Sunday, December 31, 2006

Saddam is DEAD, and the liberal media bleeds

Here's a curious passage from the main New York Times story on Saddam's hanging:

Finally, he was ousted by an American-led invasion force in 2003 and the country fell into a new round of internal violence as the rule of law disintegrated and the Western invaders proved unable to control a country in the aftermath of totalitarian rule.
"The rule of law" is "totalitarian rule"??? I suppose it could be mere sloppiness, but it's revealing nonetheless.

Along similar lines is this from the Associated Press:

Hours after Saddam faced the same fate he was accused of inflicting on countless thousands during a quarter-century of ruthless power, Iraqi state television showed grainy video of what it said was his body, the head uncovered and the neck twisted at a sharp angle.
That "accused" is also revealing, but more important, did Saddam really face "the same fate" as his victims? Yes, al-AP, there is a difference between a lawful execution of a duly convicted murderer and the murder of innocents by a dictatorial state. Come to think of it, it's the difference between the rule of law and totalitarian rule.

Saturday, December 30, 2006

"Ghost Riding The Whip" -- Multicultural Driving at its finest!

And I thought drunk driving was a big enough problem. Let's hear it for Multicultural Diversity in Driving:

"Ghost riding the whip" a stunt in which a driver gets out of his car and dances around and on top of the slowly moving vehicle to a thumping hip-hop beat has gotten at least two people killed, led to numerous injuries and alarmed police on the West Coast and beyond.

A fad among devotees of a West Coast strain of hip-hop music called "hyphy," the stunt has been celebrated in song and performed in numerous homemade videos posted on YouTube.

"It did not take Einstein to look at this thing and say this was a recipe for disaster," said Pete Smith, a police spokesman in Stockton. "We could see the potential for great injury or death."

Earlier this month, Davender Gulley, a ghost-riding 18-year-old, died after his head slammed into a parked car while he was hanging out the window of an SUV in Stockton, police said.

Davender Gulley? I have met many wonderful people in the Indo-American communities, Hindu, Sikh and Christian alike. It saddens me to think THEIR kids are getting caught up in this too?

Here is a YouTube clip of some jackass doing this.

At least these guys have the sense to use an empty parking lot.

Sunday, December 24, 2006

Christmas Eve Patrol, 1966

The following comes from Jerry Pearce, "The Radio Detective", a great Central California private investigator and talk show host, about an experience he had when he was a deputy sheriff in San Luis Obispo County back on Christmas Eve in 1966:
"I was sitting here at the ranch thinking about Christmas. My son is a one year new police officer for a neighboring town and he is going to have to work both Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. He works the graveyard shift.

As I thought about that, I recalled one Christmas, back in 1966, when I was a deputy sheriff and was also working both Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. There was a relatively poor family living out on what was called the Mesa. The father was a long-haul trucker and the mom worked at a local cleaners. Their four kids ranged from six to thirteen years of age. The father was going to be home for Christmas with his family for the first time in a long while. You see, he hauled frozen turkeys as part of his trucking job.

Well, on the afternoon of Christmas Eve, my partner and I got a call to take a burglary report at this same family's residence. It seems they came home from work and found their house had been burglarized and all the Christmas presents under their small Christmas tree were gone. The younger kids were crying and even the oldest had big ol' tears in his eyes. The dad was down, and I mean down in the dumps, and the mother was busy trying to comfort all of them.

My partner and I even felt really bad about what happened to them on that Christmas Eve. We took the report and left them to themselves to suffer through what would have been a very merry Christmas. That would have been especially true for two of the boys, since they were going to get brand new bicycles for Christmas. The dad had picked them up from lay-a-way the day before.

Well, we drove off in our patrol car and decided to go have some coffee in a local coffee shop. Cops tend to do that a lot, you know. Anyway, we finished our coffee and pulled away from the coffee shop only to spot an older model large truck pass by with what appeared to be two brand new bicycles in the truck bed. The driver and the passenger were men who appeared to be in their late fifties.

We couldn't seem to feature those two older guys riding bicycles for some reason. We fell in behind the truck as it made its way slowly along State Highway One near the beach. As we pulled closer (it was dark by now), we could see in our headlights what appeared to be red bows tied to the handlebars of the two bicycles.

We could also see some Christmas wrapping once in a while from a little further down inside the truck bed. The bicycles that were stolen were reported to be blue and red in color. The bicycles in the truck were blue and red.

Now, even two deputy sheriffs full of bad coffee could figure out that what we were looking at was a clue. We lit up the truck (turning on our red lights) and pulled it over.

I did the walk up from the driver's side while my partner covered everything from the right rear while holding a racked up 12 gauge shotgun. He and I knew immediately that we had found the Christmas burglars. We busted the two bad guys and booked them in the county jail for burglary.

We knew the whole time the charges were not going to stick because we took that stolen property, and instead of placing it in evidence we had another deputy haul it in his own personal truck back to the family out on the Mesa. When we all pulled into the family's driveway at about eight o clock that same night with all those gifts, including the two new bicycles, there are not any words that could describe the amount of happiness that filled the air. That trucker looked at my partner and me and simply said, "I owe you guys big time."

It was on the following New Year's day that my partner and I arrived at the department to go on duty and the desk sergeant told us to go look in the squad room. Setting on top of the table in there were two huge and still frozen, thirty pound turkeys."
My thoughts:

1. Sadly, if this story took place in Christmas 2006, the sheriffs could not have taken the same approach. If they had, no doubt various criminal coddling so-called "minority rights" groups, ranging from the ACLU to the SPLC to whoever else, would have accused the police of false arrest, and taking a bribe--of frozen turkeys. Perhaps today the sheriffs could have phoned the family and told them their gifts were found and to have a delayed Christmas.

2. The sheriffs would be accused by the aforementioned commie lib groups (ACLU, La Raza, SPLC, etc.) of abusing the poor ethnic minority criminals if they happened to be Mexican American or some other designated group (a high demographic chance in San Luis Obispo County), and it wouldn't matter one bit even if the robbed poor family was also Mexican American or some other designated group (an even higher demographic probability in San Luis Obispo County, as burglars often are burglarizing their own communities). And God help the sheriffs if the robbers were illegal aliens.

3. Gee, if the police back in 1966 had such power to abuse minorities with impunity, as the commie libs assert, why would the burglary charges not stick if the stolen property was returned in time for Christmas? Wouldn't the testimony of the victims and the sheriffs been enough? Could it be that the police back then didn't have the ability to act with impunity after all?

Thursday, November 23, 2006

"IF I DID IT..."

(courtesy of Tim LeFever, Capital Resource Institute)

"I was only half listening to the radio when I first heard that a notorious criminal was finally going to come clean. Sort of.

Once idolized by so many throughout the world, he was now labeled a horrible butcher. I remembered how we all focused on the chase and the anti-climatic conclusion as he was taken into custody.

My mind wandered as I thought about the division in our country. At one point we had all been so sure, and then the doubts crept in. All of the evidence pointed to only one conclusion. Reputations were staked on proving their case. But, then the issue became political and the government was accused of lying, even manufacturing evidence.

Whatever the man’s other sins, much of the population was sure he was innocent of this current accusation. And now, a bit of a crack in the fa├žade. We were going to get a glimpse of how such a secret could be kept for so long. We would know, from his own mouth what horror he was capable of.

It was unclear how a divided population would react to conclusive evidence of the evil. After all, so many were invested in the rightness of their arguments.

Then somehow the storyline changed. In fact, I was not going to get a glimpse behind the curtain. All doubts were not going to be resolved. But, not because Murdoch was pulling the story.

My mistake. I thought Saddam Hussein was going to confess to moving or hiding the WMD.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Minority Leadership: Republicans STILL don't get it...

Columnist Jeff Jacoby astutely observes that of all people, the person who best understands the recent Republican congressional losses is....Bill Clinton!


The reason we are at this moment," former president Bill Clinton told a group of Democratic donors on Nov. 1, "is that they do not represent faithfully the Republicans and the more conservative independents in the country. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here tonight. This is a sweeping, deep, big thing."

According to the nation's most popular Democrat, in other words, Republicans were about to be punished for having abandoned their Republican principles. Voters were going to demote the GOP not because its agenda had grown too conservative — but because it hadn't been conservative enough.
Note that the new House and Senate Democrats who have won election are, or are at least pretending to be, "Blue Dog" or "Boll Weevil" Democrats, not Demunist Dhimmicrat Commiecrats. That ought to tell us something right there.

But who are the Republicans picking as minority leadership? The same old, same old, who let this mess happen. They just don't get it....

For House Minority Leader, the business-as-usual Rep. John Boehner of Ohio defeated true conservative Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana in a closed-door election among colleagues. The vote tally was 168-27 with one vote for Texas Rep. Joe Barton.

The business-as-usual Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., won minority whip, despite heavy sentiment for true conservative Rep. John Shadegg, R-Az.

And the Senate Minority Leader now? The pork-barrelling Trent Lott!

No I don't care about the Left's bogus cries of "racism" trap. Lott's remarks at a dying old senator's 100th birthday party were in retrospect harmless, just as that now deceased senator turned out to be.

The real problem with Trent Lott is that his attitude towards pork, and especially his attitude about the people who oppose pork spending, perfectly encapsulates why voters have grown disgusted with Congress and the Republican majority.

One of the major legislative reforms that came out of the last session of Congress was the bipartisan Tom Coburn - Barack Obama spending database. Bill Frist managed to expertly get that through in the last days of the legislative calendar. However, that dexterous performance only became necessary because Lott used an arcane Senate rule to kill the database back in March. Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., offered the database in an amendment to a lobbying reform bill under consideration, and Trent Lott invoked Rule 22, which stripped the amendment from the bill for its supposed irrelevance to lobbying reform.

This naturally inspired a lot of criticism from the Blogosphere, which has focused on earmarks (especially secret earmarks) as a point of entry for corruption in Congress. In response to this criticism, Lott told an AP reporter that “I’ll just say this about the so-called Porkbusters. I’m getting damn tired of hearing from them.”

In other words, Lott is a pathetic and lame politician who belongs to a generation of politicians that believe that they are above the criticism of their constituents, and that we should just shut up and let our betters decide what to do with us. I expect that from the Politboro of Demunist Commiecrats, but not from Republicans.

If the Republicans in Congress think people like Lott represent what the GOP learned from being stripped of their majority, then Republicans should prepare to spend more than a few years in the wilderness.

Perhaps we can count on the Moonbat Marxists and Demunist Dhimmicrat Commiecrats to do something really stupid, like John Conyers pushing for impeachment hearings, to save us. Or perhaps the newbie Boll Weevils and Blue Dogs will balk at how the senior Demunist Dhimmicrat Commiecrats tell them to vote. Pelosi's push for John Murtha rather than Stenny Hoyer to be House Majority Leader was a good sign, although that apparently has more to do with a personal vendetta between the Pelosi and Hoyer political families rather than ideology. Before San Fran Nan was San Fran Nan, she lived in Maryland, and her political family clashed with the Hoyers.

But I'd rather have proactive Republicans who actually understand what went wrong, rather than just rely on moonbats to be moonbats!

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

A sad farewell to Uncle Miltie


This guy rocked (the world of economics).

If it hadn't been for guys like Milt, would the current day USA economically look much more like current day Germany, France, Sweden or Italy (that is, stagnating and decaying)? That's certainly where the leftists antagonists of Harvard, MIT and the other "salt-water" institutions wanted to take our country back in the '70s. And for a while they did just that ("We are all Keynesians now...")

Note that Milt wasn't totally libertarian or anarcho-capitalist; he still advocated a central bank governmental manipulation of the money supply. Still, that's a LOT less of an intrusion into the economy than social(ist) programs, or wage and price manipulations.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Too many statists? Is California doomed?

At first I thought the reckless bond initiative wins and the parental notification and eminent domain initiative losses were due to Ah-nold's withholding of support. But as Lt. Col. Gil Ferguson, USMC Retired and former Assemblyman, posted to "Steven Frank's California Political News And Views", is the problem really with too many people in California too?

The winning votes for all the bonds on the ballot in California and the votes against requiring parental notification of their daughter’s abortion and the unbelievable failure of the initiative prohibiting government from taking your home and giving it to a developer, all say more about America today than we would like to believe. There are so many people working for the government and so many people dependent on the government and so many newly arrived immigrants, ignorant of America and so many workers committed to unions,--- that together, they are an overwhelming voting block. And it is a social segment, based on their income and loyalty to class and minority status, that is easy to alarm and turn out at the polls. How else can you explain the fact that Californians willingly indebted themselves to the tune of nearly $100 Billion Dollars. It was obvious from the pro side advertisements, that a majority of voters believed voting for bonds was a way of buying things for free. Prop 90 , limiting the government’s right to take your home failed because the police, teachers, fire fighters and other public employee unions and those who benefit from government programs were asked to vote against their own self interest as homeowners and vote for their interests as a beneficiary of government. If the government must pay you for diminishing the value of your property, there will be less money for your pay and perks and social programs. Its as simple as that; those in the wagon now outnumber or at least out vote those pulling it. Those demographics, a selfish Governor, plus a failure of leadership at the state GOP, resulted in the landslide against us!

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Cali Election Results: Thanks for nothing, Ah-nold

Well, it's been over a week since the last elections, and it is time to stop mourning.

Actually, on a national / federal government level, I really DIDN'T mourn. I fully accepted the fact that some of the "conservatives" we sent to Congress in 1994 became bloated, corrupt, earmarking, tone-deaf toads by 2006. They thought they could do whatever they wanted, regardless of what their constituents think, and now they have been reminded of just who is working for whom.

Moreover, the Presidential leadership didn't help, and in fact made matters worse. It is appalling how out of touch Karl Rove and Mr. Bush have been on such issues as immigration and the expansion of entitlement programs (what kind of "conservative" president gives us a further entrenchment of the federalized education mess?)

As for the War in Iraq, I stand with the President, but he hasn't articulated to the nation why we must carry on, even though anyone with half a brain on the matter knows we must.

On the state level, however, I do despair. Tom McClintock, perhaps the Last Totally Honest Politician, has failed, albeit narrowly. Stick a fork in California and turn it over, we're done for....

How did Tom fail? I fear we Republican patriots have been had. We were conned by Governator Ah-nold, who we thought would save our party. Alas, Ah-nold easily sells us out. Ah-nold is only out for Ah-nold. And yes, given that the California Republican Party went all out for Ah-nold in 2003, he owed the party some payback, big time.

Democrat operatives feared that Ah-nold would have a "coat-tails" effect, helping out other Republican candidates who would bask in the glow of his popularity. They need not have worried; Ah-nold tucked in his coattails and hogged the limelight.

The RINOs of the party, and even a good many conservative stalwarts like Hugh Hewitt, sold us on the idea of what a "Fiscal Conservative, Social Liberal" Ah-nold was back in 2003.

Well, what a fraud that has proven to be. Ah-nold campaigned hard for the bonds, even utterly reckless and stupid bond propositions like 1C, 1D, and 84. All of them passed, even the "bait and switch" Prop. 84 that gives the Legislature the right to spend on anything as long as they say it is "water supply related", even though it is really about more parks and wildlife area acquisition.

Ah-nold was also very disappointing when it came to two other ballot initiatives. It is very sad to see parents giving up their rights to the government in California (Proposition 85). This wasn’t about abortion; the ballot initiative was written to avoid any pro-life construction. It was about parents having the right to raise their children. Gee, how about voting for a Prop. that allows minors to use medical marijuana without parents knowing? Ah-nold also worked to stop the passage of Prop. 90, which would have stopped the uncontrolled abuse of eminent domain.

Ah-nold wouldn't help embattled Republican congresscritters in California either. While in Stockton a week before Election Day, Ah-nold was asked if he supported Congressman Richard Pombo for re-election, and he said "that is a Federal issue" and "I am only concentrating on State issues." Pombo lost narrowly. With his loss, the effort to return the Endangered Species Act to common sense has ended. Pombo was defeated by the national "environmental" (i.e., property seizure) community which poured money and people-power into his Stockton area district. Then again, these are the same eco-fiend people that cheered the Governor for his leadership in the passage of AB 32, the utterly bogus "global warming" bill.

But worst of all, Ah-nold was no help at the state level! In the past, GOP candidates for Governor have nearly always campaigned with the statewide ticket and openly for fellow state-level Republican legislative candidates. Yet, Ah-nold did not make a single TV or radio ad for any of his fellow Republicans, nor did he have rallies and public appearances with the rest of the California Republican slate as media events. Sadly, McClintock, Poochigian, Parrish and Strickland lost, McClintock quite narrowly. Even the man he appointed as Secretary of State, Bruce McPherson, narrowly lost— to a complete nobody like Debra Bowen. None of the five losing Republicans were allowed any public connection to the Schwarzenegger for Governor effort. Given the Governator's popularity, the narrow Republican losses of McClintock and McPherson, and Phil Angelides' weasely attitude, all it would have taken would have been a public arm around the shoulder on a TV ad to have helped!

Then we had the Schwarzenegger statement that Senator McClintock was "totally wrong" on the bonds, and that Tom "would not support the rebuilding of California." Coming as it did in the last days of the race, as we now see, the statement stopped McClintock's momentum and gave opponent John Garamendi something to say. The last weekend of the race, Garamendi had recorded message phone calls all over the state. A lady gave the pitch claiming to be a lifelong Republican and then quoted the Governor and said, even though she is a Republican, she would vote for Garamendi.

I was very disappointed in the Governator not backing Mc Clintock; he could have said we have a difference of opinion on the bonds, but we’ll let the people decide and then we look forward to working together whatever the result.

If Schwazenegger’s attack on McClintock influenced only 5% of the voters in the 6 counties in which the MediaNews Group has influence, that translates to about 50% of McClintock’s margin of loss. Until Schwarzenegger attacked, McClintock had a documented lead (albeit within the margin of error). After the Governator’s attack was published, the bottom fell out.

The usually mild mannered Board of Equalization Member Bill Leonard got upset about this and wrote in his online newsletter the following:

As much as I want Governor Schwarzenegger to win the election, I have been hoping that he would not say something damaging in the closing days before the election. My hopes are dashed. He has attacked Senator Tom McClintock as "totally wrong" on the bonds, saying that if Tom got his way California would never be rebuilt. The Governor is the one who is wrong and on several counts.

First, it is not politically smart to attack your own running mate (at least before the election). Whatever political pain McClintock might inflict on the Governor with his principled positions will be trumped by the crassly partisan slashes that a Garamendi would do if he is elected.

Second, McClintock actually supported one of the bonds (Proposition 1F, on the grounds that Delta Levees affect the whole State Water Project and not just the local
farmers) and agrees with the Governor on setting aside highway tax dollars for highway construction and maintenance (Proposition 1A). The Governor should be thanking Tom for this support because a lot of the rest of us conservatives see the whole bond package as a fiscal disaster as inevitable as the next flood in Sacramento.

In the 30th Assembly District (Bakersfield area), Republican nominee Dan Gilmore lost to the incumbent Nicole Parra by 23,839 to 22,281. Do you think that a visit by the Governator or a radio or television ad from the Governator, or even signs with the names Schwarzenegger and Gilmore together would have helped? FYI, Arnold won Kern County by a three to one margin. And there were a few other narrow Republican State Senate or State Assembly losses where the Governator's star power would have made the difference.

Ah-nold had his re-election in the bag, why not help out the rest of his party, who went all-out for him back in 2003?

I think this is why not: Arnold has a pathetic need to be liked, and he would not risk one point of his ego boosting landslide by publicly supporting his Republican ticketmates.

He deserves all the grief he will get from the newly elected Democratic statewide officers. Of course, he can prevent this grief by governing 75 percent as a Democrat instead of 35 percent. And I fear this is where we in "Gollivornia" are heading....

Funny how we always hear from the RINOs that the "intolerant" social conservatives drive the "moderates" out. But in this election, RINO Ah-nold shunned the social conservatives, who said nothing but positive comments about him. Who really are not the team players here?

This year, with a strong Arnold and a weak, unattractive opponent like Phil Angelides, was a great opportunity to carry a conservative message to the public. The people would have been willing to elect serious conservatives (like McClintock, McPherson, Parrish and Strickland, McClintock and McPherson lost quite narrowly) because they knew Arnold was behind them. Arnold could have been the bridge between the (real) Republican party and the muddleheaded centrist voters. Instead, Ah-nold chose to avoid the slightest effort to persuade them of the value of the Republican party and its principles. His victory speech last night was a disgrace — no concern whatsoever for the GOP base, who went to bat for him back in 2003.

There are two Republican parties in CA. There is the genuine, California Republican Assembly / Tom McClintock party, which is not viable because it can’t get on the air because it doesn’t have any money. And then there is "Arnold Incorporated". I don’t see how any serious conservative can work for Arnold Incorporated, or care much about what’s coming next from these people.

This was not the CaGOP’s finest hour. A critical review of Duf Sundheim’s stewardship is in order, along with every other Republican Party leader who was seduced by Ah-nold's star power.

Friday, November 17, 2006

Linda Chavez, you ignorant slut...

A tale of two columnists:

Linda Chavez, a woman who I normally admire, just doesn't get it.

Will the greedheads and the immigration romantics ever wise up? Linda Chavez does nothing but recite anecdotes, and ignores the fact that the losing Republicans she profiles lost DESPITE their stances on immigration, not because of them.

And she continues to push the "comprehensive immigration reform" lie. Without a solid border wall / fence, and without a beefed up Border Patrol and INS enforcement, "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" is simply the 1986 fiasco all over again.

But Linda gets worse:


Americans also want to make sure illegal aliens don't exploit social services and aren't given special preferences. Most importantly, they want to ensure that all immigrants learn English and that government function in English, as Arizona voters demonstrated by supporting initiatives dealing with those specific issues on Tuesday.

Oh really? Yet when we in California and some other states tried ballot initiatives to do just that, you joined the leftist scum with the usual false charges of "racism". We remember that, Linda.

Linda, go back to writing about labor union abuses; you were good at that.

Meanwhile, Pat Buchanan, a man who lately has disgusted me, DOES get it:


Bush and Karl Rove still have not gotten the message, and probably never will. They have swallowed the Wall Street Journal and Weekly Standard line that the party's tough stance against illegal immigration hurts with Hispanics, and only a "comprehensive" immigration bill can heal the wounds. "Comprehensive" is the code word for amnesty.

But Bush and Rove are misreading the returns as badly as they misread the country when they predicted the GOP would hold onto both chambers. Let's have another look at those returns.

According to NumbersUSA, while Republicans lost 11.5 percent of their House seats, or one in nine, the Immigration Caucus of Tom Tancredo, the House hawks, lost 6.7 percent of its complement, only one in 16. Among Republicans given an "F" by immigration hawks, however, fully 25 percent lost their re-election bids, a bloodbath among the open-borders-and-amnesty-now crowd.

Imitation, it is said, is the sincerest form of flattery. Thus it is a testament to the popular appeal of the stop-the-invasion stand that Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton voted for 700 miles of security fence.


Mind you, when it comes to the Middle East, Pat Buchanan has gone into what can be called pigheaded isolationism at best, and subtle anti-Semitism at worst.

But he gets the immigration problem, and Linda Chavez doesn't. Nor do the greedheads and immigration romantics at the Wall Street Journal.

Indulging in their favorite pastime, cherry-picking evidence, the immigration romantics claim that the losses in Arizona by Rep. J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, both hardliners, prove that Arizona and America reject a law-and-order approach to illegal immigration.

Yet Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, a hardliner, won re-election easily.

Why did Graf and Hayworth lose? Jim Kolbe, the GOP congressman whom Graf chased out of the race, refused to endorse them, and Mehlman's RNC gutted them in the primary, that's why.

Pat Buchanan also demolishes the nonsense about how Republicans lost 8 points of the Latino vote because of their stances on immigration. In reality, Republicans lost 7-8 points among just about ALL voting groups, across the board. The immigration romantics and greedheads:

"also point to the fall-off in the Hispanic vote for the GOP, from 38 percent in 2002 to 30 percent in 2006, and attribute the drop-off to calls for a border fence. Yet far more serious was the fall-off among white voters, whose support....fell from 58 percent in 2002 to 51 percent.

The relevant truth: The GOP vote fell 7 or 8 percent among all voters."

One doesn't have to like a guy like Buchanan to know when he is telling the truth, and Linda Chavez and her ilk are living in delusion:

It is the defection of its white vote that is killing the GOP. The Reagan Democrats are going home.

If Bush and Rove think they can win them back with amnesty and a guest-worker program that out-sources immigration policy to K Street, they will end up doing for the national party what Gov. George Pataki did for it in New York.


Sigh. Will sensible Republicans ever wise up?

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Peter Brimelow sums up the elections

He's not right on everything he asserts, but for the most part he is spot-on:

Instead, the full measure of the disaster is that the conservative movement has essentially nothing to show for its moment in the sun. The discontents of the Religious Right are well-known. Economic conservatives are confronted with relentlessly increasing federal government spending. To mention one of my pet interests, far from being willing to break the power of the teacher unions and introduce market forces into public education, the Bush Administration has done exactly the opposite: moving to federalize the K-12 system in a way that is certain to be captured by the education Establishment. And, of course, Bush turned out to be bent on actually increasing immigration, already running at record nation- (and party-) breaking levels.
(...)
The alternative strategy is obvious even in this election. In Arizona, Colorado and Michigan, grass-roots initiatives aimed at combating illegal immigration and affirmative action quotas (a species of National Question issue, because quotas directly attack the American majority) won in the teeth of media and elite opposition. In Michigan, combining lack of principle with its normal stupidity, the Republican leadership ran away from Ward Connerly's Michigan Civil Rights Initiative and the party was utterly routed at every level of state government.
However, we know from earlier experience with California's Proposition 187 in 1994, and for that matter Arizona's Proposition 200 in 2004, that just because the immigration issue walks up and bangs on the Republican Party's door, it is not necessarily welcomed--indeed, it can be rebuffed....

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Exit polls???



Many thanks to "Wild Thing". That was too good. And for her age, she looks really good.

It's 4 PM here, so when do we hear the East Coast exit polls?

If the exit polls really show a Demunist sweep, they will be released immediately.

If the exit polls show modest Demuninst gains, they will be delayed a bit.

If the exit polls show Republicans holding on, they get buried.

Count on it.

Monday, November 06, 2006

"Save The GOP, Save The World"

The polls are trying to convince us that it's a Republican Waterloo.

But it's really a Republican Bastogne.

Consider the parallels. The Republican leadership, and some Republican congresscritters, have really botched it lately. Just like from D-Day to Bastogne. Think Operation Market Garden, or the disasters at Anzio and Monte Cassino. To say nothing of being caught napping by the initial Bulge.

Why are the Demunists so intense? Because this really is their last stand. If they make no gains, or paltry gains, after all this effort, then they really have nothing of any substance left. And 2008 will be "Four More Years", just as 1988 was initially.

Tonight, "Heroes" is on the Boob Tube. So tomorrow morning, "Save the Republicans, save the world..."

And tomorrow, we can be heroes, just for one day....

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Mountjoy for Senate

He can’t win; Dianne Feinstein has this wrapped up. Still, I like him because he isn’t afraid to stand for what he believes.

For the last decade and a half, the Republicans have made three choices in taking on the Boxer - Feinstein Axis (in fairness, Dianne Feinstein is not shrill like Boxer is):

1. Serious principled conservative (so-called "extremist") Republican candidate, who campaigns on a moderate budget and who loses VERY narrowly (Bruce Herschensohn 1992).

2. Pathetic "moderate" Republican candidate who has backing of party establishment, is afraid to raise hard questions, and gets utterly trounced (Matt Fong 1998, Tom Campbell 2000, Bill Jones 2004). Are we learning anything here?

3. Vacuous and vapid airhead Republican candidate who also has backing of party establishment, throws his fortune into the race, and still loses, albeit very narrowly (Mike Huffington 1994)

I know which path Mr. Mountjoy is on, and I know what path I am on. Taking into consideration the fact that he is spending next to nothing in his campaign and never had a chance anyway, Mr. Mountjoy is actually doing remarkably well in the polls. Will the GOP learn anything from this? We can only hope.

Parrish for Treasurer, Lockyer is a Jackass

Unfortunately, current Attorney General Bill Lockyer is the favorite, and he is such a jackass. Why is he a jackass? Read on:

(at this point, you might want to play “Corona” (The “Jackass” TV show theme song) by The Minutemen, some of you can probably hum it in your head)

Two months ago, now Attorney General Bill Lockyer announced that he was going to sue automakers in order to get them to pay for the damage caused by global warming.

Here is the line of his argument: Cars emit carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases cause global warming, global warming will turn the entire California coast, from Coronado to Crescent City, into an underwater community, so therefore, the automakers should pay the California government money. He called automobiles “a public nuisance” because people drive them to work to feed their families, and because people drive them from all over the United States to vacation at Disneyland or Sea World, and because, while all these people are doing all of these heinous things, the world is allegedly getting warmer.

Let’s leave the debate over whether global warming is actually occurring aside. We won’t even discuss the idea that, even if it is occurring, it may not be occurring because of human activity. (You remember the dinosaurs. The whole world was pretty warm then, and there wasn’t one single automobile, airplane, or politician spewing hot air anywhere).

Speaking of the 1970’s again: do you all remember back then when the “climatologists” were claiming that we would experience “global cooling” and “a new ice age” caused by fossil fuel burning that would put too many sunlight blocking particles and cool water vapor into the atmosphere? If I remember my Chemistry formulas right, Burn 4 parts gasoline or kerosene jet fuel and you get about 5 parts water vapor along with your exhaust. Look at the pretty cloud trails the jet planes leave behind.

Now why was Lockyer the jackass doing this? Not too long ago, the Public Policy Institute issued a poll which showed that somewhere around 60% of the people in California think that global warming is actually occurring. This poll was done in July, one of the hottest months on record, and released in August, one of the coolest (relative to August) months ever. This summer proves that you can never count on the weather to prove or disprove political positions.

Due to the hot weather in July, the Capitol building in Sacramento was treated to the emission of tons of greenhouses gases in August, as politicians spewed out their tripe about the importance of doing something about global warming. Governor Schwarzenegger got into the act, and ultimately signed AB 32, which will usher in one huge new “carbon dioxide” bureaucracy.

I adamantly disagree with the Governor on the issue, but I cannot fault his process. He followed the constitutionally mandated way of dealing with the issue, and, as flawed as the legislation is, it at least followed the appropriate procedure as it passed through the Legislature. I suppose that the real remedy for the passage of AB 32 would be to get a new Legislature.

What Attorney General Lockyer did, however, was a pure publicity stunt. He read the poll, and, not to be outdone by the Governor, decided to get in on the political action. He drafts up this questionable lawsuit, spends your tax dollars on the lawyers to go after the automakers, holds a big press conference to show that he is “fighting” global warming, and hopes that you will vote for him for State Treasurer. He claims that the “public nuisance” law allows him to do this (it doesn’t, but hey, it’s worth a try), but he is really making a mockery of the law, the state, and the judicial system by filing this lawsuit.

To use our legal system and our tax dollars to claim otherwise is simply an abuse of our legal processes, and a publicity stunt that deserves condemnation. Attorney General Lockyer should have been busy catching bad guys and putting them in jail. And this jackass now wants to be Treasurer? Nope, time to send the thankfully term limited jackass back to his law practice, and out of state office.

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Edward C. Noonan for Governor

Ah-nold has this locked up, so why not protest vote for the American Independent candidate? Pick a REAL conservative over a RINO.

I choose Mr. Noonan to “send a message” to Ah-nold: Don’t get complacent, just because your opponent is such a weasel who is easy to defeat. Normally, 3rd parties are a joke, but here, I find use for them.

And yes, Phil Angelides is a weasel. From the beginning of his time in government, Phil Angelides has never met a government program he didn’t like, or tax that he thought was too high. During the budget crisis, his contribution to the spending problem was to renegotiate state bonds to obtain a payment holiday. In other words, for two years we did not pay off any of the principal while interest accrued. That is Phil Angelides way of “saving” the state money. In the end, state taxpayers ended up spending more money, and getting no relief, as Angelides tried to paper over the state’s deficit. You and I are still paying for his ill-considered solution to the deficit.

During his campaign against Steve Westly, he proposed tax increases to close the deficit he worked so hard to create and perpetuate. He claimed that the state could not cut any government programs, and that the only way to solve the state’s continuing fiscal crises was to raise taxes on you and me. Even though state spending was $57 billion just seven years ago, and $79 billion just two years ago, State Treasurer Angelides believes our present $101 billion general fund budget is not adequate enough to deal with the state’s problems.

In 1992, the state spent approximately $6,000 per student in 2006 inflation adjusted dollars to educate our children. This year, we are spending well over $10,000 per student, over 70% increase in spending per student in the last 14 years. Angelides believes that 70% more is not enough.

Angelides said he only wants to tax “the rich” (meaning the high income, regardless of expense overhead or actual asset wealth), not the middle class, but most people are smarter than that. You should know by now that if a politician is eager to raise taxes on one group of people, it is only matter of time your their taxes will go up as well.

Moreover, if the state increases taxes on the high income, they move to Florida or Texas, or some other state where they DON’T tax income. Since these high-income people that Phil wants to tax now pay over 30% of our taxes, government revenue will go down when these high-income folks move to another state. Their employees pay income taxes and they pay thousands in sales taxes that are not directly attributable to them. In addition, most of these people own businesses that have employees who pay income taxes.

If these people start moving out of California, and taking their money and their businesses with them, the state will then tax the rest of us to the max. The Angelides budget will look an awful lot like the Davis budget; lots of red ink and a fiscal crisis of epic proportion.

Friday, November 03, 2006

Don't bring back the '70's, part 2

In the spirit of the last post, I found this: A JC Penney catalog from 1977. If THIS doesn't persuade you not to continue or reintroduce Jimmy Carter liberal policies, then nothing will.



It's not often blog fodder just falls in my lap, but holy hell this was two solid inches of it, right there for the taking.

In the spirit of Jimmy Carter's "malaise" and Former Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown's "era of limits", I thumbed through it quickly and found a recycled dining room set, which is apparently made by adding upholstery to old barrels:


And the government who wants us to "think Green" probably would insist that we get this for our bathrooms:


There's plenty more home furnishings where those came from, however I'm not going to go on and on about that. Instead, I'm going to go on and on about something else. The clothes. The clothes are fantastic:


Just look at that belt. It's like a boob-job for your pants. He probably needed help just to lift it into place. The belt loops have to be three inches long. What were fashion designers and parents thinking in those days? Well, it was the same mentality that brought us wage and price controls, synfuels, hyperinflation, rising unemployment, and rationing, make no mistake about it. No wonder this kid probably "needed" Ritalin.


This kid looks like he's pretending to be David Soul, who is pretending to be a cop who is pretending to be a pimp that everyone knows is really an undercover cop. Who is pretending to be 15.


This "all purpose jumpsuit" is, according to the description, equally appropriate for playing golf or simply relaxing around the house. Personally, I can't see wearing this unless you happen to be relaxing around your cell in D-block. Even then, the only reason you should put this thing on is because the warden made you, and as a one-piece, it's slightly more effective as a deterrent.
And let's not forget that the "gay" agenda began in the 1970's too. If you look at the picture above, you can see why. It looks like a proto -Bob Saget without pants has his hand in the other guy's pocket. In this case, he doesn't, although you can tell just by looking at them that it's happened - or if it hasn't happened it will. Oh yes. It will. As soon as he puts down his matching coffee cup.


He looks like he's reaching for a gun, which, given the rising crime of the 1970's, would be awesome, but you know it's probably just a bottle of suntan lotion in a holster.


If you wear this suit and don't sell used cars for a living, I believe you can be fined and face serious repercussions, up to and including termination. Or imprisonment, in which case you'd be forced to wear that orange jumpsuit. Unfortunately, some of the GOP establishment still dress like this! This explains their immigration policies. I mean, you just can't mow your own lawn or prune your own hedges if you look like that.


Dear god in heaven, I don't believe that color exists in nature. There is NO excuse for wearing either of these ensembles unless you're working as a body guard for the Lucky Charms leprechaun, or perhaps Jerry Brown in his heyday.

In this next one, Your Search For VALUE Ends at Penneys:


....as does your search for chest hair. Maybe the metrosexuals who get their chest hair shaved or even removed have a point.

And this -- Seriously. No words.


Oh wait, it turns out that there are words after all. Those words are What... The... Fuck... I'm guessing the snap front gives you quick access to the chest hair. The little tie must be the pull tab.

Also, judging by the sheer amount of matching his/hers outfits, I'm guessing that in 1977 it was considered pretty stylish for couples to dress alike. It was all that unisex feminism NOW was pushing. These couples look happy, don't they?



I am especially fond of this one, which I have entitled "Cowboy Chachi Loves You Best."


And nothing showcases your everlasting love more than the commitment of matching bathing suits. That, and a blonde wife or girlfriend with a look on her face that says "I love the way your cock fits against that fabric."



Then, after the lovin', you can relax in your one-piece matching terry cloth jumpsuits:



I repeat. If you vote for bad liberal policies reminiscient of the 1970's, we could look like THIS again, without the restored youth and vigor:



Thursday, November 02, 2006

Election Time: Don't Bring Back the 1970's

At first I felt like stating: “Vote Republican, in spite of all their MANY disappointments, because if you don’t, the Dhimmicrats will surrender the country." Which in the short run is not true, although in the very long run it definitely is.

But then I thought about it some more and I figured I could sum up this election in one sentence: “Don’t bring back the 1970’s.” Seriously, they were a bad time for the nation in general (and even to some extent the family in particular). And sadly, there are serious movements afoot to bring us back there.

On the national level, we have an entire political party that has decided that the USA should cut off aid to the new regime in Iraq, give up on making a better government there, and let Baghdad and Basra 2007 turn into Saigon and Da Nang 1975. You might want to seek out some of the ethnic people who fled for their lives and moved into California in the 1970’s, and ask them just how well THAT went. This political party even threw a dyed in the wool liberal like Joe Lieberman off its bandwagon and under its wheels because he didn’t want to surrender like that.

On the state level:
--we have a retired “Moonbeam” politician from the 1970’s trying to rise out of his political coffin in Oakland.
--we have a ballot initiative that thinks that punishing energy producers will improve our energy supplies, just like the 1970’s (Proposition 87)
--we have other ballot initiatives that resurrect, amplify, or perpetuate bad policies that date from the 1970’s (Propositions 1C, 86, 88, and 89)

We do have one important difference: in the 1970’s, we were all supposed to be scared into lowering our standard of living by “global cooling”, which rested upon dubious science. Now, they want to scare us into lowering our standard of living by “global warming”, which rests upon no less and perhaps even more dubious science.

Seriously, folks, a few bad votes and we could end up looking like THIS again, WITHOUT the recaptured youth:


Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Tom McClintock: The California Lion




You have to read this essay.


The Introductory quote --and parallel--from William Manchester's "The Last Lion" says it all.


Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Sad but true: No Black Cat Adoptions During Halloween

Yes, apparently this temporary ban on black cat adoptions is common among animal shelters throughout the nation.

Like many shelters around the country, the Kootenai Humane Society in Coeur d'Alene is prohibiting black cat adoptions from now to November 2, fearing the animals could be mistreated in Halloween pranks -- or worse, sacrificed in some satanic ritual.

And although this story has a date line of rural Idaho, my own local "Cats About Town" cat adoption and rescue service has the exact same policy.

I can't believe people can be so sick....then again, in a world full of savagery, maybe I can.

How do Muslims treat cats, I wonder? Surely even the most occultic of Americans can be better than that?

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Ted Kennedy Sucked Up To The Soviets In The '80's


And you wonder why I call them "Demunist Commiecrats"???

Now this news isn't new; a decade ago, former Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin actually wrote about this at length in his memoirs. But ANY attempt to bring this into the forefront is appreciated, especially at this time. They got "October Surprises"? So do we....

This doesn't "legally" make Picklebrains Teddy an out and out traitor, but it does make him, at best, an out and out dupe, and at worst, an unprincipled hack.

THAT is why you can't ever trust this Party of Treason, as it is currently constituted, with any elective offices.

There were once many anti-communist Democrats, not marinated in academic anti-Americanism. But "Scoop" Jackson is dead, Sam Nunn and Zell Miller retired, and the rest changed parties or died or retired as well.

Now? Nearly all. Demunists. Commiecrats. Traitors.

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Phone-y Polling

Based on a "phone poll" telephone call I received, I'm inclined to think that the reason polls seem to favor Demunists has to do with polling techniques, and the fact that they often over sample Demunists.

I got polled over the phone the other day on the subject of "Stem Cell Research". The question of whether or not I would support the government's subsidy of corporations for such research, and whether it involved use of aborted human embryos or fetuses or not, was not mentioned. The poll was worded in an almost comically biased fashion:

"Considering the fact that Stem Cell Research...." (no mention of government subsidy or not, and not specifically asking about aborted human embryonic or fetal research, just "stem cell")
"....will lead to the cures of diseases like Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, and others...." (Oh really? What definite breakthrough, with specifically aborted embryonic or fetal human material, has happened? At this point the researchers are taking shots in the dark and hoping for the best; nothing definitive has happened)
"....and will not lead to human cloning...."(Oh really? What laws stop them?)
"....or more abortions...."(Oh really? Why WOULDN'T there be a greater incentive for abortions now that there is a commodity to be harvested for profit?),
"....and will actually be the greatest thing since sliced bread, and only a cold hearted fiend would be against it, if the election were held today, would you be more or less in favor of a candidate who supported it?"

OK, I am exaggerating the bias in the poll's wording a little, but just a little.

And I took great relish in answering, in as contemptful a voice as I could muster, "LESS....in fact, I favor tying Michael J. Fox to railroad tracks and twirling my handlebar Snidely Whiplash moustache with the train coming to run him over as he makes jerky motions and cries for help. Muahahahahaha...."

Friday, October 27, 2006

Former Gov. Moonbeam Rises From Political Crypt


Jerry Brown wants to rise up out of his political coffin as Mayor of Oakland, to become the state's Attorney General. Are there no political wooden stakes to drive through him?

Interestingly, in the article by Jill Stewart, Former Governor Moonbeam complains of leftists who attack him:
Mr. Brown then promptly slams the (Berkeley) Daily Planet, saying the paper repeatedly and wrongly reported that he tried "to remove the black leadership of Oakland, and they have always quoted or used that description against me, that my efforts were a racist move! In order to try to get me! . . . My efforts in Oakland had nothing to do with racism! The people who needed to go just happened to be African-Americans. I was the insurgent moving in to--as I've said for 30 years--'throw the ins out'!"
I actually feel a bit for Former Governor Moonbeam here. Could it be he has wised up a bit in the last 30 years? Once upon a time he was a big proponent of "Affirmative Racism", which along with a holier than thou desire to stop the death penalty in spite of what California voters clearly wanted, gave us such "justices" as Rose Bird and Cruz Reynoso. Gee, Jerry, it's not so easy when the shoe is on the other foot, now is it?

Then again, Jerry Brown, despite his overall leftist tilt, has a reputation for sometimes being persuaded by, and then championing, "right wing" ideas:
--property tax rollbacks (notably Proposition 13 back in 1978)
--the flat tax
--"Three Strikes And You're Out" (felons getting 25 to life on the 3rd felony).
Is that because Mr. Brown has a "true believer" personality that once converted to an idea will champion it to the end? Or is it a very shrewd "wetting of the finger and noticing which way the political winds are blowing?"

In fairness, Governor Moonbeam has done quite well as Mayor Moonbeam. Why is that? Probably because he understands how to actually run an entity, unlike prececessors like Elihu Harris or Lionel Wilson, who, sadly, were “Affirmative Racism” token Mayors, picked on the basis of skin color alone. There is no “Black” way to repave and sweep the streets.

And, in large part, Jerry Brown became Mayor of Oakland because of substantial demographic changes in Oakland during the 1990’s. “Black Power” appeals lose their impact in a city that is increasingly Latino or Asian, and yes, even increasingly White. The skyrocketing cost of housing in the Bay Area led many seeking a home of their own, (a home somewhat nearer to their Bay Area jobs than Vacaville or Modesto!) to take a second look at once-shunned Oakland. “Gentrification” has followed.

This phenomena has also happened to other once almost entirely African American ghettoes: Marin City, East Palo Alto (formerly the per capita "murder capital of America"), Richmond, Vallejo, and the Bayview, Hunters Point and Western Addition neighborhoods in San Francisco.

Still, there's a damn good reason to keep Mr. Moonbeam as the Mayor of Oakland, and not just because he's actually been the best Mayor they have had in years. The California Attorney General sits on a three-person panel that confirms top gubernatorial judicial nominations. His record there as Governor was less than stellar.

I must say, however, that I am not entirely pleased with Chuck Poochigian’s campaign against Mr. Moonbeam, although I will vote for him. Initially, all Chuck’s campaign did was bash bash bash Brown, and not give any positive recommendations for Mr. Poochigian. I would much prefer a candidate start and stay positive, only going negative when the other guy does first (then go negative with a vengeance, but please don’t start it).

At last, Mr. Poochigian has recorded some wonderfully positive campaign endorsements from the wonderfully endearing and funny Ben Stein (“Bueller…Bueller”). Mr. Stein, besides being a small time actor, is a big time lawyer and law professor, so his endorsement of Mr. Poochigian is a good powerful boost. Why didn’t Chuck and his campaign team go with these ads first?

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Iraq War: Stay the course

While some critics of the Iraq War are urging what is essentially withdrawl and surrender, one critic thinks the US is making a mistake by withdrawing into a small number of "superfortresses," and that, if the jihadists are to be defeated, we must go back to deployment all over the country, rather than holing up in rear base areas.

I have to disagree. The US military has secure the rear areas in order to train the friendly Iraqis to fight for themselves. And the friendly Iraqis have to fight for themselves, don't they? Does the phrase “not doing for Asian boys what they should do for themselves” ring a bell?

I think the most important objection to the war is that it's had the opposite effect of what was intended. And I don't mean the stupid Leftist nonsense that it's stirred up jihadists and "created more terrorists." Of course you're going to provoke more of a response when you go to war against global jihadism than when you sit back and just keep on taking it. By the math of the Dhimmicratic talking points, we should never have invaded Afghanistan, either -- because that has "created more Pakistani terrorists" than we had before 2001. (And it has; that’s absolutely true!)

But then again, the Dhimmicrat Party line is that invading Iraq took away from Afghanistan. They never quite explain how on earth terrorists are "created" by invading the supposedly secular, Muslim-apostate regime of Iraq, entirely pulling out of sacred Saudi soil in the process, and yet weren't created by invading the Unholy Capital of bin Ladinism, Afghanistan.

Now is there a serious problem in Iraq? Yes, but NOT the one that the Left claims. The main problem is that America is not yet achieving what was intended. What was intended was that:

(1) Iraq would serve as a cautionary tale to the rest of the Islamic world -- Iran first and foremost -- a demonstration of American might, military skill, and determination.

(2) By creating a decent Middle Eastern state, it would show other Muslims a third way forward besides senseless, murderous jihad. Better to show Arab Muslims (and Muslims in general) a Third Way, other than Tweedle-secular tyrant and Tweedle-mullah. Better to reform Muslims now rather than be forced to annilhate them later. Given their preference for 72 virgins in the next world rather than this one, annilhating them later might have to mean nuclear weapons along with ground troops, with many thousands of casualties for us and many millions of casualties for them.

(3) Reverse Domino Theory: A decent Iraq would inspire restive populations in Iran, Syria and elsewhere to demand real reforms and changes in their own oppressed countries.

The war has, as of yet, done the opposite -- Iran feels less threatened now than it would otherwise be, as our military is tied down with Iraq and could not possibly go to showdown with Iran within even 3 or so years. (North Korea could also be mentioned here, but that’s also a false canard. North Korea is a Red China client state and if we are to get anywhere there, it will be by hard bargaining, such as trade sanctions, with the Rulers of Red China, not with Krazy Kim).

And so far we have failed to create an Iraqi democracy capable of functioning without our help, and we have encouraged the savages because they are thinking they can win. In fairness, Iraq’s government is more stable than the Republic of (South) Vietnam ever was, and more stable than the Afghan government is now. There hasn’t been any heavy handed US intervention in internal affairs, no Diem coup. Even political gadflies like Moqta al-Sadr are tolerated more or less. But Iraq is still shaky.

Nevertheless, American determination is showing itself to be precisely what we'd hoped to prove otherwise -- a shaky thing, with America ready to abandon a war at the first sign of difficulty. Especially given that only about 2,700 American lives have been lost, and others badly wounded. Of course any trooper lost is a family and national tragedy, but does anyone remember that this many years and months into Vietnam, America had already lost FIFTEEN times as many casualties? In one since the Vietnam analogy DOES work: Osama Bin Laden, like Ho Chi Minh, is betting that the US Government shall be a “Paper Tiger” again. And most of the media is spinning this the wrong way, just like they did with the Tet Offensive.

But all of that is due to the jihadists' determination to win Iraq, because they know the stakes involved. Iran is funding the insurgency precisely because it knows that, absent an insurgency in Iraq, “reverse domino theory” will happen. A stable and consensual government, and the resulting increasing peace and prosperity for the Iraqi Shi’ite population, will destabilize Iran, rather than the other way around. Jihadists are determined to prevent a more or less federated democracy in Iraq (and given divisions between Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurd, it will have to be federated) because they know it will destroy their power. And they're determined to break the American will because they know that, without an America willing to fight them, they have a free hand in the next thirty years to kill as they please and turn Iraq into a base of operations (and a source of oil revenue) for them again.

Rather than cede their power country by country, they've decided to put almost everything they have into Iraq. So America isn’t just fighting the War in Iraq; it’s actually fighting several of the wars America had hoped to avoid by fighting in Iraq as well! But even though America hoped to avoid them, America has to fight them, if the enemy is determined to fight them.

Contrary to the bogus, “Iraq takes away from Afghanistan” claim, the fact is that had America not invaded Iraq, Iranian funding and jihadis from around the world would have poured into Afghanistan instead, probably with Saddam’s tacit encouragement and oil money as well. America could not have avoided this fight by simply not going to war in Iraq -- it just would have had a different battlefield. A more difficult and costly one at that. Iraq at least has oil revenue and a much more educated population to rebuild with.

Yes, to some extent it IS about the oil---look here, Mr./Ms. Liberal Dupe, would you prefer that oil revenue going to Saddam, who would continue to give aid and safe harbor to Al-Quaeda and other terrorist goons?

Whether the war is "a mistake" depends on its outcome. A US victory will be a greivous blow for global bin Ladinism; a defeat their greatest triumph so far. The enemy has doubled-down in Iraq precisely because they know how important it is to their twisted cause.

If the bin Ladenists believe Iraq is vital to keep in reliably terrorist-friendly hands, it seems to me a pretty good indication that it's a war worth fighting. Even given what we know now.

The frustrating and ironic thing is that the very ones who want it over "right now" are the ones who are prolonging it with their deranged, relentless attacks on the mission. If the jihadists saw a more unified front here at home, without all the "Made for Al-Jazeera" quotes from Murtha, Kennedy, et al, they'd be far less comfortable continuing to fight it out, and the friendly Iraqis would be less fearful about America’s commitment to see it through and would be more likely to join the American forces.

Moreover, win or lose, the Iraq invasion has had some VERY positive side effects. Moe Gaddafi saw the writing on the wall, stopped working on his own nukes, and cut an oil deal with the West. The Syrian military moved out of Lebanon. Iran continues to be hemmed in as we have forces on either side of them. They also have not forgotten that it took the US military only 3 weeks to take Baghdad, and taking Teheran could be even quicker; this time fed up Iranian youth might actually shower American troops with flowers and kisses. An insurgency is something that happens AFTER the fact. That is not a comfort to the mullahs.

So in conclusion, Iraq was NOT a mistake no matter how you look at it. Even if the WMD threat wasn’t as far along as we thought it was (and every other foreign power thought it was, for that matter), Iraq will NEVER be a WMD threat now. We no longer have no fly zones, Saddam’s sanctions corruption, Saddam’s cooperation with Al-Qaeda, or Saddam's threats to Israel and other middle eastern allies. The longer America would have waited the more difficult it would have been to do it in the future and make no mistake, it would have been necessary.

The way I see it, the USA has three ways this conflict with Islam (okay, radical Islam, if you insist) can go. First, the USA can give up and we accept dhimmitude. No way. Second, the USA can try to change them in a relatively bloodless and nice way, which is what is happening now. Third, the USA can change them in a bloody and ruthless way, which is what I think will be necessary if America gives up on the nice way and US forces pull out.

If US forces pull out, not only will there be a terrible loss along the lines of South Vietnam in 1975; the savages will follow the troops home and terrorize us like 9/11 again. For starters, withdraw from Iraq would mean garrisoning Saudi Arabia again, which is ostensibly got Osama Bin Laden and some other Muslim fanatics agitated in the first place. Moreover, those who wish to do the USA harm simply find it a lot easier to travel to Iraq and join / start a guerrilla group than to travel to America and form a terrorist cell.

And if another 09/11 happens, at that point, the American people will say “F**k ‘em. We tried to do good and got called "Fascists" for our troubles. So let's just use “nyu-ku-lar” weapons, take the oil and get something out of this.”

Oh wait, Mr./ Ms. Liberal Reader. You now want to call me "fascist" or "warmonger" or "all about the oil"? Too late, you already called me that when I supported trying for a better government in Iraq, and now (meaning in the future after American pullout) I don't care about a better Iraq. You claim they don't want it. And you "Liberals" don't want it. So why the f**k should I?

Sarcasm at stupid leftists aside, the USA shouldn’t resort to the final option, an all out war against Islam, which would be utterly awful, without being able to say, "Well, at least we tried to be nice." And it isn't unreasonable to think there's still hope for the nice way.

Stay the course.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Japan going Reaganite

Overlooked during the Foley scandal hullabaloo, George Will had a very interesting column about the political and economic shift in Japan.

Back when I was in my formative years in the 1980’s, it seemed that the mighty Japanese could do no wrong economically. Many of us in California thought we would be working for them and they would own the place. Many thinkers on the Left Of Center (and in fairness, there are a few serious thinkers on the Left Of Center) like Lester Thurow of MIT or Chalmers Johnson of the University of California sang the praises of Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry, how it benevolently planned out a prosperous economic future for that nation. American industrialists like Lee Iacocca chimed in.

Japan, in these wonky thinkers minds, vindicated their belief that statism, led by academic wonks like themselves, COULD work.

Obviously, state run industry socialism had proven to be an utter failure, as the corpses of the British, French, Swedish and some other Euro economies had proven. But Japan, in the minds of these Left Of Center thinkers, had done it right. Private enterprise remained private, but the benevolent bureaucrats of MITI set up the boundaries in which it could operate, for the good of the country as a whole.

Japanese corporations, it was said, had a much more harmonious work culture. The pay gap between the lowest floor sweeper and the CEO was so many times lower than the USA or even Europe. And lifetime employment and a good retirement was the rule. Who needs a high-tax government-run welfare state when the “Kaisha” corporation, nurtured by industrial policy, with a high-priced domestic consumer goods market and an export-driven foreign consumer goods market, could provide it for you?

Of course, there were some serious problems with this cozy corporatist arrangement, even if you conceded their statist premise.

For starters, ecology fell by the wayside. Japanese cities had and to a lesser extent still do have a level of air quality and water pollution that would be politically intolerable in Western Europe or the United States.

Secondly, for leftists enchanted with “diversity”, Japan does not suffer such idiocy. “The nail that sticks up will be hammered down”. Feminism? A lack of women executives? Don’t make the Japanese bosses laugh. Minority rights? They don’t exist there. Japan has not imported a large underclass of Latino or Muslim immigrant gruntworkers that at best prove somewhat difficult to integrate into the larger society, as we are seeing in the USA, and at worst prove to be downright deadly to it, as we are seeing in Europe. The few minorities that do exist in Japan are either clearly second class (make that even third or fourth class) citizens like Korean residents, or, like Western expatriates, are seen as exotic “gai-jin” objects of curiosity, like creatures from another world. And in a very monocultural and conformist society like Japan, they are.

Third, the cozy “I’m from the government and I am here to help” relationship between politics and business led to corruption and scandals that also would also have been politically intolerable in Europe or the USA. Part of the reason for Japan’s apparent economic might in the 1980’s, and Japan’s fall from economic grace in the early 1990’s, was the fact that the Japanese were using accounting methods that would have made the Enron and WorldCom executives blush. There’s no antitrust enforcement or “consumer rights” to speak of in Japan.

But 15 years ago, even ignoring those three drawbacks, the sweet magic of industrial policy clearly turned into a sour and phony parlor trick. Japan became the macroeconomic equivalent of a Pokemon craze.

Industrial policy may have worked well when it came to rebuilding infrastructure from the rubble of World War Two, and it worked tolerably well for those industries closely tied to that infrastructure: textiles, steel, motor vehicles, shipbuilding, machine tooling. Even electronics, like stereos and televisions, could be said to be tied to the basic infrastructure, like telephones.

But when it came to anything at a higher level higher than that, the MITI wonks were, well, less than successful. Productivity slumped, and new products fizzled. High Definition TV? Computer Networks and Software? Cell phones and advanced telecommuniations? The Mighty MITI misstepped and stumbled badly. In 2001, it was reorganized and renamed the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry, focusing on the economy as a whole and not just industrial policy.

A linked article indicates that even in MITI’s heyday, industrial policy didn’t always work either, but at least then it was dealing in industrial and technological catch-up, rather than leadership.

George Will notes:
“The economy succumbed to the cumulative inefficiencies of government commands. It buckled beneath the "iron triangle'' of favors-seeking big businesses, the favors-dispensing Liberal Democratic Party, and government bureaucracy. That system produced the ballooning of nonperforming financial assets. Japan's nominal Gross Domestic Product still is less than it was in 1997; America's Nominal GDP has increased more than 50 percent since then.”
Moreover, like Western Europe, Japan faces the same problem of a generous benefits for a growing population of old people, old people who are living longer as medicine improves, to be financed by a shrinking population of young people. And this shrinking is not just in relative terms either. Japan has closed 4,000 schools in the last 20 years, and the nation has a fertility rate -- the number of children per woman of childbearing age -- of 1.32. The replacement rate, which keeps population from shrinking, is 2.1. (This assumes a 50/50 male/female birthrate; the extra 0.1 is necessary for those whose lives are cut short by wars, disease, accidents, natural disasters, and other tragedies). Last year, Japanese deaths exceeded births by 21,408.

The U.S. fertility rate is right at replacement level, but immigration of one million a year legally (and probably another half million a year illegally) still causes relatively rapid US population growth.

It is a telling sign that some industries in Japan are seriously declining: toys and games, infant and children’s apparel, educational products. The new crop of kids just isn’t there in enough numbers.

Moreover, the toys that are appearing are essentially robot companions for lonely adults:

Given that the proportion of old is rising and the absolute numbers of young are shrinking, Japan has three hard choices:

1. Cut benefits and have the old people work longer. This is politically difficult if not impossible.

2. Import many more cheap alien workers, the way the USA and Europe have. In a very conformist and monocultural society like Japan, this is culturally and also politically impossible. Moreover, as George Will notes, in a Japan that is more crowded and polluted than Europe, the attitude seems to be: “Fewer people? Whew! What a relief….”

3. Increase the productivity of the working population, through more entrepreneurship, with tax cutting policies that encourage this.

Japan has mostly chosen the third option. Japan’s economy has been rising since 2002, and why is that? Because the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (don’t let the name fool you, it’s quite Right-Of-Center) has embraced more entrepreneurship. Former Prime Minister Junichiro_Koizumi and his successor Shinzo_Abe have been very explicit about this.

But more entrepreneurship means more inequality of outcomes, even though the overall outcome is more prosperity for all. And here is where the industrial policy wonks of the past will no doubt kick up their heels and start screaming. This is where the dreaded “age of greed and selfishness” that they deplore emerges. In other words, Japan is experiencing the Reagan Revolution nearly twenty five years after the United States.

In a way this quarter century lag isn’t new. Japan had its technocratic “end of ideology” and relative harmony between big government, big business and big labor in the 1980’s, about 25 years after the USA did in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. Chalmers Johnson and Lester Thurow had NOTHING on Daniel Bell.