Trackback

Not like anyone actually reads this site but I now have trackback ability through Haloscan. It's kinda clunky right now but it works and the Haloscan guys assure their users that they will be working to simplify it in the future.

Real corporate welfare

Via QandO

From John Stossel's article in Reason Online:

Ronald Reagan memorably complained about "welfare queens," but he never told us that the biggest welfare queens are the already wealthy. Their lobbyists fawn over politicians, giving them little bits of money -- campaign contributions, plane trips, dinners, golf outings -- in exchange for huge chunks of taxpayers’ money. Millionaires who own your favorite sports teams get subsidies, as do millionaire farmers, corporations, and well-connected plutocrats of every variety. Even successful, wealthy TV journalists.

That’s right, I got some of your money too.

He goes on to describe just how that happened. Here's the answer he was given when he asked about why it's done the way it is:

Why does Uncle Sam offer me cheap insurance? "It saves federal dollars," replied James Lee Witt, head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), when I did a 20/20 report on this boondoggle. "If this insurance wasn’t here," he said, "then people would be building in those areas anyway. Then it would cost the American taxpayers more [in relief funds] if a disaster hit."

That’s government logic: Since we always mindlessly use taxpayer money to bail out every idiot who takes an expensive risk, let’s get some money up front by selling them insurance first.

He then proceeds to detail several types of government handouts that benefit primarily the wealthy. For example, he brings up the reason why the Coca Cola you get in Canada tastes better than that which you get in the US:

When public interest groups compile lists of corporate welfare recipients, a company called Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is usually at the top of the list. You may never have heard of ADM, because its name rarely appears on consumer products, but it’s huge. Its products are in most processed foods.

ADM collects welfare because of two cleverly designed special deals. The first is the government’s mandated minimum price for sugar. Because of the price supports, if a soft drink maker wants to buy sugar for its soda, it has to pay 22 cents a pound -- more than twice the world price. So Coca-Cola (and almost everyone else) buys corn sweetener instead. Guess who makes corn sweetener? ADM, of course. Now guess who finances the groups that lobby to keep sugar prices high?

Because this artificial price elevation doesn't occur in Canada, real sugar is cheap enough that they can use it in their soft drinks.

Here's what I consider the most profound sentence in the entire article:

Letting businesses fail is vital for the creative destruction that allows the market to work.

I think those who are complaining about "tax cuts for the rich" are missing the point. The rich still pay a hugely disproportionate amount of the total amount of income tax collected by the IRS. But, as this article shows, it's true that some of them are getting handouts and kickbacks that they don't need to stay rich, let alone stay in business.

I also noted that he didn't focus on one political party. He mentions the Bush and Kennedy families, Richard Gephardt, and Alan Keyes. This is the kind of stuff that makes we with we had a real, viable third party in this country.

Harvey commandeth and I must obey

I left a couple of comments over at Harvey's blog, Bad Money, and he, for some strange reason, decided to take a look at my blog. Then, for a yet more unfathomable reason, he deigned to mention it in one of his posts and even provide a link to it. He ended said post with:

And Radar Rider, you need to get an "About Me" post up sometime soon so that I can make fun of you properly ;-)

Therefore, I feel compelled to do as he asks and provide grist for his humor mill.

So... about me... *ahem*

I'm a 30-something computer geek who lives in the Pacific Northwet [sic], specifically the Puget Sound area, and works for one of the software companies located here. Some people who work with computers during the day go home and don't want anything to do with them. I, on the other hand, spend an inordinate amount of time in front of my home rig playing games, surfing the web, and other pursuits that are no doubt corrupting my fragile mind and will end up with me as the center of attention in a large, humming chair. Or not (as The Emperor is fond of saying).

As far as my political views go, I guess I would say I'm conservative with strong leanings toward (little "L") libertarianism. Like most people, though, I don't think I can really pigenhole myself, especially as my political views are constantly evolving. I really only became "politically aware" in the last four or five years and it's rather interesting to note how much I have come to agree with my father's views. The older I get, the more I look like him so I guess it's not surprising that I think more like him as well. I just hope this doesn't mean I'm all grown up now and have to stop acting like an overgrown kid.

A few other tidbits: I enjoy riding motorcycles and I'm a licensed private pilot. I live with a wonderful woman and a cute but somewhat neurotic cat. I leave finding out more about me as an exercise for the reader; it shouldn't be hard as I haven't tried seriously to be an anonymous blogger.

Can't wait to see what Harvey does with this....

Another one of my favorite weblogs is The Sake of Argument by Joe Kelley. He also has a rather down-to-earth and practical style. Here is his latest on gay marriage. Some excerpts:

As a conservative, I can’t understand how America would be would be set back by encouraging promiscuous homosexuals to engage in long-term, committed monogamous relationships. Homosexuals are fighting for access to health insurance, pensions, family medical leave, hospital visitation, bereavement leave, and a variety of other basic legal protections for families and children. None of these options will be available to them if they are divorced from (or not married to) their partners, thus establishing government-regulated encouragement to stay committed. With less promiscuity, we’ll see less sexually transmitted diseases and lower private and taxpayer-funded health insurance payments.

...

In absence of a good argument supporting it, I can see no reason to expressly prohibit homosexual marriage through a Constitutional Amendment. The solution, as I have previously argued, is to take the state completely out of “marriage” and grant all couples, both homo and hetero, civil unions. Allow marriages to be the sole property of churches.

...

Frankly, the two functions of the existing DOMA are in contradiction of each other. You cannot allow states to create their own marriage laws for the benefits of the participants if the participants can’t benefit from the marriage laws.

The ideal role of Uncle Sam would be to Constitutionally prohibit one state from defining marriage for other states and to recognize marriage (for purposes of federal law) as defined by each individual state.

Mike on SSM

One of the weblogs I like to read the most is Cold Fury. The author, Mike Hendrix is a fellow biker (though he might argue that I'm not a *real* biker as I don't ride a Harley) and he always presents a down-to-earth and practical viewpoint. He posts about same-sex marriage and the proposed Constitutional amendment here and here. These two paragraphs from the first post caught my eye (emphasis mine):

Gay activists are speaking of marriage as if it were a fundamental human right, one whose abrogation calls for the strongest possible resistance as a matter of simple human decency. But is it really? My off-the-cuff answer is that it isn’t, not at all. Marriage as it has been traditionally understood is a function of churches and state governments; it’s something that carries the stamp of religious and state authority, which is one of the primary reasons I’ve never had any personal interest in subjecting myself to it. I want as little state and church interference in my personal life as I can manage, thank you, and have never felt the need for any lawyer’s, bureaucrat’s, or priest’s official seal of approval on my romantic attachments. I forego certain benefits because of this attitude, but that’s my choice, and so far I’ve stuck with it, although that may not always and forever be the case. It doesn’t stop me from loving anybody, from being truly committed to any relationship, to living my life in the way I choose to live it. It doesn’t, and it hasn’t, and it won’t.

I can understand the point made by the SSM advocates: I’ve made a choice not to bother with the institution of marriage freely and without much in the way of restraint (even though living with someone out of wedlock is still illegal in my state), but I can also change my mind about that. They can make one choice but not the other. They don’t think that’s fair, and they’re probably right. I can’t really see how allowing them to make a similar choice will threaten the institution in any meaningful way. The institution of marriage has probably been battered and bruised more by no-fault divorce and meaningless Hollywood marriages that are undertaken as much for publicity’s sake as any other reason than it ever will be by two people in a long-term relationship who happen to be the same sex being allowed access to it.

The Washington Times on Kerry

This Washington Times editorial doesn't mince words when it comes to Kerry's recent "open letter" to the president.

Sen. Kerry's dead letter

This is the money quote:

Mr. Kerry's accusation against Republicans constitutes McCarthyism of the first water, and should be shunned and condemned by responsible citizens and news organizations.

The Washington Times also has this article on Kerry's voting record:

Kerry opposed key weapons

Over at the RNC site is a page which details Kerry's voting record when it comes to specific weapons programs. There was a post someone made that just listed out the things he's voted against that I wanted to use but couldn't find it so this'll have to do:

Senator Kerry's Specific Record - Again!

And just because Kerry is playing off his service in Vietnam so much, I had to include this:

Veterans Sound off on Kerry

This is interesting

Whether you agree with the author's conclusions or not, I find it very interesting that this article was published in the Village Voice of all places.

When John Kerry's Courage Went M.I.A. by Sydney H. Schanberg

Probably a good idea but still...

Blackfive posts about why he believes we must elect George Bush in November. What caught my eye was this:

We simply need more troops to protect our freedom. The Pentagon just cancelled the Comanche helicopter program. This comes on the heels of the cancellation of the Crusader missle system. This is the right train of thought - cancel the expensive tech programs and focus on what works.

He's probably right. But, damn, the Comanche sure is a kick-ass piece of hardware and it's a shame it had to be cancelled.

On Unions

Over at dgci.net, the author speaks about why he is in a union even though he doesn't want to be. I posted a rather lengthy comment to the post and decided to go ahead and repeat it here.

------------

My father was an air traffic controller when the union, PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization for those unfamiliar with the acronym), went on strike. It was actually in 1981 when that happened. It was against federal law for air traffic controllers to strike, I think it applied to all "essential services." As I recall, they went on strike not so much over pay but over working conditions. They were using outdated equipment and the job was simply amazingly stressful. By order of President Reagan, they were all fired.

Not only were they fired, they were prohibited from working for the federal government in any capacity. People, like my father, who only had a few years or so left until retirement were essentially screwed. Later, that restriction was eased and they just couldn't work for the FAA again (ultimately even that restriction was removed by President Clinton).

We bought an RV park in eastern Oregon and managed it for a few years but, when we determined that we just couldn't sink enough money into it to really make money owning it, we sold it and got out. We moved to Yakima, WA where my father worked odd jobs around the city, even picking apples with the migrant workers for a time. And yet we never wanted for shelter, clothing, or food, though we did take advantage of the local food bank (and, yes, we ate government cheese).

It wasn't long, however, before my father got a job with Immigration up in Blaine, WA at the border crossing. He lived up there in a small trailer we had while the rest of us stayed in Yakima and we children finished the school year. We then moved to Bellingham where I started college at Western Washington University and my siblings continued public school. Dad put in his remaining time and retired.

And now the interesting part. As you mentioned, the FAA contracts out to private companies to provide ATC service at a lot of smaller airports. Such is the case at Bellingham and Dad got a job there. At this time, the restriction against working for the FAA was still in effect. He worked there for several years and was by far the most experienced controller they had. After all, he had worked at much larger airports like Oakland, Reno, Miramar NAS, and Edwards AFB (he got to watch the shuttle Columbia land for the first time).

I believe he regrets going on strike and wishes he'd crossed the picket lines and kept his job. Even though Reagan fired him, I think he doesn't hold it against him and considers him one of the greatest, if not *the* greatest, president of his lifetime. He had to give up the house, the boat, and the airplanes (yes, plural). He never did regain his dream of airplane ownership (though he did rent while in Bellingham, and did eventually get another boat) and now hopes that I can fulfill that dream now that I'm a private pilot myself.

Parental rights

Joe Kelly over at The Sake of Argument provides his opinion regarding the opposition to a proposed amendment to the Florida State Constitution. Here's an excerpt from the article:

A Florida lawmaker Monday unveiled a proposed constitutional amendment ensuring parents could eavesdrop on their children's phone calls, snoop in their rooms and search their school bags.

The Florida Parental Rights Amendment also would clear the way for parents to obtain notice of an abortion -- a state law struck down last year by the Florida Supreme Court, supporters say.

Opposition to the proposal from Planned Parenthood was swift:

"Quite honestly, Speaker Byrd's proposal today makes minors property of their parents," said Stephanie Grutman, executive director of Planned Parenthood of Florida. "They want to get at every aspect of our life. Privacy is our most fundamental, basic right."

Joe has some choice words in response:

I am red-faced, fuming and foaming at the mouth mad at the pro-choicers who are so fanatical in their love for abortions that they would fight this type of legislation. I think Planned Parenthood is one of the most destructive and horrific organizations in America today.

They argue that, “Privacy is our most fundamental, basic right.”

Wrong!

And he also makes a very good point:

My child can’t go to the doctor and have a wart removed without my permission. Yet, Planned Parenthood wants her to be able to go get an abortion without my consent and without my knowledge.

For the record, I don't think that Planned Parenthood is "one of the most destructive and horrific organizations in America today." I'm willing to assume that they're simply trying to do what is right. However, I agree with Joe that they are wrong in this case, but for different reasons.

In our society, we consider that children are not sufficiently experienced and knowledgeable to take responsibility for themselves. Instead, their parents or guardians are responsible for their actions, just as they are responsible for caring for the children. Let's say a child of 12 breaks a neighbor's window while hitting golf balls from his own front yard. The parent is responsible for paying for it (though this could also serve as a chance to teach the child about taking responsibility for his actions *). This responsibility also means that the parent has to know what the child is doing and so the child's privacy is not a primary consideration. The parent has the right to enter the child's room at will and search it. Naturally parents will want to provide their children with some privacy, you don't want to be opressive. But the child doesn't have the same rights as an adult because they are not yet responsible for themselves.

Even so, I think there shouldn't be a need for an amendment to the state constitution. Given that the previous law was struck down by the State Supreme Court (which smacks of judicial activism, though I'd need to read the ruling to be sure), this may be the only way.

* Yes, I speak from direct experience. I did end up paying for the window out of my allowance and I did learn my lesson.

They asked, but not for help.

Via The Geek with a .45:

Their Finest Hour

In the future many observations will be made of this battle: that the Al Qaeda timed their assaults to coincide with US unit rotations through Iraq; that they chose the moment when the baton is passing from US soldier to Iraqi policeman. But if the Iraqi nation goes on to live another hundred years, it will remember this:

Officers from the 82nd Airborne Division stationed a 10-minute drive away could hear the battle clearly. They offered help but the Hammad said it wasn't needed. The Americans did provide additional ammunition and weapons, including light machine guns. After the battle, soldiers at the civil defense base proudly displayed a light machine gun and a pair of rocket propelled grenade launchers they had captured from the attackers.

That when dying and bleeding, beset by the flower of terrorism, with pistol to set against automatic rifle and grenade, the Iraqi police did not ask for help from 82nd Airborne. They asked for ammunition.

They didn't ask for help, they asked for the means to help themselves. The 82nd Airborne could have gone over there anyway and taken charge, but they didn't. They let the Iraqi's fight, and win, their own battle.

Via Fark:

The New Mexico State House of Representatives has approved a measure that would require ignition interlocks on all vehicles sold in New Mexico. This applies to all vehicles, new and used. New vehicles would have to have them by 2008, used by 2009.

Would this save lives? Probably. However, what this means is that every person who drives a car in New Mexico must prove that he or she is not a criminal before driving. Another way of looking at this is that it removes personal responsibility from the driver and relegates it to the state. I see this as yet another step along the path to making personal responsibility completely irrelevant. If that happens, there will be no freedom. None. Period. Unsurprisingly, the measure's sponsor is a Democrat.

This brings up some questions:

• What will be the limit beyond which the interlock won't release the ignition?


• How will the interlocks' accuracy be verified and maintained?


• What happens if the interlock malfunctions?


• Will it default to allowing the car to start or preventing it if it does fail?


• What happens if someone disables the interlock on their car?


• How will the police find out about it?


• Will there be "interlock inspection" stops?


• Who will provide the interlocks?


• Will more than one manufacturer be able to provide them?


• Who will install them?


• How much will it all cost?


• Will there be public funds available to help cover the costs?

Of course, all you will have to do to defeat this is buy and sell your car in another state. For example, suppose I know that there will be times when I will try to drive after having a drink or two. I just head over to Arizona to trade my current car for a new one. I will have to register it in NM, and pay the excise tax but the car won't have an interlock. And what about all the people who are visiting from out of state?

This will turn into a bureaucratic nightmare and will probably end up having little or no actual effect. Except to increase the size of government and cost the citizens of New Mexico a lot of money.

And, to follow up on that...

"...[I]t is only fair to add that many of Bush's steps in the direction of bigger government (notably the Medicare and education bills) include reforms that, if they can be built upon, should greatly improve the performance of those programs. In addition, the federal deficit at the end of 2003, though dollar-wise the largest in history, represented only 4.2 percent of GDP -- by no means a record. Still, a widely circulated Office of Management and Budget chart showing the percentage increases in discretionary domestic spending reveals just how far President Bush has wandered from fiscal discipline: Lyndon Johnson, 1965-69, 4.3 percent; Richard Nixon, 1970-75, 6.8 percent; Gerald Ford, 1976-77, 8.0 percent; Jimmy Carter, 1978-81, 2.0 percent; Ronald Reagan, 1982-89, 1.3 percent; George Bush, Sr., 1990-93, 4.0 percent; Bill Clinton, 1994-2001, 2.5 percent; George W. Bush, 2002-04, 8.2 percent. Historically, one of the chief things the Republican party and the conservative movement have had going for them is the public belief that they are financially more responsible than their opponents and less inclined to expand government. If Bush squanders those assets in pursuit of 'bolder, more inspirational ideas,' he will bear a heavy responsibility for the future fates of the party and the movement. No wonder many conservatives are ill at ease. There is probably still time -- though just barely -- for Bush to make policy corrections that will signal his continued allegiance to the basic principles of traditional conservatism. Unless he does, he may win the next election at the price of presiding over the political destruction of the conservative movement." --William Rusher

Quote of the day

"Our out-of-control budget also erodes personal freedom. When government grows, as Thomas Jefferson once famously put it, 'liberty yields.' Dollar by trillion dollar we are voluntarily giving up our liberties for a government that promises us, in return, a blanket of protection from cradle to coffin. Republicans are steering us in the direction of the 'workers' paradise' of a European socialist welfare state. The reply from the Democrats is faster, faster." --Stephen Moore

As usual, from The Federalist

2.5

Mac Johnson, writing for Right Wing News, has a proposal for those in the Libertarian Party who want to win elections: The Two and a Half Party System

He brings up several good points. For example:

(E)ach party, in an effort to win 50% of the population's votes in every election, in every district, in every state, among every race, gender, industry, and income group, has had to turn itself into a big tent coalition consisting of individually self-interested and organized components. In effect, both parties resemble the multi-party parliamentary coalition governments of Europe. The only difference is that the coalitions must be formed up before the election and are very stable for that reason. But other than that, they even function like coalition governments once in office. One interest group is promised trade policy, another gets dibs on civil rights law, a third is given farm policy, and so on. The subparties even threaten to leave the coalitions when ignored or hungry for more power: Reagan Democrats, Southern Dixiecrats, Buchananite Republicans etc.

Basically what he's saying is that, because of the entrenched nature of the two party system we have today, Libertarians at best generally collect a small portion of the vote and, at worst, siphon votes from the Republican candidate which results in a Democrat victory. He proposes an alternate way:

All it will take is for the Libertarians of this country to start thinking of themselves as The Libertarian Party and Caucus, rather than solely as The Libertarian Party. Like the National Rifle Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, Labor Unions, and a gaggle of lobbying interests, the Libertarians of this country can leverage their dedication into an influence well beyond their numbers by forcing the two great coalition parties to begin competing for their votes, campaign work, and donations. The Libertarian Party can still run candidates under its own flag, but it can also begin acknowledging candidates of Libertarian beliefs running under other flags. Think of it as a Two and a Half Party system.

He fleshes it out quite a bit more so go read the whole thing.

Cars and trucks

Subaru has introduced the 2005 Outback which will be classified as a truck according to federal fuel economy and emissions rules. Environmental activists are charging that Subaru is exploiting a loophole in the regulations to avoid having to improve the overall fuel economy of its product line.

"Instead of making more gas guzzlers, Subaru should pledge to bring its fleet average fuel economy up to 40 miles per gallon," Katherine Morrison, an attorney with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, said in a statement. "By using currently available technologies, they can start improving the fuel economy of their best-selling vehicles and reduce global warming pollution and oil dependence."

Actually, Suburu "should" not do anything of the kind provided it doesn't violate the rules. The company is in the business of selling vehicles and they will do what they legally can to maximize their sales.

Jim Murphy, general manager of governmental affairs for Subaru, said the change from car to truck was a consequence of other decisions to make the Outback wagons more closely resemble sport utility vehicles, and was not a goal for Subaru.

“If we had wanted to make it a truck, we would have made it much closer to the standards,” Murphy said. “In today’s world, there’s no benefit.”

Of course, he could be lying but he does have a point. It's the styling that people care about. I personally wouldn't take most SUV's off road. Dirt roads, sure, but not totally off the road. For that I'd use a vehicle that has been specifically designed to do that, a true 4x4. This is reflected in the fact that more and more "SUV's" are being designed to handle more like cars. The Outback and Outback Sport models were among the first to have this design philosophy. The Toyota RAV4, built on a car frame (the Camry as I recall), is another one.

I personally own my second Subaru vehicle. My current one is a 2002 Impreza 2.5 RS. It's the next step down from the WRX, the only differences that I know of are that it has the less-powerful, non-turbocharged engine, and the transmission is an automatic. Even so, it has plenty of performance. When I bought it, I traded in my 1997 Outback Sport, which is based on the Impreza wagon.

Murphy and Adcock said the new Outback will have about a 5 percent improvement in fuel economy over the current model and average about 27.5 mpg, despite an increase in horsepower.

That number is the average fuel economy for cars required by federal regulations. My Outback Sport had a very consistent fuel economy of about 25 mpg. My new car actually averages a bit less, about 23. I do a considerable amount of driving in town, though, and the mileage goes up noticeably if I go on a long trip; the Outback Sport once did 29. This new Outback, which is larger than both my Subarus, gets better average mileage. It sounds to me like Subaru is doing a good job. More and more people are becoming conscious about fuel economy and desire cars that get better mileage, if only because fuel costs are reduced. For Subaru, or any other company, to make a profit, they have to give the people what they want.

Military service and disservice

Mike over at Cold Fury compares and contrasts the military service, or lack thereof, of the following three people:

• Bill Clinton. He quotes heavily from the letter that Clinton wrote in 1969 to Col. Eugene Holmes, then Director of the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas. He then includes excerpts from Col. Holmes 1992 affidavit, in which he addresses Bill Clinton and the draft. Mike sums up with:
  

  In summary, Clinton was then and remains now a duplicitous, conniving, self-seeking dirtbag, unfit to command a military he has little regard or respect for, as I said about a certain someone else at Bill’s joint last night. Unless you’re a Democrat, that is, in which case Clinton is the greatest President we ever had, an honorable man worthy of respect and high regard, and far less morally objectionable than George “AWOL” Bush.



• Al Gore. He presents documentation that Gore's service in Vietnam was likely not as dangerous as it has been portrayed.


• John Kerry. There's some question as to the actions for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star. However, that's not what's important. It's Kerry's actions after he came home from Veitnam which are the real issue and Mike addresses them as many others have.

And then he wraps it up with this post. Some excerpts:

Kerry may have served with distinction, but his conduct after the war reveals him to be cut from the same cloth as Clinton and Gore. In my comment at DP I referred to Kerry as “Clinton V2.0 (or, maybe, 1.0.1)” and said that he seemed to be “the best the Dems could do, and the sanest, most mainstream of the lot of them.” But it ought to be plain to the meanest intelligence that if this is in fact the best the Dems can do, then their best is just not good enough. Not now, not in a dangerous age when we’re going to be relying on the US military for so much.

...

Clinton is by any standards indisputably a profoundly dishonest and dishonorable man. It’s my belief that he’s borderline sociopathic in his pursuit of his own interests, and regardless of what you may believe about the role of the federal government in the life of the individual, there were plenty of perfectly justified reasons to despise Clinton. Some on the Right may have taken their loathing of the man to ridiculous extremes, and the wish for vengeance against them on the part of the Left is understandable; but the kind of smear campaign mounted against Bush since day one of his presidency is hardly explained by that alone. (And Day One is really what it all comes back to with Bush, I think; they’re still so angry about losing the 2000 election it’s driven even some of the sanest among them right over the edge.)

...

The Dems and their supporters are now in the wholly unenviable position of having to hitch their rattletrap wagons to a dim and feeble star like Kerry because he at least has some claim on an honorable military record - and all the while they’re smearing a man who did a dangerous and perfectly respectable job in the Texas Air National Guard as a coward and a deserter. Their now-familiar desire to paint all conservatives as bloodthirsty megalomaniacs has come back to haunt them in an almost hilariously ironic way. The Dems’ election hopes now rest entirely on the ability of their lapdogs in the media to prevent the ugly truth about who and what Kerry really is from coming to broader notice. (That’s assuming Kerry will be the nominee, by the way, which is hardly a given but seems reasonable at this point.) They may well succeed, but anybody who truly cares about the nation’s future would have to hope that they do not.

The lie that Bush was AWOL from the Texas National Guard has been thoroughly debunked. It's amazing that this lie is still being disseminated by his opponents. I personally don't consider military service a prerequisite for being President. If you didn't serve, that's fine as long as your honest about it. And if you did serve, be honest about that, too.

Lileks rants

The incomparable James Lileks addresses a couple points in today's Bleat.

1) Actor Patrick Stewart's comments on space travel:

The 63-year-old British actor says manned missions are too expensive. "It would take up so many resources, which I personally feel should be directed at our own planet," he said.

Making movies takes up many resources which could be directed at our own planet. For that matter, millions of pounds are spent in England annually for theater productions – I propose a ten-year moratorium on all stage shows, with the money distributed directly to our own planet. And after we have gotten things right on this planet we can get back to such frivolous luxuries as theater. What’s that, you say – theater employs many people? Theater inspires imaginations, adds to our store of knowledge, helps us define what it means to be human?

2) John Kerry:

If Kerry wants to bring this era back, he’s demonstrated that his branch of the party are the modern-day Bourbons. They have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. For them the great evil wasn’t communism, but America’s response to communism. And now the threat isn’t Islamic terrorism, but what we do to combat it. We act without French approval. We act after 170 UN resolutions instead of crafting a 171st which forbids us from acting. We deploy anti-missile defenses around the Korean peninsula instead of striking a deal to give them more food, more oil, more time. In short, we act as if we have a pair.

...

I’m waiting for a Kerry speech in which he seems angrier about 9/11 than he does about tax cuts.

I’m waiting for an ad that simply puts the matter plainly: who do you think Al Qaeda wants to win the election? Who do you think will make Syria relax? Who do you think Hezbollah worries about more? Who would Iran want to deal with when it comes to its nuclear program – Cowboy Bush or “Send in the bribed French inspectors” Kerry? Which candidate would our enemies prefer?

Wisconsin: Victim disarmament zone

The Wisconsin assembly failed, by one vote, to override Governor Jim Doyle's veto of a bill that would allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. In a stunning display of political expediency at the expense of the public's safety and will, 34 representatives voted to uphold the veto. From the article:

(Executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) Joe) Waldron singled out Rep. Gary Sherman, a National Rifle Association member and a Democrat, who just three months ago voted in favor of the concealed carry law. But on Tuesday, Sherman switched his vote -- "to protect his governor and what limited power the minority Assembly Democrats have," one newspaper quoted him as saying.

"Sherman's vote switch, placing the interests of Jim Doyle and his anti-gun Democrat cronies above public safety and the citizens' constitutional rights, was despicable, and should be remembered when he runs for re-election," Waldron said.

I hope that the citizens of Wisconsin remember this when it comes time to elect their state representatives. Until then, criminals are hereby notified that they have nothing to fear from law-abiding citizens in that state. It is now open season.

Via Neal Boortz.

Quote of the day

"Financial considerations aside, we cannot continue to ignore the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. This is a basic human desire that Americans understand, especially when so many immigrants are born into hopeless poverty in their own nations. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. More importantly, we expect immigrants to respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government. After all, a lack of respect for the rule of law causes much of the poverty around the world that immigrants seek to escape. Problems arise when immigrants refuse to assimilate and show little interest in becoming American citizens. One hundred years ago, immigrants arrived in America after dangerous journeys fully prepared to embrace their new country. In most cases, returning home was not an option. Most led very hard lives, took pride in American citizenship, and asked for nothing but the opportunity to work. Today, however, some immigrants travel between countries frequently, enjoying the benefits of America but showing no desire to become Americans. Some even display hostility toward America and our ideals, joining the chorus of voices demanding that the United States become a multicultural society that rejects our own history. It is this cultural conflict that soon must be addressed, and the President's amnesty proposal simply turns a blind eye to the problem." --Ron Paul

Via The Federalist

Lies told by university professors

J.D. Cassidy, writing for PoliticallyRight.com, presents a list of eight lies that he was told by his college professors, and provides counter arguments.

I don't recall this being an issue during my college years. However, I was a Math/Computer Science student so the majority of my classes had nothing to do with politics or history (unless it was the history of computing). I did have to take various classes to satisfy my general university requirements, and that included a couple history classes, but I don't recall my professors being exceedingly leftist in any way. I guess I was lucky.