WWW Right To The Point

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

And this is why you don't piss off the Nice Doggie

It's been a while since I linked to anything over at the Rottweiller Empire. To make amends, here is something Misha wrote about his take on Kofi Annan's apparent "surprise" over the fact that his son, Kojo, was thoroughly involved in the oil-for-food scandal.

We all knew that Annan (either and both of 'em) was (is and are) corrupt and desperately in need of the gentle and loving correction of a Turkish prison. Nevertheless, it's Misha's application of the English language in such a colorful manner that it would make Crayola's crayon-development team despair in envy that reminded me of why I love and fear the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller.

Put simply, the fear of having new terms of derision created specifically for your acts of idiocy and then, apparently, trademarked, should be sufficient to keep any moderately decent person in-line.


Good Books

As a non-sequitur to what I've been posting about for the last several weeks, I was inspired by Professor Hugh Hewitt to contemplate novels.

Of course, I should be studying for my Income Tax, International Law, or Legislation finals, but, alas, I'm not.

The criteria that Professor Hewitt suggested (as best I can remember) was:
  1. That the book be a novel
  2. That the book be written since WWII.
  3. That the boob be worth re-reading.
Okay... I haven't read much fiction, except for the occasional opinion by Justice Ginsberg, in the last couple of years, but the thought of putting together a list struck me as a fun idea. I welcome your contributions to this list, my good reader(s). Here's my list.
I know, I know, there are lots of other books that deserve to be on the list. I've probably even read some of them, but they didn't spring to mind. Be sure to add your favorites. Please keep in mind the criteria... novel, after WWII, and worth re-reading.

Thursday, November 18, 2004

The Difference between the Left and what’s Right

I posted previously a link to a recent Chronicle of Higher Education article about the danger of liberal groupthink in academia. This article was timed well to coincide with the news about liberals contemplating abandoning the US for Canada, and the various bits and pieces of hate and condescension about how dumb “red-staters” (i.e. people who voted for President Bush) really are.

I apologize for not posting frequently of late, but these things happen. Nevertheless, a couple of days ago, I saw Dennis Prager on the O’Reilly Factor. He mentioned that the Democrats were focused first on the economic questions (“What am I going to get out of this?”), but the Republicans, by and large, are focused primarily on principle (“What’s the ‘right’ thing to do here?”)

I think that’s true… But it’s too shallow. There are more fundamental differences between the political left and right. First, as most Republicans would point out, the Democrats’ economic ideas are socialism-lite and are bound to fail, in the long run. We would say, “Yeah, the Democrats are focused on economics, but they’re short-sighted and wrong.” (A proof of that assertion is well worth it's own post, and has been the subject of many a book, so we'll just leave it as something that many Republicans would say.)

The analysis needs to go deeper. WHY would democrats want to focus primarily on the materialistic calculus of the temporally current (usually local) situation? Why would the Republicans want to focus first on what’s “right”? The answer (and this is how it ties, loosely, to the groupthink article) is in the core presumptions of each side.

At various times in the past, I’ve written about “creation.” It’s an important topic, and does not necessarily need to be associated solely with the Biblical account of the origin of the universe and humanity, but, in reality it is. My assertion is that conservatives believe in the concept of “creation,” but that the political left denies it. I will further hypothesize that these core beliefs (presumptions… and both are the very essence of “faith” in that they address questions about which no real definitive answer can be had, so the belief itself serves as proof of what cannot be proven) have profound and far-reaching implications.

If you believe in creation, you probably believe in a Creator. If you believe in a Creator you might just believe in a Creator who cares. If you believe in a Creator who cares, you might believe that some things you say or do will be measured according to the Creator’s standards. If you believe that your actions will be measured against the Creator’s standards, then you have an absolute basis for belief in “right and wrong.”

If you do not believe in creation, then, to you, there is no Creator, and, ultimately, no reason other than pragmatic reasons to care about questions of “right and wrong.” If you don’t believe in any fundamental reason to differentiate between “right and wrong” then voluntary limitations placed on yourself and society without an immediate benefit will seem illogical and ignorant.

For example, an anti-creation justification for the prohibition on “murder” would be something like, “Nobody should kill anybody because I don’t want anybody to kill me, so I'll agree not to kill anybody else if they'll agree not to kill me.” By way of contrast, a pro-creation argument against murder might be expressed thusly, “Nobody should murder because everyone was created by a Creator who cares and who bothered to breathe life into everyone, and so murder is a direct offense against the Creator.”

Obviously, the pragmatic view works well in a balanced game-theory setting, but the Creation-based philosophy works to self-regulate a person’s actions even when nobody is watching.

Of course, there are other implications. Economically, “creation” philosophy buys into the idea of the “expanding pie” but “anti-creation” philosophy sees the world as a zero-sum game. The creation-based economic philosophy borrows, probably subliminally, from the Biblical idea that humans were created in the image of the Creator, not physically, but essentially. The creation-based philosophy, then believes that people are essentially creative. We don’t cause matter to come into existence from non-existence, but we can cause new value to come into existence where little value existed before. Creation-based philosophy argues that humans add value into the economic universe through mental and physical efforts, analogous to the way the Creator added matter to the physical universe through His (no offense intended to those who think the Creator is feminine) efforts.

Anti-creation philosophy firmly believes that all that exists is all there really is. If you take stuff from one place, then it doesn’t exist there any more. If one person has wealth, then another person doesn’t have it. In my opinion, it’s a very shallow view. Let’s say person A makes tools. He digs up the iron-ore and cuts the trees, and makes a hammer. Now, there’s less iron ore in the Earth, and a tree has been cut down. He trades that hammer for something representing money. Now person A has a pile of cash (or clams or beads) that person B can no longer enjoy. Person A, has been enriched by taking person B’s wealth, right? That’s an anti-creation view of economics. It recognizes the depletion of resources and the transfers of wealth but it ignores the creation of value. The iron ore in the ground wasn’t doing any good for anybody until person A used his own physical labor to dig it up and his mental and physical efforts to determine what shape that iron should take to be a useful tool. As a hammer, the iron ore can be utilized. Person B gave wealth to person A, that’s true, but he also GOT wealth from person A. In the hands of a tool maker, the hammer’s value was stalled. The tool maker (person A) had no use for a hammer, but in the hands of person B, that hammer helps him make furniture or houses, or what have you. Person B couldn’t make those things without a hammer, and so that hammer was his ticket to being able to invest his own mental and physical efforts to create new value of his own.

Anyway, that’s the Creation-based philosophy of economics. Investing mental and physical efforts creates new value. Therefore, if you can create new value, then it follows that some mental or physical efforts might create MORE value than others. This justifies differences in rates of pay. If society assumes that all people are equal, economically, and therefore anything you do is worth the same as anything anybody else does, then greater pay for one person is “unfair.” Furthermore, if all people are economically equal and no new value is ever really brought into existence, then higher pay for one person means that one or more persons is actually impoverished to some degree, to allow the higher-paid person to enjoy that wealth.

Does that sound like the American left to you? It does to me.

Back to the original questions, though… Why would the Left be concerned with the short-term economic impact of things, but the political Right be concerned with whether something was right (good)? This is a result of pragmatism. Pragmatically, all you can worry about, according to the anti-creation political Left is how much you yourself can horde. Politically, then, acting logically under the presumptions of the left, we would expect voters to vote for welfare solutions as fast and vehemently as possible.

For the creation-based political Right, voters would be expected to ask if some policy at question reflects honoring the principles of the Creator, as best the voter can understand them. If it’s not right for me to steal from you to enrich myself, then it’s no better for me to ask Uncle Sam to extort you to enrich me.

A friend of mine has loaned me, from time to time, a series of Jewish teachings. They’re from a series called “Jewish Explorations.” I, a staunch Christian, highly recommend them. The teaching on Esther is highly relevant to this discussion. The bad guy in Esther was a fellow named Haman. He held a world view that the universe was chaotic and nothing, in the terms of a big picture, can be controlled. However, he did believe he could control things in the short-term, so the plans he hatched were all about achieving short-term gain. Esther, and her cousin Mordecai, on the other hand, believed that it’s foolish to worry about the short term, because you can’t control anything, but God can and does govern the future. For example, when Esther was afraid to do what was right, to save all the Jewish people from Haman’s plot to have all Jews killed, Mordecai counseled her as illustrated in chapter 4:13-14:
“he sent back this answer: "Do not think that because you are in the king's house you alone of all the Jews will escape. 14 For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father's family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?" (emphasis added)
Their belief was that God could and would make sure that His will reigns supreme, no matter what people plan or do, but our actions illustrate whether we are willing to put His will above our own concerns and do what’s right.

In summation, the difference between the left and what’s right is the core belief of each side. On the one hand (the left hand) you can believe that there is no Creator and you have to look out for yourself at the expense of all others, and good law evens the final score. On the other hand (the right hand) you can believe that there is a Creator, and so doing what’s good in His sight is far more important than short-term gain because the long-term result is at stake, and good law, therefore, levels the playing field so that everyone who wants to maximize their creativity can be a winner.

Anyway, that’s what I think. Does this comport with your observations of societal trends?

First they wanted parades, and now collective bargaining?

Maybe I'm weird... a little eccentric, or something... Nothing Teresa-like, but enough to provide me with a different take on things, ya know?

Anyway, when I saw the following headline:
Pastors Organize To Halt Gay Unions

I thought, "First parades, and now collective bargaining? If a gay union gets recognized where you work will you be forced to be gay, too, or will you be allowed to opt-out? In any event, as with every union, we know they'll get their dues in the end..."

Imagine my surprise when I realized they were talking about a local initiative to prevent legal recognition of gay marriage in Maryland. Go figure.

Thursday, November 11, 2004

On the Protocols of Liberal Academic Society

The Chronicle of Higher Education has a surprisingly good article titled Liberal Groupthink Is Anti-Intellectual

Read it.

(Hat tip to InstaPundit.)

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Bad Attitudes

A couple of days ago, a reader seemed suspicious, or perhaps surprised at my assertion that the leading liberals were acting badly and expressing very hateful sentiments aimed at, well, most Americans for being insolent and disobeying the will of the benevolent (self-appointed) American nobility, i.e. the liberals. This reader asked me for links. I hadn't responded because, to be honest, I've been busy, but I have included a few that illustrate my point:

Maureen Dowd (11/4) The Red Zone This one was mostly a post-election pitty-party. Here's a representative quote,
"The president got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of
fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule. He doesn't want to heal rifts;
he wants to bring any riffraff who disagree to heel.
Maureen Dowd (11/7) Rove's Revenge This one is focused mostly on her hatred of President Bush and Karl Rove. Here's a representative quote,
"[Bush's] new health care plan will probably be a return to leeches."
Jane Smiley (11/4) Why Americans Hate Democrats - A Dialogue: The unteachable ignorance of the red states. I mentioned this article previously. Nevertheless, it's representative of lots of the nasty things that are being said in many places. I've decided to provide a couple of representative quotes:

"Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States, especially in the red states."
"The history of the last four years shows that red state types, above all, do not want to be told what to do—they prefer to be ignorant. As a result, they are virtually unteachable."
"Progressives have only one course of action now: React quickly to every outrage—red state types love to cheat and intimidate, so we have to assume the worst and call them on it every time. We have to give them more to think about than they can handle—to always appeal to reason and common sense, and the law, even when they can't understand it and don't respond."
Thomas Frank (11/5) Why They Won Mr. Frank is honestly trying to give Democrats constructive advice. However, he can't get past his true feelings... He refers to voting for a Republican as a "rebellion." His phraseology isn't as incendiary as Ms. Smiley's but his sense of superiority over the Republican voters who are apparently hoodwinked into voting for Republicans in spite of what he sees as logical inconsistencies. I mentioned this article previously too. Mr. Frank, apparently thinks that every business is as morally corrupt as his own employer (NY Times) and therefore any candidate that is business friendly is really aiding the the very thing the Republican voters are voting against. As it turns out, most companies throughout the nation are good places that provide jobs and useful products and services. He wouldn't recognize anything that's useful, because he works at the NY Times.

But the columnists are not the only places to look... Echidne of the Snakes has said may colorful things, like this election-night blurb about Bush being the "worst president ever."

LGF was kind enough to put together a thread of humorously hateful things that lefties had said or written after the election.

Of course, we can't forget Babs or Michael "more and more and" Moore (reaction to the election 1, and 2)

I do have compassion on sincere Americans who love the country and honestly (mistakenly) thought the nation and world would be better off with John Kerry as President. Many of them worked and wanted him to win so badly that the election results were are real blow that they hadn't adequately prepared for. I get it. The point the lefties need to remember is that the people who voted for President Bush (a) are sincere Americans, too, who just want the best for the Country, (b) wanted to win very badly, too, and (c) won because we had more people who showed up to vote!

Buck up, my fellow (but left leaning) Americans! The world hasn't come to an end, and there will be another presidential election in 4 years. You can try again to convince the nation that your vision for the future is best. In the mean time, it might be useful to learn who Americans really are. In the mean time, you really should find a way to survive the prosperity that's about to overtake the nation.

Finally, I would like to add a touch of knowledge to your depression. The liberals tend to think of themselves as the rightful leaders... The enlightened who are out of power by mistake and and confusion by the electorate. Check out PresidentElect.Org. They have all of the electoral results in the nations' history. Since President Lincoln, There have been 37 presidential elections. Republicans have won 23 of them (That's about 66% - almost 2 out of 3). The Democrats have won the other 14 elections. Republicans have won by actual majorities of the popular vote 17 times, and the Dems have only won with an actual majority 7 times. Take a dose of this coldhearted truth: Americans have not, generally, wanted to trust national leadership to the Democratic party since the Civil War.

NOTE: Yes, I did fix some typos and formatting errors.

Friday, November 05, 2004

Why Americans Hate Democrats

Jane Smiley projects her malice to most Americans.
Janne Smiley wrote "The unteachable ignorance of the red states" as part of the "Why Americans Hate Democrats" series of articles.

Ms. Smiley attributes ignorance, racism, greed, bloodlust, and virtually every unsavory and/or malicious trait imaginable to those who voted for President Bush's re-election.

It's very much in line with Mr. Frank's article that I critiqued below, but far less constructive (not that his suggestions would help, but he did try to be constructive).

Let me respond, and this time very briefly:
1. Being a sore loser won't help you, and you can be d@mn sure that these articles will surface next election cycle and be used to tell everybody in the country what liberals really think of them. -- Thanks.

2. Perhaps the most concise reason Americans hate Democrats is that Democrats would seriously hold those hateful opinions of other Americans. -- Think of it like this: Americans didn't hate Democrats, we just thoroughly rejected the anti-Christian philosophies and watered down communistic agenda that Democrats brought to the table. You can be certain that some Americans DO hhate Democrats now that we've had a chance to get a glimps of what you really think of the "little people" that your candidates keep trying to pretend to care about.

I had predicted that the GOP was in a precarious place, in that they really had to deliver good and principled goverance to justify that we deserve to remain in power. Seeing what the Democrats really offer, by way of contrast, I'm not worried any more. You can bet you're sweet, tree-hugging, baby-killing, elitist, hateful ass we'll remember who you really beneath your election-year lies.

Count on it.

Democrats charting a course to even more spectacular failure

It's hard to imagine a more overwhelming victory for the Republicans and massive defeat for the Democrats as we all witnessed on the evening of Tuesday November 2, 2004.

Thomas Frank, however, is busy plotting a course to even more resounding defeat in future election cycles. Here's his article from today (Nov. 5): Why They Won.

It's interesting because it's such an incredibly complete work of utter denial. He really does think of the Democratic party as the "party of the people" and that the cultural issues that the Republicans won on as something of a contradictory rouse.

Read the words he uses. The conservatives see the victory as the sign of a "revolution" or, more accurately, a "moral reawakening." How does Mr. Franks see it? "Rebellion." The little ingrates are rebelling against their rightful leaders! The little people in those dirty red-states have the audacity to say that the liberals are "elitists"! It must be the evil Rovian "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" plot to incite discontent on the part of the peasentry against the belevolent liberal nobility by labeling them as "elitists"!

Do you see how out of touch these liberal snobs are?

The liberals think that lowered taxes hurt the "working class" while helping the wealthy! Um... No. It lowers the government-imposed hurdles for the lower and middle classes to move up, economically. The people who are already wealthy don't have to worry about (income) taxes. It wasn't lost on the red-staters that Mrs. Kerry only paid about 12.5% in taxes on the MILLIONS OF DOLLARS she had in income, and absolutely nothing on the vast reserves of wealth that she had. It's not that we want her to pay more, necessarily, but it is so hypocritical of her and her boy-toy John to talk about "rolling back" (raising) the tax rates on the wealthy. It wasn't the wealthy who would be hit, it would be the people trying to become the wealthy who would be burdened.

The people who are creating and growing small businesses that would be slammed by John Kerry's plan. Note to liberal elite: Lots of "little" people would like to start their own companies and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle... maybe not be filthy rich, but be able to afford a nice house, with a nice yard, and drive a pleasant car (maybe even have two), and send their kids to college. To be able to accomplish these goals, would place most of them into the "wealthy" class that Kerry wants to punish, and the little people don't think that it's immoral to want a pleasant and comfortable lifestyle.

One other thing that I find funny is the way Mr. Frank sniffs that the "conservative revolt" is full of contradictions. Mr. Fraank, apparently thinks that the major media and entertainment businesses are perfect exemplars of all American "corporate culture." There are lots of corporations that are productive without attempting to corrupt the fabric of American society. ServiceMaster, Wal-Mart, Delphi, Motorola, UPS, etc. Miramax and the New York Times benefit from laws that allow business to function, more or less, freely, but they're not representative of overall corporate culture. It's the hight of elite arrogance to assume that the circle in which you travel is the only circle that counts.

Mr. Frank, I'll spell it out for you: We don't want to "Overthrow the aristocrats by cutting their taxes." - We want to become their economic peers and marginalize their leftist influence on our country by reducing the economic adantage that they have over us and are using to try to change our culture. Period.

Still, Mr. Frank, your blind. We don't wish you and your liberal cohorts ill, we want you to see reason and stop working against everything that Americans hold dear. You think you didn't motivate your base? You did, and very well, but their outnumbered... BIG time. And it's not about "class victimization" as you suppose. It's a cultural struggle, to be sure, but conservatives don't see themselves as victims. We see ourselves as responsible to do something to make sure you don't screw up the nation for our children any worse than it's already screwed-up.

You probably still chuckle to yourself, when you think of Reagan speaking of how a "rising tide lifts all boats." It's true, of course, but you don't think the little people are capable of rising, so your response to the cultural conservatives taking responsibility for the future is to advise your party to "dust off their own majoritarian militancy." You want class warfare. You want the "working man" to rise up against the working rich at the direction of the idle rich.

It's class warfare you're after, and your goal is to protect the cultural elite by having the "little people" attack the dirty but productive wealthy class before they can afford to join your country-club!

So long as you continue to be blind to the fact that most Americans want to do well by the merit of their own effort, by-in-large, and not be dependant on the nanny gub'ment for our sustenance, you're going to face increasing defeat. Eventually, you'll be forced to retreat to Martha's Vinyard, and be surprised that your gardener has chosen to cater to the sea of red-state working-rich rather than snobs.

In an effort to heal the divide, let me offer this, in all sincerity: Mr. Frank, and friends of Mr. Frank, please join us in America. Please feel free to present your ideals in the marketplace of ideas, and please abandon the notion that, because you see yourself as superior to others, that your ideas should be implemented over our objections. We don't hate you, but we refuse to be your serfs. We're going to work on making America a better place, a place where you are free to have illusions of superiority and grandeur, if you want, but where, if you like the freedom to have those illusions, it would be most productive for you to abandon them and join these patriotic "rebels" who mostly just love this country and truly believe that all men (and women) really were CREATED (by God) equal.

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Have compassion on the grieving.

Friends, In the Republican jubilation following the election, many of us may have forgotten the millions of heartbroken liberals around the country.

Echidne of the Snakes is a blog run by one such depressed liberal. She's even suggesting that the blue-states secede from the Union.

Off the cuff, joyous Republicans might be inclined to say, "OK, Buh-bye! Don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya!"

However, that's not the right response. Conservatives have convinced the nation to trust us. We shouldn't pander to liberals to make-up for disappointing them, but by the same token, we need to respectfully stick to the principles that the voters decided to endorse.

The truth of the matter is that virtually all Americans want the same end result. We would all like to rid the world of suffering and poverty. In spite of what the liberals think, Republicans want peace just as much as they do, but we think that surrender is too high a price. "Peace" without liberty is no peace at all, and so we're willing to take a stand and make the hard decisions.

So, friends, remember that it reflects poorly on our character to be sore-winners. We're better than that, and despite the seething hatred the far left has for us, we can continue to grow our base IF (and only if) we conscientiously and respectfully hold to principles that ensure America's continued liberty and prosperity.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

In My Crystal Ball...

Well, now that the election is all over (admit it), it's time to make baseless projections about the future! I've got a few, and I'll share them. This is purely based on hunch, so if you don't like it, feel free to rationally suggest alternatives. My predictions/guesses/whatevers are not in any particular order, so don't read into their placement below.

Anti-climactic post election - Many people are gun-shy after 2000. For good reason. The election came down to a couple hundred votes, and for the first time a party decided to take the contest into the courts. (Don't even try to remember false history: The Democrats are the ones who dragged the election into the courts.) Courts don't like to solve politically charged issues (usually) but they will find answers to problems that are properly before them. That's what they do. It's not going to be like that this time. Or, that's what I think. I am certain that, as much as Kerry will want to fight for the presidency, no matter how unlikely it will be that he can win, he won't pursue it too long. Either he will have the good sense on his own to admit that the margin of votes was just not small enough that a litigated contest to the results will change anything, or he won't, but the leaders of the Democratic party, who have to think about the next Presidential election, and the next one after that, will realize that if they go to court AGAIN, with such a bad chance of winning, they will look horrible to the electorate. If this were just a couple thousand votes, and there were a bunch of reports of errors, they wouldn't look like sore losers as much, but somebody (probably Bill Clinton) will look at the party's actions in the national context and decide to cut their losses.

The next Clinton presidency - No, not her. Hillary has NO chance of winning a national election. Her negatives are just too high, and, to be honest, we know too much about her to trust her, in a national election. I mean Chelsea Clinton. Why her? Because she's not hated AND she has Clinton's name. IF she can be as smart as her parents, not be as disgusting as her father or as cold as her mother, then she has the potential to be a political powerhouse. I see her running for President in 2016 to 2028 time frame. I have time to be wrong. If she associates herself too closely to the fringe elements of the Democratic party in the mean-time she could ruin her chances, but as it is, she's not hated, and she has real potential.

Michael Steele will be the Republican nominee for VP in 2008 - Michael Steele is everything the Republicans say they stand for, and he's living proof that Republicans don't have a skin-color test to see if you can join the party. He's a social and fiscal conservative, and he's a powerful and intelligent speaker. I think he would make a fine Presidential candidate, but he won't be credible until he has some national-political exposure.

Condoleezza Rice will be the next Secretary of State - I haven't been totally happy with Secretary Powell, but he's not been bad. I suspect that he plans on leaving the administration. President Bush has nothing at all to lose by taking a hard line in international politics at this point. Since our international rivals were caught with their hands in Saddam's cookie-jar, the US can forcibly demand the moral high-ground, and Condi Rice is the type of person who can do it. It will be a good stepping stone for her, but from what I've heard, she's not all that socially conservative, so I don't think she has Presidential (or even Vice-Presidential) potential. I could be wrong, but for now I only feel comfortable predicting that she'll (before long) be the Secretary of State.

The Mainstream Media is in a hole and is still digging - The mainstream media isn't going away. However, it's going to have to change. After memo-gate, and missing-explosives-gate, etc., the media decided to gamble what credibility it had left (not much) on ousting George Bush. I'm not going to re-cap all of the reasons that the media will have to change, but internet-based (i.e. Blogs... i.e. me and all my virtual cohorts), and talk-radio-based news sources have shrunk the nation and the world. What I mean is that, in a small town, if you personally know the mayor, and the local rag reports that he's a drunken womanizing cleptomaniac, you will probably know whether or not it's the truth by way of your personal knowledge of the mayor. The "new media" is really a network of outlets that bring personal (often "hearsay") evidence to a huge proportion of the population. Your local paper might be able to pull the wool over your eyes about a mayor in a town in a neighboring state, but it has a harder time changing public perception of well known facts. In the final analysis, keep an eye changes in the media over the next 12 months. Just this morning, I heard that the Wednesday "60 Minutes" program is going to be cancelled. Look to see how FOX-News did in the ratings for election night. As it's position as the most trusted network in the nation is solidified, the management at other networks is going to force a change in the news divisions.

The UN is toast - I don't mean it's going to end, but it's going to have to change. Big time. It appears that officials from the UN were collaborating with the Kerry campaign. The UN needs the US a hell of a lot more than we need them. That's a simple fact. Another simple fact is that our international rivals (or nations that would like to see themselves as our rivals) were caught with their collective hands in Saddam's cookie-jar. It might be that bribe-taking is well respected throughout the world, but I suspect that being bought-off will lower their international political capital. I don't know what, exactly, is going to happen, but I think it's fairly safe to say that the UN was playing political poker with president Bush, and he called their bluff. Kofi Annan is going to be gone. Whoever replaces him is going to be from a nation that is not hostile to the US.

The GOP has significant political pitfalls it will need to avoid - I'm not giving anything to the Democrats here. The fact of being the politically dominant party has special pitfalls. The Republican Party can destroy itself if it betrays it's roots to placate the political opposition. Likewise, it can set itself up for a fall if it ignores the substantial minority (Democrats). The problems that I see are largely economic. I have faith that the Republicans are in the right with regards to how to handle terrorism and the Iraqi war (not that everything is perfect, but that, by-in-large, the President's plan/strategy will be successful over time). Now the Republicans HAVE TO deliver the economic goods. We've GOT TO demonstrate the strength of an unleashed economy. President Bush must demonstrate leadership on spending issues. Otherwise, it invites the Democrats to come back as the economically sensible party (which they aren't but that won't stop them from describing themselves that way). I don't know that the Republican party is doomed by its success, but the responsibilities and temptations of leadership can do us in if we don't hold fast to principle.

I guess I'll stop for now. Tell me how full-of-it I am in the comments, if you are inspired to do so (but do so rationally). Nevertheless, these are my thoughts.

Monday, November 01, 2004

Bin Laden sees Kerry as an ALLY

This New York Post article indicates that the latest video message by Osama bin Laden contained more specific information and threats than has been widely reported. I wonder why.

Apparently, Osama has indicated that any state that votes for Bush is his enemy, and any state that votes for Kerry, he will consider to have voted for peace with him.

Could it be that Osama has been a sufficiently aware of American politics to realize that President Bush won't turn-tail and run from trouble, but that any Democrat, especially Kerry, can be expected to cower in fear whenever confronted by savages.

I'm certain that the fact that Bill Clinton has left the special ministrations of his private nurses to campaign for Kerry tells all the Islamofacists around the world that the President who gave the world the "courageous" retreat after a significant military victory in Somalia, but with depressing video, thinks that Kerry will be able to continue the Clintonian/Democratic tradition of head-in-the-sand cowardice.

So, why is it that the media hasn't broadcast that interpretation of the Osama video? I guess it's because the folks who run the media understand that American's aren't cowards and will vote for Bush in a 45+ state landslide if Osama's actual threats are released to the nation. Do you suppose that under a Kerry presidency, the major stations will rename themselves for clarity sake as "al Jazeera 1", "al Jazeera 2", "al Jazeera 3", "C-al Jazeera" and "MS-al Jazeera"?

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?