Open Wide
A U.S. Army Chinook helicopter Ch-47 assigned to the 2/3 Aviation Group waits for detainees to come aboard in Baghdad, May 28, 2008. U.S. Army Photo by Spc. Richard Del Vecchio.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Things I don't believe
By Paul Greenberg
 | ||
| | ||
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | The day's news continues to deliver a bountiful crop of theories, explanations, analyses, opinions and observations that I don't for a minute believe.
For example:
Raising the tax on capital gains is going to produce more capital. But when you tax something, aren't you bound to make it less, not more, plentiful?
This brilliant idea is as sound as putting a "windfall profits" tax on the oil industry and expecting it to produce more oil.
Didn't we try this with the Carter administration at the tag end of the 1970s? The results were as disappointing as much of the rest of the Carter administration: another bureaucratic maze that did little or nothing to help the consumer and a lot to hurt him.
The windfall profits tax of the Carter years was, however, a dandy way to cap every small well in the country. And reduce production in general. (Why produce more in order to have the profits taxed away?) A tax is a great way to cut down on supply and therefore increase demand and, with it, prices.
(Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, please note.)
Here's another tried and failed idea, or rather assumption: Appeasing dictators — like North Korea's Kim Jong Il — will make them tractable and forthright.
Abandoning the Iraqis will bring peace in our time.
(Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, please note.)
The current economic bump/slowdown/recession will continue indefinitely. But it's no more permanent than the boom that preceded it. Not till the business cycle is outlawed will economic trends go only one way.
Remember how the dot.com boom was the New Paradigm? Before that, the Roaring Twenties were going to be the start of a permanent New Era. Instead, we got the biggest Depression of them all. There is still a tide in the affairs of man, and it goes both in and out.
How about if we wall ourselves off from the world's economic troubles by going back to high tariffs and forgetting free trade? The way the historically high Smoot-Hawley tariffs, imposed during the Hoover administration, guaranteed the prosperity of the 1930s. Right.
The best solution to any economic problem is to lower interest rates even further, print more dollars, and in general inflate the economy.
Economics is an impersonal science in which individual personalities — their innovations and contributions — don't matter.
Politics has nothing to do with culture, and vice versa.
Our basic problems are economic, not cultural.
Ethanol will cure our energy problems without creating others. The law of unintended consequences has been repealed.
Economic reforms will make Communist regimes — like Mainland China and Castro's Cuba — model democracies.
Arms control ended the Cold War, not American determination to win the arms race and confront the Communist threat.
Manners are only superficial.
Abortion is the answer.
Shorter sentences and more paroles will discourage crime.
Leaders don't matter.
Character doesn't tell.
Moral authority isn't essential in a president.
Television is a cultural boon.
The traditional family is outdated.
It takes a village to raise a child. (Actually, it takes a family.) Teachers' unions have improved education.
Religion is the opiate of the masses. (Actually, socialism is.)
Give people bread and circuses, and they'll be satisfied.
The masses, unlike you and me, don't know any better.
Government has the answers. (It may not even have the questions.)
And so unbelievably on. Name your own favorite fallacy.
Friday, May 30, 2008
oops, from yesterday
1765, Patrick Henry denounced the Stamp Act before Virginia's House of
Burgesses. Responding to a cry of "Treason!" Henry declared, "If this be
treason, make the most of it!"
Burgesses. Responding to a cry of "Treason!" Henry declared, "If this be
treason, make the most of it!"
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Subject: pee test
THE JOB - URINE TEST (I sure would like to know who wrote this one! They deserve a HUGE pat on the back!)
I HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB... SO I AGREE 100%. Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no prob lem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their rearend, doing drugs, while I work. . .. . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though .
H/T Jeri H.
THE JOB - URINE TEST (I sure would like to know who wrote this one! They deserve a HUGE pat on the back!)
I HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB... SO I AGREE 100%. Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no prob lem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their rearend, doing drugs, while I work. . .. . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though .
H/T Jeri H.
A friend, who worked away from home all week, always made a special effort with his family on the weekends. Every Sunday morning he would take his 7 year old granddaughter out for a drive in the car for some bonding time, just he and his granddaughter.
One week in particular he came home sick, and on Sunday he was still
battling a bad cold and really didn't feel up to going out for a drive
at all. Luckily, his wife came to the rescue and said that she would
take their granddaughter out.
When they returned, the little girl anxiously ran upstairs to see her
grandfather.
'Well, did you enjoy your ride with grandma?'
'Oh yes, GrandPa' the girl replied, 'and do you know what? We didn't
see a single dumb bastard or lousy shit head anywhere we went today!'
H/T Jeri H.
One week in particular he came home sick, and on Sunday he was still
battling a bad cold and really didn't feel up to going out for a drive
at all. Luckily, his wife came to the rescue and said that she would
take their granddaughter out.
When they returned, the little girl anxiously ran upstairs to see her
grandfather.
'Well, did you enjoy your ride with grandma?'
'Oh yes, GrandPa' the girl replied, 'and do you know what? We didn't
see a single dumb bastard or lousy shit head anywhere we went today!'
H/T Jeri H.
Nuclear Jihad and Conquest of the World! - Muslim Cleric
I saw this and wee'd my bottom, and became Obama supporter.
Hillary’s Obama Assassination Fantasy? By Jerry Bowyer (bio)
This week Hillary gave them what they wanted: she ‘invoked’ (whatever the heck that means) the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. They’ve been waiting for something like this. The blogs have been buzzing for months with what fellow Townhall columnist, Mark Steyn calls, “Obama assassination porn;” that is, detailed fantasies in which Obama is felled by an assassin’s bullet, often in mid-speech.
Messianic political movements always have this kind of stuff, the suffering servant of the people, who lays down his life for them, felled by the military industrial complex, or the CIA or Halliburton or the establishment. Che, Bobby, Jack, Abraham and now Obama.
Never mind that Che was killed because his rival Stalinists in the Bolivian Communist Party left him under-protected, or that Bobby was killed by a Palestinian who saw the Kennedys as too pro-Israel. Jack was murdered by a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Lincoln, of course, was murdered by an actor who felt that the President had appropriated unconstitutional powers under the excuse of war time. In fact, assassination has been far more closely associated with the political Left in American history than the Right. Even FDR was the victim of an attempt by a man who was troubled by income inequality under American capitalism. So was McKinley, but in his case the assassin succeeded.
Obama supporters have been hinting about lack of adequate secret service protection since before the primaries began. The Service denies any the accusations. But since in the eyes of his followers Obama is the next Martin Luther King, and since many on the radical Left believe that King was purposely left unprotected by law enforcement, Obama assassination scenarios have been quite common on the web. Don’t believe me? Google ‘assassinate Obama’ and see for yourself.
Of course, now, after this week’s gaffe, your first couple of hundred references will be about Hillary’s comment. As far as I can tell, she was making the point that primaries are long and uncertain things and that for this reason she should feel free to keep plugging away at the nomination. She used two historical examples, 1968 and 1992. Yes, Bobby got into the primary late, so what? The point is that the primary itself lasted a long time. She said that this example came to mind because Ted’s illness put the Kennedy’s woes top of mind for her. Yes, she mentioned this scenario to Time Magazine before the cancer announcement, so what? She didn’t say that this was the first time she had thought of this point, only that it came out in this case because she had the Kennedy family on her mind.
She was, of course, incredibly stupid. Did she not see how the cyclone of hard Left hatred for her and the hurricane of Obama’s messianic image would combine into a perfect storm of outrage from the Left? Apparently not. Of course, every cloud (and by extension, every perfect storm) has a silver lining. For Obama this gaffe means more Kennedy comparisons. He was already JFK (in style only–Jack’s politics are far to the right of contemporary Dems). Now with Teddy fading and Obama subbing for him in an upcoming college commencement speech, the passing of the torch to a new generation will be theatrically reenacted.
This week Hillary gave them what they wanted: she ‘invoked’ (whatever the heck that means) the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. They’ve been waiting for something like this. The blogs have been buzzing for months with what fellow Townhall columnist, Mark Steyn calls, “Obama assassination porn;” that is, detailed fantasies in which Obama is felled by an assassin’s bullet, often in mid-speech.
Messianic political movements always have this kind of stuff, the suffering servant of the people, who lays down his life for them, felled by the military industrial complex, or the CIA or Halliburton or the establishment. Che, Bobby, Jack, Abraham and now Obama.
Never mind that Che was killed because his rival Stalinists in the Bolivian Communist Party left him under-protected, or that Bobby was killed by a Palestinian who saw the Kennedys as too pro-Israel. Jack was murdered by a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Lincoln, of course, was murdered by an actor who felt that the President had appropriated unconstitutional powers under the excuse of war time. In fact, assassination has been far more closely associated with the political Left in American history than the Right. Even FDR was the victim of an attempt by a man who was troubled by income inequality under American capitalism. So was McKinley, but in his case the assassin succeeded.
Obama supporters have been hinting about lack of adequate secret service protection since before the primaries began. The Service denies any the accusations. But since in the eyes of his followers Obama is the next Martin Luther King, and since many on the radical Left believe that King was purposely left unprotected by law enforcement, Obama assassination scenarios have been quite common on the web. Don’t believe me? Google ‘assassinate Obama’ and see for yourself.
Of course, now, after this week’s gaffe, your first couple of hundred references will be about Hillary’s comment. As far as I can tell, she was making the point that primaries are long and uncertain things and that for this reason she should feel free to keep plugging away at the nomination. She used two historical examples, 1968 and 1992. Yes, Bobby got into the primary late, so what? The point is that the primary itself lasted a long time. She said that this example came to mind because Ted’s illness put the Kennedy’s woes top of mind for her. Yes, she mentioned this scenario to Time Magazine before the cancer announcement, so what? She didn’t say that this was the first time she had thought of this point, only that it came out in this case because she had the Kennedy family on her mind.
She was, of course, incredibly stupid. Did she not see how the cyclone of hard Left hatred for her and the hurricane of Obama’s messianic image would combine into a perfect storm of outrage from the Left? Apparently not. Of course, every cloud (and by extension, every perfect storm) has a silver lining. For Obama this gaffe means more Kennedy comparisons. He was already JFK (in style only–Jack’s politics are far to the right of contemporary Dems). Now with Teddy fading and Obama subbing for him in an upcoming college commencement speech, the passing of the torch to a new generation will be theatrically reenacted.
I'd bet that Exxon or Shell could bring it home
But the democrats would pass a law to protect the future habitat of life on Mars
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Candy Line
A U.S. Marine hands out candy to the children of a local village in the Salah Ad Din province, Iraq, May 18, 2008. The Marines are assigned to 2nd Light Armor Reconnaissance, Task Force Mech, Ground Combat Element, 1st Platoon, Alpha Company, Multi-National Force - West. U.S Marine photo by Sgt. Rome M. Lazarus.
A teacher in Lafayette, Tennessee asked her 6th grade class how many of them were Obama fans.
Not really knowing what an Obama fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little Johnny.
The teacher asked Little Johnny why he has decided to be different…again.
Little Johnny said, ‘Because I’m not an Obama fan.’
The teacher asked, ‘Why aren’t you an Obama fan?’
Johnny said, ‘Because I’m a Republican.’
The teacher asked him why he’s a Republican.
Little Johnny answered, ‘Well, my Mom’s a Republican and my Dad’s a Republican, so I’m a Republican.’
Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, ‘If your mom was a moron and your dad was an idiot, what would that make you?’
With a big smile, Little Johnny replied, *’That would make me an Obama fan.’
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
What is this? Common Sense?
Your car can't run on Congress' hot air
By Mark Steyn
I was watching the Big Oil execs testifying before Congress. That was my first mistake. If memory serves, there was lesbian mud wrestling over on Channel 137, and on the whole that's less rigged. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz knew the routine: "I can't say that there is evidence that you are manipulating the price, but I believe that you probably are. So prove to me that you are not."
Had I been in the hapless oil man's expensive shoes, I'd have answered, "Hey, you first. I can't say that there is evidence that you're sleeping with barnyard animals, but I believe that you probably are. So prove to me that you are not. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence and prima facie evidence, lady? Do I have to file a U.N. complaint in Geneva that the House of Representatives is in breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?"
But that's why I don't get asked to testify before Congress. So instead the Big Oil guy oozed as oleaginous as his product before the grand panjandrums of the House Subcommittee on Televised Posturing, and then they went off and passed 324-82 the so-called NOPEC bill. The NOPEC bill is, in effect, a suit against OPEC, which, if I recall correctly, stands for the Oil Price-Exploiting Club. "No War For Oil!," as the bumper stickers say. But a massive suit for oil — now that's the American way.
"It shall be illegal and a violation of this Act," declared the House of Representatives, "to limit the production or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product ... or to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for oil, natural gas or any petroleum product when such action, combination, or collective action has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market, supply, price or distribution of oil, natural gas or other petroleum product in the United States."
Er, OK. But, before we start suing distant sheikhs in exotic lands for violating the NOPEC act, why don't we start by suing Congress? After all, who "limits the production or distribution of oil" right here in the United States by declaring that there'll be no drilling in the Gulf of Florida or the Arctic National Mosquito Refuge? As Rep. Wasserman Schultz herself told Neil Cavuto on Fox News, "We can't drill our way out of this problem."
Well, maybe not. But maybe we could drill our way back to $3.25 a gallon. More to the point, if the House of Representatives has now declared it "illegal" for the government of Saudi Arabia to restrict oil production, why is it still legal for the government of the United States to restrict oil production? In fact, the government of the United States restricts pretty much every form of energy production other than the bizarre fetish du jour of federally mandated ethanol production.
Nuclear energy?
Whoa, no, remember Three Mile Island? (OK, nobody does, but kids and anyone under late middle age, you can look it up in your grandparents' school books.)
Coal?
Whoa, no, man, there go our carbon credits.
OK, how about if we all go back to the Atchison, Topeka and the Santa Fe, and start criss-crossing the country on wood-fired trains?
Are you nuts? Think of the clear-cutting. We can't have logging in environmentally sensitive areas such as forests.
Rep. Wasserman Schultz believes in "alternative energy," which means not nuclear (like the French) but solar and wind power. At the moment, solar energy accounts for approximately 0.1 percent of U.S. electricity production, most of which is for devices that heat swimming pools. So if there was a tenfold increase in swimming pool construction you might be able to get it up to 1 percent, but the only way all those homeowners would be able to afford to build their new swimming pools is through the kinds of economic activity that depend on oil, gas and other forms of federally prohibited energy.
So, instead, Congress hauls Big Oil execs in for the dinner-theatre version of a Soviet show trial and then passes irrelevant poseur legislation like the NOPEC bill. The NOPEC bill is really the NO PECS bill — a waste of photocopier paper passed by what C.S. Lewis called "men without chests."
The New Yorker ran a big piece the other day called "The Fall Of Conservatism." Indeed. This November isn't going to be pleasant for those of us of a right-wing bent. Many conservative voices in the media say: This is the way it is, get used to it. Voters want the government to "fix" health care and "fix" gas prices and "fix" the environment and, if all you're offering is the virtues of small government, you too sound small — and mean and uncaring about the real issues in real people's real lives. Standing athwart history yelling "Stop!" was a cute line from William F. Buckley, but it's not a practical position for a political party that wishes to stay in business. "The fact of change is the great fact of human life," writes my National Review colleague David Frum in "Comeback," his thoughtful critique of the conservative movement.
Frum is right. Change is a constant. You're a big railroad baron,and things are going swell, and then someone invents the horseless carriage and a big metal bird that holds hundreds of people and you never saw it coming — because you thought you were in the train business rather than in the transportation business. That kind of change is the great exhilarating rhythm of American life.
But government "change," Obama change, NOPEC change is nothing to do with that. In fact, it obstructs real dynamic change. On energy, on environmentalism, on health care, government "change" generally does nothing more than set in motion the next crisis that the next change-peddling pol has to pledge to address.
So we complain about $4-a-gallon gas, and our leaders respond with showboating legislation like NOPEC and feel-good environmental regulatory overkill like putting the polar bear on the endangered-species list, while ensuring that we'll continue to bankroll every radical mosque and madrassah on the planet. In Britain, new "green taxes" do nothing to "save" the planet, but they are estimated to cost the average family about $6,000 a year. That's change you can believe in.
STEYN'S LATEST
It's the end of the world as we know it… Someday soon, you might wake up to the call to prayer from a muezzin. Europeans already are.
And liberals will still tell you that "diversity is our strength"—while Talibanic enforcers cruise Greenwich Village burning books and barber shops, the Supreme Court decides sharia law doesn't violate the "separation of church and state," and the Hollywood Left decides to give up on gay rights in favor of the much safer charms of polygamy.
If you think this can't happen, you haven't been paying attention, as the hilarious, provocative, and brilliant Mark Steyn—the most popular conservative columnist in the English-speaking world—shows to devastating effect in this, his first and eagerly awaited new book on American and global politics.
The future, as Steyn shows, belongs to the fecund and the confident. And the Islamists are both, while the West—wedded to a multiculturalism that undercuts its own confidence, a welfare state that nudges it toward sloth and self-indulgence, and a childlessness that consigns it to oblivion—is looking ever more like the ruins of a civilization.
Europe, laments Steyn, is almost certainly a goner. The future, if the West has one, belongs to America alone—with maybe its cousins in brave Australia. But America can survive, prosper, and defend its freedom only if it continues to believe in itself, in the sturdier virtues of self-reliance (not government), in the centrality of family, and in the conviction that our country really is the world's last best hope.
Steyn argues that, contra the liberal cultural relativists, America should proclaim the obvious: we do have a better government, religion, and culture than our enemies, and we should spread America's influence around the world—for our own sake as well as theirs.
Mark Steyn's America Alone is laugh-out-loud funny—but it will also change the way you look at the world. It is sure to be the most talked-about book of the year.
Via: Jewish World Review
By Mark Steyn
I was watching the Big Oil execs testifying before Congress. That was my first mistake. If memory serves, there was lesbian mud wrestling over on Channel 137, and on the whole that's less rigged. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz knew the routine: "I can't say that there is evidence that you are manipulating the price, but I believe that you probably are. So prove to me that you are not."
Had I been in the hapless oil man's expensive shoes, I'd have answered, "Hey, you first. I can't say that there is evidence that you're sleeping with barnyard animals, but I believe that you probably are. So prove to me that you are not. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence and prima facie evidence, lady? Do I have to file a U.N. complaint in Geneva that the House of Representatives is in breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?"
But that's why I don't get asked to testify before Congress. So instead the Big Oil guy oozed as oleaginous as his product before the grand panjandrums of the House Subcommittee on Televised Posturing, and then they went off and passed 324-82 the so-called NOPEC bill. The NOPEC bill is, in effect, a suit against OPEC, which, if I recall correctly, stands for the Oil Price-Exploiting Club. "No War For Oil!," as the bumper stickers say. But a massive suit for oil — now that's the American way.
"It shall be illegal and a violation of this Act," declared the House of Representatives, "to limit the production or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product ... or to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for oil, natural gas or any petroleum product when such action, combination, or collective action has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market, supply, price or distribution of oil, natural gas or other petroleum product in the United States."
Er, OK. But, before we start suing distant sheikhs in exotic lands for violating the NOPEC act, why don't we start by suing Congress? After all, who "limits the production or distribution of oil" right here in the United States by declaring that there'll be no drilling in the Gulf of Florida or the Arctic National Mosquito Refuge? As Rep. Wasserman Schultz herself told Neil Cavuto on Fox News, "We can't drill our way out of this problem."
Well, maybe not. But maybe we could drill our way back to $3.25 a gallon. More to the point, if the House of Representatives has now declared it "illegal" for the government of Saudi Arabia to restrict oil production, why is it still legal for the government of the United States to restrict oil production? In fact, the government of the United States restricts pretty much every form of energy production other than the bizarre fetish du jour of federally mandated ethanol production.
Nuclear energy?
Whoa, no, remember Three Mile Island? (OK, nobody does, but kids and anyone under late middle age, you can look it up in your grandparents' school books.)
Coal?
Whoa, no, man, there go our carbon credits.
OK, how about if we all go back to the Atchison, Topeka and the Santa Fe, and start criss-crossing the country on wood-fired trains?
Are you nuts? Think of the clear-cutting. We can't have logging in environmentally sensitive areas such as forests.
Rep. Wasserman Schultz believes in "alternative energy," which means not nuclear (like the French) but solar and wind power. At the moment, solar energy accounts for approximately 0.1 percent of U.S. electricity production, most of which is for devices that heat swimming pools. So if there was a tenfold increase in swimming pool construction you might be able to get it up to 1 percent, but the only way all those homeowners would be able to afford to build their new swimming pools is through the kinds of economic activity that depend on oil, gas and other forms of federally prohibited energy.
So, instead, Congress hauls Big Oil execs in for the dinner-theatre version of a Soviet show trial and then passes irrelevant poseur legislation like the NOPEC bill. The NOPEC bill is really the NO PECS bill — a waste of photocopier paper passed by what C.S. Lewis called "men without chests."
The New Yorker ran a big piece the other day called "The Fall Of Conservatism." Indeed. This November isn't going to be pleasant for those of us of a right-wing bent. Many conservative voices in the media say: This is the way it is, get used to it. Voters want the government to "fix" health care and "fix" gas prices and "fix" the environment and, if all you're offering is the virtues of small government, you too sound small — and mean and uncaring about the real issues in real people's real lives. Standing athwart history yelling "Stop!" was a cute line from William F. Buckley, but it's not a practical position for a political party that wishes to stay in business. "The fact of change is the great fact of human life," writes my National Review colleague David Frum in "Comeback," his thoughtful critique of the conservative movement.
Frum is right. Change is a constant. You're a big railroad baron,and things are going swell, and then someone invents the horseless carriage and a big metal bird that holds hundreds of people and you never saw it coming — because you thought you were in the train business rather than in the transportation business. That kind of change is the great exhilarating rhythm of American life.
But government "change," Obama change, NOPEC change is nothing to do with that. In fact, it obstructs real dynamic change. On energy, on environmentalism, on health care, government "change" generally does nothing more than set in motion the next crisis that the next change-peddling pol has to pledge to address.
So we complain about $4-a-gallon gas, and our leaders respond with showboating legislation like NOPEC and feel-good environmental regulatory overkill like putting the polar bear on the endangered-species list, while ensuring that we'll continue to bankroll every radical mosque and madrassah on the planet. In Britain, new "green taxes" do nothing to "save" the planet, but they are estimated to cost the average family about $6,000 a year. That's change you can believe in.
STEYN'S LATEST
It's the end of the world as we know it… Someday soon, you might wake up to the call to prayer from a muezzin. Europeans already are.
And liberals will still tell you that "diversity is our strength"—while Talibanic enforcers cruise Greenwich Village burning books and barber shops, the Supreme Court decides sharia law doesn't violate the "separation of church and state," and the Hollywood Left decides to give up on gay rights in favor of the much safer charms of polygamy.
If you think this can't happen, you haven't been paying attention, as the hilarious, provocative, and brilliant Mark Steyn—the most popular conservative columnist in the English-speaking world—shows to devastating effect in this, his first and eagerly awaited new book on American and global politics.
The future, as Steyn shows, belongs to the fecund and the confident. And the Islamists are both, while the West—wedded to a multiculturalism that undercuts its own confidence, a welfare state that nudges it toward sloth and self-indulgence, and a childlessness that consigns it to oblivion—is looking ever more like the ruins of a civilization.
Europe, laments Steyn, is almost certainly a goner. The future, if the West has one, belongs to America alone—with maybe its cousins in brave Australia. But America can survive, prosper, and defend its freedom only if it continues to believe in itself, in the sturdier virtues of self-reliance (not government), in the centrality of family, and in the conviction that our country really is the world's last best hope.
Steyn argues that, contra the liberal cultural relativists, America should proclaim the obvious: we do have a better government, religion, and culture than our enemies, and we should spread America's influence around the world—for our own sake as well as theirs.
Mark Steyn's America Alone is laugh-out-loud funny—but it will also change the way you look at the world. It is sure to be the most talked-about book of the year.
Via: Jewish World Review
My friend at Liberty Peak lives in my state, why didn' t he say so
Mattawa (Matta Wa), WA
After a Civil Rights Act complaint filed by a legal aid group, the Justice Department worked with the city and its police department to develop a language-assistance plan.
Adopted in March, the plan is unique in Washington and is seen as a bellwether for cities with similar demographics. The plan requires Mattawa to employ at least one bilingual employee during regular business hours and to make vital information available in Spanish as well as English. It also requires police to have qualified interpreters on call at all times.
Liberty Peak
Step by Step
Lance Cpl. Fix, 21, a scout team leader from Cleveland, Ohio, with Delta Company, 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, Regimental Combat Team 5, runs down a set of stairs followed by Pfc. Bradley R. Clifton, 18, a scout from Frankfort, Ky., with Delta Company, during a patrol through western Al Anbar province, May 18, 2008. Photo by Cpl. Ryan Tomlinson, Regimental Combat Team-5, 1st Marine Division Public Affairs.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Sunday, May 25, 2008
US Ambassador: Al-Qaeda Close to Defeat in Iraq
BAGHDAD, (AP) - The U.S. ambassador to Iraq said Saturday that al-Qaeda's network in the country has never been closer to defeat, and he praised Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for his moves to rein in Shiite and Sunni militant groups.
Ryan Crocker's comments came as Iraqi forces have been conducting crackdowns on al-Qaeda militants in the northern city of Mosul and on Shiite militiamen in the southern city of Basra. Thousands of Iraqi forces also moved into the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad last week imposing control for the first time in years.
But truces with the powerful Mahdi Army militia that have calmed violence in Basra and paved the way for the Sadr City deployment have been strained in the past two days.
China Aftershock
CHENGDU, China — One of the most powerful aftershocks to hit quake-ravaged central China killed a person, left dozens more injured and leveled many more homes Sunday, as soldiers carrying explosives hiked to a blocked-off river to alleviate the threat of floods.
Some 260 people were injured in the aftershock Sunday afternoon, the government-run China News Service said, with 24 in serious condition. The agency said many homes had collapsed and roads were damaged, but gave no specific figures.
The magnitude 5.8 aftershock was among the most powerful recorded since the initial May 12 quake, the U.S. Geological Survey said. The China National Seismic Network, which uses a different measurement system, said the aftershock was the strongest of dozens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)