Question: "Where do you think you would be without politics?" -- Schwartzenheimer2
Answer: Before I started RWN, I ran a humor blog/zine called Brass Knuckles Webzine that pulled around 2000 daily uniques per day. If not for RWN, I would have stayed with it and hopefully improved those numbers
Question: "I notice that you haven't written much about the Alito nomination recently. Do you think his confirmation is relatively safe, and doesn't need to be constantly discussed, or is it just that there's a lack of things to say while we wait for the hearings to start?" -- maledicta
Answer: Things will pick up with Alito once his hearings start and although I expect a lot of carping from the Democrats and maybe even 2-3 Republican defectors, I expect Alito to be confirmed without a filibuster. We'll see if it works out that way.
Question: "Now that we know George Bush could sell ice to an Eskimo, who do the republicans have that could come even close to him in selling their program in 08?" -- Lyle_E
Answer: He can, "sell ice to an Eskimo," huh? But, I thought the liberal line was that he was a dangerous, incoherent moron who needed Karl Rove to think for him? But, after he gets a little bounce in the polls, he's another Reagan. Of course, when Reagan was actually in office, liberals said he was a dangerous, embarrassing moron who was led around by his advisers and could never bring down the Soviet Union. Funny how opinions change over time when a Republican President proves himself under fire. In any case, there should be multiple candidates including, but not limited to, George Allen who are capable of moving the ball forward for conservatism.
Question: "Here's a question: Many US military weapon systems have been heavily criticised for potentially dangerous flaws (HMMWV, V-22), limited capability (Stryker ICV) or for going massively over budget (F/A-22 Raptor). Many programs have been cancelled for any combination of these factors (Crusader, RAH-66 Comanche, OICW), but only after a large amount of money has already been spent on them. The question is; can the US military's large budget be better spent; and if so, can it even be cut slightly?" -- lmbrjk
Answer: The military is like every other branch of government: it wastes enormous sums of taxpayer money because of inefficiency, bureaucracy, and general incompetence. In some cases, the military is even worse than other branches of government because it has such an enormous budget and pols up on the Hill love to play games with that money. They keep open bases that aren't needed, push weapon systems because a company in their district is the producer, and generally make political decisions that have nothing to do with military necessity. When it comes to any programs run by the Federal government, including the military, the answer is always yes.
Question: "The latest issue of Fortune magazine has an interesting article on investor Richard Rainwater, see : http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,1139979,00.html
My question is this, do you buy into the notion/hysteria surrounding the pending "Oil Crash" and the subsequent demise of basically all economies on the planet? Whats your take on sites like 'LifeAftertheOilCrash.net'.." -- BlogReader
Answer: We will never run out of oil because the market will automatically adjust. As the price of oil spikes, more money and research will pour into alternate technologies that were never worth it to produce when oil was cheap. Then, over time, products using those alternate energy sources will slowly but surely take the place of oil. Worst case scenario, we may have a crunch for a few years at some unknown point in the future. That's it.
Here's a New Year's resolution for you: click on more of RWN's ads in 2006 =D Now would be a great time to start on that one =D. Try 3 just to get you going =D
I have a heart for the Iranian people who want their freedom from those mullahs. I also do not want Iran to be able to complete their nuclear weapon, if they haven't already. If we attack Iran, we lose the support of the people I care about, because they are patriots also.
My question is this. What should we do? How do we eliminate the threat without losing our friendship with the people? Are you aware that the DemocRATS blocked a provision in the resolution condemning Iran?" -- Rosemary
Answer: There is no win/win answer in Iran.
Allowing a terrorist-supporting group of Islamo-fascists who lead people in chants of, "Death to America," and are openly telling the world they intend to annihilate Israel to acquire nuclear weapons is absolutely unacceptable.
Ideally, we would have put the kibosh on their nuclear project via negotiations, sanctions, etc., but Europe has been leading the charge on that front and as per usual, they've failed utterly and time has almost run out.
Furthermore, the CIA has likely been working to try to help the Iranian people overthrow their government via a coup. But of course, the government isn't going to tell us about that and unless someone leaks it to the New York Times, we wouldn't know about that sort of a thing until well after the fact. In any case, an in-house revolution would be the ideal solution but that doesn't seem likely to occur before Iran acquires nukes.
That means a military strike will likely be the next step. It'll probably be carried out by Israel in order to keep our hands as clean as possible. But even if Israel carries it out, we can expect to catch some of the blame, the Iranian people are likely to become more supportive of their leadership after an attack and less friendly towards the US, and who knows what sort of hellstorm a strike on Iran might unleash in the Middle-East.
Unfortunately, things don't always come down the pike at the most opportune time. Yes, it would be better if we had more time and didn't need to deal with this problem right now. On the other hand, I'm sure France and Britain would have preferred not to have to go nose to nose with Hitler when he went back into the Rhineland. But, had they done so, they might have spared us the 2nd world war. In this case, we may be sparing ourselves or Israel a nuclear attack and at a minimum we'd be preventing an arms race in the Middle-Race that would likely see Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia (at a minimum) all developing nuclear weapons.
Under no circumstances should Iran be allowed to have nukes and that means Israel bombs them, we bomb them, we invade, you name it, we need to stop at all costs and quite frankly, 2006 will probably be when things break loose -- so be prepared.
Q&A Friday #30: Do You Think The Bible And Ayn Rand Are In Conflict?
Question: "Many conservatives will consistently rank the Bible #1 in their list of favorite books, with Atlas Shrugged being #2. I have always found this curious, as these books seem to me to have messages and themes that are diametrically opposed to one another.
In other words, I don't think Christ and John Galt would get along very well.
Any thoughts on this?" -- President_Friedman
Answer: I'm neither an objectivist nor a biblical scholar and so perhaps, like many people, I'm just not informed enough to see the contrasts.
To me, Rand's message has always been, "Take care of yourself, appreciate high achievers, be ruled by logic, not emotion," -- ya know, not much different from the philosophy of Mr. Spock on Star Trek =D
Because, in my view, most people become successful in life by being talented at serving others*, I don't see that philosophy as inherently being in conflict with Christianity. In fact, the Bible is full of successful, self-supporting achievers who, with God's help, accomplished great things.
So, that's why most of us conservatives don't get our Randian philosophy hung up in our religious beliefs.
* Note: I thought I should explain what I mean by saying most people in life become successful in life by being talented at serving others, mainly because a lot of liberals don't get this concept. Capitalism is nothing but the free exchange of items of value. Individuals or companies that are particularly good at providing things people will want, will be able to benefit because of it.
For example, people pay enormous sums of money because they enjoy watching Shaquille O'Neal play basketball or because they desire particular types of cars. People even go to certain blogs because they feel those blogs do a particularly good job of entertaining or informing them.
So, the better you become at serving people's needs, the more in demand your services become and in certain cases, usually depending on the scarcity of the resource you are providing, you may become quite wealthy doing what you do. That's why Shaq, who has an almost unique and highly desired talent, makes enormous sums of money while a very talented trash man or teacher makes a much smaller wage.
Q&A Friday #30: Do You Think Right Wing News Helps The Conservative Cause?
Question: "John, in all seriousness, do you think your site, www.rightwingnews.com, helps your cause?" -- CWSCHNEIDER
Answer: No, I don't. That's why I get up and blog every day, because I think it's hurting the conservative cause. You see, nothing hurts conservatives more than explaining our ideas, pointing out liberal bias in the media, and highlighting libs acting like morons. Why, the more we conservatives try, the worse it gets -- which is why we control the White House, Congress, and a majority of governorships.
At this rate, if things keep on getting worse because of the way blogs like this one are hurting our cause, we'll have consecutive Bush family members in the White House until about 2040. We'll have Jeb Bush, Laura Bush, Jenna Bush, and then Barbara Bush, the hottest chief executive ever to run a country.
Hope that answers your question CWSCHNEIDER! And remember, there are no stupid questions, only stupid people!
Question: "I have been hearing about the decline of the MSM in various blogs for months. However the rumor of it's impending demise seems to be greatly exaggerated in view of the furor created by the New York Times wire tap stories. They still set the agenda about what is news. How much longer do you think they will continue to drive the news topic of day and what can we do to hurry their fall from power." -- bindare
Answer: First of all, look back 20 years ago to the mid-eighties. Talk radio was a complete non-factor back then and the blogosphere and Fox didn't exist. Back then, unless you subscribed to the WSJ, National Review, or a few other conservative publications that were out there, you got a liberal slant, all the time and that's the way it was.
Today, conservative talk radio is thriving, Fox is around, and conservatives have a healthy presence on the web. That gives conservatives a strong voice in the media that just did not exist during the Reagan years.
That being said, the mainstream media is still far stronger than the new media. They control the Big 3 TV networks, the overwhelming majority of the newspapers out there, CNN, MSNBC, and the left also has a significant presence on the web.
So when, let's say, the New York Times, The WAPO, CNN, etc., breaks a story, all of these other liberal news sources take the story, complete with the liberal spin it came with, and present it to the general public. So when Joe Public gets up in the morning, he sees the story on the front page of his liberal newspaper and then, when he turns on ABC, CBS, NBC etc., he gets the exact same story. That gives the left a leg up in getting their message out.
However, what now generally happens is that bloggers, talk radio hosts, conservative columnists, the RNC, etc., all get to work and find all the details helpful to conservatives that were deliberately left out of the initial report. Then, a couple of days after the story breaks, all these details come out and completely undercut the story.
The good thing about this counter response, which happens over and over and over again, is that it helps destroy the credibility of the mainstream media. The general public has seen the old media leave key details out of stories so many times that they've started taking everything that comes from a MSM source with a grain of salt. That's a big part of the reason that the MSM has been losing audience share for a long time now.
However, you have to understand that they may be dying an inch at a time, but they're not dead yet, and they won't ever truly go away. All those of us in the new media can really do is keep plugging and revealing the info the MSM ignores or downplays out to the public, and then we'll just have to let nature slowly, but surely, take its course.
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.
It's almost time for The 4th Annual "20 Most Annoying Liberals of 2005". If you'd like to suggest liberals who should be included, please post them in the comments along with what they've done in 2005 that merits them receiving a slot.
For inspiration, here are the last 3 years of "Most Annoying Liberals" lists.
Here's a fun website (if by fun, you mean annoying, infuriating, and outrageously moronic): Citizens Against The Troops.
Here are a few quotes from the front page of the website:
"Above are people from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, protesting at a dead scumbag's funeral earlier this year. They are heroes, and make a valid point: Dead soldiers are a good thing!"
"The count of dead scumbags rises often. When the body count does rise, we celebrate American stupidity. Remember: A soldier who dies for his country still dies and another dude gets his bitch. We are citizens against the U.S. troops. Donald Rumsfeld is pledging that the number of troops in Iraq will be reduced, but does this mean that those scumbags will be kicked out of the military? Nope. They will continue to live the cushy life at the expense of the taxpayer. Over the holiday weekend, at least three scumbags died. Semper Cry!"
"A soldier is dead in Iraq. The story goes that he died for his country, but the moral of the story is that he's dead and now another man gets his woman. Worse than that, however, is the fact that the taxpayers must now dole out $400,000 due to his poor life decisions, and essentially support his miserable scumbag family."
Is this supposed to be some sort of joke? Is the person who runs it mentally ill or have they just read one too many Ted Rall cartoons? No idea, but wow, this is one sick website...
*** Update #1 ***: Via Brian at Iowa Voice, I learned that the guy who runs this site, Michael Crook, is the same guy who sent a greeting card to a wounded soldier suggesting that he die. Nice fellow isn't he?
Home Media Networks did a poll in Britain on the most missed TV series. Here's what the Brits came up with:
1. Star Trek
2. Buffy the Vampire Slayer
3. Friends
4. Fawlty Towers
5. Blake's 7
6. The X-Files
7. Babylon 5
8. Stargate*
9. Seinfeld
10. The A-Team
* Stargate is still in production
I've never seen Fawlty Towers or Blake's 7. Also, the X-Files really went downhill the last few seasons if you ask me. It's also a bit odd to me that Babylon 5 came in ahead of Star Trek: The Next Generation.
In any case, since I'm criticizing their choices (and since I never miss a chance to make a list) here are my top 10 most missed TV series:
1) Buffy the Vampire Slayer
2) The Twilight Zone
3) Highlander
4) Star Trek
5) Angel
6) Star Trek: The Next Generation
7) Serenity
8) This Just In
9) Hercules
10) Xena
*** Update #1 ***: I can't believe that I forgot Futurama, a show that would slide into the #2 slot for me.
December 28, 2005—Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.
This is good news. The country won’t impeach President Bush for doing his job. It won’t back any Democrat attempt to gut the NSA for doing its job. In the America that lives and breathes outside the commentariat, common sense prevails as it usually does.
This doesn’t mean the Democrats still won’t try to gut the NSA, or that the Republicans won’t roll over for it. The country didn’t think much of the McCain amendment either, yet 96 Senators voted for it and the Bush adminstration rolled over and let it through. The NSA is under threat in the coming year as this “scandal” for which the participants deserve a medal drips on.
The fact is, the NSA story is more than a political story, as is the McCain amendment. We’re starting 2006 with two disadvantages in the war that are of our own making. The first disadvantage is the banning of coercive interrogation techniques that fall short of torture. Some terrorist will get through because some other terrorist who had been captured was never forced to tell what he knew about the terrorist who remained at large. The second disadvantage is the collection of revelations concerning how we have been keeping the terrorists from attacking on US soil for four years. Knowing something about how we have been finding their sleepers here in the US, the terrorists abroad will change their communications strategies and tactics. If the NSA is left intact—a big if—it will adapt, but until it adapts, the terrorists will have a window of time during which we’re not listening to them.
So we won’t be listening when they communicate internationally. We won’t learn anything about ongoing terrorist operations from those terrorists we’re fortunate enough to capture alive. That’s a heckuva a way to ring in our fifth year of war.
This content was used with the permission of JunkYardBlog.
Quote Of The Day: Take Responsibility For Everything In Your Life
"I'll tell you something wonderful I learned from practicing law. Lawyers are burdened with tremendous responsibility, and the consequences for screwing up can be draconian. So you have to watch yourself constantly. Living with that kind of responsibility taught me the following lesson: in this life, when something goes wrong, you should always look for a way to hold yourself responsible, even if you're not the principal bad actor. Why? So you can beat yourself up and feel bad? No, because if you can think of things you could have done to prevent the problem, you will remember to do those things in similar situations in the future, and because you will generally have a better attitude toward your responsibilities. Responsibility implies control. Find the thing you did wrong, and you will find something you can do right in the future." -- Steve H.
Kathleen Parker, the foxy and talented columnist, normally does good work. However, for whatever reason, she has a real bee in her bonnet about the blogosphere.
Apparently, her discontent with the blogosphere has grown since then because her latest column is a borderline irrational, Maureen Dowdish screed about how all of us keyboard assassins in the blogosphere are basically ruining journalism. Here are some of the lowlights from the piece with my comments in (bold):
There's something frankly creepy (creepy?) about the explosion we now call the Blogosphere - the big-bang "electroniverse" where recently wired squatters set up new camps each day. As I write, the number of "blogs" (Web logs) and "bloggers"(those who blog) is estimated in the tens of millions worldwide.
Although I've been a blog fan since the beginning (Sure you have Kathleen), and have written favorably about the value added to journalism and public knowledge thanks to the new "citizen journalist," I'm also wary of power untempered by restraint and accountability.
Say what you will about the so-called mainstream media, but no industry agonizes more about how to improve its product, police its own members and better serve its communities. Newspapers are filled with carpal-tunneled wretches, overworked and underpaid, who suffer near-pathological allegiance to getting it right (That's laughable and if it were really true, there would be no new media to speak of because the public would be largely content with the job done by the old media).
...They play tag team with hyperlinks ("I'll say you're important if you'll say I'm important) and shriek "Gotcha!" when they catch some weary wage earner in a mistake or oversight (Oh yeah, like the old media's favorite game isn't "Gotcha!" What the old media hates about bloggers is that we play the same game with them that they play with everyone else and it's not so much fun when the rabbit has the gun). Plenty smart but lacking in wisdom, they possess the power of a forum, but neither the maturity nor humility that years of experience impose.
Each time I wander into blogdom, I'm reminded of the savage children stranded on an island in William Golding's "Lord of the Flies." Without adult supervision, they organize themselves into rival tribes, learn to hunt and kill, and eventually become murderous barbarians in the absence of a civilizing structure.
What Golding demonstrated - and what we're witnessing as the Blogosphere's offspring multiply - is that people tend to abuse power when it is unearned and will bring down others to enhance themselves. Likewise, many bloggers seek the destruction of others for their own self-aggrandizement. When a mainstream journalist stumbles, they pile on like so many savages, hoisting his or her head on a bloody stick as Golding's children did the fly-covered head of a butchered sow (How dare those "children" apply the same standards to journalists that journalists apply to everyone else? The only proper head to be hoisted on a stick is that of a politician or businessman and it had better be an "adult" in the MSM holding it buster!)
...We can't silence them, but for civilization's sake - and the integrity of information by which we all live or die - we can and should ignore them (Isn't it a bit ironic that Parker wrote a whole column about the blogosphere and then encourages people to ignore bloggers?)
Do you want to know what I suspect this is really all about? Why people like Parker and other old media journalists get so angry about the blogosphere?
In my opinion, it's because we're the antithesis of everything they've ever done. Most of us didn't go to journalism school. We didn't work our way up the ladder by doing crap assignments at small papers. We've never had a high opinion of the "legends" of the business like Cronkite, Rather, Jennings or for that matter, of the business as a whole. We don't think journalists have a "near-pathological allegiance to getting it right." To the contrary, we think that many of the biggest and most prestigious old media organizations are sloppy with the facts and often mislead their readers because of ideological bias and we delight in pointing that out at every opportunity.
Worse yet, our opinions are becoming the norm. For example, while newspapers are never going to go away, their readerships are slowly dwindling and most people no longer take the news they get from the old media at face value. There was a time when Walter Cronkite was referred to as the, "most trusted man in America." Today, I don't know who would hold that title, but it certainly wouldn't be a journalist.
That's why so many old media dinosaurs despise us and as bloggers we should wear their contempt as a badge of honor.
What's The Problem Supposed To Be With A Black Republican Helping The Homeless?
Sometimes, even in today's polarized political environment, the petty vindictiveness of Republican hating liberals can be surprising. For example, take what's being done to Dome Village, a homeless shelter in LA...wait, more accurately...look at why Dome Village is going to have to change locations. From an email/press release* received by RWN, which was written by Ted Hayes from Dome Village:
"American blacks who are affiliated with the Republican Party are vigorously vilified by Democrats, especially black Democrats. Uncle Tom, sell-out, Oreo -- the list of slurs is long.
But it is not only insults. I am the founder and director of a unique, progressive homeless facility in downtown Los Angeles, known as the Dome Village. Yet the 35 men, women and children and their pets who call the Dome Village home are being "evicted" from privately owned property after 12-and-a-half years -- apparently on account of my political beliefs and activities. You see, though I am a leading homeless activist, I am also a conservative Republican and a strong supporter of President Bush.
Here's how the situation played out. Recently, I was invited to address a local Republican Women's Club; my landlord read an article in the local paper reporting on the event. Soon after, I received a notice raising the Dome Village rent from $2,500 a month to $18,330. Shocked, I inquired as to the seriousness of the change and the property owner blurted out that the cause of our "eviction" was "because you are Republican." He said that as a Democrat, he was tired of helping me and the Dome Village. In other words, let the homeless be damned.
And people think the Democrats are the party of compassion and tolerance. Private property should be protected, of course, and I have no intention of causing any trouble for this property owner as we part ways. Whatever he does with his valuable land -- it is only a few blocks from the Staples Center -- is no concern of mine, and I will not go to court.
Still, I cannot help but be saddened by the whole business. When I founded the Dome Village 12 years ago, we had an understanding that he could ask for his property back at any time for any reason, and I would say "absolutely" without hesitation. Still, his reason was prejudice against Republicans.
We see this across the country. Michael Steele, the lieutenant governor of Maryland and a Republican candidate for the Senate, has been crudely denigrated on racial grounds. A prominent leftist Web site, for instance, depicted him as "Sambo," among other aspersions. When Condoleezza Rice was nominated as Secretary of State, she faced similar treatment: editorial cartoons depicting her as a racial caricature, personalities calling her "Aunt Jemima" on liberal talk radio, and so forth. Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, Colin Powell, Thomas Sowell and other black conservatives regularly face similar smears.
These conservatives are attacked not because of the validity or judicious consideration of their views but because those views are supposedly heterodox for American blacks. Yet it is my opinion that many black people in the U.S. are politically and philosophically conservative -- and many are in fact actually closeted Republicans, fearful of persecution by friends, business associates, society clubs, school mates and even churches.
It is time for American blacks to have a conversation about the phenomenon of Democrats persecuting black Republicans. Why is this happening? What is it that the Democrats don't want black folks to understand about Republicans? What is it that the Democrats don't want black folks to know about Democrats? And how is it that we have come to this point -- after having endured so much -- where we have ourselves curtailed the freedom of political expression through the threat of retaliatory consequences?"
It's worth noting that Hayes is absolutely right that the property owner should be able to raise the rent if he so desires. That's capitalism.
But the, "why," of the whole thing is just mindblowing. Here we have a property owner who just could not stand the idea of a black Republican helping the homeless. Why, who does this Ted Hayes think he is? Doesn't he understand that black men are not allowed to have their own opinions about politics? That instead, black men are only allowed to be liberals and do what they're told, think what they're told, and vote as they're told by liberals?
This whole thing is ridiculous and if this guy wants to kick 35 homeless people out on the street because he despises Republicans so much, well, so be it.
Hopefully someone else in the LA area will step up to help out...and Dome Village needs it. After reading this email and finding similar articles (but not this exact wording*) anywhere else, I called Dome Village to verify. I spoke to a John Ren there and he said yes, they are being kicked out because Ted Hayes is a Republican (although the owners deny that) and they have no idea where they're going to go yet. So, if there is anyone out there who wants to help out the homeless -- and a Republican who's getting the shaft because of his politics -- why not contact Dome Village and see what you can do?
Unfortunately, as I've gotten older, I've developed a flaw common to many older people: there's nothing I want for Christmas. You all know what I mean. All of us have had a conversation like this with one of our relatives:
You: So what do you want for Christmas?
Older Relative: Don't get me anything. There's nothing I want.
You: What do you mean you don't want anything? There has got to be something you've had your eyes on.
Older Relative: Nope. Nothing at all.
You: Oh, come on!
Older Relative: Well, if you insist on getting me something, why don't you go down to Wal-Mart and get me some socks?
You: Socks? Awwwww!
Perhaps because I had a couple of years of making money from RWN and working a full-time job before I was laid-off, I was able to afford to buy a lot of the things that I wanted or maybe it's just because I'm nearly 35, but I didn't really want anything for Christmas this year.
The TV? It's big enough. It's a 36 incher I got from Wal-Mart for $300. The bed? Love it and it's only a couple of years old. The computer? It's fast enough. TiVo? Got it. Satellite radio? Don't want it. The new Xbox? I'm content to play PS2. A CD player in the car? Since I blog full time, I don't really spend that much time in the car any more.
In short, I started out this Christmas season completely content with the material goods I had on hand. But thankfully, because we exist in a capitalist culture where people only make money if they produce products that hard to please consumers like me are interested in, I still managed to end up with some decent gifts.
The top 3 were:
-- A 19 inch KDSusa monitor. Because I have plenty of extra space in my office and on my desk, I was able to upgrade my monitor by 2 inches for less than a $100 because everyone seems to want LCD monitors which has driven the cost down.
-- A La Crosse atomic clock that keeps the exact time, date, temperature inside and outside, and tells you whether it's likely to rain soon or not. It's very convenient to look up and get the outside temperature before taking the dog out.
-- A Spa Sensations Memory Foam Contour Pillow that was very cheap (It cost a mere $10 at Wal-Mart) and extremely comfortable. I've actually slept much better since I got that pillow.
For a person who didn't want anything, I came out of it pretty good. Anyone out there get anything really neat for Christmas? If so, feel free to share in the comments section.
Illegal Aliens And Guest Workers Cost Americans Jobs And Depress Wages
One of the proposals nearest and dearest to the hearts of Republicans who are soft on illegal immigrants is a guest worker program. In their view, it solves all of our problems with illegals in one fell swoop.
We bring all of the illegals into the system by giving them guest worker status and since there will be a guest worker program in place, businesses that hire illegals (who, along with their allies, are driving much of the pro-illegal immigrant sentiment on the right) will always have a steady flow of cheap foreign labor.
However, there are some serious problems with setting up a guest program. For example, by bringing the, "undocumented workers," into the system instead of people who have been patiently waiting in line to enter the US, we would be rewarding the people who entered the US illegally.
Moreover, who's to say that a guest worker program will even staunch the flow of illegal aliens? After all, since guest workers will be, "on the books," which means paying taxes, more paperwork, and more regulations, the businesses that use illegal labor may still find it to be significantly cheaper to hire illegals.
That's why a guest worker program isn't likely, in and of itself, to make a big dent in the number of illegal aliens entering this country. Given the laxity of our current immigration enforcement measures, businesses may still prefer to hire illegal aliens rather than guest workers or American citizens.
Furthermore, it's worth noting that we already do have a guest worker program, H1-B, and as you're about to read, it's far from trouble free:
"A new report says foreigners granted temporary visas to work in the United States are paid far less than their American counterparts, despite a federal law requiring employers to provide them with fair compensation.
The Center for Immigration Studies said the visa program, known as H1-B, allows U.S. firms to hire professional-level workers from other countries for periods up to six years, provided they are paid the same as comparable American workers or the "prevailing wage" for that job, whichever is higher.
John Miano, author of the study, said the law was designed "to prevent the hiring of foreign workers from depressing U.S. wages and to protect foreign workers from exploitation."
...Among Miano's findings:
On average, H1-B applications for foreign computer workers were for wages $13,000 less than for American employees in the same occupation and state.
Wages for H1-B workers are "overwhelmingly concentrated at the bottom of the U.S. pay scale."
...Employers hiring more H1-B workers tend to pay them less than comparable U.S. workers; employers making application for more than 100 H1-B workers pay them $9,000 less per year on average than U.S. workers doing the same job.
...Originally limited to 65,000 visas a year, it has become especially popular with American high-tech employers like Bill Gates, founder and head of Microsoft Corp., who has pressed Congress to get rid of H1-B visa caps altogether.
"The whole idea of the H1-B thing is don't let too many smart people come into the country. Basically, it doesn't make sense," Gates told a group of lawmakers on Capitol Hill in April. "You can't imagine how tough it is to plan as a company where we say, 'Let's have this engineering group and staff it.' You get a few and then you go through these periods where nobody can come in."
...Since 9-11, a number of lawmakers have been reluctant to remove current H1-B caps, saying they worry the program could be used by potential terrorists to gain access to the country.
Others who worry more about American jobs may see their criticism justified by the report's findings.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., is among a growing bipartisan group of lawmakers who long have opposed H1-B because they believe U.S. companies utilize it to import cheaper labor and undercut American workers. He and others support either substantially reducing the number of visas granted by the government annually or elimination of the program altogether.
"The fact is that many, many of our jobs are being taken by illegal immigrants or by people who are here legally but are willing to work for less than an American citizen would work for," Tancredo says. At the same time, Republicans are being pressured by "the people who have business interests, to avoid doing anything that might impede the flow of low-cost employees, low-wage, low-skilled people. ..."
...Other critics of the program say several former employees of American high-tech firms suffered the ultimate indignation when they were forced by their companies to train their H1-B replacements – then were laid off."
You often hear the phrase, "jobs Americans won't do," tossed around. However, there is no such thing. There are only jobs that Americans won't do at a certain wage. If you could make 10 thousand dollars a week digging ditches, there would be a 5 mile long line every time a job opening came available. Conversely, if doctors could only make minimum wage, no one would be willing to go to medical school......
Which brings us to the problem with guest workers. Businesses are all about making profits. If a US company can hire a worker from a third world country and pay them significantly less to do the same job an American would otherwise be doing, they'll happily do it.
In fact, that's what illegal immigration and a guest worker program is really all about for businesses: not filling slots that would otherwise go empty, but reducing labor costs by hiring foreigners to do jobs that would otherwise be done by Americans at a higher wage.
Keep all that in mind when you hear pro-illegal immigration politicians expounding on how a guest worker program would be the key to fixing all of our problems with illegal immigration.
Here are RWN's top referrers for 2005. Feel free to go check a few of these blogs out. After all, it's only fair to send them a little traffic back for helping out RWN so much.
Also, as a point of comparison -- and because I'm a statistics junky -- you can see the comparable numbers for 2004 and 2003 listed below. It's interesting to note some of the popular (after all, you can't send traffic unless you have it) blogs that have just disappeared into the ether or lost their moxie over the last couple of years.
Bush's Unholy Crusade Against Radioactive Muslims -- Satire By Liberal Larry
The Bush Junta has long used the so-called “War on Terror” as an excuse to incite fear and erode our civil liberties. But now shocking new evidence has come to light that suggests Bush may have been defending us against “terrorist attacks” much sooner than we would like to believe – at least before receiving any clear instructions from the 9/11 Commission or the United Nations. It seems that right around the time Bush’s CIA was listening in on the phone conversations of retired beekeepers in Dubuque, Iowa, his FBI began monitoring innocent Muslim sites for radioactivity – and without even bothering to obtain a warrant.
This, the latest of a long list of Bush scandals, is offensive on so many levels. Not only is it a blatant violation of our Constitutional Right to Privacy, but it also presumes that radioactivity is a crime, and one that Muslims are most likely to commit. Most Muslim-Americans who just happen to be highly radioactive - whether as a lifestyle choice or an accident of birth – have never committed an act off terrorism. They live peaceful, law-abiding lives, and should be treated with decency and respect, not stigmatized by bigots with badges.
Of course, there are always a few bad apples that may be glowing for purely illicit reasons, but we do the Radioactive Muslim Community a great disservice by automatically assuming they’re all a threat to our safety. Instead of singling Muslim sites out for scrutiny, all businesses and residences of any kind should be subject to monitoring. The FBI should randomly draw an address out of a hat, and the occupants of The Sunnydale Retirement Home would be asked to remove their shoes and spin around in circles while a uniformed lesbian prods them with a Geiger counter. America hasn’t had a single hijacking since Norm Mineta implemented this brilliant policy at the airports, so there’s no reason why the FBI can’t do the same.
Many who aren't of Arabic origin, nor highly radioactive, may find this approach somewhat of an inconvenience. But once we tolerate racial profiling in any form, we play right into the hands of those who plotted and carried out the 9/11 attacks – the unelected terrorists in the White House.
This satire was used with the permission of BlameBush!
Because it's that time of year--and because LaShawn Barber and Sister Toldjah reminded me of it this morning-- I blogged my own story about Kwanzaa today.
Ohhhkay, here I am to guest-blog finally. I've had a busy day and then a tiny little login problem, which all of my fellow guest-bloggers and John were able to help me fix quickly.
As I told them, I really wanted to get a word in tonight so as not to miss the opportunity to blog in such good company.
I was out of the house and away from the computer much of the day because I ran to the next town over to meet one of my favorite bloggers for lunch-- Lorie Byrd from Polipundit.
We ate at Chili's and talked about blogging and comments policies and other bloggers we've met in person. I played Tic-Tac-Toe with her 5-year-old daughter who also performed THE cutest "Reindeer Rap" for me while dancing in the booth and stomping her little, pink cowboy boots (new for Christmas, she informed me).
Now, that is what I like about blogging-- that Lorie Byrd can be a columnist at Townhall, appear on CNN, and be in the mix of major political discussions with national opinion makers, and still be a mom in North Carolina. Very, very cool-- not just for Lorie but for the political process in general. Makes me feel like there's a chance the Beltway can be rescued.
We talked more about family and Christmas fun than politics, which is kind of what I enjoy about meeting bloggers in person. You already know where they stand on pretty much everything--because they spend all their time TELLING you-- so I like to just get to know them in person. Although, the conversation inevitably wanders to politics every once in a while.
It really was a pleasure to meet her--just one of a pretty solid showing on the conservative side of the blogosphere from my home state of North Carolina.
I'm sorry I didn't get here until now, but I'll try to make up for it this evening. Thanks to all the RWN readers for having me. And, I blog over at Hugh Hewitt's, if you ever need to find me.
This amazing flow chart makes several convincing arguments against assertions the anti-Iraq war crowd often makes regarding how things are going in post-war Iraq.
Make sure to bookmark it, and pass it along to your friends so they can use it to help counter those faulty assertions often made about post-war Iraq by the usual suspects.
From the moment his body departed Iraq, the sturdy, heavyweight cotton flag remained nearby, following him from the desert to Dover Air Force Base, Del., where a mortuary affairs team received his body.
According to the Department of Defense, Cathey was killed in Al Karmah, Iraq, on Aug. 21. Members of his unit later told family members that Cathey was leading the search of an abandoned building when a booby-trapped door exploded. The explosion was so fierce it blew off an arm and leg of the Marine directly behind Cathey. That man, now in recovery, credits his lieutenant with saving his life.
And now Lieutenant James Cathey, USMC has another life to his credit. Enter James Cathey, Junior who reported for duty a few weeks early to comfort to a young war widow in a world suddenly grown cold and lonely:
"I've been kind of afraid that once I had him I would get even more upset about Jim having passed away, but having him has actually helped me," Katherine Cathey, a widow and mother said.
Second Lt. James Cathey, Katherine's husband, died one month after he arrived in Iraq. He was killed instantly when he entered a booby trapped building ahead of the Marines under his command. Two days later, his wife Katherine learned that their baby would be a son.
Before Jim was buried, Katherine Cathey spent the last night with her husband. When she closed his coffin, she placed an ultrasound picture of their baby over his heart.
The baby was not due until Jan. 1. Early in the week before Christmas his mother and grandmother felt something was not right so they went into the hospital.
"They got a heartbeat when they put the monitor on but they weren't sensing that he was moving at all," Katherine said. "I was very scared."
Doctors rushed Katherine into the operating room.
"They all for the most part knew I had lost my husband and I couldn't go through losing the baby too," Katherine said.
After an emergency caesarean section, James Cathey Jr. (Jimmy, for short) arrived strong and healthy. He was an answer to so many prayers.
"I just looked at his face and that's when I started crying because I thought he's so beautiful," Katherine said. "I really feel like Jim has watched over me and the baby a lot."
Wherever the bright sun of heaven shall shine,
His honour and the greatness of his name
Shall be, and make new nations.
- William Shakespeare, King Henry VIII.
Update: I knew I had written about Lieutenant Cathey. I just couldn't remember where, or when. There have been so many good young men.
At any rate, it was here. It seems almost prophetic, now:
...the saddest part of Lt. Cathey's story is that when he left to go to war, he, like so many young men, promised to come back to his young wife and the child she was carrying. They say love is stronger than death. It may well prove so in some larger sense, but the sad fact is that Fate had other plans for him.
The Cindy Sheehans of this world would say, "Well, he is nothing but a fool. What did he expect? War is not healthy for Lieutenants and children and other Living Things." No doubt she thinks it was his recruiter's fault for selling him on those comic-book visions of war-as-glorified-mayhem from which one emerges ten feet tall, unscathed, and covered with medals...
...but morality is not nature. The harsh laws of the world do not stand in abeyance because we foolishly insist on niceties of human conduct. And people come in all varieties; some greater and some lesser. The greater seem able, by some means, to exert some pull or force on those around them. The lesser are pulled along in their wake like flotsam. But in the modern-day world we are all urged to worship the Great God Practicality who goes by her everyday name Mediocrity: it is the worst sort of sin to try to be better or worse than another and the most arrant foolishness to take unnecessary risks. One must be Sensible. And it is this attitude, I think, that I have rebelled against all my life, to my detriment.
It never seems to occur to anyone that perhaps that is precisely the end he did expect? That perhaps he was not naive at all, or only naive at certain times, or perhaps he was simply incapable of being any other way than the way he was. That though being a Glorious Bastard was not really a conscious decision, it was something he would not have renounced, even if he could have changed his nature?
Semper Fidelis, Lieutenant Cathey. And sleep well.
My fellow Americans, we're now in Week 3 of the latest series of national nightmares brought to you courtesy of the NY Times (how else would we know we're in the midst of a national nightmare?).
And no, I'm not talking about that national nightmare. Thankfully, the horrific rampage of that Aryan-looking symbol of the Patriarchy in his annoying little manger is just about over for another year. At long last, the ACLU can get back to what it does best: removing swastikas from the LA county seal. Nope - I'm referring to the stunning revelation that, though Presidents going back to Jimmah Carter approved warrantless physical searches during peacetime, *we* have been living with a far worse danger.
That's right: the NSA may be listening in when Osama bin Laden makes those holiday Friends and Family calls.
After 9/11, you may be wondering why this should concern you. After all, Bill Clinton conducted door to door physical searches on public housing tenants without so much as a by-your-leave from the courts. That is, until he was stopped by the ACLU. Clinton then "ordered Attorney General Janet Reno and Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros to develop a search policy for public housing that was both constitutional and effective".
Kanye West was strangely silent - perhaps because he was just a gleam in his Daddy's eye back then. But who can forget that 1990's Grandmaster Flash paean to ghetto rage?
Don't push me cause I'm close to the edge
I'm trying not to lose my head
Uh huh ha ha ha
It's like a jungle sometimes
It makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under
Bill Clinton doesn't care about black people
Those were the days... remember how the howls of "Impeach him!" rose to a deafening crescendo on both sides of Congress? I tell you, it was inspiring the way Democrats didn't let partisanship interfere with principle when the rights of The Little Man were concerned. Of course you'd never know any of this had happened, to read Reason's Julian Sanchez or the folks at Media Matters. To hear them talk, wiretapping is the worst thing that could possibly happen to a human being. Warrantless home invasions, a pair of frilly panties on the head, or being forced to listen to Christina Aguilera CDs for hours on end simply pale in comparison. Julian is outraged over the prospect of electronic eavesdropping, but most of his argument fails the common-sense test:
Prominent conservative blogger John Hinderaker turns his gaze on the Fourth Amendment's stipulation that governmental searches be "reasonable" and asks:
Is it reasonable for the administration to do all it can to identify the people who are communicating with known terrorists overseas, via the terrorists' cell phones and computers, and to learn what terrorist plots are being hatched by those persons?
Which is a fine rhetorical question, but one no more obviously helpful or relevant than its domestic equivalent: Is it reasonable for police to recover murder weapons and stolen goods? The function of judicial oversight is to make reasonably sure that the government is reasonably sure it's only doing such reasonable things.
First of all, this is hardly a rhetorical question. It goes to the heart of the issue: if a search is reasonable then it clearly does not fall under the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable search and seizure.
Second, the purpose of the search matters - what is its intended use? Will it be used to prosecute a defendant in court (and possibly deprive him of his liberty) or simply to prevent a terrorist attack or stop and/or confiscate illegal goods? It makes a difference.
Third, and very importantly, the nature and means of the search are critical in deciding if it is intrusive and, indeed, if it even is a search under the Fourth Amendment.
And finally, the test of reasonableness cannot "reasonably" be divorced from the consequences of not allowing the search.
First, many thanks to John for inviting me to guest blog here at RWN. It's an honor.
Via the AP this morning, we have a story out of Rocksboro, NC in which a reporter from the Associated Press writes about the so-called "African-American holiday" Kwanzaa by way of an interview with Bill Nesmith, who is a reference librarian at Person County public library in Rocksboro.
Note the headline:
Estimate: 13 Million Celebrate Kwanzaa
Oh? From where does this 'estimate' come? It appears that it came from Mr. Nesmith himself:
He says interest in the holiday is growing, with about 13 million people now celebrating the holiday that began in 1966.
With all due respect to Mr. Nesmith, I'd like to know where he got that figure. I'd also like to know why the Associated Press lent credibility to that figure by making it the headline of the article.
I checked the Official Kwanzaa website, and couldn't find anything resembling an estimate of just how many people celebrate Kwanzaa. And assuming this estimate IS on thet webstie somewhere, from where did that figure originate?
Could it be, perhaps, that the AP is just trying, in its own politically correct way, to give credence to a 'holiday' (dubbed by some to be the 'alternative to Christmas') celebrated by minorities in order to make it appear more mainstream than it really is by purposely making the numbers look authentic? Afterall, the more mainstream cultural rituals such as Kwanzaa are made to appear, the less likely its validity will be questioned by many - mostly out of fear that they'll be labeled 'racists' and 'insensitive' to 'other cultures.'
For more on the bogus nature of Kwanzaa, please make sure to check out La Shawn Barber's must-read piece on its origins, as well as this article written by Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, who calls Kwanzaa the "Racist Holiday from Hell."
If you enjoyed this post by Sister Toldjah, you can read more of her work at Sister Toldjah.
Just because minorities are involved doesn't mean it's a civil rights issue
Stanley Crouch has a great column bemonaing the tendencies of some hustlers to try to color every issue that involves minorities as a denial of civil rights. So, the transit workers strike in New York City that inconvenienced black and white New Yorkers alike so that workers with cushy benefits could strike for even better benefits that would amaze the rest of us suddenly became an issue of racism by the city against the black members of the union.
I found Transport Workers Union President Roger Toussaint's reference to Rosa Parks - in an attempt to give a salary and benefit dispute the patina of civil rights - an irresponsible distortion of the matter. I also found the Rev. Al Sharpton's comparing our mayor to white segregationist Bull Connor an even more absurd instance of overstatement, especially since Michael Bloomberg has done nothing close to hosing down nonviolent protesters or setting dogs on them.
To the contrary, Bloomberg has done a worthwhile job in overhauling our city's education system, which is comprised of nearly 85% minority students.
Toussaint's rhetoric in leading the overwhelmingly minority union is just part of what has become a norm in our society, where any heated situation involving people who are not white is suddenly thrown into the arena of civil rights or the rights of an ethnic culture. For example, black basketball players cried foul when a dress code was enforced, told by the NBA that its fans do not want to see them looking like hip hop buffoons at league functions.
At the worst end, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan and Sharpton joined Snoop Dogg and other celebrities with brains no larger than mustard seeds in mourning at the funeral of executed murderer and Crips founder Stanley (Tookie) Williams.
Given the rhetoric and the crocodile tears, one would have thought Williams was one of the four little girls blown to bits in 1963 at Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala.
I get infuriated when people use the "Holocaust" as a rhetorical club to beat up any political opponent they want to demean. I'd like to see more blacks to join Stanley Crouch in denying these publicity merchants the license to call racism for every political fight they engage in. It demeans those who really suffered under abusive laws and who struggled so long and so nobly for the civil rights that their descendants enjoy today. Being asked to contribute to your own pension plan is not a racist attack.
If you enjoyed this post by Betsy Newmark, you can read more of her work at Betsy's Page.
Thank you to John for this opportunity to guest-blog on his page. John was one of the first to pay any notice to my blog and I've always appreciated his support as well as his own "Right Wing' take on the news.
Davids Medienkritik, who blogs about the German press, links to this interview on Al Jazeera with Susanne Osthoff, the German archaeologist who was kidnapped in Iraq and recently freed. Apparently, her kidnappers were just a bunch of swell guys.
Speaking to the Al-Jazeera satellite channel, Susanne Osthoff said her captors told her not to be afraid as her kidnapping was "politically motivated".
"Do not be afraid. We do not harm women or children and you are a Muslim," she quoted them as saying. "I was so happy to know that I had not fallen into the hands of criminals."
Osthoff, a Muslim convert and Arabic speaker, said her captors demanded German humanitarian aid for Iraq's Sunni Arabs and stated clearly that they did not want a ransom.
They were just interested in humanitarian aid. Apparently, kidnapping westerners is the best way to go about it. And, according to Ms. Osthoff, we really shouldn't blame these good-hearted kidnappers for kidnapping her. It was really as David says, another evil trick by "Bush&Rumsfeld Inc." See, these humanitarians wanted to kidnap Americans, but couldn't.
She described her captors as "poor people" and said that she "cannot blame them for kidnapping her, as they cannot enter [Baghdad's heavily fortified] Green Zone to kidnap Americans."
See, if we were truly interested in helping all Iraqis, we would make our people more accessible for kidnapping so that they wouldn't have to inconvenience correct-thinking women like Susanne Osthoff.
Meanwhile, the German government strenously denies that there was any connection between their releasing a terrorist who killed an American and the release of Ms. Osthoff.
Hammadi, now in his late 30s, was captured in 1987 and given a life sentence in two years later. He still has many years ahead of him and is expected to rejoin his terrorist comrades thanks to the German government who believe serving 19 years is just punishment for killing a young American during the hijacking of a commercial plane.
Yup, Germany continues to be a such a notable partner in the war on terror. They won't extradite Hammadi to the United States because we have capital punishment and they think that a life sentence is sufficient punishment. And who cares if life doesn't really mean life in Germany. Nineteen years is close enough.
David has a thought as to how we can tell if more Germans will be kidnapped in Iraq.
If you enjoyed this post by Betsy Newmark, you can read more of her work
at Betsy's Page.
Open Invitation To Violate Me By Right Thinking Girl
Ah Liberals. Can’t live with them, can’t trust them with national security. They make such noise about loving their country and civil rights and once you try to talk to them about their positions, their arguments go down like a five dollar whore. When the New York Times revealed that Bush had authorized the NSA to spy on private American citizens, you could bet that liberals, who have nothing to lose by another 9/11-style attack, would be the first to feign vitriolic outrage. This is just another maneuver to hide their true concerns (terrorist rights) behind their alleged concern over Americans’ civil rights.
For those who are in the dark: domestic spying isn’t illegal. Even before 9/11, the FBI (and even local police departments) spied on mobsters, shady politicos, street hustlers, coke dealers, and other lowlifes. That’s pretty much their job description. The fact that the NSA was “connecting the dots” and keeping an eye on the jihadists who wanted to rain hell upon our cities should give normal people a warm, fuzzy feeling. In what way are these sweeps of intelligence violating civil rights? They’re allowing us an opportunity to protect our civil right because the NSA can get the bead on those who want to kill us. It’s a simple concept but it bears repeating: civil rights can’t exist if you’re dead.
To be totally technical about the situation – and this is something I know a little something about as I worked at the National Security Agency for several years spanning 9/11 – the NSA is not spying on random people. They are observing communications between American citizens and known terrorist numbers. It’s not a shotgun approach. Your civil rights are only imperiled if you’re chatting with Mohammad in Iran about smuggling nukes into the Empire State, which, I admit, might raise a red flag on a server somewhere. If you’re chatting with your mother in London or having phone sex with some random person in Germany, nobody down at Ft. Meade gives a flying fig.
Another issue that’s got the jihadist defenders up in arms is the recent revelation that the good folks at the FBI have been monitoring radiation levels around mosques and other places where terrorists like to gather and plot to bring about the demise of modern society. For once, the Bureau has a program that might actually protect America! For the love of taco sauce, we should be celebrating and buying our own Geiger counters and doing the same thing! Instead, this program has outraged the ACLU and other terrorist-rights groups who are deeply concerned that the executive branch of government isn’t sensitive to persons of Middle Eastern descent. Additionally they are frustrated that no rules are actually being broken in this program: the FBI doesn’t require any kind of warrant to acquire intelligence in public places. Allow me a moment to gloat that America is being protected and there is nothing that Liberals can do to stop it.
Gloat. Gloat. Gloat.
Finally, five years after 9/11, we’ve formulated a plan to fight terrorists effectively before they can pull off another airplane-crashing, building-folding spectacular. The fact that our methods step on the toes of terrorists should make all Americans happy. Instead, Liberals would rather complain that terrorists are being treated unfairly because….well, because they’re terrorists.
For those good, honest Americans who fear Big Brother peeking in your windows and listening to your phone calls, I offer you this inside information: the best way to protect your civil rights is to not be a terrorist. That will protect you from unwanted government attention. To protect your civil rights, fight against terrorists who want to kill you. You can’t do a very good job of fighting poverty, supporting welfare programs, giving help to Katrina victims, or crying over Gitmo if you’re dead.
Well, folks, it's almost time for Christmas, which means that everyone, myself included, is getting ready to take a little vacation. So, let me give you the holiday schedule for RWN:
Thursday: 1/2 day
Friday: Part 1 of the best of RWN posts for 2005 goes up.
Monday: Part 2 of the best of RWN posts for 2005 goes up.
Tuesday: RWN will have guest bloggers. They'll include:
