Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Michael Moore and Health Care

Michael Moore is attacking the US health system, and is advocating a socialized, universal health plan. He points out fact that that the United States is far behind many countries, mostly European in life expectancy, infant morality rates, and other health related stats. Many of these countries have socialized medicine. Looks like maybe Mike has a point, huh?

But this isn't the whole story. All of the countries ahead of us don't have anywhere near the population the United States does. It is obviously easier to take care of ten million than three hundred million. Throw in the fact that we have a high immigration rate, and that most immigrants are poor, and our health care system doesn't look so shabby.

These countries, for the most part, also have very high tax rates. Yes, high taxes provide for free health care, as well as providing governments bureaucrats with jobs, but they tend to stifle economic growth. This may be why the United States has a higher GNP than the whole European Union combined. Look at the industries of Canada, Denmark, and Sweden, all countries with high tax rates. What do you see them producing? Who is making all the electronic equipment? Cars? Not the near Socialist countries. Its is the United States and Japan. Is it worth sacrificing our economy on the altar of free, socialized health care?

Kieth Olbermann

I was one of the few watching Keith Olbermann's show tonight. He had a long rant about President Bush and Congress, how they weren't getting us out of Iraq, etc. I didn't pay much attention to his fairly typical left wing drivel, but there was something that bugged me. I knew that I had heard something like him before, but simply couldn't place it. I searched through everyone I know. Nothing. Then it hit me- Kieth Olbermann looks and sounds exactly like Ricard Deacon, who played Mel Cooley on the Dick van Dyke show. The resemblance is uncanny.

I don't want to debunk his whole tirade, but one thing struck me. He quoted Churchill as saying: “We seem to be very near the bleak choice between war and shame... My feeling is that we shall choose shame, and then have war thrown in, a little later…”
For some reason, he seemed to think that this was a good rallying call for the antiwar crowd. But as anyone who know anything about Churchill knows, though, Churchill was probably the most hawkish politician of the twentieth century. He makes Bush seems like one of the "make love not war" crowd. Choose your illustrations a little better next time, Mel. I mean Kieth.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

The McCain Crackup

John McCain seems to want to see how far down he can send his campaign. His "Gates of Hell" quote and subsequent smirk made him look dumb. "Bomb Iran" made him look dumb. But not dumb enough, apparently, since now he is championing an immigration bill that both liberals and conservatives hate. (If you can't please at least one camp, you probably aren't going to be President). Now he has started a feud with Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. The chances of him getting the nomination are slim and none right now.

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Does anyone still doubt that terrorizing civilians who report suspicious behavior is a insane policy? The teenager who reported the Fort Dix six was scared of being called a racist, even though the stuff on the tape he was editing was obviously the work of an Islamofacist nutjob. It's just more evidence that having the Democrats in power would cripple the War on Terror.

Friday, May 11, 2007

Many conservatives are petrified with the fear that Hillary Clinton will be our nation's next president. Hillary, for some reason, is viewed as an unstoppable Juggernaut, so conservatives are convinced that they must close ranks against the Hillary tide. With this in mind, Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment is observed religiously: Thou Shalt Not Criticize Thy Fellow Republican. Many conservatives are in favor of nominating Rudy Giuliani, a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-gun moderate. Their thinking is that Hillary is so powerful, it is probably safer to nominate a moderate who is already well-known to compete with Hillary's luminescent star power.

Many, probably most, conservatives agree with at least part of this assessment. Fortunately, they are almost certainly wrong. Hillary Clinton's time is past. Her time to run was in 2004. Had she run then, she probably would have won. Now, though, her gaffes and negatives will finish her off. She seems to think that using a corny Southern accent will endear her to southern and black voters. (Note: it won't. It just makes sound stupid, especially since she can't seem to get it down. Her position on Iraq is becoming a little embarrassing- she used to think that we should be there, but then, maybe not. Or maybe. Anyway,after her confusion two years ago, she seemed to think it a perfectly good idea for a while, but she now wants to eliminate the President's authority to attack Iraq. I'm getting a little confused. This doesn't make her look like her husband. It makes her look like John Kerry.

Hillary Clinton's poll numbers are not so very high, either. She now has a fifty-two percent unfavorable rating. Yes, she is beating Barack Obama in the Democratic primary, but when put head to head with leading Republican candidates, she is currently running about even, which is not a very good sign considering her near universal name recognition.

It is almost impossible to find positive news about Hillary. The Iraq bill she voted for was voted down embarrassingly, she was forced to come out in favor of partial-birth abortion, and porn star Jenna Jameson offered support. (She suggested that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be good for the porn industry. Just the image that Hillary was looking for). The last bit of good news for Hillary was her good performance during the Democrat debate.

With this in mind, why aren't Republicans looking harder for a good candidate in the GOP? Instead, they seem to looking for an "electable" candidate. Hillary has very glaring weaknesses, so it is possible, even probable, that the real election will fall on February 5, which is the date of most of the Republican primaries. Many leading conservatives are paving the way for a Rudy Guillani candidacy, (for example, Sean Hannity), and relatively few are focusing on any shortcomings that Guillani may possess.

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

Random thoughts

Barack Obama said ten thousand died during the Kansas tornado. His excuse, when his gaffe was pointed out to him, was that he was "tired". What kind of stamina does he have? How hard can campaigning possibly be? I bet he will be pretty impressive against Ahmadinejad. "I'm giving you ten thousand days to end your nuclear program. Oops, did I say ten thousand? I meant ten". Good job there, Barack.

Nancy Pelosi threatening to sue Bush over Iraq? Well, at least she already has a trial lawyer on her side. Get your case ready, John Edwards.

Monday, May 7, 2007

Pat Buchanan's crack-up

It is sad to see a once intelligent mind cracking up. This is happening to Pat Buchanan. His recent article about the Virginia Tech murders is, to put it charitably, incredibly dumb and illogical. He is, of course, a major critic of illegal immigration, and has done some very good work on the subject. (His book State of Emergency was reviewed very favorably by many prominent conservatives). One of his more controversial thesis's is that America has taken on more then enough immigrants, and that we should end immigration (legal and illegal) until the present wave of immigrants assimilate. Although there are many who disagree, this case can at least by made logically.
Now, though, Buchanan has gone way too far. His column suggests that criminals are disportionally immigrants, and the tacit premise is that simply sealing the borders would end much crime. He says:
Many immigrants do not assimilate. Many do not wish to. They seek community in their separate subdivisions of our multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual mammoth mall of a nation. And in numbers higher than our native born, some are going berserk here.
The 1993 bombers of the World Trade Center and the killers of 9-11 were all immigrants or illegals. Colin Ferguson, the Jamaican who massacred six and wounded 19 in an anti-white shooting spree on the Long Island Railroad, was an illegal. John Lee Malvo, the Beltway Sniper, was flotsam from the Caribbean. Angel Resendez, the border-jumping rapist who killed at least nine women, was an illegal alien. Julio Gonzalez, who burned down the Happy Land social club in New York, killing 87, arrived in the Mariel boatlift.
Ali Hassan Abu Kama, who wounded seven, killing one, in a rampage on the observation deck of the Empire State Building, was a Palestinian. As was Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Robert Kennedy.
The rifleman who murdered two CIA employees at the McLean, Va., headquarters was a Pakistani. When Chai Vang, a Hmong, was told by a party of Wisconsin hunters to vacate their deer stand, he shot six to death. Peter Odighizuwa, the gunman who killed the dean, a teacher and a student at the Appalachian School of Law, was a Nigerian.
Hesham Hadayet, who shot up the El Al counter at LAX, killing two and wounding four, was an Egyptian immigrant. Gamil al-Batouti, the copilot who yelled, "I put my faith in Allah's hands," as he crashed his plane into the Atlantic after departing JFK Airport, killing 217, was an Egyptian.
Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, the UNC graduate who ran his SUV over nine people on Chapel Hill campus and said he was "thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah," was an Iranian.
Juan Corona, who murdered 25 people in California to be ranked with the likes of Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy, was a Mexican.

Notice that he gives no evidence about his assertion that immigrants don't assimilate. He ignores the fact that historically, the first generation of immigrants often don't assimilate fully into the mainstream culture. There are few statistics about this (how do you measure someones assimilation level?), but the creation of Chinatown, Little Italy, and other ethic enclaves suggest that this is accurate. From his name, I would guess that Buchanan's ancestors came here in the mid nineteenth century. Is he aware of the Irish criminal gangs that terrorized parts of New York during the latter part of the nineteenth century? Would Buchanan argue that his parents shouldn't have come over here?
Buchanan's impressive list of immigrants who have committed spectacular crimes seems to lend credence to his idea, at least as long as none of his readers actually think. (Evidently, none of them do). If they did, they might possibly start thinking of Timothy McViegh, Charles Manson, the Unabomber, or Lee Harvey Oswald. They might think to research whether Asians like Cho commit more crimes than than whites or blacks. (They don't. Is anyone surprised?) Or maybe research whether immigrants commit more crimes than natives. (They don't. Is anyone sensing a trend here?) Or maybe realize that Cho has been here since he was eight years old? And that his parents are Christians?
Pat Buchanan is right on some things, such immigration. It is explicable that he is angry at being passed over by the conservative elites. It is inevitable that he would be angry over his lack of support from rightists during his presidential runs. But someone should tell Pat that the way to be taken seriously is not to become a raving loon.

Friday, May 4, 2007

Cluelessness on Iraq

It is fairly obvious that the Democrats are completely clueless about Iraq. They campaigned in '06 as the party that would fix the mess Bush had made, and bring peace and love to the entire Middle East as well. After taking office, the Democrats had the bright idea of passing a nonbinding resolution. Yep, that'll fix it. If you assume that the Iraq War is a necessary part of the US's Middle East policy, then the resolution was a meaningless gesture that only hurt troop morale. If you think that the Iraq War was a grievous mistake that has gotten the US involved in a dreadful quagmire... then it was still a meaningless gesture that hurt troop morale.
After they got the pressing nonbinding resolution business finished, the Democrats passed a war funding bill was a deadline for troop withdrawals. Man, where do they get these bright ideas? That sounds like a great way to run a war- tell the enemy that they must lose by a certain date or we will leave. They passed the bill even after Bush promised to veto it, and after the veto they tried to override it. While it was good to see that can-do, never-say-die spirit from the Democrats, it was another meaningless gesture, since they only passed it by fifteen or so votes the first time. Now, after having said for months that we absolutely have to have a deadline for troop withdrawals, the Democrats are suddenly backtracking, and saying that deadlines aren't so important after all.

The Democrats are, it is obvious, more or less lost regarding the war on terror. That fact shouldn't distract conservatives from the fact the George W. Bush is committing some serious blunders as well. Bush's stated goal is not to leave Iraq without victory. This is worthy goal, but Bush's definition of victory is amazingly wrong and impractical. His goal seems to be to end the insurgency, and go home. Sadly, that goal, as we are fighting the war now, is completely unachievable. Iran and Syria are sending in weapons, fighters, and cash to fuel the Iraq insurgency. Unless we persuade them to stop (a couple of well-placed bombs would work quite nicely), we will never win. As good as the US troops are (and they are good), they cannot win against an enemy with almost unlimited numbers, and safe havens on either side (Iran and Syria). So what is victory? Victory should be defined as placing in power a functioning Iraq government with a fairly competent military. We have a government there, now most of our resources should go to developing the Iraqi military. It is ultimately their fight, not ours.


Thursday, May 3, 2007

GOP debate

I didn't watch the GOP debate tonight, but I did watch some of the recap of MSNBC. It seemed to be an uneventful night, but I do have one observation. One of the guys on MSNBC said that no contender had stepped up and showed that he was the best candidate. Just my opinion, but the best candidate wasn't there. Fred Thompson anyone? According to my sources, he should announce his decision any day now, maybe even tomorrow. I am praying he does.

Mitt supports the President

Mitt Romney called the President to offer support. Good for Mitt.

Not a far leftist any longer?

Most conservatives hate Hillary Clinton with all of their hearts. They would rather see anyone than Hillary in the White House, whether that would be Obama, Edwards, or Fidel Castro. They would hate to see any Democrat president, but loathe the idea of President Clinton II. Mrs. Clinton's far left label is well deserved, as seen by her socialized health care scheme, her "it takes a village to raise a family" mentality, and her very liberal past (including her stint as an attorney for the Black Panthers). What is amazing though, and perhaps a little frightening, is the thought that right now, when compared to the rest of the leaders of her party-Hillary isn't all that far to the left! She hasn't moved to the right, her party has moved left. Remember Harry Reid's despicable "the war is lost" comment? Or John Murtha announcing that US troops should redeploy to Okinawa, and that US troops kill in cold blood? Most of the Democrats want to pull out of Iraq now, and not bother waiting to give the surge or General Petraeus time to work. (Kinda makes you wonder why they voted in Petraeus if they believed that he was wasting his time. Come to think it, if the war is such a bad idea, why won't they defund it? That is within their rights, and there is nothing the President could do). Hillary is probably the most hawkish Democrat. She is also the most pro-Israel of the Democrats. (Many Democrats seem to view Israel as worse than the terrorists Israel fights. Look at the writings of popular liberals Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter). Who would have believed five years ago that Hillary Clinton, of all people, would represent the right wing of the Democrat party?

This not to suggest, of course, that Hillary is anything but a leftist. However, she is no longer a far leftist. That dubious title has been taken by the Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, and Harry Reid wing of the Democrat Party. For all her sins, Hillary hasn't gone to terrorist countries against the will of the President to advance her own rouge diplomacy, called the troops murderers, or decided to call the war in favor of the vicous Islamofacist Al-Qaeda terrorists. Hillary is no longer a radical.

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Imus- Should he have been fired?

Most of the individuals involved in the mainstream media reacted to Don Imus's controversial comments with the outrage usually afforded only to serial killers or Rush Limbaugh. To listen to them, Don Imus should be fired immediately for calling Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos". Although what Imus said was undoubtedly wrong (and ridiculous, given the team's classy press conference), it was not nearly as big a deal as some well-meaning but ill-informed people thought it was.
There were many who thought the whole comment completely outrageous, and that it should not be allowed on the air. What they forget is that Imus was a shock jock!!! What were they expecting, something kind and decent? That is little like being surprised if Howard Stern tells a dirty joke. Even if Imus had said something that you couldn't hear during your average rap song (the clean kind), should he have been fired for doing his job, which consists of being sarcastic and cruel?
Imus was a jerk, and it is possible to make a strong case that he shouldn't have been on the air in the first place, much less with a respected company like CBS. However, the sudden rush of moral outrage is incredible for its hypocrisy. I personally won't listen to Imus, when he finds another home (he will). Yes, he is funny, but so is a bully laughing at the fat kid in the cafeteria. I perfer not to laugh at cruel jokes. But if you want him off the air, critize him for something real, not a completly phony, made-up issue. If the term"nappy-headed ho" is so intolerable, he should have been off the air years and years ago. People should make up their minds- either our culture tolerates racebaiting, religion bashing, sexist shock jocks or we do not.

Don Imus and his lawsuit

Don Imus has announced that he will file a lawsuit over his firing from CBS. Apparently, his First Amendment rights have been violated, since he was fired for his (obnoxious) speech. According to his lawyer, CBS was required to give him a warning if he said anything offensive (not that he would ever do anything like that) before being fired. CBS counters that since he was talking over public airwaves, and he violated FCC regulations. What CBS doesn't seem to realize is that Imus has said many things for worse than calling a basketball team "nappy-headed hos". Undermining CBS's case, though, is the fact that Imus has called other people far worse than "nappy-headed hos". CBS didn't give him a warning them. Since Imus was given no other warnings, it would seem that he will win his case.