5 Things Bush Can Do To Get His Approval Going Back In The Right Direction
Although we can debate whether the polls out there now are accurately reflecting Bush's approval rating, there's no question that W. needs some improvement on that score. Here are 5 suggestions that would help out.
1) Splitting His Illegal Immigration Plan In Two: Bush should split his illegal immigration policy into two parts. Then he should push border enforcement and proposals designed to get rid of illegal immigrants first. That will be popular with the public, help stem his bleeding with the base, and it can be passed.
Then, after Bush has already established his, "tough on illegal," credibility, he can push the guest worker program that some of his business backers will want and that some Republicans (I'm not among them) think will help the GOP win a larger percentage of the Hispanic vote, without hurting himself politically. Will it pass? If Bush proves he's serious about securing our borders and getting rid of illegals first, yes, a guest worker program of some sort has a decent shot at passing.
That would make a lot more sense than what Bush is currently doing: trying to push through an unpopular program that makes him look soft on illegals, hurts him with his own base, and is unlikely to pass.
2) Showing That's He's Serious About Cutting The Deficit: What Bush needs to do in order to improve his image here is to start talking about how he hasn't done enough to get spending under control in the past and then use his first veto on a bill because it has too much pork in it.
That would be a splashy headline grabber that could probably convince the public to give him the benefit of the doubt on spending, but he'd need to follow up on it. Maybe he could veto some more spending bills, try to rewrite his Medicare Prescription drug bill to include means testing, or even propose some sort of Balanced Budget Amendment.
This is an area that is just killing Bush with people who should be his biggest supporters and he really needs to do something "big" here instead of just trying to nibble around the edges.
3) Find A Way To Kill The Port Deal: According to the latest polls, the number of Americans opposed to the port deal outnumber those in favor of it roughly 3 to 1, Moreover, the people in favor of the port deal are lukewarm while the anti-port deal crowd is red hot over the issue. Sometimes there are hills worth dying on politically for principle, but this is definitely not one of them.
4) Use The World's Biggest Microphone: Getting your message out should entail a lot more than trying to correct the countless lies and distortions that the Democrats and mainstream media regularly tell about you and your administration. The worst thing Bush can do is continue to sit there and let the news cycle revolve around what Democrats claim he's done wrong.
Instead, W. needs to use the world's biggest microphone to change the debate and force the Democrats to go on the defensive. Why not give an anti-gay marriage speech at a Christian college? Attack the MSM for being in the pockets of the Democrats and use the negative spin they've put on the fantastic US economy as evidence. Blast the Democrats for playing politics with Katrina in the first place and tell the truth: that Nagin and Blanco were responsible for most of the problems in New Orleans, not FEMA. In short, say things that will cut through the noise, put the onus back on the Democrats, and get people talking about actual distinctions between the GOP and Dems rather than "What I don't like about George Bush is...".
You'd think Bush would already get this. Late last year, he started firing back at the Democrats who wanted to cut and run in Iraq. After his comments, he got a nice bump in the polls. Then, after Bush stopped attacking the Democrats, his numbers dropped back down again. That's evidence that this will make a real difference.
5) Get More Specific On Iraq: This one could have been covered under #4, but it actually deserves its own category. The media and the Democrats are teaming up to do the biggest hatchet job on a war since Tet. Call 'em on it. Slam them for being wrong about a civil war in Iraq. Have a prime time, televised press conference and bring some Iraqi soldiers and generals to talk up the war. Trumpet the troop cuts in Iraq to the heavens and say it's proof that we're winning. Accuse the Democrats of calling for troop cuts for political reasons. Pound the Democrats for risking victory in Iraq and playing into the hands of our enemies by calling for a timeline.
Most of all, explain what victory is to the American people: it's not destroying the insurgency, it's replacing Saddam with a Democratic government that can handle its own security. Explain that once that happens, the terrorists will have lost. That's because their only chance to win is to get the US to leave before the Iraqis are ready, so they can then take advantage of the chaos that would cause.
The American people aren't getting the full story about Iraq and that's the way the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media want it. The Dems and the MSM are misleading the public, day in and day out, in an effort to make them think we're losing the war. That's why a speech every now and again isn't going to cut it. The President needs to get specific, get aggressive, and regularly go on the offensive so that Americans can get the rest of the story.
PS: 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.
PS #2: As a favor to my tech guy, Jack Lewis, I wanted to promote some of the services he offers.
The Tipping Point? It's More Like A Long, Downhill Slide
Jim Geraghty over at TKS, along with Glenn Reynolds, have been the two leading proponents of an idea that's gaining some traction in the blogosphere: that the port sale represents a tipping point in American politics because for the first time, Americans are no longer willing to trust Muslims. Moreover, oddly enough, they both seem to have come to the conclusion that Bush's reaction to the Danish cartoon controversy has a lot to do with this, "tipping point."
I can't say that I agree.
To begin with, while the main objection that people have to the port deal is that they don't trust foreign Muslims from the UAE with our security, that's not something new. There hasn't been a day that has passed since 9/11 that the American people would have been OK with a company from the UAE taking charge of our port security -- it has just never been a political issue until now.
Furthermore, although like Jim and Glenn, I believe that this deal is not a security risk because Dubai Ports World will only be handling stevedoring duties, I don't think it's irrational to be concerned about having people from the UAE in a position where they could do great damage to our security.
Granted, the UAE is an ally in the war on terror, but undeniably, a significant percentage of their population is sympathetic to Al-Qaeda. If Dubai Ports World were actually handling security, it seems likely that a number of people who'd like to see us dead would be in a good position to help make that happen whether their government was allied with us not.
Now, that being said, the level of hostility towards Muslims has in my opinion skyrocketed in the United States, especially over the last couple of years. However, that's not because of George Bush, it's because nary a day passes without reading about some Muslim committing a horrible atrocity in the name of Allah while screeching Imams demand more bloodbaths in front of packed houses at Mosques around the world. Meanwhile, the reaction from Muslim "moderates" has been muted at best. Maybe that's because they're afraid of the radicals. Maybe they are speaking up in great numbers and the media's ignoring them.
Or -- or -- maybe a lot of "moderate" Muslim just don't have that big of a problem with blowing up school buses full of Jews, cutting off the heads of European hostages, or blowing up a train full of Spaniards. Hopefully, that's not the case, but it's hard for people to miss the fact that there are huge crowds of Muslims gathering all over the world to protest a cartoon that was published in Denmark, but few Muslims seem interested in demonstrating against the terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam against "the infidels."
Again, maybe the media's ignoring those voices of dissent or the moderates are just afraid, but the fact that the extremists are very loud and heard from frequently while the "moderates" speak softly and seem to be seldom heard is having a real affect on people's perceptions of Islam.
Does that mean we're reached a, "tipping point?" Actually, I'd say it's more like a long, downhill slide, that's apt to continue unless "moderate" Muslims start loudly and continuously speaking up. There are Muslims out there doing exactly that, but they could use a lot more company. Of course, people have been pointing that out since 9/11 and we haven't seen much of an improvement in the situation, so it doesn't seem to be likely that we're going back up that mountain any time soon -- and that's really too bad for everyone concerned.
Where's That Civil War In Iraq That The Media Was Promising? (Part 2)
So, when does that civil war in Iraq the media has been talking about since the Golden Dome bombing actually start? Today, tomorrow, next week? Maybe the imaginary civil war will happen right after the imaginary draft that the Democrats were claiming was right around the corner all during the 2004 elections. Think that's it?
But wait, I should correct myself: the media has actually been intimating that a civil war could be about to start for YEARS, not just since the Golden Dome bombing. Here are just a few quotes, compiled by Rich Noyes over at NewsBusters, to give you a better idea of what I'm talking about:
“Senator McCain, are you concerned that if the transfer of power does take place on June 30th that a huge vacuum will be created and it will be an invitation to civil war? Because no matter how deplorable Saddam Hussein was considered, he was the ultimate referee who kept the Sunnis and the Shiites apart from killing each other.” — NBC’s Katie Couric to John McCain on Today, April 5, 2004.
Moderator Bob Schieffer: “So what you’re saying is that we may be looking at something like a Yugoslavia there, which wasn’t really a country, but Tito held it together with the iron fist, and once he went, it really came apart.”
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman: “What we’re gonna find out, Bob, in the next six to nine months is whether we have liberated a country or uncorked a civil war.” — CBS’s Face the Nation, October 3, 2004.
Moderator Tim Russert: “Tipping point, could it tip back into a potential civil war if the Sunnis continue to stay out of the government?”
The ubiquitous Tom Friedman: “Absolutely. Right now in Iraq the big question, Tim, is can the Shiites, who will dominate the next government basically, will they reach out and share power?” — NBC’s Meet the Press, February 27, 2005.
“I’m Bob Schieffer. It just keeps getting worse in Iraq. The death toll is rising. Tension is growing between Shiites and Sunnis. Is the country sliding toward civil war?” — Schieffer beginning the May 19, 2005 CBS Evening News.
“Whenever violence breaks out, many go looking for old enemies to blame. US commanders have privately noted every time a bomb goes off in a Shiite neighborhood, something bad seems to happen in a Sunni area. And that simply adds the specter of civil war to the overall mayhem, which is probably just what the insurgents had in mind.” — CBS reporter Kimberly Dozier on the July 18, 2005 Evening News.
Senator John Thune: “I think we’re making, what I believe is progress in that direction.”
Host George Stephanopoulos: “But you say it’s progress. But there have been an awful lot of signs that it’s not. We know that they presented, for example, the constitution to the assembly but have not called a vote on it. We hear this opposition from the Sunnis, from Muqtada al Sadr. Aren’t you at all concerned that this constitution may in fact be a prelude to civil war? That it may be deepening the divisions?” — ABC’s This Week, August 28, 2005.
After we didn't find any stockpiles of Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the mainstream media put on their hairshirts and made this big deal about how they should have been much more dubious about claims that Saddam had WMDS. Well, the media has been consistently telling us a civil war is just about to break out in Iraq and they've been wrong every step of the way. So, when will members of the mainstream start wringing their hands and wondering about why they just can't seem to get that story right? When does the MSM start worrying that their incredibly partisan, pessimistic, and false coverage in Iraq is giving the American people a warped picture of what's happening in Iraq and unnecessarily playing into the hands of the enemy? Today wouldn't be too early for them to start.
Judge Ginsburg And I Have At Least One Thing In Common
This drawing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg actually going to sleep during oral arguments has to be the funniest pic of a Supreme Court Justice in action that I've ever seen:
To me, this is a very bold move, to just put your head down for 15 minutes and zonk out. I mean personally, when I was in a dull meeting and couldn't hold my eyes open a moment longer, my technique was to lean my head on my hand, which sort of shaded my eyes. Then the big struggle was to keep my eyes open and my mouth closed as I became progressively sleepier because some yammering manager went on for 45 minutes about a pointless issue that could have been covered in a 3 sentence email.
Of course, I was just a peon in those meetings, while Ginsburg is an untouchable Supreme Court Justice. So, I guess she can get away with just putting her head down and starting to count sheep.
PS: After retirement, there's lots of time to sleep, Ruthie, old girl -- and you don't have to worry one bit because Bush can appoint a very qualified replacement for you. Just pointing that out in case she's so inclined ]=D
Excerpt Of The Day: Steyn On The UN's Traveling Sexcapdes Show
"...(T)he UN is a shamefully squalid organization whose corruption is almost impossible to exaggerate. If you think—as the media and the left do in this country—that Iraq is a God-awful mess (which it’s not), then try being the Balkans or Sudan or even Cyprus or anywhere where the problem’s been left to the United Nations. If you don’t want to bulk up your pension by skimming the Oil-for-Food program, no need to worry. Whatever your bag, the UN can find somewhere that suits—in West Africa, it’s Sex-for-Food, with aid workers demanding sexual services from locals as young as four; in Cambodia, it’s drug dealing; in Kenya, it’s the refugee extortion racket; in the Balkans, sex slaves. On a UN peace mission, everyone gets his piece.
Didier Bourguet, a UN staffer in Congo and the Central African Republic, enjoyed the pleasures of 12-year-old girls, and as a result is now on trial in France. His lawyer has said he was part of a UN pedophile network operating from Africa to southeast Asia. But has anyone read anything about that? The merest glimpse of a U.S. servicewoman leading an Abu Ghraib inmate around with girlie knickers on his head was enough to prompt calls for Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation, and for Ted Kennedy to charge that Saddam’s torture chambers were now open “under new management.” But systemic UN child sex in at least 50 percent of their missions? The transnational morality set can barely stifle their yawns. If you’re going to sexually assault prepubescent girls, make sure you’re wearing a blue helmet.
And at least the Pentagon put a stop to Abu Ghraib. As a British UN official in the Congo told my newspaper in London: “The crux of the problem is that if the UN gets bolshie”—that’s Britspeak for complaining aggressively—“with these governments then they stop providing the UN with troops and staff.” That’s the system in a nutshell: when a British bigwig is with British forces, he’ll enforce British standards; when a British official is holed up with an impeccably “multilateral” force of Uruguayans, Tunisians, etc., he’s more circumspect. When in Rome, do as the Visigoths do. In Congo, the UN had to forbid all contact between its predatory forces and the natives. The rest of the world should be so lucky." -- Mark Steyn
Thanks to RWN's readers for helping put together a list of the 25 greatest moments in American history.
1776: The Declaration of Independence is signed. Americans officially begin their fight for freedom.
1776: Washington's surprise strike and victory at Trenton increases morale, heartens his troops, and provides enough of a recruiting boost to keep his army from melting away in the Spring, which would have meant an end to the war.
1781: Washington's victory at Yorktown, with the help of the French, seals the victory for America over the Brits.
1789: The Constitution is ratified.
1791: The Bill of Rights is ratified.
1803: The Louisiana Purchase: Roughly 1/5 of modern day America was purchased by Thomas Jefferson from Napoleon for about 15 million dollars.
1805: The members of the Lewis and Clark expedition become the first Americans to reach the Pacific ocean.
1814: Andrew Jackson defeats the British forces at the Battle of New Orleans in a fight that took place after the war had already ended. Had the British controlled New Orleans, which was a vital American port at the time, they might have wrung more concessions out of America or even taken a large swath of what is today American territory for Canada.
1836: Sam Houston and a group of Texans, outnumbered 2 to 1 by the Mexican Army, got revenge for the Alamo in the Battle of San Jacinto. Their victory and the capture soon after of Santa Anna secured the freedom of Texas and cleared the way for them to eventually join the United States.
1846:The Oregon Treaty, made with Britain, officially brings Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and parts of Montana and Wyoming into the US.
1848: After being defeated in the Mexican-American war, Mexico was forced to sign the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which granted America control of "Texas as well as California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming" in return for about $18 million dollars.
1863: Abraham Lincoln frees the slaves in the South, technically at least, with the Emancipation Proclamation.
1864: Sherman's victory in Atlanta not only helped hasten the end of the war, it likely was the key factor that led to Abraham Lincoln defeating George McClellan in the November elections. Had McClellan won, he made it clear that he intended to cut and run rather than press on to victory.
1898: America crushes the Spanish fleet in the Philippines, which cemented our position as a world power.
1903: The Wright Brothers are the "first in flight."
1908: The Model-T Ford, the first car cheap enough for the general public to afford, becomes available.
1914: The 48 mile long Panama Canal is completed.
1918: WW1 ends in victory for the Allied forces after the Germans surrender.
1920: For the first time, American women are allowed to vote.
1945: WW2 ends in victory for the Allied forces after the Japanese surrender.
1947: America helps rebuild Europe after WW2 with the Marshall Plan.
1950: In what was perhaps the most brilliant military maneuver in American history, Douglas MacArthur lands behind the North Korean lines at Inchon. The subsequent strikes against the Norks broke their army and only the entry of the Chinese into the war kept Korea from being reunited.
1964: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
1969: Neil Armstrong is the first man to walk on the moon -- An amazing feat that showcased American ingenuity and technology.
1989: The Berlin Wall came tumbling down which symbolized the break-up of the Soviet Union and the victory of the United States in the Cold War.
You can read the "The 25 Worst Moments In American History" by clicking here.
How Much Sense Does It Make For The GOP To Honor The NAACP?
This just frosts me because it touches on one of my political pet peeves: Republicans sucking up to the NAACP.
The NAACP’s leader, Julian Bond, is no stranger to controversy and irresponsible rhetoric. In 2004, the NAACP Chairman compared the Republican Party to the Taliban regime.
Bond told a raucous crowd that the GOP’s “idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side." He went on to say that Republicans “draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics. Now they want to write bigotry back into the Constitution."
As a reward for his irresponsible and incendiary rhetoric, the House GOP leadership yesterday scheduled floor time to pass a resolution honoring his organization.
The first part of the resolution honors the NAACP for its 97th anniversary. It is the second clause in the resolution, “praising the NAACP” on the occasion of its 97th anniversary “for its work,” that is raising eyebrows.
...The resolution passed the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon without even a peep of dissent. Despite the fact that many rank and file conservatives were uncomfortable with the resolution off the record, it passed by voice vote."
Nothing could be dumber than for Republicans to honor a group like the NAACP that absolutely hates our guts and trashes us at every opportunity. Besides, what have they done of late that merits recognition? These days, the NAACP exists to try to exploit racial strife for fun and profit while delivering black votes to the Democrats. If they'd gone out of business 20 years ago not only would America as a whole be better, black Americans would be better off without their sorry example.
If the GOP wants to honor black Americans, let's honor Frederick Douglass, let's honor Martin Luther King, let's honor Rosa Parks; heck, let's honor the black entrepreneurs, educators, and preachers who're actually alive and out there making a positive impact right now. But, the NAACP? No Republican should give them a dime, a kind word, or even the time of day.
Take a look at this snort worthy excerpt from an Associated Press piece on Gorbachev:
"Mikhail Gorbachev's magnetic brown eyes shine as brightly as ever, and he speaks with the same passion about the collapse of the Soviet Union as he prepares to mark his 75th birthday on Thursday.
The man who ended the Cold War and launched democratic reforms that broke the repressive Soviet regime continues to enjoy the limelight, globe-trotting on behalf of his political foundation and environmental group and taking part in charity projects.
At a meeting with foreign reporters this week, Gorbachev blamed the United States for losing a chance to build a safer and more stable world following the Soviet demise.
"Ending the Cold War was given as a gift" to the United States, but it only strengthened its arrogance and unilateralism, he said. "The winner's complex is worse than an inferiority complex, because it's harder to cure."
"The man who ended the Cold War?" Please. Let's clear up a few things, shall we?
Gorbachev was a commie dictator who was outsmarted at every turn by Ronald Reagan. In an effort to respond to Reagan's maneuvering, keep the evil empire together, and to maintain the Commie stranglehold on power, Gorbachev instituted some economic and political reforms. Unfortunately for Gorbachev and fortunately for the rest of the world, things rapidly careened out of control. The people refused to be satisified with the little taste of freedom they'd gotten and the Commie hardliners whom Gorbachev surrounded himself with thought he was going too far and endangering their hold on power (They were right). This led to a failed coup, after which Gorbachev was a spent political force.
So, is Gorbachev a great figure in history? Not in the least. In fact, his only redeeming action was not sending in the tanks when the Evil Empire started coming apart at the seams. Otherwise, there's nothing that makes him more deserving of praise than the Shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos, or any other two bit dictator who was toppled from power.
So why is Gorbachev being given credit for ending the Cold War? Because if liberals actually admitted that Reagan (along with Thatcher, the Pope, and a few other sidekicks) was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union, it would also mean that they'd have simultaneously admitted they were wrong.
You see, despite what some liberals would like to have you believe, the Cold War was not a bipartisan affair during the eighties. To the contrary, the left fought tooth and nail every effort Reagan made to weaken the Soviet Union. They mocked Reagan, they claimed he was more dangerous than the Soviet Union, and they scoffed at the whole idea of "winning" the Cold War.
In short, the left treated Ronald Reagan the same way then as they treat George Bush today and incidentally, when history proves them just as wrong this time as it did with the Soviet Union, expect the left to try to rewrite history again to cover up how completely and utterly useless they were during the war on terror.
So, hey, AP, how about sparing us these "Gorbasms." Gorbachev doesn't deserve the praise.
*** Additional Info ***: Here's a little more on Gorby and how liberals behaved back in the eighties from my interview with Peter Schweizer:
John Hawkins: A related question to that one --- The other theme that we hear from people on the left today is, "Well, We were all Cold Warriors back then" and "All of us were with Reagan." How much help did Reagan actually get from the American left in fighting the Soviet Union?
Peter Schweizer: He got none. I mean, you can certainly find your occasional sort of Anti-Communist liberal, Henry Jackson, Scoop Jackson, Senator from Washington state, a liberal democrat that's strong on defense, but those are really the exceptions to the rule.
It's hard to find a single example of a liberal democrat supporting Reagan strategy, the strategy of cutting off access to western technology and credits, the Reagan strategy of the massive defense build-up, or the rolling back communism overseas. It's really impossible to my mind to find any liberal democrat that supported all of those programs, all of which were critical to the success in the Cold War. You can find somebody that maybe supported the war in Afghanistan or maybe somebody who supported strong defense, but it's really hard to find somebody that supported all of them across the board.
In fact, certain people like Carter and other officials, Tip O'Neil and others, often complained to the Soviets how dangerous they thought Reagan was. So it's really revisionist history and I think is a perfect example of what the Irish meant when they said that, "Success has many fathers and failure is an orphan." You know you have the success of winning the Cold War and now everybody claims to be part of making that happen.
John Hawkins: Would it be fair to say that Gorbachev was a Communist who wanted to save the Soviet Union but failed?
Peter Schweizer: Yes, I think that's how Gorbachev would describe himself. Gorbachev was never a closet liberal in that he wanted to see the communist system changed to become sort of a social democracy, you know, a western style democracy. He was always a true believer in Marxism, Leninism; he always believed that the population of the Soviet Empire really did want socialism and he was stunned when he opened up the system and allowed people to actually voice their opinions. I think what Gorbachev had was a naive faith and belief in the system but he also had an enormous respect for Reagan and he knew that Reagan's convictions were real, that Reagan did want to see communism wiped from the face of the earth, and Gorbachev did believe that the only way that they could compete against Reagan was by trying to radically change the system.
John Hawkins: One thing I've wondered about & I'd like to get your opinion on: When Gorbachev started to see the rebellions, when he started to see Poland going south, and he could see the writing on the wall that things were going to break up, why didn't Gorbachev send in the tanks?
Peter Schweizer: I think for a couple of reasons. First of all, his main objective in Glasnost and Perestroika --- this was really his account --- was to get badly needed capital from the West. The oil and natural gas industries which had been cut off from western technology were not generating nearly the money they were before. They needed investment from the West. They were defaulting on bank loans. They needed western technology, computer technology, etc. to modernize their economy. So that was always his number one objective and he knew that by invading Poland or by invading any of the other countries that were starting to pull away, that would be completely gone, that he would set back his cause 20 years if he did something like that.
The second reason, I think, is that he honestly believed that even if these countries became more independent, they would be natural allies, that they were sort of faithful to the cause of communism even if they were a little bit bitter about Russian dominance. So I think that naivete' played a role again.
That's what some of my friends still in the Special Ops community have been calling the War on Terror since 9/11 (and maybe since Khobar - I just may not have been paying attention). We're fighting the crusaders this time - crusaders that want us either converted to their religion or dead.
And our fear and unwillingness to fight in various ways may be our undoing.
Osama and his murderers want to drive a wedge between the West and Islam, and guess what?
It's working.
Believe me, there's times where this slightly right of center guy wants to say to the Islamic world, "You want a fight? Good! You've got one." (Just insert a few choice expletives and you've pretty much got it.)
Then on other days, you have people like me on this blog asking sincerely, "where are the moderate Muslims speaking out against these atrocities, or denouncing these violent riots attacking American embassies over cartoons published in Denmark, or working towards reform for women or religious tolerance in their countries?", you get some commenter who weighs in with two or four links of quotes from moderate Muslims.
That doesn't quite cut it. They either aren't there or aren't being heard (thanks, media!).
But rational, tolerant people do live in Muslim countries. I know they do. I have friends in Turkey, Jordan, India, and Indonesia (and here in the States) that are socially liberal moderates who are devoutly Muslim. Not to mention muslim soldiers of countries that I've served with and trained with...And they are terrified of both the extremists in their lands and our deaf ears here in the States.
How in the hell did we get here?
You can blame our media for displaying the worst of the Islamic extremists daily (and for bowing to the pressure of the worst of them - they're cartoons for crying out loud), and you can also blame the theocracies for feeding the blood lust and keeping their followers uneducated and duped in order to retain or build power. You can blame their governments for not protecting the moderates and the socially liberal among their societies. You can blame the rich oil sheiks for playing geopolitical games with their billions. And you can blame the moderates themselves for being cowards, much like the cowards in our own country who acquiesce at the first sign of a fight - whether that fight is taking down a murdering tyrant or cow-towing to the Politically Correct Police.
Glenn Reynolds wrote an excellent short piece on Sunday about the Tipping Point where Americans just don't trust (all) Muslims anymore. Apparently, we've had enough.
Have we?
Have we had enough BS from the extremists to taint our feelings towards every Muslim in the world? Have we let the media influence us so?
I doubt it, but that's the story that's being told now.
This Tipping Point just points out that Osama is winning as long as we let him drive that wedge between us and the Islamic world. He's got the media figured out. He's got the right people in place in the theocracies. We've given that bastard enough ground already in the Reverse Crusades.
After the first crusaders took Jerusalem in the eleventh century, a Kurd Sunni from Tikrit by the name of Saladin took it and much of the crusader gained territory back. Saladin, even seen as a conquering enemy, was revered by European courts for his grace, kindness and intelligence. They regarded him as a Knight. In actuality, he embodied more of the gentle and honorable traits of a Knight than most of the European gentry sent off to rid the world of non-Christians.
In the Reverse Crusades, our Saladin is not a "who", but a "what". Our Saladin must be the idea that all men and women were created equal and free.
We need to wage both war and peace at the same time. Both require strength of will, both require passion and understanding. Both require love. And both require that we understand that some people just need their chops busted AND some people need to be protected.
The Clash of Civizations has not occurred yet, but it is coming. It.is.coming.
Don't let that sonofab*tch Osama win.
This content was used with the permission of Blackfive.
Last week, my traffic took a hit and this week it has been even more pronounced. I'm going to estimate that I've dropped from 9,500 daily uniques from two weeks ago to around 8500 or so now. I couldn't think of any controversial posts that I made that could explain that sort of dip, so I've been taking a look through open statistics counters on other blogs. In so doing, I found that this drop seems to be blogosphere wide on the left and the right.
I was warned. You wer warned. Everyone in New Orleans, Louisiana, the entire Gulf Coast and, for that matter, every tuna-boat mate in Nome, Alaska was warned.
For five days running that's what all the talk on TV was about.
The breaching of the levees was always a possibility. They were only supposed to protect against a cat 3 storm, and a cat 5 storm is what was expected to hit New Orleans. (Actually, it turned out to be cat 3 when it hit, and the badly engineered levees still didn't hold back the water. The water just went beneath them. They hadn't been sunk deeply enough.)
Did Bush know the levees might be breached? Of course he friggin' knew.
This is news?
The article doesn't really inquire too deeply about why Katheleen Blanco refused federal help, or why she didn't order a mandatory evacuation. Or why Mayor Nagin didn't have his police round up stragglers and put them on to all those buses waiting in New Orleans parking lots.
FEMA is an emergency management organization, which generally comes in after a disaster. Pre-disaster work is still supposed to be done by local authorities.
Who didn't.
But of course it's Bush's fault. After all-- he was warned the levees might be breached!
As was every viewer of CNN and FoxNews, and every reader of Drudge.
And, for that matter, every reader of this stupid moronblog. That post takes you to a Katrina round-up at Michelle Malkin's, right before the storm hits, noting that, as we now all know, the city is 12 feet below sea level and may be completely flooded by a powerful storm.
Did Ron Fourier take an extra dose of stupid pills today?
How about helping me out by taking just a few moments to fill out a demographics survey? If you're willing, just click here and make sure to mention Right Wing News as the blog that referred you, near the end on question 23.
Thanks to RWN's readers for helping put together a list of the 25 worst moments in American history.
1804: Aaron Burr kills one of the greatest figures in American history, Alexander Hamilton, in a duel.
1814: British forces burn down the White House during the War of 1812.
1838: The Trail of Tears. 4000 Cherokees die during a forced relocation to the West.
1857: The Dred Scott Decision. The Supreme Court essentially rules that black people are nothing more than property like a chair or couch.
1861: The bombardment of Fort Sumter was the beginning engagement of the Civil War.
1862: The battle of Antietam was the single bloodiest day in American history with 25,000 soldiers killed, wounded, or missing.
1865: Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. One of our greatest Presidents, if not our greatest President, was murdered soon after the beginning of his second term.
1900: A hurricane strikes Galveston, Texas killing 6000 in the worst disaster in American history.
1917: The Zimmerman Telegraph. Germany's Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann sends a telegram to Mexico encouraging them to attack the United States. The British intercepted the telegram and sent it to the United States where it led to America's entry into WW1.
1918: The influenza pandemic begins at Fort Riley, Kansas. By the time it was over, 25% of the US population would become sick and by some estimates, well over half a million Americans died as result.
1929: A massive drop in value of the stock market helped trigger the Great Depression which lasted until the increased economic activity spurred by WW2 got us going back in the right direction.
1941: Pearl Harbor. "A date which will live in infamy" indeed.
1942: The US government came to the conclusion that interning Japanese-American citizens was the best of a number of bad options. Roughly a hundred thousand Japanese-Americans ended up in camps.
1949: The Soviet Union tests an atomic bomb. For the next 50 years, Americans fear the Cold War will end in a nuclear holocaust.
1950: As American and Rok forces appear poised to finish off the Norks and reunite Korea, a Chinese offensive caught them completely by surprise and drove them back, nearly into the sea before they regrouped, pushed back, and managed to fight them to a stalemate.
1961: The Bay of Pigs invasion. Kennedy's decision to go forward with the invasion and then deny them air support doomed the entire enterprise to failure. Today, 44 years later, Fidel Castro, a diehard enemy of the United States, is still in power.
1963: In an event that scarred the American psyche and produced countless conspiracy theories, John F. Kennedy is assassinated.
1968: The Tet Offensive was a crushing defeat for North Vietnamese forces but was incorrectly portrayed as a huge victory for them by the American media. This was a key event in destroying the American public's support for the war.
1968: America's greatest civil rights leader, Martin Luther King, is assassinated.
1973: The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision leads to the legalization of abortion nation wide and the deaths of countless millions of innocent children.
1974: Richard Nixon resigns after being disgraced by Watergate, a scandal which shook American faith in the government.
1975: After the Democrats in Congress cut off aid and promised air support, South Vietnam was doomed. When Saigon actually fell, that symbolized what a disaster the Vietnam War turned out to be.
1977: Jimmy Carter hands over control of the Panama Canal to Panama mainly because they asked for it.
1995: Oklahoma City Bombing. 168 people die as the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building is destroyed by domestic terrorists.
2001: 9/11. Terrorist madmen attack the Twin Towers and Pentagon, kill nearly 3000 Americans, and set off a war on terrorism.
You can see "The 25 Greatest Moments In American History" here.
From: Angela Filarecki (angelagc11@*******)
Subject: question on war spending
I understand that you do not have time to answer my question, although it would mean a lot to me to hear a conservative's perspective.
My question and concern lies with the federal budget. How can one justify the amount of money being spent on defense and the war in Iraq while so many people suffer here in the United States? I am a social worker and every day I am reminded of social injustices, poverty, and inadequate resources in the classroom and beyond. Is there any way that some money being spent on war could be used here at home for education, child care, anything? I am not trying to criticize here, I would like to get the insight from a person who supports the war. (As it turns out, no one in my social circle, including me, has anything positive to say about the war in Iraq.) In addition, I want you to know that I understand that if we don't have adequate protection at home, there will be no home. So what's a social worker to do? I am currently being driven away from my profession because I am afraid of funding being taken away and the stress of seeing so many families in need of the help that the government does not give is heartbreaking to me.
Oh and by the way, can't we all just get along?? :) It's too bad that both Democrats and Republicans are too absorbed in their own agendas and politics that they don't bother to do the intelligent thing and listen to the other person's perspective and do what's right for the country. But I guess that's the (small) price we pay to live in a country where we can voice our opinion without fear of persecution.
Thank you for your time.
Angela
First of all, thank you for your email and your tone, which is quite different from the shrill and accusatory style that's all the rage these days when liberals and conservatives converse. Now, on to the substance of your email.
It's important for you to understand that we have fundamentally different ideas about the role of government. Excuse me if I'm being presumptuous, but yours seems to be that when we encounter problems in our society, it automatically becomes the role of the government to solve them. We conservatives disagree. We believe that the role of the government is to protect us from foreign threats, enforce the rule of law, and keep taxes and regulations to a minimum so that people can solve their own problems. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that many of the problems we have as a society are directly caused by the government's bungled attempts to, "help."
Since that's the case, I'm a big believer that the government is far too big and spends far too much. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that except when it comes to border security and illegal immigration enforcement, there's no program the Federal government is involved with that should have its funding increased. To the contrary, a significant across-the-board cut of funding for almost every program would be perfectly acceptable to me.
Of course, I realize that probably horrifies you, Angela. But, you have to understand that the conservative view is that all government programs are rife with endemic waste, red tape, corruption, and incompetence that is impossible to fix. Put another way, you may be able to starve, shrink, or perhaps even slightly improve the behavior of the beast, but you will never change its nature. That's why it's usually a good idea to choose small government over big government and private industry, the market, and individual choice over government involvement at all.
Which brings us to the money spent on the war. By now, you've probably realized that even if we had the money we've spent in Iraq in an account somewhere, I'd favor giving it back to the people who earned it via tax refunds or using it to cut into the deficit rather than channeling it into government programs.
But, that still begs a question: would it be better to have spent the money on Iraq or on that tax refund and deficit reduction? I'd still favor spending the money on Iraq because I believe what we're doing there is absolutely essential to securing our country from terrorist attacks.
By removing Saddam and replacing him with a Democracy, we've gotten rid of a hostile, anti-American dictator, who supported terrorists, and intended to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, our attack on Iraq convinced Ghadaffi to get rid of his WMDs, helped drive the Syrians out of Lebanon and led to Democratic elections there. It has bled Al-Qaeda white as they've futilely tried to stop us in Iraq instead of attacking us here and it will inspire democracy across the Middle-East. If we succeed in Iraq, and I absolutely believe we will, I think it will be the most significant event in the Middle-East since Saladin retook Jerusalem in 1187. That's worth spending our blood and treasure on.
Last but not least, it would be nice if we could, "all just get along," but I'm not sure it's in the cards. Although we could certainly do with a bit more civility in our politics, as long as liberals and conservatives not only disagree, but believe the "solutions" the other side is coming up with actually make things much worse, we are likely doomed to continue our long twilight struggle over the direction of this country.
"Here's GOP strategist and Muslim voter outreach architect Grover Norquist in the Los Angeles Times dismissing critics of the deal: "The only whiners left by next week will be the registered bigots."
Conservative commentator Larry Kudlow: "This whole brouhaha surrounding the Bush administration's green-light to a United Arab Emirates company slated to manage six major U.S. ports has nothing to do with protecting homeland security. Allow me to give it its proper name: Islamophobia."
New York Times columnist David Brooks: "This Dubai port deal has unleashed a kind of collective mania we haven't seen in decades. First seized by the radio hatemonger Michael Savage, it's been embraced by reactionaries of left and right, exploited by Empire State panderers, and enabled by a bipartisan horde of politicians who don't have the guts to stand in front of a xenophobic tsunami."
Kudlow, Brooks, and Norquist and the rest of the people screaming "Islamophobia," are making complete fools out of themselves, especially when you consider how this issue has broken out so far. As far as I can tell, once you set aside all the political maneuvering on this issue, people have broken out into two basic groups.
1) Those who oppose allowing Dubai Ports World to take over stevedoring duties because they think it may compromise security. (This is the big group)
2) Those who favor allowing Dubai Ports World to take over stevedoring duties because they don't believe it will have an impact on security. (This is a much smaller group)
As far as I can tell, no one, even the people claiming "Islamophobia" is at work, are taking the position that even if Dubai Ports World were taking over security on the ports, there would be no more risk than if say a British or American company were doing so.
Personally, I support the deal on its merits, but oppose it for purely political reasons. But, if I thought allowing a Dubai Ports World takeover would give them an opportunity to bypass our security, I'd oppose the deal on its merits too.
If you can't figure out why, if you want to pretend that it's no more dangerous to have a Muslim from the UAE in a position where they could compromise our security than let's say a Brit or someone from Taiwan, then you lack common sense at best or would be willing to watch Americans die for the sake of political correctness at worst.
Either way, it's to be expected that we'll hear these ridiculous "Islamophobia" allegations from CAIR and whiny lefties who are always complaining about some "ism" or another, but we should expect better from Norquist, Kudlow, and Brooks,
Mike Pence's Republican Study Committee, one of the groups in Congress that really looks out for conservative interests, has announced their “Top Ten” legislative priorities for 2006. They are as follows:
1. Make the Tax Cuts Permanent, including the repeal of the marriage-tax penalty and the death tax and pass fundamental tax reform.
2. Pass Budget Process Reform, which includes budgeting for emergencies with a rainy day fund, instituting a sunset commission for federal programs, instituting a constitutional line-item veto, and making the budget resolution carry the force of law.
3. Pass another Deficit Reduction Bill in the form of budget reconciliation, to reign in autopilot spending, which has risen from 25% of all federal spending in 1963 to 54% today, and is expected to reach nearly 60% in 2014.
4. Pass Ethics Reform that requires transparency and earmark reform that permits Members of Congress to strike earmarks on the House floor.
5. Pass the Marriage Protection Amendment, to ensure that marriage, the union of a woman and a man as husband and wife, is not redefined by activist judges.
6. Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to put our fiscal house in order.
7. Offset all emergency supplemental spending with spending reductions and offset all new programs with simultaneous, equivalent reductions in, or eliminations of, existing programs.
8. Defend the Sanctity of Human Life, which includes banning all human cloning, passing the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, promoting ethical adult stem cell research, and preventing federal funding for destructive embryonic stem cell research.
9. Pass Protections for Religious Freedom, such as the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, and religious expression in the public square.
10. Pass legislation that stops the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund and allows Americans to own a Personal Social Security Account.
Some of these items are unlikely to make it through and I'd like to see something dealing with illegal immigration on there, but otherwise this is an excellent agenda that's well worth pursuing.
It's also nice to see conservatives putting their agenda up front, unlike the Democrats who simply seize whatever they think the issue du jour is while doing their best to hide many of the legislative priorities nearest and dearest to their hearts from the public.
Excerpt Of The Day: Jiahad TV Gets A Dose Of Reality
Believe it or not, what you're about to read was actually broadcast on Al-Jazeera (thanks to Memri for the translation). On the other hand, this was said by an atheist Wafa Sultan, so it's not an example of a "moderate" Muslim attempting to "speak the truth to power." Still, it's good to see that there are people with the guts to stand up on Al-Jazeera when so many of our own MSM outlets don't even have the courage to show a bunch of cartoons that might offend Muslims.
From Wafa Sultan...
"The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.
...The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger." When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to start this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.
My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the "People of the Book," and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you that they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?
...The Jews have came from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling.... 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant...
...The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them."
Top Ten Things You Don't Want To Hear From Your Flight Crew By Ace
10. "Your choice of dinner is beef stroganoff or vegetarian burrito. I'd recommend that burrito; you don't want any of that 'bad energy' of animal murder when we die in a flaming holocaust of twist metal. Which we'll be doing in (checks watch) about five minutes now. Fresca?"
9. "Joining us in the cockpit is our special celebrity pilot, Mr. Billy Joel. He doesn't have his license yet, but he'll be ably assisted by celebrity copilots Nick Nolte and Naomi Campbell."
8. "This is the captain speaking... we're experiencing a slight bit of turbulence and complete structural failure. There's no reason to panic, but if you've never joined the mile club, now might a good time to make for the bathrooms."
7. "When will be landing? Errmm... define 'landing.' "
6. "Now might be a good time to review your in-flight instructions regarding the use of flotation devices. If your flotation device fails to inflate, remember that dead bodies float as well. Fortunately, the water should be lousy with them."
5. "On your right is Salt Lake City, and on the left is that little gremlin from The Twillight Zone, eatin' at our engine like Rosie O'Donnell at a Sizzler buffet."
4. "Hi, this is your captain speaking. Great news. We'll be making slight detour to everyone's favorite vacation getaway, Heaven."
3. "Take all the godd*mned peanuts you like. Your godd*mned peanuts and Doritos mix ain't gonna save you, that's for sure."
2. "Little fun-fact about the Boeing 747: None have ever hit a mountain straight-on. So we're all about to make a little history here."
...and the Number One Thing You Don't Want To Hear From Your Flight Crew...
1. "Special treat for you all. We'll be running a special Kevin Costner marathon for your viewing pleasure-- Waterworld, For Love Of The Game, and the special four hour director's cut of The Postman.
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. Now, 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 February...
8) Snow Patrol: Run
8) Motorhead: It's All About The Game
8) Insane Clown Posse: Hokus Pokus
8) Godsmack: I Stand Alone
5) Papa Roach: Last Resort
5) P.O.D.: Boom
5) AC/DC: Back in Black
3) Toby Keith And Willie Nelson: Beer For My Horses
3) Cypress Hill: Cock The Hammer
2) Fall Out Boy: Sugar We're Going Down
1) John Cena: Bad, Bad Man
PS: How about suggesting some techno for me to check out?
Are you ready for a dose of the Palestinian culture of death at its absolute worst? Then just take a look at this:
"In spite of PA pledges not to incite, an interview broadcast last week featured the mother of Wafa Al-Bas, the 21-year-old Arab woman from Gaza who was arrested at the Erez Crossing in June 2005 wearing a 20-pound (9 kg) bomb under her clothes.
The PA TV interview with Al-Bas' parents, which aired on February 20th, features her mother saying the event was hard for her - not because her daughter was on a suicide mission, but because she was arrested on her way to carry it out.
Al-Bas intended to bomb Be'er Sheva's Soroka Hospital outpatient clinic, where she had been receiving regular treatments for serious burns on 45 percent of her body resulting from a gas stove explosion in her home.
The failed bomber later told Israeli television that her greatest wish was to kill 30 to 50 Israelis, including children. The hospital attack would likely have killed or maimed the very Israeli doctor who had saved her life."
This is warped, demented and depraved at every level.
You have a mother wishing her own daughter would have died murdering innocent people. You have a daughter who intended to murder innocent people, including a doctor who saved her life. You have the Palestinian government holding these people up as an example that other Palestinians should follow.
For the Israelis to live next to millions of people with this mentality must be like normal people having to live next door to the family from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre -- except that when Leatherface is taking a chainsaw to your dog in the backyard, people wouldn't try to tell you that it's your fault and that you should be nicer to him.
In a President's first term, he's compared to the President who came before him. So, the goal is not to appear to go backwards in any vitally important areas while improving on the former President's weak spots.
However, the second term of a presidency is about the weak spots of the President currently in office. So, the key to success for a President is to be flexible enough and well rounded enough to effectively address what the public considers to be his weaknesses.
Today, we're going to look at two of the techniques that are often used by the mainstream media to slant polls against Republicans, both of which are on display in the latest CBS poll.
Let's start with the sexy headline and the first paragraph of the CBS piece on the poll:
Poll: Bush Ratings At All-Time Low
The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.
Wow, sounds terrible doesn't it? But, let's take a look at a couple of key factors.
The first thing you have to understand is that there are 3 different groups of voters the media may poll: adults, registered voters, and likely voters. Out of these 3 categories, "likely voters" is the group that almost always turns out to be closest to the actual election results while "adults" is the group that slants most heavily towards Democrats. Although it's difficult to pinpoint exactly how much polling "adults" instead of "likely voters" slants the poll results to the left (when compared to election results), it's probably somewhere between 5-10 points. So, let's split the difference and say 7.5 points.
So, it seems likely that Bush's approval would probably be somewhere around 41.5% if this had been a poll of likely voters. Still, pretty bad.
But, there's another factor we haven't adjusted for: the percentage of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who participated in the poll. In the 2004 election, the breakdown by party was as follows:
Democrats: 37%
Republicans: 37%
Independents: 26%
While those numbers can change and do change over time and there's no set rule that says for a poll to be fair those percentages should match up exactly with the breakdown from the last election, the numbers should be pretty close.
So, let's look at the weighted party breakdown from the CBS poll: 1018
So, they undersampled the number of Republicans by more than 8.5% and over sampled Independents by more than 8%. Let's adjust for that (in a very general way). Add in 8 more Republicans and we'll say Bush's favorability goes up 8 points. Take out 8 Independents and we'll figure Bush loses 4 points of support (Independents were roughly split between Bush and Kerry in 2004) and now Bush's approval rating, after having 4 points added onto it, is at 45.5. Of course, it's not quite as simple as I've made it look here, nor is this as accurate as simply polling likely voters with a correct breakdown of party affiliation, but it's close enough for our purposes.
Then, we consider the polls margin of error, 3 points, and Bush's real approval rating among voters who'll actually be going to the polls in November is probably somewhere roughly between 42.5 - 48.5. That's not great, but it doesn't have exactly the same sort of zing that 34% has either, does it?
Of course, you could make the argument that the CBS poll is just a poll of adults and it's not meant to give people an accurate picture of how people will vote. But, if it's just a garbage poll that doesn't have any bearing on election results, why bother doing it in the first place? For political purposes, any poll that doesn't use likely voters and doesn't have a breakdown of party affiliation that's at least roughly similar to the numbers from the last election isn't very important or useful.
*** Update #1 ***: By the way, just to be clear about something: I do believe Bush's poll numbers are down from last month and that this port deal is really hurting him. That's why I've said that I think the port deal is fine on its merits, but that Bush should kill it for political reasons. But, this post was about showing how pollsters can distort the political landscape to the left's advantage, not about whether Bush's numbers are trending upwards or downwards.
"(Mark), I am a devoted fan of yours, but I do have a fundamental question regarding your repeated articles on demography. Is demography or democracy the stronger force? Which will triumph in the end? C’mon Mark, please address this in a future article. I am dying to know your opinion.
In your earlier essays, you praised the war in Iraq and commented favourably upon Muslims in India and other outposts of democracy. You strongly endorsed the Bush Doctrine, which is devoted to enhancing our security by liberating the Muslim masses, starting with Afghanistan and Iraq. President Bush has stated several times that freedom (political, economic, and personal) is the ultimate defence against Islamic radicalism. By planting the seed of democracy in the cradle of civilization, the Muslim world can be transformed, thus enhancing our security at the same time. President Bush therefore identifies Muslims as malleable, yearning to breathe free like all people around the world. Your support of President Bush presumably includes his optimistic view that the elixir of freedom can change Islam for the betterment of all. Meanwhile, in your more recent demography essays you present a pessimistic view of Islam, based on comparative fertility rates and unassimilated immigrant populations in the West. Muslims are now shown as incontrovertible and unchangeable - you imply that Muslims are culturally resistant to the lure of freedom. They are more likely to form a parallel society in our midst, while undercutting our values and eroding our civilization. Certainly, the recent Euro-cartoon fiasco does nothing to inspire confidence.
It comes down to this - if demography is everything, then why bother liberating Iraq? Why allow Muslim immigration to the West? Why allow Mosques to be built or their religion to be propagated? On the other hand, if the Islamic world embraces freedom and change, then presumably we have nothing to fear from their culture or their relative numbers within our society. What is it, Mark? Is demography really everything? Or, will democracy transform the Muslim masses?"
Mark gave his own answer, which was essentially a referral to this column, and here's the one I'd give:
A democratic Iraq or for that matter, a democratic Saudi Arabia is infinitely preferable to a dictatorship. Over the long haul, the freedom that democracy brings will be a positive force that will stifle terrorism and be a moderating influence.
However, democracy is not a magic elixir that cures all ills -- nor will turning an Islamic state into a democracy simultaneously turn it into Sweden. That's because some cultural habits die hard. This is why European nations that have rapidly increasing Muslim populations may run into issues while Muslim nations that democratize may benefit substantially.
For the Muslim nations, democracy may not fix every problem, but it will likely mean more freedom in a myriad of different ways. For a European nation that is already light years ahead of most Islamic nations in terms of freedom, having large populations full of Muslims who've had their views of the world shaped by living in backwards, repressive nations can mean big problems. That's especially true in the West because multi-culturalism and political correctness tend to make many Westerners very reluctant to defend their own culture or denigrate those of other nations -- even when they deserve it.
In other words, democracy can make Muslim nations more free while at the same time, adding large numbers of Muslims to already free nations can make them less free. That's why believing that bringing Democracy to the Middle-East can be a very good thing is consistent with believing that Europe's exploding Muslim population in Europe may be a big negative.
*** Update #1 ***: This is a sharp post by Raposa in the comments section. Maybe he should get himself one of those fancy new "blog" things we've heard so much about lately =D....
Gee, here we have Iran threatening one of our allies and also ourselves with an incipient nuke.
I've said it before, and I'll probably have to say it again and again. Could you imagine trying to deal with Iran at all while working around Saddam? Bad as it is with terrorists blowing up bombs, could you imagine the loss of credibility if Saddam was still thumbing his nose at us while we tried to get Iran to cooperate? And Iran has even more oil to dangle in front of people as blackmail or bribes.
I mean, the Iran president is already a screaming looney. Could you imagine what he'd have done already if he was convinced we wouldn't do anything to him in return?
Say we had to invade Iran to stop them from turning Israel into a glass sheet. We'd have troops stuck in Iraq and Saudia Arabia doing nothing but getting shot at as they flew around enforcing the 'ceasefire'. We'd have to figure out a way to approach Iran that avoided a large section of nearby strategic territory. And, crippled and mangled as it was, Saddam still had some weapons and soldiers left and could have decided that then would be the perfect time to make a nuisance of himself.
If we hadn't addressed the problem of Saddam, we'd've had no credibility at all. We'd also be in a bad position to address any other threats in the area.
We never bothered before because it didn't seem important. The Middle East seemed to just be at its normal simmer, and it was far away and didn't matter much. Some people heard the wake up call. Others, I guess, hit the snooze button and went back to sleep."
The country's publicly financed health insurance system — frequently described as the third rail of its political system and a core value of its national identity — is gradually breaking down. Private clinics are opening around the country by an estimated one a week, and private insurance companies are about to find a gold mine.....
But a Supreme Court ruling last June — it found that a Quebec provincial ban on private health insurance was unconstitutional when patients were suffering and even dying on waiting lists — appears to have become a turning point for the entire country.
"The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services," the court ruled.
In response, the Quebec premier, Jean Charest, proposed this month to allow private hospitals to subcontract hip, knee and cataract surgery to private clinics when patients are unable to be treated quickly enough under the public system. The premiers of British Columbia and Alberta have suggested they will go much further to encourage private health services and insurance in legislation they plan to propose in the next few months.
Private doctors across the country are not waiting for changes in the law, figuring provincial governments will not try to stop them only to face more test cases in the Supreme Court.
Looks pretty bad. My guess that this is a Pandora's Box for the Canadian government and now that it is opened it will be very, very hard to close. How do you tell somebody who has cancer that they can't fork over the money for a diagnostic test, but instead have to wait and possibly die? Each such case is a politician's nightmare (think Terri Schiavo).
The problem is that a badly designed health care system will have rotten incentives. Think of it this way, suppose a law was passed making the price of lobster 1/100th its current price. The obvious result is that there would be far fewer lobsters on the shelves. People would purchase the existing inventory, and at these low prices lobster fishermen would switch to other more profitable catches. We saw this kind of thing with the price controls during the past oil crises. And we see the same thing in Canada with one huge difference: unlike lobster there aren't many substitutes for health care services.
As with the lobster example, there is a shortage of both nurses and doctors in Canada. This should be obvious. Where is one place that the government can control costs? Doctor and nurse salaries. Fix those at a fairly low level and the rate of increase and you can help control costs. Since doctors and nurses are almost all highly intelligent and motivated people they will see that they can get more for their work in other occupations or in other countries. So you end up with a shortage of doctors and nurses. The exact same logic applies to hospitals, MRIs, and other things as well. The population is largely unable to go someplace else to get an MRI scan so if you have only three MRIs throughout the entire nation, there isn't much the people can do about it.
To make the who system work Canada has to make all other alternatives illegal (note by the way we saw the same thing with the Clinton Health care proposal). If this were not the case, then it would exacerbate the problem with doctors and nurses. Seeing that there is more money in private practice doctors and nurses would leave the government system for the private companies. This would make the waits and service via the government system even worse. Given the existence of private health care companies there would soon be private health insurance companies as well. Pretty soon the only people left on the government program would be those who can't get insurance or are extremely poor. By this time you'd have a health care system that looks quite a bit like the U.S. system.
On top of it, I'd argue that there are in effect uninsured people in Canada and lots of them. What is the benefit if you have government insurance if you still have to wait 10 months to get an MRI, and 18 months to get the procedure done? For 18 months you don't have health care that you need. In effect you have no insurance as you sit there in pain and missing out on large portion of your life.
I'd say things are about to change in Canada. Whether the change is for the better or not will depend largely depend on the politicians. This latter point makes me think it wont be for the better, but who knows maybe the Canadian courts will keep the politicians from mucking things up too much.
The War in Iraq Is Truly Lost... If We Leave -- Satire By Frank J.
Many people are saying we should leave Iraq. This is not a good strategy for victory if you let me explain. You see, when you're competing at something and suddenly leave, you lose.
Like most people, I've been watching Olympic curling. Sometimes, one team would be so far behind that, instead of playing to the end, they'd just shake hands and leave. And know what happened then? That team would lose! Yes, they could have stayed longer and tried against odds to win, but, since they left, the judges just went ahead and marked them a loser. "Even if you're winning, leaving causes you to lose!"
Maybe you're thinking now that perhaps leaving is a good idea if you know you will lose because leaving and losing now will save time. Well, that's loser talk. Also, listen to this: when I was a kid, I played soccer (I was young; I didn't know any better). Once, we were trouncing a team so badly that it got boring and we just left. We had a ton more goals, but, because we left, we were marked as losing! So, even if you're winning, leaving causes you to lose!
Remember the only war America lost? My dad does; he's a Vietnam vet and, every time I see him, I say, "Hey, remember that war you were in? You lost it, loser." Then he hangs his head and walks away and I yell, "Yeah, you better walk away, loser." As my dad sometimes tells me, it wasn't his fault we lost the Vietnam War; it was the fault of those who decided to leave. This is great wisdom even though it comes from someone who was in a loser war. If you trace the Vietnam War to the exact moment we lost, it's when we left. Once we weren't there any longer, there was no chance to win. This is important to understand.
So, having learned from Vietnam, I don't know why anyone would suggest we leave Iraq. That's a sure way to lose. Some say we need to leave because it's dangerous there, but, when I've talked to troops about leaving, they're like, "But then we'll lose! People died for this; we're not going to lose. You stop talking about leaving and losing!" Then I get punched, and that punch hurts because it's from someone trained how to punch by the military.
Thus, we can't leave Iraq or we'll lose. Then our troops will be losers and I'll have to shout at them, "Hey! Losers!" And they'll be too sullen to punch me. Our military men and women deserve better.
Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is a frequent contributor to IMAOPodcast.com. He is also the author of such books as "War and Peace: How to Choose" and "Hiroshima and Nagasaki: A Case Study on Why Not to Bomb Hawaii".
