White Christmas
My find this Christmas that will be a part of every Christmas from here on? Everyone knows that the definitive recording of "White Christmas" is by Bing Crosby. But while watching the TV show
Monk with my wife, they played a version at the end of the episode that I had never heard before. I knew I recognized the voice and style, but I couldn't place it. So I did a search on Rhapsody and found it.
Otis Redding.
If you haven't heard it, give it a listen. And have a soulful Christmas.
Critique Of The Critique
I have checked out Mr. Huben's
Critiques of Libertarianism previously
referenced by
Mr. Can't and feel I must comment. So here goes.
It is quite an easy thing to critique a political philosophy. These philosophies are developed over centuries, with many writers and thinkers adding their perspectives, refining meanings, applying principles. To take any one of these, or worse, parts of any one of these, and critique it as a stand-alone representation of an entire philosophical point of view is ridiculous. But quite easy.
Mr. Huben is, obviously, a liberal. Though I'm sure he would never admit to it
(My philosophical ideas spring from skepticism, relativism, positivism, pragmatism, and humanism. When evaluating ideas, I work with the assumption that theories ought to match reality -- it is surprising how much theory matches reality badly. This tends to produce a preference for ideas that are valid (ie. work well) rather than theoretically correct (without working well.)). Because calling yourself a liberal means having to defend the Liberal philosophy. And if I were to take a look at the liberal philosophy as it has evolved, who would I go to as my representatives? Stalin? Mao? Castro? And, of course, Mr. Huben would indignantly deny that these people represent his philosophy, even if he did have the guts to admit what he is. And I would then pull out volume after volume of quotes and writings that concur completely with modern liberalism.
Political philosophies are nothing but a set of guiding principles by which people solve difficult problems. Modern liberals don't have this particular difficulty as their philosophy is purely pragmatic and follows no doctrine. They can ebb and flow as necessary and approach any issue as if it has never occurred before in the history of the world. They don't worry about contradictions. They know what is best.
However, most of us live by a set of broad principles that we believe explain the world around us and thereby guide our decisions. It is in the application of those principles that we encounter gray areas that must be worked out - through compromise, debate, and working solutions. Because the solution or compromise is not philosophically pure, does that mean the philosophy is invalid? Obviously not.
Having discussed Huben's main point, I would like to now take a few shots at some specifics. These are some of the most ridiculous statements I have read in some time.
The founders of the USA were a contentious lot, who hardly agreed on any one thing, let alone libertarian notions. It is well documented that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are compromises amongst them: few agreed wholeheartedly with any particular part. Thus, looking to the founders for "original intent" is silly: it will vary amongst them.
So, what he is saying is that since every vote on every article was not unanimous, we cannot ascertain the founders' original intent and should not even try? So I guess he would agree with the other extreme of the argument and that is that the written words mean exactly what they say, no more and no less, and any question that comes before the court that is not exactly answered by these words is kicked back to the states or lower court? No. Huben thinks the courts should be able to interpret the words in any way they please, based on anything they please.
The Declaration Of Independence is a rhetorical document, without legal standing in the USA. That status was a deliberate decision of the founders, not an accident. If it is purported to reflect the intent of the founders, then we can only conclude that they changed their minds when writing the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution.
Let me tell you what was a deliberate decision of the founders. Not to live in tyranny, and to pay for that decision with their own lives if necessary. To put the Declaration into a context of what it meant to the founding of a nation that had not, and indeed likely would not, come to be is idiocy. You're right, Mr. Huben, The Declaration of Independence is not a founding document of this nation. It is
the founding document.
The foremost defenders of our freedoms and rights, which libertarians prefer you overlook, are our governments.
Well, there's always
that irrefutable argument.
Wal-Mart Too
Two headlines on
Huffington Post:
Wal-Mart Puts 12 Lobbyists On Pay Roll To Defeat Employee Benefits Bill…
IN BRIEF comments (39)
Study Finds Wal-Mart Charging Customers Wrong Prices For Purchases…
IN BRIEF comments (48)
Gasp!
What's My Line?
I'm confused. The current Democrat Talking Points seem to be this:
1. The President lied to the American people to lead the country into war.
2. Therefore, we need to pull out of Iraq now.
Would some nice, thoughtful, patient liberal please explain where I am wrong in my analysis of these positions?
First, which President are you talking about? The Clinton administration made repeated claims that Iraq was in development
and possession of WMD. Did, in those few short years, the evidence change that dramatically? And what of all the supporting intelligence from other countries? And what of the fact that the British, the suppliers of the intelligence that lead to the "16 words", still, after an investigation, stand by their assertion? And what of the fact that Iraq had been exploiting corruption in the U.N.'s "Oil for Food" program to get around sanctions? And what of the fact that the U.N. has still not certified Iraq as "disarmed" because they have not even been able to account for the weapons Iraq had already
claimed?
Second, our government is built on a series of checks and balances. Where was congress when this maniac president was doctoring intelligence to whip up support for the war? Where was the oversight? Ok, the President doctored the intelligence before sharing it with the American people. Did he doctor the intelligence the Senate Armed Services Committee saw? The Senate Intelligence Committee?
And as for pulling out now, I have yet to hear a single Democratic proposal on what to do in the aftermath or what that would mean to the overall war. And we are in an overall war. If you don't accept that, then you are either hopeless, or must have been on a desert island on 9/11. And if you accept that, how can you possibly make the case that Iraq is not the current front of that war? Iran and Syria, the two biggest supporters and exporters of terror, are both supplying fighters and weapons for the war. If we pull the troops out, what do we do? Allow Iraq to become the new Afghanistan? Regardless of your conclusions on Talking Point 1, to pull out now is to fall back in a war in which we should be on the offensive.
And finally, the entire rhetoric represented by both Points, unless supported by proof (#1) or an alternate strategy (#2) is cowardly, unpatriotic, and undermines our fighting men and women while they are in the field.
If you are a liberal, or know one you can direct here, please help me to understand this. These are serious questions in serious times. Please help before the Christmas parties start so I can at least understand the conversations.
But Red Is Still, In The End, Just Red
As a follow-up to my Comrade's post on some parents' idiocy regarding Che Guevara, there is a striking similarity between Guevara and something I heard on Rush's show today. Compare
this statement from Guevara
To build communism, you must build new men as well as the new economic base.
to
this statement by Judge Stephen Reinhardt in his unanimous majority opinion in a case involving sex education:
We agree [with the previous ruling], and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding religious cultural social political sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students. Finally, we hold that the defendants' actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. [emphasis Reinhardt's].
Creating people in the State's image is what they want. Make no mistake, the leftists are not simply another political viewpoint - they are the enemy within who would destroy America as we know it because they hate it and everything it stands for. Namely capitalism and freedom. It's unbridled personal freedoms that allow the peasants to squander their lives instead of living them more productively. It's economic freedoms which allow the Robber Barons to exploit the poor for their own obscene economic gains. And they truly believe they are patriots because they see themselves as saving America - from itself.
It's as easy as
Roger Hedgecock, Rush's guest host, explained to a caller on another matter:
Freedom is good, tyranny is evil.
Think about it, people. It really is that simple.
"Culture Of Inaction"
I knew very little of John Bolton during his confirmation battle in the Senate for U.N. Ambassador, and the whole thing never really made it onto my radar screen. I mean this was for Ambassador to the U.N. BFD.
But this is the best take on the U.N. I have ever heard. This guy not only has that place pegged, but has the right attitude about how to deal with it. First, what it is:
"It's exactly what I expected," he said. "It does move in many ways that lead you to think it's caught in a time warp, with discussions they could have had in the '60s, '70s, '80s."
Referring to obsolete mandates and bodies, he said: "Even though the Cold War is over and many of these issues are over, frankly, the mind-set in the U.N. complex hasn't changed much. I don't think that it's a philosophical point of view. ... There is a culture of inaction."
And what to do?
During a luncheon with reporters and editors at The Washington Times, U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton said repeatedly that the Bush administration requires nothing less than "a revolution of reform" at the world body, encompassing everything from U.N. Security Council engagement to management changes to a focus on administrative skills in choosing the next secretary-general.
The United Nations, he said, "has got to be a place to solve problems that need solving, rather than a place where problems go, never to emerge."
He added: "In the United States, there is a broadly shared view that the U.N. is one of many potential instruments to advance U.S. issues, and we have to decide whether a particular issue is best done through the U.N. or best done through some other mechanism.
In other words, stop opposing everything we want or we'll work around you.
And this really sums it up from the American perspective:
Mr. Bolton said yesterday that the United States pays 22 percent of the regular U.N. budget, yet has only one vote out of 191 cast.
"We have one-half of 1 percent of the total [votes], meaning we pay 44 times more than our voting power," he said.
"My priority is to give the United States the kind of influence it should have. Everybody pursues their national interests. The only one who gets blamed for it is the United States."
At least for this American.
Game On!
Alito rejected abortion as a right
I can feel the left's looney meter edging toward hysteria. How can they let this man be confirmed? I say it gets ugly, and I don't think we've gotten past a possible filibuster yet. But here's the money quote which shows that, even in the Washington Times, it's still Washington:
Judge Alito sided with abortion proponents in three of four rulings during his 15 years as a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, usually based on existing law and technical legal issues rather than the right to abortion itself.
No. You mean he decided cases based on the law and not what he thought should be? That's no good. Subpoena his personal diary and let's find out how truly evil he is.
San Francisco
What better example to illustrate how closely respect for our military and the concept of personal responsibility
are related than San Francisco. San Francisco is a cesspool, and
this is a disgrace:
San Francisco voters this week passed what could become the nation's strictest gun ban when they outlawed not only the sale of guns in the city, but required almost everyone who is not a cop, security guard or member of the military to surrender their handguns to police by April 1.
Where is the ACLU? Those vaunted protectors of civil liberties? I guess some amendments just count more than others.
And this is the proper response:
...some gun owners say they'll either have to store their weapons somewhere else, or accept that they'll be criminals.
Except I say fuck finding somewhere else to store them.
And the second part of the San Francisco story, the move to discourage military recruiting, is dwarfed in the media by comments made by Bill O'Reilly. Though I am not an O'Reilly fan, he is exactly right in what he said.
First, "
college not combat" (is that not a perfect leftist bullshit bumper-sticker name for a proposition?)
Proposition I, also known as the "College Not Combat" initiative, does not ban the military from recruiting soldiers on campus — that would require schools to forfeit federal funds — but it does encourage school officials to offer students alternatives to the perks that come with military service, like scholarships and job training.
According to CollegeNotCombat.org, a "yes" vote for Proposition I implies the voter would "want it to be city policy to oppose military recruiters' access to public schools and to consider funding scholarships for education and training that could provide an alternative to military service."
I cannot, as I sit here, believe this is happening. Forget where. How is it that at a time of war, a few years after the second-worst attack ever on American soil, with soldiers in the field, a major American city is doing this? At times like this, I fear that although common-sense people are still fighting the political skirmishes, we've really already lost the war.
So
O'Reilly says:
"...If al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."
Why is this out of line? You are not willing to send your sons and daughters to fight for the country, yet you want to be able to dial 911 for federal assistance whenever you need it? I'll go a step further: I say the Federal Government should suspend
all payments of federal money to the city of San Francisco immediately.
Leave the leftists of San Francisco to fend for themselves, without even the most basic means of self-defense. Good luck in Utopia.
Anti-American
Glenn Reynolds has an
excellent post on Bush's speech, anti-war dissent, and the ridiculous fools in the Democrat party. Also, be sure to check out this post on all the
hate mail.
Veteran's Day
Well, I have to post on Veteran's Day. Even though when I look out there, all I see is the politicization of one front in a war against people who have
attacked us; who know no country, border, or
sense of humanity; who murder and kill their own with more frequency and brutality than Westerners. The whole thing turns my stomach.
However, I take stock in the fact that in the midst of this insanity, there are those who sense a calling to protect and defend the rest of us. Even those of us who look at them with disdain or outright hatred. Thank God for the men and women who serve their country with such pride and dignity in this environment.
And I think that my respect for the military and their job is tied in to my respect for
Susan Buxton and the millions out there like her.
A 67-year old woman who found an intruder in her home. With her daughter on the phone to 911, the whole episode was caught on
audio tape (HT
Blogs of War). A licensed concealed carry, she shot him in the leg with her .38 revolver.
She did nothing to bring this on. Neither did the passengers on
flight 93. But thankfully there are still some people willing to stand up to evil when attacked. To fight back.
Those who have sacrificed greatly to do it on behalf of all of us are called veterans. Humbly thank one. And if you're reading this and you are one, then please take this as mine.
France: Leader Of The Free World
To really get a feel for what is happening in France, you need to read
this column.
The police union Action Police CFTC called for curfews to be imposed in all riot-hit areas to combat the "civil war that spreads a little more every day".
The union also urged the government to send in troops to defeat the trouble-makers, mainly mobs of young people from poor estates dominated by Muslim families whose origins are in France's former colonies in north and sub-Saharan Africa.
And apparently I'm not the only one who
sees Chirac as lacking intestinal fortitude.
Twenty-four hours earlier, a belated and much-criticised intervention by President Jacques Chirac, his first since the violence began, was followed by the worst night of rioting so far.
More than 1,400 vehicles were destroyed, two policemen were injured by birdshot and petrol bomb attacks were launched on schools, churches and public buildings.
Mr Chirac, who had spoken of a French republic resolved to show itself "stronger than those who want to sow violence or fear", made more conciliatory comments in a private meeting yesterday.
Plame Shame
...for a "covert" agent, Plame and her husband were sure thrusting themselves into a hot political debate. Then it's a big surprise, a crime, and a cover-up when the people on the other side of the issue try to find out who Joe Wilson is and how he ended up in Niger?
Posted by yours truly on October 30. On November 6, someone with a little more experience in these matters
fleshes it out for me:
Did no one at Langley think that her identity could be compromised if her spouse wrote a piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her expertise? The obvious question a sophisticated journalist such as Mr. Novak asked after "Why did the CIA send Wilson?" was "Who is Wilson?" After being told by a still-unnamed administration source that Mr. Wilson's "wife" suggested him for the assignment, Mr. Novak went to Who's Who, which reveals "Valerie Plame" as Mr. Wilson's spouse.
Who's Who? What a fucking joke. It sounds to me like if you looked up CIA in the phone book, Plame's picture was beside it. With the shades, of course.
Chirac Taking Charge
"The Republic is quite determined, by definition, to be stronger than those who want to sow violence or fear," Chirac said after a special domestic security council met to respond to the latest violence in which 1,300 vehicles went up in flames.
"The law must have the last word," Chirac said in his first public comments since the riots started in the poor suburbs, noting the importance of the respect of all, the law and the equality of chances.
I bet that put the fear of Allah into 'em.
"Riots"
Rampaging youths shot at police and firefighters yesterday...
What are these "youths" doing with guns in France? I thought they had gun control. I thought France had cured the problem of gun violence.
The riots started Oct. 27...
By Wednesday night, violence triggered by the deaths had spread to at least 20 Paris-region towns...
Nine persons were injured in Seine-Saint-Denis and 315 cars burned...
...youth gangs set fire to a Renault car dealership and burned at least a dozen cars, a supermarket and a local gymnasium.
Traffic was halted yesterday morning on a suburban commuter line linking Paris to Charles de Gaulle airport after stone-throwing rioters attacked two trains overnight...
Now that, my friend, is a riot.
Mr. de Villepin's major political rival, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said yesterday that the riots in several Paris suburbs over the previous night were "not spontaneous" but rather "well organized," Agence France-Presse reported. "What we saw in the department of Seine-Saint-Denis overnight was not spontaneous, it was perfectly organized. We are looking into by whom and how," Mr. Sarkozy told French news channel I-Tele.
Nah, it's just a riot. In 20 towns. Shutting down commuter trains.
The unrest has highlighted the division between France's big cities and their poor suburbs, with frustration simmering in the housing projects in areas marked by high unemployment, crime and poverty. The violence also cast doubt on the success of France's model of seeking to integrate its large immigrant community by playing down differences between ethnic groups. The country's Muslim population, at an estimated 5 million, is Western Europe's largest. Rather than feeling embraced as full and equal citizens, immigrants and their French-born children complain of police harassment and of being refused jobs, housing and opportunities.
Yeah, I think we need to look to France for guidance.
Democrat Implosion
I never thought I'd say this, but I feel a little sorry for the Dems. They can't win an election, their allies in the media have lost their monopoly (not to mention credibility) and the Republican conservative base is energized like never before. And they're imploding. The hissy fit yesterday in the Senate is only the beginning. Wait until the Supreme Court hearings begin, and the Dems have to carry the message of the kook fringe that has become the mainstream of the party.
But when I saw
this, I knew it was all over for them:
Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican. Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.
And later in this story, we get the sad truth of the Democrat Party:
"Party trumps race, especially on the national level,"
Yes, party trumps race. Sell out one of your own for the good of the party. Because
power trumps all.
Bring It
I've read differing views about how hard the Democrats are going to fight Alito, but I told Mr. Can't before the retirement of O'Conner that the next fight would make Anita Hill look like a low-budget soap opera. I stand by that now.
This is the fight I expected over Roberts, but since he was replacing Rehnquist, the Dems didn't really see the need. They let him slide, like a batter watches the first fastball go by and glares at the pitcher with a "now bring it" look. And Bush blinked and threw the curve. But the conservatives were having none of it. Welcome to the fray Judge Alito.
I was prompted to think about this when I saw
this on Powerline:
Far-left groups like People for the American Way, NARAL, etc. have raised tens of millions of dollars to oppose President Bush's judicial nominations. While I don't think it is clear that Senate Democrats have to fight Alito's nomination to the death, there is no doubt that the left-wing pressure groups do. They decided, for the most part, to take a pass on John Roberts' nomination, and are still sitting on the huge war chest their partisans contributed to fight Republican judges.
Man, this is going to be fun. We are going to get to see the far-left wackos at their absolute wackiest. Bring it on.
