentary.html

5. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/28/politics2039EDT0165.DTL&type=printable

Blair seeks to limit damage as MG Rover goes under

2005-04-15T09:39:00.000-07:00

LONGBRIDGE (Reuters) - The government said it would offer a support package for workers at collapsed carmaker MG Rover, seeking to limit the damage from up to 5,000 job losses as it seeks re-election.

Administrators said on Friday there was no hope of selling the last major British carmaker whole and 5,000 workers would be made redundant immediately, dealing a blow to Blair's ruling Labour Party.

Administrators PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), appointed last week after a rescue deal with China's Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp (SAIC) collapsed, said it would 'mothball' the MG Rover plant over the next two months, effectively locking it up until buyers can be found for its assets."

[snip]

If Blair really"seeks to limit damage", he should get up on his podium, clear his throat, and say "This is what happens when a company is uncompetitive, unresponsive and basically makes crap. The job losses are unfortunate, but this is a lesson to other complacent companies who are not listening to their customers or minding their competition. If others learn from this once-proud company's pain, its passing will have been a good thing overall. That is the essence of the free market, which is the true engine of prosperity. I hope other companies such as General Motors are taking close notes."

But of course, as Vice President of Socialist International, I would not expect Blair to say anything of the sort.

First Take-off Of Airbus A380 Due in 8 Days

2005-04-12T04:00:00.000-07:00

8 days are left until one of the most spectacular first flights of avionic history is scheduled. The Airbus A380, the only commercial airplane with an end-to-end double deck, will take off on the 20th of April for the first time.
Only the weather or problems in previous ground test can cause a delay. If all conditions are met, former Mirage jet pilot and chief-test pilot Jacques Rosay (49) can give full throttle on the runway of the Airbus production plant in Toulouse, France, to take off at a speed of 300 km/h.
The highest risk during the flight are expected to be vibrations of the wings, which will be filled with 310000 litres of kerosene, as well as vibrations of the tail section.
[snip]

[snork]

I bet.

Paul Krugman is a One-Man Circle-Jerk

2005-04-05T10:29:00.000-07:00

An Academic Question
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: April 5, 2005

It's a fact, documented by two recent studies, that registered Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives make up only a small minority of professors at elite universities. But what should we conclude from that?

Conservatives see it as compelling evidence of liberal bias in university hiring and promotion. And they say that new 'academic freedom' laws will simply mitigate the effects of that bias, promoting a diversity of views. But a closer look both at the universities and at the motives of those who would police them suggests a quite different story.

[snip]

One answer is self-selection - the same sort of self-selection that leads Republicans to outnumber Democrats four to one in the military. The sort of person who prefers an academic career to the private sector is likely to be somewhat more liberal than average, even in engineering.

But there's also, crucially, a values issue. In the 1970's, even Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan conceded that the Republican Party was the "party of ideas." Today, even Republicans like Representative Chris Shays concede that it has become the "party of theocracy."

[snip]

Scientific American may think that evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, but President Bush declares that "the jury is still out." Senator James Inhofe dismisses the vast body of research supporting the scientific consensus on climate change as a "gigantic hoax." And conservative pundits like George Will write approvingly about Michael Crichton's anti-environmentalist fantasies.

[snip]

Conservatives should be worried by the alienation of the universities; they should at least wonder if some of the fault lies not in the professors, but in themselves. Instead, they're seeking a Lysenkoist solution that would have politics determine courses' content.

And it wouldn't just be a matter of demanding that historians play down the role of slavery in early America, or that economists give the macroeconomic theories of Friedrich Hayek as much respect as those of John Maynard Keynes. Soon, biology professors who don't give creationism equal time with evolution and geology professors who dismiss the view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old might face lawsuits.

If it got that far, universities would probably find ways to cope - by, say, requiring that all entering students sign waivers. But political pressure will nonetheless have a chilling effect on scholarship. And that, of course, is its purpose.

Oh, man, this guy makes my head hurt.

First, in a spasm of oratorical onanism, he flatters himself by implying that academics, through a process of intellectual self-selection, today represent some sort of awesome-brained uber-species of hominid, much as knuckle-dragging Republicans have grunted and scratched their way into populating the ranks of the brutish military. Well, if one accepts this basic thesis, then perhaps Krugman stands as testimony to the dangers of inbreeding, for Mr. Enron Advisor stands prominently as perhaps the economist most associated with the longest and broadest train-wreck of a professional record. Where else could the likes of Krugman achieve gainful employment than in academia, where accountability is too often a foreign concept? Are this guy and the New York Times a match or what?

Then he delves into "values", citing no less than charter RINO Chris Shays in indicting the Republican Party as no longer a "party of ideas". Okay, Paul, in your own words or less, name some essential Democrat ideas of the past decade:

...waiting...

...waiting...

Aw, hell, let me help: there aren't any. Higher taxes, more dependency and a bigger nanny-state pretty much round out an idea-free agenda anchored on infanticide, buggery, dictator-licking and obstructionism for that faded Party, when they aren't claiming credit for Republican initiatives like welfare reform, that is.

Then, rapid-fire, he starts in with a lefty Clif's Notes version of claimed Republican pseudoscience. These, like his economics and his Enron advice, he gets rather wrong. Sure, Bush says the jury is still out on "evolution", because it is, especially regarding certain of the more ambitious aspects of the theory: One doesn't have to be a Young Earther to have difficulties with the many hoaxes that have crept into the fossil record, and one needn't be a fundamentalist to see striking parallels between Genesis and the Big Bang theory. Meanwhile, Inhofe and Crichton et fils don't necessarily deride the "vast body of research" supporting the "scientific consensus" on "climate change"... rather, they'll point out that the first two are not as monolithic as Krugman holds (and I note his expertise in atmospheric physics approaches that of his Enronomics), but mostly Inhofe and Crichton et fils focus their debunking not so much on "climate change" as on the Left's leap to judgment of human activity (and especially American activity) at its root.

And nice touch, Paul, in aligning Keynes vs. Hayek with "scientific consensus on climate change" vs. loony wild-eyed fundamentalist creationists. Did you counsel Enron on subtlety too?

Meanwhile, if any reader wants to see a "chilling effect on scholarship," try admitting you're a Republican on any major campus today.

Al Gore and Joel Hyatt Unveil Current ...

2005-04-04T12:11:00.000-07:00

Set to Launch August 1, Independent Venture Will Be First National Television Network Created For, By and With an 18-34 Year-Old Audience; Google Zeitgeist Data Used to Produce News Feature, 'Google Current'

SAN FRANCISCO, April 4 /PRNewswire/ -- Offering a glimpse of the independent network first announced at last year's National Cable & Telecommunications Association convention, former Vice President Al Gore and entrepreneur Joel Hyatt, joined by executives and on-air talent, revealed this morning that the name of the new venture, formerly known as INdTV, will be Current.

[snip]

The first national network created by, for and with an 18-34 year-old audience, Current will offer 24 hours of programming in a unique, short-form content format when it premieres August 1.

[snip]

'The Internet opened a floodgate for young people whose passions are finally being heard, but TV hasn't followed suit.' "The Internet opened a floodgate for young people whose passions are finally being heard, but TV hasn't followed suit. Young adults have a powerful voice, but you can't hear that voice on television ... yet," said Gore, who serves as the network's chairman of the board.

[snip]

Promising a slate of programming that's smart, fun and fearless (as a truly independent network), Current seeks to cater to the Internet generation's need for choice and control.

[snip]

Taking its cues from their media consumption habits, Current will offer short-form programming in the TV equivalent of an iPod shuffle. Its "pods" will be 15-second to five-minute segments...

[snip]

[Sigh.]

Where to start.

First, I can think of no Chairman of the Board less qualified to head a network than Al Gore.

Nor can I think of a Chairman of the Board less qualified to lead an endeavor with ambitions of being "smart," "fun," "fearless" or "independent" than Al Gore.

Nor can I think of a social trend more chilling than a generation incapable of being entertained in more than "15-second-to-five-minute segments".

But my expectation, frankly, is that this will flop. There's no doubt in my mind that the elevator pitch for this venture was "Get this: Sesame Street for twentysomethings. Teevee like an Ipod. How ssswingin' is that?" My bet: the condescension inherent in its premise will be a huge turnoff, as will be the whole notion of the bloated, pasty has-been that is Al Gore getting' jiggy with the youngsters.

Chiaroscuro -- Sandy Berger and The Pope

2005-04-03T12:29:00.000-07:00

---
Chiaroscuro: In painting, the use of strong contrasts between light and dark.
---

Few weeks in history are rendered in such strong contrasts between light and dark than the one just past. For few personalities contrast as vividly as two pivotal characters who swept across our view this week: one who exited our sight with regrettable finality and the other who did so with regrettable fleetingness.

It is painful to see two men as representative of their era’s light and dark as Karol Józef Wojtya and Samuel R. Berger sharing the same page. Through his works and through his spiritual leadership, Wojtya stands with the giants of all millennia. One of the two most consequential world leaders of the past half-century, Pope John Paul II grew from a witness to the horrors of National Socialism to play an essential role in the conquering of Marxist tyranny throughout Europe. His brave pilgrimage to Poland in 1979 exposed the corroded scaffolding of Soviet communism, rocking the evil empire off-balance for the first time and making it vulnerable to the perceptive Ronald Reagan’s timely application of sheer muscle to topple it. Never before have so many millions been freed of such awful oppression; since then, only in the past three year’s successive liberations have we seen anything approaching that dawning of freedom, in a process more arduous than the catalytic and cataclysmic collapse of the Soviet Union somehow seems in retrospect. Yet a full decade passed between The Pope’s epic journey in 1979 to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The Soviets recognized his essentialness early on, ordering his assassination in 1981. His steadfastness--rooted as it was in bedrock principles, another trait he shared with Reagan--served the world well during this era of unparalleled turbulence and danger.

Karol Wojtya changed the world.

It remains to be seen if the world will remain changed, if we are up to the task of keeping the forces of darkness at bay. Communism is on the march in South America; Russia is sliding back to totalitarianism; and by the classical Gramscian script of freeing law “from every remnant of transcendence and absoluteness, practically from all moralist fanaticism”, Europe finds itself sinking again into collectivism and depression like a mammoth in a tar-pit. Truly Europe is off-balance today, and perhaps the forceful vector of radical Islamism is poised to rend it from its foundations in the next decade if amorality and creeping Marxism don’t do it first.

In that way, Sandy Berger’s accomplishments appear more permanent than Karol Wojtya’s. The former National Security Advisor’s record paints him as either fantastically inept or grimly malfeasant. Which interpretation one accepts depends on one’s optimism regarding human nature ...or one’s blindness. Certainly Berger’s election-year admissions that he had "accidentally" taken and “inadvertently misplaced” revealing mark-up drafts of top-secret antiterrorism documents from the National Archives play to a benign image of a rumpled, scatterbrained intellectual. However, this week’s revelations paint a different picture:

His previous excuses, both before and after his exit as John Kerry’s top national security advisor, were, he now admits, bald lies.
Actually, he had purposefully purloined those troublesome drafts, with their
damning handwritten commentary from himself and possibly both Clintons, Al Gore,
Jamie Gorelick, Louis Freeh, John Deutsch, Janet Reno et al.
And rather than “inadvertently misplacing” the mark-ups, he’d meticulously cut them to small pieces with scissors in his office late at night.

These admissions endorse the more jaundiced view of Berger’s character. Unfortunately it is one which meshes with a thesis of malfeasance supported by his record.

No less than former FBI Director Louis Freeh subscribed to the harmless rumpled-intellectual image of Berger, dismissing him as merely “a public-relations hack”. This grossly understates Berger’s effectiveness at abetting the enemies of freedom. Berger entered his role as NSA as a successful lobbyist for Communist Chinese interests. He presided as top national-security cop in an Administration which accepted campaign contributions from China and funneled key defense technology back to China, and which instituted legal firewalls to prevent intelligence agencies from detecting such treason. Meanwhile, Berger “seemed to work overtime at opposing tough measures against terror” per top Administration pollster Dick Morris [8], arranging vetoes of efforts to cripple Iranian terror funding and working to block antiterror sanctions. Alarmingly, Berger personally allowed bloodthirsty global jihad to flower by repeatedly rebuffing Sudanese offers to hand Osama bin Laden to the United States in a deal brokered by a major contributor to Democrat campaigns. Then Berger allowed bin Laden and his top lieutenants to escape to Afghanistan and roadblocked opportunities to eliminate them [US News & World Report, Paul Bedard, 15 Mar 2003]. Berger was even singled-out by former UN Inspector Scott Ritter for the collapse of UN inspections efforts in Iraq.

Sandy Berger changed the world, too.

It is our great loss that Karol Wojtya has passed from the stage. His steadfast leadership and adherence to timeless principle will be sorely missed. He was truly a force for change, of the good kind.

By contrast, Sandy Berger is still with us, his plea-bargained deal amounting to pocket change for a man of his wealth, and his temporary loss of security clearance ensures he will be a force for his brand of change again in the 2008 election cycle.

Inconvenient questions...

2005-03-22T23:41:00.000-08:00

From 30,000 ft, some inconvenient questions I've heard asked... or asked myself:

Stephen Hawking

Total gomer, hopeless, doomed to get worse, can't survive without extraordinary intervention, icky. Let him die with dignity! Withhold food and water! Dignity uber alles!

Partial Birth Abortion

"Fetus" lacks personhood. Dependent; parasitic even. Go ahead, poke a hole into its skull, suck its brains out and dismember it. What could possibly be "bad" about that? It's a choice, after all. Or would it be better--more humane, more natural--to lay it on a table and withhold food and water until it stops twitching and wailing? Should hospitals be equipped with soundproof drawers for such purpose?

Withholding food and water

Merely facilitates the natural course of death. But why not tie a dry-cleaner bag over their head? How is "withholding" air any different? Or, I've heard of drowning kittens in a cage... isn't that the same thing?

If it's humane and natural, why not use it as a means for judicial execution, or for hopelessly ill or injured animals?

Why not extend the practice to the severely mentally retarded? There is no cure for Down Syndrome, after all. No hope whatsoever. These people (excuse me, "people") can't reason or provide for themselves. Withhold food and water-- end of problem, for them and for us!

What about hopelessly ill or unwanted children? Being children, they lack reasoning capability or the ability to make mature decisions. Granted, they "interact" at a simplistic level; for example, a baby might smile when you tickle it, or cry when you pinch it, but these are clearly just mindless reflexes and not indicative of higher cortical function. Shouldn't their guardians have the right to make critical decisions for them? If they judge a child to be hopeless or unwanted, shouldn't food and water be withheld? What right does the state have to interfere?

Peter Singer, the eminent Princeton ethicist, says that a woman's right to choose should extend for 28 days after birth or even longer. Senator Barbara Boxer has said a week would certainly make sense. Are they correct? If so, is withholding food and water a humane and natural way of expressing this choice?

I read of a woman, a self-described dog-lover, who would regularly take her dogs in to be euthanized on their fifth birthday so that they wouldn't grow old and suffer a decline from their prime. Was she right? Instead of euthanasia by injection, what about withholding food and water?

...I'm just trying to figure out where the lines are drawn...

What made another Airbus rudder snap in mid-air?

2005-03-14T08:56:00.000-08:00

When Flight 961 literally began to fall apart at 35,000 feet, it increased fears of a fatal design flaw in the world's most popular passenger jet

At 35,000 feet above the Caribbean, Air Transat flight 961 was heading home to Quebec with 270 passengers and crew. At 3.45 pm last Sunday, the pilot noticed something very unusual. His Airbus A310's rudder - a structure 28 feet high - had fallen off and tumbled into the sea. In the world of aviation, the shock waves have yet to subside...

As Billy Beck blogged,

I really very much don't like the look of this.

You know what else I don't like? The fact that this story was a week old before I heard it.

What the hell's up with that?

...Allow me a little speculation here. What might be up with that could be hinted-at in the Guardian article's subhead, italicized above. See, the commercial aviation market is still gasping on the mat after 9/11 compounded three decades of mismanagement and union avarice. And in the middle of those decades, at the precise moment the dollar/euro exchange rate was at its most cantilevered, came Airbus with free money and cheap, heavily-subsidized airplanes. Voila, as that subhead alludes: "the world's most popular passenger jet".

So along comes 9/11, then hot on its heels comes AA587: The tail falls off; the engines fall off; even the little "Made in France" sticker falls off, and people die. Continuing with my speculation: given that it would've finished air transportation right off to ground the Airbus, the twitchy-footed pilot was made a convenient scapegoat by the accident review board; meanwhile a program of visual inspection of the planes' composite tailfins was quietly mandated.

Trouble is, visual inspection doesn't tell you much about the health of a composite structure. Only costly and frequent ultrasonic, vibrometric or holographic inspection of the detached panels would do that... sometimes. To my eye, the situation is compounded by Airbus' design decision not to use metal structural spars in the panels to distribute shear forces through the composite structure. So when these panels failed, they broke cleanly away from their unreinforced attachment grommets: compare photos of the consistent damage in this latest airplane's fractured tail with the postmortem pictures of AA587's carcass.

What we might be looking at is the chilling leading-edge of a hockey-stick trend of structural failure in Airbus' composite tails. Scary stuff indeed. And scariest of all, if so: how many more hundreds of souls must perish before regulators ground the Airbus? And what happens to commercial aviation and the economy when they do?

Slate: The Hassle Factor - But I don't want to manage my own Social Security account!

2005-03-05T19:14:00.000-08:00

Now here's something truly disgusting. Executive summary: according to this Slate pundit, we should leave alone the creaking, crumbling Ponzi scheme known as Social Security, forcing generation after generation to toss an ever-expanding share of its wages down the rat-hole of collectivism, leaving bupkes for their children to inherit and earning a rate of return that would get any financial manager fired for incompetence or arrested for fraud. And we should do this because the alternative--actual ownership of one's own retirement account--is too much work for some people. Let alone that there are simple passbook-style accounts that would do the job for them and still earn a substantial multiple of Social Security's returns and leave a tidy sum to pass on to one's heirs-- no, you and I and everyone else should be forced to endure the current system because a few people are lame and lazy and want a Federal nanny to tuck them in at night.

"...Millions of Americans, I'm convinced, are against [Bush's Social Security reform proposals] for only [one] reason. We don't want to have to think about Social Security. 'But people worry about it now,' you might say. Oh, sure, at these presidential drop-in discussions in Fargo, N.D., a cop or cook will say, 'I worry Social Security won't be there for me.' But come on, they don't really worry. If they did, they'd open a damned savings account.

In real life, we ignore our Social Security. That's the glory of it. We have the freedom not to think about it. With all the time I have not to think about my 'private' account, I can turn on the Cubs game. Or open up Kafka.

I can even pray, if I want.

Privatization is one more damn thing to distract and upset me..."

The answer to this infuriating mental midgetry is so simple I'm surprised no conservative or libertarian pundits have picked up on it. I've already mentioned it: under Social Security, when you die your Social Security account dies with you. Your kids inherit nothing. And there's the key to selling Bush's reform: Let's do it for the children. Won't somebody please think of the children?

Winston-Salem Journal | Senator wants cable, satellite TV subject to indecency rules

2005-03-02T11:30:00.000-08:00

"...Viewers do not differentiate between traditional TV and cable, so they do not know when they might be exposed to objectionable programming... In this country, there has to be some standards of decency..."

In other words, people are too stupid to operate their own TV remote-control and need the Federal nanny-state to do it for them.

And, notice that the theory no longer goes to ensuring the orderly use of finite spectrum, but to protecting viewers from objectionable content on systems which have no spectral limitations. There is zero Constitutional authority granted for such purposes!

I'm embarrassed this guy's a Republican. Once the GOP was the party of limited government...

OpinionJournal.com: A Political Case for Social Security Reform

2005-02-22T10:28:00.000-08:00

Individual accounts would protect retirees from the government interference.
BY GARY BECKER
Monday, February 21, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

Republicans and Democrats are arguing passionately about the future of Social Security, and the argument, at its core, is about privatization. It is true, as some critics observe, that there is no magical gain in privatizing Social Security, since all systems have to provide incomes for retired persons. By that token, however, there's no gain in privatizing a government steel plant either, since steel still has to be produced, too. Yet there are very good reasons--with roots in political economy--to privatize steel. And as with steel (and the like), there are excellent reasons for a privatized individual-account Social Security system... the really strong arguments for privatization are that they reduce the role of government in determining retirement ages and incomes, and improve government accounting of revenues and spending obligations. All the other issues are really diversions, because neither advocates nor opponents of privatizing Social Security generally answer the most meaningful question: Is there as strong a political economy case for eliminating government management of the retirement industry as there is for eliminating its management of most other industries? My answer is "yes."

Nobelist Becker knows a thing or two about economics, but he and most other pundits are missing the blinkingly obvious reason why Social Security privitization is being opposed by the Gimme Generation and its bought-and-paid-for politicians.

Think about it: to whom does Social Security income matter most? Answer: To those for whom the measly monthly stipend represents most or all of their retirement income. These are people who by definition have failed to adequately save for retirement on their own. Is it any surprise they fear a system that puts matters into their own hands, even incrementally, even with cautious phase-in that exempts those dependent on the current system, even with redundant safety-nets to catch the unlucky or ill-prepared, and even with spectacularly successful examples from Galveston County to Peru?

Unfortunately it seems that the naysaying chorus of grabby grayhairs is being joined by younger folks, descendants of several generations of increasing (and increasingly reflexive) governmental dependency, and willfully blind to the economic facts of our national Ponzi scheme and its failed brethren abroad. Social Security reform will still happen eventually here--the current system is utterly unsustainable--but my hopes dim that we will see the first baby-steps towards an "ownership society" anytime soon.

Uh-oh: Economist.com | Germany's jobless

2005-02-03T09:39:00.000-08:00

[snip]
Some economic numbers are as resonant as they are significant. One such figure was announced on Wednesday February 2nd by Germany's Federal Labour Agency. More than 5m Germans were unemployed last month, the agency revealed, the most since 1932, when the economic devastation of the Great Depression brought the Weimar Republic to an unhappy end.
[snip]

Gotta love that British knack for understatement.

Doug had a vision:

WANTED: Uneducated whacko with funny mustache and hypnotic stare. Must be a commanding public speaker and very patriotic.

POSITION: Head of one of the most civilized and technically advanced countries in Europe.

Candidate with good motivational skills could easily progress to command of the whole EU within five years.

...The Brits may have understatement, but we Yanks have black humor down cold.

Down syndrome youth used as suicide bomber: TheAge.com

2005-02-01T22:33:00.000-08:00

Amar was 19, but he had the mind of a four-year-old. This handicap didn't stop the insurgency's hard men as they strapped explosives to his chest and guided him to a voting centre in suburban Al-Askan.

...And that's what we're up against.

Ali Ibn Abi Talib encountered a man called 'Umru and told him, "I indeed invite you to Islam." 'Umru said, "I do not need that." Ali said, "Then I call you to fight." (This was the same policy Muhammad used with those who rejected his invitation.) 'Umru answered him, "What for my nephew? By God, I do not like to kill you." Ali said, "But, by God, I love to kill you."
--ibn Hisham, "The Biography of the Prophet", part 3, p. 113; see also Al Road Al Anf part 3, p. 263.

They're coming for you, 'Umru.

Statement of Bill Wood, Charlotte, North Carolina

2005-02-01T21:54:00.000-08:00

"Gramsci wrote, 'The conception of law will have to be freed from every remnant of transcendence and absoluteness, practically from all moralist fanaticism.'..."

Click that link above right now. It's a remarkable read, and that gem he unearthed, glittering in the block-quote above, is just one of many.

And, yup:

The Sunday Telegraph

No job no excuse for turning down sex work
By Clare Chapman in Berlin and John Garnaut

January 31, 2005

[snip]

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services" at a brothel in Berlin faces cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany two years ago and brothel owners - who must pay tax and employee health insurance - were granted access to official databases of job seekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe. She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile" and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did she realise she was calling a brothel.

Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month, to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest level since reunification in 1990.

The Government considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars.

"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the sex industry," said Merchthild Garweg, a lawyer from Hamburg who specialises in such cases. "The new regulations say that working in the sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to benefits."

[snip]

"What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?"

2005-02-01T08:56:00.000-08:00

Well here's something that greatly comforts me.

I've been waiting days now for something from some leftist that has nice things to say about the dawning of democracy in Iraq.

Something from some leftist about how maybe the war was about more than a treasure-hunt for WMDs.

Something from some leftist that might touch on the host of reasons that forced us into war with a megalomaniacal dictator who credibly threatened us and our allies and his own people, and who acted on those threats on more than one occasion.

Something from some leftist that might reflect on the flip-flopping disingenuousness of the sainted Scott Ritter, who (hat tip to Tim Blair) in 1999 warned:

I have grown convinced that there has been a total breakdown in the willingness of the international community to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein is well on the road to getting his sanctions lifted and keeping his weapons in the bargain. A resurgent Iraq, reinvigorated economically and politically by standing up successfully to the United States and the United Nations, will be a very dangerous Iraq-one that sooner or later will have to be confronted by American military might.

(...I guess that was before Ritter was paid $400,000 to film a pro-Saddam movie by an Iraqi-American supporter of Saddam Hussein, Shakir al-Khafaji...)

Something from some leftist that didn't aid and comfort the enemy.

Something from some leftist that didn't sound like their hearts were breaking at the prospect of an American-style constitutional republic taking root in Iraq, despite the success of exactly that outcome in venues as diverse as Germany and Japan.

Something from some leftist that wasn't, at its root, a sneer.

Something from some leftist that rejoices in the truly good news at the core of the Iraq election-- news which by itself, by merely happening, shakes the Middle East to the enduring benefit of mankind.

Something from some leftist that rejoices in the blunt fact that the citizenry of Iraq defied saber-rattling from bloodthirsty islamist head-hackers and voted in numbers that simply stagger.

Something from some leftist that welcomed the Maalox Moments suddenly afflicting dictators, jihadis and theocrats throughout the region. This democracy thing can be catching, you see.

Something from some leftist that reflects awe that from the ashes of 9/11 arose profound moments of hope: first in Afghanistan, now in Iraq.

Something from some leftist that celebrates the end of enslavement for millions, including the burkha'd women who bravely trudged to the polls.

Something from some leftist that acknowledges this scintillating validation of the Bush Doctrine.

Something from some leftist that reflects on the wisdom of addressing the root causes of islamist terrorism, rather than lobbing the occasional cruise missile at an empty tent when headlines grow inconvenient.

Something from some leftist that acknowledges the necessity of ending terror-supporting regimes just as an oncologist strives to obliterate the blood supply to a metastasizing tumor.

Something from some leftist that revels in the proof that we--and the principles of liberty--can not only prevail in those allegedly inviolate Afghan mountains, but against the megalomaniac likes of Saddam, and against an urban insurgency.

Something from some leftist that grants that Iraq is the global Roach Motel for terrorists, and that they are losing.

Something from some leftist that admits that the modern art of terror upshifted with each and every display of appeasement, avoidance and weakness from the likes of Carter and Clinton, and that those days are over.

Something from some leftist that approves of how jihadis now must fear and respect America's newfound spine... and muscle.

Something from some leftist that celebrates a country no longer blithely unaware of the mounting threat, slumbering in a gauzy dreamworld woven over a decade of its leaders' conceits and malfeasance.

Something from some leftist that expresses gratitude for the sacrifice of fallen coalition troops.

Something from some leftist that decries how the Party of "Democrats" has morphed into the Party whose contribution to the rebirth of liberty in Iraq sums to hoots and derision.

Something from some leftist that notes how the Democrat Party should just skip right to the chase and rename itself the Benign Elitist Party, fast friend of tyrants petty and prodigious.

Something from some leftist advising John Kerry and Ted Kennedy to shut the hell up.

This comes close enough:

What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?
February 1, 2005
BY MARK BROWN, SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood... But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

It's hard to swallow, isn't it?

[snip]

For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.

I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.

Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).

I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well...

[snip]

Sens. to Introduce 'Stop Government Propaganda Act'

2005-01-27T15:31:00.000-08:00

"In response to continued revelations of government-funded "journalism" -- ranging from the purported video news releases put out by the drug czar's office and the Department of Health and Human Services to the recently uncovered payments to columnists Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher,who flacked administration programs -- Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) will introduce a bill, The Stop Government Propaganda Act, in the Senate next week." . . .

"If the matter is taken to court, the bill proposes that the senior official responsible would be fined three times the amount of the "misspent taxpayer funds" plus an additional fine ranging from $5,000 to $10,000. And if a citizen's qui tam suit is accepted, the bill proposes that the plaintiff receives between 25 and 30% of the proceeds of the fine."

This is exactly how millions of dollars in taxpayer monies get routed to environmental groups and anti-Christian organizations like ACLU. We the taxpayer pay the legal costs for them to sue us. All Kennedy and Lautenberg are trying to do here is to create a new profit center for liberal lawyers. If the bill somehow happens to get out of the Senate, Republicans in the House would not even consider it.

Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005

2005-01-23T21:17:00.000-08:00

On 1-06-05, Rep Roscoe G. Bartlett introduced H.R.47, which is presently sitting in the House Committee on the Judiciary and actually stands a chance of passing and being signed into law this year. The title of the bill is: "To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right" -- or: the "Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005"

As the bill clearly states, this action is necessary because The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour. And, quite obviously, that could present a problem. The body of the bill states, in part:

A person not prohibited from receiving a firearm by Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, shall have the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms--

(1) in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury;

(2) in defense of self or family in the course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person's family; and

(3) in defense of the person's home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person.

This would be a good time for everyone to get on the horn with their Congresscritter and instruct them to push this bill through the House while most Republicans still remember why they were elected. The bill is not complete support for the Second Amendment, but it is certainly a good first step.

The canary's fading song

2005-01-22T22:34:00.000-08:00

More disturbing devolution of civility. As ever, the canary in the coal mine is a familiar one.

Violence 'reflects national surge' in anti-semitism

Rosie Cowan, crime correspondent
Friday January 21, 2005
The Guardian [London]

Tonight, worshippers leaving dozens of synagogues in north-east London's Stamford Hill will hurry home in groups, keeping an eye out for strange cars and taking care not to leave anyone on their own.

For the large Jewish population in this part of the city has been subjected to a series of vicious attacks in the past six weeks.

[snip]

Mike Whine, spokesman for the Community Security Trust, an agency which provides defence information and advice to British Jews, said the sustained nature of the attacks on a close-knit community was intimidating.

But he was even more worried that they were symptomatic of a general upsurge in anti-semitism throughout the UK in the last year.

[snip]

"While we are still compiling final figures, we know there has been a substantial increase in violence against Jews in the past year." The Community Security Trust has compiled reports on anti-semitic behaviour since 1984 and has recorded an average of 500 instances a year since 2000, ranging from verbal insults and offensive literature to desecration of property and physical attacks on people.

Islamic extremists have targeted Jews on several occasions. But there is no evidence to date that the Stamford Hill attacks are linked to any such group. Mr Whine could think of no particular reason for the recent increase in anti-semitism, but said there was always a backlash when Jews, Israel or Nazism were in the news.

[snip]

Citizens of British Columbia want to become our 51st State?

2005-01-22T18:22:00.000-08:00

Who wants to be an American? Apparently at least some of the people residing in the Canadian Province of British Columbia do. Their web page states in part:

The GOAL of the "ANNEXATION PARTY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA" is the annexation of the Province of British Columbia (BC) into the United States of America (US), thus making BC the 51st state of the Union. The PURPOSE of the Party, if elected, will be to provide a "CHOICE" to all the residents and voters of BC to begin the diplomatic negotiations to become the 51st State of The United States of America. This will be accomplished with the "VOICE" and input of all the citizens of British Columbia and their elected representatives.

Actually, this is the second try for that. The people of British Columbia first petitioned the United States back in 1869. But, apparently President Ulysses S. Grant did not take the request very seriously.

Question: Do we need more liberals?

EU Rearranges the Deck Chairs

2005-01-22T13:31:00.000-08:00

BRUSSELS - The European Commission is preparing a wholesale revamp of the beleaguered Lisbon Strategy - its ambitious goal to become the most competitive economy in the World by 2010 - in a bid to restore momentum to the process.

[snip]

The Commission's Competitiveness Group - which drew up the report - recommends repointing the Lisbon strategy around 10 so-called 'central policy areas'

These include: 'attracting more people in employment', 'more and better research and development', 'promoting innovation and sustainability', 'completing the internal market' and 'creating the conditions for a strong European industrial base'.

There is also a policy area entitled, 'increasing the adaptability of workers and enterprises and the flexibility of labour markets'.

And a draft outline of the 2005 Spring Report, entitled, 'European partnership for growth and job - relauching the Lisbon Strategy', warns how urgent it is to breathe life into the process.

'Without action, European growth would decrease to 1.5 percent of GDP in the coming years which, then, would damage our social model", the draft reads.

[snip]

Unmentioned (and perhaps unmentionable) is the inconvenient fact that the "social model" is the problem.

Rather than such gauzy goals as "attracting more people in employment," the eurocrats would be advised to foster a euroculture that values competition, respects the work ethic, venerates the individual, rewards risk-taking, abhors taxation and reverses the soul-crushing, incentive-sapping tide of nanny-state socialism that has eroded European competitiveness for more than half a century.

Of course, such a recommendation is at cross-purposes to the foundational precepts of the Brussels übergovernment. See, what's being conclusively proven is the futility of top-down approaches for growth, especially ones driven by circle-jerking government bureaucrats. The Lisbon Strategy, revamped or otherwise, is like the Soviet Union's Five Year Plans, only without the warmth and hominess of its hive-like urban housing cooperatives. So far.

A parallel story whose essential message will surely escape Brussels' grasp:

Germans Don't Want the Corner Office:

Most Europeans would rather be the employee than the employer

Fear of failure makes Europeans happier to be cashing regular paychecks than starting their own business. Americans, on the other hand, are more likely to want to be their own boss, according to an EU report.

The European Union's report showing 61 percent of Americans want to be their own boss compared to 45 percent of Europeans comes after five years of surveying more than 21,000 Americans and Europeans about their feelings toward self-employment.

'There are cultural differences between Germans and Americans,' Goetz W. Werner (photo), founder of German drugstore chain dm, told DW-WORLD.DE. 'Americans say, 'Let's try it,' a German wants to consider all the possibilities first -- that's why Germans often lack boldness.'

[snip]

Really, if they could fix that, they could fix Europe.

'Inch of snow' shuts down air marshals

2005-01-21T07:10:00.000-08:00

Audrey Hudson reported in The Washington Times that just an "Inch of snow shuts down air marshals." Why was this? Simple: office staff could not get to work to route the air marshals, they said.

As The Times reports: "Hundreds of federal air marshals were grounded and unable to access critical information to pinpoint potential terrorist activity for eight hours on the eve of President Bush's inauguration after snow paralyzed the Mission Operations Center in Washington, said several air marshals and a supervisor. The marshals said they could not reach the Mission Operations Center (MOC) by telephone to be placed on other flights after hundreds of flights were rerouted because of the snow, and marshals seeking information on reports of a dirty bomb in Boston were unsuccessful."

One little inch of snow shut down their communication center, eh? Or, should we say that maybe these government employees collectively took a "snow day" off -- knowing it was inauguration day in our nation's Capitol -- just because they could? This makes one wonder what their attitude is towards their responsibility to the mission they support. Do they care at all?

If just an inch of snow shuts down their whole communications network, what type of response can we expect from this group during any real emergency? Probably not much, it seems.

2005-01-20T22:44:00.000-08:00

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Sheets, Swimmer and Sore Loser Impotently Protest Uppity Condi's Rise

2005-01-20T19:27:00.000-08:00

Three luminaries of the Democrat Party are stomping their puny feet in a futile display of obstructionism and ill grace. "Sheets" Byrd, of course, is the former KKK Grand Kleagle, and his opposition to the second black Secretary of State is no surprise. That the Democrats would assign him to the block-Condi leadership role is more surprising given his background-- more evidence that the Democrat massahs truly believe the black vote can be taken for granted. Hey, Black Vote: what have these guys done for you lately? Meanwhile, this is not Teddy Kennedy's first attempt to sink a woman, and John Kerry is merely being the faux-highborn poor sport he was throughout the campaign.

...after members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Rice by a 16-2 vote yesterday and the full Senate prepared for a vote today, some vehemently anti-Bush Democrats suddenly served notice they wanted more time.

Republican sources identified the key holdouts as 87-year-old Robert Byrd of West Virginia, along with Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, both of Massachusetts.

Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan member, has been one of the most vocal critics of Bush. Rice would be the first black woman to serve as secretary of state.

Tsunami-hit Thais told: Buy six [Airbus] planes or face EU tariffs

2005-01-20T12:25:00.000-08:00

Tsunami-struck Thailand has been told by the European Commission that it must buy six A380 Airbus aircraft if it wants to escape the tariffs against its fishing industry.

While millions of Europeans are sending aid to Thailand to help its recovery, trade authorities in Brussels are demanding that Thai Airlines, its national carrier, pays 1.3 billion [pounds, about $2.4 billion] to buy its double-decker aircraft.

[snip]

As the world's largest producer of prawns, Thailand has become so efficient that its wares are half the price of those caught by Norway, the main producer of prawns for the EU.

To ensure the Thais cannot compete, EU officials five years ago removed its shrimp industry from the EU's generalised system of preferential tariffs - designed to share Western wealth with developing countries by trade.

The EU has instead slapped a tariff of 12 per cent on its fish - three times that imposed on prawns from Malaysia, its neighbour.

Catch that? The (ahem) stinginess of threatening Thailand with tariffs at this tragic moment in history aside: the eurocrats are saying, "Buy the bloated, unproven, un-market-driven, airport-incompatible flying Renault made by our predatory tax-subsidized consortium cobbled-together from failed companies driven into the ground by poor engineering, chronic market disconnection, inept management, underproductive labor and dismal quality, or we'll use the police force of government to undermine your fabulously efficient agricultural industry, against whom we retrograde Gauloises-puffers can't compete."

Is there any doubt now that the Brussels ubergovernment is a deeply socialist institution designed to stamp out innovation and feather the nests of eurocrats and strap-hangers?

Just ...unbelievable.

California: Democrats give up on tax increases, await governor's next move

2005-01-18T09:03:00.000-08:00

SACRAMENTO (AP) - Leaders of the Legislature's Democratic majority said Tuesday they are setting aside a long-standing call for tax increases to close the state's $8.6 billion deficit next year and instead will concentrate on closing tax loopholes and chasing more federal support.

[snip]

[Schwarzenegger's] $111.7 billion budget allows for increased funding almost across the board and represents $6.4 billion more in spending than the current year's budget... The deficit, estimated in recent weeks at $8.1 billion, was raised Monday to $9 billion to account for a $500 million reserve the governor wants and a $450 million settlement of a flood case the state lost last year... The governor's plan calls for no new taxes but uses $3.5 billion in loans to help close the budget gap.

[snip]

$3.5 billion is a shade under 3.2% of the budget. Anyone reading this could tighten their monthly household expenditures by 3.2% to live within their means. To fund a profligate lifestyle with debt is irresponsible. One is tempted to call it "Gray Davis' Disease", except now it's Schwarzenegger who has delivered a debt-based budget for two years in a row, matching Davis' sorry record.

While the no-tax-hike news is certainly welcome (though cuts in our economically-afflictive sales and income taxes are long overdue), Schwarzenegger is fast becoming a disappointment. His fiscal stewardship is far too accommodating of the spending whores in the Legislature; he's done nothing substantive to reduce the size of government, and he's a gun-grabber. I credit him with a marvelous star-turn at the Republican Convention that brilliantly illuminated the pro-individual, small-government philosophy that supposedly anchors the GOP, but mere words--and muscles--aren't keeping him from being Just Another Round-Heeled Pickpocket in Sacramento.

Cheney Exercising Muscle on Domestic Policies

2005-01-17T21:40:00.000-08:00

We gotta call them like we see them and herein I saw one of the most "fair and balanced" articles ever to be published in The New York Times. This article is great background concerning the many functions of Vice President Dick Cheney in the administration.

"It's hard to think of any vice president who brings to the table the enormous wealth of experience that Dick Cheney has had," The New your Times quoted Lawrence B. Lindsey, who was director of the White House's national economic council during Mr. Bush's first two years in office as saying.

One paragraph, however, is a major eye opener, considering it was written with hardly any liberal rebuttal:

"Mr. Cheney is going into the debate over how and whether to rewrite the tax code philosophically inclined to support a single-rate flat tax that would create incentives for more savings and investment, a position shared by many conservatives, Cheney associates say. But, drawing on his long experience as a member of Congress and his informal role as Mr. Bush's primary ambassador to Capitol Hill, he is aware that creating a new tax system might be politically unfeasible, they say, and would be supportive as well of taking steps to achieve the same incentives through changes to the existing progressive income tax system."

If Republicans can scrap the current tax code -- and the IRS, as we know it -- it will go far in removing much of the tax law game-playing the Democrats love so much to garner large campaign contributions. It seems almost amazing, therefore, that The Times editors let this go without at least a short barb.

It is true that Vice President Dick Cheney supports a flat-tax scheme -- probably a sales tax. So do most of the economists the Vice President speaks with weekly. And, so does President Bush. But, at the moment, there are four greatly different "flat-tax" proposals on the table. Which means, we will all get to add to this debate when it starts later this year.

CIA report: EU and NATO to dissolve

2005-01-17T13:58:00.000-08:00

I don't doubt what the article below predicts, but I fear that it won't happen with a whimper.

This past weekend, in some correspondence regarding one particular European nation with a well-known policy analyst, I noted my own observations of "a deepening nationwide sense of depression due to increasingly limited economic opportunity, a collapse of the work ethic, rage over the quickening withdrawal of soft-socialism's promised benefits, rising crime-rates, smoldering disillusionment over the sour fruits of [one aspect of post-Cold-War consolidation], dawning awareness of the submersion of [their] national identity into the sea of pan-europeanism, and dismay over their imported labor's rude insistence on maintaining its own culture"...

(I'm leaving the country unnamed in the excerpt above for a variety of reasons, but mostly because the problem is not particular to any one country. In fact, it is remarkable that the same comments don't currently apply to the U.S.)

The article below suggests my perceptions aren't unique.

And historically, when the zeitgeist hits the fan in Europe, things happen. I hope I'm wrong, but some familiar (and chilling) scripts may be playing out.

CIA report: EU and NATO to dissolve

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 (UPI) -- The European Union will break-up within 15 years as a result of its countries being dragged down by unsustainable welfare programs, a CIA report says.

The CIA report warns by 2020, Europe could be thrown into economic decline by its aging population and the post-1945 military alliances of NATO would disband, the Scotsman.com reported.

'The current EU welfare state is unsustainable and the lack of any economic revitalization could lead to the splintering or, at worst, disintegration of the EU, undermining its ambitions to play a heavyweight international role,' the report said.

Experts 'are dubious that the present political leadership is prepared to make even this partial break, believing a looming budgetary crisis in the next five years would be the more likely trigger for reform.'

Restrictive labor policies, a drop in birth rates and increased longevity would have devastating economic consequences for Europe, the report says."

Communism's Resurgence

2005-01-15T13:35:00.000-08:00

"'It's a new day. Communism is dead. It's even dead in Cuba.' So declared Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing in May 2002. 'I hate to say it,' she continued, 'it's dead.' "

She hates to say it: communism is dead?

She hates to say it?

...Everything you need to know about Barbara Boxer, in just a few words.

Fossil fuel curbs may speed global warming

2005-01-13T10:12:00.000-08:00

More evidence that atmospheric science is in its infancy...

13 Jan 2005 00:00:42 GMT

By Matt Falloon
LONDON, Jan 13 (Reuters) - Cutting down on fossil fuel pollution could accelerate global warming and help turn parts of Europe into desert by 2100, according to research to be aired on British television on Thursday. 'Global Dimming', a BBC Horizon documentary, will describe research suggesting fossil fuel by-products like sulphur dioxide particles reflect the sun's rays, 'dimming' temperatures and almost cancelling out the greenhouse effect.

The researchers say cutting down on the burning of coal and oil, one of the main goals of international environmental agreements, will drastically heat rather than cool climate.

[snip]

NYPost: il Consigliere falls quiet

2005-01-12T14:00:00.000-08:00

Now this is interesting. Bruce Lindsey, "il Consigliere" of the Clinton Administration, testified about the documents Sandy Berger admits stuffing in his shorts. Recall, "Archives officials discovered that some documents were missing after Berger's review of the files on Sept. 2, and again Oct. 2. The archives inspector general's office alerted Berger and former Clinton aide Bruce Lindsey, who is overseeing presidential documents." [from WashPost, 20 Jul 04]

To no one's surprise, il Consigliere's memory failed him when questioned.

NYPost: 'SOCKS DOCS' JURY GRILLS CLINTON CRONY