A peek into Matt's mind

2003-06-10T16:05:00.000-04:00

Hey, haven't seen this place in a while. Well, the war is over and the warhawks have been proven completely wrong. Have they recanted? Have they acknowledged that maybe the sceptics were somewhat right? It would be reasonable to think that they would, but these people are not reasonable. No way in hell will they ever admit they were wrong about something they invested so much time in. They took what Bush said at face value and accused those of us who did not support the war of being "pro-Saddam". Now they have egg on their face, but they're not even backpedaling. No, they're still as arrogant as ever. Read this post by Glen Reynolds. He calls theories that Bush lied "absurd", and insists that antiwar folks are desperate. Let's see, now. Bush said that Iraq had WMD and was a direct threat. We now know that both these things are false. Bush said them and they were not true. Ergo, Bush lied. You have to do some serious punditry sleight-of-hand to weasel out of this one. And nobody is better at weaseling than the warhawks. Except maybe the weasel. (Full disclosure: I semi-stole that joke from The Simpsons)

Now the warhawks have fallen back on the argument that if Saddam were still in power, Iraq would still be a tyranny. That may be true, but look at all the tyrannies in the world today. I could argue that I support war with Zimbabwe, and if you do not you must be pro-tyranny. Plus, let's not forget all the Iraqis that have been "liberated" from their lives by this war. It would have taken Saddam quite a while to kill as many Iraqis as those who have died at our military's hands.

The moral of this story is that you cannot reason with somebody who has made up his (or her) mind about going to war. Logic goes out the window. To these people, war brings peace and freedom means killing foreigners and trampling on rights. And they primarily run the country. Scary.

2003-05-14T15:38:00.000-04:00

You gotta love it when a socialist liberal evokes economics to back up a point they're making. Economics is completely not on their side. But when it's necessary, they usually defer to a bought-and-paid-for economist to help them out. Here's a liberal blogger's take on profits:

I'm a bit puzzled by something (well, not really). As anyone will learn in a basic economics class, while the pursuit of profit is the raison d'etre for businesses, profits themselves should be generally frowned upon by your efficiency-loving economist. Profits (or above normal rates of return) should exist as reward for innovation, or risk-taking, but otherwise are a sign of some market imperfection - generally market power. So, what can we conclude when the owners of the Philadelphia Inquirer doesn't consider a profit margin in the "mid-teens" to be high enough?

Where did this guy take economics? If it were true that low profits were the mark of efficiency, the Soviet Union would have been the most efficient economy on the planet. There's a reason that U.S. firms make large profits and provide resources efficiently. No matter how many times you point out the almost direct correlation between profit-seeking behavior and economic progress, these people never figure it out.

2003-05-12T20:23:00.000-04:00

Wellity, wellity, wellity. It seems the "Paper of Record" has been printing all the news that's fit to plagiarize. And where did the not-so-esteemed Jayson Blair plagiarize from? The Washington Post, that's where. And that's on top of the stuff he just made up entirely.

I've been saying it for a while, but I'll say it again: The Post kicks the Times' ass.

2003-04-28T22:10:00.000-04:00

This headline is wasted on that article.

2003-04-27T15:16:00.000-04:00

I don't get the big deal people are making about the remarks of Sen. Santorum. I think a lot of people saw the ease with which Trent Lott was taken down and are now thirsty for more blood. But most of the criticisms I have seen are outright distortions. Take, for example, the charge that Santorum equated homosexuality with bigamy and incest. He did no such thing. What he said was, if the Court rules that anti-sodomy laws cannot be enforced on the grounds that they are acts by consenting adults, then anti-bigamy or anti-incest laws cannot be enforced for the same reason. Is this not true? I draw a different conclusion than Santorum. Rather than enforce all of them, I believe none should be crimes. Except bestiality, but only on the grounds that it's animal cruelty.

Plus, I'm not a big fan of those who dismiss 2000 years of Church teaching because it's not politically correct. And they do it arrogantly. As many of these same people said about the war, when you've got the Pope opposed to you, it's time to do some serious thinking.

2003-04-18T15:07:00.000-04:00

Chemical Ali? Dr. Germ? What's next, Captain America fighting Saddam Hussein?

2003-04-15T14:55:00.000-04:00

Butler Shaffer, a law school professor, is one of my favorite columnists. This one on the Iraq war is not to be missed.

2003-04-06T18:34:00.000-04:00

Now, I believe there are a great many people who support the current war with the best of intentions. These misguided souls really believe this is a war in America's interest, and I think they really do hate war. But what I can't stand are these pompous, pro-war pundits (how about that alliteration?) who solemnly declare that war is evil, that they don't support war, but this war is necessary and just. Once they get that out of the way, they immediately resort to their real selves, taking pleasure in the deaths of Iraqis and shrugging off American casualties. These people like war. Some even seem to love it. It scares me, it really does. I see people I know who are like this. One minute they profess a wish that we didn't have to go to war, the next minute they're in front of their TV screens watching Fox News and cheering on the Forces like it was a fucking sportsgame. Hey, if they like war they should just come out and say it. But of course they won't, because that would expose them as the cruel, imperium-loving people they are. They don't give two shits about "liberating" Iraqis. That's just a rhetorical device they use ("You're opposed to the war? You'd prefer the Iraqi people to live under Saddam's brutal dictatorship? We're the ones who really care about Iraqis, we want to liberate them! That's why the 'peace' movement isn't about peace at all! You pro-Saddam commies!"). These people sicken me. Rant over.

2003-04-06T18:23:00.000-04:00

Can somebody tell me when Dennis Miller became a neoconservative? He's become a regular on the Tonight Show, always equiqqed with his "zingers" to tear down stupid liberals (or rather, all those who oppose the war. He doesn't discern). I wish he'd go back to Monday Night Football so we can all make fun of him again. What a shitball. Where's Al Franken when you need him?

UPDATE: Right now, it seems Bill Maher is serving as Miller's foil. I heard him quip, "They haven't found a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam except that they've both done business with Dick Cheney". That's a paraphrase, by the way.

2003-04-03T13:24:00.000-05:00

Well folks, David Horowitz has it. This left-wing nutball turned right-wing nutball declares on his unholy website that this war has "refuted the opposition". That's right. You can't oppose this war anymore, because the war has refuted your position. He claims all the arguments against the war are no longer valid, and everything Bush and co. said has been verified. Well, let's take a look at the fine print, shall we?

Horowitz says, "The capture and destruction of al-Qaeda's training camp in Northern Iraq irrefutably shows that Iraq is part of the Axis of Evil that includes al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden." Well, not really, for you see, that camp is in KURDISH TERRITORY. How many times do we have to repeat this? It's in Kurdish territory, the same Kurds who are supposedly on our side, and the same ones we're supposedly "liberating". The same territory that Saddam hasn't controlled for years. Horowitz goes on to ask a few rhetorical question. Well, he thinks they're rhetorical. I'm going to answer them.

Why would Osama bin Laden call for a holy war on behalf of an infidel like Saddam Hussein if Saddam wasn't his terrorist ally?

Because bin Laden didn't call for a holy war on behalf of Saddam. He called it on behalf of Iraq. Remember, bin Laden defends any muslim against foreign aggression, regardless of the reason. Bin Laden hates Saddam.

Why would Saddam Hussein impersonate an Islamic paladin if he hadn't joined the Islamic jihad?

Same reason the Saudi royal family does - popular appeal.

Why would he risk housing an al-Qaeda camp?

He wouldn't, and he didn't. There are zero Al Qaeda camps in any region controlled by Saddam.

These are rhetorical questions. No rational person could doubt at this point that the coalition cause is necessary and just.

No rational person would resort to this sort of demagoguery. Read this piece and be afraid, because this is what it means to be "conservative" these days, even though there's nothing conservative about these people.

2003-03-30T18:47:00.000-05:00

This article in the Times of London makes the case for war based on Saddam's alleged cruelty. The sub-headline is, "See men shredded, then say you don't support war". This is the equivalent of those pro-life zealots who display pictures of aborted fetuses (feti?) for shock value. Of course Saddam is cruel - so are half the governments on the planet. God knows what goes on in China. But that's not the point. The point is, Saddam's cruelty has nothing to do with it. If I did see men shredded by Saddam, it would taint my views, not strengthen them. You're talking about devastating a country with bombs, killing hundreds of innocents, all to take out one bad man? Does this make any sense?

Don't be fooled by these "moral" arguments of the pro-war crowd. They'll say anything to try and paint somebody who is antiwar as an "appeaser" - a man who intentionally lets atrocities occur. But I refuse to jump in my Batmobile and save the world from evil dictators. It's not my job, and it's certainly not Bush's job. Besides, you could make this argument about many countries. "You're letting people suffer in Chinese labor camps? We must go to war with China!", or "How could you sit there and tell me we shouldn't attack Rwanda when they're slaughtering innocents almost every day?" Or, turning the tables even further: "How could you support a country that incinerated thousands of civilians with two atomic bombs?"

2003-03-30T15:03:00.000-05:00

If you want to see how far irrational jingoism can go, take a look at this website. Read the comments, too.

2003-03-13T15:24:00.000-05:00

I read a great column the other day about the Columbia disaster. Actually, it was about how the feds handled it. I wish I had the link, but I don't. The author's basic point was that the government immediately resorted to threats to get back the space shuttle debris. They could have politely asked the public for their help in recovering the remains - why was their first instinct to bark orders and threaten jail time? Because the idea the government serves the people is a sham. Government employees always resort to the threat of force. You can see this with police officers. Doctors are expected to have a bedside manner when dealing with patients. Shouldn't we expect a little politeness from the police when you have to deal with them? Not if you're being arrested, of course, but I'm not talking about that. Police these days treat everybody like potential criminals instead of law-abiding citizens. Man, I really hate government employees who wield power. From the police to the President, they all have a god complex.

2003-03-10T13:35:00.000-05:00

Not Watching What You Say, Part I

I actually heard a Redneck say this to a girl today: "Baby, I'm like the rattlesnake. I can be mean and loveable at the same time."

2003-03-09T18:35:00.000-05:00

And speaking of watching things, I also completed the first season of The Shield. I personally think it's the best cop show ever. Good directing, good acting, good scripts. It's pretty violent at times, but only by basic cable standards. It's enough violence to be real and provocative, but doesn't go overboard, a la Oz or occasionally The Sopranos.

2003-03-09T18:31:00.000-05:00

Well, I watched the Japanese version of The Ring. All I can say is that now I'm pissed I didn't watch this version first. The American version was a total re-tread, but not as good. It spoiled the climax of the Japanese version, which would have scared me had I not known what was going to happen. Oh well, that'll learn me.

2003-03-06T15:26:00.000-05:00

I saw the movie The Ring last night. Pretty scary stuff. I wouldn't recommend watching it alone in your apartment, as I did. What impressed me about the movie was its PG-13 rating. Hardly any blood in the whole movie. All the horror was in the imagery. The movie is a re-make of a Japanese movie by the same name, which is supposedly even scarier. So scary, in fact, that when it premiered in Japan people ran out of the theatres. I'm going to see if anybody in town has that version. I'm sure as hell not watching it alone, though.

2003-03-05T14:53:00.000-05:00

A great way to test your math/logic skills is with the Monty Hall dilemma. Monty Hall, if I recall correctly, was the original host of "Let's Make a Deal!" On that show, they occasionally would do the following: there would be three doors, and ol' Monty would tell you that behind one of the doors is a new car, and behind two of them are nothing. He would ask you to pick a door. They would then open a door, but not the one you picked and not the one with the prize behind it. Monty then asks you if you want to stick to your original choice or switch to the other closed door. The question is, are your chances of winning better if you stick or switch? Somebody asked Marilyn Vos Savant this very question.

At first glance, it seems like your chances of winning are equal no matter which door you pick. 50/50. In fact, you have a 2/3 chance of winning if you switch and a 1/3 chance if you stick. Let's walk through it. Assume the car is behind door number 1. If 1 is your initial choice, you'll win the car by sticking. If 2 or 3 is your initial choice, you'll win by switching. Get it? Okay, let's say you pick door number two. Which door will they open next? Door 3, because the prize is behind door 1 and you picked door 2. You will need to switch to win. What if you start with door 3? In that case, they will open door 2 and you still have to switch to win. Only if you pick door 1 will switching not result in a win. So, out of your original three choices, two of them result in a 'switch' to win, and one results in a 'stick' to win. Thus, 2/3 chance of winning if you switch. Do you get it now? If not, try it with a friend and see. I have talked to people who swear up and down it's a 50/50 shot. No matter how I try to explain it, they won't give in. If ever there was a sign of a closed mind, that is it. Great thing about this is it's not a matter of opinion. If somebody disagrees with you and claims it's 50/50, you know they're wrong.

2003-03-03T16:22:00.000-05:00

The more I read internet news and commentary, the more I realize the vast range of ideologies out there. And no matter how bizarre the ideology is, you can bet there's at least twenty websites devoted to it. With all of these websites, it becomes hard to tell who's telling the truth and who's not. I realized this the other day when I was having a discussion on an internet forum about the Palestine/Israel conflict. Somebody remarked that the Palestinians should have given non-violent civil disobedience a try, and if they only had Israel would have given in. I replied that they did give it a try, and that the first intifada started out without violence. It was later, when they saw they were getting nowhere, that Palestinian civilians turned to violence. They asked me for my source, and I told them the first that came to mind - Tom Friedman's book From Beirut to Jerusalem, which has a long passage where he laments that the Palestinians did not stick with civil disobedience. Some pro-Israeli zealot posted a reply with links to some websites that claimed Palestinian non-violence was a myth, and that they were violent from the start. I posted a reply basically saying that I don't care what these websites say, Tom Friedman was actually there. Not to mention that he writes for the New York Times, not some third-rate propaganda site. I then got all these replies about how the New York Times was anti-Israel, and on and on. What I realized is that no matter what idea you espouse, there will be some "news" website out there that declares it a 'myth'. Go ahead and try it. I'll bet if you dig long enough, you can find a site that claims Sept. 11 never happened and it was all an elaborate media hoax. It just goes to show you that you can't believe everything you read on the internet. In fact, you can't even believe most of it.

2003-03-03T13:43:00.000-05:00

It's well established that personal responsiblity is no longer as important to Americans as it once was. Still, you'd think we'd still emphasize responsibility when it comes to children. Have you ever seen those shows like Maury Povich with titles like, "My eight-year old is out of control!" First, they parade these troubled kids around so everybody can see how bad they are. They usually drink, smoke, and cuss a lot. Then the mother has a crying session where she tries to make the audience feel sorry for the torment she goes through. She gets all the sympathy and the child is sent off to one of those child-abusing boot camps. It's sickening. The show's hosts never question the mother's parenting skills, which is obviously the cause of the problem. Unless you believe children are born bad, you know an eight-year old doesn't get cigarettes without the parents' sanction, at least.

With these shows, I can rest easy knowing that these people are a minority, and most adults would agree that the parents are to blame. On NBC the other day, I was confronted with the same phenomena in subtler form. Dateline did a segment on the problem of speeding through neighborhoods. They set up a news team with a bunch of police officers to pull over people who went 10 mph over the speed limit in a residential area. The show's host would then interview the culprit, berating them and asking snide questions like, "Are you afraid the grocery store will close if you don't get there fast enough?" (Like that asshole never speeds). So where I am I going with this? Well, the show's focus wasn't just speeding, but children who get hit by speeding cars. They interviewed a mother whose son died the previous year after getting hit by a car. She now leads some kind of group that encourages local police forces to clamp down on speeding. Now tell me this - if your child runs out onto the road and gets hit, whose fault is that? The child's? Not unless the child is old enough to know better. The driver's? You generally don't expect a kid to run out in front of you when you drive. It's clearly the parents' fault. Who picked the house right next to the busy street? Who let their son play near the street? Who obviously failed to teach her son not to run in front of cars? That same woman who wants to blame speeding, that's who.

Now, a driver who greatly exceeds the speed limit deserves some culpability as well. But honestly, who doesn't break these arbitrary speed limits from time to time? If the one time you speed you just happen to hit a child, did you just commit negligent homicide? That was essentially what the show claimed. They were only too happy to indulge this mother's fantasy - that she's not at all to blame for her son's death.

Oh yeah, and do you think the government that designed and built these unsafe roads will get any blame? Don't bet on it.

2003-02-26T12:21:00.000-05:00

Frontpage magazine has published the worst commentary on the Israeli involvement in Lebanon ever. The article is by somebody named Steven Plaut. I was thinking about responding to it, but the errors are so vast and so numerous, this calls for a good old-fashioned fisking. Here it is: (Plaut’s article is in italics)

It is not well understood overseas to what a great extent Israel's Left was radicalized by Israel's "Peace for Galilee" invasion of Lebanon in 1982-3. This radicalization was very similar to the way that the American Left was radicalized by the War in Vietnam. Just as the American Left emerged from its "campaign" against that war as little more than a movement of anti-Americanism, now ever-so-evident in the pro-Saddam marchers against "War for Oil" on US campuses today, so the Israeli Left emerged from the Lebanese War as little more than a movement of anti-Zionism and anti-Israelism, and increasingly even of anti-Semitism.

So now even Jews can be anti-Semitic. Interesting.

This is important to understand for lots of reasons. It explains most of what transpired in Israel over the past decade. And it even explains such things as the sudden determination of Belgium and perhaps some others to indict Ariel Sharon as a "war criminal". The Western media has long regarded Sharon as a war criminal and mass murderer. But in reality, Sharon's only "war crime" was to upset the newly radicalized Israeli Left in the early 1980s and their amen choruses abroad. We thought it behooves us to refresh some poor memories about what exactly Sharon's "war crime" really was.

Yes, please, refresh me. This should be interesting.

Before 1982, most of the Israeli Left was a patriotic Zionist Left, strongly pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian, wanting nothing to do with the PLO, strongly pro-defense, and parts of it were even strongly supportive of building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. The Israeli Left differed from the Israeli Right only on secondary aspects of these matters, mainly on its insistence that Israel must remain "contingently pro-peace", that is, willing to discuss hypothetical partial withdrawal from the "occupied territories" on the off-chance that the Arabs might some day hypothetically be willing to pursue peace, but militant and obstinate as long as the Arabs were unwilling. Even the "Peace Now" protest movement back then was not pro-PLO nor pro-capitulation to the Arabs, and it did not call for a PLO-led Palestinian state, although no doubt some of its members did support this.
The PLO had long turned Lebanon into an inter-Arab killing field, and all those do-gooders and bleeding hearts today pretending to be outraged by the Sabra and Shatilla massacres have long forgotten the tens of thousands of people butchered in the Lebanese civil wars, in which the PLO was detonator and played a leading role. The PLO had also turned Lebanon into a launch pad and rocket base for attacking Israel, all this under Syrian auspices. Syria was the puppet master behind the scenes, perpetuating the Lebanese butchering and civil war to allow itself to take over most of Lebanon in salami tactics. Among the many atrocities launched by the PLO and its sister affiliates against Israel were the massacres of children at Avivim in 1970 and at Maalot in 1974.

His facts here are correct, but his only point seems to be that Sabra and Shatilla weren’t too bad considering the people the PLO was killing in Lebanon. What the PLO did in the civil war is beside the point. And the two Israeli massacres he mentions weren’t nearly as bad as Sabra and Shatilla.

On June 3, 1982, Palestinians from the Abu Nidal group tried to murder Israeli diplomat Shlomo Argov. He was badly injured, but recovered and went on to become an Oslo Leftist. But the Likud government of Prime Minister Menahem Begin used this as causus belli, as a basis for invading Lebanon and clearing out the Palestinian terrorists. To do so, he had established ties with some of the Christian militia forces fighting the PLO in Lebanon, and particularly the Falange, a militia led by Pierre Gemayal, brother to Lebanese President Bashir Gemayal. Because of their links to the Gemayals, the Falange was as close as one could find in those days to a legitimate governing force in Lebanon.

I don’t get this at all. First of all, Pierre Gemayel was Bashir’s father, not brother. The fact that Plaut does not know this indicates the quality of his research. Pierre Gemayel founded the Phalange (not Falange) decades ago after observing Hitler’s Nazi soldiers in the 1936 Olympics in Munich. He was in no condition to run a militia in 1982. Bashir was the clear leader of the Phalange at the time.

While the Gemayals and their fighters pretty much sat back, Israeli troops drove the terrorists out of southern Lebanon (and later set up their own Southern Lebanese Army, manned by Christians and Shi'ites in southern Lebanon allied to Israel, and patrolling Israel's security zone there). When Israel first invaded southern Lebanon, polls showed that 92% of the Israeli public, including Israeli Arabs in the count, supported the invasion. The proportion of the Israeli press OPPOSING the campaign was close to the same 92%. The Israeli media were already under the near-totalitarian domination of leftist extremists.

Or maybe the Israeli media were right. By the way, by “terrorists” he means Palestinians.

Quickly it became clear that Prime Minister Begin and his Defense Minister Sharon did not intend to stop at the 40 km. marker they had originally announced as their target. They continued up to the perimeters of Beirut and then conquered parts of the city. They had Arafat surrounded, but due to the usual US interference, they allowed Arafat and his terrorocracy to evacuate for Tunis on US ships. There Arafat sat and rotted until Shimon Peres and the Israeli Left rescued the PLO from oblivion and invited it back into Israeli territories to resume murdering Jews.

Damn USA always interfering! Like Sharon didn’t want America’s help at the time.

While originally support for the campaign in Israel was almost unanimous, it started to waver due to high Israeli casualties. Israel was fighting in built-up areas, and rather than pulverize these areas into smithereens with artillery to save Israeli lives, something that would have caused Lebanese civilian casualties, Begin and Sharon tried to reduce the bad press by taking these areas in house-to-house fighting. This pre-Oslo niceness cost Israel hundreds of soldiers. It also did not buy any good will for long. If there is any "war crime" for which Begin and Sharon should have been prosecuted, allowing so many Israeli troops to die for good press was it.

So that Lebanese civilians would have died instead? He just said that it would have been better to kill innocent Lebanese caught up in this war than Israeli soldiers, who were the ones invading. This is how warmongers think, folks. And they claim to care about innocent Iraqis.

On Sept 14, 1982, the Lebanese President was assassinated in a bomb explosion, probably planted by the PLO. His brother Amin was elected in his place. Two days later, the Lebanese Felange troops entered Sabra and Shatilla, passing Israeli troops and checkpoints along the way. The camps were thought to contain 2000 fully-armed PLO terrorists. Israeli troops were not inside the camps. All those Monday Morning Wiseacres who now think the massacres were clearly foreseeable did not foresee what would happen. They also ignore the fact that as the personal militia of the Lebanese President, Israeli troops did not have a legitimate basis to block the movements of the Felange in their own country.

He’s now spelled Phalange two different ways, both wrong. Anyway, it’s not a mystery who killed Bashir Gemayel. The Syrians did it, not the PLO. A Syrian agent was caught and later confessed. Thomas Friedman tells all about it in From Beirut to Jerusalem. By suggesting the PLO may have done it, he’s implying that maybe Sabra and Shatilla deserved what they got. On top of that, Israel was given plenty of warning not to send the Phalange into those camps. The Phalange were known for their ruthlessness.

What happened next is pretty well know. The enraged Felange militia men went on a revenge killing spree. The exact number of Palestinians killed is unknown: probably around 400, although the anti-Israel propagandists put it at 700-800 or more. It was still peanuts compared with the numbers murdered in the Lebanese civil wars by the PLO and the Moslem and Christian militias there. It was also tiny compared with the numbers of Belgian Jews murdered when the Belgian authorities collaborated with the German Nazis, those same Belgians now selectively judging the leaders of the world for their "war crimes".

Wait, so now he does care about Lebanese civilians? I like the Belgian segway as well.

The killing though shocked Israelis and galvanized the Israel-bashing street urchins around the world. It also was the trigger for a campaign by the Israeli Left to delegitimize and demonize the Likud, Ariel Sharon, and indirectly their entire country.

“Delegitimize" is not a real word. And any demonization Sharon got was deserved.

The Israeli Left was out in force in 1982, with banners screaming that Begin and Sharon were murderers and war criminals. These were the very same leftists who just a few years later would denounce Israel's anti-Oslo Right as collectively guilty of killing Prime MinisterYitzhak Rabin because of "incitement" and because "words kill". Nanoseconds after the Israeli Left proclaimed Sharon and Begin as war criminals, the anti-Semites of the world took their cues from them. It was also the precursor for the Solidarity-with-Saddam street protests in 1991 and then again now.

Once again, using the most radical fringes of a movement to smear them all. Even if there were anti-Semites who took advantage of the situation, that doesn’t mean what Sharon did was okay. It’s a separate issue entirely.

The Sabra and Shatilla massacres were murders of Palestinian Arabs by Christian Lebanese Arabs. Not a single victim was killed by an Israeli or a Jew. The very most that Sharon can be legitimately accused of in all of this is possible foolishness, of not having the prescience to see what the Felange would due if it entered the camp.

The Phalange are not Christian Arabs. They don’t look Arab at all They’re mostly Maronite Christians, and they look like Greeks or Italians.

Foolishness is not a "war crime" and it is not "genocide". If it were, President Bush should be in the dock for not foreseeing September 11 and perhaps President Roosevelt could have been prosecuted for lacking the foresight to prevent Pearl Harbor. If it were, most of Europe should be prosecuted for what went on in Rwanda.

Bush should be in the dock for not foreseeing September 11. But Sharon is still a different story. You cannot plausibly claim that he had no idea what the Phalange would do, unless you want to claim that he had no idea what was going on in Lebanon at the time. Everybody knew the reputation of the Phalange. He got them to do what he secretly wanted to do, which undercuts Plaut’s point about no Israelis doing the killing. Of course they didn’t do the killing; they needed a scapegoat.

The article goes on, but I’ll spare you. He repeats many of the same points and then goes on a long tirade about the anti-Semitic Left. This should give you a good idea of the mindset of those who want war so bad. Scary, isn’t it?

2003-02-24T15:56:00.000-05:00

Wanna know about the latest dumb scheme to come from the War Party? Get this - boycott German and French products, presumably for those countries' anti-American stance. (I love how these countries are described as "anti-American" simply because they won't support an American war). Here's one of Glen Reynold's fans:

Mr. Pundit, I am in the market for a new car and have long desired a BMW for the amazing driving experience they provide. However the astounding degree of anti-Americanism issuing forth from Europe, and especially Germany, makes it impossible for me to prop up their ridiculous stance with my hard earned money. Instead I will take delivery of a brand new Nissan 350Z from our steadfast ally, Japan. German business does well to be concerned, people in the market for high end cars are likely well informed as to current events. It will not take many to make a noticable dent in sales.[It's Mr. Reynolds, you moron]

So, I guess we have to punish the German people because of their government's stance. This reminds me of the woman who said she would boycott Chinese restaurants during the whole spy plane fiasco. Not quite that bad, but close. I suspect that the War Party is grossly overestimating their numbers. No way could they get enough people in this boycott to make a dent in German auto sales or French wine. People still want to drink their Chardonnay and drive their Mercedes, despite what this idiot thinks.

Jonah Goldberg has taken to calling the French "Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys". That line was funny when Groundskeeper Willie said it. Now it's just stupid. And offensive. Yes, the French army surrendered to the Germans. It's easy for us to call that cowardly, but we've never been in a situation where we were invaded. It's hard to say what you would do if that happened. Maybe you'd be brave, but maybe you just want to live for your family, or even yourself. Aside from that, many Frenchman did put up resistance. There was an underground French resistance that fought bravely. 100,000 Frenchmen died before the U.S. even entered the war. Maybe the French aren't too enthusiastic about this war because they've lived through war and they know what they're talking about. Luckily, from what I can tell, all the pundits outside the War Party circle don't take any of this seriously. No educated person would.

2003-02-24T13:42:00.000-05:00

Okay, I just finished watching the entire first season of 24, and I've come to several conclusions:

First, Dennis Hopper is a god-awful actor. He's only in the last few episodes of the series, but still managed to solidify that impression in my mind. I've always suspected he was bad, but now I have proof. Oh sure, he was good in Easy Rider (matter of fact, he should have stuck to directing). But there he just played a drugged-out hippie. How hard could that have been? Then there's Apocalypse Now. Yes, he was good in that movie. But what I realized was that he's not really playing his character - he's playing Dennis Hopper on cocaine. That's an interesting character in its own right, but it doesn't mean Hopper did a good acting job. His best role, I think, is Speed. I was about to comment on this further, but then I realized I just said his best role was Speed. I think that says it all. That brings us to 24. He plays a Serbian crime boss so terribly it almost made his parts unwatchable. The accent is as fake as you can get (I don't think he even bothered to listen to a Serbian accent). His lines were forced and unconvincing. Yes, folks, it's settled: Dennis Hopper isn't just not a good actor, he's a freakin' terrible actor.

The best part of the show was definitely Kiefer Sutherland. I think he's underrated. It was a good move to make him the star of the show. All in all, I think the show is pretty good. But they should have called it 12 and knocked out half the episodes. I mean, how much do they expect us to believe can happen in 24 hours?

2003-02-21T14:34:00.000-05:00

The critics' verdict is out on Ron Maxwell's new civil war movie, and that verdict is guilty. Of portraying southerners as decent human beings, that is. We can't have any of that, what with the government-approved version of history that said Southerners were backward racists and the North freed the slaves. Reading these reviews make me want to actually sit through all 220 minutes of this movie. Here's the Village Voice take:

If a Confederate flag flying in South Carolina is cause for uproar, how is this movie escaping into theaters without precipitating an NAACP press conference? Ballooning, jingoistic goat spoor, Maxwell's movie, with its relentless nationalism, mooning over the soldiers' steeliness of nerve, purity of heart, and evangelical self-justification, is all too relevant today. Unfortunately, in a nation where the word 'evildoers' is used by straight-faced adults, the film might end up being effective propaganda.

Courageous soldiers, religious conviction, a strong moral sense and loyalty to one's home. We can't have any of that confederate garbage around. The New York Press said, "it was truly a whitewash of the past". No, the whitewash was wherever that reviewer studied history.

All this South-bashing is truly troubling. These holier-than-though Yankees want everybody from the South to be ashamed of their ancestors and forever bound by guilt. They view history through the prism of the present. They judge the Old South by today's standards, but don't hold that same standard to their own past. Every society has skeletons in its closet, but the South also had many virtues that are almost lost today. But I wouldn't expect these bigoted "critics" to understand that.

2003-02-18T12:26:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the delay, folks. I've been snowed in a little bit.

But back to complaining. I can't think of enough bad things to say about this article. I'm going to ignore the part about Lincoln, because that's a whole other can of worms. What I can't believe is that this author is actually trying to use George Washington as a president who would be pro-war today. Yes, he chose war when he had to, but that was to overthrow an oppressive regime here on American shores. Washington would never support a foreign war for another country's independence, and he said words to that effect in his farewell address. How dumb does the War Party think we are?

2003-02-12T14:55:00.000-05:00

Couldn't have said it better myself.

2003-02-12T11:34:00.000-05:00

"Warbloggers" like Andrew Sullivan and Little Green Footballs are actually using the newly-discovered Bin Laden tape to argue that he is insolidarity with Saddam. What Bin Laden actually said was that he was in solidarity with Iraq, not Saddam. In fact, the media hasn't been playing the part of the tape where Bin Laden calls on the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam's secular regime. Looks like Bush and Bin Laden are on the same side now. Justin Raimondo knows all about it.

2003-02-10T16:01:00.000-05:00

Blogging for Dummies

Tapped, the American Prospect's blog, provides a good example today of how to smear your opponents in the blogosphere. They're hyping Erica Alterman's new book, What Liberal Media?, which argues that there is no liberal bias in the media. This book was written as a response to several books that have made that charge, most notably Bernard Goldberg's Bias. Tapped refers to Bias as a "thoroughly discredited book", and provides three links to substantiate this charge. Obviously they wanted their readers, who have probably never read the book, to simply take their word for it. I actually read the articles they linked to. Two of them dealt with the same topic - how the media labels politicians. That's one topic out of about 50 or so the book covers. The third article was a critique that made a couple of good points and a few easily refutable points. None of this adds up to anything close to discrediting Bias.

This kind of smearing annoys the hell out of me. It's a sign of weak arguments and a weak mind. Conservatives do it, too, but this is definitely more a tactic of the left.

And while I'm on the point, I think this whole Conservative/Liberal controversy about the media reveals more about conservatives and liberals than it does about the media. There is no conservative or liberal bias. There's a distinct pro-government bias, though. Anti-state ideas almost never get mentioned in the major media. It's a conspiracy, I'm telling you!

2003-02-09T12:40:00.000-05:00

I'm testing new templates.

2003-02-06T15:38:00.000-05:00

The pro-war “blogosphere” is all atwitter over Powell’s recent speech to the U.N. They offer it as “conclusive proof” that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons and intends to use them on the United States. The only thing we know for certain now that we didn’t before is that Saddam does in fact seem to have biological weapons. Like we didn’t already know. What these warbloggers are still failing to mention is why they think Saddam will use them on us. Oh sure, now he very well might, facing the prospect of exile and all. Before this, though, he had no motivation.

Those boy geniuses over at Oxblog are all over the allegedly proven link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Folks, if you didn’t already know that Al Qaeda has agents in Baghdad, you are a moron. The question is not whether they are in Baghdad. We know Al Qaeda has agents all over the Mid East, as well as Germany, England, France, Canada, and the United States. The question is whether Saddam is helping Al Qaeda get weapons. There is still no evidence in favor of this, and plenty against. Al Qaeda has just as much chance buying a nuke from the Russian mafia. More chance, come to think of it.

2003-02-05T14:55:00.000-05:00

I'm going to be honest, folks. I just don't care that much about the Columbia exploding. People die every day. I didn't know any of these people. Why should I care? Why do these people deserve a special honor? Because they tested whether spiders create webs in zero gravity? It's not like they were fighting a war.

And while I'm at it, what's the deal with the space program? What exactly are we accomplishing here? As far as I can tell it's nothing but a big waste of money. And now everybody's saying it would be a travesty to end it. It's a travesty to continue it. On lewrockwell.com today somebody pointed out that after the Hiddenburg disaster the Germans didn't conclude that they couldn't stop the zeppelin program. They concluded that maybe the program doesn't work and they should focus their energies elsewhere. And what's the government doing going into space for anyway? That should be for private individuals to do. When you suggest this idea, people act like you're insane. They simply assume it's a job for government. What technological advance has the government ever accomplished, other than walking on the moon? Flight, electricity, radio, movies, automobiles - all these were accomplished by individuals. This just goes to show how little people understand government.

2003-02-05T13:36:00.000-05:00

I'm currently reading a fascinating book by Thomas Sowell called Migrations and Cultures. Right now I'm reading about migrations of the German people. I didn't realize the German culture had such far-reaching effects. Did you know that there were Germans in the Baltic regions, Russia, Italy, America, and Australia before the German nation unified in 1887? Sowell explains how certain aspects of the German culture were absorbed by the cultures they migrated to. Industrial advancement and a hard work ethic, for example. Germans were also known for their fighting ability everywhere they went as far back as Roman times. Many Roman generals were German, as well as Ottoman generals centuries later. Remember the Hessians that the British hired to fight Washington during the Revolution? German military leaders have been commonplace even to this day. Eisenhower during World War II and Shwartzkopf during the Gulf War are two good examples. The next part is about Japanese migration. I'm looking forward to it.

2003-02-05T10:51:00.000-05:00

It seems that my favorite rich man, Taki, may be going back to jail. He wrote a column in the London Spectator that apparently "incites hate". At least that's what the British Government claims. Justin Raimondo has the scoop. If you want to read Taki's offending article, which you should, Raimondo provides a link in his piece.

2003-02-04T16:39:00.000-05:00

A can't-miss piece over at the left-wing Counterpunch about some scary new dealings coming from the FBI and CIA. It seems that they may have set up a muslim immigrant who is now in custody. Say it ain't so! I'm sure the neocons celebrated when they heard the FBI nabbed this "terrorist".

2003-02-03T11:51:00.000-05:00

I somehow screwed up my archives while messing around with the template. I'll have it fixed soon.

In the news, our pal Joe Farah of WorldNutDaily takes a pounding today. First, here's a fantastic article taking Joe to task for that column I responded to the other day about why Christians support Israel. For another good analysis, take a look at Karendecoster.com for her take. I agree with Karen; 9/11 was when wnd.com slipped from pro-liberty to pro-war.

2003-02-02T18:38:00.000-05:00

Not feeling too well today. Check back with me later.

2003-01-31T17:07:00.000-05:00

Great article by Thomas Sowell about "tax cuts for the rich"

2003-01-30T16:32:00.000-05:00

Atrios has a post today about the resistance to putting up a Lincoln statue in Richmond. He treats it with the predictable accusations of racism. These people know nothing about the South. The South is the least racist place I’ve lived. These Yanks will never understand that. When I lived in South Georgia, blacks and whites got along fine. There was no resentment, and even though I attended a predominantly black high school, there were never racial problems. The Washington DC schools, however, are another story.

Why, though, would Richmond want a statue of the man who is responsible for many of their ancestors dying young? Why would Richmond want to honor a man who bears responsibility for the City’s devastation? Even if you admire Lincoln, surely you can understand this. Not, however, if you’re convinced that the South is racist, against any evidence.

2003-01-30T15:12:00.000-05:00

Somebody named Martin Peretz writes an article in the New Republic about French anti-Semitism:

So what dream do the Palestinians propose to their own people and the world? Nothing--save their purported innocence against the all-powerful Jews. What hero of the struggle have the Palestinians produced to inspire those whose aid they covet? No Gandhi, certainly. No Mandela. And no Weizmann or Ben-Gurion either. Their present hero is Saddam Hussein. Do they envision a classless society? No. A transparent society, a democratic society, an accountable society? No, no, and no again. Will they transform and free the lives of women, of despised tribes, of gay people, of skeptics? Not a chance. By what vision then will they judge themselves? Nobody says because nobody knows.

Nobody says because it’s not your business, you jerk. This guy thinks Palestinians must hold their culture accountable to the world. They do not. The simply have the right to be left alone. Here’s more:

Which is why I believe that the many in France and the others in Europe (and the puny few in the United States, such as the Episcopal bishops of Massachusetts) who are entranced by the Palestinian cause, who are called and call themselves peace workers, are drawn to the empty idea of Palestine simply because they despise Jews. C'est ça. This, at least, explains their fervor. Nothing else can explain it, and nothing does.

I can think of something else that explains it; the state of Israel’s shameful treatment of the Palestinian people. But no, we must all be anti-Semites. Why else would we do it?

My opinion is that anti-Semites, people who hate Jews, are rare. People who dislike Israel, however, are another matter. Old Marty seems to think the two are the same. They are not. That would be as absurd as claiming that criticism of Saudi Arabia is akin to Islamophobia

2003-01-30T13:41:00.000-05:00

I got mentioned today in the Rittenhouse Review for correctly identifying "lester", the nut from worldnetdaily who asks Ari wierd questions. Not that any of the Rittenhouse readers has any idea who the hell I am. Oh well.

2003-01-29T10:57:00.000-05:00

Read this response to the State of the Union and then read this one.

2003-01-29T10:46:00.000-05:00

STATE OF THE UNION

Bush’s speech was bad, but the Democratic response was even worse. And somebody over at the White House needs to tell bush that it’s nu-CLE-ar, not nu-CU-lar.

The State of the Union speech is a great demonstration of how little Congress understands economics. Their attitude is, the more applause the better. Applause, applause, applause. They don’t understand the concept of scarcity, that something is more valuable if there’s less of it. If they would hold the applause until just the right moment, it would have a much bigger effect. But no, they just can’t wait. Bush got, like, thirty standing ovations. These people are so self-congratulatory it’s sickening.

2003-01-28T17:00:00.000-05:00

HOW TO BECOME A NEOCON IN 10 EASY STEPS

Hey Kids! Do you want to become a neocon? Here’s how:

1) Maintain that every group that opposes oppression with military means are terrorists. No exceptions.
2) Insist that 9/11 had nothing to do with the government’s activities in the Middle East. They hate us for our values.
3) If anybody criticizes Israel for any reason, insist that they are anti-Semitic.
4) If anybody disagrees with your war plans, say they are anti-American.
5) No matter what happens with the inspections, they are a sham.
6) Read only frontpage magazine, NRO, Weekly Standard, and the like. Never answer an antiwar argument from another conservative or a libertarian. If you must mention them, simply call them anti-American. None of your readers will bother to check for themselves.
7) Insist that those who oppose the war are “objectively” pro-Saddam.
8) Tell everybody that Saddam associates with Al Qaeda. If anybody asks for evidence, tell them you don’t need no stinkin’ evidence.
9) Internalize the idea that the only way to accomplish things on an international scale is through war. Hey, war is good for the economy!
10) Most of all, make sure you or your children never have to actually fight in any of the wars you endorse. This rule is the most important

And there you have it. Go have fun!

2003-01-27T16:44:00.000-05:00

Joseph Farah of worldnutdaily has written a column today about why Christians support Israel. Here are his reasons:

· The strong evangelical church in America can read the Bible and see that the Jews' only historic home is in Israel.
· Most Christians understand that Jesus was a Jew who lived in a Jewish state, albeit one under the colonial rule of the Roman Empire.

· They understand that God chose to reveal Himself to the Jewish people and the nation of Israel.

· They don't see a nation of Palestine mentioned in the Old Testament or New – with good reason: It never existed before or since, except in the imaginations of people like Yasser Arafat.

· They believe God made certain promises to the nation of Israel and that today's Jewish state is a manifestation of those promises.

· They understand that their Holy Scriptures indicate God will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse it. They don't want to be on the wrong side of that spiritual equation.

· They understand their own salvation, in the person of Jesus, chose to come through the House of David and minister principally to the Jews.

· They grasp that the Jews alone – with the help of God, of course – have made the deserts bloom in that Holy land, just as the prophets predicted.

· They comprehend that the Jews alone formed a free society in the Middle East.

· They can see that Israel has been an ally to the United States and a friend to the free world throughout its 50-year history of rebirth.

So based on this drivel, we're supposed to give Israel billions of dollars every year from the pockets of ordinary Americans, including you and me. Check out the third one from the bottom. I've heard this stupid argument before. Apparently he thinks the Arabs were eating sand before Israel formed and showed those savages how to plant seeds.

2003-01-26T15:46:00.000-05:00

That Rod Dreher guy over at NRO has posted again about the Scott Ritter thing. He says,

The New York Times still hasn't reported that former UN weapons inspector and present anti-war activist Scott Ritter was busted in a juvenile sex sting. Wonder why that is? Blogger Anne Wilson doesn't buy CNN's excuse for being late to report the story (the network said it had to do its own reporting first). She wonders how reticent these oh-so-responsible news organizations would have been to report the salacious but newsworthy arrest if Scott Ritter had been a well-known priest instead of a leading voice criticizing President Bush's war policy. Good point.

If Scott Ritter had been a well-known priest, this story still would not have received coverage. Priests who get arrested for fondling boys get coverage. This was an internet sex sting where Ritter was charged with something about soliciting a minor. The cop at the other end pretended to be a 14 year-old girl. That's not really newsworthy, especially since Ritter has been out of the spotlight the last couple of months. And I'm sure the New York Times recognizes this for what it is: a pathetic attempt to discredit Ritter. Good for them for not reporting it.

UPDATE: I also just read one of NRO's columns by some guy who made the argument that it's inappropriate to call a sports team the "Buccaneers". He likened it to a future team calling themselves "The Terrorists", since buccaneers caused a lot of mayhem back in the day. I'm not sure what this author thinks "Raiders" refers to.

2003-01-26T14:42:00.000-05:00

I am so tired of hearing about how Saddam “gassed his own people”. He didn’t gas his own people, he gassed Kurds in northern Iraq; an area he does not control. It’s not even know whether he was actually the one who dropped the poison. Some claim it was actually Iran. Either way, that’s no reason to go to war. Egypt gassed its own people. So did Yemen. Oh yeah, and wasn’t poison gas involved in that little Waco incident?

2003-01-23T16:19:00.000-05:00

Greatest Hits From the World’s Worst Political Magazine

National Review, a once-respectable magazine that has descended into the 7th level of right-wing hackery, outdoes itself this week. First, here’s a Corner (their blog) post from one Rod Dreher:

Anybody catch Scott Ritter on Aaron Brown's show tonight? Man, what a pathetic boob. He was asked straight off about his arrest having to do with being caught in an Internet sex-with-minors police sting, and he refused to talk about it. He said he was obligated by "the rule of law" to respect the court's seal in the matter, and not talk about it. Aaron Brown was ready for this, and told Ritter to cut the crap, there was no such law preventing him from discussing this. Ritter wouldn't budge, and claimed that because the case (the details of which he refused to discuss) had been dismissed, we are all obliged to think of him as innocent. He looked like a fool. We'll never hear from him again.

First off, it’s obvious Scott Ritter was set up. Spreading sex rumors about opponents is the favorite tactic of conservative hitmen. I’m sure Dreher is aware of this, which would explain that last sentence from the quote. Second, even if all this is true, so what? It has nothing to do with Ritter’s opinion about Iraq or his expertise as a weapons inspector. Even Neal Boortz acknowledged this on his radio show today.

My other story about NRO involves another Corner post and an email I sent them. Here’s the quote:

They cover the 30th anniversary of Roe by going to Buffalo and telling viewers there will be abortion opponents marching there in defense of the murder of abortionist Bernard Slepian. Thousands praying, readying to march peacefully in defense of innocent life, and a handful of lunatics get the coverage. And least Today doesn't ever promise to be "fair and balanced."

What’s so outrageous is the fact that this is exactly what they’ve been doing with the antiwar protests and the antiwar movement in general. They have had article after article portraying the antiwar movement as a bunch of loony leftists. Of course there are loony leftists in the movement, just as there are loony pro-lifers. By focusing on the left-wingers, they want to discredit the entire movement. Their rule #1 is never to answer an antiwar article by a libertarian or conservative. When these people are mentioned, it’s always a smear. Unfortunately, since their readers rarely investigate for themselves, it’s a tactic that works. What hypocrites. I emailed the woman who posted the comment to point out this hypocrisy, but got no reply. Figures.

There is good news in all of this, however. Even though National Review has been around for over 40 years and has a print magazine to backup their online magazine, lewrockwell.com still has a bigger readership. I bet that gets to them.

2003-01-21T16:15:00.000-05:00

David Horowitz, the man who combined the demagoguery of the left with the narcissistic militarism of the right, is at it again. He’s out with yet another “advertisement” to place in college newspapers throughout the country. It’s the same old tired arguments by the same old tired people. Read it for yourself. He makes the claim, yet again, that the peace movement cannot be about peace, because once your country is attacked you only help the enemy by hindering war efforts. Oh yeah, and the antiwar movement is really just a movement to denounce America.

If you point out to these people that Iraq was not the one who attacked us, they argue that Iraq will attack us. If you point out that the radical left does not dominate the antiwar movement, and that there are plenty of voices on the right and in the military against the war, they argue that these voices are irrelevant. They never, ever, respond to articles on lewrockwell.com or antiwar.com, but every once in a while they’ll smear one of the authors on those websites, or simply denounce the website as anti-American. If you point out that a war against Iraq isn’t so much in our interest, but very much in Israel’s interest, they won’t argue with you at all. They’ll simply accuse you of anti-Semitism. The same weak, emotional arguments all the time, and they actually have the nerve to be arrogant about it – constantly portraying peace activists as knee-jerk America-haters who don’t understand the Middle East. It is Horowitz’s followers who don’t know squat about the Middle East. Horowitz knows plenty, which make his ideas all the more vile.

2003-01-21T12:17:00.000-05:00

At least my blog doesn't suck as much as this one.

2003-01-18T13:47:00.000-05:00

In recent months, libertarians have felt the need to constantly defend SUVs. There is an article about it on lewrockwell.com today. This has come after a series of ads aired throughout the country alleging a link between SUVs and terrorist financing. Personally, I think the ads are bunk. It may be true that some of the profits from Middle East oil go to terrorists, but that doesn't make me responsible for terrorist activities just because I buy gasoline. I do, however, think that using as little fuel as possible is a good thing. That's one reason I dislike SUVs. Another is their safety record. Not for the people driving the SUV, but for the people they hit. This is one issue that the SUV defenders just haven't touched. Take a look at this quote I got off a comments board at Reason Online:

My wife and kids are alive because they were driving a Suburban. They were stopped in a traffic jam when they were rear-ended by a semi truck going at full tilt. It knocked them 200 feet off the road and totally destroyed the rear half of the vehicle, but my family walked away with minor injuries.

So...... I'll drive the biggest land yacht I can afford for the rest of my life, and any skinny bearded wierdo who doesn't like it can KISS MY ASS, right in the groove.

-ccm

It's this kind of attitude that makes me dislike SUV drivers. In this situation the guy came out okay because he was the one who got hit. But what if you're the one doing the hitting? I see college students barreling down the road in their Excursions and Tahoes all the time. I once got hit from the side by a young driver. Luckily, she was driving a small car. If she had been driving an SUV, I would have been seriously hurt. Driving an SUV for safety reasons is inconsiderate to everybody else. It's your safety at the expense of theirs.

I think these libertarians defend SUVs as a knee-jerk reaction to those who like to control others. Many SUV-haters want to use the government to regulate the automobile industry as they see fit. Of course I am against this, but that doesn't mean I have to defend SUVs. Using social pressure to minimize SUV use and educating the public about SUV dangers are good if they are done by private citizens. If you get trapped into defending every bad habit, you will fall right into the hands of those who claim libertarians don't care about the common good.

2003-01-16T13:42:00.000-05:00

On my way to work today, I was listening to a local AM radio show. They were interviewing some University of Virginia doctor about old age or something. A caller asked the doctor what the profit margin of hospitals were, because if it was high, then something had to be done. The doctor remarked that he gets dismayed when he hears hospitals referred to as businesses, because the priority should be “high quality health care”.

This exchange is a perfect example of the economic ignorance of so many people, even educated people. Somewhere along the way, these two learned that profits and business are associated with exploitation and a lack of compassion. This, folks, is complete nonsense. Healthcare is a business – they sell a product, namely relief from sickness. If they make no profits, how are they supposed to improve? Research isn’t free. Well, I suppose government could pay for the research. But where does government get its money? From businesses and individuals. And where do they get their money? Profit.

You see, profits are the source of all wealth. All wealth. If you sell something and make a profit, you have created wealth where none existed. You can use your profits to do more work and create even greater things. If you never make profits, you won’t get anywhere. Imagine a guy who sells hotdogs on the street. If every day he spends as much making the hotdogs as he gets selling them, he’ll never move beyond selling hotdogs. But if he makes a profit, he can buy a bigger hotdog stand and sell more hotdogs. Maybe eventually he can buy a restaurant. (Actually, this is how Marriot of Marriot hotels got his start). The same principle applies to health care. They are selling a product. If they make no profits, how can their product ever improve?

It’s no coincidence that the quality and accessibility of health care has gone down with every new regulation. Regulations hinder profits. Every year they add new regulations and every year the quality of health care gets worse. Then they blame it on greed, insurance companies, whatever, and ask for more regulation. Then the problem gets worse and the cycle continues. It won’t end until we have the “single payer system” (i.e. everybody gets health care from the government). God help us then.

2003-01-14T13:23:00.000-05:00

Finally, Frontpage comes up with a good article. This story is about a Yale grad who did the “Teach for America” program and learned the hard way that some kids can’t be taught. Not with the parents they have at home, anyway. I totally understand what this guy is talking about. Although I’ve never dealt with kids as young as the ones he had, I’ve definitely had my share of unruly students. They mess things up for the entire class. I also agree with the author’s conclusion: these students should be put in a separate school. No sense bringing every student down to the level of a few troublemakers.

Of course, this guy’s biggest mistake was working for the DC government. He should have known better, seeing as how he’s from the area. If you want to really see how most inner city schools work, check out this article.

2003-01-13T12:09:00.000-05:00

Here is an excellent article about the Israel/Palestine situation by an author I really like. Here, he counters some of the more common arguments in favor of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and other disputed territories. The one I hate the most is that Palestinian nationalism is a new occurrence that mainly arose in opposition to Israel, that there is no ‘real’ Palestine, and that Palestinians have no unique culture and should be called Arabs instead. The first statement is true, the second one is irrelevant, and the last one is false. But even though it’s true that Palestinian nationalism is new, so what? Israeli nationalism isn’t that old, either. For that matter, no Arab country has any kind of old nationalist movement. That’s because the whole concept of the nation/state is relatively new to the Arab world (roughly WWI). Even today, most Arabs will more readily identify themselves with their clan or city of origin than with their nation.

But what difference does it make that Palestine was never really a nation in the first place? That doesn’t change the fact that Israel’s policy with the Palestinians is shameful and in serious need of repair. Despite propaganda you may have heard to the contrary, Palestinians are not inherently war-like people. If they are left alone, they will go back to tending their shops and businesses (except maybe for the more radical elements that want Israel destroyed entirely. They, however, will lose all their power once the majority of Palestinians get what they want – to be left the hell alone). For more good coverage of the Palestine/Israel problem, go to antiwar.com or this guy's blog.

2003-01-09T15:09:00.000-05:00

I'm not normally a stickler for grammar, but I can't stand it when somebody says "I could care less". I think what pisses me off about it is the fact that the moron is saying the exact opposite of what he means to say. If you could care less, that means that conceivably a situation might arise where you would care less than you do right now. The correct version is "I could not care less". This makes perfect sense. It means that you care so little, you could not possibly care any less. I don't see what's so hard about this, but the error is becoming so widespread that "I could care less" may take the place of the correct version. Even otherwise intelligent people make this mistake. I've even seen it done in magazine articles, for crying out loud! Let's stop this before it gets out of control.

2003-01-08T16:50:00.000-05:00

I used to collect comic books quite a bit. A good comic book is worth its weight in gold. They can tell stories like no other literary medium. I basically stopped collecting when I went to college, but recently I’ve picked it back up again a little. The newest thing I’m reading is a series called Preacher. The series originally ran during the mid to late nineties, right after I stopped collecting. I really missed out. This is one of the best comics I have ever read. It is also one of the most disturbing works of art I’ve ever seen. The fact that it is so good and so disturbing at the same time really bothers me. Should I be liking this comic? Is it healthy?

Let me explain what I mean by disturbing. The “hero” of the comic, if you can call him that, is a Texas preacher who has lost his faith. This preacher is possessed by a spirit named Genesis. I won’t give the whole story, but basically Genesis is the spawn of an angel and demon who got together. Anyhoo, Genesis gives this preacher an amazing ability. He can tell you to do something and you’ll do it, even against your will. The comic calls this power his “word”. In one story, the preacher runs afoul of a redneck Texas Sheriff. Using the Word, the preacher tells the sheriff to “go fuck yourself”. The sheriff, whether he wants to or not, must carry out this order to the letter. What does the sheriff do? He rips off his own you-know-what and sticks it you-know-where. Do you find that disturbing? I sure as hell do. You might be wondering at this point why in God’s name I would read such garbage. Well, if I told you about a disturbing part in The Sopranos, would you still want to watch it?(assuming you'd never seen it before). Probably not. This got me thinking. A work of art that’s considered “pop” can have shock value and still be good. This is so difficult to do, however, that few artists can pull it off. But I’m inclined to think that shock value can make a book or movie even better, provided it’s used a certain way. The Sopranos does this superbly. So does Preacher. I don’t really feel like a sicko anymore for enjoying this stuff. Do you think I should?

2003-01-08T12:20:00.000-05:00

Conservatives like to tag Ted Rall as an America-hating leftist. There may be some truth to that, but his writing on Iraq and Afghanistan has been some of the best. Take a look at this and see if you can find a single factual error.

2003-01-08T11:27:00.000-05:00

Take a look at this quote from a piece by one Max Boot, neoconservative extraordinaire:

"Many have suggested that the September 11 attack on America was payback for U.S. imperialism. If only we had not gone around sticking our noses where they did not belong, perhaps we would not now be contemplating a crater in lower Manhattan. The solution is obvious: The United States must become a kinder, gentler nation, must eschew quixotic missions abroad, must become, in Pat Buchanan's phrase, 'a republic, not an empire.' In fact this analysis is exactly backward: The September 11 attack was a result of insufficient American involvement and ambition; the solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their implementation."

How self-deluded do you have to be to think that Sept. 11 was the result of not enough intervention throughout the world? Has this man read history? Is he aware of a single society that was able to sustain a vast empire without paying horrible prices?

To me it makes perfect sense; terrorists are here because we are over there. Why can't we just mind our own business?

2003-01-08T10:40:00.000-05:00

Check out this piece in an Oregon newspaper about a man's very bad experience in the airport. The situation was first written about on lewrockwell.com. The author of this article, though, is actually defending the airport! Read the account and judge for yourself whether the airport security workers did anything wrong. But this quote I really loved:

If Monahan was randomly searched and his wife's privacy violated, noted Bob Applegate, the senior manager for government and media relations at the Port, "That happens to thousands of people a day at Portland International Airport. Thousands of people go through the same process every day and don't get upset enough to get arrested."

Why can't you be like all the other sheep Mr. Monahan? What a jerk. This guy had a right to be upset. You know, I still haven't had to fly since Sept. 11. I'm not looking forward to it.

2003-01-07T14:39:00.000-05:00

Reason online has a good piece today about the situation in Chechnya. Russia, now apparently our friends, is using the war on terrorism as an excuse to further humiliate and abuse the Chechens, even claiming that they are affiliated with Al Qaeda. Since Chechens are predominantly Muslim, it's working great. Cathy Young's article sheds some light on the situation, but she still buys into the idea that Russia is facing a terrorist threat. Chechens are not terrorists. Some of them resort to terrorist methods sometimes, but what do you expect? These people have been shit on (pardon the language) for decades. Many of their civilians have been killed and continue to be killed by the Russian army. While I never, under any circumstances, condone the killing of innocent civilians, I can understand why the Chechens might resort to this. It gets them attention, and that's their only hope of being saved. The people who claim that Russia is fighting it's own 'war on terrorism', just like us, make me sick. I can solve the Russian 'terrorist' problem in one easy step: get the hell out of Chechnya!

2003-01-07T13:02:00.000-05:00

If you've ever doubted the stupidity of liberal economics, take a look at this. In his blog post, the guy tackles Republican arguments about tax cuts for the wealthy. Here's a beut:

* We need to give corporations money to invest so working folks will have jobs. Cuts in business taxes that go along with deficits have no net impact, since whatever businesses obtain to invest is sucked out of capital markets by higher Federal government borrowing.

So in other words, it doesn't help businesses to cut their taxes because the State will just find another way to get the money. It never occurs to liberals that maybe we could cut spending a little bit. Maybe not every government program is worth keeping. Then we could get some meaningful tax cuts. Republicans, of course, cut taxes but never cut spending, either. Then the Democrats can argue that Republicans are hurting the economy by driving up deficits. Since government spending is considered a constant by both parties, the Democrats get the upper hand in economic arguments. That's why Republicans are the useful idiots of Democrats.

As a side note, I'm always amused when I see democrats like this guy using economics to advance their politics. Note to Democrats: Economics is not on your side. Economics favors the free market, not wealth redistribution. Go read a textbook.

2003-01-07T11:31:00.000-05:00

One of the arguments that keeps popping up in conservative commentary is that people who oppose the war against Iraq are de facto supporters of violence and mass murder. This argument is a very interesting use of newspeak. If you're in favor of a war, the last thing you want is an organized anti-war croud with reasonable arguments. If you can somehow show that they aren't really pro-peace, you can eliminate the threat. Here's what Andrew Sullivan has to say:

Once Saddam gets a nuke for sure, we're completely screwed. We'd have to allow him to bask in the glory of being the only Arab leader with this capacity, using his impregnable territory to foment terrorism, more weapons of mass destruction, and the like. When he uses this power to set off chemical or biological weapons in America, we will have to initiate a nuclear war to defend ourselves. This, of course, is exactly the scenario the so-called peace agenda will make inevitable. Which is why it isn't in any meaningful sense about peace.

What he's doing here is imagining a scenario, presenting it as fact, and then making the claim that if you are anti-war, you will be responsible for this doomsday scenario. What he's really trying to convey, but not say explicitly, is that violence is inevitable. There is no peace. Either they get stomped or we get stomped.

What warmongers like Sullivan can't seem to understand is that it's their attitude that keeps us in wars year after year. They see a "let's mind our own business" mind-set as naive. But no wonder when the only alternatives they can come up with in their heads are Death to Iraq or Death to the U.S. Opposing war is not about hating America or apologizing for terrorism. It's about correcting injustices of the past and ending this endless cycle of foreign wars. Alright, now I'm getting all high and mighty. Let me take a breather...

There, that's better. Anyway, what I'm really trying to say is, don't let people like Sullivan tell you that peace is not an alternative. That's a load of huey. They are the people who like war. Don't be like them.

2003-01-05T22:07:00.000-05:00

Shameless Begging

You know what I really can't stand? People who run personal blogs and ask for donations to keep their site running. I can understand sites that have a purpose, like www.antiwar.com, asking for donations. But your personal blog? Why should I give you money to post your own opinions on the web? Pay for it yourself, damn it! I don't like it when people like Andrew Sullivan ask for donations, and he's a professional writer. If I won't give money to him, I'm sure as hell not giving money to this guy or this guy.

2003-01-05T19:51:00.000-05:00

Well, I figured I'd go ahead and start a blog since everybody else is doing it. Actually, I find blogs pretty entertaining. They're a good way to see what your old friends are up to without having to call them. Plus, it might allow me to practice my writing skills a bit.