Month: December 2005

Posted on Democracy, Iraq

do we really want iraq to be like the united states?

think about that question.

while it’s true that the united states is an outstanding model, in most measures of the concept, for the way freedom and democracy should work, there are some areas where we don’t have all of the answers. this country is a relatively young one, compared to some of its neighbors in the world community. so it’s understandable if we haven’t exactly gotten the balance between an extreme authoritarian state like iran and the permissiveness of the netherlands quite right just yet. iran’s government has some major problems, one of which being that the head guy is a loon. i’m not excusing any of what iran’s dictators say or do in the interest of smacking down the slightest offense against sharia law. they are absolutely wrong about pretty much everything, and i really oppose them having nukes. don’t misunderstand what i’m going to say next.

we are generally a tolerant and permissive society of people here in america, sometimes to a fault. we are so concerned about offending other people that we make extreme concessions to the smallest group with a nervous tic about anything. there are so many gray areas in what’s permissible that this gray has become the new black.

in fact, we tolerate too much in this country. is it something to be proud of that two of our main exports in the culture arena include raw hip-hop and britney spears? americans have also been the creators of trash tv and tv shows that ask “who’s the father of this baby?”. there are many things about our culture that we shouldn’t export to other countries. many of our current tv shows fall into this category, especially the reality tv on mtv and vh1.

we should also keep female pop star-inspired fashions confined to this country, and not inflict that indecency on the good citizens of iraq. modesty has gotten a bad rap because of the extreme interpretation of what that means under islamic law. there’s something to be said for leaving something to the imagination. that doesn’t mean that i think women should be covered head to toe. i just don’t think that copying the style of britney, christina, gwen stefani, or lil’ kim will get them the respect and advancement they are looking for in society.

the iraqis will benefit from the adoption of a more democratic government in their country. women and minorities will benefit from the change as well. their version of a democratic society may differ somewhat from the american version, and that’s ok. even though we have a pretty good handle on democracy here in america, that doesn’t mean we have all the right answers on everything else.

Posted on Random Musings

merry christmas!

what are you doing here reading this blog? go back to opening presents, stuffing your face, and watching meaningless american football! seriously…merry Christmas to all. i hope that everyone gets what they are asking for (except for the D.C. democrats).

now… go enjoy the day. 🙂 serious important stuff returns sometime next week.

Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush

the dems’ 2006 plan will self-destruct in 3-2-1

now is not the time to be playing games with our national security and trying to score political points on the bush administration. the democrats are engaged in this effort to bring down the president of the united states any way they can. some are even floating the idea of impeachment, like barbara boxer and john lewis. any presidential abuse of power should be harshly punished and would be considered an impeachable offense in my book. however, that’s not what happened here with the wiretapping/NSA situation.

mark levin:

Moreover, where is the historical precedent for a commander-in-chief, especially during war, being required to ask permission from a court to spy on the enemy, including intercepting communications? Did Abraham Lincoln (Civil War), Woodrow Wilson (World War I), FDR/Harry Truman (World War II), Ike (Korean War), and/or JFK/LBJ/Richard Nixon (Vietnam War) use probable cause as the basis for intercepting enemy communications? Did they go to court each time and ask permission from a judge to intercept foreign intelligence? Of course not. And as pointed out by Byron York and others, recent presidents such as Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton have all issued presidential orders making clear that while they will attempt to follow FISA, they retain their inherent constitutional authority to gather foreign intelligence, protect our national security, and wage war. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to al-Qaeda terrorists as they conspire to blow up our cities.

what he said. the president has the constitutional authority to do what he did.

he goes on to say:

The president has not acted in a reckless or lawless way. He has sought and received extensive legal advice from scores of legal experts, many of whom are no doubt civil servants. He has numerous internal checks built into the process, requiring a constant review of procedures. And despite the pronouncements of some on the Hill, certain members of Congress were briefed, i.e., it’s not as if they weren’t aware of the program. Sometimes a president has to do what’s right in his eyes and be prepared to defend it, as Bush is now. We used to call that leadership.

other legal eagles agree, including john schmidt, who was associate attorney general from 1994-1997 under president clinton.

President Bush’s post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court’s 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president’s authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

it’s important to note that no actual cases of abuse of the patriot act and its provisions have been alleged, simply the hypothetical possibility of such abuses taking place. also, according to a CNN/gallup/usa today poll… only 34 percent of the public thinks that the patriot act goes too far. sixty-two percent approve of it (44 percent) or think it doesn’t go far enough (18 percent).
(hat tip: nro)

yet some democrats have the temerity to ignore their own personal disregard for privacy (including chuck schumer and his interest in michael steele’s credit records) and act shocked and outraged that the president might want to authorize surveillance on suspected terrorists. it is understandable to be concerned that a president or a government would have the legal right and the desire to listen to our personal phone calls and read our emails. i am concerned about that, but according to what we know right now, it doesn’t seem that any law has been abused in the execution of this program.

the weekly standard’s mackubin thomas owens has more on that point here. i’ll give him the (almost) last word.

Today, once again we face the perennial tension between vigilance and responsibility as the United States is the target of those who would destroy it. In all decisions involving tradeoffs between two things of value, the costs and benefits of one alternative must be measured against the costs and benefits of the other. At a time when the United States faces an adversary that wishes nothing less than America’s destruction, President Bush is correctly taking his bearing from Lincoln, who understood that in time of war, prudence dictates that responsibility must trump vigilance. In response to criticism of his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, Lincoln asked, “. . . are all the laws but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?” Lincoln’s point is as applicable today as it was during the Civil War. If those responsible for the preservation of the republic are not permitted the measures to save it, there will be nothing left to be vigilant about.

i agree with that. if there needs to be changes in the patriot act to better protect the civil liberties of US citizens, fine. the democrats should go ahead and propose those changes. just don’t completely throw away legislation that will help to keep us safe from terrorism simply because one part or another is not acceptable. do you really want to fix the patriot act or do you want to kill it completely? that’s the question to the democrats. make up your minds, gentlemen. choose one position on something.

related:

Privacy hypocrisy–michelle malkin
Patriot Act Showdown–opinionjournal.com
September 10 America— the excellent editorial from national review online

Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq

bush to dems: get used to disappointment

here’s some of the highlights of the president’s iraq speech sunday night. read the whole thing at nro.

This work has been especially difficult in Iraq — more difficult than we expected. Reconstruction efforts and the training of Iraqi Security Forces started more slowly than we hoped. We continue to see violence and suffering, caused by an enemy that is determined and brutal — unconstrained by conscience or the rules of war.

our enemies don’t have any interest in following international law when dealing with their captives. their cruelty to those they have captured doesn’t show the restraint the geneva convention requires, and yet there’s no outrage. why? this doesn’t mean that the united states should abuse prisoners, and those who have have been disciplined for it. i just see a double standard here. if you’re going to criticize abuse, don’t leave out the terrorists and insurgents in that criticism.

Some look at the challenges in Iraq, and conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. I don’t believe that. Our military commanders do not believe that. Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifice, do not believe that America has lost. And not even the terrorists believe it. We know from their own communications that they feel a tightening noose — and fear the rise of a democratic Iraq.

john murtha said that the war couldn’t be won militarily. the president disagrees. our military men and women also disagree. more importantly than that…the terrorists also have shown signs that they share the president’s view of our progress in iraq.

The terrorists will continue to have the coward’s power to plant roadside bombs and recruit suicide bombers. And you will continue to see the grim results on the evening news. This proves that the war is difficult — it does not mean that we are losing. Behind the images of chaos that terrorists create for the cameras, we are making steady gains with a clear objective in view.

and…

In all three aspects of our strategy — security, democracy, and reconstruction — we have learned from our experiences, and fixed what has not worked. We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission. Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

the president acknowledges that mistakes were made in iraq and that changes have been made to address what has gone wrong there. will his critics give him credit for this admission (that they never expected him to make)? i doubt it. he is right when he says that there is a difference between honest criticism and “defeatism”. mistakes were made. that doesn’t mean that iraq is a quagmire, or unwinnable on a military basis, as some are saying.

Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq — we are winning the war in Iraq.

It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. We would abandon our Iraqi friends — and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. We would undermine the morale of our troops — by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We would cause tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip. We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us — and the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before. To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor … and I will not allow it.

there’s your case right there. i believe that it’s convincing. you may not.

the president addresses the anti-war crowd.

I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt. Yet now there are only two options before our country — victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party, because the security of our people is in the balance. I do not expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: Do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom.

Americans can expect some things of me as well. My most solemn responsibility is to protect our Nation, and that requires me to make some tough decisions. I see the consequences of those decisions when I meet wounded servicemen and women who cannot leave their hospital beds, but summon the strength to look me in the eye and say they would do it all over again. I see the consequences when I talk to parents who miss a child so much — but tell me he loved being a soldier … he believed in his mission … and Mr. President, finish the job.

I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss — and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial — yet being your President requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences. And I have never been more certain that America’s actions in Iraq are essential to the security of our citizens, and will lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren.

this speech was not memorable for its rhetoric…it was memorable for its tone. this is the kind of speech we should have been hearing from the president frequently during this time of war. while it may be true that the authorization of military action originates in D.C., it is the american people whose support will determine the success or failure of any war effort. i am glad that the president is making the effort to get their support.

related:

THE BUSH SPEECH: NO CUT AND RUN–michelle malkin
Reaction to President Bush’s Speech–sfgate.com
Sunnis say they want to work with US–pajamas media

Posted on Iraq

iraqi elections

read all about it. our hopes and prayers are with the iraqis in this critical time for their country.

iraq the model has more: It’s only a matter of hours now!
michelle malkin has a list of more good links/liveblogging on these elections here.

these brave people are heroes. the men and women of our military are heroes. using this word to apply to convicted murderers is beyond ridiculous, and those who even try it should be justly criticized for doing so, regardless of what you think of the death penalty. more on that later.

Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq

the emperor strikes back

many of us have expressed frustration with the president and his apparent unwillingness to go on the offensive against his critics on iraq. this hands-off approach seems to have changed recently. president bush has not only started giving some speeches including specifics about iraq, but also subjected himself to a round of serious questions with nbc’s brian williams, as well as the audience after his philly speech. here are excerpts from his speeches and the interview.

the president’s interview with nbc’s brian williams

on iraq:

President Bush: Well, John Murtha’s a fine guy. And he’s, you know, he served our nation admirably. I just think he’s wrong. I think the idea of having a, you know, a timetable for withdrawal, does three things that would be bad.

One, it emboldens the enemy. That’s precisely what they want. They want us to withdraw. And — and oh, by the way, here, we’re telling them when and how. And they will adjust accordingly.

Secondly, it sends a bad message to the Iraqis. We’ve said to the Iraqis, “We’ll help train you. We’ll stand with you. And we’ll get you on your feet so you can take the fight to the enemy.” And if our commanders on the ground say we’re not ready to, you know, stand down — a timetable would dispirit the Iraqis.

Finally, it’ll dispirit our troops. Because our troops know the mission hasn’t been completed. But strategy and my plans are these. I will listen to the commanders. I understand war is objective-based, not timetable-based. And we will complete this mission for the good of the country.

on the perception of the United States globally and especially in arab nations

answering questions in philly after his speech:

Q. Mr. President, I’m a proud U.S. citizen, naturalized, and card-carrying Republican. I voted for you both times. I grew in India, a Sunni. In fact, the President of the Republic of India is a Sunni. And I think it’s a great testimony to this nation that was — the vision of which was laid out within a few — half a mile of here, that somebody like me can be in a position of leadership and be successfully engaged in contributing to the current and future economic well-being of this nation. Mr. President, I support your efforts in Iraq. But I’d like to know what are we going to do in the broader battle in creating a favorable image and reaching out to people across the world, so that people like me all over the world can be passionate supporters of the United States.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I appreciate that. First of all, success will help the image of the United States. Look, I recognize we got an image issue, particularly when you got television stations, Arabic television stations that are constantly just pounding America, creating — saying America is fighting Islam, Americans can’t stand Muslims, this is a war against a religion. And we’ve got to, obviously, do a better job of reminding people that ours is not a nation that rejects religion; ours is a nation that accepts people of all faith, and that the great strength of America is the capacity for people to worship freely.

he understands the need to win the battle in the arab press. what he needs to find is an effective strategy in attacking the negative view of the united states in the arab world. our leaders need to be front-and-center on al-arabiya and al-jazeera, taking questions and presenting our case. if the people only see one side of the argument, it would be easy for them to believe what they are told about america and americans. we should do this, but after a good-faith effort to communicate with the arab world through their television stations, we should be prepared to accept that words may not be enough.

the president continues his answer.

It’s difficult. I mean, their propaganda machine is pretty darn intense. And so we’re constantly sending out messages, we’re constantly trying to reassure people, but we’re also — we’re also acting. And that’s what’s important for our citizens to realize. Our position in the world is such that I don’t think we can retreat. I think we have a duty and an obligation to use our vast influence to help.

I cite two examples of where I think it will make a big — of where American image in the Muslim world will be improved. One is the tsunami. The tsunamis hit; it was the United States military, through the USS Abraham Lincoln, that provided the logistical organization necessary to get the — to get the — to save a lot of lives. We moved. A lot of people kind of sat around and discussed; not us. We saw a problem and we moved.

Same in Pakistan. The earthquake in Pakistan is devastating. The United States of America was first on the scene. We got a lot of kids flying choppers all around that country providing help and aid.

And so I guess what I’m saying to you is, is that a proper use of influence that helps improve people’s lives is the best way to affect — to change the image of country, and to defeat the propaganda.

i agree with this. one way to win friends and influence people is to help with logistics and finances during natural disasters, such as the tsunamis and the earthquakes the president mentioned.

from his speech to the CFR in D.C. on the reconstruction efforts in iraq:

Reconstruction has not always gone as well as we had hoped, primarily because of the security challenges on the ground…

In the space of two-and-a-half years, we have helped Iraqis conduct nearly 3,000 renovation projects at schools, train more than 30,000 teachers, distribute more than 8 million textbooks, rebuild irrigation infrastructure to help more than 400,000 rural Iraqis, and improve drinking water for more than 3 million people.

Our coalition has helped Iraqis introduce a new currency, reopen their stock exchange, extend $21 million in micro-credit and small business loans to Iraqi entrepreneurs. As a result of these efforts and Iraq’s newfound freedom, more than 30,000 new Iraqi businesses have registered since liberation. And according to a recent survey, more than three-quarters of Iraqi business owners anticipate growth in the national economy over the next two years.

This economic development and growth will be really important to addressing the high unemployment rate across parts of that country. Iraq’s market-based reforms are gradually returning the proud country to the global economy. Iraqis have negotiated significant debt relief. And for the first time in 25 years, Iraq has completed an economic report card with the International Monetary Fund — a signal to the world financial community that Iraqis are serious about reform and determined to take their rightful place in the world economy.

With all these improvements, we’re helping the Iraqi government deliver meaningful change for the Iraqi people. This is another important blow against the Saddamists and the terrorists. Iraqis who were disillusioned with their situation are beginning to see a hopeful future for their country. Many who once questioned democracy are coming off the fence; they’re choosing the side of freedom. This is quiet, steady progress. It doesn’t always make the headlines in the evening news. But it’s real, and it’s important, and it is unmistakable to those who see it close up.

matt margolis at blogs for bush agrees.

abc news has interesting iraqi poll numbers here. to sum it up: the results are mixed. three quarters of iraqis are confident about the upcoming elections. 70% approve of the new constitution. the same percentage, of a group containing both sunnis and shiites, believe that iraq should have a unified government. there is a definite split between sunni and shiite perception for possible improvement in iraq over the next year, with shiites holding a more positive view.

from the breakdown of the poll:

Preference for a democratic political structure has advanced, to 57 percent of Iraqis, while support for an Islamic state has lost ground, to 14 percent (the rest, 26 percent, chiefly in Sunni Arab areas, favor a “single strong leader.”)

Whatever the current problems, 69 percent of Iraqis expect things for the country overall to improve in the next year — a remarkable level of optimism in light of the continuing violence there. However, in a sign of the many challenges ahead, this optimism is far lower in Sunni Arab-dominated provinces, where just 35 percent are optimistic about the country’s future

more positive economic news:

Average household incomes have soared by 60 percent in the last 20 months (to $263 a month), 70 percent of Iraqis rate their own economic situation positively, and consumer goods are sweeping the country. In early 2004, 6 percent of Iraqi households had cell phones; now it’s 62 percent. Ownership of satellite dishes has nearly tripled, and many more families now own air conditioners (58 percent, up from 44 percent), cars, washing machines and kitchen appliances.

there are many interesting components to this poll. one of the most interesting is the 45% that want the U.S. to “leave now” (26%) or to pull out right after the elections (19%). this poll has some good news and bad news for the bush administration. the iraqis are positive overall about the elections, the future of the government, and the possibility of improving conditions in iraq over the next year. they still have concerns about the handling of the war by the united states and coalition forces. they are unsure whether their country has improved since the invasion, which is understandable, because there is still much work to be done with security and reconstruction. perception would also vary by region, because of the variability of each region’s progress toward these goals. i think this poll has a more complete, balanced picture than we have seen so far.

this is a good strategy for the president –to take his message directly to the american people. showing that there were changes made in the initial strategy to make the post-war operation more effective than it has been in some areas will improve his credibility and his poll numbers. will he continue to take this approach?

Brian Williams: …And will you keep doing this, having these conversations?

President Bush: I will. I’ll keep taking my message to the people in a variety of formats. It’s one way for me to be able to communicate directly with people. And, I unfortunately don’t get to edit what’s on your newscast.

On the other hand, I do know that by giving a speech that’s broadcast say, on some of these channels that broadcast speeches, more and more people will be able to hear my side of the story, which is very important for the president to be able to do. And I enjoy it. I enjoy getting out and being with — I know — listen, in the audience, I realize everybody didn’t agree with me. But that’s — I’m confident in my message. And I am anxious to be able to talk to those that, you know, are willing to listen. I thought the reception was warm. And I appreciated it.

people can think for themselves, with no needed assistance from the MSM. make your case, mr. president. it’s up to you, not to the GOP or conservative bloggers. we’re listening.

related:
Operation Skinner: Major Success In Iraq-from california conservative
The voting has begun! (updated)–iraq the model (with pics!). actually, just read the whole blog.

Posted on Random Musings

much ado about nothing

that’s how i would describe the objections to the presidential Christmas card by the war on Christmas crowd. i’m not arguing the premise of that group, which is that some groups have an exaggerated idea of how many people are offended by “Merry Christmas”, nativity scenes, and calling Christmas songs and Christmas trees what they are. it is political correctness run amok to even restrict songs that have no religious overtones whatsoever simply because a loud minority might have an objection to it. the argument is that the words indicate some type of exclusivity that leaves out those who don’t believe in a religion and who are deeply offended by any hint of religion in our culture. i don’t see Christmas that way. this holiday doesn’t force religion on anybody. it has become so highly commercialized that its religious significance has become severely compromised. what kind of stupid country sees something deeply offensive about “frosty the snowman”, for heaven’s sake? well…i guess the fact that he melts might be disturbing to small children, but other than that, i just don’t see it.

here’s what the card that has surrendered to PCness said(the corner/NRO):

Psalm 28:7
The Lord is my strength and my shield;
In him my heart trusts;
So I am helped, and my heart exults,
And with my song I give thanks to him

(and THIS controversial line) “With best wishes for a holiday season of hope and happiness. 2005”. it is then signed by the president and first lady.

yep. that sounds like political correctness to me. if you want to criticize excessive concessions to the pc crowd, i’m all for that. but in this case, president bush isn’t guilty of making any of those concessions with this Christmas card. are there groups with an agenda opposing Christmas? i guess. i’m just not sure that their attempts to push this POV are as pervasive as the war on Christmas crowd would have us believe. it’s a red-meat issue for conservatives, so they gladly hop on this bandwagon and go along for this ride, because it’s the cool thing to do. we just have to step back and decide for ourselves where the real injustices are taking place, and make sure that we don’t overstate the isolated incidents where the PC crowd wins.

for more thoughts on Christmas, read the previous post. 🙂 there are nice presents already under the mets fan’s Christmas tree. what’s this about free agent pitcher barry zito possibly coming to NY? i think that this was suggested before…and it’s still a good idea. keep it up omar. 🙂

i’ll give the (almost) last word to the handsome bow-tied guy, tucker carlson:

All of which is to say, I welcome the controversies this season over Christmas. Every time a school district bans Christmas carols, every time the ACLU dispatches a busload of lawyers to fight a nativity scene, every time the ADL declares the Christian Right “dangerous,” it’s a reaffirmation that the faith is not dead. Dead religions don’t give people the creeps. They don’t make atheists mad. They don’t keep Alan Dershowitz up at night. But Christianity still does. What a relief. It’s nice to see that our faith still scares people.

i agree with that.

related:
christmas musings (previous post)
bah humbug…and other christmas musings
my christmas itunes imix –the edited version
(email/comment for my complete musical vision–requires itunes)
can santa claus save the democrats? –from conservative cat


Posted on Random Musings

christmas musings

now playing:i still haven’t found what i’m looking for/u2

I just don’t understand Christmas, I guess. I like getting presents and sending Christmas cards and decorating trees and all that, but I’m still not happy. I always end up feeling depressed.

–charlie brown (from A Charlie Brown Christmas)

fictional characters speak truth on occasion. this feeling is not too divorced from reality for some of us during the Christmas season. we trim ourselves a festive tree, spend days and days addressing cards to people we hardly ever see or know, and indulge in a little retail therapy while picking out presents for family and friends. all this is fun. but what does it really mean when all the presents are unwrapped and the tree is gone? have we really found what we are looking for, or does the whole process of preparing for Christmas leave us somewhat empty and just a little depressed?

where we make the mistake, i think, is taking too much time during this season thinking about our regrets, our mistakes, and how far we believe we are from our idealized view of the future. in order to progress, we must recognize that we can’t control much of what happens in our lives. we certainly can’t change the past. what is important is that we find out who we are and our purpose here on earth, because true happiness is elusive otherwise. that’s true at Christmas. that’s also true on all the other days too.

related:

a replica charlie brown Christmas tree
Rudolph, Charlie Brown not for kids anymore?

if you’re looking for gift ideas for your star wars-addict friend, try this.

my favorite yet incredibly cheesy animated christmas specials:
(the original) grinch that stole Christmas
rudolph the red-nosed reindeer
charlie brown Christmas

other favorites:
it’s a wonderful life

in case you are still looking for an answer in Christmas:

Charlie Brown(shouting in desperation): Isn’t there anyone out there who can tell me what Christmas is all about?

Linus Van Pelt: Sure, Charlie Brown, I can tell you. Lights, please. (A spotlight shines on Linus.)

“And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the fields, keeping watch over their flocks by night. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the lord shone round about them, and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not, for behold, I bring unto you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you this day is born in the City of Bethlehem, a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; you shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel, a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth peace, good will toward men'”. That’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.”

for those who believe in God, it’s the answer to the question. for those who don’t, the search continues.

this is….posted without any regrets.

Posted on Conservatives, George W. Bush

president bush: hardcore neo-con.

now playing: pyro sets a wildfire/swirling eddies

is president bush a conservative? the answer is: it depends on how that word is defined. there’s a fairly strong case to be made that he is extremely conservative on social issues of importance to groups generally thought to be deeply connected with “the religious right”. two of his three supreme court nominations would suggest this. the fact that the president is a Christian is also a strong indication in this direction. i would say that in this respect, he is conservative. but does he follow the rules of what i would consider to be traditional (small-government) conservatism in policy decisions? the evidence would suggest otherwise.

from the weekly standard (11/14):

“THE PRESIDENCY OF GEORGE W. Bush has three years yet to run, but this season of scandal and disillusionment is an opportune moment for conservatives to start thinking seriously about the post-Bush era–and particularly how to fashion a domestic policy from the wreckage of Bush-style, big-government conservatism. Thanks to the abiding weakness of the Democratic party, Republicans haven’t yet paid a political price for insider-friendly appropriation bills, Medicare boondoggles, or the smog of semi-corruption rising from the party’s cozy relationship with KStreet. But even if the GOP’s majority survives the next election cycle, conservatives shouldn’t kid themselves: President Bush’s domestic policy looks less and less like a visionary twist on traditional conservatism, and more and more like an evolutionary dead end. “

read it here. the authors make some interesting suggestions for needed reforms in the status quo that the republicans would be wise to adopt for their own campaigns in 2006. reagan famously said that government is not the solution to the problem, that in fact government IS the problem…or something similar to that anyway. both liberals and conservatives are wrong when they consider making government the primary curative to what ails the country. the difference here is only in what kind of programs each side considers worthy of government largesse. the president isn’t re-inventing the wheel with his approach to spending and tax cuts. we have seen this act before, by more obvious culprits. president bush deserves much blame for any failures of his fiscal policy. but the democrats, who are so anxious to take the president to task on his foreign policy decisions, remain relatively silent on spending. why is that, do you suppose? the answer is because the democrats, and to some degree, the republicans, are complicit in the bad economic policy. both sides can’t say no to new spending and insist on some fiscal discipline, and somehow this is all the president’s fault.

fred barnes defines what he considers to be A ‘Big Government Conservatism’:

Big government conservatives prefer to be in favor of things because that puts them on the political offensive. Promoting spending cuts/minimalist government doesn’t do that. Mr. Bush has famously defined himself as a compassionate conservative with a positive agenda. Almost by definition, this makes him a big government conservative.

big government conservatism, as defined by barnes, is activist by nature. it may have more noble underlying objectives than the government activism suggested by liberals or moderates (although i suppose that is an open question), but the premise is still flawed. president bush is not as uncomfortable with using the power of the government to advance what he considers to be conservative ideas and values as he should be. using the government to bring about social equity or attempting to level the playing field for all americans in this way is an iffy proposition under any ideological banner.

take a look at the programs and proposals by the president during his first and second terms in office. it is the very essence of logic itself to believe that this president is not from the limited-government wing of the conservatives. he is very much all neo-con, and this has only a peripheral relationship to the war in iraq, although that’s part of it. dare i suggest bush 43 is in fact a slightly more conservative version of bush 41? (the difference of course being that bush 41 raised taxes after promising not to…and there’s that whole leaving saddam in power thing…) finally someone comes up with a logical definition for a neo-con…and apparently it doesn’t just mean republican war hawk.

Anti-Freedom Conservatism–from the future of freedom daily

So there you have it. Big-government conservatism, or its synonym, neoconservatism, stands for a powerful state in pursuit of “conservative ends.” There are problems, to be sure, with the Barnes-Kristol thesis. What are “conservative ends”? An older school of conservatism (which actually consisted of near-libertarians) would have said that chief among those ends was individual freedom achieved by restraining government power. But if that’s so, it makes no sense to talk about using government to achieve those ends. They also understood that a government with interests not bound by geography is in fact an empire, not a constitutionally limited republic. Thus, big-government conservatism is either incoherent or a cynical attempt to appropriate a cozy-sounding label.

What about the moral case for self-ownership and against coercion? We never hear this issue raised by the neocons. They sometimes talk about intrusive government. But your meddling neighbor can also be said to be intrusive. The fundamental issue is the initiation of physical force. “Transfers” are, in Bastiat’s words, “legal plunder.” The advocates of big government either don’t recognize that plunder is at the heart of the state. Or they don’t care.

this sounds more like what i believe and far from bush’s view(except for the part about taxes):

“Fundamentally, compassionate conservatism is a form of political conservatism. In other words, compassionate conservatives believe that government should have a limited role in people’s lives and that competition in the marketplace is the most effective means of producing social and economic progress. Consequently, compassionate conservatives believe in low taxes, limited government regulation, and the vast power of the free enterprise system.”

and:

“Big-government, one-size-fits-all solutions demean struggling individuals by treating them merely as members of aggrieved identity groups, passively awaiting government subsidies and restitution for crippling wounds inflicted by what is perceived to be an inherently unjust society.”

that’s the best argument against neo-conservatism in my view. it creates too many illegitimate victims. we do have a moral and ethical responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves, but i would argue that this category has been massively expanded to include more people that it should. the government has taken on more responsibility for attempting to cure social injustices than it can effectively handle. p.j. o’rourke, the official muse of this here blog once said: “A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.” he is a smart man. the president should take his advice.

somewhat related:

Can’t last–Jan 8th 2004 | WASHINGTON, DC | From The Economist print edition

Posted on Uncategorized

she was right the first time.

pop quiz:

who said the following:

“This Court’s abortion decisions have already worked a major distortion in the Court’s constitutional jurisprudence. Today’s decision goes further, and makes it painfully clear that no legal rule or doctrine is safe from ad hoc nullification by this Court when an occasion for its application arises in a case involving state regulation of abortion. The permissible scope of abortion regulation is not the only constitutional issue on which this Court is divided, but – except when it comes to abortion – the Court has generally refused to let such disagreements, however longstanding or deeply felt, prevent it from evenhandedly applying uncontroversial legal doctrines to cases that come before it. That the Court’s unworkable scheme for constitutionalizing the regulation of abortion has had this institutionally debilitating effect should not be surprising, however, since the Court is not suited to the expansive role it has claimed for itself in the series of cases that began with Roe v. Wade.”

was it sam alito, or scalia, or clarence thomas? not so much. try this person.

more interesting reading on judge alito:

Charles Krauthammer: Judge Alito vs. Roe vs. Wade
ed whelan of NRO’s bench memos: Re: Alito’s Advice on the Thornburgh Abortion Case

who says people can’t change their views on roe? not that alito will, necessarily, but here’s some evidence that it’s possible. more interesting and compelling blog posts to follow this weekend. keep reading. scroll down for more on iraq and very cute panda pics.