Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/02/2004 10:28:00 PM (Archive Link)
Pack the Digital U-Hauls!

This blog is moving! Has moved, actually. Go to www.dangerousdan.us for the new location. I'm still doing some fine-tuning to the site, but it's ready for business.

I decided to make the switch from Blogger to Word Press for a few reasons.
A) I decided to get my own domain
B) I've grown increasingly disenchanted with Blogger. They've added "improvements" that make posting more and more frustrating.
C) Blogger's hang times have become ridiculous. For example, in order to type this post, I had to wait over a minute for the form box to pop up after hitting the link.
D) Word Press is a great blogging program that has lots of room for manipulation and improvements... provided you know what you're doing. I don't know that I fit that description, but I'm learning fast.

Anyway, go to the new site! That's where the action is!

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/02/2004 05:39:00 PM (Archive Link)
If the World Were One Big Dilbert Strip...

then if John Kerry is elected president, he'd be the pointy-haired boss. The proof is in this story. This deal being discussed is remarkably similar to the one agreed to with North Korea, and we know how that turned out. So, this sort of thing has failed horribly once and that means we... try it again!

This is a substantial misunderstanding of how to deal with such rogue countries. People like Kerry and the EU folks want to use carrots to entice these nations into being good upstanding members of the international community. That's not how it works out, though. The corrupt government is still there and the same people are still in charge. They merely use their rogue status to get more and more concessions. Why should a rotten child whose parents continually placate him with candy ever want to be a good child? Being rotten gets him the candy! Iran would rather have the international bon-bons and still develop its nuclear program and that's what they'll do should this deal happen.

Thus far, three rogue states have recently given up their foul ways: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Euro-style diplomacy wasn't responsible in any of the three cases. Two had their bad governments swept aside and the third started complying out of fear that they would be next. Never underestimate the power of Teddy's big stick.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/01/2004 10:25:00 PM (Archive Link)
I've been keeping an eye on the RNC and watching the speeches. I have to say that they've been most excellent. Rudy especially was great.

I haven't commented on it more because I'm in the process of designing a new site for this blog. We're movin'!

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/28/2004 11:10:00 PM (Archive Link)
The Statues in Greece Aren't All That's Stone-faced

Can you stand another Olympics post? I was watching Bob Costas interview the Athens Olympics organizer, Gianna Angelopoulos-Daskalaki (that's an impressive nine-syllable last name), and I realized this woman is probably the most thouroughly botoxed person I've ever seen. The only thing on her face capable of moving was her mouth. There was zero expression in her cheeks, eyes, and forehead. She couldn't even smile properly. She also may have had a brow lift performed at some point, which, when combined with the botox, gave her a sort of permanently surprised expression. In short, she looked very unnatural. There's a picture of her here. And a mighty unflattering one here.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/24/2004 10:36:00 PM (Archive Link)
Yo, Yo, S'up, So-crates?

I've been a tad busy lately and haven't had time to post. I will, however, blog a short observation about the Olympics. Well... actually, it's more about Olympic commentary. The other day, NBC's Jim Somebody was doing one of the human interest stories about Greece that he was apparently assigned to do. When Bob Costas came back on, he said, "Props to you, Jim." Uh-huh. At another point, I was watching men's gymnastics when one of the announcers opined that a particular gymnast's rings routine was sometimes "whack." Uh-huh. I heard another hip-hopism today, but I don't remember what it was. I have no problem with such terms in and of themselves, but I don't really think they belong in offical broadcasting... especially when the people saying it sound RIDICULOUS saying it.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/13/2004 11:51:00 PM (Archive Link)
Would Pericles Approve?

So I watched the opening ceremony for the Olympics tonight. They were ok. The entire time, though, I just kept thinking of how I’d pay good money if Bob Costas and Katie Couric would just shut the hell up. It’s as if they get nervous going more than 10 seconds without saying something and then they’ll bust out with an inane comment. Let the ceremony speak for itself, people. We don’t need your blithering.

I did like the “living art” theme the organizers did. I thought they left out a few things, though. Like say, Greece’s ancient military prowess and how they saved Western civilization from the Persians on several occasions. The only military references at all were a few rows of empty uniforms and a representation of Alexander the Great, who was, technically, Macedonian. Although, he did spread Greek culture throughout North Africa and the Near East. But no, that was it… nothing about Thermopylae or Marathon or Salamis. I also don’t recall anything about democracy or representative government or egalitarianism. My only guess as to the reasons for these omissions is that they didn’t want to offend those in the East who threatened the West and also didn’t want to offend those who live under oppressive tyrannies. After all, we don’t want to make it seem like the West’s way is better, right? Heaven forbid.

On a related note, Couric noted how the official uniform of the Greek guards includes a “skirt” with 400 pleats in it, each pleat representing a year Greece was dominated before gaining independence in 1832. She failed to mention from whom Greece had gained its freedom: the Ottoman Empire. Greece had been in thrall to the Muslim East for all those years. The country for years had been on the front lines of battling against the Muslim hordes driving into eastern Europe. In fact, the Parthenon was fairly well destroyed 1687 in a war pitting the Ottomans against the Venetians. The former were using the building as an ammo depot when the Venetians scored a direct hit and blew up the joint.

Speaking of the Parthenon, the most embarrassing part of Costas’s and Couric’s commentary was during the ceremony, there was a model of the building rotating on a little rod. Couric commented that it reminded her of the flying house from The Wizard of Oz and Costas followed it up with “singing” the flying monkey theme. Yeah… nice way to honor a great monument of Western architecture and skill.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/05/2004 08:16:00 PM (Archive Link)
Soft Lob Over the Plate

A lot of people have been making hay over John Kerry's comments about he would have responded on 9/11 as compared to Bush. Few, though, have brought up the context in which he made them. I just happened to be watching CNN when they aired it live. Kerry was speaking to a conference of some group called Journalists of Color. Kerry made the comments in response to a question from a New York Times reporter who asked him how he would have responded on 9/11 while stuck in a classroom and how he'll pull us out of Iraq. The first part was a complete softball thrown to Kerry to set him up for a great answer. It's the fact that she intentionally mentioned the classroom, which was meant to allow Kerry to contrast himself to Bush who was rather stolid for about 7 minutes. The second part of the question obviously shows where the media's feelings are towards Iraq... get 'em out now.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/29/2004 11:26:00 PM (Archive Link)
Kerry, Kerry, Quite Contrary

I just caught Kerry’s speech at the DNC. (transcript here) Here are the points.

First, Max Cleland’s intro. I only saw the last few minutes of it, but he made sure to mention how we’ve alienated our allies. Why is it always us who has alienated them? Personally, I think they fairly well alienated me with their behavior. If I were Bush, I would’ve started hitting that line a long time ago, that they’ve separated themselves from us and our alliances. Put the onus on them for it.

Yet again, Kerry’s Band of Brothers. This is very exploitative of his military service and this is likely not representative of the leanings of the military at large, especially considering that most of Kerry’s former comrades-in-arms are preparing to launch a major offensive against Kerry. Also, is this the length that he has to go to in order to not make himself seem weak on defense? Ok, one more point… Kerry talks endlessly about Vietnam and the lessons he learned there and on and on. He was in Vietnam for just 4.5 months. Now, I don’t want to denigrate his service or what he did there. I respect him for that. This, however, was not a very long time by casual or war standards. I just find it creepy that somebody would place such an emphasis on such a short period of his life. What, did he not gain wisdom or experience at any time since then? It’s like that was the pinnacle of his life and when he climbed the mountain and there’s been nothing since then.

Cleland also mentioned the Boston Massacre and gave the obligatory nod to Crispus Attucks, ‘cause, of course, you can never talk about the Boston Massacre without also noting that a black man was the first to fall. Can anybody even name another person who died in the incident? This isn’t to lessen Attucks’s role, just that he’s been elevated to some bizarre secular saint. It’s a good thing Kerry wasn’t around back then… he would’ve reenacted the event.

Ok, on to Kerry’s speech. He started really poorly, but picked it up about halfway through and finished strong. Man, he was getting sweaty, though. Somebody needed to hand that man a towel.

-He made his entrance to Bruce Springsteen’s “No Surrender,” lyrics here.  This seemed like an odd choice of song considering Kerry’s attitudes towards Vietnam and Iraq, which, instead of “No retreat, baby, no surrender,” can be roughly summarized as “Retreat and surrender.” Or perhaps surrender first and then retreat. Anyway, it seemed far less ironic once I led the lyrics because the last stanza runs as follows:

Now on the street tonight the lights grow dim
The walls of my room are closing in
There's a war outside still raging
You say it ain't ours anymore to win
I want to sleep beneath peaceful skies in my lover's bed
With a wide open country in my eyes and these romantic dreams in my head

Ah, yes. Let’s pretend the war outside isn’t really there and let’s dream sweet, ignorant dreams instead. Besides, the war is no longer ours to win. How appropriate. How fitting for John Kerry and the Democrats’ attitude in general.

-He began by saying “John Kerry, reporting for duty.” Huh? Was he in the military or something? What, he was in Vietnam? Why hasn’t he ever mentioned that?

-He gave a brief shout-out to environmentalism and feminism, but he did so by using an absolutely horrible segue from his mother to them. It just didn’t work.

-“I ask you to judge me by my record.” Oh, he asked for it. John Kerry’s record is full of flip-flops, speeches and votes that contradict a great many things he said tonight. The Republicans have already started exploiting Kerry’s voluminous record in this regard. They should keep pressing their case because Kerry’s record stinks. I have a feeling that that line and a clip of him saying it are going to make their way into many a pro-Bush ad. He may wind up regretting he said it.

-He’s hitting on the economy. By most all indicators, the economy is doing quite nicely, thank you. Hey, even unemployment is running at just 5.6%. It was 5.4% in 1996 when Clinton touted his miraculous abilities with all things economic. I think Jonah Goldberg has it right when he says that the Democrats are racing against time. Eventually, despite the rhetoric and negative reporting, Americans are going to realize that the economy isn’t nearly as bad as some folks are trying to make it seem. When that happens, the issue will dry up for the Dems and that’s a problem for them.

-He has nice turn of phrase, though one without substantiation or content, when he accuses the Republicans of being pessimists towards the economy. “And they say that anyone who thinks otherwise is a pessimist. Well, here is our answer: There is nothing more pessimistic than saying America can't do better.” Nice, except when has anybody on the Right ever said that we can’t do better? The basis of capitalism, economic growth, and wealth creation is that you can always do better. The Repubs have merely said that the economy is healthy and not nearly as bad as the Dems claim. They’d never say that it’s not as robust as it could be, though.

-“We can do better and we will. We're the optimists. For us, this is a country of the future. We're the can do people. And let's not forget what we did in the 1990s. We balanced the budget. We paid down the debt. We created 23 million new jobs. We lifted millions out of poverty and we lifted the standard of living for the middle class. We just need to believe in ourselves and we can do it again.”

Whoa! What’s this “we” stuff, bucko? As I recall, it was a Republican congress during the bulk of the 90’s that deserves a lot of the credit here. Where do the Democrats as a whole get off saying it was all their doing? The budget was balanced, for example, only after extreme pressure from Gingrinch and company. Clinton resisted it. Most of the credit, though, should go to the free market. A booming economy that results from natural market forces is what did most of the work. And as for that last line, about believing in ourselves enabling another boom… is fairy dust required for this?

-John Edwards is a son of a mill worker. Again, why is all this secret information just now coming out? Of course, Kerry has to mention it to offset his own life of wealth and privilege. Keep in mind that Kerry was educated in Europe, married a millionaire heiress, divorced her and later married a billionaire heiress who herself inherited her money through marriage. That’s real blue collar for ya.

As for Edwards, he made his millions by suing obstetricians for malpractice. He would accuse the doctors of being responsible for a child’s developmental problems because the mother’s difficult labor was putting the unborn in danger and the doctor didn’t perform a C-section soon enough. He made these claims despite the fact that there was no evidence or data backing them up. There simply hadn’t been any studies performed about it. Now there have and they all say that there isn’t a lick of evidence supporting the notion that an early C-section reduces the rate or risk of childhood developmental disorders. So Edwards built his wealth and career on a falsehood and the work of his ilk have made C-sections far more common since doctors don’t want to get sued. As a result, women receive an unnecessary, risky surgery that can cause further problems down the road. It also sent the malpractice insurance rates of Ob-Gyn’s skyward. This has led to there being a lot fewer doctors who want to get into the field and fewer practices that will deliver babies since it’s too expensive and too open to frivolous litigation. Thanks, John Edwards! You’ve done a real service to the community!

-Theresa Heinz Kerry is defended as “speaking her mind.” This is in reference to how she told a man to “shove it” for being a conservative reporter who was asking her to elaborate on something she said but later claimed she did not say. It’s nice to know that unwarranted rudeness can get a free pass.

-He said that there were no Democrats or Republicans on 9-11, just Americans, and “how we wished it had stayed that way.” Yes, it was all the fault of those nasty Republicans that the parties went their ideological ways once again. How dare they, the dividers!

-“Saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn't make it so. And proclaiming mission accomplished certainly doesn't make it so.” Uh-huh… wasn’t it John Kerry who voted against the $87 billion for the war and tried to force the prez to fight it on the cheap? And oh, he brought up the Mission Accomplished banner. How the Dems love to mock it. I still don’t have a problem with that banner or its message. The major combat was over, we won, and the Enterprise was heading to its home port after accomplishing its mission. The Left sure did an excellent job of co-opting and distorting the message, though. Just prior to the quote, he also mentioned WMD’s. I have a big beef with how pretty much everybody, Left and Right, is approaching this issue and I’ll get into it in a later post.

-He said the only justification for going to war is for a threat that is real and imminent, alluding that Iraq was neither. Funny… I’ve watched several clips of him saying the Iraq threat was actually both. Oh, but that was before the war. He changed his tune afterwards. What it comes down to is that he would never make the call for war until after we were already attacked.

-“I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home. Here is the reality: that won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership-- so we don't have to go it alone in the world. And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.”

So, how do you plan to do this, President Kerry? The only possible way to get the Euros, i.e. France and Germany, to go along with us is to let them have a say in our foreign policy and in how we handle our international affairs. That effectively means they’ll get a say in how we do things and that will be through the UN. Oh, but he says, “I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security.” Well, then how to rebuild the alliances? We have to give them something. The jaded politicians of the Chirac model aren’t going to come running to us just because of Kerry’s charm. We have to give them something and the only thing they really want is America’s compliance in military affairs.

-Kerry said any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. This just smacks of Bill Clinton who often said roughly the same thing. His swift and certain response meant a lot of bluster followed by firing off some cruise missiles. If this is what Kerry has in mind, it does not inspire me with confidence.

-He’ll add 40,000 active duty troops. Now, seeing as that the armed forces don’t overfill their recruitment quotas by such a wide margin, this would mean forcing new and current recruits to stay on active duty longer. This isn’t a real big improvement over the current method of calling up the Reserves.

-He’ll fight against nuclear proliferation. How? He’s banned a military response unless we suffer an attack first and diplomatic efforts in this area have been resounding failures… see North Korea and Iran. The only dangerous country that has recently given up its nuclear ambitions was Libya and that was in response to American military action in Iraq. But Kerry wouldn’t do what we’ve done in Iraq. I guess we’ll need more fairy dust.

-“Strength is more than tough words.” This is doubtless an allusion to Bush’s “cowboy” talk, like “Bring ‘em on.” Yes, Bush talks tough, but the man backs it up. He doesn’t say something he doesn’t intend on following through on.

-He’ll immediately implement the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission. Prior to tonight, he criticized Bush for not already doing so. That was just 5 days after the report was released. Well, there’s a reason the country is led by a president and a congress instead of a panel. Since they’re responsible for what happens, they need to review things and decide what’s best. Just because the panel is bipartisan and all, it doesn’t follow that all their recommendations are good or even workable. There needs to be a little time to review things. Again, Kerry provides no comfort when he shows he’ll let other people do his job.

-His line about opening firehouses in Baghdad while closing them in the U.S. just evaporated any possible sympathy for him in Iraq. Not that they’re a constituency, but he showed them, and Americans, that he doesn’t much care about that country’s well-being.

-I appreciated the irony when he talked about patriotism. He accused others of wrapping themselves in the flag and closing their ears to others’ opinions by questioning their patriotism. And how did he do that? He wrapped himself in the flag and closed his ears to other’s opinions by questioning their patriotism.

-I can sum his section about family values as follows: “Only government can save the children!!”

-“We believe that what matters most is not narrow appeals masquerading as values, but the shared values that show the true face of America. Not narrow appeals that divide us, but shared values that unite us. Family and faith. Hard work and responsibility. Opportunity for all so that every child, every parent, every worker has an equal shot at living up to their God-given potential.”

These hardly seem like planks of the Democratic platform. Family? They’ve been destroying it for years through the welfare state. Faith? ACLU zealots are trying to remove all semblance or reference to Christianity in the public realm. Dems on the Senate Judicial Committee have all but said that Christians or persons of faith are unfit to serve as judges. Other Dems heavily criticize politicians that do demonstrate beliefs and faith. Hard work and responsibility? Welfare state again. Opportunity for an equal shot? Not with affirmative action. Also, the Left desires an increasingly socialized state. In almost every case, opportunity is inversely proportional to how socialized a state is.

-I mentioned this in a previous post, but it’s contradictory that the Dems, like Clinton, praise globalization, economic strength, and the interdependence of the global economy, but then they cry bloody murder when the natural and necessary effects of it occur. Also, they’ll talk all day about improving the quality of life for people in other places but then decry that it comes at the expense of a few American jobs. Which is it, guys? No, I don’t like jobs leaving, but I don’t believe in being overly protectionist. Much as a rising American economy is good for all Americans, a rising global economy is good for all countries, including America. Free markets work if you let them. He calls for a fair playing field, but what he really means is that he’ll tilt it way over towards America and create an artificial job market that ultimately hurts companies, the economy, and then the overall job market itself.

-His economic plan won’t work. Government can’t force the markets. Manufacturing doesn’t revitalize without the market for products and labor that will produce them at reasonable rates. Investment in technology is nice but they have to be producing something marketable or will lead to that goal. Otherwise, it’s just more research. Closing tax loopholes is small incentive for a company to keep employees here if they can save even more money by going elsewhere.

-Taxes. Ah, yes. Soak the rich. Those filthy rich buggers driving around in Bentleys, smoking the finest cigars and relaxing on Caribbean beaches. Wait, the rich are those who make just $200,000 or more? Sure, that’s a comfortable chunk of change, but it doesn’t mean their walking around in top hats either. There are plenty of folks who just barely fit into this category and who worked very, very hard to get there. They already pay a percentage of the government’s take in income taxes that is far out of proportion to their actual demographic representation. Why make them pay more?

-Let me make this clear. College is not a God-given right to humanity. Neither is health care. If you want or need either one, though, the opportunities are already there to obtain it. You don’t need Uncle Sam jumping in for you. I’ll elaborate on this in a later post. I will hit on prescription drugs, though. People always complain about how expensive they are. You have to understand the economics of it. From the time a drug compound is first discovered to the time it hits the market, it can easily cost a drug company ten years and $1 billion. This includes research, animal testing, human trials, FDA approval, and various other items. Now, the company patents the compound when they first discover it. This is before they know if it will ever be useful, but on the chance that it is, they can’t risk somebody else getting the patent first. The patent lasts for 17 years, I think. So, since it takes the company ten years to get the drug to market, they have just seven years to recoup their investment and make a profit before generics slice into their market share. Not to mention that it costs money to make the drug, market it, ship it and that they need income from their current products to research and produce the next wonder drug. That’s why some drugs cost so much. Not because the companies are greedy, but because of market forces. If the government starts regulating drug prices, you’re going to start seeing a lot less new and fancy drugs because the companies won’t have the necessary capital for research and development. For ones that do come out, most people won’t even see them. In fabled Canada, the provinces don’t allow the newest, fanciest, and most effective drugs because they’re also the most expensive. Thus, the government won’t pay for them. So while you have American senior citizens taking buses north to get cheaper drugs, you have their Canadian counterparts coming south to get the newer and better ones. Do you really want the government interfering in your health care like that? Gambling with your health?

-He mentions us relying on the Saudi royal family for oil and how we’re held hostage to the Middle East. This sounds like Fahrenheit 9-11. Michael Moore’s hold on the Democrat party is almost complete. Alternative energies are nice, I’ll admit. But they need to be made so that they’re both practical and cheap enough for everyday use. We’re not there yet and the new technologies aren’t cheap enough to replace gas. Trying to force them into the market will not be effective. They need to make themselves competitive enough to belong there.

-“And whatever our faith, one belief should bind us all: The measure of our character is our willingness to give of ourselves for others and for our country.” In Democrat lingo, that means you’ll give of yourself in the measures they prescribe whether you like it or not.

-In addressing George Bush concerning the running of their respective campaigns, he says, “let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.” This was a big applause line, but for the life of me, I don’t have a clue what he’s talking about.

-Finally, he wraps up trying to seem like the big man, the uniter. He wants a race on big ideas and not personal attacks. It sounds like he’s trying to set up an interesting strategy. Bush will hit Kerry for his inconsistencies, his flip-flops, and his record. Then Kerry will cry out, “Woe is me, for the cruel Bush is attacking me and not addressing the issues. When will it stop?! WHEN?!?!” Of course, he’ll make attacks on Bush, but those will go largely ignored. It looks like Kerry is trying to set his character, his person, his history, and his record off-limits because he knows those are all weak-points. The Repubs can’t allow Kerry to set the rules of the game.

-One last point… I was rightly amused at how the balloons malfunctioned and failed to fall on cue.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/28/2004 02:08:00 PM (Archive Link)
Kabbalahtastic!

If you head on over to Target, you can get yourself some Kabbalah string. That’s $26 for a little bit of red yarn. Just imagine what a Kabbalah sweater would cost!

You ever wonder if the folks at Scientology are planning a counter-attack against the Kabbalah people. After all, this new pseudo-quasi-Jewish rite is eating up all the Hollywood celebrities who previously bowed down before L. Ron Hubbard. That means it’s also eating into Scientology’s publicity and profits. I propose a showdown in the form of an oil-wrestling match between Madonna and Kelly Preston. Alright, the ladies can have their own match of Ashton Kutcher vs. Tom Cruise.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/28/2004 12:00:00 PM (Archive Link)
The Devolution of the Renaissance Man

This is a fun editorial… actually, wait… no this is supposed to be an actual news story in the Chicago Sun-Times Lifestyles section. It’s by Mike Thomas. He declares John Kerry to be a Renaissance Man and compares him to such luminaries as Leonardo Da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, and ummm… P. Diddy, aka Puff Daddy, aka Puffy, aka Sean “Puffy” Combs. That certainly makes for an interesting grouping. He bases this on how Kerry’s interests and skills are so numerous and varied. Now let’s look at the comparisons a little more closely using the article’s own descriptions:

Da Vinci was a painter, sculptor, scientist, mathematician, and inventor.

Franklin was a printer, inventor, “electrical engineer,” physicist, writer, and founder of libraries and fire departments.

Diddy is a Grammy-winning rap artist, an excellent businessman, a clothes designer, a self-made millionaire, and a Broadway performer.

Kerry is a motorcycle rider, a small plane pilot, a guy who went to college, a guy who plays hockey, a good skier and snowboarder (except, I guess, when those “son of a bitch” Secret Service guys get in his way), a hunter (of deer on his belly with a shotgun… huh?!), and a guitar player.

Notice a difference? The first three guys used their extraordinary abilities (even, grudgingly, P. Diddy who’s at least a great businessman and self-made millionaire) to produce artistic works and/or knowledge for mankind. Kerry has used his abilities to become skilled at recreational activities. According to Thomas, this qualifies Kerry for the pantheon of greatness.

I also really like this line: “Kerry is, however, perfectly willing to flex his polymath chops, to demonstrate his accomplishment in several disparate disciplines before cameras and crowds. To, for instance, … campaign for the nation's highest office while simultaneously tending to senatorial duties” Uh-huh. Isn’t this the same Senator Kerry who has missed 80% of the Senate votes this year while he’s been out campaigning? “Tending” to senatorial duties? Sure… tending to them very poorly.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/28/2004 11:23:00 AM (Archive Link)
He Served in Vietnam? Really?!

You’ve gotta be kidding me. Kerry is going to arrive at the convention by boat in order to illustrate his Vietnam War service. I can’t think of another candidate who has so brazenly exploited his time in the military. Bush Sr. was shot down over the Pacific Ocean and rescued by a submarine, but you didn’t see him parachuting into his conventions. Bush Jr. was an expert pilot of a highly difficult and dangerous fighter jet during his National Guard service, but he’s not flying one into to the convention in New York City. The last time he did take a trip on a fighter jet, he was roundly ridiculed by the media who didn’t want him to be able to use it as a photo op. Well, ok, they didn’t ridicule, per se, they just continually wrung their hands over how Bush was exploiting the scenario for publicity and how he might use it in campaign ads. I doubt we’ll hear the same things about Kerry’s blatant exploitation and whether he’s just using it as a photo op moment.

Which brings me to another point. During the Democratic Convention, everybody is talking about how great Kerry is, what a patriot, how he is and will be strong on defense and bullish with our enemies. Now, who honestly believes this last part, that he’ll be strong on defense? The man’s voting record in the Senate shows him continually voting against military spending and he’s constantly worked to decrease the military. He’s also spent the entire campaign denigrating military action we have taken. At the convention, any time a speaker says something about how Kerry will hunt down terrorists, you get only scattered applause. Not even the delegates believe this tripe. If he’s elected, he’ll pull out of Iraq as quickly as possible, sell out the Iraqis by withdrawing support and aid (South Vietnam, anyone?) and divert resources from the offensive, military prosecution of terrorism. The rest of his tenure will be spent confronting threats in the Clintonian model. That is, talk big but tuck your tail firmly between your legs. Whereas Teddy Roosevelt said to speak softly but carry a big stick (be nice but let them know you have the power of annihilation at your disposal), the Democrats’ theory is to bluster endlessly while openly having the will to use nothing more than a pea shooter.

One more point while I’m at it. Howard Dean and Theresa Heinz Kerry are out and about accusing Republicans of being un-American. Now, any time a Republican so much as barely, vaguely intimates that a Democrat is acting un-American or, horrors, unpatriotic, the donkey party (followed by the media) raves about the McCarthyism and the lies and the dirty tactics before falling back on the fainting couch and asking for their smelling salts. Heck, they even make charges of Republicans bashing Democratic patriotism when there’s absolutely nothing to back it up. See the examples of Max Cleland and John Kerry for that. Just so you know, questioning their Senate voting records on defense translates into you accusing them of being unpatriotic, flag-burning Commies… you, witch-hunter, you. And yet, the Democrats can very openly and blatantly make the same accusations towards Republicans and nobody bats an eye.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/28/2004 10:35:00 AM (Archive Link)
All Your Vote Are Belong to Us

Florida still can’t figure out how to run an election without controversy, according to this story. The solution to me seems rather simple. Touchscreen computers are the way to go. They’re quick, easy, provide fast results and there’s no question about voter intent. This is good because the idea of people sitting around looking at a ballot and trying to decide what they think the voter wanted, when it isn’t already perfectly obvious, is dangerous. If the voter didn’t make their intent clear when voting, it’s shouldn’t be up to random folks to decide their intent for them. So, that’s the upside of the computers, that intent is clear. The downside is what happened in Florida when computer crashes lost election records. The other issue is that you will never be able to eliminate the actual risk of hacking nor the electorate’s fear that hacking is affecting results. This is why there must be a paper trail. Upon voting for all the races, the screen should give a standard ballot overview of all the choices the voter made and then ask them to confirm and submit. Then the printer-equipped station should print out a paper copy of the ballot that can be reviewed by the voter and turned in to poll workers. This printout should be able to be optically scanned. That way, if there’s any question about the election results, either in general or because of concerns related to the computers, then the paper ballots can be tallied and compared to the computer numbers. You could also make it so that the computers don’t tally at all, but are merely used to print the ballots and it is those that are counted. At any rate, these are the only ways you can expect to use computer voting and still preserve the electorate’s faith in the election process. Using computers alone will only cause the public to lose faith in the process and that is not a good thing for democracy.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/28/2004 12:36:00 AM (Archive Link)
Bloodsport 4: Moore vs. O'Reilly

I caught The O'Reilly Factory tonight because I wanted to see O'Reilly and Michael Moore go at it. It was like a clash of the opinion media titans. I was waiting for the Kraken to rise up behind them in the Fleet Center.

What's interesting is that I first read the transcript of it on Drudge, and I thought that based upon that, Moore (unfortunately) got the better of O'Reilly. When I actually watched it, though, I thought O'Reilly had the upper hand or at the very least, broke even. I think O'Reilly definitely could've hammered a few points a little more. His best one was asking Moore whether it would have been the right thing to preemptively attack Hitler before he solidified power and became a threat. Moore had no good answer on that one.

The other point O'Reilly could've pressed more concerned Moore's contention that Saddam could be out of power right now had we not gone to war; there’s no way to know. After all, he said, people in Eastern Europe rose up, so the Iraqis could have done that. This is truly ridiculous. Those people in Europe rose up on several occasions but were always violently put down by Soviet forces. They ultimately succeeded because of the economic, social, and moral pressures that Reagan put on the USSR. Because of these pressures, Gorbochev opted not to quell the rebellions with Red Army tanks. This same dynamic wasn’t happening in Iraq and it wasn’t going to. Saddam’s police state machinery was in excellent working order and was not going to allow any revolt. Because of UN Oil for Food corruption, he also had plenty of money to wallpaper his closets. Nor was the populace especially disposed to revolt since its last great attempt was mercilessly quashed by Hussein after Gulf War I. This was when the U.S. sold out the rebels and let them be overrun and gunned down by relatively meager (compared to us) Iraqi forces and is, in my opinion, one of the most disgraceful things we’ve done. So, no, no revolt was forthcoming in Iraq. Were it not for us, Saddam would be sitting in a palace right now saying, “Death to America,” while watching his Greatest Execution and Torture Hits video on TV.

Now, the secondary point to the above comparison is that we would have militarily intervened in Eastern Europe a long time ago had it not been for the nuclear scenario. The only thing that prevented a conventional war solution to Soviet totalitarianism was the fact that they had the bomb. Because of this unfortunate standoff, Eastern Europe suffered some 45 years of oppression. That’s hardly positive. In the case of Iraq, they suffered for almost 30 years under Saddam and we were able to take him out conventionally. I think that’s a little better than 45 years. I guess Moore thinks we should have waited at least another 15 years to see what the people would do. He also said that are lots of other dictators out there, so why aren’t we going after them? It would be nice, but we have to wait until foreign policy and economic objectives align with the moral ones before we can undertake such actions. And besides, isn’t at least one less dictator in the world a good thing?

Moore's big talking point was asking O'Reilly if he would send his child to defend Fallujah. I've always thought this was absurd. My response would be that that has to be answered two different ways. The first is as a parent. I currently have no offspring, but if I did, I would, as a parent, answer this by saying that it doesn’t matter what I think. My son or daughter, if they’re of legal age to join the military, are able to make that decision on their own. It’s not for me to make it for them. It’s their responsibility and their decision to put their life on the line for their country, not mine, and I wouldn’t dare make it for them. Now, as a president, my response would be yes, I would be willing to sacrifice them. They made the decision to join the military and my capacity as commander in chief cannot be clouded by my relation to them. History is littered with leaders and commanders sending their children and relatives into harm’s way because that is what had to done.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/28/2004 12:12:00 AM (Archive Link)
Cananda Likes Photography (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more)

I just saw this story on Drudge.  Ummm... it's about strippers having to provide the Canadian government with photos spreads of them in the buff.  Key line: "Immigration officers are having to pore through naked pictures of hundreds of exotic dancers to keep impostors out of Canada."

The possible comments and jokes one could make are nearly endless:

It's a tough job but somebody's got to do it.

The most sought-after job in Canadian government.

They need to be naked so we can make sure terrorists aren't trying to slip in weapons under their clothes.

The office in charge of reviewing the files is often locked.  Upon knocking, you hear, "Just a minute!" followed by shuffling papers and a nervous looking man at the door.

Overtime?  No problem!

Your tax dollars at work.  And how!

Boss, I need to take some work home with me.

I can think of plenty more off-color things, but those are not for this venue.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/28/2004 12:05:00 AM (Archive Link)
We Come in Peace, Shoot to Kill!

The following is a post that I started back on April 15th, but for whatever never finished and therefore never posted.  I just came across it and it seems pretty well done to me, so I'll post it now.

Osama released his proposed peace treaty to Europe today which amounted to “Stop helping the U.S. and we’ll leave you alone.” There’s plenty to say about this. Here’s a few things I’ve seen mentioned elsewhere… rather than rewrite, I’ll let you read ‘em for yourself here, here, and here.

My observations:

Even thought such a “treaty” as OBL is proposing would be approved through the governments, he’s appealing directly to the European populace and is initially trying to circumvent the governments and have the electorates put pressure on them. This is obvious from the phrase, “When you look at what happened and is happening, the killing in our countries and in yours, an important fact emerges, and that is that the oppression is forced on both us and you by your politicians who send your sons, against your will, to our country to kill and to be killed.” Now, with that in mind, what arguments is OBL making to influence the European public?

One, as seen from the above quote, is that bin Laden wants people to see the war on terrorism as an unnecessary thing foisted upon them by their leaders, so he wants to build mistrust between the populace and their governments. Right after this, he says that these governments are acting as vassal states of the U.S., so he wants to create a dichotomy between the U.S. and Europe. Then there’s the usual tripe about all this being about money and the Jews, etc.

Really, what I find most interesting is how he repeatedly appeals to relativism to build doubt about the war in the hearts of relativist-minded Euros. Observe the following quotes:

“Stop shedding our blood in order to protect your own blood”

“We hereby advise you...that your definition of us and of our actions as terrorism is nothing but a definition of yourselves by yourselves, since our reaction is of the same kind as your act. Our actions are a reaction to yours, which are destruction and killing of our people as is happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine”

“By what measure of kindness are your killed considered innocents while ours are considered worthless? By what school [of thought] is your blood considered blood while our blood is water?”

The basic argument goes like this: Look, we’re just like you… we’re just trying to defend ourselves against the senseless terrorism you’re committing!

He’s trying to build this equality between what he does and what we do. So once the Euros see that his group aren’t terrorists, they’re freedom fighters (and conversely, that the Euros see themselves as terrorists), they’ll realize the error of their ways and leave him alone.

Here’s one problem with this relativist idea and the answer to his last question about why we value our dead but not his… he’s the enemy. Pretty simple. In a war, you tend to disregard the enemy dead because, well, you’re trying to kill the enemy and your only concern with them is that you’re eliminating enough of ‘em. Also, it’s rather absurd that OBL would be complaining about us not valuing his dead when his group considers Western lives to be not just worthless but actually deserving of death. That’s not just some Western lives or ones belonging to people in the military… it’s all of them. We, on the other hand, just want to get rid of militants and preserve the innocent population. So OBL is appealing to Western morality even though he himself believes none of it.

Another point with the relativism issue as a whole is that Americans see things non-relatively (us and them, good and bad, defenders of freedom and the terrorists, us valuable and them not) because we believe Western culture is superior to his twisted Islamic utopia and is worth preserving. This goes back to an earlier post of mine about conviction. If you’re not convicted about the value and superiority of Western culture, then you will fall victim to those who are convicted about the value of their own culture.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/27/2004 06:31:00 PM (Archive Link)
After messing around with the html, I finally got the comments to work without having to go to a whole new template.  So, if ya got something say, do so.  All two or three of you that actually still look at this thing after almost a half year of inactivity.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/27/2004 05:30:00 PM (Archive Link)
I Don't Get It.
 
This is actually an update to my previous post about Ann Coulter's column getting spiked by USA Today.  I said that after reading it I didn't blame them for doing so.  That still holds true in a general sense.  After looking over the comments their editor made, though, I do blame them for their specific reasons.  You can read the column with the comments here.  While it's understandable that a person may not find certain things Coulter says as being funny, one should be able to see why others might it find it humorous or at least be able to identify the sarcasm and irony.  The editor, however, doesn't possess this perceptive ability.  I can only imagine that he is so close to Coulter's targets, that he can't see the potential humor in her attacks.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/27/2004 01:14:00 AM (Archive Link)
Achievements in Journalism 
 
On the first day of convention coverage, CNN has the hard-hitting stories that are the stuff of journalistic legend. Ernie Pyle… Walter Winchell… Walter Cronkite… Dan Rather… hang your heads in shame that you never authored stories such as this one.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/27/2004 01:09:00 AM (Archive Link)
Shock Comic

On other notes, it was in the news that Ann Coulter’s column was spiked by USA Today because it wasn’t funny and was offensive. After reading the column, I can’t blame them. It wasn’t funny and it was offensive. But that’s Coulter, I suppose, and they should have realized her acid wit is more acid and less wit. I don’t like her writings personally. I’m not a big fan of writers who engage more in insults and name-calling than in making a point. When I read it, I actually remember thinking that if USA Today wanted a conservative to make irreverent, yet good-natured observations of the Democratic convention, then Jonah Goldberg would be a good choice. Apparently I wasn’t alone because that’s who they picked to replace Coulter. We’ll just have to see if they have similar problems with Michael Moore’s humor concerning the Republican convention. I don’t see it as being any less venomous or any funnier than Coulter’s was. I don’t really know who they’d fall back on, though. Al Franken would hardly be an improvement.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/27/2004 12:43:00 AM (Archive Link)
Friends of Bill, Bow Down!

Ok, I’m back.  I’ve been very lazy about my little blog, but after listening to Bill Clinton speak at the Democratic National Convention, I could hardly keep pace with the jaw dropping moments.  Let’s take them point by point, but first I’ll start with Jimmy Carter whom I briefly caught speaking.  Isn’t it a little odd that he’s blaming Bush for his handling of North Korea when it was Carter that helped broker that absurd agreed framework with NK, that Kim John Il promptly broke?

• I’ll give credit where it’s due.  Bill’s a tremendous speaker.  There was a woman in the audience who was crying.  I, however, deal in arguments and not rhetoric, so let’s get moving.

• He said that the Democrats will be running a positive campaign.  He then immediately ran through a slew of negative attacks against Bush and the Republicans.

• On the tax cuts, it’s clear that he perceives tax money as belonging to the government, not the people.  Yes, the wealthiest people got the most money back.  But ya know what?  When you have a higher income, you will necessarily receive more back on a cut.  Let’s say you have three people.  The first makes $100, the second $1,000 and the third $10,000.  If you give everybody a 1% tax cut, it goes $1, $10, and $100 respecitvely.  This doesn’t even take into account that the top guy is paying a higher overall percentage of his income than the other two.  Also, while the top such and such percent received a disproportionate amount back, that percentile pays an equally disproportionate amount of overall income taxes.

• He comments on how Republicans plan on letting the assault weapon ban lapse.  He intimates that this will be dangerous as they could even fall into the hands of terrorists.  The ban is a joke.  Always has been.  It bans only certain gun models and those were chosen based merely on cosmetic details.  The ban had no impact on crime or gun deaths.

• He notes how the Republicans were sometimes mean to him.  Ah, poor Bill.  Yes, all those investigations and scandals were purely the result of mean Republicans and not the result of your own shady dealings, your own loose zipper, and your own perjury.  It was anybody’s fault but yours.

• He talks about China and says the Bush administration will be deferential towards the Chi-coms because they loan us money and because of our business dealings with them despite the fact their economic competitors.  “How can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers?  I mean, come on.”  This… this from the man who loosened trade restrictions with China.  From the man who allowed highly advanced computers and equipment to be sold to China that was previously banned due to national security concerns and some of which was still banned.  This from the man who used the federal government to actively solicit business deals with China on behalf of U.S. companies.  This from the man who took campaign contributions from Chinese government surrogates and hosted them at White House tea parties.  This from the man who on his watch had still unquantifiable damage done to U.S. intelligence and interests because of Chinese spying.

• Clinton talks continually about the economic interconnectedness and interdependence of the world as a good thing.  Then he turns around and criticizes the natural and necessary effects of a global economy and accuses the Bush administration of losing jobs to overseas.

• Speaking of the economy, one of the things that has always irked me is how the Reagan boom years were always called the Decade of Greed.  People were out there getting rich and being extravagant and being mass consumers and all this was considered an unmitigated evil.  Somehow, though, under Clinton, this same behavior, only increased and more widespread, was a universal good for which Bill’s praises were sung with unceasing rapture.  And the call to all people is that we must return to the halcyon high-economy days of Clinton.  Now this irony is bad enough.  I mean, if the 80’s was the Decade of Greed, then the 90’s should have been called the Decade of Unrestrained Avarice.  What makes it worse is that unlike Reagan, who was vilified for his economics that irrefutably led to a boom, nobody can quite point to what it was Clinton did that so stimulated the economy in the 90’s.  Indeed, his economic policies in ’93 were almost identical to those of Bush I.  The best Clinton can be credited for is staying out of the economy’s way and letting the market do its thing.  Let’s also not forget that the 90’s boom began busting under Clinton in 2000 and was well into its slide by the time Bush took office.  And yet, Bush gets the blame.  Bill will take credit wherever he can, but he will never take any blame.

• Speaking of, and ever so slightly off-topic, I was talking to my father-in-law the other day about Ronald Reagan’s funeral events.  He made the comment that Ford and Carter were probably sitting there dejectedly thinking, “This stinks… there is no way they’re gonna do all this for us.”  I responded yes, but you knew Clinton was instead thinking, “This is great!  This is exactly what they’ll do for me, only it’ll be even bigger with more eulogies and more weeping and gnashing of teeth and women throwing themselves on my 50 foot funeral pyre!”

• Back on topic… Clinton says that the Democrats’ approach to economics, foreign policy and terrorism works better than the Republicans’.  To quote: “Now, we tried it their way for 12 years. We tried it their way for 12 years. We tried it our way for eight years. Then we tried it their way for four more. But the only test that matters is whether people were better off when we finished than when we started. Our way works better.”  Good Lord!  This is the most unbelievable statement of the night!
  
  So what about Jimmy Carter?  Didn’t he get left out?  Wasn’t his way great with the dismal economy and the roaring inflation and the high interest rates and the oil embargo and the American hostages and the Soviet Union pushing us around all over the globe?  Yeah, terrific stuff.  Oh, yes, and Clinton’s way was great also.  Let’s see… he allowed Iraq to flaunt UN resolutions over and over, even allowing Saddam to kick out the inspectors and all we did was rap him on the knuckles with a few missiles.  Bill left him for the next guy to handle.  There was also the ’93 World Trade Center bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole bombing, Osama’s declaration of war against the U.S. and these are just the real obvious terrorist warning signs.  There was all sorts of intelligence that bad people were up to no good.  But Clinton never did much of anything.  If he did have a laser-sharp focus on bin Ladin, like he claims he did, he certainly didn’t accomplish much in that department as all the attacks demonstrated, culminating in 9/11.  Let’s keep in mind that his laser focus let bin Ladin slip away from Sudan instead of taking custody of him or that according to the 9/11 Commission, it allowed Richard Clarke to tip off the United Arab Emirates that we knew a place where bin Ladin used as a hideout, which allowed the Emiratis to tip off Al Qaeda which promptly dismantled the camp (check it out… it’s around page 137).  No, Bill just promised after each attack that the perpetrators would be brought to justice and they never were.  He just had the FBI look into them, had the CIA ask a few questions, was incredibly deferential to the governments’ in whose countries the attacks occurred, maybe threw a few missiles around and then let the clamor die down.  Then he left it for the next guy to take care of.  Yeah, the Democrats’ way was swell.  How in the hell can he possibly claim that his way works better?!

• Suddenly for Clinton, military service in Vietnam has become acutely important.  It never seemed to be relevant in the past.  Maybe he’s cutting Kerry some slack since they were both on the same anti-war side when Kerry got home and put his finger to the political winds.

• Clinton says that Kerry has some great ideas!  I wish I knew what they were since Bill hadn’t touched on any up until that point and barely touched them afterward.  Where’s that positive campaign again?

• Kerry showed bravery in Congress on how he voted on legislation and he didn’t just go with the polls (that last part almost seems like an insult coming from poll-meister Bill).  This is funny, since not even Kerry’s fellow legislators can think of any great accomplishments he made while in Congress.  Also, seeing as how Kerry’s voting record is the most liberal in the Senate, even more so than that of Ted Kennedy himself, I wouldn’t call this brave or bucking trends or being a maverick.  I call this being a dependable vote for all things liberal.

• Kerry has both conviction and common sense!  The sort of conviction that leads him to vote for a war, then deny funding and then make up a lame cover excuse for the change in opinion!  The sort of conviction that leads him to try and center himself by declaring life begins at conception but that abortion is always A-OK and then to make up a lame nonsense cover excuse about how the two positions gel with each other!

• Bill blames Bush for breaking from the Kyoto Treaty.  This is a treaty that Clinton signed but was never ratified by the Senate.  In fact, it was never even introduced to the Senate for ratification because it would have died a horrible death and Clinton knew it.  This fabled treaty is a horrible joke.  Even if its edicts were put into place, they would postpone global warming effects by a mere ten years.  That is, the effects we would see in 2100 would occur in 2110 instead.  That’s real useful.  And the majority of the countries who did adopt Kyoto have brazenly ignored  and disobeyed it because doing otherwise would have hurt their economies.  So, which is better: to have not adopted the treaty in the first place or to have adopted it for show and then ignored it?

• The big thing that everybody keeps harping on is that Kerry will rebuild our alliances with other countries after Bush destroyed them after 9/11.  I read this as Kerry having the following campaign slogan: “Vote for John Kerry – I’ll kiss France’s butt and shine Germany’s boots.”  ‘Cause that’s what it comes down to; He’ll get some very loud Europeans to support us again.  How will he do this?  Well, he doesn’t say.  Presumably, he’ll do things the Euros like, such as not allowing a soldier to be assigned to KP duty without full approval of the UN Security Council.  Essentially, he’ll make U.S. forces subject to Euro and UN considerations.  That’s the only thing that can make them happy.  I wasn’t aware that the Constitution or the oath of office entailed the President deferring to foreign powers in the use of the American military.
  
  And let’s say Kerry does rebuild European alliances.  How does this make us safer?  It’s this oft repeated anecdote that’s now a Democratic cliché but where’s the meat to it?  France and Germany have no significant military forces to deploy outside their borders nor do they have a population that would tolerate it.  Just about everywhere we would want to attack, they would balk at doing so since they have involved business interests in those places, like they did in Iraq.  They would thus not be inclined to share intelligence with us either.  So in getting back on their good side, we’ve given them the back 40 of our farm, but have gotten nothing in return.  How does that make us stronger?

• It’s highly ironic that Clinton spoke about the Civil War and civil rights being instances where the country had a choice, made the right choice, and is now stronger for it.  Ironic because it was a Republican president (the first one) who led the country through that war and who made that choice and because many more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats and it was Democrats who were standing in schoolhouse doorways and siccing dogs on protesters.  That’s right… shocking as it is, Bull Conner was a Democrat as was most every politician in the South at the time.

• Kerry = less terror, Clinton says.  Hmmm… well, let’s look at this.  Since 9/11, there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil, no significant attacks against American interests (I’m not counting guerilla warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan) and only a few attacks against American citizens.  Now, it’s possible there could be a devastating attack tomorrow or between now and election day.  But on the balance, I’d say we’ve done pretty darn well since 9/11.  How, then, is Kerry supposed to promise “less terror?”  Again, this comes from Clinton who saw numerous terror attacks happen on his own watch.

• I can’t stand politicians talking about “the children.”  The poor dears just get rolled out all the time and are the perfect prop: young, innocent, they don’t vote so you don’t have to directly cater to them, and they don’t make their own demands to which you would have to cater anyway.  They’re the silent constituency that can be exploited whenever one pleases.

Ah!  Now that the transcript is up, I can quote the speech. 

• “Democrats and Republicans have very different and deeply felt ideas about what choices we should make.” 
  
  I don’t care about how “deeply felt” an idea is.  A person can deeply feel that puppy-burning generators are the path to domestic energy independence, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.  I’m looking for good ideas that work.  Give me a solid argument about why I should adopt an idea, not why you feel I should.

• “Republicans in Washington believe that American should be run by the right people -- their people…” 
  
  Yes, they do, Bill.  Democrats believe the same thing.  Isn’t that why you’re speaking tonight?  To get your people running America, or at least its government?

• “They believe the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their economic, political and social views, leaving ordinary citizens to fend for themselves on important matters like health care and retirement security.  Now, since most Americans aren't that far to the right, our friends have to portray us Democrats as simply unacceptable, lacking in strength and values.  In other words, they need a divided America.  But we don’t.” 
  
  Alright, well, most Americans aren’t as far left as Bill, either, and isn’t he standing there portraying Republicans as heartless monsters who light stogies with $100 bills while stepping over prostrate poor people?  Guess Bill needs a divided America too.

• “Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice.”  This is followed by how they squandered the good will of the world and went into Iraq, etc. 
  
  This is an interesting choice of words considering that Kerry was one of those erstwhile congressional allies who voted for action.

• “Now, now at a time when we're trying to get other people to give up nuclear and biological and chemical weapons, they are trying to develop two new nuclear weapons which they say we might use first.” 
  
  I have a beef about this sort of equivalence that I’ll get into at another time.

Most of the speech was so galling in its irony because of who it was coming from, it was thoroughly unbelievable.  Fortunately for him, Clinton has very little shame.  Otherwise, he would have choked on his words.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/12/2004 10:25:00 PM (Archive Link)
"You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."

Here's a nice anecdote about Davy Crockett from an 1884 biography, courtesy of this column on OpinionJournal. It summarizes very nicely why government taxing and funding can a dangerous, corrupt thing when Congress exceeds its Constitutional mandates. Here 'tis:

One day in the House, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Rep. David Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living.

"I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett said: "Several years ago, I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless. . . . The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done. A bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We rushed it through.

"The next summer, when riding one day in a part of my district. I saw a man in a field plowing. I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but rather coldly.

" 'You are Colonel Crockett. I shall not vote for you again.' "

"I begged him tell me what was the matter."

"'Well Colonel, you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. You voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown.

" 'Certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury,' I replied."

"'It is not the amount, Colonel, it is the principle. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man. . . . You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

" 'You have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.'

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. . . . You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men--men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people."

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/12/2004 10:16:00 PM (Archive Link)
Andy’s Losing It

I just read Andy Rooney’s column for today, which is entitled “Our Soldiers in Iraq Aren’t Heroes.” In it, he posits the following five questions which he’d like reporters to ask a group of U.S. troops in Iraq:

1. Do you think your country did the right thing sending you into Iraq?

My response: Just because they’re in the military, it doesn’t mean their brains or political ideologies have been removed. As such, I’m sure you could find a mix of people saying both yes and no. Considering, however, that most liberals are generally disinclined to enter the military, you’ll probably find more yeses.

2. Are you doing what America set out to do to make Iraq a democracy, or have we failed so badly that we should pack up and get out before more of you are killed?

My response: It’s been just one year since Iraq fell. Nobody claimed things were going to be great at this point. You can’t take a country that survived 25 years of tyranny and suddenly turn it into a liberal democracy. It takes a little time and there will be bumps in the road, which is what we’re seeing now. Furthermore, while this may seem harsh, it’s not up to the average soldier to make policy decisions.

3. Do the orders you get handed down from one headquarters to another, all far removed from the fighting, seem sensible, or do you think our highest command is out of touch with the reality of your situation?

My response: Two points here. The first is that you will probably find just a handful of soldiers throughout the history of warfare who would agree that their headquarters knew both what was going on in the field and also how to approach it. This is because there is a certain natural disconnect, but also because of my second point: headquarters is looking at the big picture and is weighing many different considerations. What may be best tactically in a given situation may be bad strategically or may be detrimental to the overall effort. For example, the best military solution for the Fallujah problem is to bomb it into the ground. Obviously, though, that won’t sit well with many people and Iraq will only become worse as we’ll lose the trust of the overall Iraqi citizenry. Also, headquarters is subject to civil political processes, decisions, and policies that oversee and determine what the military will do. Rooney himself is trying to affect the military side by first affecting the political side, so this point is self-evident. At any rate, because headquarters will naturally, and possibly necessarily, be in procedural conflict with the soldier, Rooney’s asking this question is akin to asking if grass is green.

This isn’t to say that the big picture itself is always best. Vietnam is a good case where the intended strategy of containment restrained military options and prevented us from actually being victorious.

4. If you could have a medal or a trip home, which would you take?

My response: Trips home are what one would preferably choose. Medals, though, are given for doing what must be done and for extraordinary actions in already extraordinary circumstances.

5. Are you encouraged by all the talk back home about how brave you are and how everyone supports you?

My response: Frankly, I think this is a catch-22 question since the rest of the column makes clear that Rooney thinks anybody who answers yes is a deluded idiot. He obviously wants them to say no. As a non-military person myself, I can’t claim to know what their answer will be and therefore won’t venture to answer it for them. One thing I can say… though they could be encouraged by talk of their bravery and of their support back home, I think they’d absolutely be discouraged by talk from people saying they aren’t brave, aren’t heroes, and that they don’t support them. So… keep up the good work, Andy! I’m sure you can succeed in dispiriting more troops.

Other points: Rooney points out how 40% of the soldiers in Iraq “enlisted in the National Guard or the Army Reserve to pick up some extra money and never thought they'd be called on to fight.” He even wants to pin this on the laggard economy of the last few years. Look… if you signed up for the Guard or Reserves to get money or to qualify for the GI Bill and now you’re getting bent out of shape because you have to fight, I have no sympathy for you. When you signed up, you knew what the potential consequences were. You knew the government may call upon you to go to war and that was the deal you made with the government when it paid you and gave you other benefits. Signing up for the military is not something to be done lightly and if you are unable or unwilling to accept or fulfill the obligations that are inherent in doing so, then don’t sign up. While I can sympathize with those who are away from their families and that they don’t like it, the responsible soldiers understand that this is a necessary consequence of the duty they’ve sworn to uphold, and they will do it.

This is probably the most irritating section:

“Treating soldiers fighting their war as brave heroes is an old civilian trick designed to keep the soldiers at it. But you can be sure our soldiers in Iraq are not all brave heroes gladly risking their lives for us sitting comfortably back here at home

“Our soldiers in Iraq are people, young men and women, and they behave like people - sometimes good and sometimes bad, sometimes brave, sometimes fearful. It's disingenuous of the rest of us to encourage them to fight this war by idolizing them”

There’s no civilian trick to it… most of us actually do think they’re brave. And while yes, they are just ordinary people, extraordinary things are expected of them. We expect them to be pushed to their physical and mental limits for the purpose of defending their country. We expect them to kill their opponents, destroy their opponents’ infrastructure, and defend innocents and allies. That is all a bit more than what we expect from an office building cubicle dweller. As such, we honor the soldier because he does what we do not and, because of him, don’t have to. He is an ordinary person who has risen the occasion and become something greater. He deserves our adulation and anybody who refuses to give it is appallingly unappreciative.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/31/2004 08:11:00 PM (Archive Link)
The ICC Won't Let Me Be

Ok, so this is an interesting issue, fraught with potential peril. The International Criminal Court has ruled against the United States in that the U.S. “violated the rights of 51 Mexicans on death row to receive diplomatic help,” and the U.S. has been “ordered” to review their cases.

Issue 1: The ICC has as much legal jurisdiction over the United States as a tribal council meeting in Botswana. We have stridently avoided having anything to do with the court. While Clinton signed onto the treaty organizing the court, it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification (it would have been defeated) and was therefore never officially accepted or adopted by the United States. Bush wisely “unsigned” the treaty when he took office since it was obvious that the court could easily be used to further anti-U.S. policies and sentiments from around the globe. Among other things, it could be used to prosecute American soldiers, leaders, generals, etc., for supposed war crimes that occurred during military actions. Moreover, the court would be beyond our laws and abilities to control it and would not be bound by set laws as our own courts are. We would essentially be giving up our legal sovereignty.

Issue 2: The federal government doesn’t have a thing to do with these cases beyond federal appeals courts, including the Supreme Court, all of which have not found in favor of the Mexicans (the Supreme Court declined to hear the case). This is a state issue for states to decide. The State Department can’t go around ordering Texas or Oklahoma to do something and the ICC sure can’t either. As a Texas resident, I’d be seriously put out if the state yielded its criminal jurisdiction to the court.

Issue 3: This is something the U.S. should give absolutely no credence to… not even lip service. I already don’t like this part: “U.S. officials will study the decision carefully, said State Department spokesman Adam Ereli, adding that the United States has tried to comply with the requirement that consular access be granted to Mexican and other citizens detained on U.S. soil.” Any sort of acceptance of this decision on our part would set a disastrous legal and political precedent. Even without officially ratifying the court, we’d be giving ourselves over to it on precedent. And we’ll have enough trouble with anti-U.S. countries going after us in the ICC, we don’t need our own trial lawyers trying to mess with the U.S. judicial system through international law. Don’t believe me? Check out the quote: “David Sergi, who represents Texas prisoner Roberto Ramos, said the ruling ‘will give us a chance to litigate a lot of issues that were not addressed at trial.’ He said it could lead to a retrial or at least a sentencing review for his client.” You really don’t think lawyers wouldn’t pursue action in the ICC as a path to personal success?

Additionally, any sort of acceptance of the decision would only encourage others to try and get a piece of America by going through the court. My preferred government response to the decision would involve plentiful scoffing, but they’ll probably take a more diplomatic route.

Issue 4: This particular case hinges entirely on procedure, not guilt or innocence. What’s being left out is that failure to receive consular assistance in a timely manner doesn’t mean these 51 people aren’t guilty. They were tried in court, found guilty by juries, and sentenced. Just because the Mexican consul didn’t get a call until their national had been in custody for a month, it doesn’t mean the guy didn’t do it. Let’s take a look at the Texas convicts mentioned in the article: “Fierro was convicted of shooting a taxi driver to death, Ramos was convicted of killing his wife and two children with a hammer, and Torres was convicted of killing two people during a burglary.” Yeah, quality guys. I’m real glad there’s a global court out there looking out for the best interests of somebody who kills his own family with a hammer. It’s probably only a matter of time before the ICC comes out with a decision that supports child rapists. I mean, what, were there no perpetrators of genocide available for the ICC to go after? You know, maybe try to prosecute vicious killers instead of defending them?

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/16/2004 02:11:00 PM (Archive Link)
Conviction

From time to time, I consider a theory of mine that says that those without convictions will necessarily fall victim to those with convictions. What I mean by this is that a person who thinks positions A, B, C, etc. are all equally true (even though they may be contradictory and mutually exclusive towards each other) or are all equally false will sooner or later fall victim to the person who proclaims just A or B or C, etc. The first person has no concern about what the truth is but the second person is not only concerned about the truth but is greatly concerned with it. And so the convicted person will do whatever he can to force his view on the unconvicted person. Then one of two things will happen: A) the unconvicted will buckle to coercion and start adopting the convicted’s views or B) because of his ignorance, naïveté, and general misunderstanding of the nature of the convicted, the unconvicted will be caught by surprise and annihilated by the convicted. You see, as they care deeply about nothing, the unconvicted are often unable to comprehend the commitment and dedication of the convicted towards their views. Thus, the unconvicted make the mistake of thinking the convicted are really just like them and they are then taken by surprise when the convicted’s dedication truly asserts itself.

Now this theory generally does not hold true within Western societies. Indeed, the opposite more often seems to be the case, where the convicted fall victim to the unconvicted. Those who believe in God, definite morality, truth, and meritocracy are constantly on the losing end of battles against those who believe in no God, interpretive morals, relative truth, and rampant equality. You could probably make the case the latter folks are actually convicted in their unconvictedness, but this falls short. Rather I think it has more to do that in Western societies, the convicted groups are unwilling (and thankfully so) to work outside the system or in a violent manner to assert their views. They prefer instead to wage battle in public debate, in government, in courts, and in the marketplace of ideas. That they lose here is more a sign of the complacency that the stability of Western culture provides. The stability removes people from the traditional human experience and makes them think they are somehow different from traditional humans and they thus hold positions contrary to their nature. But, well… more on that for another time.

So, while the theory does have difficulties within Western societies, it is borne out in interactions between Western culture and non-Western cultures (by non-Western culture, I’m not referring to any one culture or “Eastern” culture as there are many different types of culture that can be lumped into non-Western). The two have been in conflict ever since Western culture began to take shape. The ancient Greeks fought against the Persians; the Romans fought against the Carthaginians and damn near everyone else; Christian Europe battled constantly against the Muslim East and Muslim North Africa; Europe during colonization battled against nearly everybody in the Americas, Africa, and most of Asia below Russia; the West battled Communism for 50 years; and now the West is battling terrorism. In the above examples, save the war against terrorism since the result is yet to be determined, the West won. This wasn’t, however, because they or their foes lacked conviction. Quite the contrary, the Western powers were very convicted—convicted of the superiority of their culture, their governments, their literature, their militaries, their religion, their freedoms, their institutions, their values, etc. They thought enough of their culture and valued it highly enough that they put everything on the line to defend it against radically different cultures that valued things quite different from them.

In each example, though, there were elements that lacked the conviction of the superiority of the West. This is generally a good thing since introspection and self-analysis is a decidedly Western trait that leads to improvements in all realms of life and also in how the West deals with other cultures. It was this self-questioning that led the West to end slavery and to withdraw from its colonial holdings. This questioning, however, centered on the nature of Western culture and not on its inherent value. It was still a good thing.

When we look at the Cold War, the West won the drawn-out conflict, but it easily could have lost it. Here was a standoff between almost equally strong powers with drastically different points of view. The West was capitalistic, democratic, religious, and placed a high premium on individuality and freedom. The Communist countries, by contrast, were socialistic, totalitarian, atheist, and believed in uniformity and collectivism. Most on both sides were convicted about the best system. The Communists were convinced that Communism was the way of the future and was the next step in the natural evolution of history. The nature of their countries also meant that there was little dissent from this opinion. If you dared speak against it, you quickly found yourself in a gulag for being a counter-revolutionary. Children were also taught from a young age the glories of Communism and the amazing exploits of the worker and whoever their leader was. Thus, you had very convicted societies. Many in the West, though, were unconvicted about the superiority their own culture. They saw the inadequacies of their own countries and were swayed by the lying propaganda of the Soviet Union into thinking that Communism was superior to what they knew. Thus, of the two possible scenarios given above, they fell into the first: they were unconvicted and buckled to the coercion of lies and propaganda to hold their opponents’ views. They became mouthpieces for the opposition. And in a free country, McCarthy accusations aside, they could support Communism.

There were others, though, that fell into the second scenario: unconvicted of the West’s superiority, and through ignorance of the convicted opposition, they risked being annihilated. Through the sixties, many became disenchanted with America and the West. They saw many good things about it but also many bad things. Join this with feelings of everybody’s the same in one great human spirit and looking at the destructive capabilities and military posturing of the West and the Communists, and there developed a tendency to create an equivalence between the two sides. The Soviets, after all, are normal folks just like us, the thinking would go. They’re just trying to live and all. We’re no better than they are. They’re reasonable people, like us, who want the same things we do. Instead of constant and strong confrontation, what was really needed was to build bridges and talk out our problems. We just needed to understand each other. These unconvicted people did not understand the convicted Soviets. They were not like us. They did not believe as we did, they did not value the same things we did, and they did not see the world as we did. And they already understood us quite well. They knew there were elements in our society who were foolish enough to betray their own culture and espouse the Communist line instead and that other elements thought they were just misunderstood good guys. These were the useful idiots, as Lenin described them. And while they encouraged dialogue and understanding, it provided time for the Soviets to make inroads and weaken the West’s convicted people. Remember that tyrannies and totalitarian regimes are established on force and power, not talking, and so that is what they understand. Fear such a regime that wants to talk because they are only buying time while they position themselves.

Fortunately for these unconvicted idiots, however, they were not annihilated by the convicted opposition because the West still had the convicted in their leadership. These people believed the West was superior to the Communists and they forcefully stood up to them. Through their perseverance and despite the unconvicted’s equivocating, the West won. This brings us to our present day situation of the war on terrorism. The current American position is to forcefully stand up to terrorists and to eliminate them wherever and whenever possible. For those of us who agree with this position, we are convicted of the value and superiority of the West and believe it should be defended against those whose values are abhorrent to our own. Already, though, there are those unconvicted among us who think the real solution is to understand and even appease the terrorists. A Guardian editorial said the following: “We need to take the fight against terror out of America's hands. We need to get beyond the them and us, the good guys and the bad guys, and seek a genuinely collective response. Europe should seize the moment that America failed to grasp.” They are unconvicted about their culture and believe, like Lenin’s useful idiots before them, that the terrorists are like us. There is no them and us, no good and bad, just a bunch of misunderstanding. If only we build bridges and have dialogue and keep talking and start to understand each other and our grievances, then we will have peace. The whole warring thing just creates problems. After all, these “terrorists” are reasonable people… just like us.

Here is the real problem. The people who are advocating this view are unconvicted about their superiority, their force, and their values. Because they believe in relativism, they hold to the idea that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. They think the terrorists are just well-meaning guys who don’t understand what the West stands for because, hey, we’re well-meaning guys who don’t understand what they stand for. They’ve developed an equivalence between them and us, such that there is no them and us, only a lot of us. These Islamist terrorists, however, are among the convicted. They have no doubts about who is superior. They have no doubts who are the good guys and the bad guys. They have no doubts about who the “them” is. And given the opportunity, they will annihilate the unconvicted. What it comes down to is that the terrorists are not like us, will not be like us, and cannot be like us. Talking with them or reasoning with people who understand only the power of violence and jihad is only an indication of weakness. Actively appeasing them is even worse. Considering that their goal is to dominate and control everything, they will not be satisfied with scraps that you throw them. Unless you are convicted of the value and worth of your own culture, the convicted opposition will slowly destroy you.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/15/2004 10:08:00 PM (Archive Link)
Still Around

Have ya missed me? Sorry for the long absence. I've had many other things to do which took some priority over blogging. Check in in the next couple of days, though. I'll be posting something good. Good and long.