Posted by Dan Ewert : 1/31/2003 03:20:00 PM (Archive Link)
I have recently made a few interesting observations about the liberal mentality. I don’t how best to organize this so I’ll just go down the list.

The first concerns the liberal dedication to diversity. Most, of course, believe it very important to realize, study, understand, and celebrate the differences that exist among races, cultures, religions, nationalities and the like. However, despite this commitment to differences, many liberals simply don’t grasp the concept that there are many people out there who are vastly different from them. The typical liberal seems to be of the opinion that because they support “oppressed people A” or because they oppose war on Iraq, people A and the Iraqi citizenry are also liberals. It’s a notion that because they are sympathetic towards a people, that group is sympathetic right back; that because they are liberals who support a group, that group must also be of a liberal mindset who supports them. It’s a tit for tat, quid pro quo idea in the sense that, “Hey, I’m tolerating you and respecting your diversity, so you’re doing the same for me, right?” The reality is obviously much different. There are societies out there that despise America and they hate its liberal attitudes most of all. There are people who will want to eliminate you no matter how much tolerance you may demonstrate towards them. In fact, they probably most like the folks on the far left because they are most useful for their purposes. If the terrorists’ purpose is to kill Americans, who could be more useful than those who oppose almost any effort to hamper their own operations? At the same time, these liberals are also the most hated by the extremists since these are the people who advocate openness and acceptance to all that which they hold most disgraceful.

In this sense, then, liberalism is a self-destructive philosophy because the convictionless necessarily fall victim to the convicted. And I don’t mean that in a metaphorical, left vs. right sense (although you could make the case), I mean it in a very realistic sense. If Person A believes in letting everybody do what they want because it’s oppressive to prevent them from doing so and Person B believes in killing Person A due to A’s immorality, then A dies. Weak-willed approaches, refusal to recognize dangerous people, and refusal to defend yourself or others in the face of aggression is a rather poor combination.

One more aspect of liberalism is this growing globalist Marxist philosophy. I suppose it’s been around for a very, very long time, but I just keep noticing the theme. Bad people are never at fault for their own actions. There’s no accountability. If there are Islamists out there who plot the destruction of America, it’s because America has been lording over them and their populace with its imperialistic, capitalistic evilness. The terrorists of 9/11 are to be condemned only when the condemnation is followed by a “but,” as in, “Yes, what they did was horrible and there’s no excuse for it, but you have to understand how America’s policies have built disgruntled feelings among Arabs.” All varieties of evil and evil men are tolerated, excused, and even endorsed because they are merely reacting to U.S. hegemony. Morality long ago exited the world-view of these people save for the idea that America and everything about it is bad and therefore, everything in contrast to it must somehow be good. A lot of black and white for people who insist there’s only gray.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 1/31/2003 03:19:00 PM (Archive Link)
I read this on Fox News the other day. More reasons to dislike Bill Clinton. The man gave a speech to a group of health care advocates, but he took the opportunity to cover a range of topics and, of course, to polish his presidential record and legacy.

Among the topics he hit on was Iraq in which he stated, “If there is going to be a military conflict, the rest of the world and most Americans need to feel that the inspections were undertaken in good faith and that they have shown us something -- this process has shown us something -- which justifies the conflict.” I think that if Clinton could have his ultimate wish, it would be that the United States government would dissolve and be ruled by the U.N. Clinton was always a president who wanted to be admired by everybody as opposed to doing what was best for the country. He seemed to lust after the admiration of the international community most of all, which isn’t surprising. In America, there are always plenty of critics because of internal politics and domestic and foreign issues. In international politics, though, it’s easier for a president to suck up to foreign governments since they’re only concerned with America’s foreign policy over which the president has a great deal of control. Now, even though Clinton is long out of office, he still wants their approval.

Here’s what Clinton had to say about North Korea: “I don't want to get into who did what when. What we did was good and if we hadn't done it, they would have 50 nuclear weapons today, and it would be a disaster because they would be under great pressure to sell them since they need money. So we did the right thing, but I think we need to do more now and I think we can do it diplomatically as long as we do it, but we have to be very tough about it and we have to proceed and I am hopeful, I think it can be solved.” This absolutely has to be the most galling aspect of the speech. The goal of the 1994 treaty with North Korea was to halt weapons development. Halt, stop, cease, desist. Since this wasn’t accomplished, that means the treaty was a failure. Clinton is now saying, “They could have 50 by now, but they only have maybe 5, so it worked great!” What he doesn’t mention is that the Framework was supposed to be mean zero. Just one nuclear weapon means that the agreement was ineffective as we now know it was. There was never any reason to believe that North Korea would halt its nuclear weapons program and the former president passed the buck instead of confronting the situation.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 1/31/2003 03:19:00 PM (Archive Link)
Love this article. Just love it. Much has been made about how Europe opposes action against Iraq. Well, turns out that most of Europe is in favor. It’s mostly just France and Germany who are being obstinate. Chirac and Schroeder are probably sputtering in indignation about this. Rumsfeld was right… France and Germany constitute Old Europe. New Europe includes a whole lot more people than just them.

Another interesting thing about those two countries is how they’re perceived by liberals in contrast to the United States. For many on the left, America in the Iraq situation is working purely in its own selfish, greedy military, political, and economic self-interests. The old nonsense talk of “oil-whores” (an Alec Baldwin quote) and “blood for oil.” France and Germany, though, are acting on very noble principles and that’s why they oppose action. Neither of these scenarios is the case. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Does America have military, political, and economic interests in Saddam’s downfall? Sure does (although the economic reason that’s hit on so much is probably the worst argument since the U.S. stands to lose more than gain in that respect). It also has some very good principles at work in protecting American lives, eliminating sources of weapons of mass destruction, freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny, and bringing a prosperous democratic republic to the heart of the repressed Middle-East. France and Germany are basing their policies on a few principles, but they’re also acting in their own national interests. France, for example, has lucrative oil contracts with Hussein. Any war in Iraq puts those agreements and profits at risk. Also, the populations of both countries have an anti-American streak and their respective leaders score big political points when they oppose the U.S. People tend to forget that France and Germany are countries like any other and countries act in their own interests. That’s what they do. They don’t operate in the world’s interests or in the interests of other nations unless said interests are compatible with those of their own country. So don’t be overly cynical about the U.S. or overly romantic about Europe.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 1/31/2003 03:18:00 PM (Archive Link)
I like to complain about Amtrak because it’s a gigantic government boondoggle that hemorrhages money. The big problem with creating a government bureaucracy is that the agency will make its primary mission its own perpetuation.

Anyway, I was looking around the Amtrak site and came across this page in which Amtrak president David Gunn discusses how the company will need a government cash infusion of at least $1.2 billion for fiscal year 2003 in order to keep running. If it doesn’t receive this much, “Amtrak will have no other choice but an orderly shutdown of all service this spring or sooner.” For the uninitiated, this is the phrasing Amtrak uses for its annual shakedown of congress. What was really surprising, though, was Gunn’s last line, “Again, I appreciate Senator Murray's (the senator helping to make sure he got his money) support for our efforts to run a better, more cost-efficient passenger railroad, as well as the support of others in the Senate, and look forward to the outcome of this afternoon's vote." “Cost-efficient?!” Here the man is saying Amtrak needs a huge $1.2 billion aid package in order to continue providing basic service and he thinks it’s cost-efficient? Or taken another way, he thinks free money will help it become more cost-efficient? There is absolutely no logic to this.

Speaking of cost-efficiency, how about this page. Amtrak was providing licensed massage therapists on one of its trains. Apparently, the passenger paid a one dollar per minute fee to use the service, but you know the company itself was paying out some money to get them there. Can anybody imagine Southwest Airlines doing something like this? Nope. And they’re making money.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 1/30/2003 04:20:00 PM (Archive Link)
I was browsing TheNation.com the other day and went to a section called “The Online Beat” by John Nichols. You’ll note the sidebar where he describes his mission in part thus, “Every day in every city and town across America, progressives get up in the morning and go about the work of fighting racism and homophobia, defending the environment, organizing trade unions and tackling corporate hegemony. Sometimes they win--on the picket line, at the ballot box, in the streets and outside the WTO meetings in Seattle.” Outside the WTO meetings in Seattle? This is declared a “win?” In case you’ve forgotten, the anti-WTO protests in Seattle back in December ’99 were actually riots. They caused $2 million in damage, cost downtown businesses another $7 million, prompted the mayor to establish a curfew and the state’s governor to call in National Guard units. I find it astounding and shameful that somebody on the respectable left would be calling this sort of behavior a “win.”

Posted by Dan Ewert : 1/30/2003 04:19:00 PM (Archive Link)
After my wife and I got married, we had to go through a number of wedding gifts and we also purchased some furniture. One of the things I noticed is just how much is made in China. In general, that’s where many products come from. It makes me wonder, though… when the average Chinese worker is making all this great stuff that they can’t possibly hope to possess because it either isn’t available to them or is just far out of their meager price range, do they ever think about what a crumby country they’re in? If I spent my day assembling nice bedroom furniture for the huge American middle-class mass market and this furniture was too big to even fit in my tiny apartment, I’d start having second thoughts about this whole Communism concept.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 1/30/2003 04:19:00 PM (Archive Link)
Just read this article on CNN.com. Ya gotta Teddy Kennedy. Congress already approved military action against Iraq and now that it’s becoming a more definite possibility, he’s trying to backtrack.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 1/30/2003 04:17:00 PM (Archive Link)
I was quite pleased with how the Super Bowl went. As a fan of the Kansas City Chiefs, I am a Raider hater. What really surprised me, though, was just how poorly the Raiders played. This was one of the best teams of the season and had the league MVP in Rich Gannon (who the Chiefs stupidly let go several years ago in favor of Elvis Grbac). To see them go out on the field and completely stink it up… well, I would have felt sorry for them if I wasn’t so pleased. Just goes to show that old Al Davis shouldn’t have sold out Jon Gruden to the Bucs ‘cause he came back to bite him in the butt.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 1/29/2003 11:40:00 PM (Archive Link)
Well, I haven't posted in a while, but I'm finally settled down and here's some new stuff. I have plenty more in the pipe, so keep a lookout for more updates.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 1/29/2003 11:39:00 PM (Archive Link)
You’ve probably already read about former Illinois governor George Ryan commuting the sentences of all the state’s Death Row inmates to life without parole. He says he did it because of his conscience and the possibility that one or two of the 156 convicts may actually be innocent or were unfairly sentenced on the basis of race or poverty. He also completely pardoned four individuals on death row because he thinks they confessed under torture. He pardoned them… that means he let them go free.

This is one of the most disgraceful things a public official could do. Let’s leave aside for the moment the morality of the death penalty. What concerns me here is that one man has overridden both the legislature and the judiciary in a blanket commutation. He has taken a dictatorial act in declaring the three branches united in him. He nullified the punishment the state’s legislature prescribed for certain offenses and he simultaneously sidestepped the judicial system’s trials and prosecutions of the criminals and the appeals process. As one prosecutor put it, “Everybody has had not their day in court, they’ve had their years in court. It’s shameful that the victims of this state, in fact, have to not fear the courts, not the defense lawyers, not the defendants, but they have to fear their very own governor.” It is an extremely dangerous act when an elected public official subverts the law and the mechanics of law whether because of selfish desire or benevolent self-conscience. Such subversion substantially weakens the power of both. In this respect, Ryan has done far more harm than good.

Another concern is that he commuted the sentences of those who were absolutely, positively, no doubt about it guilty. It would have been somewhat bearable if Ryan had at least done a little homework to identify those whose guilt might hold a little doubt for him. Instead, he lumped everybody in the same group.

Another irksome aspect about this, and it’s connected to the previous thought, is that these people are not choir boys; they’re criminals of the worst kind. Remember that if you’re sentenced to death, it’s because you committed a horrible murder. Every murder is horrible, of course, but the death penalty usually means the crime was abnormally ugly. Consider the following folks:

— Lorenzo Fayne: Stabbed or strangled four girls, ages 9 to 17. He sexually assaulted one victim and molested the body of another.

— Anthony Brown: Strangled and suffocated a 67-year-old woman in her home. He had previously served time in prison for rape.

— Evan Griffith: While already serving a sentence for murder, stabbed a fellow inmate to death at the Pontiac Correctional Center.

— Lenard Johnson: Stabbed an 11-year-old boy to death and sexually assaulted three girls, ages 7, 11, and 13, while babysitting them in their home.

— Fedell Caffey and Jacqueline Williams: Shot a pregnant woman in her home, cut the nearly full-term baby from her womb, and stabbed her two children.

These are some of the people who Ryan is holding up as the poster boys of death penalty reform. Nice choices. Just imagine how the friends and families of the victims feel about all this.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 1/29/2003 11:38:00 PM (Archive Link)
A few days ago, I read this article concerning Amtrak and its request of Congress for more funds… specifically, it’s asking for $10 billion in the next five years in order to keep running. I’ve complained about this in previous posts. I can’t stand Amtrak. It’s never made money and never will make money. Even the company’s president says so. It’s absurd that the government should continue subsidizing such a huge white elephant. Rail travel can be an effective and efficient method of transportation and a good rail company is also effective and efficient, like any good company should be. Amtrak, though, has spent its entire existence suckling on Uncle Sam. If a business never faces the prospect of its demise and if it has an almost unlimited cash flow from the government, then it has no incentive to streamline and to cut fat. Amtrak is essentially America’s own nationalized company and it demonstrates why socialist methods don’t work. The government needs to build up some courage and stop letting Amtrak hold it hostage for money every year by threatening to shut down rail lines in the northeast. It’s embarrassing if nothing else.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 1/29/2003 11:36:00 PM (Archive Link)
On a lighter note, I watched the first several episodes of American Idol on Fox and they were quite entertaining. The best part about the early episodes is that you get to see the really bad people try singing… and as they’re horrible, I do mean try. What I don’t understand is why these folks came in the first place. You’d think there would be some merciful family member or friend who’d tell the would-be idol that they just can’t sing and therefore save them some embarrassment.