America is not Saudi Arabia

We are different than most parts of the world. We are humane and decent in our treatment of prisoners who are terrorists NOT prisoners of war as understood under the Geneva Convention. Abu Graib was an anomoly not a norm. The Church report gives evidence that our interrogators are scared more of being victims of political correctness, than of being victims of terrorism, which is why they are "clamping up". At least that's how I'm interpreting their actions. When women interrogators using their femininity to psychologically confuse and disorient terrorists is considered "torture", then you know the West has been castrated by political correctness.

What's that you say, the Lebanese Love America?

As reported by Claudia Rosset in Lebanon during the LARGEST pro-democracy rally EVER in the Middle East. Let those words sink in....the largest in Middle East HISTORY:

In Beirut yesterday, it was clear that message has been heard. Unlike the Hezbollah demonstrators with their chants of "Death to America," many in the crowd were friendly to Americans. "Thank's Free World," (sic) said one poster, held high by a woman in a bright red jacket, Rawya Okal, who told me: "We thank Mr. Bush for his position." Overhearing this in the throng, a middle-aged man in a green baseball cap, Louis Nahanna, leaned over to say, "We love the American people" - adding, "Please don't let Bush forget us. Your support is very important."

Asking more people what they thought of Americans turned up the same refrain. From a young driver, Fadi Mrad, came the message: "We want to change. We need freedom. Please don't let Bush forget us." From a group of young men came not only the message "Our hope is America," and "We believe in democracy in the Middle East," but also praise for Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. There was also an invitation from one of them, young Edgard Baradhy, for his heroine, Ms. Rice, to come to Beirut "and I am ready to take her for coffee."

America cannot waste this opportunity to pressure Syria to end their occupation of Lebanon. Look what true lovers of democracy and freedom have done to help the Lebanese regain their sovereignty. Perhaps Bush should push aside all the leftists for a Free Tibet and take a whack at ending the Chinese occupation of that country. I'm sure he could accomplish more in a month then the leftists could do with a lifetime supply of bumper stickers.

Have you had your Lileks today?

I read the man every day with my morning cup of tea. Sample a bit of his writing:

That’s what William Wallace shouted to rouse the troops. I’m not quite sure what it means – it’s one of those sentiments that falls apart when you interrogate it too closely, but on the other hand it makes sense, somehow. Except that you would be dead, but free. But Free! But dead. On the other hand, if you quibble about such things, you live in a society where Quibbling is the main intellectual activity, because the real struggles of life took place before you came along, and you’ve inherited peace and stability and freedom, and define “tyranny” as the actions of a town council that votes to ban body-piercing parlors within 1000 feet of an elementary school. Fargin’ fascists, man.

There's more:

And what of Syria then? Assad has been taking pains to assure the world he is not Saddam – which might well mean he’s a dead man. Saddam would have purged things to his liking long ago. Assad, I suspect, may well suffer at the hands of the people in his government who are stronger and more serious. The sort of guys who flip between pictures of him and his dad and ask the old eye-doctor question: Better? Worse? Better? Worse? How about now?

If I could rip off the writing styles of three people they would be James Lileks, Jonah Goldberg, and Mark Steyn. Do your civic duty and check them out.

"God is a Person, Not a Pudding"

So said Peter Kreeft my favorite teacher of philosophy. He's erudite yet accessible; serious yet witty. The above quote is from his article "The Divinity of Christ" found under Arguments for God's Existence. Kreeft is also a Christian apologist who uses logic and philosophy to argue for the Christian faith. If it's logic you're interested in (and really, all of us should be if we're at all interested in the truth), check out his book Socratic Logic. It's extensive without being overwhelming.

UGH.

Could the LA Mayoral race have been more uninspired and lacklustre? LA needs a Rudy Guilliani, someone with charisma, smarts, and VISION. On to the May runoff between Hahn and Villaraigosa. Now I have to decide IF I will vote. If I vote, it has to be for Hahn since Villaraigosa is a snake. I don't get the sense that Villaraigosa loves America or even California as much as he loves what America /California has done for him politically. He strikes me as one who would jump at the chance to annex California to Mexico. As a member of MECHA, it must have been a dream of his. Without the huge Latino population /illegal immigrants would there even be a Villaraigosa? Probably not. Which suggests to me that his loyalties lie south of the border.

Al Gore Was Right...sorta.

The answer to Social Security reform IS a lockbox. A lockbox in the form of a Personal Retirement Account. Donald Luskin of NRO sums it up nicely:

The fact is that personal accounts are nothing less than a Social Security lockbox. Yes, a lockbox — what Al Gore went on and on about in the 2000 election.
It’s obvious when you think about it. When your payroll tax dollars go into your own personal account — which you can invest in private markets, and in which you have heritable property rights — that account is a lockbox. Government can’t spend the money in there, because it’s yours, and you’ve invested it. (emphasis mine)

Under the current system, some of your tax dollars pay for the benefits of today’s retirees. Whatever’s left over goes into the Social Security Trust Funds, which use the money to buy Treasury bonds. That means, effectively, that the Trust Funds get an IOU from the general fund of the government — and the government gets to spend the money.

Sure, as the Left always points out, those IOUs are legitimate moral claims on the government, just like any Treasury bond. But they don’t represent actual savings — because the government spends the money the moment it receives the money. When it comes time to redeem the bonds in the Trust Funds to pay benefits, the government will have to either tax or borrow to raise the needed money.

To me, the most important point is that the Government cannot spend the money you put into your Personal Retirement Account. That's all I need to hear to know I want Social Security changed now. Read the rest of Luskin's argument here.

Left on the Wrong Side of History

The Left has been on the wrong side of history for at least half of the twentieth century and all of the twenty-first. They were wrong about Vietnam, wrong about central America, wrong about the Soviet Union, and wrong about the Middle East. They couldn't bring themselves to call Communism or Islamism evil like Reagan and Bush had the moral clarity to do. As such, they have zero credibility on the freedom, liberty, and democracy issues. As Mark Steyn says:

I hope if ever I find myself one of the unfortunate subjects of a totalitarian dictatorship, that it’s Bush and the Republicans who take up my cause rather than the Left.

Hear, Hear!

Who for Mayor?

Yup, I'm still so very not impressed with any of the candidates. I did get a message from Tony Strickland (propane and propane assecories) urging me NOT to vote for Hertzberg since he's just a "partisan Democrat pandering to get Republican votes". Thanks for the update Tony. Hertzberg has been stricken from the list. Who does that leave? Ah yes, Villaraigosa. No way, no how am I ever voting for a man who once was (and is?) a member of the racist organization MECHA. He wants illegal immigrants to have more rights than honest citizens. Villaraigosa is a socialist at heart who wants to solve problems through government mandates. His own constituents are trying to recall him as their councilman since he reneged on a promise, a promise that got him elected in the first place. The promise? He said he wouldn't run for mayor, but would complete all four years of his councilman duties. If the man cannot keep a promise over which he has complete control to accomplish; a promise that simply requires character to fulfill (i.e. he's a man of his word), then why should we trust him to keep any of the promises he's spouting now as a mayoral candidate? If he can't handle the most basic and ethical promise of keeping his word to his constituents, then I don't trust him to keep any other promise that may be more difficult to accomplish. The "V" in Villaraigosa stands for vile.

Can You Believe It?!

I just read the following in the Corner on National Review Online. More good news regarding the Middle East and Lebanon in particular. You know its bad for Syria when both Egypt and Saudia Arabia are pressuring them to get out of Dodge. When was the last time you read about Arabs urging other Arabs to do the right thing!

IRAQ, ETC. [Rich Lowry]
Just talked to someone in-the-know about administration Middle East policy. I took a quick tour of the region with him. He warned against giddiness, but says things are definitely heading in the right direction.
He says attacks against Americans in Iraq are ebbing near an all-time low since the insurgency really got going. Attacks against Iraqis, of course, continue unabated. But the public seems to be turning increasingly against the insurgency, especially in Baghdad, partly under the influence of a nightly anti-insurgency television program. We're locking up more of the bad guys, which means we need more prisons (something we should have taken care of a long time ago). Overall we seem to be at--to use a terrible cliche--a potential “tipping point” in Iraq. The elections changed the entire atmosphere, although if the process of choosing a prime minister goes on much longer it will begin to test the patience of the Iraqi public and squander good will.
In Afghanistan, Taliban attacks on both Americans and the government have hit an all-time low.
Of course, events in Lebanon have been stunning. The administration is using every possible lever against the Syrians--pushing them in a serious, serious way. That the Saudis have gotten on board is a sign that they know which way the tide is headed and that it is no longer sustainable to look the other way over an Arab country's occupation of another Arab country. There has been a useful convergence of interests between the US and France over Syria, prompted by Chirac's personal relationship with Hariri and outrage at his assassination.
On Iran, the administration seems to be coming to the conclusion that the EU3 approach will fail one way or another, so it is better if the US is part of the process so it can't be conveninetly blamed when it doesn't work. We may see the administration dangling some carrots Tehran's way. If (when) this doesn't work, perhaps we will apply the lesson we are learning with Syria--pressure works.
In general, people shouldn't be unrealistic. There will still be plenty of bad news in the future. But the tectonic plates have shifted in the Middle East the last few weeks and there's no pushing them back.
Posted at 08:50 PM

If you're not reading National Review regardless of your political persuasion, you should be. They've been the heart, mind, and soul of the conservative movement since William F. Buckeley started the magazine back in the day. Check it out NOW! Go already....

Voting Update

Ok so I was wrong about the Republican voter guide. I was wrong to doubt. When I expressed my incredulity to Steve that the Republican party endorsed Parks, he dryly noted that the piece of literature in question was probably sent out by Parks' campaign. He was right. A slick ad with Republican endorsements suckered me.

More info on Egypt

Read this article for more information about the pro-democracy forces happening in Egypt. I cannot wait to read the history books regarding what's happening in the Middle East today. Who will get it right?

Confused Voter

Back to the LA Mayoral race. So I'm thinking about who I should vote for. I ask my friends and none of them know what to do either. What's a Republican to do? Well, according to the Republican voting guide that just came in the mail, they say I should be voting for Parks. What?! My concern is that Parks will attempt to remove Bratton as Chief of Police if he's elected and that would be bad for LA. Thus, the question is, how much do pride and ego control Parks? 'Cause if he becomes Mayor wouldn't he be obliged to can Bratton to save face? Or could he play the bigger wiser man and acknowledge the gains Bratton has made in fighting crime? My other concern is that Parks has only focused on issues that effect his black constituents. What does he have to say to the rest of us? What's his big picture view of the problems and opportunities for LA? What vision does he have that can inspire a cross section of LA populace? I'm still searching for the answers.

Exciting Times Part II

President Bush's resolve to bring down Saddam Hussein has led to exciting changes in the Middle East. For the first time in years, people in Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, and even Syria (!) are protesting FOR democratic reforms with positive results. This ain't your mama's Middle East! Hopefully Iran will be next through the peaceful demonstrations and protests of the huge student movement. Even the Palestinians are acting more responsibly at news of the suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. You'd think we entered the Twilight Zone. All of us were getting far too comfortable with the status quo thinking that the Middle East could only be "contained" but not reformed. Granted we're in the early stages yet, but hopefully these sparks will start a flame of freedom that cannot be extinguished. Michael Ledeen of National Review has an excellent article summing up the revolutionary fervor that has spread and is spreading throughout the world

Iraq
The Iraqis are protesting the terrorists and in doing so they're taking ownership of their own safety.

Lebanon
Lebanon asserts their right to sovereignty and protests the Syrian occupation of their country. Assad may even comply and pull out his troops! Following is the sentiment of a Druze leader long a critic of the US, as reported by David Ignatius:,

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

For more info about exciting times in Lebanon check out the Muslim American Society.

Egypt
Protests in Egypt forced Mubarak to change the constitution to allow other candidates to run against him in the next election. Condi Rice played a huge role in encouraging the protestors by cancelling her visit to Mubarak after he arrested a dissident political voice.

Syria
After witnessing the effects of the protesting in Lebanon, intellectuals and dissidents are attempting to protest the tyrannical government of Assad.


Palestine
Remember all the dancing in the streets whenever Israelis were killed by suicide bombers? Not this time. They want the truce to hold between them and Israel so they're not real happy about the lastest suicide bombing in Tel Aviv.

Iran
Students will bring down the mullahs in favor of democracy.

Why is America so slow to reform Social Security?

Social Security has to be reformed. There are no other options except reform. The status quo will lead to a full collapse of the system. I'm surprised (not really) at how vehement Democrats (and even some Republicans) get about the possibility of change to the system. Their only "solution" is Gore's, leave the money in a lock box. If that's the solution, why haven't they done it before now? Because they know that should a pet project come up that will make them look good to to their constituents they will be the first to grab the money "saved" for retirement. For a political party made up of the baby boomers who spent their youth squawking about how the government can't be trusted, how can they then, with a straight face, tell us that placing our social security tax into a general fund that can be raided by the government is the best thing for us? Do they think we're stupid? Who really thinks the government knows best about how to INVEST or SAVE for retirement? Given the choice of putting my money into a personal retirement account that is mine alone and that I can then pass onto my children OR putting it into a pool of money that the government then uses for other pet projects and says I can't will to my next of kin if I die before retirement, why would I EVER want to choose option two, complete government control of my retirement fund? When is the government more efficient than the free market ESPECIALLY when it comes to investing? Not only that, but America is BEHIND the rest of the world on this. I read the following at the National Center for Policy Analysis:

Currently, some 80 million workers in 20 countries have access to personal retirement accounts. These countries include Chile, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Mexico, Uruguay, Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Poland, Latvia, Sweden, Hong Kong, El Salvador and Croatia (roughly in the order in which they adopted the plans).
Macedonia, the Dominican Republic, Kosovo and even China have passed reform laws, which they are now in the process of implementing. Other countries are moving in that direction. Interestingly, the United States is not yet on this list.

Exactly. The US is not on the list. Why are we behind BOLIVIA in getting PRA's?

If the liberals really want us to keep Social Security the way it is, then they need to reverse themselves on the abortion issue. You can't advocate for the current social security system, but then allow women to kill the generations needed to keep the system afloat.

Social Security was supposedly to help people have money for their retirement. It was a reaction against the depression. Now that we've entered the 21st Century, let's all admit that we've come a long, long way in understanding investing since the reign of FDR. The government will screw all us future retirees for the short term benefits OUR money will give them with their constituents. MY money will not be there for me if I have to retire on social security. The government isn't accountable for all the money they've taken so far through social security taxes. Who do I complain to and demand satisfaction from when I reach 65 or 70 and want to retire, but can't 'cause I've been robbed blind by Big Daddy Govmint who supposedly had my best interests at heart. Social Security is a big slap in the face to any reasonably sane and responsible person since it assumes we're too stupid to know how to save for our own retirements. Why not hand over all major life responsiblities that require vision and planning to the government? Why stop at retirement? I'm sure the government knows me better than I know myself. That sounds like government thinks its God. Oh wait, that's exactly what the lefty liberals DO think about government. They love playing God and that's their crack.

Vaclav Havel Supports Cuban Dissidents

Vaclav Havel supports Cuban dissidents. Does the liberal left? Probably not. The American left is more interested in using Castro as a stick to beat America with than in using their liberty to end a tyrannous regime that jails dissidents who would like the freedom to protest but can do so only with the threat of arrest and the gulag. I'm on the side of Havel. If you had to choose between the panderings of Chirac and Schroeder who haven't met a dictator they didn't want to appease, or a courageous one time imprisoned dissident of a brutal communist regime who then played a massive role in overthrowing through peaceful means that oppressive government, who would you listen to? Havel every time. You listen to Havel because he knows oppression. You listen to Havel because he knows brutality. You listen to Havel because he knows evil. And you listen to Havel because he speaks the sweet sweet words of truth, freedom and liberty to the pampered bureaucrats of the EU to shame them. How sad that the countries of Old Europe who once believed in freedom have to be shamed into doing what's right by the New Europe. Havel is my hero.

George W. Bush's Speech in Slovakia

This speech made me cry. I'm a sucker for heroic people. I'm a sucker for people who have suffered, and yet overcome. I'm a sucker for great and noble causes that call for courage and sacrifice. I'm a sucker for oppressed people who know that some things are worth dying for. What an honor it is to have the Slovakian people, a people who know what it means to fight for truth, as our ally. My hope is that Slovakia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Estonia and all the other countries who freed themselves from the chains of communism will be beacons of light during the coming dark ages of Old Europe. My hope is that New Europe will not succumb to the philosophies that have crippled the mental and moral faculties of Old Europe. How ironic it will be when Old Europe is enslaved by radical Islamists using the weapons of multiculturism and pluralism to deal the death blow, all while the Middle East experiences a democratic revolution.

Rotten Apples

In choosing a candidate for LA Mayor we're simply choosing the least rotten apple from an entire basket of rotten apples. I'm registered Republican, but I may be voting Democrat this election given the options. This is the first time in my voting history that I have ever even considered punching the chad for a Democrat. I'm tempted to ignore the whole race and just not vote, but the thought of a possible Villaraigosa win sickens me. Too bad we can't check off all the people we don't want to win and then let the leftovers duke it out. I can easily identify those I absolutely without hesistation do not want to win, but I'm having a difficult time determining who should win. They're all political wankers with no real passion or vision for this great city.

Bernard Parks

Bernard Parks is next up on the docket for mayoral consideration. I can honestly say he's a distinguished looking man. If Hollywood were making a movie about an LA mayor, he could play the part 'cause he looks so good. But that's the problem with Parks, he can only play the part if someone else is feeding him all the good lines. There's nothing in Parks professional history, especially as head of the LAPD, that distinguishes him as a leader. In fact, he made a complete mess of the LAPD and now he wants to focus his "strengths" on the city? Uh, please no. Although this article by City Beat tries to show he has turned himself into a model pol since he was fired as police chief. His run for mayor is a personal vendetta against Hahn for having him replaced as Chief of Police with William Bratton. Politics is much too personal for Parks. So ixnay on arkspay.

Voting Guide for LA Mayor

I have no idea who any of the mayoral candidates are other than Hahn, Villairagosa, and Parks. So this is an uninformed guide to voting based on the one minute video clips KCAL 9 News is doing each evening for those candidates who cannot afford a TV ad and on first impressions from the very brief description given of them in the voter guides put out by the city.

First up is Wendy Lyons. She's a meatpacker and is registered with the Socialist Workers Party. That should be enough information to make a very informed "no" decision. The gist of what she said in her one minute TV clip was that she will work hard to make the streets safer for criminals and illegal aliens and do everything she can to jail cops. She wants to make LA a city of crime and protest. Oh, and she wants to bring back the troops from Iraq. So not only is she wiggedty wiggedty whacked on local policy, her larger agenda is irrelevant to LA politics. YEAH! She didn't exude much authority or presence of mind when she couldn't manage to memorize a one minute speech. She kept looking at her notes and "umming" her way from one bullet point to the next. Her ideas (if you can call them that) were not complex so the fact she couldn't remember them doesn't bode well for a future Mayor. Also, if she couldn't persuade any of the many millionaires in Los Angeles to give money to her campaign for an actual TV ad, how is she going to persuade key players to cooperate with her "agenda" for the city? Is she just trying to gain street creds to run for a foreman (forewoman?) position at the local meatpacking plant? Lyons promises, if elected, to create "a massive federally funded public works program to put millions to work at union wages building housing, schools, mass transit, hospitals." To sum up, Wendy Lyons is a joke.

I'm not a Philistine!

I want it to be known that I do appreciate and enjoy art, a lot of art. I'm not a complete philistine just because I don't like conceptual art. I love the work of Andy Goldsworthy. I'm amazed at what he can create using only the effects of nature as both content and tools. One of my all time favorite pieces is the tree stump encircled with icicles (what a lovely word icicle is. When you start to spell it out the sounds describe what it is: i-c-i-c...!). Another artist who fascinates me is Sophie Calle. I don't know if she's considered a conceptual or performance artist (both forms that don't appeal to me much) or something completely different, but I like what she does. Probably because I feel an affinity to her desire to snoop, investigate, and generally pry into strangers' lives. She appeals to the voyeur in me. However, if she did to me what she does to her subjects, I'd be quite angry at the invasion of privacy. I think of her as a guilty pleasure.