And many writers have imagined for themselves republics and principalities that have never been seen or known to exist in reality; for there is such a gap between how one lives and how one ought to live that anyone who abandons what is done for what ought to be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation: for a man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good. -- Niccolo Machiavelli
Question 1: "What, in your opinion, is the root cause for the liberal's anti-2nd Amendment movement in the US?" -- Good_Ol_Boy
Answer: There are a lot of reasons that liberals don't like guns.
First and foremost among them is liberals tend to be elitists who have a very minimal level of faith in the American people. That's why you'll find liberals like Michael Moore who think it's ok for them to have armed guards, but who just don't believe that the average person can be trusted with a weapon.
Then you have to consider that supporting the right of a populace to be armed is a pro-victim position, not a pro-criminal position and bleeding heart liberals have a tendency to sympathize more with crooks than their victims. It's no coincidence that it's liberals who protest the police, ask for lesser sentences for criminals, carry around "Free Mumia" signs, fight against three strikes and you're out laws, want to give felons the right to vote, etc., etc.
Going right along with the left's pro-criminal viewpoint is their belief that people aren't the problem, it's the weapons that lead to crime. I know, I know, that's so ridiculous, that it's hard to imagine anyone believes it. But, liberals are being consistent here. Remember their incessant railing against nuclear weapons in the eighties? They acted as if the nuclear weapons were the threat to the world, not the fact that they were being wielded by an evil empire. Liberals didn't get it then and they don't get it now. The bad guys are the real problem, not the weapons.
Last but not least, in some ways, liberals either don't understand how the world works or just don't care. Let's say that every gun in America was banned tomorrow. Well, assuming that was the case, why would anyone believe the criminals, who don't care about the law and are largely using stolen and unregistered handguns, would actually turn in their guns? How foolish.
Happily, the Democrats have been punished so harshly at the ballot box for their gun grabbing tendencies that few of them have the guts to talk seriously about gun control anymore unless they're in a liberal enclave. In large part, we can thank the NRA for that...
Q&A Friday #17: When Will We See A Flat Tax, Vat, Or National Sales Tax?
Question: "What are the chances of us seeing actual tax reform during the Bush Administration? How about in the next 50 years? By reform I mean some sort of flat tax, VAT, or national sales tax that does away with the IRS." -- taxsucks
Answer: While there would be a lot of conservative support for national sales tax or a flat tax, the Democrats would fight it tooth and nail, Republicans couldn't rely on the RINOS in the Senate, and the American public isn't sold on the idea yet.
The American people tend -- quite understandably -- to be very suspicious of wholesale changes to the tax system and any numbers put out by the government. Plus, the groundwork just hasn't been laid for a flat tax with the public yet.
That being said, I think flattening and simplifying the tax code is definitely a possibility -- and half a loaf is better than none.
Can it be done in the next 50 years? Sure. One of the things that may help is that a number of Eastern European nations -- including Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia, Serbia, Romania, Georgia, Ukraine, & Russia have already implemented flat taxes -- and 5-10 years if they turn out to be big success stories, it'll make it an easier sell here.
Switching from a progressive tax system to a flat tax or national sales tax is one of the most important things we can do to insure that America's economy remains competitive in the 21st century. So, the sooner we implement a new tax code, the better...
-- Look for another interview, a very good one if I do say so myself, with a columnist who shall remain nameless until Monday.
-- Because of Memorial Day, it has been a slower week than normal for my advertisers. How about making it up to them by clicking on a few them? Trust me, these advertisers pay a lot of attention to click through rates so even clicking on a few of these ads would make a bigger difference than you might think.
-- Also there's a banner ad available. Here are the details:
"You can purchase a 468x60 banner ad on RWN for $60 a month. The banners appear on every page of RWN. If you're interested, send $60 to my Paypal account (which is also located in the support section -- please mention what the money is for in the comments section) and email me your 20kb or smaller banner ad at johnhawkins-at-rightwingnews.com. I will sell a maximum of 4 of these ads per month."
-- Last but not least, don't forget to bookmark Conservative Grapevine. If you like RWN, you will like CG as well. But don't take my word for it, read what Brainster's Blog has to say about it:
"But the new site that's turning out to be a godsend is Conservative Grapevine, by John Hawkins of Right Wing News. John surfs 90 blogs a day, looking for the best in political commentary and analysis.
Today he's got some interesting links. Donald Luskin continues his kneecapping of Paul Krugman. Joshua Micah Marshall, one of the big blogs on the left, revealed to his readers three years ago the identity of Deep Throat: Pat Buchanan. And Jihad Watch proprietor Robert Spencer is getting threats on a Muslim bulletin board.
Conservative Grapevine is like morning coffee: It gets you going."
Conservative Grapevine and Right Wing News -- they go together like Ronald Reagan and conservatism!
Q&A Friday #17: Is It Hypocritical To Say We Support Democracy While We Deal With Dictators?
Question: "The recent uprising in Uzbekistan and the brutal crackdown ordered by the Uzbek premier Karimov - is that his name?! - has highlighted an obviously hypocritical element of US foreign policy, where support or at least benign acceptance is given to this particular tyrant whilest other are condemend in the strongest terms.
The problem for conservatives must surely be that where the promotion of democracy has now become our raison d'etre in the Middle East, this charge of double standards is not only more damaging theoretically than in past struggles such as the Cold War - where realism was, by neccesity, the dominant ideology - but also imperils the chances of winning over popular support for democracy amongst Arab populaces, all suspicious of America by nature and thus susceptible to arguments of critics based on the double standards of American foreign policy.
It seems to me that conservatives have a choice. They can either wed themselves to ideas of universal democracy and idealism - achieving this consistently by withdrawing support from the likes of Karimov and the House of Saud, but then endagering global strategic position and access to resources - or focus primarily on the retention of American control and influence around the globe to combat Al-Qaeda and others, power exercised in part by friendly despots, and where critically, national security takes precedence over the promotion of democracy.
I ask these questions in part because I want to address this fundamental question of foreign policy which conservatives - in part due to the obvious double standards - would rather ignore. If conservatives fail in addressing this question properly then not only will liberals use it to bash us over the head with abondoned glee, but we will in part run the risk of serious set backs or worse in the war on terror.
Realism, Idealism, or am I ignoring the benefits of the current 'Third Way' approach? Which do you reckon it should be?" -- JMH_1986
Answer: There are two mistaken assumptions in your question.
The first is what I like to think of as the "fairy tale fallacy," that in every country, there are good guys and bad guys and we have only to make the right choice between them.
In Uzbekistan, for example, you are correct that Karimov is a brutal dictator. However, the choice in that country is not currently between Karimov and democracy, it's between Karimov and radical Islamists. Neither group is particularly appealing, but out of the two, I'd prefer Karimov.
Secondly, you seem to believe that we have the option to simply choose not to work with any non-democratic countries. That's ludicrous. Saudi Arabia is the world's largest supplier of oil. Pakistan is, and continues to be, instrumental in the fight against Al-Qaeda. China is one of our largest trade partners and they sit on the UN Security Council. The idea that we can simply cut off all contact with these countries -- and others like them -- until they become democracies is nutty.
What we're doing -- quite successfully, I might add -- is supporting democracy when we can, where we can, with what we have. Because of that policy, Afghanistan and Iraq are free countries today, Syria has pulled out of Lebanon, Libya has given up their WMDs, and we've seen at least some small, but significant political progress in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. I'd also add that we backed the "flower revolutions" in Georgia, Ukraine, in Kyrgyzstan, although to be fair, we seem to have had much more of an impact in the Middle East than Eastern Europe.
And keep in mind, Bush still has 3 1/2 years left to keep pushing for freedom around the world. It seems to me that we're on the right track in this area and I think Bush has made excellent foreign policy decisions, especially where it relates to strengthening democracy around the world...
Q&A Friday #17: What's To Be Done About Violent Video Games?
Question: "It seems every now and then there's some big stir in the media about violence in movies, video games, and music. Video games in particular are a favorite to blame for causing violence in children and teens.
I was just wondering what your take on the issue is? Do you feel violent video games incite violence, and if so, should some be banned or a tougher, more enforced rating system established for them? And also, is there any general conservative/republican stance on the issue?" -- jlk10285
Answer: An already violent kid might try to act out something he sees in a video game, but a kid who isn't inclined towards violence isn't going to become violent after doing something in a video game. Same goes for TV, music, and the internet.
I say this with some confidence not just because I'm a staunch conservative who spent my teenage years listening to gangster rap, watching kung-fu movies, and happily playing violent video games, but because of common sense. Percentage wise, there are very small numbers of violent criminals out there, but a very large percentage of our population regularly consumes less than wholesome media fare.
Furthermore, while I wholeheartedly support the decency standards on TV, the video game rating system, as well as the old radio rules (The new fines are so enormous that they represent backdoor censorship), I don't think the government should become more involved. In the end, it's up to parents to monitor what their kids are doing.
Furthermore, I think the idea of placing increasingly irritating restrictions on the whole populace because some parents don't want to take the time to look into what their kids are doing is obnoxious, especially in today's world where we have the v-chip, internet safety software, and Google can be used to get the scoop on any band, video game, movie, or television program a child is watching. Yes, kids can always find a way to get their hands on objectionable material if they're determined enough, but at least today's parents have more tools than ever to help control the content their kids are watching.
That's why I believe that government has carried the ball far enough on this and parents should be the ones to take it the rest of the way.
Q&A Friday #17: Who Would You Like To See Replace Rehnquist?
Question: "Assuming Rehnquist resigns by the end of the month or at least the session, who are your top choices to replace him as Chief Justice and who will fill the vacant seat?" -- Yankees62387
Answer: There are only two justices on the current Supreme Court, other than Rehnquist, whom I like: Scalia and Thomas. Either would suit me fine as Chief Justice, although Scalia would probably be my preference.
As to my choice for a replacement for Rehnquist, I'd select Miguel Estrada for a variety of reasons.
"Mr. Estrada graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa with a bachelor’s degree from Columbia College, New York in 1983. He received a juris doctor degree magna cum laude in 1986 from Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. After law school, Mr. Estrada served as a law clerk to the Honorable Amalya L. Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and then clerked for the Honorable Anthony M. Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court.
From 1990 until 1992, Mr. Estrada served as Assistant U.S. Attorney and Deputy Chief of the Appellate Section, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York. In 1992, he joined the United States Department of Justice as an Assistant to the Solicitor General. In those capacities, Mr. Estrada represented the government in numerous jury trials and in many appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Before joining the U.S. Attorney's Office, Mr. Estrada practiced law in New York with Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz."
Furthermore, Estrada would be a great American success story. Imagine an immigrant from Honduras who came to this country as a teenager becoming the first Hispanic to ever serve on the court. Would that be a fantastic story or what?
Moreover, how sweet it would be to bring Estrada back up after the Democrats unfairly blocked his nomination to the appellate court and got caught with an internal memo saying that Estrada was "'especially dangerous' because 'he is Latino.'" You cannot imagine how much fun it would be to throw that back in the Democrats' faces during a highly publicized confirmation hearing!
Last but not least, Estrada is not just a rock ribbed conservative justice, he's 44 years old. Given that judges routinely sit on the bench into their late seventies and early eighties, that means Estrada could be making an impact on the court for 35+ years!
Add it all up and you can see why Estrada would be my first choice...
*** Update #1 ***: There's one other relevant point worth noting. As I mentioned earlier, if Estrada were to be appointed, he would be the first Hispanic ever appointed to the court. That would be a big deal, not just because it would be a first, but because it would probably mean Bush wouldn't be tempted to appoint his good buddy Alberto Gonzales, who is much less conservative than Estrada, to the court if a 2nd slot opens up.
So if 2 slots have to be filled, Estrada could be the difference between two real conservatives being added to the court and one real conservative and an Anthony Kennedy clone getting the nod. That's no small thing.
Q&A Friday #17: What If A RINO Gets The Nomination In '08?
Question: "What should I do if a wishy washy RINO gets the nomination in '08? I doubt someone like McCain will get it, but there are plenty of other people who are just as bad in my opinion who could very be nominated. I am not someone who feels that I have to vote for a diehard rock solid conservative every time. I understand sometimes that getting an "R" in the White House is of utmost importance, even if that "R" is really an "r". I most certainly won't vote for Hillary (or 99% of the other Democrats who might run). But I'm just afraid that the Republicans will nominate someone who makes me ill to even think of in the Oval Office. Do I vote for them anyways, vote third party, or not vote at all. Keep in mind I live in Texas, so odds are it won't matter too much. For me it's more of a philosphical question." -- bungoman85
Answer:"There's a time and a place for everything, and it's called college." -- Chef from South Park
There's also a time and place to do everything you can to insure the defeat of a particular Republican candidate and it's called the "primaries." If a Republican survives the primaries, you should vote for him unless there are extraordinary circumstances involved.
Does that mean I would hold my nose and vote for McCain, whom I absolutely despise, if he were running against Hillary? Yes. But, it also means I have no problem with spending the length of the Republican primaries putting the boots to him on RWN.
That may be hard to swallow for some people, but think about: are you really going to be happier putting a Democrat like Hillary in office? Look back at Bush, Sr. and Bob Dole: were either of them great candidates? No way. Did the idea of another 4 years of Bush, Sr. or a Dole presidency set any conservative hearts atwitter? No. But come on, you don't think we'd have been better off having those guys in office than Bill Clinton?
But, don't get too worried yet. With the growing strength and influence of the conservative media, I don't think we're going to have a RINO running in the top slot in 2008. With Fox, talk radio, the conservative mags, and the blogosphere on the case, a McCain or Giuliani just isn't going to be able to run the gauntlet in the primaries because Republicans will be too well informed to fall for a quick right-wing makeover.
So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV. Then, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.
One of the things you'll often notice, particularly around election time, is liberals proclaiming their undying affection and love for the military, the police, and Christianity. Why, if you suggest that they're not sincere, they will pitch a fit! How dare you "attack their patriotism" by suggesting that they're hostile to the military, suggest that they're "soft on crime," or doubt their endless love for Christianity! It's an outrage!
But...and this is a funny thing...many of these same liberals relentlessly talk down and attack the military, the police, and Christianity.
"While I am sure that Americans would express a great deal of confidence in Democracy as an abstract concept, when it comes to actual institutions that are, at least ostensibly, Democratic, they tend to express very little confidence. According to the latest Gallup poll on the subject, 44% express confidence in the Presidency, 24% in organized labor, and only 22% in Congress. By contrast, Americans express a great deal of confidence in situations that are not only undemocratic (the military, the police, organized religion), but even frequently rely upon force for their authority.
...What is perhaps most disturbing about this poll is that along with rising confidence in the military, the nation is expressing rising confidence in the police. In fact, at 63% this year and 64% last year, confidence in the police has reached an all-time high. If you couple rising confidence in the police and the military with declining confidence in the criminal justice system, elected institutions and the news media, you have the makings of a populace that would be comfortable with a police state. Now, while I personally think comparisons to our current government and Nazi Germany are absurd, offensive and based in ignorance, the growing national comfort with authoritarian and totalitarian measures cannot be ignored.
You'd have to think that most Americans would be pleased that the public has a lot of confidence in the military and the police, but to Bowers it's "disturbing" and evidence of a "populace that would be comfortable with a police state."
Gee, maybe most Americans don't think "fascism" when they look at our policemen and troops because America has about the same chance of becoming a totalitarian state as Israel has of being invited to head the Arab League.
But of course, people like Bowers don't look at it that way because they have an intrinsic dislike and distrust of the military, the police, and churchgoing folks. In their mind, they're the sort of very people who'd love to see an authoritarian state spring up, but in truth, part of the reason the American people have confidence in those institutions is because they're full of exactly the sort of people who'd be first to stand up and oppose an American "police state."
It's no accident that this country is the longest running democracy in the world and that will continue in no small part thanks to Christians, cops, & our troops -- ya know, exactly the sort of people many liberals like Chris Bowers seem to find disturbing.
It seems to me that if the Liberal doctrine had never been invented, not only would the United States of America be much better off, the entire world would be better off. The tenets of liberalism are anchored in the concept - and falsehood - of equality. Liberalism, Socialism, Communism and even terrorism are all off-shoots of the inability of certain elements of our society to respect the very differences in personality, temperment and circumstance that they claim to want to rectify.
Examples abound. Poverty programs are founded on the belief that we're all equally entitled to food, shelter, clothing. Affirmative Action assumes that all black people are equal: as long as they're black, they're preferred over the white people who have applied for the same job or position in college (especially, for some reason, Law School.) The so-called "living wage" assumes that all people below a certain water-mark are equal and thus all deserving of a baseline wage, even if the jobs performed by the people are vastly different in quality. Even the very idea of "anti-war" is founded in the fundamental belief that all human beings are equal, that there is moral equivalence between launching an aircraft into a building and the human beings inside the building, faxing documents, making calls, and planning lunch.
Differences in success (and the class envy so apparent in liberals) are directly answered by differences in ability, effort, and talent. These qualities are not distributed on an equal basis - nor should they be - and the mixture of traits and qualities that one is granted through the beneficence of God or nature is immutable. There is no higher power to appeal to (for instance, who can I complain to that I don't look more like Cameron Diaz?) The best one can do is to maximize his own powers, talents, abilities instead of looking at his neighbors and asking for "equality."
Parity is a concept that only exists in mathematics. It is unworkable in any human endevor, not because of bigotry or meanness, but because our human natures are different. I could no more be an astronaut than I could be a bird. Instead, I am a writer, better suited to imagining the plights of astronaut's wives, who go outside on summer evenings, heavily pregnant, and look up at the moon and stars and vast black sky, imagining that they can spot the little silver craft their husbands have piloted through the atmosphere, leaving their lives, families, and wives anchored to the earth. Being a writer is not something that anyone has granted me. It's not even something I would have chosen for myself. It's just the way I am, and I've used it to my advantage. Being a writer, and making money writing, is not taking anything away from another person. I do not want anyone to be my equal. I want to be much, much better. The only people who would want to be equal are the people who are not able, on their own, to achieve my level of success (this begs the next question: why should equality be determined by those who can not compete? In other words, why should the lowest common denominator of our society - the lazy, the weak, the uneducable become the watermarks for all human endevours?). Further speaking to the discrepencies in human experience is the fact that nobody can write the stories I write. They might be 'better' or 'worse', depending on who is holding the opinion, but they are not, and never will be, "equal."
Nobody is entitled to success. Success is a result of hard work. Because of temperments and personality, there is no way to guarantee that we will all work equally hard. The best bet for ourselves, and our country, is to return to a time when we were a self-reliant people. Being babyfed Socialist concepts like "equality" has only served to dull the very instincts for our survival that will ensure we attain a level of success that we all proclaim to want.
Thanks to all of RWN's readers for helping to make Conservative Grapevine's debut a smashing success.
Day 1, CG had 4000+ unique readers, added 65+ registered users, sold 4 blogads, & had 800+ hits driven to just one of the blogs listed. That's not too shabby for a blog's day 1.
If you haven't checked out Conservative Grapevine yet, make sure to give it a look and bookmark the page.
Come On, Is Corporate Popcorn Blogging Really Going To Be A Success?
I'm not sure whether it's a good sign or a bad sign, but blogging has apparently reached the "internet bubble" stage where corporations wildly throw money around without getting much of anything in return. If you don't believe me, just check this out:
"Flycell Inc., New York, an 18-month-old provider of mobile-phone content such as games and ringtones, posted an ad on the technology-job site Dice.com in April for a "blogger/copywriter/editorial-content producer." The ad includes the following description: "Create, maintain and promote a blog that covers and reports about mobile-phone content and the marketplace ... Must have experience creating and updating blogs, including creating links to other topical blogs ... Blog savvy is a must."
The annual salary ranges from $50,000 and $70,000. The job also includes duties, such as writing marketing copy and content for the Web site of the company, which currently has 15 employees, says Mark Lehmann, Web marketing director.
Dale & Thomas Popcorn, a Teaneck, N.J., gourmet popcorn company, is seeking an online-marketing coordinator to create and maintain a company blog on the love of popcorn, among other tasks. Paul Goodman, senior vice president of ecommerce, says he hopes a blog will enhance customer relations and help boost the company Web site's search-engine rankings.
The new position, with an annual salary between $40,000 and $55,000, opened in April. Prior blogging experience isn't necessary, Mr. Goodman says. "We're looking for candidates who are good at expressing themselves. What they write doesn't have to be perfect. It needs to be conversational and should translate our feelings to the community."
$70,000 a year to blog about mobile phones???? $55,000 a year to blog about popcorn???? Bloody hell!
Maybe I should be applying for these jobs -- I mean, how hard can it be to blog about popcorn? You interview Orville Redenbacher, survey a few bloggers on what type of popcorn they eat, take a few pictures of your dog running through popcorn to get a toy and then you just sit back and collect your huge checks. Of course, you'll have about 3 people reading your blog, because nobody wants to sit down every day and read about popcorn!
You know, I don't want to screw up any cushy jobs for bloggers here, but let me give some advice to the companies out there: yes, blogs are trendy, but you don't need to create a blog for your company unless you REGULARLY HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY. Instead of having a blog no one is going to read, why not spend the money on internet advertising or hire one of the flash geniuses at Newgrounds to create a cool little game that has an ad for your product in the background? You'll get a lot more bang for your buck that way...
Excerpt Of The Day: We Desperately Need To Simplify Out Byzantine Tax Code
There isn't a human being alive who knows what's contained in the federal tax code. To put it in perspective: Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which defined the American nation, is 272 words in length. Our Declaration of Independence is some 1,300 words. The Bible, which spans several thousand years of human history, is 773,000 words. But the federal tax code, with all of its attendant rules and regulations, is 9 million words and rising.
Since 1986, when the last serious attempt at tax simplification was made, the code has been amended 14,000 times. Its length has grown by 3 million words--an avalanche of personal and business deductions, exemptions, preferences, loopholes, credits and exclusions spread out over six formal tax brackets (and an infinite number of other brackets as deductions are phased out when taxpayers reachcertain income thresholds). And then there's the abomination known as the alternative minimum tax--an Orwellian name for a levy if ever there was one. A more accurate name would be the compulsory maximum tax.
A typical taxpayer filing the regular Form 1040 and reporting income from work, dividends and capital gains will spend an estimated 26 hours and 48 minutes each year completing his return. Seventeen years ago it took only 17 hours and 7 minutes. That's a 57% increase in just the past 17 years.
Billions of hours of lost productivity--the equivalent of 3.3 million full-time jobs--are squandered on tax compliance. At last count, Americans spent a staggering 6.6 billion hours preparing their tax forms. -- Steve Forbes
Each day it's going to feature links to some of the best posts made by right-of-center bloggers. No muss, no fuss, no long spiel, just intriguing posts for busy conservatives who -- unlike me -- don't routinely read 90+ blogs a day.
Sure, there may be a few links that get cross posted on both Right Wing News and Conservative Grapevine, but you probably won't see all that much crossover.
So, if you're a regular reader of Right Wing News, why don't you bookmark Conservative Grapevine, add it to your favorites, and check it out right after you take a look at RWN?
You won't be disappointed and if you like Right Wing News, it's a good bet that you'll like Conservative Grapevine as well. Hopefully, both blogs will become a daily read for you...
***
Now that I've gotten the promo out of the way, let me thank a couple of people for their help. First of all, let me thank Nicole Baker for helping to get Conservative Grapevine off the ground. She helped put together some of the basic design concepts and her assistance at the beginning is much appreciated.
But, the man I really owe a debt of gratitude to is Danny Carlton of JackLewis.net. Danny is the guy who did most of the design, graphics, and coding for Conservative Grapevine and I genuinely appreciate the phenomenal job he did. If anybody out there is looking for a top notch web designer, I'd recommend Danny without the slightest hesitation.
*** Update #1 ***: My DSL bombed out last night about midnight. I'm not sure whether the problem is with the modem or whether something is down in the area (My ISP says everything is up). So, I logged on with dial-up to let you know what's going on. I'm going to find out if this is a local problem or not in the next 30 minutes or so and if not, I'm going to try to get a new modem. Hopefully, we'll have this cleared up soon because trying to do what I do on a daily basis with dial-up would be nightmarish...
*** Update #2 ***: Spoke to my ISP. It's some sort of problem on their end. I suspect I'll be stuck in dial-up hell for another few hours. Bah! I am going to have to step away from the computer for a couple of hours.
*** Update #3 ***: DSL is back! I'm working on updates....
Excerpt Of The Day: American Capitalism Vs. European Socialism
"Over the past ten years Eurozone growth is 2.0 percent annually compared to 3.3 percent in the U.S. Eurozone unemployment has averaged 9.2 percent versus 5.1 percent in America. Euro-style socialism has failed to deliver the goods or the jobs.
The Continent has fallen woefully behind in productivity, capital formation, wealth creation, and entrepreneurship. In France the top combined marginal tax-rate is 55.7 percent, kicking in at a dollar comparable $87k. In Germany the top rate is 47.5 percent, kicking in at $57k. In the U.S. it is 41.6 percent, kicking in at $327k.
Euro living standards are falling, youth unemployment is twice the overall rate, the gap between the American and European economies has widened hugely, and the European voters are discontented, fearful of the future, and trembling at the winds of free market change blowing in from the new Eastern European countries with their flat taxes and their market opening reforms." -- Larry Kudlow
In the past, to inspire people to suggest new music that I might be interested in and just for entertainment's sake, I've posted the music I was currently listening to on RWN. But, thanks to wonders of modern technology, I can now tell you which songs I listened to the most over the last month.
Here's the list for May...
1) Lynrd Skynrd: Sweet Home Alabama
2) Twisted Sister: The Price
2) Twisted Sister: The Beast
4) Johnny Cash: Hurt
5) Trey Parker & Matt Stone: Pearl Harbor
5) Papa Roach: Scars
7) Blind Melon: No Rain
7) John Denver: Thank God I'm A Country Boy
7) Kid Rock: American Bad*ss
7) O-Zone: Dragostea Din Tei
7) Rage Against The Machine: Bulls On Parade
7) Rob Zombie: Never Gonna Stop Me
7) Weird Al Yankovic: The Saga Begins
Quote Of The Day: Free & Prosperous Nations Are The Aberrations, Poverty Is The Norm
"(W)hen we look at the third world, our heart cries out, as it should, but that doesn't mean that those in the third world are victims of anything but nature. The appalling poverty of Sri Lanka or Mozambique is not some bizarre aberration that can be tracked to a cause we can cure. We are the aberration; Sri Lanka and Mozambique are the normal state of human history. Trying to figure out how to reproduce those abnormal results in a couple hundred more countries is very, very hard." -- Jane Galt
The ramifications of Mark Felt's revelation, that he was "Deep Throat," have been discussed at length across the blogosphere today. However, one aspect of this story that hasn't gotten the attention it deserves is the massive, long-term damage Watergate did to the mainstream press.
"But it must also be said that while Watergate and "All the President's Men" briefly turned journalists into heroes, they may have contributed to the long-term credibility problems of the profession. Too many journalists became sloppy with anonymous sources, some of whom didn't have first-hand knowledge of what they were talking about, and some reporters tried to pump every two-bit scandal into a "-gate." Having been lied to by the Nixon White House, journalists became more confrontational, more prosecutorial and more willing to assume that politicians must be lying. And the news business is still paying the price for some of those excesses."
Yes, an anonymous source may have helped to break Watergate, the story of the century, but that was 30 years ago. How many bogus stories have been touted by the media since then based on claims made by dodgy anonymous sources? Perhaps the two biggest scandals to engulf the media in the last year have been "Rathergate" and Newsweek's "Qur'an In The Toilet Fiasco," which both prominently featured anonymous sources getting it wrong....and guess what? The mainstream media is going to keep getting it wrong, over and over again, because the "biggest story ever" was based on an anonymous source.
Furthermore, Kurtz is right about the "gotcha journalism" that has become the rule, not the exception in the mainstream press. Most of the time, the MSM does a lousy job of giving context & pointing out relevant information in part because they're ideologically disposed to ignore inconvenient facts, but also because they're so focused on ginning up controversy and scandals.
In a very real way, that failure has driven many Americans into the arms of like-minded bloggers and radio show hosts who are not just coming at the issues in a more similar way ideologically, but who are willing to take the time to add more perspective and depth to stories.
Watergate may have killed the Nixon administration, but the mainstream media is still bleeding from its self-inflicted wounds, more than 30 years after "Tricky Dick" was run out of office.
Even The Mildly Annoying Days Turn Out Pretty Good Sometimes, Don't They?
Despite the successful debut of Conservative Grapevine, the new website that anyone who is not a Communist will love, today has not been a fantastic day.
To splain why, I must take you back to yesterday afternoon when I unknowingly stood in the middle of a fire ant mound for 5 minutes having a conversation with someone until I started wondering why my sock was cutting into my ankle. So, I take a look down at my sock and it's swarming with fireants. As I walk out of the fireants, I realize that not only are both my feet and socks crawling with fireants, but they're working their way up my pants taking little bites out of me all the while.
I took off my shoes and socks, cleared my feet of fireants and headed for the shower. But, I had a dilemma: I can't undress outside and if I toss the clothes down before I get into the shower, I'll have fireants EVERYWHERE. So, I hop in the shower fully clothed and give the ants the Noah's Ark treatment. It was antricide, baby, and there were no survivors...
Still, my ankle and shins were bothering me a bit where they chewed me up as I was finishing up the final preparations to take Conservative Grapevine live. But hey, no pain, no gain.
Well, the promos go out to other bloggers, I punch up something on RWN about CG and *** bam, *** down goes my DSL. Oh, and was that perfect timing! I had no RWN updates going, no news, and CG was just going live.
I spent an hour trying to get it back up and talked to tech support. I thought the server had gone down, they seemed unsure about it one way or the other, but in any case, they sent it up to the next level tech support, so nothing was happening tonight.
Therefore, I decided it was best to just crash and see what happened in the morning. It was still down. I called a different DSL repair number, they said DSL was up. Great. So, I logged in with dial-up, took a quick look around, and headed down to my ISP's office to get a new modem. When I got there, it was: "Sorry, it actually is down." Argggggghhh! And on the day I'm taking Conservative Grapevine live, no less!
Also today, I found out my vacuum cleaner isn't working because it has a broken belt, Patton tried -- and partially succeeded -- in digging through part of the carpet to get at a guy who came over to do some work on the bathroom, and the dog, in a maneuver common to cats, actually managed to trip me in the house, by stopping in mid-stride in front of me and going directly into my feet while I was walking. All I can say is, you're lucky you're not squashed, little buddy!
On the other hand, my DSL is back up, Conservative Grapevine has already been seen by more than 2000 readers and has pulled 3 blogads so far on its first day, and I'm not French ;)
Even the mildly annoying days turn out pretty good sometimes, don't they?
What you're about to read is outrageous, irresponsible, government at its absolute worst. It should merit front page newspaper stories in 3 inch high type, congressional hearings, and firings by dozens.
"The number of illegal immigrants from Central America and Brazil caught crossing into this Texas border city jumped threefold in the past year as they rush to exploit a legal loophole, U.S. authorities said.
The U.S. Border Patrol has nabbed 15,195 non-Mexican migrants crossing over the Rio Bravo around Eagle Pass in the past eight months, a rise of almost 240 percent on the same period last year, officials said on Monday.
Agents say what they call "OTMs" -- "other than Mexican migrants" -- now account for 90 percent of all migrant detentions in the sweltering trade and ranching hub of 40,000 people. That is up from the 5 percent to 10 percent nationwide normally recorded by the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Officials in Eagle Pass attribute the dramatic spike to news filtering out in countries in Central and South America that U.S. authorities are unable to hold the influx of immigrants in swamped local detention facilities.
"Word is out that we are unable to detain the other than Mexican crossers, and they are exploiting a bottleneck in the system," Dennis Smith, the Border Patrol's spokesman for the local Del Rio Sector, told Reuters.
Whereas Mexican citizens are processed and swiftly deported, non-Mexicans are either detained or let out on bail pending an appearance before an immigration court.
Following a security and criminal background check, those not deemed a security threat or found to have a criminal record, are released with a notice to appear before an immigration judge within 30 days.
The immigration summons, dubbed "the diploma" by local residents in the remote border community, allows them to travel on into the United States legally, crossing Border Patrol road blocks set up to collar illegal migrants in south Texas.
Oh, you're entering the country illegally, but you're not from Mexico? Great, great, here's a document that allows you to go wherever you want for 30 days. Make sure to be back in 30 days for your deportation hearing, though...wink, wink.
This is nothing less than an open borders policy under another name, it's a disgrace, and it's a slap in the face to the US border patrol. These guys are out there risking their lives, night in and night out, to keep terrorists, drug runners, and illegals out of the country, and the politicians are demanding that they let the illegals win.
This is wrong, it's an affront to justice, and it should not be allowed to continue...
Pretty unbelievable. The newspaper that got itself into such a tizzy about the supposed "outing" of stateside mom Valerie Plame now reveals all on the CIA's successor to Air America, the air fleet that ferries the CIA into hot zones and moves terrorists to interrogations sites.
Is the New York Times actively attempting to undermine the CIA and serve as a free intelligence agency for hostile foreign governments?
I'm not naive. I know that a fairly decent foreign intelligence service would already some or most of this. But what about a terrorist organization?
And while semi-friendly governments may have played along with the CIA's ruse and allowed CIA planes into their airspace -- winking at them, permitting overflights while knowing they weren't really civilian jets -- now those governments are duty bound to refuse overflight permissions, as the whole world (including their anti-American populations) know knows, for example, that "Pegasus Technologies" is a CIA-front holding company, and that any plane owned by that shell is up to no good (or great good, depending on your POV).
Thanks a lot, New York Times!
They really consider themselves Citizens of the Global Journalism Nation, don't they?
"The Op-Ed pages are filled with jeremiads about believers--principally evangelical Christians and traditional Catholics--bent on turning the U.S. into a theocracy. Now I am not much of a believer, but there is something deeply wrong--indeed, deeply un-American--about fearing people simply because they believe. It seems perfectly O.K. for secularists to impose their secular views on America, such as, say, legalized abortion or gay marriage. But when someone takes the contrary view, all of a sudden he is trying to impose his view on you. And if that contrary view happens to be rooted in Scripture or some kind of religious belief system, the very public advocacy of that view becomes a violation of the U.S. constitutional order.
What nonsense. The campaign against certainty is merely the philosophical veneer for an attempt to politically marginalize and intellectually disenfranchise believers. Instead of arguing the merits of any issue, secularists are trying to win the argument by default on the grounds that the other side displays unhealthy certainty or, even worse, unseemly religiosity." -- Charles Krauthammer
Last week, I did an interview via phone with Sam Brownback (R-KS), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a Senator considered likely to run for President in 2008.
On Tuesday of last week, I released the part of the interview relating to the judicial filibuster deal, since it was quite timely. But today, you get to read the full interview.
Robert Kuttner is the latest lib to write one of those "here's what we must do to save the Democratic Party" columns. Kuttner's piece, like all the others I've read since the 2004 election, completely overlooks the stiffening donkey with his legs straight up in the air that's square in the middle of the Democrats' living room: it's the ideas, stupid!
Now, don't get me wrong: these lib columnists understand that conservative ideas resonate with the American people more than liberal ideas do, even if they won't admit it.
For example, in Kuttner's piece he writes:
"I knocked on a lot of doors in 2004,” says Steve Rosenthal, who headed America Coming Together, the largest liberal voter-mobilization group. “If I heard it once, I heard it a thousand times: ‘You may not agree with George Bush, but you know where he stands.’” Conviction evidently trumps vacillation, even when voters are skeptical of particular convictions. One of John Kerry’s pollsters says, “People looked at Bush and concluded that he’d shoot first and ask questions later. They concluded that Kerry would ask questions first. They voted for Bush.”
The conservative movement is rooted in a coherent, easy-to-summarize ideology: Government doesn’t work, except to protect you from terrorists; you deserve to keep more of your own money; cherished American family values, including national security, are under assault from liberals. The right has fine-tuned and segmented its rhetorical symphony so that the bass notes rock its political primitives while a softer timbre appeals to the moderate ear."
Now you'd think that liberals, after writing something like that in these columns, would think: "Ok, conservatives have their 'coherent, easy-to-summarize ideology,' let's sum ours up for the people and show them why it's better" -- but no, that never happens because liberals understand that their beliefs are too unpopular to ever sell to the American people. So instead we get process, process, process in these pieces. How do we raise more money? Where are the think tanks? How do we build up liberal radio? How do we phrase what we're saying to appeal to the American people?
Certainly, there's nothing wrong with considering those things, but in most ways the liberal political "machine" is far superior to the one conservatives have. The average person in America gets up, reads a liberal newspaper, sends his kid to a school run by liberals, comes home from work and watches news on the big 3 networks -- which all are liberal and have bigger audiences than Fox -- and then settles in to watch TV, where a bunch of liberals entertain him all night.
In the 2004 elections, liberals raised more money than conservatives, dominated the mainstream media where most Americans got their information, and even managed to produce best selling books and movies that blasted Bush. Sure conservatives have talk radio, Fox, the Washington Times, but the truth is that we were outgunned.
Well, how is it that Republicans control all the levers of government then? Well, our ideas just work better than liberal ideas and, furthermore, we're not afraid to pitch them to the American people.
Liberals can criticize what conservatives believe all day long, but when you ask them what they believe in, they suddenly get foggy and evasive because they know that many of the things that they want to do are unpopular and viewed as failed concepts.
So, in an effort to show how bipartisan and helpful I am, I'm going to invite all the liberal blogs out there to participate in a little exercise that will do more for you than all the mamby-pamby, "We need to do things differently somehow or another" columns ever written.
Here's what I'm challenging all you liberal bloggers out there to do: answer this question:
"Theoretically, let's say you could get any nine pieces of legislation passed that you wanted. These could either be bills that are already in the pipeline in Congress or that you could write yourself. What pieces of legislation would you pass?"
Now, you liberals, this is more important than you realize because unless you can come up with ideas that you can unite around and sell to the American people, you're going to have trouble getting back into power. So, this is a vitally important exercise for you...plus, I must admit that I want to see a list of ideas that are near and dear to the liberal heart.
Also, so no one can accuse me of not being willing to put my money where my mouth is, here's a list I compiled two years ago that I still feel comfortable with:
Abortion: I don't believe the rights of any mother should include the right to kill her child unless her own life is in danger. I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment banning abortion except when the mother's life is in danger.
Balanced Budget Amendment: The ONLY way we're going to be able to get the government to spend within its means over the long-term is to force it to do so with a balanced budget amendment. If the government wants to spend more than it takes in some years, then it better start saving some money for a rainy day instead of spending it all on pork.
Fifty-One Votes To Confirm A Judge Rule: Our judicial confirmation system hasn't functioned well in a long time and now it's totally broken. Quite frankly, I think you could make a case that the Senate can't Constitutionally filibuster judges as it is, but in any case, this is what we need to be doing.
Flat Tax: Long-Term, a flat tax would do more to keep America economically strong than anything else we could do. It would give almost everyone (the poorest among us would be exempt) a stake in keeping taxes and government spending low and it would lead to a wave of economic growth.
The Glenn Reynolds' End to Racism and Segregation Act of 2003: I took this one verbatim from Instapundit. "I think the Republicans should demonstrate that they're taking the country beyond the legacy of segregation by passing the "End to Racism and Segregation Act of 2003," which would provide that neither the federal government, nor the states, nor any entity receiving federal funds may take race into account in any manner in the making of hiring, firing, promotion, or benefits decisions."
Illegal Alien Crackdown: I'd like to see us: use drones & greatly increased manpower to patrol our borders, crackdown on businesses that hire illegal aliens, refuse to let illegals have driver's licenses or go to public schools. We should use the police to help hunt down illegal aliens and a work program that lets millions of Mexicans come her legally to work should be set up to reduce the motivation for people to sneak into the US. Furthermore, to free up resources to deal with illegal aliens, we should severely cut back on legal immigration until the situation is in hand.
School Vouchers: I'd like to allow parents to vote with their feet and their money when it comes to schools. Give parents a voucher for the full amount that is being spent on their child and let them pick the school they want to spend it in. That will lead to competition and a lot of bad schools going out of business while quality schools pick up the slack.
Term Limits: Because of gerrymandering and the advantages of incumbency, many people in the House and Senate in essence have "jobs for life." That's not good for Democracy and only allowing a Congressperson to serve three terms and a Senator to serve two would make sure that we get the turnover necessary to keep our government healthy.
Tort Reform: We are the most litigious society on earth by far and it's a huge drain on our economy. Implementing a loser pays principle & setting damage caps on the amount of money that can be handed out in a case (among other things) would go a long way towards restoring sanity to our legal system.
Once you liberal bloggers come up with your list of the 9 pieces of legislation you'd pass, shoot me an email, do a trackback to this post, or post in the comments section, and I will link your list (*** I'll link libertarian and conservative lists as well ***).
There has been a lot of fretting and hand-wringing about the consequences of the French voting "non" on the EU Constitution. Of course the French -- being the French -- may have done the right thing, but they did it for the wrong reasons. The general consensus is that they voted against the Constitution because they were opposed to free trade and angry at Chirac, but they should have voted against it because it's a godawful mess.
You don't hear a lot of people bluntly pointing that out because most liberals are dopey enough to think a united Europe is a good idea and most conservatives have just written Europe's leaders off as hopeless idiots on the topic, but there are some rather obvious points that need to be made.
First and foremost among them is that a "United States of Europe," which is what the European elites truly want, is absolutely unworkable.
We here in America have been able to come together because for all the squabbling and complaining we do, we, unlike the Europeans, are really not all that far apart in a lot of respects. Put another way, a Californian and a Texan have a heck of a lot more in common culturally and traditionally than a Frenchman and a Pole or a Brit and Swede. Given the history these nations have with each other and the different ways they view the world, it's hard to imagine their signing over their sovereignty to agencies run by representatives from other countries. Imagine Americans allowing Mexico or Canada to control how we use our armed forces or to have the final say over our local laws and you'll see the difficulty this presents.
Moreover, vast, centralized and unaccountable bureaucracies seldom make life easier -- especially when the starting point is a Constitution that is "252 pages long in the French version and with all the protocols and annexes comes to 850." We here in America have had untold numbers of political wars over our relatively short Constitution. Just picture the ocean of red tape we'd have to deal with if the lawyers and judges had 448 articles to interpret like the European Constitution does.
Then throw in more than a few arrogant officials like Jean-Claude Juncker, the unelected president of the European Union, who decreed that if the Dutch and French referendums didn't turn out in favor of the European Union that, "the countries that would have said, No would have to ask themselves the question again." Got that? Heads, the EU wins and tails -- well, flip that coin again until it comes up heads, you peons!
While many Americans might think it's amusing to sit back and watch the Europeans wrap themselves in a bureaucratic spiderweb of red tape, it would be bad news for America if the grubby, little Eu-acrats managed to get a death grip on European foreign policy. Some people may believe a united Europe would have a powerful military, but given the mediocrity of almost all of Europe's militaries, it seems much more likely that any united European army would end up being a bunch of blue hat, UN style weenies rather than any sort of potent force. So if European forces integrated, we'd probably end up losing our only truly powerful and reliable military partner, Britain, and gaining...nothing actually, given that the Tony Blairs and Silvio Berlusconis would no longer be able to decide when and where in the world to send their nation's troops.
Any way you slice it, the European Union is bad news. Bad news for Europeans, bad news for Americans, bad news all around...
Joke Of The Day: Hillary Clinton And The School Kids
U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton visited a primary school in Ithaca, New York, to talk about her job as a senator. After her talk, she offered question time. One little boy put up his hand and the Senator asked his name. "Kenneth,' he replied. "And what is your question, Kenneth?" she asked.
Kenneth answered, "I have three questions: "First.....whatever
happened to your medical health care plan? Second.....why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office? And third.....whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House?"
Just then the bell rang for recess. Senator Clinton informed the kiddies that they would continue after recess. When they resumed, she asked, "Okay, where were we? Oh, that's right.....question time. Who has a question?"
A different little boy raised his hand; Hillary pointed him out and asked him his name. "Larry," he replied. "And what is your question?" continued the Senator.
"I have five questions," he answered, "First.....whatever happened to your medical health care plan? Second.....why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office? Third.....whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House? Fourth.....why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? And fifth.....what happened to Kenneth?"
Day Is Done,
Gone the Sun,
From the Earth,
From the Hill,
From the Sky,
All Is Well,
Safely Rest,
God Is Nigh
When Taps is played at dusk, it has a completely different meaning than when Taps is played during the day. No soldier really wants to hear it played during daylight. For when the bugle plays Taps in the daylight...that means a soldier has fallen...There is a belief among some that Taps is the clarion call to open the gates of heaven for the fallen warrior and letting them know to "Safely Rest"...
Of course, Memorial Day is about remembering the sacrifices that our military men and women have made over the last 229 years. We are still a young nation, but one that has made many sacrifices to remain free. We should also take time to remember the families who have lost loved ones.
I have focused on just a few of the fallen over the last few years. I've lost three good friends during the War on Terror. And I write about the others to ensure that we don't forget their sacrifices - I do that for me as much as for anybody.
I can't speak for the friends of the many others who have fallen, but for Mat, Cooter, and Mike, I can say this -
It's important to remember them, and it's just as important to enjoy yourself this weekend. To spend time with your family and friends. Have a beer while grilling Wisconsin brats (Schram-bo!) in the backyard while watching your kids play tag.
What better assurance to them they did not die in vain?
Enjoying your freedom and understanding it's value is the best way to honor the sacrifices of my friends.
That's the way they'd want you to spend Memorial Day.
Remembering them, and being a good dad and husband and an American is the best way that I can honor their memory.
If you feel that you should do more, you may want to take a look at one of my favorite organizations - the Special Operations Warrior Foundation - which helps care for the families of Special Operation soldiers who have died in the line of duty (combat, training, etc.). Primarily providing for educational needs, SOWF also provides financial assistance in the form of grants for families.
I'll close with this heartfelt letter, written by Rick Kennedy, that I received via Seamus about Taylor Prazynski - a Marine who recently was buried at Arlington.
On Saturday morning May 21st I flew to Washington, D.C to meet my daughter Mary with grandchildren Calista and Lindsey, and her husband Joe Teller to drive with them to Chesterfield Virginia to attend a ballet recital for Callie that evening. Joe and Mary were in Washington for the burial services of Lance Corporal Taylor Prazynski USMC the 20 year old son of Joe’s cousin John Prazynski. Taylor was killed by enemy fire in Fallujah on May 9th while serving in combat with the 3rd Battalion, 8th Regiment, and 2nd Marine Division. Mary and Joe, along with 50 other family members attended the burial service for Taylor on Friday at Arlington National Cemetery, and when I met them they remained emotionally overwhelmed and forever moved by the elegant display of military reverence, and efficiency at Arlington. They were deeply saddened by the loss of this young Marine.
Earlier in the week Taylor’s body arrived at the Greater Cincinnati Airport by commercial jet. All passengers were instructed to remain on the plane until Taylor’s body was removed by a contingent of Marines. A military helicopter followed the Marine vehicle as it motored to the funeral parlor. Police and fire trucks were stationed at the overpasses and along the highway and saluted at Taylor passed by. At the funeral parlor no civilian was allowed to touch the body. The Marines prepared the deceased...A Marine color guard followed by a rider less horse accompanied Taylor’s body down Ohio Highway 4 for funeral services at Fairfield High School gym. Over 1500 people were in attendance of the funeral service at the school where the young Marine graduated in 2003, and played football and ran track. Pastor Dave Workman of the Vineyard Community Church presided. He gave a sterling tribute to this fallen hero that gave his life to his country. The pastor praised Taylor for his work with the church’s youth group, and his volunteer work with a multiple-disabilities class while in high school.
At Arlington on May 20th, the seven pall bearers dressed resplendent in the Marine dress blues uniform marched with the flag draped casket with military precision. When they reached the gravesite they abruptly raised the casket above their shoulders for 30 long seconds, giving the fallen Marine salute, and then rested the casket on its conveyor belt support over the grave. The military chaplain in civilian clothes gave the last rites, and presented the family Taylor’s posthumously awarded Purple Heart Medal.
All seven Marines removed the American Flag from the casket. They raised the stars and stripes above the casket pulling the flag rigid like a drum. Then they tightly folded the flag step by step in a triangle with the ends tucked firmly in place. One of the Marines did an about face and presented the flag to the Marine Sergeant standing alone to the rear of the casket, and saluted the flag.. The Marine in charge carrying the flag proceeded to the seat of the father John Prazynski. The Marine knelt down and bowed his head and presented the flag to the grieving father as the final gesture of sympathy and appreciation by the United States Marine Corps for the brave service of this young Marine.
Seven Marines standing away from the proceedings fired their rifles in three volleys representing a 21 gun salute, and you could hear muffled screams of sorrow from the youth in attendance as a lone bugler in Marine dress blues played the sad haunting sound of “Taps’ that echoed across the green rolling plains of Arlington on to the endless stream of white stones in this section called” Iraqi Freedom”. This was the Marines way of sending a signal to God to open the gates of Heaven for the arrival of [Corporal] Prazynski who gave his life for his country and our fight against terror throughout the world.
Remember Them. And have a great Memorial Day.
This content was used with the permission of Blackfive.
Quote Of The Day: America During The Civil War Vs. America Today
"They had victims galore back in 1863, but they weren't a victim culture. They had a lot of crummy decisions and bureaucratic screw-ups worth re-examining, but they weren't a nation that prioritized retroactive pseudo-legalistic self-flagellating vaudeville over all else. They had hellish setbacks but they didn't lose sight of the forest in order to obsess week after week on one tiny twig of one weedy little tree.
There is something not just ridiculous but unbecoming about a hyperpower 300 million strong whose elites -- from the deranged former vice president down -- want the outcome of a war, and the fate of a nation, to hinge on one freaky jailhouse; elites who are willing to pay any price, bear any burden, as long as it's pain-free, squeaky-clean and over in a week. The sheer silliness dishonors the memory of all those we're supposed to be remembering this Memorial Day." -- Mark Steyn
