antivenom

Boston Globe Leak

2006-11-06T11:34:00.000-05:00

It must be hard to be a Democrat these days. Beholden to (or petrified of) the hard left, afraid to take any position whatsoever because it will either villify you among the base or else make you permanently unelectable - what is a D to do? In the last several elections, the answer is easy: demonize Bush, complain about failure, and take no real position.

It seems that the D's have gone to great lengths to stifle their own position taking potential, at best every once in a while coming up with some lame set of goals ("double the size of the special forces!" "implement the 9/11 commission recommendations!") but otherwise totally mute on specifics. Why? Because the hard left, the Bush hating left, the American hating left, is a monster just itching to get out. But sometimes it does leak out, just a little. Check out today's Globe op-ed by James Carroll.

Make no mistake - there are many on the left that are happy about our troubles in Iraq. A difficulty for America, the death of an American troop, is justice against our large, imperial, oppressive nation. These folks are clearly poisoned by some kind of socialist curse and would spell instant doom for any political candidate, but they underlie the entire power structure of the hard left. Don't believe they could think such things? Lets check out how Carroll ends his Op-Ed, the grand finale:

...If the Democrats take power with the elections tomorrow, congressional hearings will have a lot of such questions to consider. But what about the moral question? For all of the anguish felt over the loss of American lives, can we acknowledge that there is something proper in the way that hubristic American power has been thwarted? Can we admit that the loss of honor will not come with how the war ends, because we lost our honor when we began it? This time, can we accept defeat?

Yes, he actually did write the phrase: can we acknowledge that there is something proper in the way that hubristic American power has been thwarted?.

The hard left, ladies and gentlment. Disgusting anti-Americanism on parade. I wonder how many of them would commit real treason, given the chance?

The Difference

2006-09-27T23:24:00.000-04:00

So, it seems the house has passed the dreaded interrogation bill at last - with 34 democrats crossing over to vote for it. I haven't even looked at what the swarming kossacks are saying about this, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a few more Liebermans come out of this. The Washington Post, has a seemingly balanced summary of the debate and results which is worth a read.

In it, you can see Democrats repeatedly agitating to give detainees more rights and protections, and ultimately being cut off by Republicans. Bravo. Here lies the difference between the parties: one is concerned with the rights of terror suspects, and the other is concerned with protecting Americans.

Get a load of this:

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said: "This is how a nation loses its moral compass, its identity, its values and, eventually, its freedom. . . . We rebelled against King George III for less restrictions on liberty than this." Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said the habeas corpus right is so fundamental that it "is un-American" to deny it to detainees held by U.S. forces.

I hate to tell ya Jerrold, but whether the detainees want to rebel against our government or not is of little concern. They already want to kill all of us. Interrogating terror suspects who are not US citizens, who are picked up on the battlefield as unlawful combatants, really has nothing to do with our rights, our liberties, or our constitution. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights of Americans, and therefore there is no downside on the domestic front.

Another excellent characterization

2006-09-21T10:23:00.000-04:00

Victor Davis Hanson spins an apt metaphor about the current political climate in today's RCP piece The Tortoise and Those Democratic Hares. Loaded with interesting insight, this article succinctly points out that no matter how bad you may think the Republicans are doing, in nearly every case the Democrats have either no solution (at best) or they support ideas which would make things worse.

This makes excellent counterpoint, in my opinion, to the notion of voting the R's out of power.

Nice Opinion Journal Piece

2006-09-17T10:09:00.000-04:00

Every once in a while I run across an article that distills many of my thoughts and beliefs into an elegant, readable form that makes me realize how many levels of writing aptitude must lie above my own.

The Liberals' War from Bret Stephens at Opinion Journal is such a piece. I can add nothing to this, except to say: go read it. And pass it on.

Democrats, Socialists, and Netroots

2006-08-11T20:11:00.000-04:00

I try to make it a habit to read the left wing blogs somewhat regularly to make sure I see all sides of the picture, as it were. I usually start with the king of lefty blogs, the most trafficked political blog in the world, daily kos. Then I ready mydd just to make sure that they are still doing nothing but repeating what is on dailykos. Then I read some local New England blogs like bluemassgroup.

Anyhow, I take Kos as representative of the entire left wing blogosphere, more or less, since so much of it copies so fully the kos content, tone, and mob mentality. Based on what I've seen, I agree with all the things being said in the press about the scary people on the left, and the extreme leftism of the so called netroots. Netroots (lefty blogs) are not so much democrats as they are socialists. Trouble is, no one on that entire side seems to know the difference.

Take this post and comments for example, which discusses a political trick that Vermot Democrats are doing to make sure that the dems dont have anyone running against socialist Bernie Sanders. Democrats are actually forcibly abdicating their own shot at the Senate in VT, in order to support a socialist!! This meets with universal approval among the commenters, many of whom applaud Sanders' socialism and none of whom criticize it. Many other posters equate his socialism with really great progressivism (I'd agree) and others do the same for liberalism. Democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists - there is no line between any of them, no one sees a difference.

More and more, I don't either.

Republicans: Don't Shed a Tear for Lieberman

2006-08-08T23:11:00.000-04:00

I'm confused about why conservatives and/or libertarians give any sort of a damn about Joe Lieberman losing the CT democratic primary. Sure, it means that the netleftists like moveon and dailykos have finally won something, and to the extent that their agenda touches our government, thats bad. And sure, it means that even centrist democrats are going to move to extreme anti bush and extreme anti war positions, and that will be marginally more annoying than what we've seen in recent years. Finally, it represents a movement to the left, which is almost always a bad thing in the long term. So on the surface there are lots of reasons to be unhappy about it but wait! - hey hold on a second here, lets consider the other side...

Lieberman himself has little going for him: He is a democrat. As such, he is fiscally liberal (i.e. welfarey socialistic) yet socially conservative. Talk about splitting the difference the backwards, he's got both positions wrong! Sure, he's pro war and that's great and all (cough cough) but the guy bashes Bush with the rest of em, and in the end he counts towards the democratic tally in the senate majority count, which he will do even if he wins as an independent. In that sense, he and Lamont are equally harmful.

But in Lieberman you had a supposedly centrist democrat with broad appeal in Connecticut whereas with Lamont you've got someone who, while he may or may not be a nutjob himself, will have been installed into power by leftist nutjobs. He will be beholden to them, for sure. As such, we suffer a short term infusion of leftist nutjobbery but potentially reap a backlash against same in the voter population of CT. Sometimes, you have to let the left have power so they can prove to the voters how utterly they must rejected, if not to lend a little momentum the other way. Think Jimmy Carter and pre-94 Clinton. Only Carter's incredible awfulness paved the way for, and enabled, the Reagan revolution.

This is a silver lining that I wish more people would see: its ok to give up a few yards in a close fight in order to let the bad guys blow themselves up for another 20 years.

Better yet, if the saner half of the Democratic party can hold on to their brains, the growing influence of the netleft may yet do what we can all only dream of for the moment: split and permanently destroy the democratic party.

Have a nice day,

Demolisher

ps: counterpoint from PowerLine;

UPDATE: Television reports indicate it's Lamont, winning pretty big. Several people have asked me which candidate I'm rooting for here. Some Republicans think a Lamont win will be a good thing, demonstrating how far off the rails the Democratic Party has gone. Not me. This is no time for partisanship. These days, I feel like a character in Invasion of the Body-Snatchers, with my fellow citizens turning into pods in alarming numbers. I'd like some reassurance that the pod people aren't yet a majority, even among Democrats.

FURTHER UPDATE: On the bright side, Cynthia McKinnie got trounced. Never let it be said that you can't shame a Democrat!

pps: Lieberman could still win in the general. Could the R's have a chance, too?

Juxtaposition

2006-05-23T08:31:00.000-04:00

Protests inside the stadium took a gentle form: About 50 of the 3,200 students seated on the stadium floor turned their backs and held up placards denouncing the war as Rice received an honorary doctorate of law. Some 200 faculty did the same, according to a count by faculty members. Approximately 30,000 people attended the commencement, according to BC police.

4 times as many faculty as students "turned their back" on Condi during her BC commencement speech? I call that progress...

Protests of Rice Muted

But then again...

NEWTON -- Outside Boston College's graduation ceremonies yesterday, some 200 protesters chanted, ``Shame, shame!" and ``Give her a subpoena, not a degree, for crimes against humanity!"

...they did have support from the local nuttery. Question: since when is declaring war on a nation a crime against humanity?

Moron Iran

2006-04-12T23:59:00.000-04:00

I expect nothing but liberal tripe from the likes of dailykos.com, the leading liberal blog in America.

But this front page article is just too much.

Everyone pretty much agrees that any type of strike [against Iran] would unleash hell and endanger American troops and American civilian lives as well. Given the grave and known consequences of military action, why does the government still have the military option on the table? Is it really an effective bargaining tactic if the Iranian has demonstrated it's more than willing to call our bluff?

Isn't there a politician brave enough and logical enough to stand up and say "endangering American lives is not an option"?

Above, they quote risks of Iran firing missiles at US troops in Afghanistan, among other things.

This article is the succinct summarization of the surrender mentality. Don't threaten them because they might hurt us. Never mind what they could do to us with actual nukes, since we are all cowards we'd better let them know that now so we can back down and hopefully they will forget about us.

Liberals left to their own devices would be extinct.

Attack Iran Now

2006-04-12T13:35:00.000-04:00

Well, its going to be another swat at the middle east beehive, but theres really no way we can let Iran get nukes. At least we won't have to worry about "hyped intel" this time around. We need to wipe out their nuclear capability in a big way, and if we have to invade to do that, so be it. Our troops are conveniently located on both sides of the target. Better to lose Iraq and Afghanistan for lack of troops than to have nukes in the hands of Iranians.

Couple nice pieces

2006-03-27T00:12:00.000-05:00

Either I've been too lazy to write much lately, or things haven't really been that interesting. Censure? Pure politics, yawn. Sectarian violence in Iraq? What is there to add?

But Big Lizards (h/t: powerline) has some nice articles up right now which I feel compelled to link:

Media bias takes the side of the enemies of America, no surprise but another piece of evidence for the pile, and well written at that. Oh yea and viva bloggers.

And not that I'm a huge DeLay fan, but apparently Abramoff is not naming him. Did you know?

Deep Rooted Socialism in France

2006-03-23T18:04:00.000-05:00

Well, France is rioting again. This time it isn't disaffected muslim youth, its - well I could say "everyone" but its primarily the youth I guess, but this time all of them.

Why? Because the government is attempting to modify french law such that employer will be allowed to fire employees for any reason within the first year or so of their employment. Employees can be fired? Non! Hence:

RIOT!

Once socialism gets its cancer into you, its awfully hard to get out.

Sanctions Are a Joke; Nukes Are Not

2006-03-18T22:50:00.000-05:00

It is in a way fortunate that Iran is acting so chest-thumpingly in its bomb development endeavor. With stealth and misdirection, and given the massive anti-American sentiment both at home and abroad, it would be exceedingly difficult for the U.S. to launch a pre-emptive strike without ironclad evidence of impending nukes.

Since Iran is giving us this opportunity, we should take it. We should strike any country attempting to develop nukes, hard and with little fanfare. Sanctions are a joke. Does anyone seriously think that there is any chance of sanctions causing an end to a nuclear program? Please. The only end will be an end by force, or an end under the threat of force.

Lets not kid ourselves. The consequences of a unilateral strike against Iran will be severe - for our nation, for our people and forces abroad, and of course for our president. But the consequences of a nuclear armed Iran could be immeasurably worse. This is our chance to save ourselves, and the world. We should take it.

The Usual

2006-03-16T23:17:00.000-05:00

With the recently escalated "reprisal killings" going on in Iraq and what seems like daily finds of dozens of executed bodies, it seemed recently that even some Republicans were starting to get cold feet about our presence in Iraq. They weren't so much parroting the left's endless no-wmd whining or calling the effort unjust; more just saying that we've lost. Some saying that Iraq is now in civil war.

Now, aside from the fact that "reprisal killings" might conceivably be killing terrorists, lets assume that this spate of violence is bad - really bad. But is this a civil war? Armed militant thugs of one side or another commit reprisal kidnappings and executions, and terrorists commit suicide bombings and we are calling that a civil war? Perhaps we've forgotten what civil war means. Or perhaps we're just hysterical. Or worse.

As long as terrorists are committing suicide bombings in Iraq, as long as al Qadea is taking its stand there, then that is where we must fight or flee. In this simple choice - fight or flee - why we are there makes no difference.

New England Aggregator

2006-03-01T23:11:00.000-05:00

I mentioned this to a few local bloggers, but I'd really like to have something for us on the conservative and libertarian side of the cyberaisle (ooh, lame term sorry) that approximates the leftyblogs.com blogwire. You can see it at mass leftist central blue mass group, on the right hand side. Shows the latest 10 or so posts from all area bloggers, linked nicely in.

So far I'm having trouble finding tools that easily do this, so I'm thinking of just hacking one up. Shouldn't be terribly hard as long as we stick to one or two formats. I'm kind of liking Atom, to be honest. If anyone knows of an existing tool (open source) to do this, let me know. (demo - at - ninemillimeter.com) Comments on the idea in general also welcome.

Bush Warned About Levees!

2006-03-01T22:52:00.000-05:00

More breathless idiocy from the AP, which of course is being picked up and repeated all over the damn place. It basically says that although people told Bush in "agonizing terms" about the dangers of Katrina, he "didn't ask a single question" (and thus must not have cared or must have been incompetent). Since most news coverage is just reprints of this same article, its tough to see any actual quotes that were so agonizing, but the one that I saw had some expert saying that no one could predict if the levies would hold, but it was a grave concern...

After umpteen briefings on the subject, Bush isnt getting animated and asking questions. Looks like a good chance to Michael Moore him and leak it to some anti Bushies at the AP. They'll fill in the blanks for the public nicely.

Now we get to rehash the whole Katrina garbage and pretty soon Bush is gonna hate black people again. Super. How do we tolerate this? I'm starting to wish for the end of the AP.

UAE + Ports: Powerline Weighs In

2006-02-27T21:33:00.000-05:00

Just because its been a hot topic here, and because I love Powerline, I'm linking to John's latest stand-taking post on the matter. More and more I think that the deal should not be blocked, and people should just come to recognize and reject the mountains of idiot-hype that surrounded this debacle.

How do you make this case to the average voter, succinctly? Here's Powerline for ya:

...Much criticism of the "deal"--there actually isn't a deal, a company headquartered in the United Arab Emirates bought a British company that had contracts to administer facilities at six ports--consists of general criticisms of the UAE, as though companies headquartered in that country can only do business in America if the Emirates' record on terror-related issues is spotless. That strikes me as a complete non sequitur. More confirmed terrorists have come from Great Britain than the Emirates, but no one raised any objection to British control over port terminals.

And no one seems to care that the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia already controls terminals at nine American ports. Or that China operates both ends of the Panama Canal...

Its a nice post, go read it.

Addicted to Foreign Oil

2006-02-27T12:55:00.000-05:00

I found it remarkable that President Bush said in the state of the union that the US is "addicted to foreign oil". Who must he have been placating? Was this an olive branch to the left? What is a republican president, a former oil man himself, doing making a statement like this? What does it mean? Could he be serious?

Since the state of the union, Bush has been saying it more and more. So I think he means it.

Once I got over my intial surprise, I wrestled with vague notions of the government telling us not to drive SUV's, silly pie in the sky alternative energy promises (solar rocks, man!), and general anti consumerist malaise.

Then I realized why it was so important that this statement come from W:

When President Bush says we are addicted to foreign oil, that really means something. From any leftist or even democrat politician, its just the usual propaganda - likely accompanied by all kinds of cynicism, negativity, and the lack of any real alternative. From Bush, it means that he sees a problem, and he's going to act. From Bush, the actual meaning of this statement, and the implications, have a chance of penetrating the minds of the roughly half the country who has completely tuned out the ridiculous left. This message will get through. And if its a problem, Bush will do something about it.

Why is it so bad that we are "addicted" for foreign oil? What does this even mean?

It means that the entire US economy is dangerously tightly linked to oil. We can't live without it. We can't make enough of it on our own. We have to buy from all these awful nations like Iran and Venezuala, who then use their riches for anti American purposes. We have to care about what happens in the Middle East - A LOT! - because instability harms our economy. Don't get me wrong, this isn't the retarded left wing "blood for oil" or "don't drive SUV's" or "Americans are bad" pitch. The hard fact is that oil is critical for the survival of our economy.

On Friday Al Qaeda tried to blow up a Saudi oil terminal, thankfully failed, and oil prices spiked. With oil and energy prices high, almost every US citizen is impacted directly. Worse, large companies eat price shocks in their recurring cost structure. This lowers profits, maybe alot, maybe they go into the red. This hurts the stock market, maybe alot. Maybe some people lose their jobs.

Imagine what would happen if we had to go to war in Iran? Would our economy survive it? Is that the choice, either we let these nutcases develop nukes and save our economy, or we blow up their processing plants and cost US workers a million jobs?

Wouldn't it be great not to have to worry about that?

Sure, its a pipe dream at the moment, but what about this wind power stuff? If wind works as an energy source, then what could be better? OK so wind isnt going to power our cars, but it could sure reduce consumption of fossil fuels in, say, electic power generation. That would be really good.

What about ethanol for our cars? Too expensive? Up until now I would have said ethanol programs only exist because of the Iowa caucus, and they typify government handouts that should be eliminated. Now I'm not so sure. We are addicted to foreign oil, and the addiction is harmful. I don't think the solution is conservation, I think the solution is innovation. Conservation will occur naturally when prices get too high - never before that - but by then it will be too late. Innovation will also occur when prices get high. But the hidden costs today should also be considered. The cost of making hostile regimes rich, the cost to our economy of supply shocks, the cost of have to use our military in the middle east. These costs are high. These are national issues. In this addiction, the low prices are the drug, and the economic shocks and hostile regimes are the harmful effect.

Wouldn't it be great if Venezuala and Iran didnt matter? If the whole middle east didnt matter? I think it would.

Blogs Superior in UAE Port Deal Coverage

2006-02-27T09:43:00.000-05:00

If you've been watching the news at all, you've probably seen that the Bush administration is inexplicably selling our vulnerable ports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates - a country which is muslim, arab, and home to 2 of the 9/11 hijackers. Port security being a big deal and all, this decision and the subsequent strong defense by Bush himself ("try and stop it - I'll veto") smacked of classic Bush administration bad politics and worse PR. While governors and senators from both parties scrambled to outdo each other and score political points, Bush was - as usual - steadfast.

So what really happened here?

By now, there are so many articles about the ports deal that it would be impossible to post a meaningful chronology. For a sampling, try this. You'll have to go way back to see most of the initial articles. The long and the short of it is, the MSM went nuts and mischaracterized and blatantly misreported the ports "sale" (which in fact is just a UK company being bought by a UAE company). Gobs of politicians, including '08 hopefuls Bill Frist (R) and Hillary Clinton (D) scrambled to score big national security points. Even now, to the average viewer, Bush is looking pretty bad.

But against this tide, you can find some counterpoints. What do you do when politicians and the media are going berzerk and it just doesn't add up? Read blogs, of course. For example, you can read this balanced post at Captains Quarters, which contains slightly more extensive quotes from Bush than simply "I'll veto" and also fails to make some of the mainstream media errors such as calling it a ports "sale", or attributing port security to the UAE.

Better yet, you can look in our own New England blogosphere: To warm up, what is going on with these liberals playing the national security card and forgetting all about their heartfelt opposition to "profiling"? Pardon My English notes this lefty hypocrisy. Better yet, MuD and PHuD clams things down a bit and links to Big Lizards rather more balanced analysis of the situation. Rhode Island's Anchor Rising adds yet more balanced analysis while acknowledging the obvious visceral reaction that many of us are prone to feel on first hearing of UAE involvement in US ports.

Perhaps most surprising of all - and I can't even believe I'm going to say this - is that the king of Mass lefty blogs, Blue Mass Group, takes a similarly balanced approach in two apparently pro-Bush front page posts here and here! Now, don't get me wrong - the self styled (and deeply ironic) "Reality-based commentary" at BlueMass is no stranger to your typical Kos-derived anti Republican juvenalia, but this is really something worth noting. These progressives are so pro-Deval Patrick that they cant even keep their fangs out of the presumptive D Gov. frontrunners neck, these suckers are actually agitating to take Massachusetts further left, if that can be imagined. But yet there it is, on the front page - a sane and reasonable analysis of the UAE ports matter. How easy would it have been to jump on the anti-Bush bandwagon yet again? And yet while the MSM and politicians from both parties are busy knee jerk panic mongering for anti-Bush and political points, respectively, good ol humble blogs are taking a deeper look. A more balanced look. A smarter look. Even on the left.

When something makes absolutely no sense at all, 9 times out of 10, your understanding is flawed. Don't understand what the heck is going on in this world? Read the blogs.

George Will on Why Conservatives are Happier

2006-02-23T15:58:00.000-05:00

George Will doesn's always get it right, but he's a good and interesting writer and this piece is a gem:

Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness

Aside from the fact that I think liberals are generally wrong about almost everything, I sometimes feel that they can be a real drag to be around in any case. Why? Because there is this big cloud of miserable chip-on-shoulderness which seems to follow them everywhere. Maybe its the whole guilt-is-life thing, or maybe its that the US is so evil and bad, or that most exalted people in their estimation are the needy - but - well anyway, go read it! Here's a snippet:

Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.

The right to pursue happiness is the essential right that government exists to protect. Liberals, taking their bearings, whether they know it or not, from President Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 State of the Union address, think the attainment of happiness itself, understood in terms of security and material well-being, is an entitlement that government has created and can deliver.

UAE and ports

2006-02-22T10:59:00.000-05:00

I admit that I am somewhat baffled by Bush's decision to strongly defend the "sale of our ports" to a company from UAE. Here is some clarification from an unlikely source, CBS news!

Could it be that Bush is the only one with his head on straight, taking the principled stand against hyperventilation once again?

Fighting Dem Paul Hackett Surrenders

2006-02-14T13:53:00.000-05:00

Much has been made in the left wing blogosphere of the new "fighting dems" phenomenon: Iraq war vets who are returning home to run for political office as Democrats. Their hero and #1 highest profile fighting dem was this clown Paul Hackett from Ohio, who lost an unexpectedly close race against a weak but supposedly secure Republican incumbent last time around. This time he is lined up to take down senator DeWine (R-OH).

The hard left loved him.

But yesterday, Hackett dropped out of the primary against D frontrunner Sherrod Brown. True to conspiracy theorist nutjob form, he blamed Democratic party leaders for sabotaging his campaign and betraying him.

Some left wing sites are quick to forget how much they loved him but even though they all now say he couldnt have possibly won (!!) some are really feeling the hurt.

Me, I just find it ironic that the fightingest of the fighting dems acted in typically democratic fashion - and surrendered.

So what are they going to do about it? Apply their tired old marxist driven class based analysis to their own party, of course!

The real reason so many people are upset that Hackett left the race has less to do with ideology than it has to do with the ongoing class war within the world of progressive activists. Online, Hackett's support came primarily from those activists who have very little power within the progressive movement as a whole: the working class within the progressive movement. By contrast, Sherrod Brown's support came from the aristocracy within the progressive movement: those who, like Charles Schumer and Rahm Emmanuel, have a lot of power over the direction of the progressive movement. Class, in this sense and in the world to which I am applying the term, is not determined by income. Rather, it is determined by power and ownership over the progressive movement. The outrage comes from the generally accurate perception among the progressive activist working class that the progressive activist aristocracy used their vastly greater power to remove Hackett from the race in favor of Brown. The outrage comes from the fact that, like in IL-06, they made this decision on behalf of a candidate of their choosing without consulting the progressive activist working class. The outrage comes from the very real fact that the activist working class places the blame for the nation's continued conservative backslide squarely on the progressive activist elite.

To which I will only add this one snippet from Tom Matzzie, MoveOn.org Political Action Director:

The story about "the Democrat who sold out" has become too familiar. Too often progressives tip toe around these betrayals. But there needs to be real consequences for these Democrats.

Replacing a right-wing Democrat with a more progressive Democrat will help voters more clearly understand what Democrats stand for--and that will help Democrats win.

Could this represent a schism in the Democratic base? Activist elites vs. anyone remotely centrist? We can only hope. The sooner the Democratic party finishes imploding, the more time we'll have to form a rational and loyal opposition party.

We Should Thank the Hard Left Blogosphere

2006-02-08T15:46:00.000-05:00

This NY Times piece discusses Democrats' remorse over ongoing missed opportunities to take advantage of the troubles of the Bush administration. Some great quotes aside, the main message of the article is that the D's can't win unless they stand for something:

"It's absolutely required that the party talk about things in addition to the Abramoff scandal," said Martin Frost, former leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "I think the climate is absolutely right to take back the House or the Senate or both. But you can't do it without a program."

And Mr. Bayh said, "I don't believe we will win by just not being them."

The article doesnt mention it, but the real reason that the Democrats are completely unable to stand for anything is the overwhelming influence of the hard left blogosphere and related orgnazations such as MoveOn. These organizations dominate the activist community and ruthlessly attack any Democrat who does not hew close to the liberal line. (see: Lieberman) These people have taken their anger over the 2000 election, multiplied it by the war in Iraq, and added in a thousand additional ingredients - both real and imagined - and now they are insane. Insane, yet powerful. Too powerful to be ignored by Democrats, but too insane to appeal to the masses. This leaves the Democrats confused, unable to take a position, talking out of both sides of their mouths - or more often, not talking at all except to complain.

As long as the hard left retains such dominant influence, the Democrats must remain toungue-tied - or lose even worse than they already do! So, thanks, moveon and dailykos. You guys really help out alot in befuddling the Democratic party.

Alternatively, you might take Nancy Pelosi's view of things:

Ms. Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, did not dispute that argument. But, pointing to the Democratic strategy in defeating Mr. Bush's Social Security proposal last year, she said there was no rush.

"People said, 'You can't beat something with nothing,' " she said, arguing that the Democrats had in fact accomplished precisely that this year. "I feel very confident about where we are."

McCain blasts Obama

2006-02-07T09:44:00.000-05:00

McCain shows some teeth against Obama who apparently bait and switched on lobbying reform. Details here at the indispensible Real Clear Politics

"I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions...

Is McCain making all the right moves for 2008 by slapping down the Democrat hero du jour? Or is Obama just screwing up a whole lot and catching flak from all sides? (note: Obama took some heat from the left for his anti filibuster position on Alito.)

Mohammed Cartoon Fiasco

2006-02-03T09:34:00.000-05:00

The play by play goes something like this:

Danish newspaper published cartoon portraying Mohammed, God of Islam, offending many muslims around the world
Muslims begin violent protests, boycotts, threats, etc.
Euopean pols mortified, apologizing
Other European newspapers publish cartoon; similar cartoons follow
Editors being sacked, European pols mortified, apologizing and scrambling:

Europe's political elite were scrambling last night to contain the furore across the Arab world at the publication of caricatures of Muhammad, with leaders stressing that freedom of the press did not mean freedom to cause offence.

(from the Guardian UK)

I think there are a couple really interesting angles to this:

1. Gutless European pols will attempt to curtail their own freedoms in order to de-offend muslims, in a cowardly show of impotence

2. Nonetheless, freedom of the press oriented press folks will continue to mock Mohammed in cartoons in an escalating fashion

I mean, really, how could all of Europe ever seriously prevent this from happening? So long as the papers (and web sites, etc) have a mind to create and publish cartoons mocking Mohammed, they surely will do so. I can envision hundreds of cartoons, thousands even, coming from all corners of Europe and even other countries with free presses - completely overwhelming the muslim ability to take individual offense, protest, or carry out individual violent reprisal.

From there it goes one of two ways: a world war of muslims vs. the west (free press vs. offensiveness to faith), or a final acceptance by muslims that they just cant get violent every time their religion is trifled with.

I think its going to be the latter. If the world floods itself with images mocking Islam, the only possible outcome is that Islam will have to just chill the hell out. Theres just no way its going to come to a world war over a silly cartoon.

China as an Emerging Superpower

2006-01-26T13:34:00.000-05:00

Lately I've noticed that some of the more lefty of the American left have taken a certain relish in noting that "China is coming", the US is in decline, China will be the new world superpower, etc. Perhaps this is a long sought after vindication of the communism that they secretly idealize, or perhaps its just plain old garden variety anti Americanism.

The irony of course is that China's rise is 100% correlated to its newfound economic freedoms, its adoption of private property rights, its abandonment of communism as an economic system. It retains communism as a political system - how odd! - which leaves it with a free economy but a totalitarian government. Further ironies about liberal pleasure in China's rise could be found in the Chinese' grotesque abuse of the environment, human rights violations, and incredibly low wages. Like many liberal positions, taking pride in China's rise against a predicted US fall is largely nonsensical.

China's rise is not at all ensured, however. Nor is its continued adherence to a totalitarian government. As more and more people in China do well for themselves, and as the spread of the internet information age inevitably erodes the chinese "firewall", it is possible that we could see a popular resistance with some real clout forthcoming.

China's latest plan to quell unrest is not terribly surprising, but does seem to hint at a growing problem:

BEIJING (Reuters) - China is preparing to "strike hard" against rising public unrest, a senior police official said according to state media on Thursday, highlighting the government's fears for stability even as the economy booms.

As Chinese citezens gain some measure of wealth and intellectual freedom, will they continue to tolerate such heavy handed crackdowns? Or will they start asking hard questions about liberty, about where relatives have gone and what has happened to them, about the legacy of Mao?

I suspect that the whole communist apparatus could come crumbling down like it did in the USSR, pretty much overnight.

The Dynasty of the Left

2006-01-25T21:12:00.000-05:00

I find this insight from the CSM to be rather startling:

Certain trends have been favoring the left for the past several decades. In the early 1960s, transfer payments (entitlements and welfare) constituted less than a third of the federal government's budget. Now they constitute almost 60 percent of the budget, or about $1.4 trillion per year. Measured according to this, the US government's main function now is redistribution: taking money from one segment of the population and giving it to another segment. In a few decades, transfer payments are expected to make up more than 75 percent of federal government spending.

from: CS Monitor commentary by Partick Chisolm. Lots of other insights in this piece as well, it shows a slightly different perspective on the seeming invincibility of the entitlement culture in the context of democracy. (h/t: RCP)

It does seem a near impossibility to roll back the tide of wealth redistribution. Could Marx have been right? Are we on a slow, inexorable journey towards communism? Is this the fruit of democracy?

Delahunt in Negotiations for "Long Term Truce" With al Qaeda [Parody]

2006-01-21T16:12:00.000-05:00

Sources close to US Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) have said that the Massachusetts congressman is close to a negotiated "long term truce" between al Qaeda and the state of Massachusetts. Discussions are reported to include the most senior leadership of al Qaeda, including Osama Bin Laden himself. While it is not clear whether Delahunt has had direct contact with Bin Laden, sources familiar with the negotiations say that "trusted intermediaries" with contacts on both sides of the war on terror have set up channels to facilitate this seemingly unlikely communication and peace effort.

Delahunt's office has remained mum on the matter, alternately refusing comment and saying this is a "sensitive time" for negotiations which could ensure the long term safety of bay state residents. According to one insider, the major sticking point is whether or not a dirty bomb or nuclear attack on New York could adversely affect Massachusetts residents with fallout or other pollutants that might drift northward into New England. Others within the Delahunt camp expressed confidence that while a catastrophic attack in New York remains highly unlikely, even in the event of an atomic explosion the vast majority of the pollutants and radiation would be absorbed by Connecticut and New York itself. "Its a calculated risk", said one Delahunt insider. "It is clear that Bush and his cronies are losing the war on terror, and this is about ensuring the long term safety of Massachusetts residents in a sensible and diplomatic way. Its time to stop thinking in terms of war, and start thinking in terms of peace."

Massachusetts junior senator John Kerry yesterday dismissed the notion out of hand: "Osama Bin Laden is a killer and a terrorist, and we will hunt him down and kill him. The notion that we would negotiated a truce with the killer of thousands of innocent Americans, the mastermind of 9/11, is absurd."

Kerry was on hand for a Cambridge meetup of a group called "Iraq Veterans Against the War" (IVAW). This group of returned and returning combat soldiers from Iraq is gaining political clout and has started to field a considerable number of Democratic political candidates who also served in Iraq. It is expected that their service in Iraq will lend credibility to the Democrats' traditionally soft stance on defense issues, and ultimately turn back the tide of US imperialist aggression. "Our mismanaged occupation [of Iraq] has inadvertently created a new front in the war on terror", Kerry went on to say. "The war on terror cannot be won without the successful transformation of the Greater Middle East, and especially its Arab core. We obviously need to show a greater openness and understanding of the Muslim world. If one way to do this is opening diplomatic talks with the enemy - yes, even al Qaeda - to achieve a lasting peace, then it is something we need to consider. Any option that leads to peace should be on the table, and under a Kerry administration I think you'd see a much more nuanced and open foreign policy which accepts the reality that all wars end in a negotiated truce."

Hillary Gaffe

2006-01-18T03:56:00.000-05:00

"When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run - it has been run like a plantation... You know what I'm talking about."

- Hillary Clinton, MLK day speech to Canaan Baptist Church in Harlem

(from the NY Sun's Senator Likens House to Slavery, Drawing Rebukes From Some)

which goes on to quote the following counterpoint:

A government professor at Dartmouth College, Linda Fowler, said while the senator received applause from yesterday's largely black audience, she might have offended some black Americans who feel the comment was less than sensitive.

"The question is whether you trivialize the suffering that people experienced on plantations by applying that word to a different setting," she said. "It's just really a question of appropriateness - making a connection between the badly treated Democrats in the House of Representatives and people who are enslaved against their will. It just seems like a stretch."

H/T: Captains Quarters

Confirm Alito

2006-01-15T14:26:00.000-05:00

Today, the front page of the NY Times concedes victory to Bush on the Alito nomination, taking a predictably 100% glum democrat look around the scene.

The Washington Post goes much further, actually supporting the Alito nomination despite clearly noting that it does not really care for Alito, nor does it support conservatives.

Based on these two signs, I think Alito is in. And thats a good thing.

Is this bad for Democrats, or bad for pro choice Americans? Only in the narrowest ends-justify-the-means sense. Roe v. Wade - which by the way, is what 90% of this supreme court hubub is constantly about - is an abomination. I don't say that because I'm pro-life - I'm not. Its just that you can't simply invent new laws from the constitution. You really can't. The D's argue that we risk losing abortion rights, and a slew of environmental laws are all based on more modern interpretations of the constitution as a "living, breathing document". Hogwash. All that means is that we have created laws with a small, unelected group of judges rather than with an elected legilature.

And that, folks, is really bad. Democracy means that elected folks write laws, not courts. It isn't enough to say that most Americans are pro choice - if that is true, then the legislature should act accordingly.

Using the judiciary to shape public policy is a horrible idea. The Democrats should be very appreciative that Bush has not put judicial activists on the court. But then again, judicial activism is rather antithetical to what most principled conservatives and libertarians believe, so I guess it was a low risk deal for the Dems anyway.

Democrats, at worst, you may lose some laws that were created by courts. If you want them back so bad, and if they represent public opinion so clearly, then be a good democrat and use our democracy to create the proper outcome.

Fortune Cookie

2006-01-08T15:46:00.000-05:00

Had some chinese buffet for lunch yesterday and found the following fortune:

He that climbs the tall tree has a right to the fruit.

Which seems to make alot of sense on its face - until you consider that liberals have built entire ideological cities around the antithesis. If democrats were multicultural enough to produce their own fortune cookies, I imagine this one might read something like:

He that climbs the tall tree probably had some unfair advantage to start, or climbed it on the backs of the downtrodden, or maybe he stole the tree from the natives who had no concept of private property. In any case, now that he got to the fruit, everyone has a right to it since we are one big communal society where everyone should be made equal.

UK Socialized Medicine Not So Great After All

2006-01-02T20:24:00.000-05:00

I find it hard not to fall down laughing over this article discussing reform of the UK socialized medical system. Here it is from the venerable eurolefty Guardian Unlimited, Patients Now Have a Wider Choice of Hospital:

Patients will from today have a choice of free treatment in up to four hospitals - including one in the private sector - in a change that the government hails as one of the most fundamental reforms since the NHS was created nearly 60 years ago.

The move - seen as meeting one of Tony Blair's key pledges for more consumer choice in the public services - is controversial among some Labour backbenchers and was yesterday attacked by the Liberal Democrats and unions, who believe it could force unpopular hospitals to close.

First of all, you can choose from a whopping 4 hospitals? Is that up from what, 1? 2? Wow. Imagine if we in Boston could choose from 4 hospitals! But wait! One of the 4 may be a private hospital, oh my goodness! Doesn't that run counter to the big government central control elitist we know what is best for you socialist philosophy that has all but swallowed Europe? No wonder the lefties are pissed over there! And check out the objection: it could force unpopular hospitals to close!!! What is this, school choice? Where would we be if we couldn't keep crappy institutions open year after year with no hope of improvement?

But for Patricia Hewitt, the health secretary, today's change is the key to securing a permanent improvement in the NHS. She said: "Patients have new rights over their own healthcare. These rights will allow patients to choose services which best meet their individual needs."

Can you even imagine? A new right to choose your own healthcare? Wow.

But the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, Steve Webb, said the move would benefit the rich and the well informed at the expense of other patients. "People want more control over their care, but the government's obsession with markets will mean the least well advised patients could well end up with inferior care.

"It is clear wealthier people, and those with access to better information about the quality of services, will be able to get access to the best care. Turning the NHS into a giant marketplace creates winners and losers. The downside of shopping around is that some hospitals will go bust."

And that, my friends, leaves me speechless.

NY Times, Enemy of the State?

2006-01-02T10:34:00.000-05:00

The NY Times keeps swinging at the security of the United States with its latest piece "Muslim Scholars Were Paid to Aid U.S. Propaganda" This boldly anti-American front page story handily exceeds the usual hard left bias of the NYT. In many ways, it it worse even than the NSA spying story on the eve of the Patriot Act vote. I simply can't imagine why they would publish something like this.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 1 - A Pentagon contractor that paid Iraqi newspapers to print positive articles written by American soldiers has also been compensating Sunni religious scholars in Iraq in return for assistance with its propaganda work, according to current and former employees.
...
"Clerics exercise a great deal of influence over the people in their communities and oftentimes it is the religious leaders who incite people to violence and to support the insurgent cause," the company said in the proposal, a copy of which was reviewed by The New York Times.

In some cases, "insurgent groups may provide Sunni leaders with financial compensation in return for that cleric's loyalty and support," the proposal said, adding that religious leaders are motivated by "a need to retain patronage" and a "desire to maintain religious and moral authority."

Why shouldn't NYT publish something like this?

1. Propaganda is always a part of war - exposing pro American propaganda isn't some remarkable scoop.
2. Exposing pro American propaganda undermines that propaganda in a time of war, wasting the effort.
3. To the extent that the NYT successfully reverses the effect of the pro American propaganda on Iraqi Sunnis, this will inevitably lead to more division and strife within Iraq. The battle for the hearts and minds of the Sunnis is what many consider to be the battle in Iraq.
4. Turning the Sunnis against the US will result in more attacks on U.S. soliders.

So, I have to ask: is the NYT merely blind? Or is it so important to the leftists at the NYT to turn out right about the war that they will do anything to help see it fail? It their pride so important to them that they will sacrifice the lives of U.S. soldiers to their cause?

A Glimpse of the Social Security Debate to Come?

2005-12-28T19:03:00.000-05:00

Everybody knows that the Democrats are eventually going to have to take a position on fixing Social Security. The whole fingers in the ears, lalalala its not broken we can't hear you act is so paper thin that even Democrats have trouble sticking with it. When the boomers retire and the largest slice of the public expenditures pie starts flowing directly into their pockets, I think its possible that there may be some kind of an impact on a proverbial fan somewhere. At or slightly before this time, the D's are gonna have to take a position. But what will it be?

Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post (bias beware!) has written a piece for RealClearPolitics in which he attempts to lay out a "moral" conflict at the root of the social security problem, and proper solution. Frankly, I was surprised to see this on the RCP site because I expect that Robert's position and justification will be the one adopted by the Dems whenever they get around to taking a position. Here is the meat of it, starting with the premise of "if we invented social security today":

People live longer, are healthier and have less grueling jobs. They can work longer and receive benefits later. We'd set higher eligibility ages. It's too expensive for government -- meaning taxpayers -- to support them for 20 or 30 years. We'd concentrate aid on the neediest and the oldest, including people whose longevity exhausted their savings. We'd regard this as a moral obligation of a decent society.

Well, if that's what present conditions suggest, why do we tolerate a system that automatically pays many people who are well off and in good health? The answer is that people who have been promised Social Security and Medicare benefits believe they have a moral claim to receive them, even if -- absent the promise -- their claim would be dubious. True, people need to plan their futures. But the moral logic also rationalizes self-interest and selfishness. The compromise is to unwind gradually those promises that no longer make sense and are ultimately unworkable.

Until we challenge this moral logic -- the crux of entitlement politics -- public opinion will resist change and our paralysis will continue. Meanwhile our resulting inaction compounds many future dangers of an aging society: higher taxes, slower economic growth, squeezed government spending for non-elderly programs and more conflict between younger taxpayers and older beneficiaries.

Reading that again, I am now flabbergasted that it was published on RCP - what I think of as a conservative leaning site. "Rationalizes self interest"??? As if self interest is somehow irrational, or immoral? Or somehow not the engine of global human progress and also a pretty good strategy for personal well being?? Well, Robert, allow me to retort:

The only moral obligation in question is that over many years, the government forcibly took money away from people and promised to give it back later. The morally correct solution is to give the money back.

Since this national ponzi scheme is so incredibly flawed, however, it faces a crisis point in the not too distant future. If we keep the moral obligation, then the economy may collapse. There is the conflict.

A moral solution devised by an upstanding and brave politician might be to reneg on the promise, but in so doing also scrap the program. Bush had it right with private accounts - if you are going to forcibly take money from people for their own retirement, it is somewhat better to allow them to control it. That also protects the money from being spent elsewhere. But this of course doesn't solve the short term problem, only the long term problem. The short term problem can only be solved by benefit cuts (i.e. breaking the promise) but breaking the promise because the system is fundamentally unsound DEMANDS that the system ALSO be fixed in the process. Private accounts are the fix.

Samuelson sees it differently, of course. The real moral obligation - the moral trump card, if you will, is - you guessed it - Need. Straight out the communist manifesto, Need creates a moral justification for taking. Its always the same with these socialists, these progressives, these robin hoods, these democrats: Big Government is here to fill your Need. That's why I think this is the position that the Dems will adopt.

Since they are going to play dumb for, oh, I dunno, probably another decade or so, that gives us conservatives and libertarians lots of time to formulate and hone our strategies, engage in vigorous debates, and really get it right. The one thing we can't possibly afford to do is to buy into the Need-based entitlement paradigm.

Can you even believe they are still saying Bush misled...

2005-12-23T19:08:00.000-05:00

Here is a Christmas present for your lefty friends who still have their head in the liberal quicksand:

The President's main point is correct: the CIA and most other US intelligence agencies believed before the war that Saddam had stocks of biological and chemical weapons, was actively working on nuclear weapons and "probably" would have a nuclear weapon before the end of this decade. That faulty intelligence was shared with Congress – along with multiple mentions of some doubts within the intelligence community – in a formal National Intelligence Estimate just prior to the Senate and House votes to authorize the use of force against Iraq.

No hard evidence has surfaced to support claims that Bush somehow manipulated the findings of intelligence analysts. In fact, two bipartisan investigations probed for such evidence and said they found none. So Dean's claim that intelligence was "corrupted" is unsupported.

Factcheck.org summary of whether Iraq intel was manipulated.

They should all be ashamed, especially Marty Meehan - who continues to perpetuate the lie that Bush misled him. Meehan you are a coward.

Patriot Act Now and Then - What Changed?

2005-12-21T19:34:00.000-05:00

Kobayashi Maru has a nice piece up that really calls attention to the now-and-then of the Patriot Act. Why did it pass so overwhelmingly the first time around, but falls victim to a filibuster now? What changed?

On October 24, 2001 at 11:05AM, the U.S. House conducted a roll call vote on HR 3162 (aka, the USA Patriot Act). The vote was 357 in favor to 66 opposed with 9 not voting.

The following day, October 25, 2001 at 1:54PM, the U.S. Senate conducted its roll call vote on the same bill. The vote was 98 in favor to 1 opposed with 1 not voting. ...

That much is fact. What is a matter of opinion is why, four years and a few months on, a minority of Senators (42 Democratic and 4 Republican), saw fit to let the USA Patriot Act expire without a floor vote by using their power to filibuster. What exactly has changed?

I think this is an excellent way to look at it, and excellent perspective. This raises a powerful question that Patriot Act vote switchers need to answer.

Read the whole thing, Kobayashi did a nice job on it.

Media Bias Again and Again

2005-12-18T12:44:00.000-05:00

One of the most perplexing conversations to have is when you are talking to some liberal who is in denial about the left wing bias of the mainstream media. Or worse, one that thinks the MSM is conservative. Kind of leaves you speechless, hands out, "but, but.. but... how can you not see?". Now, some might call the Boston Globe MSM and some might not, but they are certainly among the worst offenders.

Kobayashi Maru has a nice little piece summarizing the Globe's recent call for Romney to resign. How can editors and reporters at the Globe, faced with such in your face left wing bias, possibly still claim neutrality? The only way I can think of: by lying.

In a related development, UCLA has recently completed a groundbreaking study of media bias using a new technique which counts alignment with liberal and conservative politicians by quotation, and attributes ADA conservate/liberal ratings to them. Surpise! The MSM is liberal. Fox News is only as far right as ABC News is left. The Wall Street Journal, aside from their editorial page, is very liberal. How scientific is this study? Who knows, but the results fit my preconceived notions, so it meets the Mary Mapes test of authenticity!

And did anyone mention the NY Times? They aren't just left biased, they are liberal activists. As such, they compromise our national security.

The Appearance of Sour Grapes

2005-12-18T12:16:00.000-05:00

I used to wake up every day after the 2000 election debacle and thank my lucky stars that Al Gore was not president. Then, he did alot of silly and foolish things and I think pretty much everyone thanked their lucky stars that he wasn't our president. Now, its Kerry's turn to prove himself entirely below the office of the presidency.

This statement by John Kerry speaks for itself:

“If we win back the House, I think we have a pretty solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this President.”

H/T: N.E. Republican

Patriot Act R.I.P.

2005-12-16T18:20:00.000-05:00

Most people who support or oppose the patriot act don't know a whole lot about it, I'm guessing. Those who support it say, more or less, that the government needs new and nastier tools in its arsenel to prevent another Sept. 11. Opposers are all about we're sacrificing our civil liberties to a big brother government.

OK, so what have you heard about which civil liberties are in jeapordy? They can see your library records, and what books you bought at Barnes & Noble, those are biggies for the left. Some phone taps can be done without warrants, right? What else? Got anything else?

Seems to me, the difference between tapping your phones now vs. before the act if you are a suspected terrorist is that in before, a judge had to get involved and issue a subpeaona. Slow right? Seems like we need to be able to act fast, be smarter, know more, after 9/11. Seems that way to me anyway.

I'm not even saying that the Patriot Act was this grand thing that represented the epitome of anti-terrorism, but rather that I think we all need to realize, after Sept. 11, that you can't have your idealism and eat it too. At some point, some government agency charged with protecting us from, say, nuclear attack by terrorists, will not have been able to do its job fast enough due to concerns over civil liberties. Then poof, there goes Boston.

As a largely libterarian individual, I honestly don't understand why certain liberties are supposed to be guarded so zealously (book records, certain free speech cases) and others are so easily discarded (2nd ammendment, equal taxation).

You want protection from terrorists? Give me the second ammendment back and to hell with the library records.

Iraq Votes!

2005-12-14T22:21:00.000-05:00

...and so after endless brutal attacks from our enemies foreign and domestic, the day has finally come when the first and only legitimate democratically elected government in the Arab world will be chosen.

Since we here in the US are presumably all on the same side, I sincerely hope that this will be viewed as a great day by people on all sides of the political spectrum. I certainly don't expect it, though. Look for the angry left to pitch sarcasm and hatred. Some no doubt hope for failure.

Anyway, in honor of this event, I'd like to direct everyone's attention to Iraq the Model, which will be covering the election live from 8 different provinces in Iraq!

Romney Bows Out

2005-12-14T21:25:00.000-05:00

I confess to being disappointed that Mitt Romney has announced he will not run for re-election as governor of Massachusetts. Why? Why is this a downer, exactly? Even the linked Boston Globe article paints a fairly rosy and sensible picture around this (surprisingly - maybe they are just thrilled he's out?). So Mitt is moving on to bigger and better things, and maybe even saving some face in the process - whats the problem?

Well, first there's this idea that he couldn't possibly win here, and a loss would ruin his presidential ambitions. I don't like this one - any more than I like the frothing lefties who decry how awful Mitt has been and how he fooled everyone into voting for him. I can't count how many alleged "Romney voters" I've seen in boston.com comments sections loudly lamenting their vote. (Liberals are, it seems, ever the suckers.) But why would opinion have gone so south on Mitt? Romney has done a decent job here, things have gotten much better under his watch. By the Romney's own account:

The 58-year-old businessman cited a record that included closing a $3 billion budget deficit without raising taxes; presiding over public schools that recently scored first in national math and science tests; and reaching the cusp of a comprehensive overhaul of health insurance in Massachusetts.

What's not to like? Opposition to gay marriage perhaps? Making a few right wing noises while testing the waters for a presidential bid? I don't get it. Or if I do get it, maybe its something nasty, like:

General red state blue state polarization
Coattails of Bush hatred
Voter fickleness
A good record being overshadowed by intense anti Republican rhetoric or sentiment

... or, it might just not be true. Maybe Romney could win re-election, and that, as the article points out, would also make a presidential run difficult. But I hate to see a guy who gives a ray of hope to a Democrat dominated state get run out of town for one of the reasons above. With something like 80+% of our legislature comprised of Democrats, what we need in Massachusetts is not more Democrats.

Which brings me to the second reason this is a downer: one way or the other, we will lose Mitt. We lose a solid, charismatic Republican in a state that needs those, badly. If states still mattered much, I might even say that having Mitt in state might even be more important than having him in the Whitehouse, assuming he would win that race. I might even say that anyway.

Mitt, we'll be really blue without you.

h/t: NE Republican

Boston Children Protest Wal-Mart

2005-12-13T22:55:00.000-05:00

I have a piece today on Hub Politics, a Boston centric political blog by Aaron Margolis. The topic is a recent event in Framingham in which children were used to protest Wal-Mart.

I'm a big fan of what the Margolis brothers have done in the blogosphere and I'm thrilled to be able to write for H.P. Its a relatively new blog, but could be a nice focal point for us Boston area libertarians and conservatives.

Where's the Roundup?

2005-12-12T10:19:00.000-05:00

Well, I hemmed and hawed about it - I was going to do a liberal version of the New England Blog Roundup this time around, but I just couldn't get my act together enough to do it. I still may at some point, just a review of liberal New England Blogs rather than any weekly sort of thing.

As for the conservative and libertarian blogs that I usually read - I think I'm going to put my efforts into commenting on their posts directly rather than linking to them here. Or, if there is something I really like, I'll link it right away.

Favorite new area blog of the week: Kobayashi Maru (see blogroll)

Favorite new liberal area blog of the week: Dirty Water

Lefty Fest Part Deux

2005-12-11T10:36:00.000-05:00

I confess to being disappointed that more juicy content didn't come out of the BlogLeft liveblogging exercise mentioned below. I'm not surprised that principles were neither discussed nor debated, but I did rather expect some level of Bush bashing commie fest. Instead it appears to have been one long tactics lesson. Tactics, always tactics with the left. Here's how and why we keep losing (too much religion and lies in the world) and here's how we have to be meaner and cleverer so that we can win. If people only knew the truth, they'd vote for us!

There are actually two liveblogging entries, here and here. Like I said, mostly discussions of tactics - but it did make me think, maybe we on the right should be devoting at least some of our time and effort to tactics as well. We are usually busy talking about ideas, while the left plots and strategizes how to eek maximum votes and influence out of their position. Pure politics. Saves them from having to have the really hard debates though, doesn't it? Anyway, one common theme that I really liked was bloggers supporting one another - a good idea that could work for any side. The fact that they had actual politicians there, interacting and strategizing with the bloggers - also good. A bit more difficult in Mass for us on the right, but why not?

Think about it for any length of time, and you have to admit to yourself that there are probably very smart people aligned with just about every major party and movement. We should learn from them when we can.

Leftist Bloggers Gather in Worcester

2005-12-10T13:53:00.000-05:00

I've always known that there must be tons of leftist bloggers in and around Massachusetts, I mean - how could there not be? But my modest efforts to find them prior today came up mercifully empty. For some reason today I looked again. And I found them. As you would expect, many take their cues from major leftist outlets like dailykos, moveon and mydd (hell, even the big sites take their cue's from daily kos!). Haven't found alot of state politics or original content yet - but wait, what's this??

Today, December 10, from 10:30-4, there is a leftist blogger convention in Worcester! Alas, if we only knew in advance, someone could have attended and no doubt come out with some juicy content. There's nothing like a bunch of unfettered leftists all trying to outdo each other to get some real anti American juice flowin. Since I assume we dont have any R's or L's in attendance, I'm hoping something will show up on one of their blogs. They are supposedly liveblogging the event over at "political cortex".

According to Lynne from the liberal blog "Left in Lowell":

"I expect it'll be both a modest meeting and also a powerful one. Sure, it's small, with about 30 people attending; but most of the liberal Massachusetts blogging community will be represented .... At last count, four state candidates will stop by to meet and greet. We'll talk and brainstorm and hopefully come up with some innovative ways to use blogging to forward the progressive agenda."

I hope that they post their take on the "progressive agenda", because as far as I know every element of the modern progressive movement is essentially socialist, big government, and anti freedom to the core. Progress down the fabled marxist path, perhaps. Progress indeed.

I'll continue to puruse the Mass Left Blogosphere looking for anything not cut n pasted out of daily kos, and report back.

Romney's Revolutionary Idea

2005-12-08T16:07:00.000-05:00

Not long ago, I posted a scathing indictment of a bill passed by the Massachusetts House attempting to create a big new universal medical coverage entitlement in the state. Time magazine's Joe Klein (bias beware) takes note of these goings on in Massachusetts, in the context of Mitt Romney's own health care plan.

"I don't like calling it universal coverage," he told me last week. "That smacks of Hillarycare. But I do think we've come up with a way to get everybody covered through the free-market system." Romney's way is not new: policy wonks call it an "individual mandate" system, but the Governor doesn't like that term either. "I call it a personal responsibility system," he said.

What could this be? Read on.

Here is how it would work. Massachusetts now spends about $1 billion a year to provide emergency health care for at least 500,000 uninsured citizens. About 200,000 of those are young people, predominantly male, who are making enough money to buy health insurance but figure they don't need it. They would be required to buy a relatively inexpensive health insurance policy, with higher deductibles and co-pays—that's where the "mandate" comes in. Another 100,000 are extremely poor people who are eligible for Medicaid; a concerted effort would be made to bring them into the system. The remaining 200,000 are the people who have been most neglected by the system in the past: the working poor, people who have low-end service jobs or work part time for employers who don't offer health coverage.

Romney's gamble is that Massachusetts can take the $1 billion it spends on the uninsured and use it to subsidize coverage for the working poor. The Bush Administration will kick in another $1 billion, over three years, to make the experiment work if Romney can get a suitable proposal through his state legislature.

I admit, I found this shocking at first. I'm not a giant Romney fan, but I like him enough. I expect him to hew to Republican principles of small government and low taxes. And now he is proposing some form of attempted universal health care - not only that, but also requiring people to buy insurance that they might not otherwise choose to! It can't be!

Upon further reflection, I have found many redeeming qualities in this plan. First off, we have to accept the reality of the status quo: taxpayers are already paying for people who don't buy insurance. In pure libertarian principle, no one should be forced to buy anything, and no one gets any free stuff on anyone else's dime either. Sure. But this is reality, and everyone gets free health care if they are in massive need.

Because we can't possibly change this fact, it does make some sense to charge everyone for it. In scenario A we have a free entitlement. In B we have a forced, paid entitlement. Which is better? I'm going to go with B, Bob. Several reasons: 1. giving something away free means you took it from someone else, that is unacceptable. 2. If you force people to pay for what they get, then they might just vote your butt out of office and get rid of the entitlement! This may not be the case for emergency health care, but certainly when we start giving away free TVs and cars and whatnot. Its a better precedent. And on the downside, you have the fact that your government is forcing you to pay for something against your will. Not good, but less insidious than grabbing it through income taxation (for example) where an entitlement injustice might never be specifically seen or felt, and thus never remedied. Finally, the idea of having the working poor pay at least *some* of the tab is a shot at the head of progressive socialism. I'll accept a small evil (government makes my buy insurance) as the price of battling a giant evil (free entitlements).

In either case, we also have the freeloaders at the bottom of the spectrum, and that is unfortunate. But making people pay for their entitlements may actually be a huge step in the right direction.

Bravo, Mitt.

Weekly New England Blog Roundup #4

2005-12-04T13:51:00.000-05:00

Lots of war talk this week across the blogosphere, no doubt due to the administration's recently increased communications about Iraq. Since the Murtha vote, the dems have been in a bit of disarray, but they do continue to work hard. New England Republican points us to Marty Meehan's contribution, two anti war, anti Bush town hall meetings in Hudson and Concord. N.E.R was encouraging people to show up, I wonder if anyone did? Seperately, a non blogging colleague pointed out that Meehan used taxpayer dollars to promote his anti war events. (see banner ad)

I'm mildly amused at the level of hatred the left heaps upon Walmart. Personally, I don't really care much for Walmart and I almost never shop there, but the convoluted indictment that liberals have forumalted, and their consequent rage, is laughable. Kellipundit links and muses on a theory by which the democrats will lose the working class if they fully adopt the anti Walmart rage of the hard left.

Back to the war and its coverage here in the US, and Libertarian Leanings notes a recent poll showing that the negativity by Democrats hurts our troops' morale. I'm not sure how scientific this poll is, but what it says seems like it should be obvious: Democrat rhetoric hurts our troops. The upshot is troubling, though - one cannot reasonably attempt to forbid anti war opinion in the political sphere. What is the correct balance between free speech and acting earnestly in the nations interest on the one hand, and being an anti american enemy comforter on the other hand? Ideally, I think this judgement should come from within. Unfortunately, many Democrats don't seem to have much in there. On the other hand, Martini Pundit points out one Democrat who seems to have some sanity left.

Locally, Hub Politics points out state Democrats up to their usual taxing tactics, and a small victory for the taxed. Unsurprising of course, but it is important to continue to point out what happens when Democrats have power, if we are to hold out any hope of removing them.

I was hoping to find some blogger talking about the campaign finance reform that just passed in Connecticut, since I haven't looked very closely at it yet. Luckily, Connecticut Conservative has two posts here and here explaining a bit of background and the noting the vote itself.

Thats all for this week, see y'all next time.

the venom

2005-12-02T14:22:00.000-05:00

the lure is out, the trap is set
young minds intent to learn set foot
on campus laced with spid'ry strands
dressed up evil, reversed, takes root

twisted intent known perhaps not
even to poisoned purveyors
leader, guide, role model, sage will
welcome, comfort, impress, survey

a crop unjaded, innocent
fresh minds arrive to be brain washed
all they know to date is wrong but
lambs, their spirit easily crushed

We've done wrong, don't you see; (the bite!)
here's guilt from countless oppressions
here marx, here zinn, here leftist ideals
here anti American lessons

tears of joy to bring upon you
the sting of bite, pain of venom
lifes lens now near unbearable
join us and turn it against them

and so the venom flows among
our young, and our impress'able
guard against reason long enough
and mark becomes indelible

and so, when terrorists attack
and crush buildings, hopes, lives, dreams
of Americans, your poison
deafs your ears to innocent screams

whose fault, you ask, for tragedy,
we know, we always know, its ours
what must we have done to bring this
calamity to our own shores

venom blots and twists the vision
as screaming flight attendant roils
black gold, begat by our injustice
slit neck gurgles, gushes like oil

majestic twin towers, symbols
of greatness? no, of nothing good
capitalist pigs in splendor
sit, jewishly, above the world

to bring them down is only right
to be expected from the course
we've taken, shaken our foundation
falling souls; burning souls; no remorse

venom's victims, curs'ed, follow
a course far worse than suicide
poisoned foolish cynic's vision
will kill us all with backwards pride

open your eyes

"Aid Workers" kidnapped in Iraq

2005-11-30T10:06:00.000-05:00

You have to hand it to the mainstream media for consistent left wing bias. You really do. Their constant spin to the left takes every shape from parroting the liberal or democrat line ("..sought to discredit Joe Wilson..") to the more wacky (" ..soldiers targetting journalists.." - Eason Jordan). Like a student with perfect attendance, the bias is always there. The recent kidnappings of 4 western "aid workers" in Iraq provide an interesting example:

First you had the wire service and ABC coming out with headlines like "4 western aid workers kidnapped in Iraq". Here's the problem: they aren't aid workers, they are peace activists. Radically left, anti American peace activists in Iraq to "tell the truth" about what is going on there. But the MSM would have gotten away with their headline if the activist group didnt start spouting off and railing against the US and UK:

A PEACE group blamed the US and Britain yesterday for the abduction of four activists shown in an insurgent video, saying the kidnapping was the direct result of the occupation of Iraq....

“We are some of the few internationals left in Iraq who are telling the truth about what is happening to the Iraqi people,” the group said.

Aid workers now impossible as a headline, MSM turns to the even more scary: "wave of kidnappings resurges", as well as "4 western hostages". Many headlines were starting to read "peace activists kidnapped", but not the biggies here in the US. Nuh uh. These are westerners like you and me! And there is a wave of kidnappings (1) afoot!

ABC handily throws in a prominent link to a major story of some analysts "who predicted the troubles with the insurgency" predicting more doom and gloom to come.

I hate to say it, but if the peace activists are right and we are wrong, then why are they getting kidnapped? Aren't they telling the truth about Iraq? Sure its our fault they got kidnapped because they wouldn't be there if the US wasn't so evil (I guess) but shouldn't their wisdom and peacemaking skills be able to fix this obvious misunderstanding? Don't they have the answers to conflict resolution that we are too violent or stupid to understand?

I would hate for any US troops to be put at risk trying to rescue these anti American idiots.

40b resources

2005-11-29T22:11:00.000-05:00

A quick web search on 40b has turned up slightly more information than I expected, so I'd like to share the progress that others have made and also some of the obstacles we will face in our crusade against the atrocity of 40b:

First, the state government pro-40b site Massachusetts Housing Partnership sings praise for 40b while downplaying the damage. However, it does contain a number of useful official and unofficial documents including local review guidelines for towns, Q&A sections, official regs, and some happy statistics. Hey, you paid for this web site. Might as well get some use out of it.

Next in order out of google came the Marshfield Action Website. This site has a hodgepodge of information, links and news items about 40b and also invites all other interested parties to join up. Developments in Lincoln, Mansfield, Lakeville, Scituate and other towns are noted. Letter writing guidelines, addresses, even a 40b song is here. These folks got spirit.

Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions points out that wetlands protection may trump 40b. I'm not sure this is the most honorable approach, and even a one time victory on these grounds does nothing about the greater problem. But 40b is a vile beast and we should fight it with everything we have.

And now back to the government for Romney's task force web site. Love ya Mitt, but hate the pro 40b propaganda. Try not to gag looking at the nice 40b photos. You paid for this site too.

Here's a central Mass site centered around the Miscoe watershed. Lots of info and links here but again I'm afraid that the environmental angle is going to do nothing to rid us of 40b in the bigger picture.

Wow. As I continue to search, town after town comes up. Group after group of local concerned citezens, project after project, neighbor after neighbor, its the same. Sometimes a successful fight, more often I'm afraid not. All these towns independently organizing and fighting the same thing independently. Sprinkled in between are government sites supporting 40b (you paid for them) and the occaisional strong support from some ivory tower academic at Harvard or MIT. Then back to the townspeople, fighting for their towns.

I think its time we all get together and do something about this.

Cindy Sheehan Book Signing!

2005-11-29T21:37:00.000-05:00

Huge hat tip to New England Republican for finding these:

Pictures of Cindy Sheehan's book signing from a blog called "Sweetness & Light" which at first look seems to be a pretty nice hard hitting anti liberal blog. Kudos.

The most interesting pic to me is the one from Reuters.

demo

Biden Pens an Op Ed

2005-11-26T22:09:00.000-05:00

Joe Biden cracks me up. Not long ago I mentioned that to me he did a perfect and compelling job articulating the Democrat stance on judicial activism in the Roberts hearings. Walnuthill really took me to task for that one, and Biden subsequently spouted reams of idiocy that made me embarassed to have mentioned him.

Now, Biden has written an Op-Ed in the Washington Post, again attempting to portray the Democrat's take, the common sense take, your take on Iraq.

In response, Captains Quarters absolutely rips Biden to shreds.

It strikes me just now what it is about Biden that draws my attention - its not his grandstanding, or his manner, or his slicksterism - its that lately, Biden seems to speak the convolution which is the heart of the Democrats. He just goes out there and says it - convincingly. But then, that leaves it all on the record for us to examine.

Weekly New England Blog Roundup #3

2005-11-26T21:23:00.000-05:00

After missing a week, we return to recap a rather mellow Thanksgiving week (and the prior one!) in the New England blogosphere!

First, New England Republican gives us a thorough recap of the Murtha vote and the Democrat's odd position on the war. Many other blogs big and small are quoted with N.E.R.'s favorite passages, quite a few of them, right there in the text. Dems exposed once again.

Kellipundit (SeanO actually) has a hopeful piece about the end of Zarqawi in Iraq, tied somewhat to the Jordan bombing. I'm usually careful of any premature celebration, having learned along with the rest of us that its no good to declare mission accomplished when our foreign and domestic enemies will seek to throw our optimism back in our face the first chance they get. Not long ago the new rage among the American left (i.e. the anti American left) was to make fun of the fact that we keep announcing that we are knocking off top Zarqawi aids.

Libertarian Leanings notes that the Iraqi Red Crescent has donated a million dollars to Katrina relief, including the following quote from its leader:

"I wish we could have a billion dollars to give," Said Hakki, the organization's president, said by telephone from Baghdad. "Even then, it is not enough to show our appreciation for what the U.S. has done for Iraq and is still doing."

I always find it a bit shocking to hear Iraqi's expressing such sincere gratitude for what we have done there - but why? Why shouldn't they be this thankful? Of course they should, we have sacrificed much to free their populace and help them stand up. It was a courageous thing to do, and its awfully nice to be thanked once in a while. I can't imagine why we never hear this sort of thing from the media...

Martini Pundit has a nice analysis of Cheney's recent speech, worth a read for its content and quotes, and to remind us despite all the nutty Dem rhetoric, what the heck is really going on in the world.

Hub Politics covers Romney's death penalty bill, which went down to defeat at the hands of state Democrats. Reminds me of a left wing issue-rating scale that I recently saw when researching the traitor Delahunt, where the desirable stance on the issue of crime was: Crime: 78% Pro-rehabilitation (from demopedia).

This thing that we call liberalism these days, I swear it must be a recessive gene. It would surely self destruct at all levels if not protected by a superior idealogy (freedom) and common sense committment to one's own country among the majority. In the long run, leftism ought always to kill itself off. I just hope it doesn't take us with it.

Finally, And Rightly So carries a Thanksgiving tribute to some recent casualties; a needed reminder about the real cost of what we are doing and the real sacrifices of our American Heroes.

The Cost of Being a Sheep: 40B

2005-11-26T18:26:00.000-05:00

It is sort of sad that so many people simply deal with 40B as immutable reality rather than fighting it. Partly, this is because few people do the fairly simple analysis required to understand jsut how pernicious the law is, and how devastating its implications are.

For example, Natick recently faced a proposal by the owners of its eponymous mall to build a residential condo component. On the basis of the widespread interest in the increased tax revenues the condos would generate, I have to say as an aside that only a few people in town can really claim any integrity; the rest of us fall somewhere on a spectrum between street hookers and high-class callgirls. I include myself in that cadre, as I ended up voting for the thing. The negotiations over the project proceeded with many town fathers and mothers putting their thumb in and only a few putting any part north of their necks. The affordable housing feature that came out of the negotiation gave the developer a choice between providing a number of off-site affordable units equal to 22% of the total development, or deed-restricting 16% of the on-site units for affordability. The Planning Board in town, of which I generally think pretty highly, utterly failed to provide town meeting members or citizens in general any information about how that difference would impact the town's 40B status. It turns out to be non-trivial.

First some facts. Natick has somewhat over 10,000 households and about 32,000 residents. Natick needs about 500 more units that the law in its infinite cynicism will recognize as affordable in order to be exempt. The town has a fairly large number of affordable units that do not count because they are suicide kings or one-eyed jacks -- oops, I mean because they were created by variance.

Next some assumptions. Let's assume that large, multi-unit projects would have a somewhat lower average number of residents per household -- say about 2 per household instead of about 3 per household.

Okay, now the analysis. If Natick were to achieve exemption from 40B by developing projects at a 16% affordability quotient, the town would need to grow to over 20,000 units total, and approximately 53,000 residents. But if the town were to achieve 40B exemption by developing projects at a 22% affordability quotient, the town would need to grow to only about 15,000 units, with just over 40,000 residents. This analysis is not difficult. It requires only a recent Town Report, the knowledge that 10% affordability exempts a community from 40B (there are actually some other loopholes and one wonders whose districts they were written to fit), and a few rudimentary spreadsheet calculations involving only the four basic arithmetic operations.

Either way the impact is enormous. But the difference between the enormous impacts is itself enormous. And yet, none of the official folks responsible for the language of the Mall residence deal undertook any of the analysis. Why? Well, as I said, everyone was motivated by the big wad of cash on the dresser at the end of the night. But a similar analysis applies to nearly every community in the commonwealth of MAssachusetts. The wrenching costs and dislocations of opoulations and real estate values and open space that would result from meeting the 40B standards are huge and almost completely unreported. There are those who believe that the goals are set at levels that can not be met in order to keep the 40B door open for the many real estate developers who donate generously to political campaigns.

People simply accept this sort of highly consequential cynicism and mediocrity from the state legislature without bothering to question its lack of wisdom. Why? Well, some people have their own sweetheart streams of state money and don't want to rock the boat, I suppose. But that is not most people. Still others don't mind the state abusing their communities as long as it is the correct group of progressives in the correct party who are doing the abusing. But most people are not affiliated with even the dominant supermajority party of the legislature. I think most people simply do not undertake the relatively simple analysis because they are busy with their own lives and jobs, and so they trust that someone will alert them if a real problem exists.

Readers, consider yourselves alerted.

40b redux

2005-11-26T16:54:00.000-05:00

I expect that we will continue to assault 40b here at Antivenom, but I'd like to point out specially to anyone who read the original 40b posting below but not the additional comments from Walnuthill: its worth reading again.

Walnuthill offers a deep local historical perspective that for various reasons, I cannot provide. His comments are worth a read, and if you care at all about Massachusetts, the problem of 40b is worth your consideration.

You can scroll down to read it or just use this handy link.

-demo

Happy Thanksgiving

2005-11-24T09:52:00.000-05:00

A quick Happy Thanksgiving to all. Its easy to look at our world, to look at the last hundred years, and mark the slow ebb of human liberty under the pressing forces of socialism. It is easy to decry the inadequate defense of our liberties offered by democracy, which too often acts as a mob wealth redistributor.

But today is a day to think of what has gone right, and lots has. For one, we are just over 200 years into this experiement in Freedom known as the United States, and by and large we do still posess most of our freedoms. Bush has cut taxes and agressively defends our nation. The democrats can't seem to win an election if their life depends on it. Take heart, things may yet turn out ok. We just have to endure the rhetoric of those who have perverted the founding principle of Equality to mean something wholly different and sometimes opposite of equal treatment under the law.

In the meantime, we may look upon the tribulations of Europe as a hard lesson. May we never have to learn it first hand.

Day by Day

2005-11-23T22:22:00.000-05:00

Chris Muir's Day by Day cartoon is far too hilarious to ignore, but I cant easily fit it vertically or horizontally anyplace in the margins. So I think I'm just gonna pop the cartoons right into the blog when I like them. Here's an experiment:

(day by day cartoon removed since it was messing up certain browsers)

check it out at www.daybydaycartoon.com

edited to add: Yikes, that didn't work very well. Back to the ol drawing board.

-demo

The Atrocity of 40B

2005-11-22T22:34:00.000-05:00

It is difficult to put into words the contempt that I feel for the Massachusetts 40B "anti-snob" law, which allows developers to ignore the wishes of local communities in order to build large affordable housing complexes whereever they please.

I live in the metro-west area of Boston, where more and more 40B projects are raising their ugly heads and destroying or at least permanently altering the neighborhoods, communities and landscapes around them. Once again, liberals have assumed that big government solutions are the right answer to big problems. The character of your community is unimportant alongside the greater need for affordable housing. The quality of life of your family and your home is scarcely a factor when deciding to put a 300 unit development next door to your home - so long as the common good is served.

Here is a recent example in Natick.

But this problem is not at all specific to Natick; any town with space left, any town which isnt perceived as doing its fair share to bring down housing prices is subject to this atrocity. A 300 unit concrete low income housing project might go right next door to your home. And guess what? There's pretty much nothing you can do about it.

The elected democrats of Massachusetts have bestowed this atrocity upon us, but not even Mitt Romney has had the courage to fight it. Witness the travesty of the Chapter 40B Task Force Findings and Recommendations.

Here are some of my favorite pieces:

The purpose of the Task Force was to:

1. Reaffirm the need to increase the supply of housing, a portion of which should be affordable to households earning less than 80% of area median income.
2. Assess the effectiveness of Chapter 40B to address the aforementioned need.
...

Undoubtedly, without this powerful and innovative tool to create affordable housing, the affordability crisis in Massachusetts would be exacerbated. Almost invariably, housing created under Chapter 40B is very well received after the development has been completed.

If this is true, why are Chapter 40B developments so widely feared by communities? These problems stem from a process that changes the expectation of neighborhood residents, is often confrontational from the inception of the process, is perceived to contain some rules that are unfair, and often leaves good projects behind due to delays.

Many of the suggestions for mitigating problems are nothing more than way to count "more" credit to communities under various circumstances. In principle, doesn't this just move the burden elsewhere?

More importantly, why are towns required to agree with the principles of 40B? So many 40B discussions begin with something like "in order to help the town meet its goals of complying with 40B affordable housing...". What if we dont god damn agree with 40B and in fact its not our goal to comply with it?

Here in America, I wonder, who is really in charge? Government central planners or free citizens and communities? Where have we got to in this state, the birthplace of freedom?

I suggest here and now that local communities use the power of emminent domain to seize any objectionable 40B lands and turn them into permanent public space. About time we use this power for something good, I figure.

Now comes Walnuthill to add some perspectives:

Demolisher, this issue needs to be discussed much more than it is. And in wholly different ways. Thank you for raising it. There are several interlocking issues involved here. They all boil down to statutory rent-seeking behaviors by a variety of folks interested in tilting the free-market playing field in various ways.

What needs discussing? Let's start with the fact that everyone knows 40B is hamhanded and broken and the only responses have amounted to rearranging the Titani's proverbial deck chairs. When the delegation that represents Natick on Beacon Hill in the Massachusetts legislature visited and met with the selectmen and school committee last Monday, one of them stated that everyone knows 40B is way broken. The others all nodded. Nobody had anything promising to say about changing or ending the abomination.

Next, let's note that for the first decade-plus of its existence, chapter 40B created by far more commercially-zoned property than affordable housing. Why? Because until about 5 years ago, commercial property values grew consistently faster than residential property values. Zoning, originally enacted to let local communities keep industry out of especially upscale residential areas, had migrated to the job of keeping some orderly separation between residential and commercial property. Large landowners who wanted top dollar ran up against elected Planning Boards that did not want to face voters after rezoning the old neighborhood farm into office parks and strip malls. Along came 40B, and the large landowner had a potent threat to make. towns rezoned a lot of property for commercial use rather than see it turn into ultra-high-density low-income housing. Who would have guessed that such a use would be made of a law that came out of the Mass. legislature, with its supporting cast of car dealers, liquor dealers, and strip-mall owners?

Then it all changed. Several large secular economic forces cooled the perennially hot commercial market: consolidation of many local stores into few large stores in many markets, the growth of telecommuting by office workers, overbuilt office space based on unrealistically rosy projections, the deflation of the dotcom bubble, retailing by mail/phone/internet from huge warehouses in Tennessee/Iowa/South Dakota/Colorado rather than from local stores and stockrooms. Suddenly, the deep pockets that determine the prevailing trends in development wanted to get into residential. So developers started using 40B for real. To create residential units.

In the time since that change, 40B has created much more unaffordable housing than affordable housing. Why is that? The Willie Sutton reason: because that's where the money is. A fine reason, but again given unattractive negative collateral effects by statutory market intervention.

But the playing field is not only tilted by 40B, but tilted -- or warped -- in multiple ways both large and small. For example, identical developments can count very differently toward a community's 40B exemption quota. Let's take a 100-unit multiple residence building in which 15 of the units are actually affordable. One is a condominium complex, and the other is a rental apartment complex. In the former development, 15 units "count" toward the 40B exemption. In the latter development, 100 units "count". Why? Is there a policy-related reason? Nuh-uh. Map the communities where there are a high proportion of rental complexes, and you will find a key to the home districts of thelegislative leadership. Boston in particular owes a large part of its exemption to this artifice. The flip story if also true. Units that are perfectly affordable in fact do not count as affordable in law. For example, any units created by zoning variance. In this case, if one maps the affordable housing units in the state that have been created in detached garages or old barns and sheds, very few of them fall in the home districts of the legislative leadership. Sort of starts to sound like Politburo behavior, huh?

In 2004, threatened by a governor whose support included a bunch of folks upset with the travesty that is 40B, the legislature decided that something needed to be done. Or more accurately that something needed to seem to be done. So they passed a "reform" with the following notable features (my comments in brackets following each feature):

- 50% of all mobile homes would be eligible to be included toward the city or towns affordable housing threshold.

[Note that this 50% is not based on affordability. It is just an arbitrary 50%. Sort of like the arbirtrary 100% of units in a qualifying rental complex. Just a legal fiction. Why not 100% in this case? Ever seen a trailer park in South Boston? Or in Cambridge?]

- The Planning Board rather than the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBAs) would be given responsibility for reviewing and approving Chapter 40B applications.

[The Planning Boards are the bodies whose chartered responsibilities are undermined and emasculated by the law. But this "reform" is truly rearranging the deck chairs. The features of the law that let developers favored by the state ignore the community vision of local residents and their elected boards persist untouched by this "reform".]

- 75% of assisted living units, requiring an entrance deposit and a monthly fee, would be considered as rental housing. (It is very unclear what the meaning and impact of this amendment is).

[Again, why 75%? It has nothing to do with affordability. This is one more step away from actually achieving the stated purpose of 40B, but it is no step away from the intrusive high-handedness of the law.]

- The Planning Boards would have the authority to "choose among multiple applicants which comprehensive permits will be accepted."

[Sounds like empowerment. But in reality, most landowners are going to narrow the field to work with one developer well before the permitting process.]

- If a city or town accepts a zoning change requested by a developer, the developer may not seek a 40B approval for one year following the zoning change.

[This "reform" actually threatens the SmartGrowth ideal of towns adopting new zoning practices to promote affordable housing within the statutes and procedures of local government. For example, no developer would want to collaborate on a Housing Overlay district if it meant losing their eligibility to apply for 40B.]

In summary, the fundamental problem with 40B is that it is simply not possible to reform it legislatively in ways that address the roots of its biggest problems. The problems are a result of the underlying natural tendency for statutory intervention in market processes to favor the voters and donors who matter most to the legislative leadership. No leadership will reform the law unless the "reforms" do not fix that underlying issue. Eminent domain is one tool. Repeal should be another.

Delahunt's Oil for Communism Deal

2005-11-22T12:18:00.000-05:00

William D. Delahunt represents the 10th District of Massachusetts in the U.S. House of Representatives for the Democratic Party. (Southeastern MA, cape, islands) Unsurprisingly, he is a liberal.

Hugo Chavez is the flamboyantly anti-American sort-of elected dictator of Venezuala who is every bit a communist aspirant. Chavez has a close relationship with Fidel Castro and believes that the US was behind a coup that put him away for a few years.

Chavez seems but a notch or two away from being considered an outright enemy of the United States: "The U.S. ... has stated that Chávez is a "negative force" in the region, and requested support from Venezuela's neighbors in isolating Chávez."

Today, it has been announced that William Delahunt has brokered a deal with Hugo Chavez to deliver 12 million gallons of home heating oil to Massachusetts at a 40% discount, to aid poor families with heating costs for the winter.

Setting aside the possibility that Delahunt is just taking Chavez for a ride, here's what we have: A member of the US House of Representatives throws in with an enemy of America, who in return gladly sends up some cheap foreign oil. Delahunt apparently has no problem giving handouts to the poor from our enemies, socialists, the enemies of freedom. They are, after all, in the same gig. Handouts for votes. Never mind where it came from.

Chavez must be thrilled with the prospect of building some more grassroots support - inside the US - for his communist ideals and anti-Americanism. After all, who has stood up for freedom, who has stood in the way of global communism and socialism, who promised to continue to spread freedom throughout the world but the US? Free people are the enemy of communism, and the US is still perceived as the big freedom enchilada.

And so Delahunt has done more than sold out any patriotic or pro-freedom principles of his own, for he will touch many Massachusetts residents with this outrage. Cheaper heating oil, warm families in the winter, aid for the poor - from whom? From communists of course. From enemies of America. How many recipients will be influenced by this gesture? What increase will we see in domestic anti-Americanism, and pro socialist sentiment? When cheap foreign oil is at stake, will anyone think of our freedoms?

And here in Massachusetts, the birthplace of democracy, the birthplace of freedom. No greater insult was ever visited upon us.

William Delahunt, I judge you a traitor to your country.

Admin item

2005-11-22T11:23:00.000-05:00

I've been away for a few days and thus missed the weekly New England Blog Roundup (would have been #3!) but I'll catch it again with a double dose next weekend. Hopefully will be posting again soon, today's topic if I can get to it will be a Massachusetts jaw-dropper.

Murtha's Bailout Bails Out

2005-11-19T08:45:00.000-05:00

Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha, a decorated war hero and former pro-war vote, has kicked off an interesting chain of events when he recently presented a resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq "at the earliest predictable date". From there, things progressed quickly:

Liberals began rejoicing about Murtha's strong stand against the war. Here are some examples of leading left wing blogs My DD and Daily Kos trumpeting this great new development against the war.
Republicans decided that the Democrats needed to put up or shut up on this matter, so they decided to bring the resolution to a vote. Murtha resolution so great? Then vote for it, hypocrites!
The media almost universally painted this as a vicious scheme by Republicans to gain political advantage. This was one of those times that media bias just shines right through. Powerline, my personal favorite blog, has a predictably elucidating piece on the illogic and media bias of the situation. News articles were titled with such zingers as "US House sets vote on Iraq troops, in tactic" from Reuters, "A Hawk Rattles GOP's Cage" from CNN and even the nonsensical "House GOP Seeks Quick Veto of Iraq Pullout" from the AP and carried just about everywhere.
Leftists figured out the politics of this real quick and joined the media in calling it some kind of Republican smear. Daily Kos has about 900 posts on how bad it was for the Republicans to bring Murtha's call for withdrawal to a vote.
Pelosi and other Dem leaders scrambled to figure out what to do - vote for Murtha's resolution which they so loved? Vote against it? Abstain? Unable to counsel abstinence, the Dems folded up their supposed anti war stance and voted against it. Then they went on and on about how evil it was to have this kind of vote.
The media continues to toe the Democrat party line, one small example here at predictable lefty rag The Boston Globe

Nice quote from the Globe article:
"Our troops have become the enemy. We need to change direction in Iraq," said Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Democratic hawk

I agree, it was decidedly dastardly of the Republicans to force the Democrats to show their rank hyporcisy once again.

Could Blacks go Republican?

2005-11-18T13:55:00.000-05:00

One of my favorite blogs Captains Quarters has a nice piece about the leader of the Florida NAACP switching from D to R affiliation. With something like a paltry 8 or 10% of all blacks voting for Bush, there is basically nowhere to go but up.

Why is this? Lincoln was an R, and he ostensibly ended slavery. Doesn't that count for anything? Certain historians might point to the anti civil rights history of certain R campaigns, ommitting inconvenient facts such as Sen. Bryd's (D-WV) former leadership position in the KKK. Nonetheless- there must be a reason, and this history must be part of it.

The other part, I suggest, is the fundamental belief among Democrats that rather than a nation of individuals, we are a nation of groups - some oppressed, others oppressors. As an oppressed group, you qualify for all sorts of goodies and handouts (think affirmative action and public housing). Democrats want to give special treatment and handouts to blacks, Republicans want to take them away. Pretty clear cut if your skin color happens to be black, huh?

We can only hope for any of the following to counterbalance this small instance of handouts-based democracy:

People realize that in principle, people ought to be treated equally and/or should be treated as individuals. Also, that affirmative action equals racial discrimination.
People realize that programs like affirmative action often cause net negative effects on their beneficiaries, and other handouts create dependencies which lull recipients into endless cycles of receivership.
Well to do people who are getting taxed like crazy realize that its better to just keep your money in the first place.

We got 10%, do I hear 20?

Democrats are rightfully sweating over this one. If people would only start acting and thinking like resposible individuals rather than oppressed minorities, we might stand a chance of putting the Democrats out to pasture for good.

The Courage to Cut Spending

2005-11-18T10:11:00.000-05:00

Wonderful news today from the US House of Representatives: Republicans narrowly passed a budget cut bill which will "slice $50 Billion from the federal deficit by 2009".

Its not the $50B, or the deficit reduction that warms my heart. Its the fact that our elected Republicans are showing the courage to step up and cut spending - cut programs and entitlements that people feel they have a right to.

Our government has been expanding since the founding of this nation. Democrats want it to continue to expand, endlessly. Many Republicans are too scared or smart politically to fight the tide. For that matter, Republicans aren't even always in power! The odds are so stacked against small government in this endless battle, its practically a joke.

Democrats will come out and decry the injustice of taking away aid to the poor, student loans, and other entitlements. They continue to play the game that leads us all down the long path to communism: "need" justifies taking, entitlements once set are forever justified and owned, the federal government must never contract.

I feel a variety of things about this move by House R's: I hope that the bill doesn't fail, I hope that the Yea's dont suffer politically, I hope that the D's don't trot out disgusting Robinhood/entitlement rhetoric in response, and part of me feels that all of this may be hopeless. Even if this succeeds, I fear it will get washed away in the endless progress of long term federal government growth. But I am proud that the Republicans stood up and did this. It gives one hope that democracy might actually work, in the long run.

House Democrats unanimously opposed the budget cuts.

Cheney Tells It

2005-11-16T21:09:00.000-05:00

Dick Cheney has been one of my favorite politicians ever since I saw him debate Joe Lieberman in the 2000 VP debate. I'm pleased to see that he is joining the republican "party line" on democrat hypocrisy with his latest remarks. Cheney has always had a very direct and logical appeal to me, when he tells it, all the political fluff just seems to fall away.

Here is Fox News' coverage of Cheney's remarks.

Excerpt:
"What we're hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war," Cheney said in remarks prepared for a speech at the Frontiers of Freedom Institute's 2005 Ronald Reagan gala.

"The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out," he said.

If you have any doubt whatsoever that Cheney and company are on the mark, please take a few minutes to view the remarkable video currently taking top billing at GOP.com called "Democrats: Dishonest on Iraq".

This video is a MUST SEE.

The Gun Control Lobby Lobs a Lie

2005-11-15T22:42:00.000-05:00

In our continuing focus on debunking liberal lies, I'd like to take a look at a major whopper perpetuated by the gun control lobby and unfortunately, widely believed. Here we go:

"The NRA wants machine guns to be legal"

I heard this one the other night, not for the first time, and the conversation always goes something like this:

me: "no they dont..."
lc: "yes!"
me: "no"
lc: "yes, they fought against the assault weapons ban..."
me: "assault weapons are just scary looking rifles, sometimes with large magazines. magazines can be regulated seperately if needed."
lc: "no, assault weapons are fully automatic"
me: "not true. you bought the lie."

For the real scoop, I reference the indispensible wikipedia for a full account of assault weapons.

Some highlights:

An assault weapon is generally defined as a semi-automatic firearm that is similar in name, appearance, or design to a fully automatic firearm or military weapon. An assault weapon may also be defined as a firearm that satisfies a certain set of conditions designated by one of several laws. This term lacks a concise definition and is considered by many supporters of gun rights to be pejorative. Note that this term is not synonymous with assault rifle, which has an established technical definition and is capable of fully automatic fire.

The close similarity to the term assault rifle and wide variety of definitions has led to considerable confusion over this term. In addition, inaccurate media reporting and political propaganda have created a common misperception that this term covers many items regulated in the United States by the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. For instance, although grenade launchers are covered in many of the assault weapons laws, each individual grenade is controlled, registered, and taxed under the NFA.

Perhaps the largest area of confusion surrounding this term is the difference between a machine-gun and an assault weapon. A machine-gun is universally recognized as a fully automatic weapon, while the current statutory definitions for assault weapons describe them as semi-automatic. Further, the National Firearms Act of 1934 specifically addresses fully automatic weapons, and the private ownership and usage of them is extremely regulated.

There is also the perception that firearms that fall under this category can be easily modified for fully automatic fire. This is not the case since the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regulations for manufacturers place certain restrictions on firearm product design to comply with the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 and the amendments to the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986 that pertain to machine-gun ownership. These regulations require that semi-automatic firearms sold in the United States be especially difficult to convert to fully automatic operation.

The misconception that assault weapons are or can be fully automatic is extremely widespread and should be battled in the name of the truth. Even if you are a gun control advocate, shouldn't you be dealing in truth rather than deception?

Or is this where politics comes in?

Is it really OK to perpetuate untruths in order to acheive your political ends?

New England Blog Roundup #2

2005-11-12T17:44:00.000-05:00

In this second weekly New England Blog Roundup, I present my favorite area blog articles of the week:

First, I'm pleased to be able to link New England Republican after skipping them last week. There are a number of good posts but one in particular which covers a topic I almost failed to mention: Wishful Thinking slams the media for blowing the latest republican election defeats out of proportion and - imagine this - drawing negative conclusions for Bush and the republicans. This piece is followed by some good and thoughtful comments as well. I'll follow up on the "Bush sinking" theme in a later post. Preview: his current approval rating, lowest yet, is still higher than the lowest for the last 7 presidents. In most cases by a good margin. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Next, Libertarian Leanings has 2 nice pieces this week: Somebody Noticed points out that the endlessly anti Bush wind from the MSM is starting to become apparent to the American public. I'm always a sucker for a good MSM bias article. The more people that understand, the more chance that it may ever change. Some more bias shows up in Outrage, but the most important piece of this story is getting the REAL story from Jordan.

Secure Liberty has a refreshing post about two upcoming movies. Both fantastic stories with clear senses of Good and Evil. If liberals could just think back to their worldview before college, they might remember the whole thing about Good and Evil.

Why do big American cities vote so overwhelmingly democratic? Hub Politics gives us some food for thought. Liberals couldn't stop yelling about how Republicans must have cheated in the last presidential election, but the problem is: the evidence always comes up that its the D's that cheat. (see: Washington Governor's Race, Stolen)

Thats all I have time for this week, see ya at next weekend's roundup. Any local blogs that I may have missed who want to be reviewed or linked, feel free to drop some comments on this post.

Yet Another Iraq Musing

2005-11-12T15:46:00.000-05:00

CNN reports that the recent bombings in Jordan were in fact carried out by Al Qaeda in Iraq, according to the Jordanian government.

I see a number of interesting facets to this:

Regional populations may be forced onto our side in Iraq, if for no other reason than to stop an outflux of terror attacks against their own people from Iraqi bases. If Zarqawi can export terror to neighboring countries today, imagine what he could do if the US abandoned Iraq and it fell into chaos.

What this tells us about Zarqawi: he isnt very politically savvy - thats good, but we already knew it. Does he want to hit his home country of Jordan in particular? It is believed that he does. Is he frustrated by the difficulties and lack of progress in Iraq and looking for other ways to drive at his goals? Perhaps. Does this show strength, or weakness? I'm going to go with weakness, and a weakening move to boot. Wishful thinking?

CNN carefully avoids the "in Iraq" suffix in their headline "Jordan confirms al Qaeda behind...", although they can't not mention it in the article. The establishment of al Qaeda in Iraq is practically a direct slap at the anti war forces who claim there was "no link between Iraq and al Qaeda". Granted, this name was coined well after the start of the war, but any level of analysis clearly shows that Zarqawi, its leader, was in Iraq well before the war, receiving medical treatment after having fled Afghanistan. What the liberals *should* say is "there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11". Even the MSM cant stop themselves from morphing this conventional wisdom into headlines such as "Commission finds no Iraq-al Qaeda link". The opposite of the truth. I tell you, for a group whose primary beef with the Bush administration is "hyping up intelligence", these folks sure love to hype their intelligence. Unfortunately the slight generalization from "no iraq-9/11 link" to "no Iraq-al Qaeda link" causes the assertion to move from true, to false.

Edited to add:

Norman Podhoretz destroys the liberal lie-about-the-lies. For anyone even slightly in the dark on the topic of "Bush Lied", this piece is a MUST READ.

The worst kind of lies

2005-11-11T20:51:00.000-05:00

One of the reasons that I've come to hate the democrats so much is their political 180 on the Iraq war. I guess its too hard for them to say that they did support it and hey maybe things didnt work out so well, so we changed our minds. Or we made a mistake. Or maybe we still support it. From the cowardly liars in the democratic party, this is far too much to ask. Democrat after democrat saw the intel, believe what everyone else believed, and supported the war. Now, it was because the intel was a lie. Bush's lie. Bush's lie somehow propagated through Tenet's CIA by some shadowy administration figure and then percolated back up to Bush. Its the stuff of conspiracy theory, and there is no evidence for it. The 9/11 report provides evidence against it.

Finally, Bush is hitting back. But the cowards are yelping.

The NY Times slings a good amount of bias on the situation after a catchy title Bush Forcefully Attacks Critics...
The Washington post is somewhat more balanced.

Or you could just read the text of the remarks.

Don't bother with the democrat responses unless you want to gag on putrid lies. Hey, sure, be against the war. Just dont be a lying cowardly hypocrite.

Big Oil

2005-11-09T19:53:00.000-05:00

It is not surprising that the oil companies are under fire from congress for reaping record profits during the recent price run ups. Oil is an easy mark, a popular political target on the left and with few defenders elsewhere.

But wait - why do so many people so loathe "Big Oil"? First, is there any other type of oil company? Small or medium sized oil perhaps? Oil is one of those things that has great economies of scale and it makes all the sense in the world for large corporations to be moving huge quantities of oil and gasoline into the market. If it didnt, then small oil would be undercutting prices on Big Oil like crazy and getting rich quick. In fact, Big Oil purchases vast amounts of crude oil on a global market, refines it, and then puts it at gas stations all over our country so that our vehicles can run. As long as Big Oil is not colluding to commit monopolistic price gouging, then we may assume that the competitive market will price gas and heating oil correctly. Big Oil's record profits may raise eyebrows, but consider for a second: without Big Oil, you would be going to work in a horse drawn carriage.

So what did Big Oil have to say for itself at the hearings? Did it cringe and blush and hide and apologize? Nah. They said hey congress, forget about any windfall profit tax. And (according to Reuters, bias beware) they were not particularly interested in donating money to help poor Americans pay heating bills. OK, sure thats fine with me. It doesn't look like any kind of windfall profit tax is in the works in any case, and donations to the poor ought not to be squeezed out by congressional pressure. But now it really starts getting good:

"The companies, which earned a collective $30 billion in the
third quarter, also surprised lawmakers at a Senate hearing by
saying they didn't need the billions of dollars in tax breaks
and energy incentives recently approved by Congress.

The oil executives dismissed the impact of $14.5 billion in
tax breaks and incentives in the energy law Republicans pushed
through Congress last summer. Since then, lawmakers have been
searching for ways to cut as much as $50 billion from federal
spending to curb the budget deficit."

Now, my friends, we are talking.

What was it that Reagan said about Democrats' philosophy? "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it."

How refreshing to see this move in the direction of free markets and smaller government. Hurrah for Big Oil.

Buy Stock in Renault and Citroen

2005-11-08T23:04:00.000-05:00

"OMG France is all busted up, the problem is spreading and worsening fast, its breaking out into Europe. Muslims err I mean downtrodden classes are burning cars and busting stuff up like they are on some kind of arsonist game show. People are starting to die. No one knows WTF to do." - Alien News Anchor

I'd like to consider two different windows on the rioting situation in France. Perhaps not uncoincidentally, the views line up with what I see as the most serious threats to America, freedom, and the world today.

Let us begin with the obvious, the big behemoth, the elephant in the room which most of us are looking at but some are looking away from: Muslim extremists. I'll stop short of calling it sweet irony - but it is irony nonetheless that France, bane of the Bush administration and anti-Iraq war stalwart, is now burning at the hands of the muslim yoot's. One might see in this a bigger picture about survival of western society in the face of a global threat: when the survival of the west is on the line, its time to stop worrying about whether we wronged Sadaam because he didnt really have WMD or whatever. Knock over the whole damn region and remake in any way we need to, to survive. Has the west really evolved beyond its survival instinct? Why did millions and millions of people protest the Iraq war, but only thousands protested the Iraq invasion of Kuwait? Kurd massacres? Shiite massacres? Did anyone really care? What. Is. Wrong. With. This. Picture.

But thats just the Islamofascist window on the world, which may appear to be the greatest threat and problem of our time - but I think its not. I think its a sideshow. (If a major city gets nuked by a muslim extremist, I'll surely eat these words).

I think the major problem, the primary evil, the deepest and most insidious enemy that the free world faces is the spectre of communism and its little brother socialism. This has been the case since the time of Marx and Lenin and will continue to be the case until such time as I cannot yet imagine. How can this be, you ask? The USSR has fallen, Eastern Europe is free, even China has legalized private property and is becoming ever more capitalist. Isn't communism dead? Well no, of course not. Socialism and its cousin liberalism are alive and well and positioned more powerfully than the communists ever were - right in the heart of all of the most advanced societies. Soros is a socliast. Moveon.org are socialists. Howard Dean? I'm not sure, but many say he is. I look at the democratic party platform and I see little or nothing to distinguish it from socialism, in principle. OK so what does this have to do with France burning?

France is largely socialist. Socialist-lite I guess. Socialist policies have led to high unemployment and a poor economy in France. The rioters are rioting against unemployment and poor economic conditions (and for respect!). The rioters want more handouts from government, more special treatment, more socialism. Another irony: socialism has caused their problem, yet they want more of it. Now, I don't know for sure which groups are organizing underneath the riots but there is clearly some organization going on. In every other case that I can think of, the socialists and communists have been there, have been agitating and organizing and driving a stake towards the heart of western society. Witness Hugo Chavez in Argentina, witness the incredible photo evidence over at Zombietime of so many diverse anti war, anti isreal and anti Bush protests here in the US. No matter what the event, if it is anti-western, there seems to be an underlying socialist organizing influence. So in France, socialism has caused such poor conditions that widespread destruction and riots have broken out. Will they demand more socialism? Will the snake eat its tail?

Socialism and communism are the enemy of all free people. The most seductive and poisonous of all ideologies, the most persistent, and the most dangerous.

In the meantime our disloyal opposition the liberals continue to analyze the decision to go to war in Iraq. Incredibly, they are still missing the terrorist links, global intelligence consensus of the day, and general problematic nature of the region. Speaking of which - in the MSM / liberal bias / idiocy department, some Vanity Fair bimbo on CNN last night explained the situation roughly as follows: "...its not like it is here over in France. Over there they have liberty, equality and frah-tern-ee-tay, this idea that everyone is equal. So there has been no affirmative action or anything...". Nice. CNN also has a very pro-riots video up on the net someplace where they interview all these fresh faced young frenchies of color who appear hurt and confused and only looking for some respect in this harsh world... Can we please fire the liberal media yet?

For further interesting reading on the riots in France:
Secure Liberty's nice combo of reference and analysis
Powerline's "Heaven help the French (part 2)"
Captains Quarters "Demographics are Destiny"
Powerline vs. WAPO

Animals and the Environment

2005-11-06T22:48:00.000-05:00

Lets be totally clear about one thing: I'm no fan of PETA. I'm no vegetarian, vegan, fur protester or for that matter, tree hugger.

However, like many Republicans, Libertarians, and Republican-Libertarian hybrids, I do tend to like the environment, and I like animals too. I don't believe that Bush caused Katrina via global warming via negative Kyoto, yet I like to have some clean open space left in the world and some species to fill it. I'm not a fan of polluted rivers, and I am especially disgusted by people who are needlessly cruel to animals.

Unfortunately, all pro-animal rights and pro-environment groups seem to be socialist or democrat money funnels. The little girls who send their allowance to the WWF have no idea that they just paid for part of an anti-Bush ad. Or worse. This is frustrating - why is it that these issue groups need to align themselves with left wing causes? I'm not going to buy "the democrats are the caring party" or any other such hogwash. I suspect that what has happened is that the global socialist undercurrent has attached itself firmly to emerging causes such as environment and animal rights, attaining the leadership positions and political links along the way. Or maybe its simply affinity - bleeding heart causes, suckers for socialism. Suckers, or something more insidious? Either way, we're kind of screwed.

This all comes to mind because I saw a piece of a video the other night on powerlineblognews/video (its not really linkable) which showed some naked protesters complaining about sheep abuse in Australia. Yea, I laughed too - shook my head, chocked them up to left wing idiocy, etc. Then some footage of the actual sheep abuse came on. People punching and beating the sheep, cutting considerable sections of skin off of live sheep, etc. Not good. There are some things you'd rather not know - like how we get hamburgers and how we test medicines and what happens to unwanted pets. But this is far beyond that, this is obvious cruelty.

I consider PETA to be practically an enemy of freedom, but I cannot be silent about this abuse, and I must therefore take the extraordinary step of linking to their video in my blog. This is some graphic and upsetting stuff. I literally did not watch the whole thing. Be warned.

Save the Sheep (PETA)

What can we do about this? Short of starting a libertarian or right wing animal rights group, not much. Give money to PETA and try to guess which democrats are using it to run attack ads.

I am confounded.

New England Blog Roundup

2005-11-05T23:00:00.000-05:00

I hereby present some notable recent New England blog entries:

If you haven't been around a left wing protest recently, you're missing some truly sickening stuff. Aaron Margolis at Hub Politics has an incredible piece about Cindy Sheehan on the Boston Common, along with some jaw dropping pictures of the protest and counter protest.

The supreme court decision in Kelo v New London has touched off a national flurry of activity around eminent domain, with consideration at all levels about how to restrict the government's ability to seize land. Anchor Rising discusses the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005 which banishes the type of eminent domain seizure seen in Kelo via the old "we'll take your federal funds" trick.

As an aside, I really hope that we use eminent domain in Massachusetts towns to thwart particularly vile 40B developments and turn the land into open space. Might post more on that later.

Every once in a while its a good idea to explicitly point out examples of the pervasive and deep rooted mainstream media bias in this country. The reliably raucous Dog Snot Diaries recaps a disgraceful Michelle Malkin find, and adds some color as per usual. Also check out the picture of the redneck pacifier not because it has anything to do with anything, but because its damn funny.

And finally, Martini Pundit puts communism in its proper place.

Kudos to our fellow New England bloggers for some great content.

Massachusetts Takes a Great Leap Towards Socialized Medicine

2005-11-04T14:05:00.000-05:00

The front page of today's Boston Globe informs us that: "The Massachusetts House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved last night a sweeping healthcare bill that promises to cover nearly all the state's 500,000 uninsured residents within three years."

It continues: "The House voted 131-22 for the legislation shortly before midnight, a few hours after rejecting a Republican-led effort to scuttle the bill's proposed payroll tax on businesses."

Let us pause to consider the magnitude of this event.

Socialism and liberty are mortal enemies, and liberty in this case had less than a paltry two dozen defenders in our statehouse. This is dangerous, bad stuff and it will really hurt. Another example of the achilles heel of democracy: giving away the wealth of others in exchange for votes just *works*.

This majority seems solidly veto-proof. How many small and medium business will go under because of this? How long until we see the macroeconomic effects? Until the abuses start becoming apparent? Until the incentive to be in the "can't afford" healthcare category outweighs the incentive to work to be in the "can afford" category? Who will determine what I can afford? One thing is for sure: business owners eligible to have their wealth redistributed away from them under this plan will feel the socialist boot on their neck from day 1.

Is there any upside at all to this development? I have found a few possible silver lining candidates:

1. This is a small victory for federalism, in that it occurred at the state level. If Massachusetts goes into a deep funk as a result of this, businesses and residents can move over the border to NH or CT and the verdict on this plan will be obvious.

2. The article itself was surprisingly balanced, coming from the Boston Globe.

3. Any failed experiment at socialize medicine will reinforce the futility of the concept. The practical consequences for real people in our state will reinforce the immorality of socialism.

4. If Romney is able to fend this off, or even not fend it off but go down blazing, it might help his visibility for an '08 run.

Who knows how oppressive government has to become before a libertarian revolt throws out the lefty pols at the ballot box? Seems like we may find out.

Edited by WalnutHill, now that I have some degree of partnership in this venture, to encourage consideration of my contribution of some historical perspective in the Comments.

Shades of judicial activism

2005-11-04T00:55:00.000-05:00

One of the most amusing things to me about recent and upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings is that this pending epic battle - basically over abortion - would be nearly moot but for judicial activism.

Most republicans that I'm aware of consider judicial activism to be a Bad Thing. Many liberals disagree; the constitution should be a living, breathing document (they say), and expanding the reach of government via the judiciary is natural, and desirable. I think these stances are best summed up today by George W Bush on the right and Joe Biden on the left. Bush has been quite consistent in saying he will nominate only people who will interpret the law rather than legislate from the bench. In the Roberts hearings, Biden's opening statement laid out the case for the opposing viewpoint.

Quickly, why is judicial activism Bad? Because laws should be written by elected bodies. Because the constitution is a Great document which laid the plans for a Great federalist nation, and activism destroys both. Because activism allows a handful of unelected people to create whatever law they see fit. In my view, no amount of societal good can excuse this violation of our constitution, our democracy, and ultimately our liberty. This principle is important.

The current Supreme Court situation is ripe with irony: many forces on the right are hoping for nothing less than a judicial reversal of Roe v Wade, and they will be furious with any lesser outcome. Opposition to Roe is practically a litmus test in many branches of the right. Doesn't this make the right pro-judicial activism? On the other hand, all the left wants under the present circumstances is a preservation of the status quo. Don't threaten our omnireaching commerce clause and the laws we've built upon it, don't threaten our Roe. The left could, if it wanted, argue that they are in fact opposed to judicial activism at this point in history. But they don't - they still support it, even though it is precisely judicial activism which may directly overturn the settled case law that they cherish. Delicious irony, across the spectrum.

On the right, this creates an uncomfortable situation. Given that case law is as much law as legislative law, how could our non-activist judges ever overturn Roe?* If they do, haven't we violated the very principles that are so dear and precious, above? This is difficult to reconcile.

I suggest that there is a potential middle ground to be found someplace in the gap between making law from the bench, and not. Specifically, I think that using the bench to overturn prior abuses of judicial power deserves special status. I say this not so much to give an out to the anti-Roe forces, but more in the hopes that we can ever repair the damage done to our constitution and our federalism. This isnt as clear cut as I would like - past decisions are law, and overturning law by judicial fiat is fundamentally activist - but I suggest a special category of law should be perhaps exempt from our principled ban on activism.

I propose that we call this narrow application of judicial activism "activist repair". Activist repair is strictly limited to overturning past decisions which found new unwritten rights in the constitution, or found new ways to expand the power of the federal government based on ever stretchier leaps of faith from amendment or article to end result. I am willing to accept in principle that this narrow band of activism is ok. More than just ok, desirable. Rather than eroding our democracy, our constitution and our freedoms, repair activism has the potential to clean away the damage done by years of activist courts. So long as we define this concept narrowly, we will be fine with our principles, above. Really, this is nothing more than anti-activism activism. On the day that we've rolled back all activist decisions, there will be nothing left to apply repair activism to, and it too will go away. Hopefully forever.

--

*I am pro choice but I think Roe is a horrible decision. I would see it sacrificed in the name of states rights and limited federal government. As I said above, no societal good can justify legislating from the bench.

Republican Sampler Platter

2005-11-03T12:30:00.000-05:00

To all those Bush haters, republican bashers, blue staters, patriot act detractors, daily kos readers and other "get the government out of my [social] business" liberals, I offer a quick sampling of recent happenings. Who, as O'Reilly says, is looking out for YOU?

On freedom of speech:

HR 1606, a bill protecting blogger free speech, gets a majority vote but fails to get the 2/3 needed to override provisions of McCain-Feingold. Look how the parties voted. R: 179 Y, 38 N. D: 46 Y, 143 N.

On eminent domain:

Kelo v. New London, US Supreme Court sides with the city 5-4 and affirms the taking of private property for commercial development. Dissenting were the conservatives: Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia, OConnor. All of the liberals supported the land grab.

On marijuana / states rights:

Again the supreme court, this time upholding the federal government's ability to ban pot under the commerce clause. 3 conservatives dissented, but where were the liberals? All voted in favor, joined inexplicably by Scalia. Voting for big government power I guess?

In some of these cases, I do not understand why the D's opposed. I guess I dont really care, since I judge US liberals, leftists and D's of the past 6 years to be quite literally beyond redemption. But I would like to point out that Republicans are the ones who are consistently trying to protect our freedoms.

Bonus section - On spending:

Lately its all the rage for liberals to decry the big spending of the Bush administration. Such hypocrisy would be laughable if it were not more or less TRUE - we've been spending like crazy and no one seems ready to stop it. The Coburn Amendment was an attempt to siphon off some pork to pay for disaster relief. After picking up some steam in the blogosphere, the amendment failed horribly (15-82), even among republicans - but where were the liberals on pork reduction? This is a shame for both parties, but look at the D's in this case - only 4 Yes votes - next time they try to paint themselves as the fiscal conservatives. Maybe before they throw stones they can explain why Patty Murray (D-Wash) promised to "take a long, hard look at projects in states of anyone supporting the ammendment... At least the R's got 10 votes. Furthermore, most conservative blogs (my handy linkable proxy for the conservative intellectual leadership) bitterly opposed what happened here. If nothing else, this episode gives a crystal clear picture of one of the greatest pitfalls of democracy.

prediction

2005-11-03T01:26:00.000-05:00

the hard left believes that bush lied about wmd in order to go to war in iraq. when pressed, they will claim that at a minimum, the administration hyped up the evidence - but they want more than anything to be right about the lies part. lord knows they've spent enough time and energy promoting it. so, with no real evidence, the left promoted the "bush lied" mantra to each other, to the world, to anyone who would listen. some might find this "hyping" of the case that bush lied to be ironic.

but, now that everyone on the left believes it, and soros' millions are lined up behind the theory, they'd really like to find some evidence. they are sending their lie inspectors to all the sites that they can get their hands on, but the crafty and disingenuous bush administration is always one step ahead.

now the indictment of libby, but not rove. finally a measure of revenge! but then crafy bush thwarts this minor news by nominating alito and stealing the spotlight, so what do you do? you lost rove, there is no indictment about "outing" plame, you still got nothin on pre-war lies - so what do you do?

you have your puppet harry reid pull a publicity stunt linking the libby perjury indictment to bush manufacturing intel. close the senate. debate it. steal back the spotlight.

i see 2 main problems with this strategy:

1. blatant defiance of logic like this is bound to drive intelligent people away from the democrats. libby lying to a grand jury about some conversations with reporters = bush manufactured false intel? i dont think so. how long are the intellectuals on the left going to stand for this stuff?

2. the anti-american song sung by the hard left is a LOSER. most voters like this country. we want to be safe. we care more about our skyscrapers and citizens than the rights of terrorists or sadaam.

keep up the anti american song dems, and you will keep up the incredible losing streak that we've seen since vietnam. seeing our soldiers dying in iraq is tragic, but who wants a bunch of anti american pansies in charge of our national security?

first post

2005-11-03T01:06:00.000-05:00

this blog is created to host the comments of one or more generally right-leaning political junkies in the boston area. certain left leaning junkies are also invited, but it might be weird. they know who they are.