Saturday, March 19, 2005

Politically Incorrect Musings

Hence, they are likely to be true. Check out John Leo's Townhall column (hat tip: Jim O):

A new book, Why Men Earn More by Warren Farrell, goes further, examining a broad array of wage statistics. His conclusion: When reasonable adjustments are made, women earn just as much as men, and sometimes more.

Some of Farrell's findings: Women are 15 times as likely as men to become top executives in major corporations before the age of 40. Never-married, college-educated males who work full time make only 85 percent of what comparable women earn. Female pay exceeds male pay in more than 80 different fields, 39 of them large fields that offer good jobs, like financial analyst, engineering manager, sales engineer, statistician, surveying and mapping technicians, agricultural and food scientists, and aerospace engineers. A female investment banker's starting salary is 116 percent of a male's. Part-time female workers make $1.10 for every $1 earned by part-time males.

Surprisingly, Farrell argues that comparable males and females have been earning similar salaries for decades, though the press has yet to notice. As long ago as the early 1980s, he writes, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found that companies paid men and women equal money when their titles and responsibilities were the same. In 1969, data from the American Council on Education showed that female professors who had never been married and had never published earned 145 percent of their male counterparts. Even during the 1950s, Farrell says, the gender pay gap for all never-married workers was less than 2 percent while never-married white women between 45 and 54 earned 106 percent of what their white male counterparts made.

Citing Internal Revenue statistics, Farrell notes that women who own their own businesses net only 49 percent of what male counterparts make. Since it can't be that male bosses are holding them back here, women seem to be seeking certain lifestyle trade-offs-forgoing the highest possible income for more free time and flexible hours. They also seem to be avoiding some high-paying jobs. Female engineering managers make on average $83,000, but only 10 percent of the managers are female, indicating that many women are bypassing careers that could pay them more.

Farrell argues that many men outearn women by a willingness to take risky and dangerous jobs as well as work that exposes them to stress and bad weather or that requires a transfer to an undesirable location in another city or country. Women are more likely than men to pick glamorous jobs that tend to pay less. A London School of Economics study tracking 10,000 post-1993 United Kingdom graduates from 30 universities found that males were earning 12 percent more than women. The men tended to stress salary and were more likely to take up engineering, math, and computing. The women were more apt to seek socially oriented jobs and as undergraduates had favored majors in education and the arts.

Much of Farrell's book is written in the style of a self-help book. It lists 25 ways women can improve their earnings, 10 of them advising the careful selection of high-paying fields and subfields. In nursing, an anesthesiology nurse can make more than the average doctor. An Army therapist is better paid than many other therapists. In the field of languages, Farrell advises, skip French and learn Arabic or Farsi. You will earn more.

Farrell was a board member of the National Organization for Women in the early 1970s but broke with the movement over its antimale excesses. He believes that the academic world and the news media have been incurious custodians of the myth that male oppression prevents women from achieving equal pay. It's a sturdy myth, and data that contradict it are typically buried or never updated. Given the current campus climate, no broad and honest academic study of women's pay is possible today. Farrell bluntly advises women to put the victimization rhetoric on hold and just do what it takes to get the high-paying jobs. Good idea. (emphasis mine)
This is really good advice, and something I've been saying in this blog over and over (see here for an example of what I think of today's women's movement). The entire Larry Summers affair is a reminder of the kind of intellectual and emotional repression now sanctioned by the women's movement as part of the psychology of victimhood that they've adopted, even in a country and a system that has brought them the most political, economic and personal freedom on the planet.

There are real atrocities being committed against women in the world. Real oppression, degradation and humiliation exists and it is culturally and religiously sanctioned--but not in the U.S. Women unfortunate to live in those medieval countries desperately need the women of the U.S. to stop their whining and hysteria about "being oppressed" and to do something substantive to help fight for change.

My psychiatric advice? Grow up. Take responsibility for your own life and stop blaming others(especially men) for the choices that you are making. Realize that you are lucky, because in America you have choices. Many women around the globe aren't so fortunate.

Changing your behavior along these lines would go a long way to ending your membership in todays women's victimhood club.

BUSH vs KERRY - One More Time--Just For Fun!

Here is a fabulous photo essay of George Bush vs. John Kerry. It's hilarious; and I think it truly captures the essential psychological differences between the two men. (hat tip: Tim Blair).

Guys in Clownsuits:The New Antiwar Movement

Once again the Left comes down firmly on the side of tyranny. Charles Krauthammer is wrong--these people aren't capable of feeling shame. They are so totally, completely, unremittingly, unreservedly and unrepentantly CLUELESS that the only proper response to their antics is total, unrestrained laughter.

-They could be showing solidarity with the brave citizens of Iraq who risked their lives for democracy.

-They could be marching to support the proud people of Lebanon who are demanding their freedom from Syria

-They could denounce Castro's crackdowns on free speech and intellectual inquiry

-They could demand accountability of the United Nations' since its Oil-for-Food scandal--the largest in world history and its sex scandals have hardly benefited mankind

-They could stand for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY instead of OPPRESSION AND TOTALITARIANISM

For once in their pathetic lives, they could stand for something that actually results in benefiting humanity in the real world, instead of in their imaginations.

Jeff Goldstein has the right idea:

I would only add that those attending might also consider wearing bright red noses and big floppy shoes. And one of those fake flowers that squirts water pinned to the lapel.

Because if you really must protest, you may as well dress the part, right?

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

An antiwar protester, a little down on his luck....

Friday, March 18, 2005

Definitely Not The Right Stuff

This past year, the Boo, who is a fabulous soccer goalkeeper had the opportunity to play for the Michigan Hawks--a nationally ranked soccer club. One of the coaches at her summer soccer camp was the coach of a U-13 team on the club. This invitation caused extreme excitment for my daughter, since her dream is to play professional soccer someday, and frankly (not just speaking as a mother!) she has real talent as a goalkeeper.

Unfortunately, she had already made a committment to another team. We tried to find a way for her to play on both teams, but the rules did not permit it. This was a difficult learning experience for her. She desperately wanted to play for the Hawks, but didn't want to let her friends and coach on the other team down.

Several friends recommended that I let her play for the better team, and that it was in her long-term interests to play with the Hawks, rather than a much less well-regarded team. I told her it was her decision (she's that age where we are trying to let her take more and more responsibility for her actions). Anxiously, she asked me what I thought she should do.

I'm not you, I told her. I can certainly understand why you would want to break your commitment and choose to play for the Hawks. But for me, a commitment is a commitment and it is more important to follow through and keep your promises, than to break them for whatever short-term gain you think you will get. Whatever you decide will have to be your choice, though, not mine.

She thought about the issue for a few more days, but finally decided to stay with the original team and only play in tournaments with the Hawks. I can't tell you how proud of her I was.

That's why it is so disheartening to read things like this in the NY Times, which seems to gloss over the fact that these people they are celebrating have broken their commitments. The Times , however, refers to breaking commitments as "UNVOLUNTEERING"!

Like Michele Malkin, this makes me want to gag. This is the kind of life decision that tells the entire world what your character is--the kind of stuff you are made of--and it is clearly NOT the right stuff, in my opinion.

These people were not drafted against their will into the military. They volunteered willingly. What did they think? That their commitment only counted if they approved of their orders? If they want to take a principled stand, then let them take the consequences of not following orders and be court-martialed and sentenced.

But desertion (and that is what it is, no matter how the Times sugar-coats it) isn't a "principle." It is the act of someone without any.

My daughter, I'm happy and proud to say, has the right stuff.

UPDATE: Captain Ed has more on this story.

Another View on Social Security

In this article, Judge Ray Holbrook and Cooky Oberg present a "Model for Social Security Reform." In it they highlight a program initiated by Galveston County in Texas (my old stomping grounds) that was designed to replace social security benefits for county employees in 1980.

When I was county judge in 1979, many county workers were concerned about the soundness of Social Security, as many people are today. We could either stay with it — and its inevitable tax increases and higher retirement ages — or find a better way. We sought an "alternative plan" that provided the same or better benefits, required no tax increases and was risk-free. Furthermore, we wanted the benefits to be like a savings account that could be passed on to family members upon death.

Our plan, put together by financial experts, was a "banking model" rather than an "investment model." To eliminate the risks of the up-and-down stock market, workers' contributions were put into conservative fixed-rate guaranteed annuities, rather than fluctuating stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Our results have been impressive: We've averaged about 6.5% annual rate of return over 24 years. And we've provided substantially better benefits in all three Social Security categories: retirement, survivorship, disability.

Our plan vs. Social Security

Upon retirement after 30 years, and assuming a more conservative 5% rate of return, all workers would do better for the same contribution as Social Security:

• Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50% more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security — $1,036 instead of $683.

• Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security, $1,500 instead of $853.

• Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.

• Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security, $4,540 instead of $1,645.

• Our survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary — a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 — rather than Social Security's customary onetime $255 survivorship to a spouse (with no minor children). If the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too.

• Our disability benefit pays 60% of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.

In 1980, labor unions and some traditionally liberal Democrats provided mighty opposition. They considered taxpayer-fed Big Government programs the only secure ones, to the exclusion of other options. However, we held meetings that included debates with Social Security officials and put it to a vote: Our workers passed it by a 3-to-1 margin in 1981 — just in time.

We got our plan in place before the U.S. Congress passed a "reform" bill in 1983 that closed the door for local governments to opt out of Social Security.


This is not a fantasy or an untested program; it is a successful alternative to social security--used by a large county government in Texas-- that has been tested in the real world for over 20 years. If this doesn't demonstrate the fact that people can do much better saving for retirement through a private plan, then nothing will convince the naysayers. As the article above suggests, the opposition to such plans of choice really come from "traditionally liberal Democrats...[who] consider taxpayer-fed Big Government program the only secure ones." These people are the new reactionaries, opposed to anything new or demonstrably better because they are invested in the past.

I hope this program gets the attention it deserves.

Euro-Pretense, Moral Bankruptcy, and Shame

Charles Krauthammer says all that needs to be said today:

As an advocate of that notion of democratic revolution, I am not surprised that the opposing view was proved false. I am surprised only that it was proved false so quickly -- that the voters in Iraq, the people of Lebanon, the women of Kuwait, the followers of Ayman Nour in Egypt would rise so eagerly at the first breaking of the dictatorial "stability" they had so long experienced (and we had so long supported) to claim their democratic rights.

This amazing display has prompted a wave of soul-searching. When a Le Monde editorial titled "Arab Spring" acknowledges "the merit of George W. Bush," when the cover headline of London's The Independent is "Was Bush Right After All?" and when a column in Der Spiegel asks "Could George W. Bush Be Right?" you know that something radical has happened.

It is not just that the ramparts of Euro-snobbery have been breached. Iraq and, more broadly, the Bush doctrine were always more than a purely intellectual matter. The left's patronizing, quasi-colonialist view of the benighted Arabs was not just analytically incorrect. It was morally bankrupt, too.

After all, going back at least to the Spanish Civil War, the left has always prided itself on being the great international champion of freedom and human rights. And yet, when America proposed to remove the man responsible for torturing, gassing and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis, the left suddenly turned into a champion of Westphalian sovereign inviolability.

A leftist judge in Spain orders the arrest of a pathetic, near-senile Gen. Augusto Pinochet eight years after he's left office, and becomes a human rights hero -- a classic example of the left morally grandstanding in the name of victims of dictatorships long gone. Yet for the victims of contemporary monsters still actively killing and oppressing -- Khomeini and his successors, the Assads of Syria and, until yesterday, Hussein and his sons -- nothing. No sympathy. No action. Indeed, virulent hostility to America's courageous and dangerous attempt at rescue.

The international left's concern for human rights turns out to be nothing more than a useful weapon for its anti-Americanism. Jeane Kirkpatrick pointed out this selective concern for the victims of U.S. allies (such as Chile) 25 years ago. After the Cold War, the hypocrisy continues. For which Arab people do European hearts burn? The Palestinians. Why? Because that permits the vilification of Israel -- an outpost of Western democracy and, even worse, a staunch U.S. ally. Championing suffering Iraqis, Syrians and Lebanese offers no such satisfaction. Hence, silence.

Until now. Now that the real Arab street has risen to claim rights that the West takes for granted, the left takes note. It is forced to acknowledge that those brutish Americans led by their simpleton cowboy might have been right. It has no choice. It is shamed. A Lebanese, amid a sea of a million other Lebanese, raises a placard reading "Thank you, George W. Bush," and all that Euro-pretense, moral and intellectual, collapses.


YES, YES, YES.

Still Having Problems With Blogger

I'm still having many many problems in posting. Sometimes I can access my edits; sometimes I can't. Everything has to be done with numerous attempts to get it to work properly. It is frustrating work at the moment, since I never know if something I write will get posted on the site; disappear into the ether; or just keep bouncing around until it gets posted after I give up trying. So please bear with me!

If you work with Blogger currently, you can begin to appreciate how constant frustration and thwarted hopes can lead to violence.

I wonder if this post will get through?

The Council Has Spoken !

The winners in this week's Watcher's Council Vote for Best Posts are up!

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

1. Trust Us. We’re from the Government. The Sundries Shack

2. International Women's Day in Iran Dr. Sanity

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

1. The New United Nations: American Pressure At WorkNew Sisyphus

2. Looking at the Navel AgainBaldilocks

You can check out all the winners over at the Watcher's site - Watcher of Weasels.

Oh, and by the way, one of the Council seats has opened up and is up for grabs! If you are interested in applying to be on the Watcher's Council you can check out the rules and let the Watcher know! Good Luck!

Blah Blah Blah

MEMRI has a comprehensive round-up of items documenting an increasing tension between Egypt and the U.S.

We have a whole host of anti-American cartoons with the obligatory comparison of Bush to Hitler in the Egyptian press:
Image hosted by Photobucket.com

A whole host of articles that compare the U.S. with Nazi Germany:
Columnist 'Adli Barsoum wrote in the government daily Al-Gumhuriyya: "Egypt staunchly rejected American attempts to interfere in the MP Ayman Nour affair. America does not have any right to impose upon us its false role of defense of human rights, democracy, and free speech, when it has [both] an early and recent history of human rights violations in forms unknown to [even] Hitler's Nazis.
"The Ayman Nour affair is an internal Egyptian matter, whether a criminal affair, a political affair, or anything else. The Egyptian judiciary are the only ones who may express an opinion on this matter, and the Egyptian people are the only ones who may express criticism about it."

What has brought on this Egyptian frenzy of comparing the U.S. to Nazis (and to tsunamis destroying the world; and to cowboys beating up the world; and to Bush as an angel with cloven feet tricking the world --check out all the lovely cartoons at the MEMRI site)? The Egyptians are really really pissed because:
1. there has been a "frivolous discussion in the [American] media" of Egypt's domestic affairs, which, according to them, is not appropriate in relations between two allied nations.
2. there is a "negative atmosphere" created by leaks to the American media from various circles within the U.S. administration. The latest of which quoted American intelligence sources suggesting Egypt had been a partner in the development of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons programs.
3. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's statements about the arrest of Egyptian parliament member Ayman Nour.
4. The postponement of Rice's visit to Egypt was mentioned as another source of tension between the two countries

Egypt is sooooo upset at all this,that Egyptian Presidential Spokesman Suleiman 'Awwad stated President Hosni Mubarak would not hold his annual visit to the U.S. this year!!

Big Pharaoh, an Egyptian blogger, has some insight into Egypt's sudden anger at the U.S.:
It was interesting to watch the editorials in the government owned newspapers the past 3 or 4 days. I noticed an unprecedented array of anti-America articles and columns that reminded me of the days preceding the war in Iraq. What happened? Well, the government unleashed its dogs.
This new offensive attack on America and its president started after Bush’s latest speech (where he mentioned that democracy is on the march in the Middle East) and the mounting US pressure on President Mubarak after Noor’s arrest. The first government official to attack the speech was Egypt’s secretary of state who ridiculed Iraq by referring to the bombs and killings there. Mr. Secretary failed to mention the 8.5 million purple fingers though!
I expect ferocious anti-Americanism to dominate the government owned media in the coming days especially after the government’s forced release of Ayman Noor. The government wants to tell us: hey, don’t forget that we’re not the cause of your ills, don’t ever think that we succumbed to US pressure, the cause of your ills is America, they occupy Iraq, they help Israel, they abused prisoners in Abu Ghraib, blah blah blah.
So, let me get this straight. Egypt's President Mubarak is so upset with the U.S. that he won't make his annual visit to Washington, eh? Boy, that will show those evil Nazi Americans!

Perhaps Mubarak is actually worried that President Bush might be a bit upset at Egypt's lack of democratic reforms? Perhaps Mubarak is just a teensy bit concerned that the U.S. won't give Egypt the annual check for "military and economic foreign aid"-- which last year was a mere $2 Billion or so? That the American gravy train isn't a done deal these days?

I just don't think the usual Egyptian blah blah blah is gonna work anymore.

Thursday, March 17, 2005

Where Have All The Mothers Gone?

This study about the power of "good" mothers in overcoming aggression or "bad" behavior in children is really interesting--particularly for the societal implications. Researchers discovered that "good" mothering was able to prevent aggressive and self-destructive behavior in at-risk monkeys. In human terms, "Good" mothering provides a child with respect, love, and security-- the basic aspects of "nurture" that are essential for normal development.

These findings support previous research that good mothers were able to mitigate a genetic defect in children that led to aggressive and "bad" behavior.

Good mothering can abolish the impact of a "bad" gene for aggression, suggests a new study, adding spice to the "nature-versus-nurture" controversy....

For 26 years, she and her colleagues followed the fate of 1037 children born in 1972 in Dunedin, New Zealand. They found that children were much more likely to grow up to be aggressive and antisocial if they had inherited a "short" version of a gene called MAOA. It makes monoamine oxidase A, an enzyme which helps to break down neurotransmitters such as serotonin, and was less efficient in the individuals with the "short" version.

But carriers only went off the rails if they had had an awful, abusive upbringing. Carriers with good mothering were usually completely normal, showed the New Zealand study.
From a psychological perspective then, the freedom and empowerment of women in society are absolutely critical because they are responsible for the earliest environmental influences on children--influences that will impact the child throughout his or her life. If the society has little respect for women and regularly demonizes, debases or humiliates them, it will have a profound generational impact. This is why encouraging women's rights around the world should be a high priority in US Foreign Policy.

The article goes on to discuss the implications:

But an obvious implication is that a "bad" gene in humans could potentially be kept in check by good parenting. "The general principle of parenting is important and can have impacts not only at the level of behaviour, but also in hormonal activities, brain chemistry, structure and function, and at the level of gene expression," he says.

Failure to provide the correct mothering may reset the brain's circuitry irreversibly to patterns of antisocial behaviour, aggression and self-destruction, possibly to enable sheer survival in the absence of motherly protection during infanthood.
Women subjected to institutionalized, societal abuse (such as what we saw under the Taliban; and what we see to a greater or lesser extent in almost all Islamic countries--where physical abuse is sanctioned; where women are sexually demonized; where they are deprived of education, as well as physical, social, economic and political freedom) are hardly in a psychological position to be able to provide effective "nurturing" to children.

Women whose own aggressive impulses have been savagely constrained by society and who have few options to sublimate those impulses, are at grave risk of encouraging aggressive and violent "acting out" on the part of their children on their behalf-- especially the male child who must be seriously conflicted about his love for and identification with a lowly-regarded woman.

In other words, such women will hardly prevent inappropriate aggression in their offspring, when such aggression vicariously meets their own needs. And the male children will have to assert their separation and distance from the debased female that is their mother, as aggressively and violently as possible.

And if you doubt the impact that mothers with such societally and religiously-sanctioned inadequacies could have on children , check out this article. Or look at the photos below and ask yourselves where have all the mothers gone?(from LGF):

Image hosted by Photobucket.com
Image hosted by Photobucket.com
Image hosted by Photobucket.com
Image hosted by Photobucket.com
Image hosted by Photobucket.com

UPDATE: Several emails have asked if I think men have any role in "nurture". The answer is that men, or fathers, have a profound impact, but their role usually occurs later in the child's life. There is no question that a "good" male parent can undo or compensate for a failure of nurturing on the part of an impaired or absent mother. Males are perfectly capable of providing the love, respect and security necessary. In the older child (e.g, toddler and older), male figures are critically important in helping their son's "reign in" aggressive impulses and find socially acceptable ways to express those aggressive impulses.

We have just discussed how male children in societies that demonize or debase women must overemphasize their "maleness" in order to separate from the mother. As grown men, far from being able to mitigate the aggressive impulses of a child, such men will encourage these impulses in order to "prove" to the world at large that they (and their sons)have not been "feminized". Cultures where women have extremely low status almost always encourage the development of inadequate, "macho" men, who need to prove their manliness and constantly are responding to insults of their "honor".

SPACEMANIA !

Now here's a special tour that a real space aficionado shouldn't pass up!
Our program begins with a private gala dinner and welcome lectures at the American Museum of Natural History’s Rose Center for Earth and Space with our study leaders, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Mike Shara, and James Oberg. Continue to NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C., and Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida to enjoy an unprecedented red carpet tour of the grounds and witness a possible Space Shuttle launch. The stateside portion of the program culminates at Johnson Space Center in Houston, where we attend high-level meetings with astronauts and administrators to discuss the Apollo, Shuttle, and Space Station programs. Continue to Russia to trace the evolution of the Soviet space program, explore the MIR Space Station Simulator, and speak with Russian officials and cosmonauts about current efforts of Russian-American cooperation in space. Observe a Soyuz launch and enjoy the opportunity to train as cosmonauts in an optional zero-gravity flight or other training activities.

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

**NOTE: I have no financial connection to this! A friend is one of the expert tour guides and clued me in to it. If you're interested, check it out at the link!

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

AMNESIA vs HYPOCRISY

From Mirriam-Webster Online:
am·ne·sia : the selective overlooking or ignoring of those events or acts that are not favorable or useful to one's purpose or position
From NRO, here's how some prominent DEMOCRATS felt about filibusters during Clinton's term of office:

Barbara Boxer – 5/14/97:

“It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.”

Dick Durbin – 9/28/98:

“If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down.”

Tom Harkin – 1/5/95:

“I do not believe that I as a member of the minority ought to have the right to absolutely stop something because I think it is wrong, that that is rule by minority.”

Ted Kennedy – 3/7/00

“The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said: ‘The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.’ Which is exactly what I would like.”

Pat Leahy - 6/18/98

“If we don’t like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down. But don’t hold them in this anonymous unconscionable limbo, because in doing that, the minority of Senators really shame all Senators.”

Of course another word comes to mind:

hy·poc·ri·sy: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue
I'll let you decide.

Honorable vs. Dishonorable Conduct

The American Enterprise interviews the Swift Boat Veteran's John O'Neill:

O'NEILL: The one who conceived of this was Admiral Roy Hoffmann. He began contacting many Swift Boat people in January and February last year. At that time, I was in the hospital. I had given my wife a kidney for a transplant.

I became a part of it in early to mid March. I was motivated by several things, the first and most important being a genuine fear of what would happen to our country, our national security, and our armed forces if John Kerry became Commander in Chief.
The reason we had our press conference on May 4 was that we thought if we could come forward quickly, we might be able to prevent John Kerry from becoming the Democratic nominee and allow the Democratic Party to pick someone else, in which case we could all go home.

TAE: At the Swift Boat veterans' May 4 press conference you had an open letter calling Kerry unfit to be Commander in Chief. It was signed by virtually all of John Kerry's commanders in Vietnam. Yet the story fell flat. The media ignored it. How did your group react to the media blackout?

O'NEILL: We were shocked. We couldn't believe it. I haven't been involved in politics or media relations, and I thought the job of the media was primarily to report the facts. It was obvious to me that many hundreds of his former comrades coming forward to say that he lied about his record in Vietnam and that he was unfit to be President would be important information for Americans. I only then became aware of the bias of the media.

TAE: How do you explain the media's response?

O'NEILL: The establishment media was very pro-Kerry. They were opposed to any story that was critical of Kerry, and I believe that they were captured by their own bias. We met with one reporter around that time. We told a story to him relating to Kerry's service. He acknowledged it was true and terribly important. And he told us he would not print it because it would help George Bush. That's when we began to realize we had a real problem on our hands.

TAE: Is there anything other than pro-Kerry bias to account for the establishment media's attitude to the story?

O'NEILL: Perhaps a second factor is that there are very few veterans in the established media. It makes it very difficult for them to understand the story or to care about it. That's very different from the situation 40 or 50 years ago when most people had served in some fashion in the armed forces or had uncles or brothers who had.
(There is a lot more, and I recommend you read the rest).

Now, compare and contrast with these statements by John Kerry, reported by P.J.O'Rourke recently, as Kerry sets himself up to run in 2008:

"We learned," Kerry continued, "that the mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning. But there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information. And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country. And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that. The question is, what are we going to do about it?"

Translation: We the people are too stupid to see through the lies and deceit of the evil sub-media, even though the brave and capable REAL media discerned the truth and tried to tell us how wonderful John Kerry was.

New Sisyphus points out the following salient points in his critique of Kerry's incredible comments:

You may be surprised to hear that the MSM “did a pretty good job of discerning” over the last year, given that the New York Times, CBS and the BBC all had to fire lead personnel over the fact that they just damn well made stuff up out of whole cloth in service to an obviously partisan political agenda. But then, if you’re reading this, your part of a dangerous sub-culture, aren't you?

And what, Senator, are we going to do about these dangerous people that keep disagreeing with the MSM and have the nasty habit of not keeping their ill-informed, non-making-stuff-up mouths shut? Here we see the cold iron of the liberal’s tendency to want to shut their opponents up that lies behind the calm façade and the Birkenstocks.

Read both the O'Neill interview and the Kerry comments. Ask yourself which person--O'Neill or Kerry--calls for silencing free speech? Ask yourself, who wants to stop the flow of information? Ask yourself, who does not want to compete in a free market of ideas?

You watched the same campaign that I did in 2004. Did the Swift Boat Veteran's get a shot at defending their position in the mainstream media? Did John Kerry respond to their accusations? Has John Kerry to this day ever filled out the Form 180 for the complete release of all his Vietnam records, including his medical records (in spite of MULTIPLE promises that he would do so--even one recently on Meet the Press)?

Ask youself, why it was important that a document purporting to come from one person who commanded Lt.George Bush in the TANG (and who was conveniently deceased) during the Vietnam war was considered a "critical" news story; while the sworn affidavits of 274 living veterans, including ALL the superior officers of Lt.John Kerry, was not?

John Kerry thinks he is going to run for President in 2008. But I think the American public is on to his scam. As part of that dangerous "sub-culture" Kerry is so opposed to, I intend to frequently remind everyone of the con artist the Democrats nominated in 2004.

I am forever thankful this dishonorable, pitiful, self-obsessed human being did not become the President of the United States.

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Greenspan Maxed Out

MaxedOutMama analyzes the recent testimony to Congress by Alan Greenspan and concludes that Paul Krugman (who is supposed to be an economist, but is really a less articulate version of Maureen Dowd, with an academic degree) is deluded.

The budget deficit can't improve unless major action is taken.

But, as the latest projections from the Administration and the Congressional Budget Office suggest, our budget position is unlikely to improve substantially in the coming years unless major deficit-reducing actions are taken.
Congress doesn't have enough self-control to do it, so legislation to force a balanced budget is necessary:

In my judgment, the necessary choices will be especially difficult to implement without the restoration of a set of procedural restraints on the budget-making process. For about a decade, the rules laid out in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 and in the later modifications and extensions of the act provided a framework that helped the Congress establish a better fiscal balance.

But that's not enough either:

I do not mean to suggest that the nation's budget problems will be solved simply by adopting a new set of rules. The fundamental fiscal issue is the need to make difficult choices among budget priorities, and this need is becoming ever more pressing in light of the unprecedented number of individuals approaching retirement age. For example, future Congresses and Presidents will, over time, have to weigh the benefits of continued access, on current terms, to advances in medical technology against other spending priorities as well as against tax initiatives that foster increases in economic growth and the revenue base.

Check it out. I couldn't agree with her more--either about the unsustainable spending or about the la-la Democratic reactionaries.

Let Her Speak !

Hirsi Ali has won a court battle in the Netherlands (hat tip: Free Thoughts):

The Hague Court refused to censor MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Tuesday, dismissing a court challenge to her criticism of the Islam faith and a planned sequel to her controversial film "Submission".

The ruling comes after several Muslims took legal action against the Liberal VVD MP in a bid to prevent her from making what they believe to be insulting, offensive or blasphemous remarks against the Islamic faith.

They also demanded the court block a sequel to the film Submission, which accused the Islam faith of endorsing domestic violence.

Hirsi Ali made the film in co-operation with Theo van Gogh. The 10-minute documentary is believed to have played a key role in the filmmaker's murder at the hands of a suspected Islamic militant last November.

But the court in The Hague ruled on Tuesday there are insufficient grounds to ban a follow-up film, asserting that Hirsi Ali has not acted illegally with her statements. The court did accuse the MP though of testing the bounds of what is acceptable.

The theme of the follow-up film is the oppression of the individual under Islam. The lawyer representing the claimants, Robert Moszkowicz, claimed that the film will certainly contain blasphemous elements.

If you ask me, the real "blasphemy" would have occurred if this case had been decided against Ali. Let her voice be heard! Let the voices of all the women who suffer under the primitive and medieval attitudes of their religions be heard!

And let all voices in the free world condemn Islam for its institutionalized oppression of women. If that is blasphemy, then so be it.

Where Did All The Weapons Go?

This is a really important piece by Christopher Hitchen at Slate and should be read by all the people who jeeringly and categorically state that Saddam did not have WMD:

It was eye-rubbing to read of the scale of this potential new nightmare. There in cold print was the Al Hatteen "munitions production plant that international inspectors called a complete potential nuclear weapons laboratory." And what of the Al Adwan facility, which "produced equipment used for uranium enrichment, necessary to make some kinds of nuclear weapons"? The overall pattern of the plundered sites was summarized thus, by reporters James Glanz and William J. Broad:

The kinds of machinery at the various sites included equipment that could be used to make missile parts, chemical weapons or centrifuges essential for enriching uranium for atom bombs.

My first question is this: How can it be that, on every page of every other edition for months now, the New York Times has been stating categorically that Iraq harbored no weapons of mass destruction? And there can hardly be a comedy-club third-rater or MoveOn.org activist in the entire country who hasn't stated with sarcastic certainty that the whole WMD fuss was a way of lying the American people into war. So now what? Maybe we should have taken Saddam's propaganda seriously, when his newspaper proudly described Iraq's physicists as "our nuclear mujahideen."

My second question is: What's all this about "looting"? The word is used throughout the long report, but here's what it's used to describe. "In four weeks from mid-April to mid-May of 2003 … teams with flatbed trucks and other heavy equipment moved systematically from site to site. … 'The first wave came for the machines,' Dr Araji said. 'The second wave, cables and cranes.' " Perhaps hedging the bet, the Times authors at this point refer to "organized looting."

But obviously, what we are reading about is a carefully planned military operation. The participants were not panicked or greedy civilians helping themselves—which is the customary definition of a "looter," especially in wartime. They were mechanized and mobile and under orders, and acting in a concerted fashion. Thus, if the story is factually correct—which we have no reason at all to doubt—then Saddam's Iraq was a fairly highly-evolved WMD state, with a contingency plan for further concealment and distribution of the weaponry in case of attack or discovery.


I urge everyone to read the entire article AND the source article in the NY Times, which originally reported the "looting". Especially those who dismiss the possibility that Iraq under Saddam posed any threat.

And yes, I believe Saddam had WMD and/or significan WMD capability and my fear is that those weapons are now somewhere else. My bet is Syria;and I also bet that we will have more evidence and/or confirmation of this soon.

An Illness of the Soul

The Captain has the truth about Cuba's medical care. Is anyone surprised? Castro is a con artist whose lies, distortions, cheating and lack of concern for reality rivals Ward Churchill's (or is it the other way around?).

I grew up during the Cold War. I was assailed with stories about the Soviet Union and its "scientific achievements" and "economic progressiveness". I had the impression that the USSR was a serious rival of the U.S. After all, didn't they launch the first man into space? A remarkable achievement, right?

Some years later, I was sent to the USSR on a NASA trip at the height of the Cold War to meet with some of the researchers at the Institute for Biomedical Problems (IBMP). From the moment I arrived in this people's republic, it was obvious that I was in a 3rd world country. Everything was grungy and dirty. And I mean everything. The sheets at the slummy hotel I was staying at were filthy. I shared a bathroom with two other rooms, both occupied by men. The bathroom was so disgusting that for two days I couldn't bring myself to take a shower (the tub was crusted in dirt and didn't look as if it had been cleaned in years). There were dead bugs on the floor of the room. The radio in the room did not work. The window in the room could not be completely closed (it was November and the outside temperature was about 18 degrees). Did I mention that this was an ELITE hotel for academics visiting the IBMP and other Soviet institutes?

As I wandered around Moscow, the only people I saw were standing in lines to get food. There was one line for bread. One for milk. One for meat. The faces of the people were dull and resigned. Faceless women wrapped in scarves for warmth sluggishly swept the dirt on the sidewalks from one side to the other (I could never figure out why). Above the streets, on the buildings were old banners that proclaimed in Russian "Glory to Soviet Science".

When I tried to buy something in a "tourist" store (under the supervision of several Soviets assigned to me) the clerks (there were four of them, although there were very few people in the store) completely ignored me for the longest time; then when I went to pay they never once spoke to me or looked at me. They kept up a conversation among themselves that seemed to have something to do (as far as I could tell from my limited Russian)with the last time they had bought meat it had been bad.

At the IBMP, scientists I was supposed to confer with on psychological issues in space, spent most of their lecture time talking about the "wonders" of Soviet science. Their papers were peppered with such phrases. In private, when they were sure none of their bosses were listening, they would plead with me to tell them what other researchers were doing in their field. Did I think that their research was interesting or useful? Most places I have travelled in the world to visit scientists, I would be queried at length about my work. But the Soviet scientists were desperate to know what was going on in their fields. They were not permitted to read "outside journals"; there was noone who could review and critique their work, except their immediate colleagues. All too often, the political considerations overrode scientific ones.

Every evening these scientists would quietly apologize to me and others in the group because they had to publicly denouce us as "capitalist liars". Over and over again we were told, "We have to say these things to get along here."

It was an eye-opening experience for me to see up-close how totalitarianism chips away at the human soul and at human dignity; destroying any talent; encouraging mediocrity; crushing independent thought; and eliminating initiative. The evidence of this simple truth was all around me.

Take a close look at the pictures over at Captain's Quarters at the link above. What you are seeing is the world of people who don't care anymore. I saw the same thing in the Soviet Union in the 80's. The stench of hopelessness and mediocrity is unmistakable. These are the symptoms of a slowly disintegrating human soul.

Which is why this is so incredibly appalling. That artists would defend Castro and his oppressive regime is the height of self-delusion and is a betrayal of the human spirit that art expresses.

And if you are inclined to think of Cuba as a "worker's paradise" you might just read this post by an EMT who was at Guantanamo for a while and is now in medical school. Here is some of what he has to say:

We deployed in the vicinity of the fenceline. We met the refugees as they approached, and with weapns in hand, denied them entry to the base. They had managed to traverse a kilometer deep minefield covered by towers with machine guns to get to this point. They had left everything they had ever known in order to get out of there. And we stopped them. We had orders. We had our orders, so we followed them. After enough shouting and threatening, the refugees eventualy gave up and headed back. Back into Cuba. While I was sweating my balls off under the hot sun, these refugees made a mistake. They had gotten through the minefield the first time, but they had not followed in their own footsteps going back. While I was thinking to myself how I wish these people would hurry up and go back so that I could head back to someplace with air-conditioning, one of them stepped on a landmine.

That explosion touched my world.

Then, I witnessed the worst thing I ever saw in my life.

As the dust cloud wafted away from those refugees, nobody ran. Nobody screamed. Nobody said anything.

They just laid down to die in the middle of a minefield that was the sun's anvil.

Think of how badly you would not want to die like that. Think about that real hard. Think about slowly dying of exposure in a minefield. Think about what would make you risk such an outcome. Think about it real hard, and then remember that as bad as that was, it was better than going back.


The apologists of tyranny are again hard at work trying to redeem the one of the last outposts of communist enslavement. They see a "worker's paradise", but underneath the "civilized" veneer of Castro's Cuba is the deadening illness of the soul that infected all the other failed communist and socialist "paradises".

The only cure is Freedom.

Monday, March 14, 2005

He's Definitely In Trouble Deep

But is he gonna keep his baby, Lebanon? Hopefully not.


Posted by Hello

Papa don’t preach, I’m in trouble deep
Papa don’t preach, I’ve been losing sleep
But I made up my mind, I’m keeping my baby, oh
I’m gonna keep my baby, mmm... Madonna

Yet More Probems With Blogger

Briefly, over the weekend, I thought that things had been fixed on Blogger. I was wrong. Today I have wasted several hours of time trying to post several items and it has been completely random which ones got through. THIS IS GETTING INCREASINGLY FRUSTRATING AND WASTING A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MY TIME TO BOOT.

I don't know what to do except to look around at other webhosts. Unfortunately, this gives me great anxiety, since I feel I have only just got a handle on this blogging thing.

I'm not even sure this post will get through. ARGGGGGGGGGG.

Freedom Rally in Lebanon

Check out The Corner for more pictures. This was the largest pro-freedom rally in the history of the Middle East! The Lebanese have taken matters into their own hands now. Let us hope they succeed in reclaiming their freedom.


Anti-Syrian protesters carry Lebanese flags during a rally in Beirut March 14, 2005. Hundreds of thousands of people rallied in central Beirut on Monday in the largest anti-Syrian protest in Lebanon since the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik al-Hariri exactly a month ago.
 Posted by Hello

New Sisyphus:

Totally outdoing Hezbollah's "We Love To Be Occupied" rally last week, the Lebanese people have again taken to the streets in their hundreds of thousands to demand independence, freedom and sovereignty.


Read it all!