U.S. vs Them

That's the title of a newish book by the child executive editor of the New Republic, Peter Scablick. The subtitle: "How A half Century of Conservatism Has Undermined US Security". So that would be from 1958 until now. In 1958, a liberal Republican (Eisenhower) was President. His foreign policy was not conservative or aggresive or neo-conservative or whatever. He let the commies have North Korea, told the Brits & Frogs to pull out of the Suez and generally presented a weak face to the world. Then his VP, Nixon, was defeated in 1960 by a liberal Democrat candidate (JFK) who exploited the issue of a "missile gap". That is, he said we needed to catch up with the Soviets in the number of missiles. Nevermind that the "gap" was non-existent. Now that is what I would call an aggresive, paranoid foreign policy stance but executed by a liberal. And then we had the Vietnam War---courtesy of a Democrat president and congress. After that, we had a Republican president who ended the war, introduced detente with the Soviets and renewed relations with the Chicoms. Still, no National Review conservative foreign policy in sight until 1980 when Reagan became President. And what were the wretched results of his aggressive conservative foreign policy? Oh yeah...the fall of the Soviet Union! Then after the Republican lite, weak foreign policy of Bush 1 (excepting the liberation of Kuwait) we had eight years of the masters of "negotiation" and "nuance" and "realpolitik", the Clinton administration. And what did we get? The first bombing of the WTC, Khobar Towers, East African embassies, the USS Cole, an instransigent Saddam Hussein, and then 9/11 was the ultimate result of those eight years of timidity and unnecessary butt-kissing of murderous thugs. Hey thanks a lot, liberal foreign policy!
I heard Mr. Scudliker talking on "Fresh Air" about how conservatives look at foreign policy as a struggle between good and evil (us being good) and how that is naive and unproductive. Liberals conduct foreign policy based on the idea that we were, with the Soviets, and now are in a power struggle with folks whose interests may sometimes overlap ours and we should negotiate on that basis.
I think Mr. Scobbler's view of what constitutes liberal and conservative foreign policy to be naive and simplistic---or he really thinks we should negotiate with Osama bin Laden. It is patently ridiculous to say that conservatives have dominated foreign policy for the last 50 years when they haven't even dominated the leadership of any branch of government! Add the fact that the State department is riddled with liberal career diplomats who undermine any attempt at an aggressive foreign policy in the name of getting invited to villas in the south of France over the summer.

Campaign for America's Future...Death

Eric Lotke is the research director at the "Campaign for America's Future"--"a reserach and policy organization" according to the LA Times. No mention of the very liberal politics of said organization. He was given space to write an extremely innacurate op-ed. The theme of his article is that smal government conservatives are responsible for the following events:

• E coli & Salmonella outbreaks
• Lead paint in toys from China
• Energy "deregulation" in California
• The movements (or "swooning")of commodities & stock markets
• The real estate bubble
• Credit rating agencies incorrect ratings

Regardless of whether such things can ever be prevented in a liberal fascist state as opposed to the nirvana of small government, Lotke assumes that preventing such things, however rare, has no cost. All we need to do is elect Obama and keep the current dysfunctional Congress and they will protect us.

But I would just like to point out ways that you can blame these things on liberal policies.

• E coli & Salmonella outbreaks

E coli & Salmonella outbreaks can be traced to the fact most of our farm, processing, & restaurant labor force cannot speak English and come from cultures where eating a salad is "a high risk activity". A communication and cultural gap encouraged by laws and policies that disincentive assimilation and allow mass illegal immigration.
And what about irradiation? A cheap way to increase food safety shot down by liberal busy bodies.

• Lead paint on toys from China

Why don't we make these toys in the US where lead paint is banned? You can thank the labor unions---a major part of the liberal establishment.

• Energy "deregulation" in California

Well, first off...IT WASN'T DEREGULATION!!!! How many times do I have to say this? It was the creation of a new and different regulatory framework. But about high prices of energy in general? Don't make me laugh. The liberals, with their lawsuits and eco-fascist lobbies do plenty to make energy expensive. Remember, new coal power is ILLEGAL to be used let alone generated in California.

• The movements (or "swooning")of commodities & stock markets

This is much like saying: "The moon is up, must be Bush's fault." Markets do all kinds of things in reaction to all kinds of policies, liberal, conservative, whatever. Liberal policies in general hamstring economic growth but democratic presidents sometimes preside over bull markets because investors are loath to sell when capital gains and dividend taxes are high.

• The real estate bubble

Are bubbles bad? For people who made bad decisions surely, but is that wrong? Some people became and remain very prosperous. Aside from low interest rates, which are set by the Fed (not Grover Norquist), what other cause of the bubble can be discerned. Prior to the bubble, many liberals and their congressional lapdogs moaned about "redlining"--the practice of excluding entire low income areas and persons from loan eligibility. Then, when interest rates became low enough and lenders convinced themselves they could price the risk into any loan--now anybody could buy a house. Countrywide, the bad boy of the mortgage lenders, received commendations from the FHA for its lending practices extending home loans to unqualified borrowers. But, hey, that's capitalism--no risk, no reward. I guess we could switch to socialism.

• Credit rating agencies incorrect ratings

It is conservative values that promote bond rating in the first place. Liberals would be happy to see bond holders go under for lack of guidance.This just goes to show that everyone makes mistakes. What would Mr. Lotke, have us do--have the government perform bond rating services? Or rate the raters? I fail to see how this would make things better. He implies the bond raters were paid off for good ratings but it hardly makes sense for these guys to take the risk that the whole basis of their business would be undermined. Most likely, they just made serious analytical mistakes.

My main point with this rebuttal is to show that bad things happen and always will happen. Preventing mistakes is laudable, but ALL mistakes? How much are you willing to pay for that? It is common among liberals to believe that regulatory action has little or no cost, only benefit. Or the cost is imposed on people who, in the liberal calculus, simply don't matter. They will fudge the numbers or categorize costs as benefits. Anything to show that more regulations equal more benefits. In the extreme, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and many others have shown the dnagers of increasing regulation without considering the costs.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention this line from Mr. Lotke's op-ed that brought tears of joy:

"The agency's [Consumer Product Safety Comission] entire toy-testing department last year consisted of one man who dropped toys on his office floor to see if they broke."

Now that's my kind of government! Just give this guy a retirement package and delete the position.

The AlQaediad

From Book Ten of the Iliad:

" 'Son of [Bush], most lordly and king of men, [W], Zeus of the counsels, I think, will not accomplish for [Osama] all his designs and all he hopes for now; I think rather he will have still more hardships to wrestle, if ever [Obama] turns again the heart within him from its wearisome anger...' "

Nice

Just found out that a great uncle of mine was part of the "Committee to End Aid to the Soviet Enemy" during the Vietnam War. In the 1930s he had worked for Rex Tugwell (undersecretary for Agriculture for FDR) in the Department of Agriculture--the incubator for modern liberalisms wrongheaded "solutions" to economic problems. He moved rightward over the course of his life as he gained wisdom, apparently.

Iraq Flashback

From the NY Times (11/27/2001):

"President Bush warned Saddam Hussein today that if he did not admit United
Nations inspectors to determine if Iraq is developing nuclear, chemical or
biological weapons, he would face consequences."

....

''It's going to happen,'' the president said. ''I said this early on, as the
campaign began: America must be prepared for loss of life. I believe the
American people understand that we've got a mighty struggle on our hands and
that there will be sacrifice.'' Mr. Bush added that ''as for Mr. Hussein, he needs to let inspectors back in his country, to show us that he is not developing weapons of mass destruction.'' (emphasis mine)

The first quote shows that anyone with half a brain could see what was going to happen. Hussein was going to be taken out. I mean, people had "NO WAR IN IRAQ" bumper stickers way before the war actually started. What followed, Colin Powell's presentation at the UN, intelligence findings of Iraq's WMD, etc was just window dressing to make the Axis of Weasels feel better. We were going to FIND OUT IF Hussein had WMD and we would use force to do it and at the same time depose this murderous thug. Regardless of whether one supported invasion or not, there was little doubt about Bush's intentions here. If he could have done it politically he would have started mobilizing troops for invasion in October of 2001. My reaction was "Great! We should've finished him off in 1991 and if he is ANY kind of a threat to the US or its allies he needs to go." Fortunately, he didn't appear to have any WMD (there have been traces of WMD but apparently no stockpiles or major production). Does the absence of WMD imply that Bush lied us into war? Hardly. As the above quotes make clear our main aim in going to war was to make sure he didn't have them and get rid of him at the same time. Whatever was said by the administration implying that there probably were WMD (and remember the previous administration and many others believed Hussein had WMD) was to mollify the candyass congressmen who's votes were needed to authorize action. Everything that was said was irrelevant---we would find out the truth once we got to Baghdad. Of course, the invasion may never have happened without 9/11. That attack created a need to take action on many fronts in the Muslim world. We needed to show that our previous restraint was gone and we would act on many fronts to prevent attacks.

So...now Iraq has a democratic government (not perfect by any means, but as my liberal friends love to point out--neither are we!), attacks are winding down as more Al Qaeda in Iraq guys get killed, and life is getting back to normal. It occurs to many that any government created with the backing and prodding of the United States will never have much legitimacy. Among Iraqis I think the government has already gained credibility and over time as they realize that democracy is rule by the people of Iraq the government will lose the taint of being the creation of the United States. I am sure there will always be militants who will never accept the Iraqi government but they will dwindle away to negligible numbers as the benefits of democracy accrue to the Iraqi people. Arab countries may not grant much credibility to the government but they will have little choice about dealing with it. Iraq is an enormously important country in the Arab world---with its oil, holy sites and caliphs. Baghdad is the ancient home of the Muslim caliphate, after all. I expect Arab countries to start opening embassies en masse within 12 months.

If Iraq continues to stabilize to a reasonable level of peace we can all look back with amusement at the incredible amount of vitriol and rage emanating from the left. George W Bush and the United States military will have done more for the cause of peace all around the world than all of the Nobel Peace laureates of the last 40 years combined. Iraq will be a stable, democratic Arab country in the heart of the Middle East!

"The Last, Best Hope on Earth"

Charles Krauthammer wrote a column about the giant ego of Barack Obama vis a vis speaking at the Brandenburg Gate. He quoted part of Obama's "victory" speech from June 3, 2008. I have a hard time listening to politicians speak (doesn't matter what side they're on) because they usually sound so lame. Political speeches just aren't what they used to be. Obama is trying to be different but he usually just ends up sounding like a totalitarian. Krauthammer highlighted part of this segment from Obama's June 3rd speech:

"Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth." (emphasis mine)

Wow. Obama is going to heal the sick, create jobs, roll back the tides, heal the planet---because he is "the last, best hope on Earth". I see that he says "we", but really---if "we" can do all this we certainly don't need Obama specifically. But of course Obama thinks we do need him, so really this is Obama accomplishing the salvation of the known universe. This guy is scary.

Obama, the anti-Utopian

Obama, in his Iraq speech this morning, said something like "Iraq will never be a perfect place and we have to stop trying make it perfect." Aside from the fact that I don't know any Bush administation policy that aims for a "perfect" Iraq, I am glad to see that Obama sees that the perfect is the enemy of the good. I just wish he would acknowledge that America will never be a perfect place and put an end to the Democrat party's constant push to socially engineer utopia on the home front.

Tim Rutten, Jackass

Tim Rutten, the Los Angeles Times Copperhead columnist, keeps repeating the ridiculous claim that the “…US military constructed what amounts to an American gulag…”. If we really had been doing so he would find himself there (in the gulag) since he is an anti-American, pro-Al Qaeda jackass. But, unfortunately, the first amendment applies to jackasses like Rutten. Rutten is someone who will believe the utterances of bin Laden before Bush.

Just to fill him in on the what a gulag actually was:

From The Black Book of Communism, Courtois et al.:

“300,000 known deaths in the camps from 1934 to 1940.” (italics mine) (p. 206)
“Approximately 2,200,00 deported, forcibly moved, or exiled…”, (p. 207)
“On 1 January 1940 some 1,670,000 prisoners were being held….” (p. 207)

And don’t forget the absolutely brutal conditions in the camps—extreme cold, hunger, beatings, hard labor, and death.

These numbers don’t account for the 720,000 who didn’t make it to the camps as they were summarily executed by the GPU (p. 206).

Rutten’s claim that various prisons around the world where unlawful enemy combatants are held—with plenty of food, water, comfortable cells, Korans, etc—amount to “an American gulag” is an historical fraud. Not to mention a desecration of the memories of those who suffered and died in the gulag and an unbelievable libel on the servicemen and women who serve at these detention centers.

If we really had constructed a gulag---Rutten would be there.

UPDATE: I am not sure why I give a damn what this soft-headed, senile old liberal fool (a perfect example of Lenin's "useful idiots") who writes for an increasingly obsolete and failing newsrag. Unfortunately, my wife insists on taking the paper.

Kiss My Ass

Nicholas "Crybaby" Kristof can kiss my ass. He's gotta be crazier than hell to think this bullshit is gonna happen. A real "Truth Commission" would find that Kristof and his heroes are a bunch of partisan, lying, opportunistic pieces of shit.
How about a truth commission for Obama: how he's a flip-flopping, crypto-Stalinist, terrorist loving thug.

I can't tell the difference!

Happy 4th of July

Gettysburg

Today was the third and final day of the Battle of Gettysburg. The Union Army beat back Pickett's Charge and sent the Confederate army in retreat. Unfortunately, the Union general, Meade failed to pursue and destroy General Lee's army and the war continued two more years.

3,155 Union dead
4,708 Confederate dead

So--start flying your flag today for those men--and revel in the simple patriotism that seems to irk the left.

Battle Cry of "Socialism"?

I just finished reading James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. It is a great book that I highly recommend---a one volume history of the Civil War.
My edition includes an afterword written fifteen years after he wrote the book. The afterword includes an analysis of liberty, before and after the Civil War. McPherson notes the difference between positive and negative liberty--"Negative liberty, therefore, can be described as freedom from. Positive liberty can best be described as freedom to." McPherson claims that the Civil War promoted positive liberty by freeing the slaves (and depriving slave owners of their property) and that secession represented an extreme of negative liberty. Thus, positive liberty gains at least equal footing with negative liberty and that is a good thing and led to all kinds of other good things from the federal government.
My response is that liberating slaves is a very strong form of negative liberty, not positive liberty. Secession may be an expression of negative liberty but it is not granted in the constitution. Granted the federal govt became stronger, bigger, taxed more, etc but I don't see this as a rise of positive liberty. Lincoln and the feds did what was necessary to win the war--they weren't setting out to create a modern liberal utopia.
In my opinion the rise of positive liberty coincides with FDR and his boneheaded responses to the Great Depression. Now we have the rights to food, healthcare, education, medical marijuana etc (and, of course, with no attendant responsibilities). And the enforcement of such rights usually involve the depriving of someone else's property---but to then say that these rights are on the same level as personal liberty (i.e. a freed slave) is ridiculous.
One of the legacies of the Civil War is an extremely powerful federal government but that does not mean that the feds must then enforce a whole panoply of "rights" that Lincoln would be disgusted by.