For Iraqis, a Heyday instead of an Uday.
The anti-war crowd has never looked as foolish as it did yesterday. News images showed pictures of "Protesters" demonstrating against the Iraqi elections, denouncing them as "Illegal". One wonders if they have considered that the freedom which allows them to stage their views at home is precisely what drives the events in today's Iraq, thanks to the tenacity of George Bush and the coalition forces.
Furthermore, if this election is "Illegal", what is their opinion of the last "Election" that took place under Saddam Hussein's rule? You know the one: the results were either 99% or 100% for Hussein, with a plus-one-percentage point margin of error. For the anti-war crowd, these results are somehow not only more genuine than what took place in Iraq yesterday, they're also more desirable. That supposedly mature adults could hold this opinion is nothing short of frightening.
We heard much the same thing about Afghanistan: The U.S. should not have invaded, the Taliban should not have been overthrown, elections were impractical and undesirable, and finally, that the results of said election were somehow illegitimate. With stability and a sense of purpose now well-established in that once-lost country, the Afghanistan critics have suddenly fallen silent on the subject, and turned their invective towards the events in Iraq.
What if the nay-sayers were calling the shots? We came very close to a Kerry presidency; would he have had the stomach to allow and encourage the elections to move forward? It's not difficult to imagine a scenario where global criticism results in endless delays, with one half of Kerry's audience demanding an immediate exit of U.S. troops, and another half being only slightly more supportive, but still never allowing for an actual date on which Iraqis could formally decide their own future.
This would have been a disaster for all involved; after all, there's nothing the opposition terrorists would like more than extended chunks of time in which to engage in more bombings, beheadings, and the like - which would further erode the will of the people.
The U.S. and coalition forces that brought us to this moment have paid a very high price - which we are all very clear on - but the resulting fruits of democracy, as in Afghanistan, will do far more for the region than anything the anti-war crowd has ever managed to envision.
America's critics: Getting a global hard-on
Doing the right thing brings an enormous risk of being unpopular - just ask George Bush. With Saddam Hussein, we had a violent dictator who not only rewarded the families of suicide bombers but allowed his sons to torture Iraqi Olympic athletes who failed to return home with sufficient awards. His invasion of Kuwait, repelled by coalition forces, only seemed to embolden him, and the economic sanctions which he and many others pronounced an unfair depredation of the Iraqi people were gleefully skated around by him and his cohorts. Meanwhile, he was allowed to pursue whatever weapons programs he pleased, with a timid and feckless group of U.N. "Weapons Inspectors" offering little more than gentle prodding of him to reveal his projects. When he kicked the inspectors out of the country - need we be reminded that this was in direct violation of an arrangement he himself agreed to? - he was then free to both develop whatever he wanted, and transfer the evidence to whatever hiding places he wanted. Do the snarling critics of America's efforts ever stop to consider what he could have been doing during those times? Hussein's subsequent and grudging "Permission" for the inspections to continue was deemed sufficient by the U.N., and even praised.
In the name of basic decency, the removal of Hussein was a wonderful thing for the world, and yet the madness that pervades those who opposed this act of good will refuses to recognize this. Following this twisted logic, America is not only to be criticized for its "Illegal invasion", it is to be arrested and put on trial by the rest of the world.
So now we have a University professor by the name of Churchill, proclaiming that the 9-11 attacks were in fact retaliation for the economic sanctions against Iraq and children that were allegedly killed in a U.S. airstrike. Leaving aside the absurdity of the slaughtered children charge, the message here is that economic sanctions shouldn't have been imposed on Iraq. According to this logic, Hussein should have been allowed to do whatever he wished in Kuwait, and presumably, wherever else he felt like it. As the sanctions were imposed under U.N. auspices, one wonders why the hijackers didn't fly the planes into the U.N. building. But to argue with the nonsensical ramblings of a jaded college professor who can only take delight in issuing indictments of institutions rather than making improvements is to miss the bigger picture and ultimately, to waste time.
These arguments are based on the notion that America itself should stand trial for its larger "crimes" against the world, a popular notion which is kicked around constantly. As Michael Moore so eloquently taught us, those nutcases who are cutting the heads off other people are actually brave and noble freedom fighters who are standing up to the oppression of the U.S. government.
With this perspective in mind, a generation of relatively well-off Americans can now denounce their own country for a litany of crimes which are simply understood to be established fact. "Meddling in the Middle East" is a common phraseology of this view, but there are plenty of others.
Can you imagine what would happen if Osama Bin Laden were captured alive and taken to the U.S. to stand trial? This would be the greatest opportunity ever for that radical 1960's mindset, whereby Western Civilization itself would be put on trial. It's horrible to picture, but there would be protesters outside the court house every single day for however long that circus of a trial would take, bearing signs proclaiming, among other things, that Bin Laden is innocent, that he was a "Freedom Fighter", that he was resisting U.S. "Hegemony", "Colonialism", "Arrogance", and a bunch of other things copied out of radical-left handbooks.
It is, of course, necessary for a free society to allow such kooks to spout their infantile revisionist history, but we must do a better job this time around of exposing them for who they are. The teachers and administrators of our colleges meekly rolled over for the self-appointed "Revolutionaries" in the '60's, and that must not happen again. Petulant youths who enjoyed an upbringing based on the freedoms that America has given them must never be allowed to take over the reins of society and tell us that they will now be cutting off the hand that fed them.
If you have bought into the line that America is an oppressive, horrible place based on persecution of minorities and the poor, it will probably take you a little while to wake up from your stupor - but do yourself a favor, and seek multiple sources when you are being encouraged to think that America "Deserved" 9-11. When the professor Churchills say that no one in the Twin Towers that day was "Innocent", ask what
precisely they were guilty of; you will receive a highly emotional yet vague and incoherent statement.
It's teen rebellion towards Mom and Dad taken to a national scale.
The loneliness of the long-term voter
Looking back at the introduction of this blog, it seems in need of some revision - although most people are probably insane to some degree, we saw that in our most recent election, the sides were pretty evenly split. Fortunately for us, common sense prevailed, and George Bush was returned to the White House.
This suggests that there are a lot of people out there who are doing their darndest to avoid insanity. They did not buy into John Kerry's endlessly vague proclamations of how he would make America "Stronger at home" and "Respected abroad". Even crazy people know when they're being taken for suckers, and the Democratic party, in perpetual contortions trying to re-invent itself as something to be taken seriously by Mr. and Mrs. United States of America, couldn't really define a single reason to vote for its candidate beyond the fact that he wasn't George Bush.
This was all well and good as long as you were a member of the vituperative "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" which loathed George Bush with that visceral hatred usually reserved for the likes of Nazis - but what if your concerns were somewhat less romantic, and more mundane?
What if you really did believe that terrorism was a real risk with horrifying consequences? Michael Moore, in one of his absurd diatribes which is sold as a book, downplays the terrorism threat to an infantile level, endorsing the reader to believe that "There is no terrorist threat". Although this book was supposedly written after 9-11, the myopia of the fervent left-winger apparently knows no bounds.
If you were worried about further attacks on Americans, you were told by the democratic party establishment various and often contradictory things, such as:
- There is no terrorist threat (see above).
- Even though there is no terrorist threat, if there were one, it would be the fault of George Bush and Condoleeza Rice.
- The terrorism threat exacerbated by George Bush (even though there isn't one) was made much worse by the war in Iraq.
- The much-worse terrorism threat, which is the fault of George Bush, can be solved by John Kerry, with methods left unspecified.
- If you are worried about terrorist threats, you have been manipulated by the Republicans, who have turned you into a dupe and a stooge for getting so worked up about a threat that doesn't exist, although if it did, it would be entirely the fault of George Bush, and could only be fixed by John Kerry.
- If you don't support gay marriage, you are a hick, redneck, hayseed, and a gun-toting, bible-thumper.
Okay, that last one isn't about terrorism, but it illustrates reasonably well the messages being sent to the electorate by the party that is supposedly about helping people. It's really just social engineering, but more on that later.
Faced with these messages, what does a voter do? It's tempting to ignore the whole thing, but with people taking outrageous stances everywhere you turn, there's a fierce urge to shut down the worst of the loudmouths. This is where common sense comes in, and it's what killed John Kerry's campaign.
Telling groups of voters that you share their everyday concerns while you have spent a tedious career in the senate while personally living the life of a multi-millionaire can seriously damage your credibility. George Bush is no up-from-the-bootstraps kind of guy; indeed, it was one of the biggest charges brought against him, but to pit Kerry against him is to completely miss the point. Kerry expressed irritation at the presence of secret service personnel while he was trying to enjoy a restful afternoon of skiing - what sort of message does that send? And could you imagine Bush doing such a thing?
According to the media establishment, many felt that George Bush was bad for America, bad for the little guy, bad for families, bad for the planet, bad for the poor, just plain evil, Satan, Hitler, the coming of the Antichrist, and other hyperbolic labels too numerous to list. Now, who said these things? Ordinary Joes, or people holding positions in the public spotlight? Once again: people know when they're being played for suckers.
Furthermore, the establishment basically told you that if you supported George Bush, that meant that you wanted to force women out of their careers and into back-alley abortions, you wanted poor people to rot in hell, you wanted to deny access to handicapped people everywhere, and you wanted to prevent racial minorities from enjoying any success in life. You wanted reductions in taxes only for "rich" people, as well as reduced medical care across the board, and you wanted to turn Social Security into a casino.
Those who bought into the line that George Bush should be thrown out of office at any cost tried their hardest, and failed. This brings us to a new point of wonder: in the endless ravings of mortified democrats and anti-Bush voters, where are the reports and interviews with people who actually voted for him? Think back on all the rivers of speculative ink that flowed about why Bush won: do you hear anything but conjecture from Democratic party establishment types, Democratic politicians, Democratic media consultants, and Democratic voters? Do you hear about news reports that say, "Here's a bunch of Bush voters telling why they voted for him"?
No, of course not. Maintaining the elitist view that they know what's good for everyone else, the ivory-tower types would rather glower and spit on those masses who voted for Bush, rather than take a look at their own agenda and attempt to repair it.
Plastic Bag Surgery Tax Disasters
What is the purpose of Government? That's the holy grail of questions, because without it, how the heck do we proceed?
Apparently, we haven't ironed out a reasonable answer to this question, which is why we get stuck either debating things endlessly so that no action is taken, or undertaking actions which turn out to be completely absurd.
What winds up happening is something like the recent grocery-bag tax proposal in the People's Republic of San Francisco, whereby supermarkets are required to charge shoppers seventeen cents per grocery bag, be it paper or plastic. The eminently reasonable folks who pontificate on such matters state that since grocery bags create waste which costs the city money to deal with, consumers should be hit up to cover those costs. Those same pontificators will mention the proliferation of plastic-bag litter in China, and point out that China charges shoppers for these bags. They will then cross their arms, satisfied that their very reasonable assumptions and conclusions have won the oh-so-commonsensical debate.
This is classic punitive taxation, which is generally understood as imposing taxes against products or services that the body overseeing such things finds to be undesirable. What's never clearly laid out is what criterion are used to decide who serves on that body, and how they get to decide what's good for the rest of us.
To some extent, this process must be endured; otherwise, there really wouldn't be any government, much less a democratic one - but we should think carefully about allowing agencies such as the "San Francisco Commission on the Environment" to be submitting legislation to the board of supervisors. For one thing, why does this commission get to make such recommendations, when a voter and taxpayer can generally do no such thing?
Finally, using punitive taxation tends to turn into a kind of club drug for governments; having exhausted existing revenue streams, they scramble to find new ones, and sources that pass taxes on "Bad" things which are inevitably left as vague as possible, such as "Pollution", or smokers, or whatnot generally find that drinking salt water only exacerbates their thirst.
The next time you hear the cry for taxes to be raised - no matter what the reason - think very carefully about how such items were dealt with in the past. Before California became a vicious circle of broken budgets, crummy services, and ever-increasing taxes, it boasted the best infrastructure, schools, and just about everything else under the sun - all for
less than what we pay now.
What changed? Nothing, really - if you have a business model that works, an increase in the number of consumers brings
better service (or at least, the
same level), but not
worse. In our case, we expanded the scope of Government for no other reason than the fact that we could - or so we thought.
You may be familiar with the concept of "Tax Freedom day"; it's the point in the year where your earnings are finally yours to keep after fulfilling your tax obligations. For the last several presidencies, that period of time has moved further into the year, meanining it takes more of your time and money to meet your tax responsibilities.
Keep this concept firmly in mind the next time you hear a bureaucrat hyperventilating about how Governor Schwarzenegger is "trying to cut essential services" or that some school is "Dangerously underfunded" - That school or service got by before; why is it a crisis now? Few will answer this question honestly, because they know full well that the bureacracy did not exist before. Now that it is that person's primary job to declare that his agency doesn't have "enough" money, what would you expect him to say to the public?
So when you hear the touchy-feely arguments about how the grocery bag tax will "Help" recycling, or San Francisco's waste, or improve its quality of life, think about how much of San Francisco's problems really have to do with plastic bags floating in the streets, and be more concerned with bureaucrats whose sole purpose in life is to raise taxes in the friendliest way possible. Think of it as taxation with a "human face".
Major Headline discovered at top of news organization's website
Of course, to get the real story, one has to read between the lines, or in many cases, look at the "Sub-headline" - let's take a look at today's New York Times, the venerable news publication that has eroded into a mushy stew under its next-generation leadership.
The big headline is about a car bomb in Iraq; of course, since this is a negative development in the war on terror, the times dutifully picks up the trumpet to make this the premier item in its communication agenda. The text below the headline, though, is the real news item, which is that one of the key terrorists behind the Iraqi "Insurgency" bombs has been captured. This development is far more significant than the deployment of another bomb, and yet it receives only marginal and secondary mention in the "Headline".
Let's face it: war is hell, which we all know, and yes, bombs are events worthy of news attention. However, the side that you're rooting for is what comes out of the news you run and the way you run it. While the Times makes no secret of its opposition to Bush and the Iraq war from within its editorial page, this position winds up permeating all their stories, as demonstrated in today's thinly-veiled version of "Bush is wrong, and we'll tout that point in any which way we can".
Unconvinced? Try another story: "Democrats vow to resist GOP majority in new Congress". The sub-headline text that opens the story is that "The Senate minority leader and others criticized the G.O.P. on Iraq, Social Security, healthcare, the budget, and taxes."
Okay, it's a story about the agenda facing the Democrats - fair enough, but wouldn't it be in the interests of "Balance" to add a comment or two from the Republican side which is so hugely significant in this story? Don't bother; I've read it to save you the time, and not one Republican is interviewed. By framing the debate in this way, The Times makes it clear to its audience that the Democrats are the "Good Guys", and the Republicans are the "Bad Guys" - and again, this is all well and good for purposes of partisan reporting, but a publication such as the New York Times built its reputation on being more or less even-handed in its coverage of events. Alas, in the last few years, they've all but abandoned that pretense.
