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.

Monday, October 23, 2006

O.J. Simpson "hypothetically" confesses to murder

Hypothetically, of course.....

On October 3, 1995, when the jury came back with their verdict, I was at work. I worked as an accounting clerk for a gasoline tanker trucking company with many African American staff, and of course, the O.J. trial was constant fodder for jokes, and the overwhelming consensus was "yah, he's a murderer".

Nevertheless, when the verdict was read "not guilty", ALL of the Black people present were hooting and cheering and clapping. ALL of the White/Asian/Latino people present gasped and groaned. One half-black / half-white lady shifted uncomfortably in her seat, and I did feel really bad for her.

Aside from the innappropriateness of hooting and clapping and cheering in an office setting, I was struck by the reaction. Obviously, the perpetrators of the beating of Reginald Denny and the burnings of Korean American stores in 1992 had gotten off scot-free, and that shocked me, but this was even worse. It had been a very long trial and surely there had been time to cool down, I reasoned, unlike the riots. Surely Johnnie Cochran's antics were revolting; hadn't the jury come back quickly?

How could they cheer an obviously guilty man? How could they be full of such pathological hate? If my African American co-workers had said, "Sorry, we know he's guilty, but that Mark Fuhrman guy REALLY blew it, and you know that jury was made up of the 12 dumbest people they could get...." I could have understood.

Perhaps they were actually thinking that. I don't know. But it made a lasting impression on me. (See earlier post). Until that day, I assumed that my Black co-workers, some of whom I had worked with long enough to start calling friends, were still, despite whatever cultural and political differences we had, more or less "the same", in terms of their hopes and dreams and wants and desires, as I was.

I found a much better job a few months later, thank goodness.

What I have always wondered is: Isn't there some terminally ill person who could go "pull a Jack Ruby" on O.J.?

As I understand it, Jack Ruby ostensibly shot Oswald because he was terminally ill and wanted to die a hero. I know, the conspiracy theories will never end, but for the purpose of the O.J. Simpson case, let's just say that we need a terminally ill person who wants to go out with a bang, like Jack Ruby ostensibly was.

I think, should I one day discover I am terminally ill with an inoperable cancer, that I shall go stalk and kill O.J. It would bring meaning to my then ending life.

Anyone else with me?

What needs to happen to O.J. Simpson:

We need a modern-day Jack Ruby:

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Will the 700 mile Border Wall happen after all?

One activist group, the Center For Individual Freedom Foundation, raises the alarm.

While I have grown increasingly skeptical of some patriot activist groups who cry "Wolf!" all the time to raise money, the Bush Administration and Karl Rove have been so out of touch on this issue that "sending a blast fax" to Congress couldn't hurt!

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

WSJ cheerleader for 300 million, misses big picture

Well, now there are 300 million Americans, although counting illegal aliens we probably passed that number six years ago, and the Wall Street Journal says "rah rah, sis boom bah!" and refutes off the naysayers, who think resources are stretched thin.

The Wall Street Journal is correct to oppose the doom-and-gloom, lack-of-resources pessimism of many other respondents' letters. Heck, aren't PEOPLE the ultimate resource, and aren't the Euro and Japanese economies largely faltering because of plummeting birth rates?

However, the Wall Street Journal has always had a dewy-eyed romantic view of immigration, and a more important question is not being asked: if more people are coming and the population is growing, WHAT KIND of people will they be?

Will they be people who share the culture and values that made America great, or will they be people who are in opposition to it and drag us down?

There is a serious immigration problem, and it is made worse by the poisonous agenda of "multiculturalism" (really anti-Americanism) pushed by the Left.

Why the Wall Street Journal is so oblivious to this is beyond me.

Some of the "letters to the editor, however", are much more clear-eyed about the problem than the Wall Street Journal.

"Most problems have a solution, but most solutions come with their own set of problems. A soaring population, a shrinking population, or a stagnant one--all have their downsides. At the end of the day people need to decide which set of problems they would prefer, and whether two million new people a year thanks to immigration alone don't present more problems than they solve."--Craig Russell, Salt Lake City

"Ask anyone who was grown up enough to remember 1967 if he would rather have things like then or like now. Obviously, Wall Street Journal boosterism prevents you from giving an honest answer, which explains the incessant drumbeat for open borders. Sure, Wall Streeters love the armies of illegals overwhelming us peons, as long as they are collecting the rent."--R. Labonte, Sacramento

"More illegal aliens and their anchor babies mean more drain on our resources. We need educated legal immigrants from all over the world. We do not need an illiterate underclass dumped upon us, all from Central America and Mexico. We do not need this "Mariel boatlift" pushed on us by their corrupt countries."--Louise Itskowitz, Frederick, Maryland

Monday, October 16, 2006

Carly Fiorina's Catty Memoir

For those of us born and raised in what came to be known as Silicon Valley, the rise and fall and rise again of the Hewlett-Packard Corporation has been interesting to watch.

In her book "Tough Choices", Former CEO Carly Fiorina clearly has scores to settle, which get in the way of what might have been a fascinating story. (I link the WSJ because they really do sum up what I have read of it so far, very very well).

To Fiorina's credit, she does not have a ghostwriter, and her book, unlike the works of Jack Welch and Lee Iacocca, has fewer trite nostrums and pretentious pontifications.

However, while Carly Fiorina clearly does have interesting corporate war stories, she appears to have forgotten that utterly bogus "affirmative action" policies were in large part responsible for her rise to power. She should be bitter. No one wanted her just for her mind.

And let's face it Carly, Compaq was a dog, arf arf. Especially for what you had HP pay for it.

Ultimately, what I have read so far seems to be a self serving story with little evidence of honest insight. Not enough honest responsibility for some demonstrably poor decisions. The WSJ sums it up well:

Ms. Fiorina calls some unidentified directors "amateurish and immature." Indeed, the H-P board has lately been racked by scandal and resignations. But Ms. Fiorina sidesteps her own responsibility. She was chairman during most of her H-P days, with the power to remake the 10-member board. She brought in only two fresh faces while accepting several Compaq directors who gained H-P board seats after the 2002 merger.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Victor Davis Hanson's "Koreana"

All around super historian Victor Davis Hanson analyzes the savage goons of North Korea, and argues for an effective US Response:

One comment in particular struck me, where Mr. Hanson argues for a US military pullout from South Korea: (my emphasis in boldface and italics)

To work with South Korea, we need to start withdrawing troops to Pusan—and well beyond. Much of the present mess arose from the appeasement of the Sunshine policy—in part, fueled by the revisionism of Korean ingrate leftists who rewrote the Korean War in populist terms of American imperialism and their own victimization. This was, in part, due to Korean nationalism that envisioned an eventual pan-Korea state birthed by slow and insidious osmosis from the south; and, in part, a result of strategic complacence of a half-century made possible by American subsidies and deployments. It made sense to garrison Americans on the DMZ when Seoul was weak and nascent, but not now when its population and economy dwarf the North’s. Getting America off the DMZ would give us more strategic options through air power, and wake up the South Koreans, reminding them that cheap triangulation with the United States has real costs. They can either play Churchill or Chamberlain—but it’s their call, not ours, since we have wider worries protecting Japan and Taiwan that transcend South Korea’s Sunshine nonsense.

While the "Sunshine Policy" is wrong, the motive in boldface and italics behind it is certainly not. America should do whatever it can to help North Korea go the way of East Germany.

Korean leftists who claim that the USA stands in the way of reunification are brainwashed dupes, and are just like our own brainwashed leftist dupes who rewrote ALL of American history in leftover communist terms and focused on their own victimization.

Nevertheless, reunification, following the collapse of the evil Kim regime, should be a stated US policy goal.

Meanwhile, Cap'n Ed notes that the South Korean people appear to be wising up.

Saturday, October 14, 2006

The "Politically Correct" Way to "Fag-Bash"

We all heard about miserable Demunist Commiecrats turned Dhimmicrats like David Corn(hole) and mealy mouthed Mike Rogers trying to "out" homosexuals who happen to be Republican. As if being gay automatically made you a commie.

Guess what, all you Demunist Dykes and Stalinist Sodomites? Not every homosexual has to support your Pinko Commie agenda!

Some of them even understand that their relationships, whatever status they may or may not merit, don’t rise to the level of a marriage and a family! (Gasp! Horrors!)

Some of them understand that their private lives are just that, PRIVATE! As are yours!

But it gets worse. Now the Demunists try to accuse the one openly homosexual Republican congresscritter, Jim Kolbe of Arizona, on mere heresay and no evidence whatsoever, playing on prejudice.

This is just getting sicker and sicker.

Unfortunately, I fear it may work with some Christian conservatives, who will go off and vote 3rd party, or just not vote at all.

Note to devout Christian conservative voters who may read this:

It was well known to his Palm Beach Republican constituents that Foley was a "Log Cabin Guy", but they liked his stances on the War on Terror, tax cuts, etc. nonetheless.

I actually have found "Log Cabin" types in my local Republican party, and while I will fight any attempt by them to normalize or elevate homosexuality to the level of a marriage and a family, I certainly won’t shun them if they understand the evil of Islam inspired barbarism (of all people, they ought to instinctively understand this).

Moreover, they understand the need for lower taxes and less federal government (other than national defense, which IS properly a Federal government matter).

Private life is not public policy. When we vote, we vote for the results on this earth, not the next. Render unto Uncle Sam what belongs to Uncle Sam.

Is Foley going to Hell? That’s between him and God. Maybe God can help him with his particular inner demons, but meanwhile, I have my own different ones, and I am sure that you do too.

Meanwhile, if you sit at home or even worse, vote the (American Independent / US Taxpayers / Constitution / whatever they call themselves now) Party over this, you insure the Demunists will bring us hell on earth.

Well, let me qualify that: If you live in a district where it’s so gerrymandered that it won’t matter, go ahead and vote for the Constitution Party if you think it sends them a message.

But if you vote for the Constipation Party in a close race between a Republican (even a wussy RINO—Republican In Name Only) and a Commiecrat, you ARE in effect electing the Commiecrat. (I call it the Constipation Party in that case because in that case such a vote is truly politically constipated!)

Don’t make the best the enemy of the merely good, and don’t spit into the windstorm.

Meanwhile, where were you at the Republican PRIMARY level, when some of us really NEEDED you to get better Republicans elected? People who had a REAL CHANCE of winning?

Even if you loathe your RINO (totally understandable if for example you live in Rhode Island and it’s a creep like Lincoln Chafee), you can still seek out and vote for good Republicans at the lower levels, from state assembly down to county dogcatcher.

Note that in some districts, you will wind up with the lesser of two evils no matter what you do. Palm Beach, the district where Mr. Foley came from, was lucky just to have a guy as conservative as he was! A good evangelical Christian ISN’T going to come from Palm Beach! I live in California, where I face the same problem in a good many races.

We are in the world but not of it. Always remember that.

For example, where I live, Ah-nold may be somewhat disappointing in standing up to the Gay Mafia that tries to push its way through our Golden State, but if I and others like me go waste time with a hopeless Constipation Party, then that Demunist weasel Phil Angelides would be our next Governor. Ah-nold vetoed three out of four of the Gay Mafia’s bills. Angelides would gleefully sign all four. Think about it.

If you have a hissy fit and go vote Constipation Party because a few Republicans are disappointingly gay (especially when they aren’t even in your district!), you are in effect making things worse for the Republicans who are good evangelical Christians, and only allowing the utterly depraved Commiecrats to run roughshod. 3rd parties are a JOKE. Repeat: 3rd parties are a JOKE....

Friday, October 13, 2006

My Diet For Muslim Prisoners

Image Thanks to Wild Thing.

New GITMO Diet Plan:

--Pigs in a Blanket
--Sausage McMuffin with Egg
--Denver Omelet

--Ham and Cheese Sandwiches
--Head Cheese (wait a minute, that may indeed be cruel and unusual punishment)

--Pork Chops and Applesauce "Brady Bunch Night"
--HoneyBaked Ham
--Special Roast Pig "Luau Night"

At every meal:
--Salad with Bacon Bits

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Tom McClintock: California's Best (Last?) Hope

Tom Bordonaro, the assessor of San Luis Obispo County, said it well.

Never mind Ah-nold, he will easily trounce Phil Angelides next month, who even many Democrats admit is an utter weasel.

The question is: What comes AFTER Ah-nold? He is term limited out in 2010.

How about a Lieutenant Governor Tom McClintock? YES! He is the Last Honest Politician, or, to quote an optimistic protagonist of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, "The first of their return."

This guy ran in the Governor's recall race on a shoestring budget and in spite of the official Ah-nold the Republican bandwagon, still did respectably well. I wish Ah-nold had campaigned for McClintock in the recall and chose to become a "Senatator" vs. Dianne Feinstein in 2004 instead of a "Governator", but oh well, Ah-nold went for the sure thing.

If McClintock can win Lieutenant Governor this fall, there is hope for Cali. Otherwise, stick a fork in this state and turn it over.

And In 2010, that bolshevik Barbara Boxer is up for relection. Could the "Governator" go on to become a "Senatator" this time?

We can only hope.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Hello Kitty and the 2nd Amendment

I suddenly have a new appreciation for Hello Kitty.

But it gets better. Ladies, take THIS to the firing range:

Or if you prefer something more discreet:

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Foley's Follies and Demunist Duplicity

Even if his confession was contrived I hope the man DOES get the help he clearly needs. (Hat tip to Chris Muir)

Again -- and this should go without saying -- Foley was right to resign. As far as I can see, the main difference between Republicans (like Foley) and Demunists (like Gerry Studds) is that Republicans do resign when they do something wrong in cyberspace. When they do something wrong in REAL LIFE, Demunists stay, get overwhelmingly re-elected and then blame the fact that their transgressions even came to light on the "racists" and "sexists" and "homophobes" who are out to get them.

However, it has become apparent that:

1. The young man with whom Mr. Foley was engaged in lurid instant messages was not a minor, although there is some dispute about his age.

2. The young man with whom Mr. Foley was engaged in lurid instant messages was setting him up and toying with him; Foley got “punk’d”. The brat's goading/baiting was persistent, and it's not very realistic to portray the page as a victim if he initiated the dirty IM-ing. (hat tip to American Thinker)

3. No, that still does not excuse what Foley did. He still tried to have cybersex with an 18 year old, which, while perhaps not a crime, is still a gross breach, whether the guy on the other end of the 'tubes was jerking him around or not. (hat tip to Ace of Spades)

4. Hastert SHOULD NOT resign. He didn't know about it, as the emails (as opposed to the instant messages) were innocuous. If Foley wasn't a true predator, but rather only eventually went sexual when this kid baited him into it, it hardly makes it obvious that Foley should have been booted out earlier. Obviously, a "dirty trick" hardly mitigates the disgracefulness of Foley's conduct, nor does it mean that the GOP House leadership shouldn't pay closer attention to anything like this in the future. If Hastert was honestly not paying enough attention, he should fess up, appoint a commission to better prevent such events in the future, and move on.

5. How/why was the IM log saved in the first place? (Do you routinely save *your* IM logs?) It only seems likely in this case if it was a prank (or if it was something more sinister, along the lines of entrapment/extortion.)

6. Judging by the origination of this story, certain Demunist operatives knew about this, for months beforehand, before Mr. Hastert knew, but sat on it merely to inflict political damage on all Republicans by association. "October Surprise" anyone?

And THERE’S the rub.

If high-ranking Demunists knew more about this than Republicans did, how can they claim that Republicans failed to act on information only THEY had?

No actual molestation occurred; what happened only happened in Mr. Foley’s sick and demented mind. However, what if it had? And rather than promptly reporting the matter, isn’t it just *peachy* that the Demunists chose to SIT on it for political gain, rather than stop any potential abuse from happening RIGHT AWAY?

For the ten thousandth time, of course, this doesn't mitigate what Foley did, or make him anything but a dirty old chickenhawk (that is the true meaning of the word, an older gay pedophile) who trolls for cybersex with young men.

However, for all their posturting, prominent Demunists knew about this long before prominent Republicans did, and chose to do nothing--until, of course, it would maximize “guilt by association” damage politically. Mark Foley was left free to potentially prey on young men for months, so long as it contributed to the “greater moral good” of a Demunist congressional victory.

If that sanctimonious bitch Nancy Pelosi opens her mouth on this again, I will need a barf bag, because she was around in Congress when Gerry Studds was up to no good.

Updates: The People's Cube hilariously sums this scandal up.

Annika's Journal notices the double standard and Catch-22 the Demunists try to set up.