Q&A Friday #41: Why Did New York Have Its Anti-Terrorism Funds Cut?
Question: "Why the hell would the feds slash anti-terrorist funding for huge cities like New York and give more to boonie towns that wouldn't be hit in a million years?" -- kmb
#1) Despite the implication that New York is being short changed, they're getting $124.5 million dollars out of the $711 million dollar allotted for the whole country. That's 17.5% of all the money. So, are they one of the two biggest targets (along with DC)? Sure, but they are getting a lot of the money, too.
#2) They're not giving New York money just for the heck of it. They're giving them money to improve security long-term and in the opinion of Homeland Security, New York isn't planning to do that:
"The report, obtained yesterday, pointed out opposing views held by cities and the federal government over how antiterrorism money should be spent and, as an extension of those views, how terrorism should be fought.
City officials have used federal money to subsidize continuing costs, like paying overtime to officers. The federal government, on the other hand, wants the grants to pay for semipermanent safeguards that can increase security over the long term, like improvements in communications systems, better gas masks and increased training.
The report faulted the city for not adequately explaining why the money being requested could reduce risks.
Though the report said the city was in the top 25 percent of urban areas at risk, it rated the city in the bottom 25 percent in the quality of its application. It rated the Police Department's counterterrorism program and Operation Atlas as below average in sustainability, a criticism of the continuing overtime costs.
Eight of the city's programs including the counterterrorism division and Operation Atlas, as well as some health and training programs — fell in the bottom 15 percent, meaning any federal money used toward them will need to be specifically approved."
This money being given to New York is for long term security measures, not to subsidize the city of New York's budget for the police department.
#3) You have to look at all the money New York has received overall, not just the amount they received this year:
"Mr. Chertoff said yesterday: "There was no suggestion about anything we did that New York is not the No. 1 terror target. But I do think it's fair to ask this question: After a city gets $500 million, more than twice as much as the next-largest city, is it correct to assume they should continue to get the same amount of money year after year after year after year with everybody else dividing up what remains?"
New York has gotten twice as much as anyone else overall. Should smaller cities get no money for training or security just so New York can use the money to pay overtime to cops? New York is an important city, but it's not the ONLY city in the US.
Moreover, contrary to reports that you may have heard, they did consider New York's landmarks and where the money went was determined by security professionals, not politicians.
So, did New York get shafted? It certainly doesn't look like it.
How about helping me out by taking a looking at all 11 of these ads? 11 is too many? Well Ok, how about just clicking on 3 ads then? It would really help me out...
RWN now has two banner ad slots available. 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.
Q&A Friday #41: Should We Go Into Talks With Iran?
Question:"Do you think Dr. Rice will be able to make any progress with Iran and the nuclear situation or will she merely be giving them more prestige by chatting with them? Is there any chance at all of Europe taking this matter seriously?" -- Anna_Venger
Answer: When you're talking about a rogue nation like Iran, that's run by America-hating Islamo-Fascists, dialogue, in and of itself, is pointless. You may be able to solve problems with nations like Canada, Germany, or New Zealand, but not with a country like Iran on an issue like nuclear weapons.
In this case, the psychopaths who run that country only care about one thing: Will the US or Israel put a gun up to our head -- and if so, are they willing to pull the trigger?
So, short of a revolution, I don't expect Iran to give up their quest for nuclear weapons unless they're absolutely convinced that we're going to do cataclysmic damage to them or unless they believe we'll put an end to their regime if they refuse to do so.
So, does that mean there is no point to talking with Iran? Not necessarily. If, for some reason, they were to agree to verifiably cease nuclear enrichment, it might buy us more time to improve our intelligence in Iran. Also, the fact that we're willing to go into talks with them could be used to get more allies on board for severe sanctions or it could help gin up support for a bombing run. Either of these things would be a plus. But, will we "talk it out" with Iran? It seems highly unlikely.
In my opinion, either there will be a revolution, the Iranians will be bombed by us or the Israelis, or they'll end up with nukes. Out of those three options, a revolution would, of course, be the number one choice. But, if that's not in the cards, it would be much wiser to bomb them than to let them get nukes.
Question: "What's the deal with this whole Net Neutrality bill? I got an email from the CEO of eBay wanting me to contact my reps. Can you explain it in simple terms and why I should be concerned? Thanks!" -- possum11
Answer: I've written about this before and although it's very important, there's a lot of misinformation floating around, it's not a simple subject to explain, and it's not a black and white issue.
But, let me try to cut through all the propaganda and really break it down for you.
Currently, these big ISP's that control the backbone of the internet are not allowed to prioritize traffic. In other words, traffic from Google, Ebay, Vonage, MoveOn, etc., etc., is all treated exactly the same way. However, because of a change in the law driven by a Supreme Court decision, "net neutrality" is going to go the way of the dodo unless Congress steps in.
The proponents of net-neutrality, who want Congress to legislate, are pointing out all of the theoretical horror stories that could take place if net neutrality goes away. You could have big companies taking steps to harm their competitors like VOIP phone services (Vonage, for example) and small ISP's. You could see them trying to block access or charge exorbitant fees to companies like Google or Ebay. Essentially, they believe these companies could turn the internet into toll roads if they wanted to do so.
In order to get a better idea of the industry perspective, earlier today, I talked to David Fish and Mike McKeehan from Verizon. Incidentally, this is completely off topic, but whatever they're paying these guys to deal with the media isn't enough. They were both extremely sharp, on message, and did a great job of explaining their point of view.
To begin with, they said the idea that the big companies would block, slow-up, or harm in any way, websites like Google, Ebay, or Move-On was nuts. They said that as is, if there's a problem with any sort of popular website, they get inundated with complaints. So, in order to keep their customers happy, they have to make sure they can get to these websites. On this point, I found them to be extremely convincing.
On the other hand, I wasn't as convinced by their explanation of why they'd never try to take out a small ISP or VOIP competitor. They said that the moment they tried to do something like that, the FCC and the public would jump down their throats -- which is probably true. On the other hand, if they can find a way to hurt their competitors, it has the potential to inflate their bottom line. So, I find it hard to believe that companies like AT&T, Verizon, etc., wouldn't lower the boom on their direct competitors if they can find a way to get away with it.
Then there's the issue of why they oppose net neutrality. Again, they made a strong case here. Fish pointed out that they want to build these massive new networks that are capable of handling not just the internet, but also telephony, video services (TV over the net), and wireless. He said that some of the net neutrality bills that Congress is looking at are written in such a way that they'd make the video services impossible to do and that without that component, suddenly these big new pipes don't work financially and they'll have to go in a different direction. That makes perfect sense.
So, as you can see, this is not a clearcut issue. There are a lot of pitfalls and perils on either side. Personally? I still lean towards network neutrality, but I'd like to see Congress use a very light hand. You know, set things up so that these companies could put their video services first, but also so that they couldn't engage in any anti-competitive practices.
Of course, once Congress gets rolling on something like this, especially when you're talking about the internet, which most of them barely understand, you never know what they'll end up doing. My sense is that there's a middle ground here that could probably satisfy most of the concerns both sides have on this issue, but whether Congress will end up there or not is anyone's guess.
Question: Do you believe that George Bush is a globalist and if so do you believe that he is putting the global community ahead of the US?" -- Marine_Momma
Answer No, I don't think George Bush is a globalist, although I can understand why some people might think so.
Bush is, despite the softwood lumber and steel tariffs he has supported, a strong advocate of free trade, but so are most conservatives. Moreover, although Bush has wasted a lot of time dealing with the UN in the war on terror, I think that's mainly to provide cover for European allies like Tony Blair.
Then there's immigration. Some people, most notably Jerome Corsi, have speculated that Bush wants to flood the country with immigrants to help create momentum for a North American Union, but that's just wacky. Personally, I think Bush originally took the stance he has in order to cater to business interests and Hispanic groups and he has refused to change his mind because of his famous mule-like stubbornness. Is that right? I guess we won't find out until some Bush insider writes a tell-all book in 2009, which I'll probably be the first in line to buy.
What you've also got to remember is that Bush is the same guy who sent John Bolton to the UN and completely blew off the Kyoto and International Criminal Court treaties. Moreover, although he does do his best to try to bring other allies into the fold, Bush does not strike me as the sort of guy who lies awake at night wondering what he can do to get France or Germany to like us more (That's more of a John Kerry sort of thing).
Bush definitely has some flaws, but I don't think one of them is that he's a globalist who wants to hand our sovereignty over to the UN one day.
Q&A Friday #41: What Should Bloggers Link In An Article
Question: "When we newbie small fries are blogging, how do we know what is ethical to use? If we cite the source of all facts and quotes and link to them is that good enough or are there other legalities and niceties to consider?
Btw, Blogger help says they don't support trackbacks." -- Anna_Venger
Answer: What should bloggers link in particular articles?
-- If you quote from another source or use a picture from another source, you should link back.
-- For the benefit of the reader, it's probably a good idea to have a link to any controversial assertion so that people can see how you're backing up that statement.
-- It's generally a good idea to link to any statistics, poll numbers, or obscure facts you use so people can see where you got them.
-- It's also a good idea, if possible, to give a hat tip to blogs that pointed you towards a particular story. That's a much appreciated courtesy.
Q&A Friday #41: Illegal Aliens And The Earned Income Tax Credit
Question: Another question about the bill. Everybody keeps talking about the back taxes the illegals will be paying, but I don’t hear much about the earned income credit. (welfare light) These illegals are going to get refunds for every year they file back taxes. Most EIC recipients get refunds between $3000-$4000 without paying a dime in during the year. Why hasn’t this been a huge issue? We will end up rewarding any illegals that file back taxes.
Disclaimer- I spent several years working as a tax adviser. I have seen hundreds of people that paid no taxes during the year walk away with a $3500 from the IRS because of the EIC." -- mr2trucker
Answer: Earlier this week, I wondered about this same issue. So, I called the folks over at the Center for Immigration Studies, because I knew they'd know the bill backwards and forwards.
They told me that illegal aliens will not be eligible for earned income tax credits for the years that they were in the country illegally, but the Senate Bill, as written, would qualify them for the EIC in the future.
The left-side of the blogosphere is all atwitter about an interminably long article, by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in Rolling Stone, that posits that the vote was rigged in Ohio in 2004. It's really nothing more than a silly conspiracy theory piece and therefore, unsurprisingly, it uses a technique commonly used by kooks: the old, "Throw as many pieces of mud against the wall as possible and see what sticks," concept.
This is same sort of thing that the moonbats who claimed the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane used to sell so many books to liberals and Frenchmen. The point isn't to make solid arguments, it's to sling countless out accusations, true or false, from reputable sources or not, and then say that unless all your wacky claims are disproved -- then only a conspiracy could explain it! Meanwhile, any contrary evidence, no matter how devastating it may be to your case, is simply ignored as if it didn't exist.
To Kennedy, things like making sure that voter addresses match up to where they actually live and purging the voter rolls of people who no longer live in a district are nefarious acts while poorly handled elections in districts that are run from top to bottom by Democrats are clearly part of a Republican plot. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, the important thing is just to run up the number of accusations.
Does that mean the vast right wing conspiracy has controlled the results of the last 5 elections? If so, then it seems rather puzzling that they handed the election to Bill Clinton in '92 and '96, does it not? Moreover, how do they control the elections in states and districts run by Democrats? Who knows? It's just one of those mysteries that the conspiracy theorists never seem to be able to explain -- like what happened to the plane full of people who went missing if the Pentagon wasn't actually hit by a plane.
Kennedy goes on to claim that more than 300,000 voters, primarily Democratic voters, were disenfranchised and blocked from voting. Why, if they'd have had a chance to vote, it would have been a Kerry landslide!
However, Al Gore only received 2,186,19 votes in Ohio in 2000, while John Kerry received 2,741,165 votes in 2004. That's a pretty pathetic job of voter suppression by the vast right wing conspiracy if you ask me. If they were really on the ball, the number of votes the Democratic candidate received would have dropped, not gone up significantly.
But, if Bush wasn't, "cheating," how can Republicans explain the fact that Kerry was way up in the polls before the election? Oh wait, Bush actually won 9 out of the last 10 polls done in Ohio right before the election. So, the fact that he came out on top on election day wasn't surprising at all, it was expected.
How about the fact that Kerry's pollster, Mark Mellman, for all intents and purposes, predicted in an article that came out on election day that Kerry would probably lose? It's funny how Kennedy just skips right over inconvenient facts that undercut the tall tale he's trying to tell.
Here's the reality: people like Kennedy are not looking at the facts and determining that the election was rigged -- they decided that the election must have been rigged the moment that Kerry lost and then they worked from there. So, if Kerry had to have Ohio to win, then Ohio must have been rigged even though Bush won by a staggering 118,775 votes. The fact that you have so many Democrats crying, "fraud," in a race that wasn't even that close, just goes to show you how flaky parts of the "democratic mainstream" have gotten in the last few years.
"Perhaps sooner or later the Democratic Party will realize that their problem with "values voters" is not that they have failed to clearly articulate their message on values issues. It is that they have succeeded in communicating their positions, loudly and clearly, despite their efforts to obfuscate near election time.
The problem isn't that conservative Christians -- generally speaking -- don't understand where the left is coming from; it's that they do. They have expressed open contempt for certain traditional values, even though many Democrats are Christians, too." -- David Limbaugh
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 has been more than 3 months since the last time I ranked my favorite 40 blogs, so I thought it was about time to do it again, for the second time in 2006.
Do keep in mind that as the quarter has progressed, some blogs have, of course, moved up and others have dropped, based on how often I visit them, how much I like what I see when I get there, how often the blogs are updated, etc., etc. As per usual, do keep in mind that this sort of list changes frequently over time based on a variety of factors. So if a blog didn't get included, it's no big deal -- it could be on the list next time.
Also, if there are any other bloggers out there who rank at least 20 favorite blogs or more in order today and then link back to the post & let me know about it, I'll add a link to your post right here later tonight.
Come on, folks, let's see how the blogosphere stacks up!
PS: I decided to leave pages that compile "the best of the blogosphere" -- like The Hotline's Blogometer & GOPINION -- out of the mix because I wasn't sure if they'd count as blogs or not. Also, since I now write a column for Human Events, they're not eligible to make the list.
Movie Review; An Inconvenient Truth -- Satire By Liberal Larry
Automobiles. Electricity. Indoor plumbing. Private ownership of property. Steady employment. Food. Americans have selfishly enjoyed such extravagances for decades, and the environment has suffered for it. Now, Mother Nature is beginning to strike back. Powerful hurricanes descend on the tranquil Gulf Coast region every year, so numerous that we have run out of names for them. ...We are facing what could very well be the end of civilization in our lifetime, and the blame belongs to America’s selfish insistence on remaining an industrialized nation.
That’s the “inconvenient truth” that Al Gore tries to awaken us to in his monumental new film. A triumph at Cannes even without any gay sex scenes, An Inconvenient Truth features a colorful ensemble of A-list climatologists and environmental experts, their weighty words and elaborate costumes lending credibility to what would otherwise be blown off as just another bearded lady in the circus sideshow of Al Gore’s mind. However, it is Al Gore himself who steals the show as the reluctant hero who would save humanity from its own greedy excesses, even as he fights his own personal demons. Fitted with a pair of recycled aluminum claws, Gore slashes his way through the veil of right-wing lies and exposes the world to the hard, inconvenient truth they’ve ignored for far too long. Where was this Al Gore during the 2000 presidential debates? Where was he during the entire election? No matter. The same Al Gore whose rugged outdoorsy machismo and pressed flannel shirts won the hearts of butch lesbians everywhere has returned…and with a vengeance.
The inconvenient truth of Gore’s film is also an undeniable one. If we are to save the planet for future generations, we must sacrifice a few of the guilty pleasures we’ve grown so accustomed to over the years - such as eating regularly and crapping indoors. Most importantly, we must end once and for all our unhealthy obsession with the internal combustion engine. It’s high time for we as a society to squeeze our obese behinds out of our gas-guzzling, smog-belching SUVs and learn to use other alternatives, such as those funny things on the ends of our legs. By “we”, Gore of course means “YOU”, for we simply can’t have the once and future President walking around to all his lucrative speaking engagements like a common peasant.
Enlightened nations like China and France have already become signatories to the Kyoto Protocol, but the United States has yet to answer to the UN for the unforgivable sin of prosperity. To prevent an environmental apocalypse, Al Gore inists that we must. But it won’t happen as long as there is a Republican in the White House, waging endless wars and handing out tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Unless we surrender ourselves completely to our benevolent progressive leaders and reject the right-wing's use of fear as a means to control us, civilization as we know it will cease to exist.
This satire was used with the permission of BlameBush!.
Up the road a ways, here in my beloved home state of North Carolina, a state-appointed commission is urging North Carolina to pay reparations for riots that happened more than a hundred years ago. Of course, that's a completely idiotic idea, but let's take a look at what the hand-out commission came up with anyway:
A state-appointed commission is urging North Carolina to provide reparations for the 1898 racial violence that sparked an exodus of more than 2,000 black residents from Wilmington.
The 500-page report that was produced after six years of study also said the violence, which killed as many as 60 people, was not a spontaneous riot but rather the nation's only recorded coup d'etat.
"There is no amount of money that can repair what happened years ago and compensate for the loss of lives and the loss of property," said vice chairman Irving Joyner, a professor at N.C. Central School of Law.
The commission did not provide any cost estimates, although compensation advocate Larry Thomas of Chapel Hill estimated that the economic losses calculated today are "probably in the billions of dollars."
Along with compensation to victims' descendants, the commission also recommended incentives for minority small businesses and help for minority home ownership. It also recommended that the history of the incident be taught in public schools.
The 1898 violence began when white vigilantes, resentful after years of black and Republican political rule during Reconstruction, burned the printing press of a black newspaper publisher, Alexander Manly.
Violence spread, resulting in an exodus of 2,100 blacks, the commission concluded. Then the largest city in the state, Wilmington flipped from a black majority to a white majority in the months that followed.
Before the violence, which led to a Democratic takeover from Republicans and Populists, black men in North Carolina had been able to vote for about three decades. But Democrats quickly passed voter literacy tests and a grandfather clause, which disenfranchised black voters until the civil rights movement of the 1960s."
So, a bunch of Democratic racists drove a lot of black people out of town and then changed the rules to keep black people from voting for the GOP. Yet, I don't see any suggestion that Republicans should get any reparations. Could they be fairly said to be specific targets of this violence which occurred 108 years ago?
Moreover, do we really want to starting handing out money for things that happened more than a century ago? Is every riot in America's history just another excuse to start doling out cash? If so, when do the participants in the LA riots or Watts riots start paying back their communities for the damage they inflicted? Heck, maybe we need to see if we can find the relatives of the people who were harmed during Shay's Rebellion back in 1786 so we can hand them some money....how preposterous!
In any case, whether this is about finding more "victims" for liberals to wring their hands over or just another way to hornswoggle more money from the taxpayers, this is a bad idea and it deserves every bit of mockery and scorn that it will no doubt receive here in North Carolina.
While reviewing Peter Beinart's The Good Fight, prominent liberal blogger Kevin Drum, has, apparently by accident, laid out a pretty good case against trusting liberals to handle the war on terrorism. Here's an excerpt from Drum's review:
"One of Beinart's biggest concerns is that liberals are throwing out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to the war on terror:
A November 2005 M.I.T. study...found that only 59 percent of Democrats — as opposed to 94 percent of Republicans — still approved of America's decision to invade Afghanistan. And only 57 percent of Democrats — as opposed to 95 percent of Republicans — supported using U.S. troops to "destroy a terrorist camp." George W. Bush, in other words, has used the war on terror to cover such a multitude of sins that for many liberals the whole idea of focusing the nation's energies on defeating global jihad (whether you call that effort the "war on terror" or something else) has fallen into disrepute. Just as Vietnam turned liberals against the cold war, Iraq has now turned them against the war on terror.
Now, maybe he's right about this. I don't think the evidence is quite as damning as Beinart makes it out to be, but poll after poll makes it clear that at the very least the war on terror doesn't rank very high on the list of things liberals care about these days.
But — Beinart also makes it abundantly clear that he recognizes just how badly George Bush has politicized the war on terror, misused the military, and made fundamental strategic mistakes of a catastrophic nature. And as I mentioned a few days ago, his prescription for how liberals should conduct the war on terror going forward is decidedly non-martial. It is, frankly, not much different from what John Kerry said during the 2004 campaign, and not something that most liberals would find much fault with."
So, let's see what we've learned about liberals here:
-- A large minority of them think it was a mistake to invade Afghanistan after 9/11.
-- A large minority of them oppose using the military to destroy terrorist camps.
-- Liberals have turned against "the war on terror".
-- According to "poll after poll," liberals don't care about the war on terror.
-- Liberals want to tackle the war on terrorism via "non-martial" means (Perhaps Hugs? Singing Kumbaya? Negotiating with Al-Qaeda?"
Well, this does seem to explain why liberals so doggedly seem to oppose anything that makes us safer from terrorism, from the NSA programs, to Gitmo, to preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
But, is what we've just read a description of people who can be trusted to handle national security? I think not. What Drum is telling here is that the left has become so pacifistic, so "Sheehanized" that they're simply incapable of standing up to terrorists who want to kill us. It's sad to see that the party of Zell Miller and Scoop Jackson has now turned into the party of Ramsey Clark and Cindy Sheehan, but it's the dangerous reality that Americans have to live with. Sadly, protecting America from terrorism is now, more than ever, a partisan issue.
Peggy Noonan says America is ready for a third party.
"Something's happening. I have a feeling we're at some new beginning, that a big breakup's coming, and that though it isn't and will not be immediately apparent, we'll someday look back on this era as the time when a shift began.
All my adult life, people have been saying that the two-party system is ending, that the Democrats' and Republicans' control of political power in America is winding down. According to the traditional critique, the two parties no longer offer the people the choice they want and deserve. Sometimes it's said they are too much alike--Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Sometimes it's said they're too polarizing--too red and too blue for a nation in which many see things through purple glasses.
In 1992 Ross Perot looked like the breakthrough, the man who would make third parties a reality. He destabilized the Republicans and then destabilized himself. By the end of his campaign he seemed to be the crazy old aunt in the attic.
The Perot experience seemed to put an end to third-party fever. But I think it's coming back, I think it's going to grow, and I think the force behind it is unique in our history."
A lot of people believe this, but it's pure piffle. You want to create a third party that actually appeals to people from both parties?
Ok, then I have one question: what's their platform? It has to be something other than, "we're not Democrats and Republicans." So, what issues would they run on? Who knows because there is no such thing as a "moderate platform." Most "moderates" are either people who break from conservatives or liberals on a few issues or people who just don't know enough about politics in the first place to figure out what they want. So the issues that "moderates" support vary wildly from person to person.
So what popular "moderate" positions can a third party take that neither of the major parties is already taking? Moreover, political parties don't get to just choose positions on certain issues and ignore the rest. So what is their position going to be on...
-- Abortion?
-- ANWR?
-- The Kyoto Protocol?
-- Iraq?
-- The International Criminal Court?
-- Allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons?
Whichever way they go on those issues, they alienate another block of voters and in the end all they'll end up accomplishing is draining off enough support to cost one party or the other the election (Probably the GOP given most of the names that tend to be tossed around as third party candidates (McCain, Hagel, Roy Moore, Jim Gilchrist) lean to the right).
The idea that a third party is going to sweep into power is pure fantasy. In America, third parties are just viruses in the body politic that are capable, at best, of damaging the major party they have the most in common with.
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 tell you which songs I listened to the most over the last month.
Here's the list for May...
14) Red Hot Chili Peppers: Higher Ground
14) Hank Williams Jr.: A Country Boy Can Survive
9) John Denver: Thank God I'm a Country Boy
9) James Marsters: Rest in Peace
9) Soggy Bottom Boys: I Am A Man of Constant Sorrow
9) Modest Mouse: Float On
9) Tomoyasu Hotei: Battle Without Honor or Humanity
6) Seether: Out of My Way
6) DMX: Bring Your Whole Crew
6) POD: Boom
4) Alabama: Song of the South
4) Camper Van Beethoven: Pictures of Matchstick Men
3) Red Hot Chili Peppers: Dani California
2) Lynyrd Skynyrd: Sweet Home Alabama
1) John Conlee: Common Man
Because there are few politicians out there who are more worthy of mockery than Al Gore, I thought you might enjoy seeing the three best entries from the Fark thread.
3) In third place, from Fish-outta-water, we have this entry.
2) It was hard to only put this entry from fouroninein in the two slot, because it sooooo perfectly captures Al Gore's environmental wackoism.
3) However, hhh came up with such a great pic and such a great line that it deserved the top honors.
Sure You Can Pay People To Have More Kids. But, Is It A Good Idea?
Daniel Gross at Slate had this to say about birth rates:
"But for developed nations, the birthrates may have dropped too far. Europe and Japan face a shortage of children that endangers pensioners and undermines economic dynamism. Even China is facing a labor shortage, thanks to its one-child policy.
Can the market fix this? Extremists on the left (Marxists) and right (supply-siders) believe firmly in the power of economic incentives to change behavior. But the sums involved are generally rather small. According to the CIA, Russia's gross domestic product per capita in 2005 was $10,700, compared with $42,000 in the United States. So giving a Russian $9,200 in cash is like giving an American $36,112. Would that be enough to convince lots of Americans to assume the financial responsibilities associated with an additional child? For most, probably not. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has data on the price of human husbandry. According to the latest estimates, depending on your income, it costs anywhere from $139,110 to $279,450 to raise a child to age 17. And that doesn't include college, or graduate school, or help with the down payment for a starter home. Phillip Longman argues that these are lowball estimates, because they don't account for the forgone wages of a mother. "For a middle-class couple in which the wife works, but takes some time off, I came up with a total per-child cost of $1 million in direct and indirect costs.
Obviously, it costs much less to raise a child in Russia. But just as a one-time payment of $36,000 would be unlikely to prod many Americans to have an extra child, a one-time payment of $9,200 is unlikely to do the same in Russia. (Putin is also pledging to increase child-support payments and provide more funding for nursery school.) In evaluating such incentives, potential parents have to weigh the tightly defined incentive against a responsibility that is open-ended."
This isn't my main point, but this is a really puzzling sentence:
"Extremists on the left (Marxists) and right (supply-siders) believe firmly in the power of economic incentives to change behavior."
Setting aside the fact that only ultra-libs would think supply siders are extremists, does using Marxists as an example make a lot of sense? When you're talking about Commies, you're talking about people who believe that making a doctor's wage exactly the same as that of a ditch digger won't dramatically cut into the number of people who'll become doctors. If anything, they seem to have minimal faith in the power of economic incentives to motivate people. Of course, you have to wonder if Gross believes this, too, because the implication of his sentence is that only "extremists""believe firmly in the power of economic incentives to change behavior." I thought just about everybody believed that was the case these days? Apparently not.
Anyway, I don't want to get bogged down in that tangled sentence.
The real question is whether offering people a lump sum payment can influence people to have children. It definitely can. We here in the United States can tell you that from experience because we've been doing it for decades with programs like Welfare, Food Stamps, Public Housing, and Medicaid. Granted that's not the same thing as a lump sum payment and we're, in an indirect way, paying them to have kids out of wedlock, rather than to just have more children, but we've proven, regrettably, that it works.
At one time, unmarried mothers were very rare in this country. Then we began to heavily subsidize that behavior with government goodies and guess what? The number of unmarried mothers exploded. For example, back in 1960, before Lyndon Johnson's Great Society dramatically expanded government services, the rate of illegitimate births for all Americans was 5.3%, up only 1.3% from 1950 and 1.5% from the rate in 1940. So, the numbers seemed to be relatively stable. Then, after the Federal Government started serving up the dole, the illegitimacy rate went through the roof. In 1970, it was 10.7%. In 1980, it was up 18.4%. In 1990, it had skyrocketed to 28%. In 2000, we actually got it up to 33.2%.
Are the government payouts entirely responsible for that change? No, there have been cultural and demographic changes that have had an impact as well, but the money the government paid out was undoubtedly a huge factor -- and studies have proven that to be the case:
"...Mark Rosenzweig...found that a 10 percent increase in welfare benefits made the chances that a poor young woman would have a baby out of wedlock before the age of 22 go up by 12 percent. And this was true for whites as well as blacks. Soon other scholars were confirming Rosenzweig’s findings. Welfare made a difference."
So, is it entirely possible that Russia's lump sum payments will work? Sure, but are the sort of people who are willing to pop out a kid for $9,200 the same sort of people you want raising more kids? There's an old saying the Russians should keep in mind: be careful what you ask for, because you might get it.
“We’re the party that wants to see an America in which people can still get rich.” — Ronald Reagan
“Behind every great fortune there is a crime.” — Honore de Balzac
The two quotes you’ve just read do a great job of representing how most liberals and conservatives view the rich. Conservatives believe that America is a land of opportunity, a place where a person can go from rags to riches if he’s clever and willing to work hard.
On the other hand, liberals believe that in and of itself, wealth is evidence of wrongdoing. Either the rich are, “winners of life’s lottery,” who didn’t earn the money they have or it was somehow swindled from the poor. Even if somehow, some way, neither of those conditions are present, then how can any decent person stand to be so rich when so many other people are so poor—well, unless you’re a trial lawyer, celebrity, or someone who contributes vast sums to the Democratic Party as penance, in which case all is forgiven.
These two attitudes explain why liberals often engage in class warfare and accuse conservatives of being, “in the pocket of the rich.” When your starting point is that, “rich people are bad people because they’re rich,” then simply refusing to display knee-jerk hostility towards the wealthy is taken as a sign of unscrupulousness.
But, what so many liberals fail to see is how much the rich contribute to our society. Just to name one example, let’s take a look at a man whose name is practically synonymous with limitless wealth: Bill Gates.
Would this country be better off if Bill Gates had never been born? My guess is that Microsoft’s 61,000 plus employees wouldn’t think so. What about the recipients of the $28.8 billion that Bill Gates has given away to charities and causes? What about the people who built his mansions and his cars? Heck, what about you? Do you have any Microsoft products on your computer?
The reality is that when you take down a rich man, legions of poorer men suffer as a result of his misfortune. Of course, there are some people who did inherit their money or become rich by leeching off society (like John Edwards), but most Americans who have become wealthy made their fortunes by doing an exceptional job of serving their fellow man in some capacity.
Take Derek Jeter, Mel Gibson, or Barbra Streisand. Is it fair that they’re able to make such incredible sums playing sports, acting, or singing? Of course, it’s fair! They have very rare talents and people are willing to pay and pay well to see them perform. And if the public is willing to shell out vast fortunes to watch them work, why shouldn’t they benefit from it? Who are we to decide that they don’t deserve the money that they earned by entertaining millions of people?
Similarly, consider CEO’s like Lee Raymond from Exxon. How many other people on earth could run a huge company like Exxon? Percentage wise, very few. Now, of those people? How many could have run the company as well as Raymond? Almost none. He was a “Michael-Jordan-quality” performer in his profession. So, given that Raymond ran a company that grossed $371 billion worldwide in 2005 and made $36 billion in profit that same year, is a $400 million retirement and salary package for 12 years’ worth of work out of line? When put in its proper perspective, that money was a drop in the bucket for a corporation like Exxon—and if anything, given how well the company performed under Raymond, he was probably underpaid.
But, that doesn’t sit well with a lot of people because they believe that the pie is only so big and if some Americans get a bigger piece of it, then that means the rest of us have to make do with less. However, that’s not true. If you think about it, it’s very obvious that the “pie” keeps expanding.
If it didn’t, we’d all still be living in caves, bonking each other on the head with clubs and trying to figure out how to steal some rocks from the guy hoarding them across town. Moreover, that “expanding pie” explains why the richest and most privileged Americans 100 years ago had a lifestyle that was markedly inferior in most ways to that of Americans with modest means today. Most poor Americans have television sets, radios, air conditioners, microwaves, and other gadgets and gizmos that would have been considered priceless a century ago.
So as you can see, if we have a strong, thriving economy, then over time our entire society will benefit from it in a myriad of different ways—and allowing people to create tremendous wealth for themselves is a necessary part of building a strong, thriving economy.
This may come as a shock to some people—like liberals—but the rich don’t sit around in their mansions all day and pass the time by swimming in pools full of their own money like Scrooge McDuck. They’re creating jobs with their companies, investing in the stock market, and loaning entrepreneurs the money they need to start businesses. Also, did I mention taxes? The top 5% of wage earners in this country pay more than half of all Federal Income Taxes.
That’s why we need to try to make it easier for Americans to get rich. It’s because the rich aren’t the enemy in a capitalistic country like America; they’re the geese that lay the golden eggs.
At Haditha, some Marines were hit with a roadside bomb and there's controversy about what happened next. The accusation, that may or may not be true, is that those Marines responded to the attack by deliberately murdering 24 innocent Iraqis in cold blood. Is it true? Is it not true? It's unknown at this point despite the fact that Democrats like John Murtha have already publicly declared that the Marines involved are guilty.
Whatever the case may be, liberals are already honing in on this case because there is nothing they love better than an orgy of America, military, and Bush bashing and they're hoping that they can turn this into an even bigger pile-on than Abu Ghraib.
But, the real truth is that even Abu Ghraib didn't come close to living up to the hype. Despite all the gnashing of teeth and endless column inches spent on the most overcovered story of the last decade, the events at Abu Ghraib didn't turn out to be representative of Bush policy, the military, or America as a whole. To the contrary, it was just a bunch of bad apples who got of control and were punished for their crimes.
If Haditha turns out to be just as bad as some people are speculating that it is, which incidentally, is still far from certain, it'll just be the exception that proves the rule: that America's military is professional, honorable, and will take action against soldiers who fail to live up to this country's high standards.
Convicted Killer Seeks Sex Change Surgery By Right Thinking Girl
A man serving a life sentence for the murder of his wife is asking a federal judge to order the state to pay for a sex-change operation for him, saying that denying him the surgery amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, according to Breitbart.
Let me walk you through this:
The man killed someone and is in prison. One goes to prison to lose freedoms. Having a sex change operation could be considered an election of the free. In other words: what boloney.
A psychiatrist testified Tuesday that he believes Robert Kosilek will kill himself if state correction officials refuse to allow the surgery and Kosilek is unable to complete his transformation into a woman.
If he changes into a woman, would he serve his time with other women? Maybe women don’t want to be around a gender-changing wife killer.
Kosilek, 57, was convicted of strangling his wife, Cheryl, in 1990.Maybe she caught him prowling through her lingerie drawer.
In 2002, U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled that Kosilek _ who now goes by the name of Michelle _ was entitled to treatment for gender identity disorder, but stopped short of ordering the state to pay for the sex-change operation.
This is silly. Entitled? Why?
Since then, Kosilek has received psychotherapy, female hormone treatments and laser hair removal.
IN PRISON? What about his wife? Does she get to decide to be a freak if she wants to? No. He killed her, remember?
Kosilek, who wears his hair long and tucked behind his ears, has developed larger breasts since beginning hormone treatments.
Goodie for him but taxpayers should be fuming mad. But it should also be noted that the killer was not really a ‘woman’ before the murder. He cross-dressed ‘occasionally’, which I discovered from trawling through cross-dressing sites, doesn’t mean you’re a transsexual. Additionally, at the time of his wife’s murder, he wore a beard, something most females wouldn’t do. He also was convicted when he was 41 years old. He didn’t start asking for a sex change operation until he was 53. It doesn’t seem that urgent an urge, based on the evidence.
The rest of this story is a bunch of mushmouth silly talk. But I wasn’t content to sit on my laurels and judge Kosilek from the vantage point of a normal person who has never murdered anyone. No, instead, I tried to better understand the case. This is what I discovered:
There is not a word about the details of Kosileks crimes in any of the trans-gender/gay/alt.whatever websites. There is not even mention of the name of his victim. Every one of them that I found focuses on his desire to be a woman. I did find an interview with the prosecutor of Kosilek’s murder trail and he had this to say: “He was convicted of the first degree murder of his wife, Sheryl. He strangled her with a length of wire. Wrapped it around her neck three times and dumped her in the back of car and left her at a mall.
He’s not the only one. Kenneth Catheena Hunt, serving a life sentence for first degree murder. Sandy Jo Battista, child rapist, behind bars twenty-one years. Michelle Kosilek, in prison for life for strangling his wife. All three are violent criminals who believe that they are women trapped in men’s bodies. Furthermore they want you, the taxpayer, to get them into a brand new body that feels more homey.
Why are these people allowed - even encouraged - to express themselves sexually in prison? This man is a killer; his wife doesn’t get to do lapdances, or have soft, slow kisses, or dress up her in sexy lingerie anymore. Her rights to do that were ripped from her when her husband made a cold, calculated decision to end her life. Yet he is permitted at taxpayer expense to do those same things?
Does anybody who supports his sex change operation have anything to say about his wife?
"If someone offered you a chance at $1 million just for going to the polls, would you do it?
It appears that Arizonans will get the chance to decide for themselves. A measure to create an unusual state lottery appears to have enough signatures to be on the Nov. 7 ballot.
The proposal by Tucson physician Mark Osterloh would require state election officials to pull one ballot at random after each primary and general election. That person would win $1 million.
But whether that would encourage voters remains to be seen. A statewide survey conducted in 2003, when Osterloh proposed the idea, showed that only 12 percent of those surveyed said they would be more likely to vote if they had a chance of becoming a millionaire.
An additional 10 percent said the lottery would make them less likely. Nearly everyone else told pollster Fred Solop that it would make no difference at all.
Despite that, Osterloh, who has put more than $100,000 into the campaign, insists that the gamble is worth it if it brings more people to the polls."
Let me say something that is, in these days and times, practically scandalous: In and of itself, voting is not a virtuous act and quite frankly, we'd probably be better off if LESS people were voting, not more.
As it is, every election year, the politicians end up tailoring their whole campaign to cater to a small group of independents who can barely tell the politicians apart. They don't watch the news, they don't know anything about legislation, and they couldn't tell you where either politician in the race stands on most of the big issues. Yet, especially in the last few weeks of the campaign, the politicians bend over backwards to reel those people in, because ironically, since they have no idea what's going on, they're the people who are easiest to sway.
Guess what? You try to turn the vote into Powerball and that's exactly the sort of people whom it will appeal to the most. Americans who are really concerned about where the country is heading don't need to be bribed in order to get them to show up. People who don't know who the Vice President is or how many Supreme Court Justices there are -- those are the folks who are most likely to come running if they think they can turn voting into a payday. Honestly, we'd all be better off if people like that just stayed home on election day.
22 Problems With The Senate's Illegal Immigration Bill
This article covers some of the problems with the Senate's illegal immigration bill including:
--The Senate Bill Would Make It Impossible To Deport Most Illegal Aliens For Years.
-- Police Can't Arrest Illegals Just For Being Illegals.
-- The Senate Bill Puts Amnesty Ahead Of Security.
-- Why Should Criminals Be Allowed To Become American Citizens?
-- An Enormous Increase In The Number Of Legal Immigrants Coming To The US.
-- The Bill Is A Budget Buster.
-- Social Security For Illegals.
Harry Reid Shows America What A "Culture Of Corruption" Really Looks Like
For a guy who loves to claim that there is a Republican, "culture of corruption," Harry Reid sure does seem to get caught with his hand in the cookie jar a lot. First of all, he loaded up on money from clients of Jack Abramoff and unlike a lot of other politicians in the same position, he didn't give any of the dough back.
"Senate Democratic Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) accepted free ringside tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission to three professional boxing matches while that state agency was trying to influence him on federal regulation of boxing.
Reid took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority.
He defended the gifts, saying that they would never influence his position on the bill and he was simply trying to learn how his legislation might affect an important home state industry. "Anyone from Nevada would say I'm glad he is there taking care of the state's number one businesses," he said. "I love the fights anyways, so it wasn't like being punished," added the senator, a former boxer and boxing judge.
Senate ethics rules generally allow lawmakers to accept gifts from federal, state or local governments, but specifically warn against taking such gifts -- particularly on multiple occasions -- when they might be connected to efforts to influence official actions.
...Several ethics experts said Reid should have paid for the tickets, which were close to the ring and worth between several hundred and several thousand dollars each, to avoid the appearance he was being influenced by gifts.
Two senators who joined Reid for fights with the complimentary tickets took markedly differently steps.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) insisted on paying $1,400 for the tickets he shared with Reid for a 2004 championship fight. Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) accepted free tickets to another fight with Reid but already had recused himself from Reid's federal boxing legislation because his father was an executive for a Las Vegas hotel that hosts fights."
You've got to love that, "I love the fights anyways, so it wasn't like being punished," line. Of course he wasn't being punished by being given thousands of dollars worth of free tickets from a company that was hoping to influence his judgement in the Senate. If that isn't illegal it ought to be, because it makes Reid look crooked.
Here's another great line from the article:
"I'm not Goodie Two Shoes. I just feel these events are nothing I did wrong," Reid said.
He's "not Goodie Two Shoes?" How is he coming up with this material? Was he drunk when he was interviewed for this article? He's being accused of taking free fight tickets, possibly in return for favors in Congress, and his response is, "I love the fights anyways," and "I'm not Goodie Two Shoes?" There are only two remaining questions at this point:
Will there be an ethics investigation (Let's hope so) and will Dennis Hastert proclaim that the Constitution says that it's illegal for newspapers to investigate what kind of free tickets members of Congress are getting?
How The Public Really Breaks Down On Illegal Immigration
Hilariously, RNC strategist Matthew Dowd is trying to claim that Americans absolutely love the Senate's amnesty plan and they hate the House's plan:
"Dowd's memo says that an internal RNC poll conducted by Jan Van Louhuzen finds that "overwhelming support exists for a temporary worker program. 80% of all voters, 83% of Republicans, and 79% of self-identified conservatives support a temporary worker program as long as immigrants pay taxes and obey the law."
More, from the RNC internal poll: "When voters are given the choice of other immigration proposals, strengthening enforcement with a tamper-proof identity card (89% among all voters, 93% among GOP), various wordings of a temporary worker program (the highest at 85% among all voters, 86% among GOP), and sending National Guard troops to the border (63% among all voters, 84% among GOP) score the highest among both all voters and Republican voters."
Also: "Voters don't consider granting legal status to those already here amnesty."
Suddenly, Bush's selection of Harriet Miers and his strong, early support of the Dubai Port deal makes sense: he must have had these guys doing the polling. Whom did they poll to get these results? The staff members in John McCain, Mike DeWine, and Arlen Specter's offices?
In all seriousness, if I were a politician and a pollster came to me and told me that the polling data showed America and Republicans were wildly enthusiastic about the Senate's plan and were cool to what the House wanted to do, I'd fire him on the spot for incompetence...but, let's face it, this is about selling the Senate's plan to the House, not about real numbers any way.
I've seen a lot of polls, worded a lot of different ways, and I have a very good feeling for what the public as a whole really thinks about illegal immigration.
1) Their top priority is enforcement, enforcement, enforcement. They want to put a stop to illegal immigration, they don't want to increase the number of immigrants coming to the US, and they want the border secured. The intensity level here is absolutely off the charts.
2) When it comes to guest worker programs and amnesty, a majority of the public could probably be convinced to go along with it if they believed condition #1 would also be fulfilled. However, overall, the intensity level is generally weak.
A majority of average Americans would probably support a guest worker program or "earned legalization," but they also wouldn't be terribly bothered if every illegal had to go home or if there were no guest worker program. When it comes to the people who get hot and bothered about those issues, on one side are some Hispanics, some liberals, and businesses that depend on illegals. On the other side, you have people who adamantly oppose allowing illegals to benefit from their lawbreaking in any way, shape, or form. Out of these two groups, neither makes up a majority, but the people who oppose "earned legalization" are the significantly bigger group.
3) The public doesn't really believe that the Federal government wants #1, but they're absolutely convinced the government wants #2. That's why they're very concerned that they're going to be promised #1, but are actually going to mainly get #2.
It's like a banana split with a cherry on top. Yes, people might like the cherry on top, but that's not really why they're interested in getting a banana split and they certainly don't want a slice of banana and a teaspoon of ice cream covered with a pile of cherries.
What the members of the House need to remember is that right now, they're the ones who are much more in line with what the public wants than Bush and the Senate. So, if there's going to be a deal, it's not going to be even steven, the Senate is going to have to move 90% of the way towards the House. If the Senate doesn't want to do that, fine, because Republican Congressmen are better off saying that they refused to give an inch on securing the border and putting an end to illegal immigration than they are running on an amnesty bill that the public and the base will despise.
As I write this, today feels like a day to just "vent," so here goes…
I'm sick of hearing about high gas prices. The national media is obsessed with the issue, hoping that the more stories they run about big, evil, price-gouging oil companies versus poor, victimized, SUV-driving consumers, the more the American people simultaneously will learn to hate their gas guzzling vehicles and President George W. Bush.
I'm sick of hearing that the president's low poll numbers are due to his handling of the war on terror, especially the war in Iraq. If the self-righteous inventors of The News would stick their heads out of their ivory towers long enough to see past their own political prejudices, they would realize that the president's poll ratings are, in large part, the result of his own abandonment of virtually every conservative constituency he has asked to trust him for the last six years. With the exception of modest (and so far temporary) tax cuts and a couple of seemingly solid Supreme Court appointments (one of which had to be forced upon him), there is precious little in the president's domestic agenda for a social and/or fiscal conservative to love.
I'm sick of hearing Ted Kennedy tell me how unfair it is that the rich have more than the poor. When he redistributes his portfolio among the less fortunate, then I might have a modicum of respect for the old windbag. Until then, he can just shut up and keep his greedy hands off my modest income.
Likewise, I'm sick of hearing John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Arlen Specter and Chuck Hagel blather on about what is fair and decent and right, as if only they have the righteous understanding to know such things.
I'm sick of hearing that everyone has a right to be proud of his or her race, creed, gender, sexual preference, marital status, religion and national origin - everyone except happily married conservative white male heterosexual Christian Americans.
I'm sick of hearing that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a radical few. Of the approximately 1.5 billion Muslims in the world today, it has been estimated that at least 150 million of them are in support of the goals of worldwide terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda. That's a pretty big hijacking. If ten percent of American Christians supported abortion clinic bombers, we would all be under surveillance.
I'm sick of hearing political correctness on every TV show. King Solomon was right when he said there is nothing new under the sun, but come on, Hollywood, get an idea in your heads that doesn't involve bashing Republicans, conservatives, pro-lifers, businessmen, Christians, the Pentagon or the NSA.
I'm sick of hearing about all the jobs that Americans won't do. Yank all the "safety nets" out from under able-bodied Americans and just watch how quickly they will take those jobs.
I'm sick of hearing that millions of illegal aliens cannot be removed from our country. Make it a felony to be here and a felony to hire them and watch how quickly they leave.
I'm sick of hearing that requiring people to learn English is discriminatory. You bet it is, and that is a good thing. I was raised to believe that discriminating people were ones with high standards. We have made the word "discriminate" synonymous with "bigotry." That is nonsense.
Finally, I'm sick of hearing that America is a nation of immigrants. I welcome anyone from anywhere who yearns to legally breathe free and who will swear allegiance to my country, but don't call me an immigrant. My ancestors have been in this country since well before the Civil War, and my wife's ancestry extends back before the founding of this nation. Read my lips: as for me and my house, we are not immigrants. We are Americans!
Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and policy advisor to federal, state and local candidates, elected officials and public policy organizations. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.
I'm on vacation, but I just wanted to take a moment today to say thanks to all the soldiers, past and present, who've made up the backbone of this country. From Washington, to Jackson, to Grant, to Pershing, to Patton, to MacArthur, to Franks...from Bunker Hill, to Meuse-Argonne, to Midway, Inchon, and Fallujah -- from the greatest American generals, to the lowliest grunts, thank you, thank you, thank you.
Your efforts, under the harshest and most unforgiving of conditions, have kept us free and allowed us to become the greatest nation that has ever existed on God's green earth.
Paraphrasing something Reagan once said, some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. Our soldiers don't have that problem.
I'm going to be taking vacation today and on Monday. That means I'll be posting retro posts today and RWN will return to its normal schedule on Tuesday. In the interim, consider this to be an open thread, enjoy the links below, and have a fantastic Memorial Day week-end!
PS: There are two banner ad slots available. 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 and I reserve the right to cancel the ad at any time as long as I return a pro-rated payment to the buyer.
