Democrats and Anti-terrorism

I am confused about a situation which seems to be becoming more and more common. Perhaps someone can explain it to me. Honestly, I'd love to know the real, actual answer.

How is it that stating that a particular candidate's or political party's plans to fight terrorism are more likely to result in death for Americans is somehow "scaremongering?" Perhaps it's just me, and, obviously, Keith Olbermann has a different perspective, but shouldn't the most important, most pressing concern about a particular series of anti-terrorism plans be what policy is more likely to result in fewer terrorist attacks? Shouldn't the core of the discussion involve which plans are more likely to prevent another catastrophic attack?

In short: why is it that when the charge is made that Democratic anti-terrorism plans would make the country more dangerous, the Democrats respond with ad homonym attacks and call the charger a terrorist and a fear-monger or say that it's just a politicization of the issue? If they feel that their plans are not more likely to cause civilian deaths, why don't they say so? If they feel that the charges levied against them are invalid, why don't they respond in kind? If they feel that the descriptions of their policies mischaracterize what's really going on, why not explain their policies?

This brings me to three possible conclusions:

1) The Democrats are playing politics with the issue, preferring the opportunity to score political points over engaging in a valid, legitimate debate about the most pressing issue facing our country.

2) The Democrats are incapable of presenting their policies in such a way as to engage in a valid, legitimate debate.

3) The Democrats believe that the essence of the charges is correct, that their policies will make Americans less safe. Presumably, this is because there are other factors which are more important than, strictly, safety.

Is the answer one of these or am I misunderstanding the Democratic response?

Finally - why is it okay to say that invading Iraq makes the country less safe but it is inappropriate to say that a precipitous withdraw from Iraq, elimination of vast numbers of anti-terrorism tools, or cutting back on offensive actions against terrorist would make the country less safe?

Must Read

There is nothing to say, other than this one should be required reading for everyone.

The Great Wall of Indifference
On patrol inside Baghdad's tensest neighborhood
by Bing West with Slate

Combag Outpost Fort Apache, Azamiyah. The news of late has been focused upon this Sunni district in northeast Baghdad, where materials for a 12-foot-high concrete barrier have been positioned along a main avenue. Of the dozens of barriers across the city being laid down - principally by U.S. military and contractors - Azamiyah was the one that caught international attention when the residents complained the government was "imprisoning and punishing them for the acts of a few" by forcing all cars to pass through check points. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, on a visit to Egypt, ordered the barrier halted, and the American ambassador agreed to comply.

On the surface, the episode is a triumph for the press in bringing to international attention an injustice, and for the prime minister in immediately responding and standing up for the rights of the Sunni minority.

On the ground, the episode is less inspiring. Here at Fort Apache in Azamiyah, Charlie Company is on the eight month of a 15-month tour in a combat outpost along the Tigris. (it was the setting for the 2005 documentary Gunner Palace.) Six of the first 110 soldiers to patrol in Azamiyah, a stronghold for Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda operatives, have been killed. 1st Sgt. Kenneth J. Hendrix had been hoping Azamiyah would make headlines because of the valor of Spc. Ross McGinnis of Knox, Pa., who has been nominated for the Medal of Honor. On Dec. 4, while patrolling Azamiyah's narrow streets, a grenade was pitched into McGinnis' Humvee, and he fell on it, sacrificing his own life to save the lives of his fellow soldiers.

"We got hit here with two IED's yesterday," Capt. Nathaniel Waggoner yelled to me. "The trigger men are outsiders. They don't give a damn what happens to the locals."

Where are your carbon credits now, Al Gore??

So, a study finally shows what many people have been thinking for a long time: carbon credits largely are a fraud.

Industry caught in carbon 'smokescreen'
April 25, 2007

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on "carbon credit" projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a "green gold rush", which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of business offering both companies and individuals the chance to go "carbon neutral", offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.

The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more that double in size to about $68.2 billion by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4 billion in the same period.

Most projects yield minimal impact, the money being spent usually results in negligible benefit other than a "feel-good" for the donor, and people who are living ridiculously extravagant lives - two people living in 10,000 square foot mansions with four figure monthly utility bills while flying around the country in 1/3 full charter jets - while lecturing the rest of us really aren't as environmentally friendly as they pretend to be. did anyone really believe otherwise? did we really believe that someone could use ten, twelve times the amount of utilities as the average American family and pay a small fee to buy some "carbon credits" and it would make their waste somehow go away?

Quote of the Day

"Government should not parent the parents."

- Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, referring to FCC move to restrict TV violence.

Business groups get behind Dems' tax plan

I love how selective the Free Press is when they say that business groups support the State Democratic business tax plan. They point to the Michigan Manufacturer's Association and suggest that 3/4 of businesses are receiving tax breaks.

So, what are the 1/4 of businesses who are going to be paying so much more in taxes that they can fund tax breaks for the 3/4 that are getting them? The service industries - finance, banking, insurance, lending, medicine, legal, accounting, technology, business consulting. You know, the segment of the economy which is actually growing and keeping the state afloat. Of course, the manufacturing industry will love it - it'll shift taxes from the less profitable manufacturing industries (which are hemorrhaging jobs) onto the highly profitable service industries (which are creating jobs in record numbers). That's okay, though, because insurance companies and mortgage lenders and banks are evil and we should punish them as much as possible. After all, who needs home-owners insurance when there are no mortgage companies around to loan you money to buy a house?

Joseph Lieberman rocks

Lieberman Floor Speech on Joint Iraq Resolution
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 14, 2007

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) today addressed the current Iraq debate on the Senate floor.

The text of the speech, as prepared for delivery, is below.

"As everyone here knows, we are now in the thick of the battle for Baghdad - a critical battle whose outcome hangs in the balance. A new commander, General David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by this Senate, 81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into action.

The question we now confront is simple: will Congress give General Petraeus and his troops a fighting chance to succeed?

The joint resolution before us would deny them that chance, forcing our troops to break off the battle of Baghdad before it has barely begun. Instead of providing General Petraeus with the necessary reinforcements he has requested - the reinforcements he is counting on - it would begin to strip troops away from him.

We need to be clear with ourselves, and with the nation, on this point: the joint resolution we are debating would impose a fixed date for the beginning of a withdrawal. One hundred twenty days after this legislation is passed, American forces would be required by law to begin redeploying out of Iraq. This would happen regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, regardless of the wishes of our allies, regardless of whether security is improving or deteriorating.

It would bind the hands of General Petraeus, substituting the judgement of Congress for the judgement of our military commanders, our diplomats, and of our friends in the region.

Congress has many responsibilities, but the micromanagement of war is not one of them.

In fact, the proponents of this resolution make no attempt to justify why 120 days from now is the right time to commence a withdrawal. That is because there is no military or strategic logic at work here. This is a deadline that is as arbitrary as it is inflexible. It specifically denies General Petraeus the room for maneuver that history tells us any successful commander requires.

Surely we know better than this. Surely we cannot think that this is a path to success.

I remember hearing many of my colleagues arguing against precisely this kind of fixed deadline - some of them right here in this chamber - just a few months ago.

I ask my colleagues, what has changed? what is the strategic logic here?

We hear opponents of the current strategy insist that our troops should not be 'policing a civil war.'

That position might come as a surprise to the soldiers who have been serving in Bosnia and Kosovo over the past decade, dispatched there under a Democratic President with the support of Democrats in Congress - the support of many of the same colleagues of mine who today are clamoring for withdrawal.

I ask you, what has changed?

I could not agree more.

Joeseph Lieberman: A JFK Democrat

Senator Lieberman's Statement on Majority Leader Reid's Comments that the War is "Lost"
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 20, 2007

WASHINGTON - Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) today made the following statement in response to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comment that the Iraq War is "lost."

"This week witnessed horrific terrorist attacks by Islamist extremists in Iraq, killing hundreds of innocent civilians and leading Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to declare that the war is 'lost.'

With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Senator Reid's statement is not , based on military facts on the ground in Iraq and does not advance our cause there.

Al Qaeda's strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. They are trying to murder as many innocent civilians as possible in an effort to reignite sectarian fighting and drive us to retreat from Iraq.

The question now before us is whether we respond to these terrorist attacks by running away as Al Qaeda hopes - abandoning the future of Iraq the Middle East, and ultimately our own security to the very same people responsible for this week's atrocities - or whether we stand united to fight them.

This is exactly the wrong time to conclude that we have lost the war in Iraq, or that our new strategy has failed. Instead, we should provide General Petraeus and his troops with the time and the resources to succeed. We should not surrender. We should not surrender in the face of barbarism."

Professor Fired Over Va. Tech Discussion

Another victory for academic freedom:

BOSTON (AP) - An adjunct professor as fired after leading a classroom discussion about the Virginia Tech shootings in which he pointed a marker at some students and said "pow."

The five-minute demonstration at Emmanuel College on Wednesday, two days after a student killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus, included a discussion of gun control, whether to respond to violence, and the public's "celebration of victimhood," said the professor, Nicholas Winset.

During the demonstration, Winset pretended to shoot some students. Then one student pretended to shoot Winset to illustrate his point that the gunman might have been stopped had another student or faculty member been armed.

"A classroom is supposed to be a place for academic exploration," Winset, who taught financial accounting, told the Boston Herald.

He said administrators had asked the facility to engage students on the issue. But on Friday, he got a letter saying he was fired and ordering him to stay off campus.

Winset, 37, argued that the Catholic liberal arts school was stifling free discussion by firing him, and he said the move would have a "chilling effect" on open debate. He posted an 18-minute video on the online site YouTube defending his action.

The college issued a statement saying "Emmanuel College has clear standards of classroom and campus conduct, and does not in any way condone to use of discriminatory or obscene language."

Student Junny Lee, 19, told The Boston Globe that most students didn't appear to find Winset's demonstration offensive.

John Edwards: I'd invest billions in Michigan

Interesting that it's John Edwards and not John Dingell making this proposal...

The U.S. government should invest billions to help Michigan become the hub for transforming the nation's energy economy, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Saturday.

Speaking to more than 1,800 Democrats at the annual Jefferson Jackson dinner at Cobo Center in Detroit, Edwards said he'd like to see Michigan evolve.

"We should put billions of dollars into creation of the new technology and $1 billion should go right to the car companies," he said. "I don't want to see the cars of the future built anywhere else."

Crow Calls for Limit on Loo Paper

This is the problem with many so-called "environmentalists" these days. Instead of doing something that actually matters, they're concerned about napkins and toilet paper. How hard is it for some people to understand that paper is a renewable resource?

Crow has suggested using "only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required.

The 45-year-old, who made the comments on her website, has just toured the U.S. on a biodiesel-powered bus to raise awareness about climate change.

Reid: Congress Will Endores Iraq Pullout

A more accurate title for this article:

Reid: Congress Will Endorse Iraq Genocide

Overturning a law that doesn't exist?

Some may see it as a bizarre realignment of the starts, but I agree with the (conservative leaning) Detroit News' support of a Democratic initiative to eliminate the ban on stem cell research in Michigan. However, I have been unable to see such a ban in the laws. Currently, in Michigan there are tax incentives and other state benefits for biomedical research. By law, that excludes embryonic stem cells. I haven't seen anything which outright bans this research, however. Is this a situation similar to the Federal funding ban, where the research is allowed but public moneies can't go toward it? Or, is there a genuine, outright ban on embryonic stem cell research. If, indeed, this research is outright banned, we need to correct this immediately. If this is a mischaracterization and the ban is on state funding, well, that's a different situation all together.

"End the War"

Mohammed at Iraq the Model is exactly correct. Every time I see war protesters with their "End the War" signs, I am flabbergasted. How do they expect the war to end? If the U.S. pulls troops from Iraq, how will that stop extremist Sunni or Shia groups from attacking each other? How will that stop the neo-Bathists from trying to reinstitute a Saddam-styled government? How will that stop Al Qaeda in Iraq from trying to install a repressive regime based on a perversion of Islam? How will that stop Iran from supplying weapons to militia groups? How will that cause the militias to put down their arms and join the government?

How will that secure the tenants of liberal democracy?

Snitches, and not the golden kind

CBS's 60 minutes last night ran a story about snitches in the rap community. This will no doubt get a lot of attention today, with a large focus on the perennial "rap music is bad" mantra which is going to grab the media's focus in the coming months in light of the Virginia tech horror and the Don Imus firing. The basic premise of the article is that in order to have "street cred", one must resist cooperating with the police about anything. The story focuses on the marketing of the "stop snitchin'" credo.

The part which will be overlooked is the real reason why witnesses are refusing to cooperate: a combination of mistrust of police and fear of retaliation. For all of the bravado of the "stop snitchin'" slogan, it's fear and mistrust which keep the average citizen from cooperating with the police and not some misplaced machismo or the favored liberal "brainwashing" theme. If trust can be rebuilt between police and citizens, if criminals who commit crimes can be reliably sent to jail, if police who cooperate with police can be kept safe, then nothing that Busta Rhymes, L'il Kim, or Com'mon can do would matter.

CAFE Standards - will anyone listen?

This past weekend, The Detroit News makes a compelling argument regarding CAFE standards. Will anyone listen? CAFE increases mean tens of thousands of American jobs lost and previous CAFE increases did nothing to reduce the total fuel consumption. It's doubtful that their well-reasoned comments will resonate within the government. Even John Dingell - the Michigan Representative who heads the Energy House Committee - has shown a willingness to sell out Michigan and accept CAFE increases if they're part of a "comprehensive" plan. What's frightening for our state's economy, already among the nation's worst, is that while Congressmen of other districts are fighting to prevent regulations being enacted which would cripple their economies, Rep. Dingell seems to have surrendered the fight and is willing to accept job losses.

40% better mileage with one simple, available technology

Today's Detroit News points out what everyone should already know: diesel engines need to play a role in this country's comprehensive energy policy. Diesel engines are both more reasonably priced and more effective for extending fuel economy when compared to gas/electric hybrids. It's great to see that someone it talking about this, but it's a shame that it's no one in the government.

Quote of the Day

Dahlia Lithwick, law columnist for slate.com:

Viewed in [a certain] light, Gonzales did exactly what he needed to do yesterday. he took a high, inside pitch to the head for the team (nobody wants to look like a dolt on national television) but hit a massive home run for the notion that at the end of the day, congressional oversight over the executive branch is little more than empty theatre."

Certainly, Dahlia doesn't agree with the notion that congressional oversight of the executive branch should be "little more than empty theatre" but she is recognizing the fact that, except for incidences of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and the power of the purse, Congress has no actual power over the executive whatsoever.

Of course, this is merely an example of the balance of powers: other than the veto, the President has no power over the legislative whatsoever.

AP sides with Schumer

Is this more ridiculous AP bias, or does this author really think the Senate has any power to decide in Gonzales remains Attorney General?

WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was to be summoned to a Capitol Hill showdown Thursday as he fights to save his job in the face of calls for his ouster over the bungled firings of eight U.S. attorneys that Democrats say were driven by party politics.

The Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a daylong hearing for Gonzales' first appearance under oath since the firings set off an uproar in February that has only escalated with a bewildering series of conflicting accounts from the attorney general, his current and former aides and White House officials.

Outsourced Democracy

Scott Adams took a break from vainly trying to convince people that stealing copyrighted material is, in fact, stealing to suggest a novel idea. His basic idea is to leverage the innovations which have given us barely comprehensible, hesitantly English speaking tech support workers to solve the problems of our democracy:

It's common knowledge that all major government decisions in the United States are made via a process that Thomas Jefferson described in the constitution as 'lobbyists bribing weasels'. Voters attempt to solve this problem by electing the weasels who do the best job lying about their intentions to change the system. So far this hasn't worked.

That's why we need to outsource the important decisions to India. I'm sure a consulting firm in India could help the United States come up with a coherent energy policy, a plan for universal health care, a cure for global warming, and an anti-terrorism plan.

He further goes on to suggest that these plans would then be debated in the public sphere for implementation by our politicians. Having the plans available, though, would allow for public debate which is completely lacking now.

"Environmentalists"

Perhaps the group I hate the most are the self-congratulatory "environmentalists" who spend far too much time telling the world just how great they really are.

Count Kathleen Hughes of the New York Times among them.

She writes this sickly saccharine, self-gratifying column in the Times in which she goes on and on about how great she it is that she is sacrificing so much to dry her clothes on a clothesline instead of in a dryer. She's so needy for everyone to know just how much she cares for the planet that she initially wanted to hang her clothes out in the front yard, just to show all of her neighbors. Thankfully, her family had more of the right idea. What kills me the most, though, is how impossibly wasteful her electricity usage is.

She started using the clothes line after getting a monthly bill of over $1,100 last summer. She prides herself on having a March bill of "only" $576. In March. When it was cold. The unmitigated gall she has lecturing the public on how wasteful they are with their electric use when she's spending that much on it herself shouldn't shock me anymore, but I guess it still does. After all, when you take a peek at the electric bills of Al Gore and John Edwards, all the while they're preaching about conservation. I have sadly come to expect this from the right, elitist leftists. Sadly this lack of self-perception seems to have infected her daughter as well, who notes: "It looks like we care about the earth, " when clothes are hung on the clothesline, but who is "always busy at the computer."

This is the essence of their hypocrisy: trying to look like they care about the earth while blowing through 3 to 5 times as much energy as average Americans.

Quote of the Year

Majority Decision, Gonzales V. Carhart:

We assume the following principles for the purposes of this opinion. Before viability, a State "may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy." 505 U.S., at 879 (plurality opinion). It also may not impose upon this right an undue burden, which exists if a regulation's "purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." ld., at 878. On the other hand, regulations which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State, or the parent or guardian of a minor, may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman's right to choose." ld., at 877. Casey, in short struck a balance. The balance was central to its holding. We now apply its standard to the cases at bar."

Most important note of all: the "ultraconservative" Alito and Roberts agreed with the above - an affirmation that women have a right to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability, that the state can not place "substantial obstacles" in the pate of a woman seeking a pre-viability abortion, and can only act to limit abortions if they are not "a substantial obstacle to the woman's exercise of the right to choose."

So, despite all the ballyhoo of the supposed "ultraconservatives" on the court and the "threat" to Rode v. Wade and to Casey, we end up with the result that if Roe v. Wade was to be challenged before this court , it would be a 7-2 decision to uphold Roe v. Wade. Only JJustices Scalia and Thomas were willing to support a move to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Communist Art

In today's Dilbert Blog entry, Scott Adams posits:

I think a reasonable person can dislike capitalism and wish for a more socialist world where art is free for all takers. But a reasonable person can't expect that a socialist world would produce nearly as much art. That's bat-shit thinking.

His justification is that the time and effort he spent building Dilbert, pretty much dawn-to-dusk for 10 straight years with minimal time off, wouldn't be worth it if he wasn't able to achieve his level of economic wealth. This is, basically, the main problem with strict communism: the number of people willing to put forth the time and effort to become a doctor, start a business, create new technologies, etc., wouldn't be wouldn't be so inclined if they received the same rewards as a cubicle worker who spends more of his work hours on the Internet than doing actual work. This being said, I can certainly appreciate his argument.

However, it falls apart in that the vast majority of artists don't have his level of dedication (or, to be honest, talent). The vast majority of artists putz around with their painting or sculpting or hot gluing or cross-stitching, assuming that it should be enough to make them a living. Most artists, i.e., the non-commercially viable artists, don't have the talent or dedication to actually put out art that other people would actually place value in (shown, in our society, by paying money for it). As they can't make a living as an artist, they instead find a job working as a barista or English Garden's cashier. If we lived in a communist society, they'd be able to make the same living creating their shitty art that they would by ringing up my flat of azaleas. It's just the good artists - the ones who put in the time, effort, and dedication to make items of true value to society - who would be disinclined to create art.

The net result isn't that we would have less art, as Adams suggests. We would have less good art and a whole lot more shitty art, while I'd have to learn how to steam a latte without burning myself.

Fake voters all around us?

Cynthia Tucker, an editorialist witih the Atlanta journal-Constitution blames the GOP of making false, "paranoid" accusations of voter fraud and describes voter ID cards as "attempts to supporess voting by people of color" and unconstitutional. She cites a study that sees voter turnout drop, especially among minority voters. The question must be asked: why?

Here's the scenario: The government provides free photo identification cards to individuals who register to vote. All you need to do is show up, register, prove your citizenship, get your photo taken, and you get an ID card which allows you to vote. When you go to vote, someone looks at your card, looks at the list, and then hands you a ballot, which you fill out in secret and submit in secret.

Now, assume that Ms. Tucker is correct and the above scenario results in a decline in overall voter turnout of 3% and 6-9% decline among minorities.

How is this not evidence of some people voting illegally, using other peoples' names?

Let's set that aside for a moment. Let's assume that everyone who votes at a polling station where there are no ID checks follows the law, votes legally and properly, and does not vote under someone else's name - despite the ridiculous ease with which this can happen. The fact that it is easy to fraudulently vote and that it is equally difficult to catch someone voting fradulently casts doubt on the process. In the 2000 Presidential election, Florida was decided by a few hundred votes. In effect, the election of the President was decided by a tiny handful of votes. How can we be sure that 20 or 30 determined, morally vacant, rabidly pro-Bush supporters didn't go around to 15 to 20 different polling places, walk up to the line, glance down at the book and just rattle of a name, then illegally cast a pro-Bush vote in a heavily Democratic district? We can assume that didn't happen. However, the specter of voter fraud, and the ease with which it is perpetrated, is enough to cast doubt on the entire system.

America's approach to democracy is a laughing stock to much of the rest of the world. The voting system lack standards, has no controls in place to ensure that only those who legally can vote are the ones voting, and we frequently utilize polling technology and machines from the middle of the last century. America is supposed to be the shining beacon of democracy throughout the world. How can we do that when we ourselves have such a faulty system?

The current situation in many states, with individuals being allowed to vote without verification, calls into question the legitimacy of our democracy.

Quote of the Day

Tracy Bridges, whose exercise of his 2nd Amendment rights helped stop Peter Odighizuwa's murderous rampage at Appalachian School of Law in 2002, speaking on NBC's Today show:

We saw the shooter, stopped at my vehicle and got out my handgun and started to approach Peter. At that time, Peter threw up his hands and threw his weapon down. Ted was the first person to have contact with Peter, and Peter hit him one time in the face, so there was a little bit of a struggle there."

An American problem?

Emsdetten, Germany, November 20, 2006:
18-year-old Sebastian Bosse entered Geschwister Scholl School and used a firearm and a smoke grenade to injure 37 before committing suicide.

Erfurt, Germany, April 26, 2002:
19-year-old Robert Steinhauser used two firearms to kill 13 teachers and 2 students before committing suicide.

Zug, Switzerland, September 27, 2001:
Friedrich Leibacher entered the canton's parliament and shot dead 14 politicians.

Osaka, Japan, June 8, 2001:
37-year-old Mamoru Tukama, former janitor, killed eight children using a kitchen knife and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers before being captured. He was eventually convicted of murder and put to death.

Port Arthur, Australia, April 28, 1996:
28-year-old martin Bryant killed 35 and wounded 37 at the popular tourist destination of Port Arthur.