Colby Cosh writes an interesting piece in Canada’s National Post favorably contrasting Wal-Mart’s Katrina disaster relief efforts with those of the federal government. Lesson: Big government isn’t always good, and big business isn’t always bad. Market forces can benefit the public good, because without the public, there is no market for business to sell its wares.
Money quote from the article: As the president of the brutalized Jefferson Parish put it in a Sept. 4 Meet the Press interview, speaking at the height of nationwide despair over FEMA's confused response: "If [the U.S.] government would have responded like Wal-Mart has responded, we wouldn't be in this crisis."
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Wal-Mart & Katrina
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Neal Boortz’s Famous Commencement Address
A friend sent this to me and suggested I post it. It’s a nice summary of conservativism. Neal pokes a little fun at liberals and the academic left, but he does it in a civil manner while handing out some good advice. BTW, he has never actually given this speech at any college, but it is nonetheless one of his most well-known.
Enjoy!
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Report: Saddam Aided Terrorists
DoD just released the declassified report on Saddam and Terrorism, produced by The Institute for Defense Analyses. Funny how the same document can spawn conflicting headlines. Apparently having only read the executive summary, McClatchy news exonerates Saddam in its headline. The Australian dug a little deeper, reporting that the document reveals Iraqi support for “parts of Al Qaida.” I downloaded the first part of the report from http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html.
The McClatchy link shows typical, perfunctory reportage, while the Australian provides timely context. Neither is wrong, but the contrast in styles and choice of emphasis is stark. Finally, below the links is the executive summary. The bolded parentheses are mine. Enjoy!
McClatchy says:
Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam, al Qaida
The Australian Says:
Saddam, the terrorist's friend
Executive Summary
The Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism. Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States. At times these organizations worked together, trading access for capability. In the period after the 1991 Gulf War, the regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging pan-Islamic radical movements. The relationship between Iraq and forces of pan-Arab socialism was well known and was in fact one of the defining qualities of the Ba'ath movement.
But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Some in the regime recognized the potential high internal and external costs of maintaining relationships with radical Islamic groups, yet they concluded that in some cases, the benefits of association outweighed the risks. A review of available Iraqi documents indicated the following:
• The Iraqi regime was involved in regional and international terrorist operations prior to OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. The predominant tar gets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq.
• On occasion, the Iraqi intelligence services directly targeted the regime's perceived enemies, including non-Iraqis. Non-Iraqi casualties often resulted from Iraqi sponsorship of non-governmental terrorist groups.
• Saddam's regime often cooperated directly, albeit cautiously, with terrorist groups when they believed such groups could help advance Iraq's long-term goals. The regime carefully recorded its connections to Palestinian terror organizations in numerous government memos. One such example documents Iraqi financial support to families of suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank.
• State sponsorship of terrorism became such a routine tool of state power that Iraq developed elaborate bureaucratic processes to monitor progress and accountability in the recruiting, training, and resourcing of terrorists. Examples include the regime's development, construction, certification, and training for car bombs and suicide vests in 1999 and 2000.
From the beginning of his rise to power, one of Saddam's major objectives was to shift the regional balance of power favorably towards Iraq. After the 1991 Gulf War, pursuing this objective motivated Saddam and his regime to increase their cooperation with-and attempts to manipulate-Islamic fundamentalists and related terrorist organizations. Documents indicate that the regime's use of terrorism was standard practice, although not always successful. From 1991 through 2003, the Saddam regime regarded inspiring, sponsoring, directing, and executing acts of terrorism as an element of state power.
Excerpted From: Kevin M. Woods, James Lacey; Iraqi Perspectives Project Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents Volume 1 (Redacted)
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Ivy League Obamas & Race
I would rather burn my hair off with a blowtorch than talk about race, but here goes:
I can understand poor, downtrodden people sitting in a church and listening approvingly to the fiery rhetoric of Reverend Wright, hooting and cheering at America’s chickens coming home to roost. I cannot understand two Ivy Leaguers at the pinnacle of society doing it. OK, the Obama family wasn’t in the pews that day, or at any other time anything controversial might have been said…
The Obamas are living proof that people of color can succeed. The fact that they stand as equals with the Clintons in education, power, and status is a proud testimony to how far we have come as a nation. Barack and Michelle obviously chose to work hard and get ahead rather than make excuses, and our society has rewarded them. Their very lives are a sharp rebuke to those who wallow in the misery and self-pity of our nation’s inequities. Has anyone in Reverend Wright’s church noticed the Obamas’ rise in status and power? Does the flock view them as an “if they can do it I can do it” success story, or are they viewed as an aberration, two people who snuck by “the man” while he wasn’t looking?
Of course the Reverend has a right to say what he said. And his parishioners have a right to listen. But what is the purpose of indulging in this rhetoric, as a preacher or as a listener? The catalog of our country's sins against people of color is thick and well known. Why continue to revel in it? Do sermons like this help people overcome their circumstances? Or do these sermons instead serve as a balm, an excuse to soothe those who have found the higher rungs of society too difficult to reach?
I have read Howard Zinn's “A People’s History,” where the professor catalogs US sins against its own people and the world. I have also read Bill Bennett's "America, The Last Best Hope." Both books are factual accounts of American history but each with a very distinct point of view.
Zinn shows us a venal, bigoted, bullying America, while Bennett swings the spotlight on her glories and selfless sacrifices. I guess John Edwards was right; there really are two Americas: Bennett’s “God Bless America” club versus Zinn’s “God Damn America” faction.
Only focusing on one aspect of America, to the detriment of the other, is like looking out of only one eye when you have two available. We are a glorious nation, but we must acknowledge our sins and express sorrow if we ever hope to get past them. Perhaps the typical Bennett fan thinks we have done this already, while the Zinn faction thinks otherwise.
So where do we go from here? I don’t know. I think the burden is on the aggrieved to express their grievances, perhaps in a slightly less controversial manner than the good Reverend Wright has sometimes done. We on the Bennett team need to give them an honest listen. It can’t hurt.
We are arguably the most socially mobile country on earth. President Clinton grew up poor with no father. General Colin Powell was born to Jamaican immigrants. Bill Gates didn’t grow up poor, but he definitely became richer than his parents! Our workplaces are full of successful people of all colors who overcame obstacles to get where they are. The ones I have known personally all had one thing in common: They did not wallow in resentment and self-pity. They all found a way to overcome the obstacles that society and history placed in their path. I’m sure if you were to ask them, few would credit their success to dialog, while all would readily cite hard work.
So let the dialog continue, but let the hard work continue also. We can't erase the past and we can’t ignore it. But we must also realize that our country is full of successful people like the Obamas, who prove every day that one's past does not define one's destiny.
I can understand poor, downtrodden people sitting in a church and listening approvingly to the fiery rhetoric of Reverend Wright, hooting and cheering at America’s chickens coming home to roost. I cannot understand two Ivy Leaguers at the pinnacle of society doing it. OK, the Obama family wasn’t in the pews that day, or at any other time anything controversial might have been said…
The Obamas are living proof that people of color can succeed. The fact that they stand as equals with the Clintons in education, power, and status is a proud testimony to how far we have come as a nation. Barack and Michelle obviously chose to work hard and get ahead rather than make excuses, and our society has rewarded them. Their very lives are a sharp rebuke to those who wallow in the misery and self-pity of our nation’s inequities. Has anyone in Reverend Wright’s church noticed the Obamas’ rise in status and power? Does the flock view them as an “if they can do it I can do it” success story, or are they viewed as an aberration, two people who snuck by “the man” while he wasn’t looking?
Of course the Reverend has a right to say what he said. And his parishioners have a right to listen. But what is the purpose of indulging in this rhetoric, as a preacher or as a listener? The catalog of our country's sins against people of color is thick and well known. Why continue to revel in it? Do sermons like this help people overcome their circumstances? Or do these sermons instead serve as a balm, an excuse to soothe those who have found the higher rungs of society too difficult to reach?
I have read Howard Zinn's “A People’s History,” where the professor catalogs US sins against its own people and the world. I have also read Bill Bennett's "America, The Last Best Hope." Both books are factual accounts of American history but each with a very distinct point of view.
Zinn shows us a venal, bigoted, bullying America, while Bennett swings the spotlight on her glories and selfless sacrifices. I guess John Edwards was right; there really are two Americas: Bennett’s “God Bless America” club versus Zinn’s “God Damn America” faction.
Only focusing on one aspect of America, to the detriment of the other, is like looking out of only one eye when you have two available. We are a glorious nation, but we must acknowledge our sins and express sorrow if we ever hope to get past them. Perhaps the typical Bennett fan thinks we have done this already, while the Zinn faction thinks otherwise.
So where do we go from here? I don’t know. I think the burden is on the aggrieved to express their grievances, perhaps in a slightly less controversial manner than the good Reverend Wright has sometimes done. We on the Bennett team need to give them an honest listen. It can’t hurt.
We are arguably the most socially mobile country on earth. President Clinton grew up poor with no father. General Colin Powell was born to Jamaican immigrants. Bill Gates didn’t grow up poor, but he definitely became richer than his parents! Our workplaces are full of successful people of all colors who overcame obstacles to get where they are. The ones I have known personally all had one thing in common: They did not wallow in resentment and self-pity. They all found a way to overcome the obstacles that society and history placed in their path. I’m sure if you were to ask them, few would credit their success to dialog, while all would readily cite hard work.
So let the dialog continue, but let the hard work continue also. We can't erase the past and we can’t ignore it. But we must also realize that our country is full of successful people like the Obamas, who prove every day that one's past does not define one's destiny.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Guns & The Founding Fathers
To those who would try to misconstrue our founders' intent of the second amendment, here are some quotes that clarify. They are not included in the constitution, so they are not legally binding. They do, however, give us insight into what they had in mind when they were crafting our legal foundations.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
-Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
-George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-Thomas Jefferson.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.
And for the libs in the audience who became late fans of Benjamin Franklin in the wake of 9/11:
"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
Thanks to:
http://www.kysrpa.org/pages/founding%20fathers.html
"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
-Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
-George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-Thomas Jefferson.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.
And for the libs in the audience who became late fans of Benjamin Franklin in the wake of 9/11:
"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
Thanks to:
http://www.kysrpa.org/pages/founding%20fathers.html
Army Reenlistments are way up
Army reenlistments are up. I wonder if the soldiers know something the critics don't? And if you think it's all due to the reenlistment bonuses, you probably haven't served, although an Army officer who has served has a different point of view. See below.
US Army Reenlistment FY 95-07
Year Mission Actual %
FY07 62,000 69,777 112.0%
FY06 64,200 67,307 104.8%
FY05 64,162 69,512 108.3%
FY04 56,100 60,010 107.0%
FY03 51,000 54,151 106.2%
FY02 56,800 58,237 102.5%
FY01 64,000 64,982 101.5%
FY00 68,000 71,318 104.9%
FY99 65,000 71,147 109.5%
FY98 62,125 63,083 101.5%
FY97 79,959 79,564 99.5%
FY96 73,070 72,990 99.9%
FY95 72,610 72,127 99.3%
Bill Barderwerper has his own explanation in a NYT Opinion Piece. Here's an excerpt:
"Supposedly impressive re-enlistment rates are cited as evidence that soldiers enthusiastically support the war effort. In reality, these retention numbers are more the result of the “stop-loss” policy, where soldiers are required to remain in the Army after their contracts have expired if their units are deployed or ordered to deploy soon. My platoon’s infantrymen expected to be “stop-lossed” and some felt they might as well cash in on the re-enlistment bonuses if they were going to be forced to stay in the Army anyway."
US Army Reenlistment FY 95-07
Year Mission Actual %
FY07 62,000 69,777 112.0%
FY06 64,200 67,307 104.8%
FY05 64,162 69,512 108.3%
FY04 56,100 60,010 107.0%
FY03 51,000 54,151 106.2%
FY02 56,800 58,237 102.5%
FY01 64,000 64,982 101.5%
FY00 68,000 71,318 104.9%
FY99 65,000 71,147 109.5%
FY98 62,125 63,083 101.5%
FY97 79,959 79,564 99.5%
FY96 73,070 72,990 99.9%
FY95 72,610 72,127 99.3%
Bill Barderwerper has his own explanation in a NYT Opinion Piece. Here's an excerpt:
"Supposedly impressive re-enlistment rates are cited as evidence that soldiers enthusiastically support the war effort. In reality, these retention numbers are more the result of the “stop-loss” policy, where soldiers are required to remain in the Army after their contracts have expired if their units are deployed or ordered to deploy soon. My platoon’s infantrymen expected to be “stop-lossed” and some felt they might as well cash in on the re-enlistment bonuses if they were going to be forced to stay in the Army anyway."
Iraqi Opinion Poll, March 2008
Latest survey of Iraqis conducted by ABC News, BBC, ARD (Germany) and NHK (Japan). Released March 2008. Share it with your skeptical friends. It’s still not the Riviera over there, but trend lines are positive. Sceptics will point out that the numbers are skewed because Kurds show the most satisfaction while Sunnis remain at the opposite end. But at least these are real numbers, as opposed to those pulled out of you-know-where by the doom and gloom crowd.
“From two-thirds to 80 percent of Iraqis support future U.S. efforts conducting security operations against al Qaeda or foreign jihadis in Iraq; providing military training, weapons and reconstruction aid; and assisting in security vis-à-vis Iran and Turkey.”
“Fifty-five percent of Iraqis say things in their own lives are going well, well up from 39 percent as recently as August. More, 62 percent, rate local security positively, up 19 points. And the number who expect conditions nationally to improve in the year ahead has doubled, to 46 percent in this new national poll by ABC News, the BBC, ARD German TV and the Japanese broadcaster NHK.”
http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1060a1IraqWhereThingsStand.pdf
Wall Street Loves Democrats!
Which major political party gets more Wall Street money? You'd be surprised.
Since 1989, blue chip investor contributions have broken 60% Dem/40% GOP. Hedge funds give over 70% to Dems. Commercial Banking used to give more to the GOP but is trending Democratic. The parties are now tied.
Which Party gets more big oil bucks? You won't be surprised to learn Repubs get 75%.
You can check all this out yourself at http://www.opensecrets.org/
Keep in mind that the party in power will usually get more money. Hmmm, I wonder why?
Since 1989, blue chip investor contributions have broken 60% Dem/40% GOP. Hedge funds give over 70% to Dems. Commercial Banking used to give more to the GOP but is trending Democratic. The parties are now tied.
Which Party gets more big oil bucks? You won't be surprised to learn Repubs get 75%.
You can check all this out yourself at http://www.opensecrets.org/
Keep in mind that the party in power will usually get more money. Hmmm, I wonder why?
Why do They Hate Us?
I think Hollywood is the reason why many traditional societies hate us. I have traveled around the world a little, and the image people have of us is almost exclusively a Hollywood one. Rampant drug use, unbridled greed, thuggish behavior glorified, women degraded or more commonly degrading themselves, young people disrespecting their elders. Celebrity culture celebrates boys as gangstas, young girls as booty shaking tramps. Normal people like the ones you and I know are trotted out only to be made fun of.
To the rest of the world, thanks to Hollywood, we are the seven deadly sins personified. If you were a parent in a traditional society, would you want your kids exposed to that? Would you want anything to do with a country like that? Normal people don't want their daughters dressing and behaving like a Hollywood tramp. Parents want their son to grow up to be a real man who respects women and acts responsibly.
Hollywood is so far removed from the real America, but Hollywood is what the rest of the world sees. Is it any wonder they hate us?
Latte Leftists and Colombia
Latte leftists living a cushy lifestyle here in the USA bravely cling to their love for FARC and their disdain for the will of the Colombian people. They also see the evil hand of Bush-Cheney in all that has been going on down there. People a little closer to the actions see things differently. Here are some facts.
FARC was there before President Bush entered the White House. Plan Colombia was initiated by President Clinton. Colombians left, right, and center are sick of the violence. Colombians love democracy and free enterprise and have built the best economy and the most transparent democracy in the region in spite of their problems.
During the Clinton years, Colombia reached out to the US for systematic help in combating the violence and drug trafficking going on within its borders. Who else would they have turned to? Chavez? He's helping FARC (unproven, but probably true). Who else could help Colombia keep their democracy and economy stable, while defeating insurgents? China? Russia? France or Germany?
The US stood up, under President Clinton, to make a commitment to help this pro-American country. And we should all be proud he did. Thanks in part to our help, Colombia appears to have the upper hand in their fight against the murdering, kidnapping parasites in their midst. All while getting no "solidarity" from their Latin American "brothers."
Finally, democratic leftist governments in Chile and Peru will have nothing to do with FARC. Leftists all over Latin America long ago woke to the realization that FARC no longer stood for the people; it now dedicates itself exclusively to trafficking drugs, killing and kidnapping. There are still worthy causes to be fought for in Latin America, but supporting FARC is no longer one of them. It is time for the Latte Leftists in the USA to wake up and smell the Colombian coffee.
1. FARC: Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarios de Colombia (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia). Started in the early 60's as the armed component of the Colombian Communist party.
2. Plan Colombia: US assistance to Colombia in combating drug trafficking and the insurgency. Google it to learn more. You will have to wade through a plethora of left wing sites critcizing it to get a fair picture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)