Republicans and the Minimum Wage

It seems that the Republican-controlled House has passed legislation including - right towards the end - a provision to increase the national minimum wage to $7.25 an hour by 2009.

A number of liberal sources have claimed that Republicans allowed this provision to go through because they are trying to pander to working Americans in an election year.

It is possible that I don't understand all aspects of the minimum wage, but from what I understand raising it is a very poor idea. While it is believed by some that people earning more money is good for everyone, I think it's quite obviously a short-term disastrous "solution." Further, raising the minimum wage engenders a dangerous socialist element into our already heavily regulated economy. Who are politicians to decide proper compensation for a particular job? Proponents of raising the minimum wage argue that no one should do jobs for $5.15 an hour. This of course leads to a very slippery slope - should we then make sure no one earns below a certain amount per year? How much is enough - $7.00 an hour? $8.00? Maybe a yearly minimum of $50,000 a year? In that case, what's my motivation for attending college if I can be a receptionist and make more money than my parents?

All of these artificial wage controls ultimately lead toward socialism ending in a utopian world of equal wages for all (otherwise known as communism). Indeed, some students at my university are arguing for a "living wage" for university employees. However, university employees are often unusually compensated - as they are here - including a free college education for spouses and children. This is not included in an analysis of their hourly wages.

However, further included in the danger of raising the minimum wage is the limit in resources of a company. If I employ a couple of workers on my small farm for the minimum wage, and it jumps two dollars in three years - which I can't afford - I simply fire one of my workers. Raising the minimum wage equals fewer employees that are better compensated. A number of small businesses will be in this same predicament. Also, proponents of raising the minimum wage argue that this should help employees of large ("evil") companies like Wal-Mart. Ironically, most of these large corporations already pay their workers more than the minimum wage. IN the end this kind of wage control helps large businesses by driving small ones out of business. Ultimately raising the minimum wage raises unemployment for just these reasons, and also makes it more difficult and expensive - especially for small employers - to hire more workers.

In the end raising the minimum wage is a unproductive move towards a more controlled and socialist economy, hurts small businesses, and raises unemployment. In this case, I hope at least one part of this bill doesn't make it past the Senate.

Oh, and Republicans shouldn't let it.

The Funniest Skit

It seems that Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has never seen the funniest Saturday Night Live skit in history.

Global Warming Goggles

Today I turned on the Discovery Channel to catch almost all of Tom Brokaw's Global Warming: What You Need to Know special. I had heard about this special, which is in the name of Al Gore's own global warming celebrity movie. Needless to say I was intrigued, and began to watch.

It soon became apparent to me that the purpose of the special was to prove man-made connections to global warming. This special is similar to Al's movie, in that it highlighted only the changes that are suspected to be the result of global warming. Showing polar bears with less habitat, desertification, and "stronger" weather patterns is meant to imply these are all caused by man-made global warming. However, the fact that global warming may be natural is not discussed.

Two examples they used in the special both express my idea of "global warming goggles." One example was a pacific island that is slowly being overtaken by the ocean. While worldwide ocean levels have risen 4 to 10 inches, the ocean levels on this island have risen several feet in the past few years. Instead of investigating this extremely strange phenomenon, Tom expressed the reasons for the crisis as global warming.

Next, the special examined desertification in China and sub-Saharan Africa. Some places in China especially have seen rainfall levels drop substantially. What is completely ignored is that many areas of the world are seeing increased rainfall (including the majority of the midwest United States.) Why is the special highlighting only one aspect of climate change? Why are positive climate changes in other parts of the world ignored? Are not all climate changes a result of global warming, or only the negative ones? It seems cleart that these scientists are unable to see past their theory of global warming, and are ignoring the need for further research into these phenomenon. It's a shame.

One enormous uninvestigated aspect of global warming science is the unexplained massive climate shifts of Earth's past. Why, in millions of years of history has the climate changed drastically with no human connection? Tom briefly stated that scientists had "figured it out." He later never explained this statement.

The Kyoto treaty was brought up on a number of occasions (usually under the premise that is it our savior from the tragedy of global warming). Citing the need to ratify the treaty, and our lack of doing so as disastrous, the special went on to blatantly lie about the treaty and it's effects. While the special claimed correctly that Kyoto wanted to bring carbon dioxide emissions down 50% by 2050, they failed to state that even the Kyoto scientists claim this is not enough to stop global warming. The scientists interviewed by Tom ignored this fact, claiming that global warming could be "slowed" and "brought to a halt" regardless of what their global warming conspiracy theorists Kyoto friends have said.

Near the end of the special, Tom asked one of his resident global warming experts why anyone would disbelieve that global warming is being caused by man. The reasons the scientist gave were 1) those people are scared and 2) those people have financial incentives to maintain the status quo. The obvious rebuttal to this is that an increasing number of scientists are seeing through the theory of global warming because the science is flawed, not because they're scared or own ExxonMobile stock. I am a perfect example of a person that does not believe global warming is caused by man, for a variety of reasons - not including those two. I almost jumped out of my chair when Tom said that scientists knew why the Earth has had dozens of ice ages before the days of man-made carbon dioxide emissions. It seems obvious that the reasons behind these much more major climate shifts would explain a great deal about the 150 year .6 degree worldwide temperature increase.

Sadly, though, the special ignores any of this evidence. It instead attempts to make you believe in global warming, and vilifies those "scared" and "financially dependent" people who do not. It seems clear to me that someday the goggles will come off, and these scientists will be quite embarrassed at themselves - that is, until the next world destruction theory comes to life.

More Global Warming Confusion

Today another report came out that global warming may not effect hurricanes after all. The reasoning is that older technology did not account accurately for the strength of hurricanes of the past.

Scientists linking the increased strength of hurricanes over recent years to global warming have not accounted for outdated technology that may have underestimated storms' power decades ago, researchers said in a report published Friday.

What I don't get, is who are these scientists that linked global warming to hurricanes? The only report on the subject I know of (from NOAA) clearly denies any connection. Considering the very weak season we're having so far, it's going to be hard to prove a connection in 2006.

It seems to me that the "connection" is implied; it's been assumed so many times that suddenly it's the truth, only to be disproved by a scientific report. Consensus science at its best.

"Art" and Whining Democrats

The Gaurdian and Michelle Malkin are covering one of the most bizarre and wrong stories I have read about in a long time. In the name of "art," photographer Jill Greenberg paid child models, and used her own daughter, to photograph crying children that reminded her of the "helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation." She caused the children to cry by giving them suckers and promptly yanking them back out of the children's mouths, photographing their reactions. She also stated that sometimes the children's parents needed to assist in the creation of their children's emotional states if they weren't arisen by the removal of the sucker - but those methods are not described. It is further unexplained why the children were nearly if not completely naked for the photo shoot. She says she got the idea from photographing other children and when one started crying, she though a picture of him with the caption "four more years" adequately visualized her feelings on the reelection of George W. Bush.

In addition to the teasing that was involved to make the children cry, she made a bizarre offhand comment that using children for photographs was "less expensive" than using monkeys. This connection was not explained.

Further, Greenberg herself must escape the enormous irony of photographing children crying to describe how liberals feel about the current administration. Whining, crying children are often how I interpret liberals whose every breath is directed at opposing the administration's directives.

I almost didn't post on this story because I do find it somewhat disturbing. A lot of weird things are done to children in TV ads and shows and some of it is a bit beyond my ability to understand - in this case even more difficult in that the emotional states of the children were brought on to visualize the photographer's own feelings. I don't think Greenberg needs as much attention as she needs a psychiatric evaluation

Whose side are they on?

...and the strange double standard.

Kofi Annan wasted no time earlier this week in condemning the Israeli Defense Forces for their accidental strike on a UN base in Lebanon. Annan was "shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defence Forces of a UN Observer post in southern Lebanon."

Yet, in the past four days Hezbollah has intentionally attacked UN bases in Lebanon twice, and yet Kofi has made no disparaging remarks about them. In fact, in one of the attacks an IDF soldier removed a UN soldier and brought him to an Israeli hospital for treatment - and Kofi remained silent. He also remains silent about Hezbollah using UN bases in Lebanon as human shields - just like Lebanese civilians.

Why does Kofi Annan only accuse Israel of wrongdoing? Why does the Secretary General not condemn Hezbollah for it intentional strikes against the UN, instead of Israel's "apparently deliberate" mistake?

Attack the Messenger

It seems clear now that a few Democrats are completely unable to see past their own partisanship. Both Charles Schumer and Barbara Boxer, among nine other Democrats, refused to attend the joint session of congress in which Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki addressed today. It seems that Chuck thinks Maliki didn't condemn Hezbollah enough, and Barb wants Maliki to tell her when American troops can leave Iraq.

Of course, if you follow the logic of these senators Schumer had better not attend a speech by numerous Democrats which refuse to condemn Hezbollah (including John Kerry, who - if he was President - would have prevented the whole conflict; I don't consider that a condemnation of Hezbollah), or attend speeches by numerous leftist leaders in Europe and Central and South America. Boxer had better not attend any speeches by other world leaders that refuse to giver her specific information that she desires (although I doubt that she requested anything from Maliki - but how could he not know what the Senator wants?)

This is simply and purely a political move. Both Senators oppose the President's policies, and will do anything to get a blurb in a news story about their opposition. What they don't realize is that it makes them look like petty pointless politicians (which they are). They should get past their political differences with the administration and support the current freely-elected government in Iraq. Oh, and grow up, too.

Update: What the nine Democrats missed:

"Let me begin by thanking the American people, through you, on behalf of the Iraqi people, for supporting our people and ousting dictatorship. Iraq will not forget those who stood with her and who continues to stand with her in times of need.

Thank you for your continued resolve in helping us fight the terrorists plaguing Iraq, which is a struggle to defend our nation's democracy and our people who aspire to liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. All of those are not Western values; they are universal values for humanity."

Update II: Some hypocracy knows no bounds:

Howard Dean called Al-Maliki an "anti-Semite" claiming that he had not denounced Hezbollah. That term is dangerous to throw around, Howard, considering five Democratic congressmen failed to vote for the House resolution condemning Hezbollah. Scott Johnson asks, "[does] the chairman's judgment extend only to strategic allies of the United States?" One would think it shouldn't.

Update III: Oops! It looks like Howard Dean is anti-Semitic, too...

Global Cooling

For those of you who have read a few of my tirades against "global warming," then you know the theory holds a special place in my heart.

One of the biggest and most logical attacks on the theory is the simple fact that only 150 years of worldwide climatological data exists for the planet. Even if ice core and tree ring evidence says that 2006 is the warmest year in 400 years, that means scientist are predicting worldwide temperature trends with .0000088% of the worlds climate history. Ignoring the dozens of worldwide ice ages that have hit the planet, the most recent about 10,000 years ago, scientists insist that this period of climate change, unlike every other climate change in Earth's history, is somehow unnatural.

To further mock the scientists and theory of global warming, you need look no further into the past than 30 years ago, when scientists were claiming that a global cooling trend was caused by man and would forever alter life on this planet. I have recently come across this article from Time magazine in 1974, with the same "global warming" themes, except that the article details the disasters of man-made global cooling: discrediting scientist who think Earth temperature changes are dictated by the sun, and claiming that the cooling trend would forever alter the Earth for the worse.

It seems that climatologists should look to the past for climate predictions - both in order to realize that 150 or 400 years of climate data is not enough to prove trends, and to realize the enormous mistakes of their past.

What's wrong with the news?

CNN's Nic Robertson ran a story last week from the ravaged streets of Lebanon. He was being directed by a Hezbollah terrorist propaganda artist and told him exactly where he could go and what he could see. The Hezbollah thug repeated over and over "shoot this" and "look at this" and "does this look like a military building?" The whole shoot consisted of Nic admitting that it appeared Israelis had attacked a purely civilian neighborhood.

Now Nic has come out and said that his segments was completely controlled by Hezbollah:

Hezbollah has “very, very sophisticated and slick media operations,” that the terrorist group “had control of the situation. They designated the places that we went to, and we certainly didn't have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath,” and he even contradicted Hezbollah’s self-serving spin: “There's no doubt that the [Israeli] bombs there are hitting Hezbollah facilities.”

Even though Nic painfully admitted what really happened, the damage has been done. No one watches Reliable Sources on CNN to see that Nic's original segment was compromised. And the lies go on.

Also, what kind of journalist allows himself to be used for propaganda purposes? He could have filmed the footage, and broadcast to CNN later - not right away when he was forced to report Hezbollah propaganda and lies. How can these people still be employed, and how can they live with the terrible work they do?

Update: Surprisingly, CNN's Anderson Cooper blasted through Hezbollah's propaganda wall in his report from inside Beirut. He described in detail how Hezbollah controlled what parts of the city were filmed. He also described how the areas attacked were civilian areas, but nevertheless were where Hezbollah works from. He included descriptions of Israeli leaflets warning civilians to leave certain areas before an attack came.

His most brazen effort to thwart Hezbollah propaganda was his description of "dummy" ambulances, staged by Hezbollah to race through the streets of Beirut at controlled interviews so the press would photograph them. Amazing. Props to Cooper for not being a media chump.

Delusions of Iraq

Courtesy of the Independent.

In an article today, the Independent runs a strange fact-less article to claim that the Iraq war is - once again and forever - a fundamental failure.

"Iraq as a political project is finished," a senior government official was quoted as saying, adding: "The parties have moved to plan B." He said that the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish parties were now looking at ways to divide Iraq between them and to decide the future of Baghdad, where there is a mixed population. "There is serious talk of Baghdad being divided into [Shia] east and [Sunni] west," he said.

First, I apologize for my disbelief in "senior government officials," but with all the false NSA stories, and other uncorroborated anonymous sources recently, I honestly have no reason to believe someone who will not give their name. Sorry - media credibility has been lost in my book.

Moving on, I have more reason to doubt this "senior official," in that their statement that Baghdad is the only "mixed population city" is completely false. Many of the cities in Iraq have mixed populations, and many live together peacefully. Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra all have diverse ethnic populations. To say that the country can be divided evenly, with Baghdad being the only "mixed" area clearly shows a lack of knowledge about the region, casting further doubt on the anonymous source. The Iraqis have a clear sense of national unity. Sectarian violence is being caused by outsiders, not the Iraqi people themselves (see: Iran).

Finally, a true statement:

The switch of American and British media attention to Lebanon and away from the rapidly deteriorating situation in Baghdad is much to the political benefit of Mr Blair and Mr Bush.

With the media fully deployed in Hezbollah terrorist propaganda-ing against Israel, the press has rarely enough time to ignore the positive stories coming from Iraq. Americans building schools and infrastructure, Iraqis participating in the democratic process many for the first time in their lives, and free Iraqis doing everything from voting to publishing pro-democracy newspapers have no time to be ignored with the war going on in Lebanon.

The Independent is right. The news media, its propaganda, it "anonymous sources," and its factual mistakes make it more difficult for us to succeed in Iraq.

Who knew?

Who knew that nuking the moon could cause so much trouble?

Delusions of Grandeur

Is anyone listening? John Kerry said yesterday that "If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," referring to violence in the Middle East.

Uh, what? Would Israel and Lebanon not have been able to pass the "global test?" Would stem cell research have cured the Islamists hatred of Jews and Israel? Would raising taxes have somehow prevented the violence?

What an idiot. See title above.

What they don't show you

In case you glance at your local paper or news website and see a few pictures of Americans demonstrating in favor of Hezbollah you will most likely see a few G-rated signs claiming that "Israel is a terrorist organization" or pictures of an Israeli flag burning or the like. What they don't ever ever show you is this. Signs carried by Americans that say "Islam will dominate" or "Is my immune system anti-semitic for resisting disease?" with a knife stuck through the Star of David.

It's hard to find reason for opposing Israel in their recent military action, but we are seeing it all over the country. Americans supporting terrorists, Islamic fundamentalists, and the outright destruction of a sovereign nation.

Some of us just don't get it.

What are the root problems of the conflict in the Middle East? In returning to my Alma Mater, I see an article by noted atheist Hector Avalos. Dr. Avalos has been known for saying a lot of crazy things in his day, but his most recent comments (and book, evidently) are a whole new laugh.

In the article, he claims that if a "sacred space" in Israel were shared by the main world religions, then violence would be a thing of the past. Lets look at this idea.

First, the sacred places in Israel are shared. Many holy cities are occupied by Israelis, others by Palestinians and Arabs. The most poignant example of this is the holiest site of them all - the temple mount. Israel, after taking the whole of Jerusalem, still allowed the Palestinians to operate control of the mount, an operation that has incensed Jews for decades as Muslim "archaeologists" have done irreparable damage to the foundations of the structure and its archaeological treasures.

Next and finally, I'm afraid that Dr. Avalos misses one of the main points often missed when describing this conflict. The Muslims that are a part of Hezbollah, and the terrorists in Hamas want Israel destroyed and the Jews there exterminated. No "safe sacred space" is going to change that. Israel needs to defend itself in an aggressive enough way as to prevent the terrorist thugs from deeming it worthwhile to attack. After they've been beaten... I honestly have no idea. However, thinking that the Israelis 1) don't share the holy sites in the region and 2)would be perfectly safe sitting down in a "safe space" with Muslim terrorists is simply lunacy and short-sightedness. Try again, Hector.

I wouldn't worry about it...

One or more Iranians witnessed North Korea's recent missile tests, deepening U.S. concerns about growing ties between two countries with troubling nuclear capabilities, a top U.S. official said on Thursday.
...

But U.S. officials have long said that Iran and North Korea have been collaborating and have expressed serious concerns that cash-strapped Pyongyang was keen to sell missiles and possibly also nuclear material. "Our understanding is that North Korea has had a number of commercial relations in the Middle East with respect to missiles," Hill said.

So Iran, who wants to "wipe Israel off the map," is inciting violence in the Middle East, and is currently running full steam towards developing nuclear weapons, is in the know with North Korea over missile technology?

And currently Iranian backed and supplied Hezbollah is firing Iranian missiles at Israel, whilst they collaborate with North Korea about nukes and ballistic missiles?

I'm sure it'll be ok.

Update: Oh, and the news is out that crazy Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. It "wasn't negative," but rather the holocaust-denying dictator wants Merkel's help - with a "solution" to Zionism.

Again, I'm sure there's nothing to worry about.

Disturbing (News) Propaganda

It's no secret what side of world conflicts the mass media is on - the side opposite the United States. It's not really their fault, anyway - newspapers like the New York Times truly believe that George Bush and the US are more evil than any terrorists, and oppose US policy at every turn.

It's become more and more apparent, however, that news agencies like Reuters, the AP, and the AFP have mutated into simple propaganda machines, spewing anti-Israel and anti-US notions to the world. Not only to these agencies often print bogus and biased stories, their photo editors are often on ridiculous rampages. If you wander over to Yahoo! News photos, you get a couple of things. First, you get pictures of evacuating foreign nationals from Lebanon. Next, pictures of Israeli politicians. Finally, you get into literally hundreds of anti-Israel, anti-US, and pro-terrorist propaganda photos. Hundreds of them (and yes, I looked at them all).

Pictures of burning US and Israeli flags.
Sad staged pictures of children's toys in the streets of Beirut.
Photos of terrorists' funerals and sad terrorist (martyr) relatives.
Photos of calm and happy Israelis in their bomb shelters. Hezbollah is no big deal!
And more terrorist funerals...
Propaganda photos of Hezbollah's leader on billboards.
Stage pictures in Palestinian morgues of dead Palestinian terrorists.
Completely inexplicable captions of pictures of destroyed mosques, "mosques under construction," parking lots, houses, chocolate factories, "wood" factories, and paper factories, all supposedly "targeted" by the Israelis.
Photos of happily killin' Israeli soldiers.
Israeli tanks "driven out" (?) of Lebanon.

You might get five pictures of wounded Israeli-Arabs. You will get no pictures of wounded Israeli civilians, and dozens of wounded Palestinian "civilians." The captions describe "incursions" into Lebanon and Hezbollah putting up a "fierce resistance" to the Israelis. If you believed the photos you'd think that the Israelis were happy, the Palestinians and Lebanese were being slaughtered, the Israeli army was taking a beating, and the only thing the Israeli Air Force was attacking was houses, mosques, and bizarre factories.

These are propaganda photos - nothing more. Islamist terrorist propaganda, trumpeted by the three largest news companies on the Earth.

Beer, iPods, and Fraternities

It's being reported today that Department of Homeland Security officials racked up millions of dollars of inappropriate expenditures in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Democrats initially criticised DHS and FEMA for being to strict with money. It turns out that the criticism lent itself to credit card limits waived and expenses spiraling out of control.

Instead of stating that maybe it was the wrong idea to throw money at Katrina, Senator Chuck Schumer greatly embarrassed himself:

The report "shows yet again that the Department of Homeland Security seems to be sometime run more like a college fraternity house, than an agency meant to protect us from terror"

You know, I lived in a fraternity for four years during college, and I don't ever remember buying a home beer-brewing kit, portable showers, iPods, or doggy accessories with a credit card that had a $250,000 limit. Instead of stating that government offices should be more careful with their money (or - God forbid - get less money) Schumer decides to insult fraternities with a bizarre non sequitur. What a jerk.

Stupid People?

Are you conservative? Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000 or 2004? Do you consider yourself a Republican?

It's come to my attention more and more that there are a wide variety of human beings on this earth that believe if you hold any of these convictions and beliefs you are simply unintelligent, uninformed, or manipulated by characters from your childhood.

There have been a number of times when myself or mrs. radar have been accused of ignorance, racism, or homophobia in connection to our political beliefs. It's also widely accepted that we are simply ignorant of how the world works, and we've been told that it's not our fault we're conservatives. It's ok - we'll figure it out someday!

I have to admit that this idea presents itself in a variety of times and places. However, I must say that the highest form of ignorance is believing that a contrasting view or opinion is wrong on the basis of your ignorance of it. It's enormously foolish to assume a person holding an opposite view on a subject simply doesn't understand said subject, as opposed to actually holding an informed ulterior view.

Indeed, sometimes this belief in another's ignorance can descend into outright disgust and hatred. Moving from "that person just doesn't know" to "that person is a raging idiot" is not too hard of a step to make. In fact, professional "journalists" can make a living writing spirited diatribes about how stupid a person is because they disagree with their views.

Take Mark Morford of the SF Gate - He wrote just that type of column today. Mark suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome, or an irrational aversion to the 43rd President of the United States. His first sentence from the column pretty much sums it up:

I mean, we sort of thought we knew, before, what kind of guy George W. Bush is, essentially our very own inept, inarticulate ex-alcoholic ex-frat-guy failed-businessman pseudo-leader who famously appeals to the most God-fearin' and least educated and least attuned among us because he is, well, one of them.

In one paragraph Mr. Morford manages to claim that Bush is unintelligent, based some proof of that on his verbal gaffes, claim his alcoholism is somehow included in his current persona, claims his fraternity-member status is negative, calls into question Bush's leadership abilities, and claims that Republicans and conservatives are both "God-fearin" and stupid - and he includes Bush in this category (I believe he claims that "God-fearin" and stupid are synonyms.)

I will not quote any more of the article, as it would be a waste of time and intellectual resources to put yourself through such pitiful drivel. Suffice it to say that Mr. Morford was paid (hopefully not too much) to whine about a President he disagrees with.

I bring this to your attention so that you might not put yourself in a similarly foolish position. One columnist and an entire university filled with liberal academics have plainly exposed to me an obvious truth. Insults, condemnations, and estimates of intelligence or a lack thereof get you nowhere in civilised conversation when posing an argument. Political differences have nose-dived in this country into hateful rants designed to paint one side or the other as idiots.

If you happen to be a conservative don't allow such statements to go unchallenged. George Bush is not an idiot, and neither am I. Claiming my opinion is based on ignorance or family history is false - and merely describes the lack of the other in the argument's ability to engage in intellectual discourse.

And if you disagree with me - you must be an idiot!

Update: In a stroke of irony, Lou Dobbs at CNN decided that since the US is at war, all Americans are stupid:

We Americans like to think we're a pretty smart people, even when evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

Right. And how do smart people solve the crisis?

While the United States provides about $2.5 billion in military and economic aid to Israel each year, U.S. aid to Lebanon amounts to no more than $40 million. This despite the fact that the per capita GDP of Israel is among the highest in the world at $24,600, nearly four times as high as Lebanon's GDP per capita of $6,200.

Lebanon's lack of wealth is matched by the Palestinians -- three out of every four Palestinians live below the poverty line. Yet the vast majority of our giving in the region flows to Israel. This kind of geopolitical inconsistency and shortsightedness has contributed to the Arab-Israeli conflict that the Western world seems content to allow to perpetuate endlessly.

It's simple economics. Better fund the terrorists, and cut funding to the only democratic nation in the region. That'll stop the war - wait a minute...

...that's a horrible idea. But don't forget that it proves we're all stupid.

Death of the Old Media

The New York Times announced today that they are closing a production plant, cutting 250 workers, and narrowing their paper by 1 and 1/2 inches. This will reduce their capacity for treasonously exposing secret and successful government anti-terrorist programs by around 5%.

The Times and a number of other old time newspapers are collapsing. A combination of alternative news sources, the internet, and these papers' continued insistence on their liberal worldview are slowly but effectively destroying them.

Straight Shooter

I thought Time Magazine told me the era of "Cowboy Diplomacy" was over? If that's true, why is Bush swearing at Syria and making fun of Kofi Annan?

This is exactly the reason why people like me like George W. Bush so much. In an era of political correctness and reserved speeches, we have a commander in chief who speaks his mind - even if he didn't expect anyone to hear him...

Bush: You see, the ... thing is what they need to do is to get Syria, to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over.

...

Bush: I felt like telling Kofi to call, to get on the phone to Bashad [Bashir Assad] and make something happen

Blair: Yeah

A President properly pointing the finger at a terrorist-sponsoring state? A President making the ridicilously valid point that the Secretary General of the UN should do something about the Middle East conflict? Unheard of - unless someone forgets to turn their microphone off.

Mainstream Conspiracy

I've posted recently on how successful revisionist history has been as of late. It seems that people all over the world wish to subvert the truth of historical events to advance their own aims, and have done so successfully, especially in the Muslim world.

I wandered over to my alma mater's newspaper's website, the good ol' Iowa State Daily, and found an article slamming 9/11 conspiracy theories. If you read the posts following the article, you'll see how stories like this really bring out the crazies. It's more than a bit scary to think people believe the government has done this to them. At the beginning of 2009, when another successful transition of power occurs between one American President and another, will some of these finally rest?

Disproportionate Response

So true.

War

What is war? When is war necessary? What makes a conflict a "war?"

A number of years ago Iran was taken over by a group of Islamic extremists. They kidnapped Americans and held them for nearly a year.

Over the years Iran decided to begin to sponsor terrorists all over the world, most notably a group called Hezbollah centered in Lebanon.

Recently, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power. Ahmadinejad believes himself to be a leader that is capable of bringing about the return of the "12th Imam," a Muslim religious figure that will, according to legend, bring about a worldwide Muslim state. He has sent a declaration of war to the United States already; a request for the American people to convert to Islam.

Ahmadinejad has recently demanded and promised that Israel will be "wiped off the map." He held a conference with the leaders of many Islamic countries in the middle east this week, claiming that Muslims and Muslim nations should work to "remove" the "Zionist regime."

Iran is currently working feverishly to develop nuclear weapons, in stark contrast to the will of civilised nations, the world community, and even the United Nations. (Also, isn't it ironic that the UN security council can push through a resolution to condemn Israel for defending itself in days - vetoed by John Bolton-, and 10 days after North Korea launches ballistic missiles they do nothing?)

This week, the Iranian-supported terrorists of Hezbollah launched an attack upon Israel through Lebanon. Even Iranian soldiers and Iranian-built surface to surface missiles were used in the attack. Two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped, and over 700 rockets were launched into Israel, and struck as far into Israel as Haifa.

These are not attacks to recover territory. These are not attacks motivated by a desire to achieve new territory. These are attacks, sponsored by Iran, to wipe out the Jewish people and the Israeli state.

Israel is at war. And it is in a war that has been going on since 1948. A war sponsored by Muslim nations in an attempt to obliterate their democracy. Israel has every right, and the obligation, to defend herself and destroy the terrorists that fire rockets into neighborhoods and send suicide bombers into coffee shops. It's clear that if Israel allowed these attacks to go uncontested, they would open themselves up to further attacks (as have already happened.)

Indeed, if you hear someone whining about how evil Israel is, consider Mexican soldiers attacking national guardsmen across the Rio Grande and abducting Americans into Mexico. Would we sit by and ponder the failure of our foreign policy? I doubt it.

Finally, for those of you who doubt this is war I ask - what will it take? Consider this: Iran is actively developing nuclear weapons. No amount of diplomacy is going to stop them. They'll just lie through their teeth and keep on going. And what's wrong with Iran with nukes? Why should that cause me to consider the possibility of war?

If Iran finishes their nuclear program, it is unlikely that they will fire a ballistic missile at Israel. It is more likely that they will loan a nuclear weapon to their pals in Hezbollah, and have them deploy it. So the question is - should we attack Iran now, or when we honor our defense agreement with Israel when Tel Aviv becomes a smoking crater?

Will we ever get to World War III? I hope not, but if we do I know who we will be fighting.

Do voters respond to anything but negative advertising?

Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has laid out a great set of priorities and started the policy debate about our country's priorities in 2008. Read here.

Although vague, I completely agree with his initial message on health care (every American needs insurance thru market reforms, not gov't programs), immigration (know who is entering, but greatly expand legal immigration) and post-9/11 foreign relations (support modern Muslim nations, secular education, modern finanical markets and human rights). I would only add to his other policy goals. Read the article, it's great. It's also important to note what he's not focused on: global warming hysteria, "two Americas," gay marriage, flag burning , and other demagoguery. This guy seems to be the real deal, and--whether you agree with his policy or not--a responsible politican.

Voters say they want an educated debate and an end to negative ads. Will voters respond by making other candidates lay out a plan like Romney has done, or will voters embrace the low road and shun enlightened discourse?

Utterly Indescribable

Drudge is reporting today that Time is going to run a story claiming the end has come to the "Bush Doctrine." Evidently violence in Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions, and North Korea's fun with missiles proves that Bush's attempt to spread democracy around the globe has failed.

It seems that the main argument proving that "cowboy diplomacy" has failed is that Bush didn't threaten military action against North Korea after they test fired their missiles.

The bizarre notion here is obvious - if Bush would have directly threatened North Korea, would not Time be writing articles about his diplomacy in the same negative light?

Of course they would.

Why should we feel sorry for them?

Weeks after Palestinian terrorists abducted an Israeli soldier, it seems that an overwhelming majority of Palestinians support his abduction and support even further abductions in the future. Some are beginning to argue that the Palestinians should not suffer for the acts of a few terrorists.

Evidently, the fact that they elected a terrorist government, and that a whopping 77% support the abduction of an Israeli soldier escapes them.

What's with us?

The Agency France Press just doesn't get American Patriotism (and as slowpitch notes, neither do liberals). The author claims that displaying the flag is an "epidemic," and claims that Americans' "obsession with the flag" is "quite strange." Maybe to the French it is...

God bless America.

A Rare Find

As I was walking around our acreage the other day, I made a frightening discovery. An egg at least twice the size of Hy-Vee's stock was cracked open on the ground.

I was pretty curious what type of beast is spawned from such a shell, so I took it home, cleaned it up and started searching for answers.

My caliper registered the egg at 3.27 inches long and 2.46 inches at its widest diameter. After consulting several internet sources, I knew I would have to hunt down the offspring immediately...

It turns out this egg produces the rare species Meleagris gallopavo, commonly known as Wild Turkey Kentucky Bourbon. It is a close cousin to Meleagris intoxicus (Rebel Yell) and a distant uncle to Meleagris sans esophagus (Jim Beam) and Meleagris bulimia (Johnny Walker), all descendents of Meleagris cirrhosis, a.k.a. Jack Daniels.

Extensive research revelas that Wild Turkey is best served with Mr. & Mrs. T Sour Mix or simply "on the rocks" in a sippy cup. Should you ever venture upon this rare game bird, it should be consumed immediately.

Ames for Iowa State Daily Employees

Ames, Iowa, is hosting the first ever Special Olympics National Games this next week. Athletes started arriving Thursday evening and will be participating in events July 1 through July 8.

In an attempt to welcome the participants and fans of the Special Olympics to Iowa State University's campus, the worthless student paper created a newpaper insert with information about getting around our fair town. The title: Ames for Dummies.

None of the reporters caught the mistake. None of the editors realized the double entendre. The printers didn't notice or didn't speak up. A few copies were even distributed on campus before the mistake was realized and retracted.

The bad news is that the Daily didn't have the sense to realize the consequences of their editorial decisions; the good news is that these newsies have a bright future at the New York Times.