Suspicious minds

It all sounds very conspiratorial. Do we believe Occam's razor? Or another possiblity?

I'm not accusing. I'm just wondering.

Heroes

We often forget how much we need them, but today we remember that without them, we may never have had the freedom to forget. Who else is there to serve and protect, to possess such mysterious strength; a power of selflessness?

Use or Abuse? America vs. Jihad.

{Originally posted 5/13/09 - revised and reposted 5/23/09}

There's been a lot of chatter lately about waterboarding and whether or not it is torture. Not a lot of people seem to be asking themselves why that question matters. Rather than follow those tangents, let's try to ask a more important question: Is torture necessarily a bad thing? Even if waterboarding can be considered torture, so what? Does that mean it isn't useful or right?

First, I'd like to preface this with what seems an obvious oversight. Contrast our society with that of any society breeding hatred for the US. Although it may often seem counterproductive and illogical on our part, at least we debate whether or not torture should occur and give credence to the inalienable rights of all human beings, even if they are despicable. That's much more than can be said of the society in which Muslim extremists slaughter men like Daniel Pearl and videotape his severed head for the media. The fact that we do not automatically offer retribution of the same likeness is a miracle in itself and a testament to our society's inert peacefulness. Our goal is not vengeance but defense (including a strong preventative offense if necessary). Our aim is not torture for torture's sake.

When considering torture, one might be tempted to immediately think all torture is bad because it is mistreatment of another human life. "Turn the other cheek", you would easily quote. "Do unto others...", you continue. Ironically, the liberals that say America should never torture are appealing to a sense of morality whether they'd like to think so or not. But how do they reconcile that with letting terrorists off easy to continue to threaten and kill Americans and others without recourse? Instead, the best that liberal policy-makers and media can do is link waterboarding to a negative sounding word: "torture". For all their blathering, I have yet to hear a coherent argument against all torture. Regardless of what Yoko Ono tells us, to think peace, love, and daisies in the armchairs of our homes has likely never kept an innocent man alive against the evil acts of evil or confused men.

Christianity does propose love, fairness, and peace. But it also proposes justice. Justice without love or fairness is what you get from the extremist Muslim that tortures and kills a man just to make a statement. In America, we write, or build, or do something creative to make statements. Ideally, we prefer to produce things of value rather than reduce ourselves to mindless animals following power-hungry leaders for the few worthless scraps of what's left to us. That is, except for liberals. Maybe that's why they feel sorry for the terrorists out there; because they share so much in common. At best, the jihadi believes he is performing some act of justice. More likely, he is simply confused and selfish, willing to do anything for the sense of importance he gains from following a cause, even if that cause is a purposeless and mistaken one. At worst, he is purely evil.

American justice can be defined as creating safety for its people. The concept exists to provide freedom. Many have died to preserve it, and their loved ones know the true cost. Soldiers who realize the importance of freedom have sacrificed their lives, limbs, and leisure so that others might enjoy theirs. For our government to provide our nation's enemies with more rights than its soldiers is unconscionable. We walk a tightrope of fairness and stupidity. Fairness is important. But when a 9/11 can be prevented by torturing a guilty man, and you allow him to plot and keep his secrets...where is the fairness in that?

So I leave you with this, terrorists and haters of America: Run. Run until your legs give way, and you fall on your faces. Regardless of what our government does or says, we will never bow to you. We will always outfight you, outlearn you, and outlast you. Ours is a nation of great imagination and diversity. Yours is enslaved by a one-sided education. Rather than learning from history, you are blinded and weighed down by it. We share belief in one true God, and our religions spawned from the same region of earth. We are willing to find common ground but never in slavery or fear. Most Americans would agree that we are happy to let you keep your freedom as long as you are happy to let us keep ours. But that isn't enough for you, is it? You can never win because, unlike you, we truly know the importance of what we are fighting for. You, who will sacrifice innocent men, women, and children, can never know the true purpose of your war because it is based on serving causes made by men and not by God. We fear you occasionally but will defeat you indefinitely. Generations will rise within you one day that will believe in true peace with America and not your jealous hatred or your need for control. That day will come, and you will lose to the truth. You too will be attacked from within. May the Lord we both claim to serve have mercy on you.

Cheney, Unchained

Text of Dick Cheney's speech today to the American Enterprise Institute. It covers terrorists, torture, and national security. It's an excellent read.

The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences – and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Reminder:

(h/t Gizmodo.com)

And you smell like one too...

Is it the sought after missing link, a hyped up fossil, or a paparazzi photo of Nancy Pelosi walking by the night-light near her window?

The Audacity of Hope meets The Irony of Life

While listening to his speech on the radio, one couldn't help but notice the sound of a baby crying during some softsoap regarding abortion. The sound ran through Obama's Notre Dame speech like a thin red line of truth amidst his casual moral equivalency philosophy.

Eating their Own

This just in...Gingrich on Hannity show today speaking about Pelosi's judgement (or lack thereof):


Are the tides of hypocrisy turning? Even a liberal media seems to be catching on.


Then, from a while back...

Nothing to do with it

Logic has nothing to do with it.
Economics has nothing to do with it.
Political ideology has nothing to do with it.
The Constitution has nothing to do with it.
Tradition has nothing to do with it.
Moral grounding has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

It's power, and a willingness to do literally whatever it takes to get and keep it, and consequences to others be damned. "Whatever it takes" includes making promises you never intend to keep, changing stances on issues at a whim, distracting attention from the real story, ridding yourself of inconvenient allies (or appearing to do so), and using threats to silence enemies.

A fearsome enemy. A dangerous philosophy.

Hey! Teacher! Leave Them Banks Alone!

The WSJ:

The Obama administration has begun serious talks about how it can change compensation practices across the financial-services industry, including at companies that did not receive federal bailout money, according to people familiar with the matter.

headdesk headdesk headdesk.
It's not your business! Stay the hell out! Go! Shoo!

Repeat this after me: ANY employee's financial compensation at ANY private business is not the affair of the federal (or any other) government. It is between the board of directors, the management, and shareholders of the company. That's. It.

Government officials said their effort, which is just beginning, isn't aimed at setting pay or establishing detailed rules. "This is not going to be about capping compensation or micro-management," said an administration official. "It will be about understanding what is the best way to align compensation with sound risk management and long-term value creation."

I call BS. Sound risk management practices and long-term value creation are the purview of management and the board. That's. It. The government is never, ever, ever involved in creating "long-term value" of a private business. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Is this really a surprise to anyone?

Hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. Not that that's any consolation.
Here we have yet another proponent of nationalized health care taking the single-payer health care system's cost/benefit analysis to its logical conclusion. To wit: the elderly won't be around long enough to repay the system for the inordinate amount of resources expended on extending their lives. Therefore, NO SOUP FOR YOU.

Where is the AARP on this issue? I thought Boomers, et al were supposed to be the greatest voting bloc ever! Why is there no outrage about this? Because it's too hard to imagine? Is it willful blindness? Because it's too many years down the road? Just because someone says NOW "no, that's not going to happen" doesn't mean it won't happen AT SOME POINT. It's the logical conclusion.

A side question: it's almost a given that medical tourism will rise if/when this happens. But what's the chances a parallel "underground" health system will arise in America? A "black market" in health care, so to speak - and I'm not talking about alternative medicines and marijuana here. I have no idea. The thought just occurred to me.

This is not what we signed up for

Our old friend Victor Davis Hanson on why Republicans lost their appeal:

The real cause of unhappiness with the Republicans was simply that they could not make a convincing case for conservatism to a changing electorate because so many of them were not acting as conservatives.
...
Conservatism is the political belief that best mirrors human nature across time and space; but because its precepts are sometimes tragic and demand responsibility rather than ever-expanding rights, it requires adept communicators — not triangulators and appeasers whose pleasure is only for the moment.

In summary, it's not conservatism that's out of political favor. It's that Republicans couldn't/wouldn't/didn't hold to those conservative and classical liberal precepts. Therefore, they were not good spokesmen for conservatism. When a charismatic figure speaking for the Left arises, it's not hard to understand why Republicans lost. Now, we'll see if the status quo holds in 2010 (and 2012).

The Only Choice

Link-heavy post over at Protein Wisdom on the coming nationalization (bastardization is a better word) of the American health care system. We've already talked here about the nationalized systems of Canada, Britain, and France, and how nationalization leads to rationing, which leads to picking winners (young and healthy taxpayers) and losers (the elderly and chronically ill). No one wants to admit this is going to happen. And, as always, it's marketed by Dems and others as "a moral right to quality health care" with bunnies and flowers and unicorns!
I was having a conversation with someone this past weekend. We were discussing the powers of the federal government vs. state and local governments. He said he thought state and local governments had too much power (speaking specifically of high property taxes and eminent domain laws). I said, at least you can leave a city or state if you don't like the way things are run. It's infinitely harder to leave the United State of America if you don't like the way it's being run.
You just have to deal with it, you try to change people's opinions, you try to get your guy voted in next time.
I used to want to live in Australia or Britain someday, but they are both further along the nanny-state path than we are - although we're running hard to catch up.

Levin on Courts, Conservatism, & History

Click here to listen or download the May 1 radio show. Interesting stuff.

See video interview below:

Forgetting Yet?

[Caption reads: 2,974 reasons for supporting "Enhanced Interrogation".]

Here is some old news that you probably didn't see. This man, a Polish geologist, was reportedly beheaded after this interview. Don't worry, no violence is shown in this video. I'll always make it a point to try and warn you first.


I recommend the following video documentary from HBO called "The Journalist and the Jihadi" about the fascinating and contrasting lives of Daniel Pearl and Omar Sheikh. Pearl was a journalist for the Wall Street Journal. You may remember hearing about him from the news soon after he was beheaded by terrorists in 2002. After watching these videos, are you going to tell me that this war is simply between soldiers or even just between governments? Are you still will to believe that this violence is diserved because of something America has done?

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11
Part 12
Part 13
Part 14
Part 15