Thou Shalt Be Green

Time was, Americans could banally say “the conservatives” were the base of the major conservative party (i.e. the party that conserves classical liberal ideas). Today that party’s base is supposedly “the religious right,” and Newsweek was not alone in warning of “A Religious-Right Revival” last September upon Palin’s ascendancy into the GOP clerisy.

But if “the religious right” is the conservative GOP’s base, then the conservative GOP is no longer conservative. For religion is not a conservative value. In fact, to the extent that it prefers faith over reason, central authority over the individual, and the idealistic construction of a better world, it is a liberal value. With its unreasonable and unnatural moral standards and doctrines of infallibility, religion offers liberals a pretext for replacing the limited, natural rights basis of conservative government.

The prophet of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville (“peace be upon him,” as Muslims superstitiously demand upon mention of their less lettered prophet), warned 150 years ago that in the US “trust in common opinion will become a sort of religion, with the majority as its prophet.” And so it is that a “religious revival” lurks today, but issues in fact from the faithful Left’s consensus-flaunting green movement. Conservatives should always be skeptical of politics infused with populist religious ardor, whether it’s the state religion of Mother Russia or the enviro-jihad for Mother Earth.

The green movement is a political religion. Many are the liberals that snickered at Mandy Moore’s character in the movie “Saved” for her naïve evangelism, but espouse the enviro-jihad’s dogmas of sin and salvation. In the green religion, the original sin of humans is to exist: for if carbon dioxide is a pollutant, so are we. Environmentalists choreograph entire lifestyles to save humanity and reach “Ecotopia" (a term The Economist sardonically employed to describe a “carbon-neutral” city in the UAE, where “a huge degree of central planning, control and even restrictions on individual freedoms is needed to make [it] work.”)

For example, the mother-son authors of the new book “Generation Green,” having consulted the Delphi-organic Oracle, decree (with all the modesty that can accompany a life-style controlling dogmatic “Guide to Living an Eco-Friendly Life") what food you should eat, what stores you should buy it from, the blankets you should sleep in, the lights you should work under, the deodorant you should use, and the sports you should play. Even on partying, these haughty neo-scribes command you to e-vite guests to a green party where you serve organic free trade iced tea in eco-friendly glass bottles, then rummage through the neighbors trash to find something you can makeover with eco-paints and turn into art, which can later be sold to make money for a green cause.

Remember the offense Minnesota’s middle class took when Northwest Airlines distributed its “101 ways to save money” list to its laidoff workers? “Shop in thrift stores,” “borrow a dress for a big night,” “don’t be shy about pulling something out of the trash.” NWA apologized. Why won’t Generation Green?

The green faith has settled in, and no apologies linger. “It’s almost as though you’re debating some mystic,” says Twin Cities based talk show host Jason Lewis “No matter what happens it’s confirmation of global warming.” Enviro-jihadists “are basing it on faith, it is the new religion, and it is the religion of socialism disguised as an environmental policy.”

Nature magazine reports this year – the coldest since 2000 – that the earth will not warm until 2015. Oceans stopped warming five years ago. 31,000 American scientists signed a petition this year rejecting global warming. Over 650 international scientists met this month to dissent to man-made global warming, including Nobel Prize winner for Physics and self-described “sceptic” Ivar Giaever, who said, “Global warming has become a new religion.”

If only Generation Green and its international apostles would apply the creative logic of their eco-party fundraiser to the nuances of science and its negative feedback loops. Melting ice bergs release iron, for instance, promoting growth of CO2 consuming algae. Pollutant particles reflect sunlight, cooling the planet. Money lost to Minnesota’s Next Generation Act, which will make energy more expensive by requiring the state’s utilities to provide 25% renewable electricity by 2025, could have been spent on important ventures, such as preventing nuclear terrorism, which is not exactly an eco-friendly threat.

The enviro-jihad is romantic at heart, so who better than the great Spanish romanticist Gustavo Adolfo Becquer to poeticize its mission? In rhyme 11, after rejecting two mortal beauties, he meets his unattainable ideal:

I am a dream, the impossible,

Vain phantom of fog and light

I am incorporeal, I am intangible;

I cannot love you

-Oh come, you come!

The green religion's ecotopia is just as impossible, but the effects of striving for it will be all too tangible.

Colin Powell vs. Rush Limbaugh- NHB

In case you have not heard, Colin Powell and Rush Limbaugh are in the midst of a spat over the future of the Republican Party. Rush Limbaugh has been one of the four or five most influential men in my education toward who I am, so obviously I'm inclined to side with Rush. But, one thing Rush has taught is that it's stupid to blindly follow, instead we should think rationally and question the prevailing winds. And in this case, I've done that and still believe Rush is right in this battle.

Powell, in this case, represents the moderate Republican side, more concerned with winning and staying in power than with principles. People like outgoing Rep. Jim Ramstand (R) and former Presidential nominee John McCain (R) are examples of this side of the spectrum. On the other- Rush's- side of the spectrum we have principled conservatives like Barry Goldwater and Minnesota Representative John Kline.

"Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh?" Powell asked in an interview. "Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instinct rather than our better instincts?"

There are so many different angles to take against Colin Powell's argument. I'll start with a structural argument against his logic.

First, if I follow Powell's logic, in order to fix the Republican party, we should stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, who represents the far-right wing part of the party. We should give up our conservative principles in order to win. There's a huge problem taking advice on how to fix the GOP from a guy who sabatoged the GOP's nominee in the weeks leading up to the 2008 Presidential election by formally endorsing the GOP's opponent Barack Obama. So, we should take the word of a man who voted for a far left winger in the party he does not belong to rather than a muddled "moderate conservative?"

The Republican party did not listen to Rush Limbaugh when it nominated John McCain. Rush lambasted the nominee repeatedly. The GOP nominated a weak, liberal Republican against the warnings of Rush Limbaugh. Then Powell votes for a very liberal Democrat instead of a moderate Republican like himself. Sounds like we can't continue to listen to moderate Republicans.

Also, in a attack typical of a "moderate," Powell says the GOP should stop listening to Rush because he appeals to our "lesser instincts." This is the kind of attack that average Americans who've never listened to Rush may hear and agree with, because of the mainstream media's portrayals of Rush as an evil white guy behind a microphone spewing racist hate. As a regular listener of Rush since I was 14 or 15, I can only say that Rush's program is the result of a deeply-held, passionate belief in conservatism. His conservatism is not simplistic or fear-mongering, as popularly believed by those who've never listened to his show. Rather, it is the culmination of a vast understanding of history, the world and humanity- as such.

Even his rather "questionable" parodies are the result of some intricate distinction he wishes to draw. Often in the parodies, he'll only report something racist one liberal says about another, wait 'til someone calls him a racist, wait until he's called a racist and then reveal his source. His show is deep; the casual, uninformed listener probably will not pickup on this.

I challenge anyone to listen to Rush's program with an open mind and they'll find him to be a funny, inspirational and devout defender of freedom and logic.

Powell seems to want the GOP to win elections by becoming more liberal. But then, when the GOP nominates a liberal for President, Powell votes for the Democrat nominee-an extreme liberal. And has the intestinal fortitude to blame it on Rush, someone whose been against McCain since the start? Pretty incoherent on Powell's part.

During the Republican Presidential primaries, one of my esteemed colleagues worked for and supported John McCain in his bid for the Presidency. We had some heated arguments over McCain. He said that having the lesser of two "evils," McCain, was OK because it was better than the alternative. And my argument to him: As conservatives, we must be prepared to lose a few elections. It's not that big of a deal. We need to purge the party of "Republicans" like Sessions and Ramstad. Fight for real, conservative, principles and eventually they will win.

The conservative ideology is the most compatible with human nature. Advocate for conservatism and stay true to it. The ideology's natural supremacy will shine through. But, be prepared to lose an election or two. It's not important that Republicans win elections if they are not conservative.

If socialism is an evil (it most certainly is), then we cannot compromise.

Whose war is it anyway?

“I can relate,” thinks the Star Tribune’s caricatured American. Finally Americans can relate. Finally, when it means seeing a cathartic shoe thrown at the man who started this war (a war so many call “Bush’s war”), Americans stand in solidarity with Iraqis.

And what of the feminists? Can they yet relate to the teenaged girls lured into Uday Hussein’s lair with promises of modeling gigs, only to be forced to walk the catwalk naked, watch their unwilling peers be shot, and then face honor-killings by their own families upon disclosing Uday’s deeds?

And what of the environmentalists? Can they relate to the marsh Arabs, whose wetlands Saddam dried up, constituting an environmental disaster so devastating it could be seen from space, until “Bush’s war” allowed one of the most effective restoration projects in history to commence?

And what of the enemies of apartheid? Can they relate to the Middle-East’s largest stateless minority, the Kurds? Can they relate to the Kurdish mothers, forced by Saddam to applaud the execution of their sons five feet away?

For the Star Tribune, relating to Iraqis means regretting the violence of “Bush’s war.” But it’s not just Bush’s war, of course. And it was never just eenie miney moe, pick a dictator to overthrow. America has been complicit in Iraq’s suffering since the CIA helped the Baath Party seize power, since Kissinger abandoned the Kurds in the 70s, since Jimmy Carter gave the green light to an Iran-Iraq war that ravished the Shiite and Kurdish ranks, since Bush senior abandoned the Shiites, and since Bill Clinton perpetuated crippling sanctions.

Bush didn’t invent our imperial history with Iraq. We’ve always fiddled with Iraqis, but we’ve never been able to relate to them. Not until 2007, when the US for once refused to abandon Iraqis for its own short-term imperial interests, and instead revamped its commitment. Bush owes no apology to the Arabs and Iraqi Sunnis for disrupting their apartheid.

It’s the Star Tribune that owes an apology to Iraqis, for if they had had their way, the Iraqi people would still be treated like state-owned livestock, Saddam would still be applauding 9/11 with his hands and kicking back money to Oil-for-Food prostitutes like Jacques Chirac with his feet. All the while Uday and Qusay would be positioning to bequeath Saddam’s prison known as Iraq. The Star Tribune owes an apology for consenting to the status quo and the horrors that would swallow the nation upon that family feud.

It’s quite a bold claim, I can relate to the Iraqis. One might think you’d need to witness, say, a Sunni Republican Guardsman force a conscripted Kurd to take off his gas mask to test the toxic air in “Saddam’s war” against Iran. But for the Star Tribune, witnessing a shoe thrown at Bush will suffice.

T-Wolves fight galactic change

For all the poets marching in the Left’s ranks, what a letdown the stodgy slogan “global warming” turned out to be. “Climate change” has proved a more durable (yet perhaps less meaningful) replacement. “Warming” had become too confining: How to explain weeks like last week, when Sulfur Springs, Montana (-30º F), Denver, CO (-18º F), and St. Cloud, MN (-24º F) suffered record temperatures? And to call it “global” proved too provincial: “We are,” says Al Gore, “altering the balance of energy between our planet and the rest of the universe.”

“Inter-galactic planetary climate change” is more like it. So perhaps the disgust of the Beastie Boy rapper formerly known as Adrock upon seeing a crazed fan crowd-surfing with “fight for your right to party” vigor at a concert last year shouldn’t surprise us. “Uh, maybe you didn't get the memo,” said Adam Horowitz. “This is, like, a different type of show we're trying.”

The Beastie Boys have replaced the disc-scratching of yore, for instance, with instrumentals. But that’s really just the sideshow. More importantly, they’ve replaced the girls dancing in cages with Sierra Club booths. And when the refined bards aren’t performing abroad for the Live Earth climate crisis show, they drive a bio-diesel bus to their shows. If being green can make three 40-year old punk rappers cool again, perhaps the eco-show is just for show.

The Target Center is trying a “different type of show,” too. The Minneapolis City Council is expected to approve a $5.3 million “green roof” for the NBA’s seventh oldest arena. The prairie plants growing on the roof will reduce the temperature, becoming a cost-effective energy solution in 2029.

The Timberwolves may not even exist in 2029. But consider it this way: Burger King doesn’t directly profit when it sells whoppers to servicemen at a discount. It indirectly profits from a justly earned reputation for patriotism. Environmentalists, on the other hand, have spewed so much moral self-righteousness out of their enviro-jihad that it’s now profitable to look green, whether you’re a rapper or a roofing consultant.

It’s a shame consumer preferences have shifted to the point that in a recession, it’s profitable to waste money on rooftop shrubbery rather than on innovations that will raise our standard of living. But it’s even worse when politicians’ preferences are the problem: Who can expect Detroit to be profitable when politicians put its moneymaker – SUVs – out of business with emissions standards? Who can miss the irony of Obama endorsing Bush’s auto bailout days after he appointed Steven “we need to get gas prices up to European levels” Chu as energy secretary?

March on ye enviro-jihadists. For if we need one type of change on Wall Street, in Detroit, and in the galaxy, it must be “climate change.”

Repeal Prohibition?

Prohibition?

Per Rob’s request, I am here to espouse the paleo-liberal position on the prohibition of various mood-altering substances. I will make my argument rhetorically with what empirical support I can provide. But this blog takes the phrase “off-the-cuff” rather seriously. So, here we go.

Relaxing the criminalization of opium would mitigate a large source of funding for terrorist enterprise. Whenever the law stands against the free-trading of goods or services, it makes the cost of business increase substantially. Without getting too technical, one must simply imagine the extra precautions, insurances, and cares taken to avoid any legal entanglements when trading in black markets. Also, the increased risk of losing large portions of inventory due to legal seizure inflates prices in illegal markets. This makes the market price of outlawed drugs far higher than they would be without legal prohibition.

It is also true that opiates fund terrorism. It is estimated that Afghanistan is directly responsible for over 70% of the world’s heroin production. There is no doubt that large sums of money finds a path to funding terror-related activities. Therefore, de-criminalizing opium production would afford several solutions. First, it would cause the prices to decline dramatically. The markets would become far more competitive, driving economic profits to zero (for those non-economists, that means a market rate of return on investment). Second, we could produce opium and heroin domestically and regulate the industry as we see fit. This would offer a viable alternative to Afghan drugs. Just like you see “fair-trade” items listed at local retailers you’d see “non-terror” drugs advertised. People are clearly willing to pay a premium for organic foods and fair-trade coffee beans so why not home-grown opium? Ending the war on opiates would deflate the financial tires of terrorist organizations.

Decriminalization would make drugs safer to use. The nature of a black market is one of high risk and high reward. Any individual purchasing items in an illegal market runs the risk of fines, jail time, etc. The idea of going down to the county lock-up to make some new friends isn’t appealing to most drug users. So, they seek to get the most “bang for the buck” when buying drugs. That’s one explanation for the progressive nature of drug use. The longer you use drugs, the greater the risk of being apprehended by law enforcement. Regardless, when the big gain, big risk element is pervasive in drug markets it only makes sense that narcotic producers would do anything to make their product have an extra kick. Whether that’s lacing joints with formaldehyde or mixing drug cocktails in dangerous proportions, they’ll give it a shot to make their product worth the risk of buying it. This could easily be changed if drugs weren’t illegal. People would have every incentive to find safe drugs as opposed to the most hardcore kick they can find.

Decriminalization would make inner-cities a safer place. When was the last time you heard on the news “Local used car salesman suspect in drive by shooting”? Likely never, the thought is laughable. Certainly not as often as we hear news break about drug-related violence. Due to the extra risks involved in the drug trade, violence is a common occurrence to protect “turf” for drug sales. Any compromise in market share for a drug dealing organization must be avoided at all costs. There is no option for legal recourse in drug dealing. If someone steals from you, you must defend your property (although illegal) with force. Back to the proverbial state of nature.

Also, black markets attract a certain type of person: one who breaks the law. So, in an illegal market you have a high concentration of young urban troubadours more than willing to break the law. There’s no doubt that these characters have a greater affinity for violence than the barista at your local Starbucks. Ending the illegal drug trade through de-criminalization would make violence far less dramatic in urban environments. There’s no reason to “bust a cap” when all you need to do is dial 9-1-1 to protect your property.

There are a few reasons why looking into altering the laws against drugs and ending our war on them might have a few benefits. Anyone convinced?

Merry Holiday

Captain Morgan's has a funny new Christmas commercial: A guy in a bar picks up his rum and coke and the coaster sticks to the buttom. The guy is pleased with himself as if he's performed a miracle. A Christmas miracle!

Except that the commercial calls it "A Holiday Miracle!"

We wouldn't want to offend anyone. Especially the Kwanza chauvinists.

Bettie Page: dead at 85

It has been reported today that Bettie Page has died. That's not really my concern with this post. What is, is the comments in the Associated Press' story found in the Star Tribune. The AP writer eulogizes, "...feminists hailed her as a pioneer of women's liberation," and that she, "helped set the stage for the 1960s sexual revolution."

I find it funny how feminist are so torn on the issue of pornography. How can Bettie Page be a "pioneer of women's liberation" and a leader of the "sexual revolution?" According to feminists, aren't woman in pornography exploited by men?

All I mean to say is this: It seems rather inconsistent to say that a woman is a great feminist who also poses nude in Playboy. One of the main complaints of feminists is the objectification of women, which is exactly what people say pornography does.

Argentina's self ruin: a "diverse" perspective

I'm so used to hearing college students euphemize studying abroad as "an opportunity to experience diverse perspectives," that if someone were to object to this dogma - "Have you tried Mecca's study abroad program?" - I might become confused and clammy and ask "Where am I?"

So behold the unique perspective we can gain from Argentina's socialist government.

If you saw the fiesta of banners and drums in the streets of DC on election night, you've seen Argentina on Nyquil. Since Evita, the masses of Buenos Aires make it a tradition to cheer in the streets right before their government socializes the economy, and then take angrily to the streets (forcing a president's helicopter evacuation in 2001) when they realize half the nation is impoverished, then repeat.

Now comes Argentina’s "New Deal" from President Cristina Kirchner. An audacious name, given the real deal's failure. But consider Argentina's "diverse perspective": Decades of interventionist rule under General Perón spun the country into hyperinflation in the 1980s. Carlos Menem's "shock-therapy" privatizations in the 90s were great, but are now scapegoated for 2001's bitter debt default (actually attributable to corruption and bad fiscal policy). So today everyone is a "Peronista," privatization is but Menemism, and the public universities teach that FDR’s New Deal ended the Great Depression.

Cristina is loud and proud about "redistribution of wealth." One sneaky reporter asked if she'd lead by example and give him $50 to redistribute to street vendors, and she complied.

Socialism works for export-dependent countries when commodity prices are high (gas in Russia, oil in Venezuela, soy in Argentina), but when prices drop you have, shall we say, "a unique cultural experience."

Cristina wants to fix this glitch of socialism with more socialism. She nationalized pensions in October, and will use the money on her "New Deal" projects.

She wants to raise and spend money. One way to do this is to stop asking questions when people deposit money in Argentine banks. "You sir, Muhammad bin-Jihad from the tri-border region, how much will you be depositing?" (Islamic terrorists allegedly train in the Paraguay’s lawless slums. Where the money flows in Latin America – from Iran or from Chavez to terrorists to Argentine banks – is no matter of indifference to Americans.)

The US isn't alone today in its dreary woods. We can "study what's happening abroad," and "gain a diverse perspective" of the ways other cultures masochistically annihilate their economies, so that we don't make the same mistakes.

MN, WI and VA Reps on the Big Oil Bailout: Decent work with a couple misguided souls

According to a Fox News Opinion poll, 58% of the American public are against the $14 Billion Big Auto bailout.

Last night, the U.S. House ignored public sentiments (not that that's wrong in and of itself), and passed the bill 237-170.

It's very important to look at the votes and issue a scorecard for Republicans:

Wisconsin:
Tom Petri- voted AGAINST the bill. Good vote.
Paul Ryan- voted FOR the bill. Ryan's vote is the one that concerns me more than any surrounding the whole situation. He was named as a possible "conservative" VP candidate for the McCain ticket. For a man who recently wrote in the November 25th issue of The Journal Times, "the road to economic recovery has been singularly focused on government spending. If economic growth were simply a function of government spending, our unprecedented spending from the public sector should produce unprecedented growth in the private sector. The failure of such fiscal stimulus proposals is obvious: government depends on the economy for its resources – not the other way around. As a recent study from the Heritage Foundation states, “Every dollar that government ‘injects’ into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed from the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another, " he surely didn't put his money where his mouth is. (Emphasis added by Founder's Porch). I'm usually an enormous fan of Rep. Ryan's, but maybe he'd had one too many Miller Lites before making this vote.
Jim Sensenbrenner- did not vote. He is currently in Poland at the global warming summit. No word if he's found magical coolant there.

Virginia:
Cantor- voted AGAINST the bill
Drake- voted AGAINST the bill
Forbes- voted AGAINST the bill
Goode- voted AGAINST the bill
Goodlatte- voted AGAINST the bill
Wittman- voted AGAINST the bill
Wolf- voted AGAINST the bill

Minnesota:
Michelle Bachmann- voted AGAINST it. It's very nice to never have to worry about whether Bachmann will waiver from her conservative roots.
John Kline- voted AGAINST it. Mr. Kline, a former Marine colonel and my representative, is a not appreciated as much as he should be by the GOP. In the eyes of any conservative, he should be viewed as a rock star. It's nice to know that my conservative district is being appropriately represented by Rep. Kline.
Jim Ramstad- voted FOR it. Usually I would chastize Rep. Ramstad, but he's on the way out. The important question, then, is whether or not his replacement, Erik Paulsen, would have voted differently. I certainly hope so and will try to contact him to find out.

According to the New York Times, one part of the bill's purpose is to, "immediately bring... workers’ wages in line with foreign companies like Nissan and Volkswagen."

It's a shame that a bill with that language could be supported by Republicans. Luckily, it appears as though the bill will not pass the Senate due, in large part, to Senator Mitch McConnell's opposition.

Star Tribune's Nick Coleman: Limitless Logical Lunacy

Today, the Star Tribune’s ever-present liberal voice lambasted Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, claiming the Governor does not spend enough time at the capital.

“If the state of Minnesota were "Titanic," this would be the part in the movie where some of the rich passengers put dresses on and try to sneak into the lifeboats,” Coleman writes.

Here’s my point-for-point destruction of Coleman’s argument. He blames conservatives for the economic failure, saying that our “hands off” approach to the economy is to blame. He apparently does not think Barney Frank and his liberal allies have much blame. The same Barney Frank who said in 2003 regarding proposed increases in Fannie May oversight: "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Coleman says, “Nice guys got us into it by not reining in greed and not funding government responsibly.”

He makes no mention of irresponsible spending, only a lack of funding (see: not raising taxes on the rich). Maybe he should blame a state legislature more concerned with a bill mandating private businesses open up their bathrooms to people with Irritable Bowl Syndrome than cutting spending.

Another point: If you’ll go back in time with me a few short weeks, you’ll remember liberals everywhere criticizing Sarah Palin for her lack of worldly knowledge, only having applied for a passport a few years before her Vice-Presidential bid. But in his column today, Coleman writes that Pawlenty, “On an endless circuit of talk shows and national appearances aimed at puffing his profile for 2012, Gov. Tim Pawlenty leaves Thursday on a trip to Israel that will come in handy during foreign policy debates ("I've visited our friends in Israel") but may not do much for Minnesota's pork producers.”

So, on the one hand, to liberals, Sarah Palin is a typical Red state simpleton “American Idiot” for never having traveled the world, but Tim Pawlenty traveling to Israel somehow is a bystander as the state of Minnesota “sinks.” Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Coleman also says that Minnesota “needs federal money, and deserves it,” because we send $40 billion in taxes to the federal government and only receive $31 billion back. If Coleman believes we should receive more than our $40 billion back, where does he think it comes from? A magical money tree? No! It comes from other states! So, apparently it’s OK if Minnesota takes money from other states, but not if other states take it from Minnesota. His conclusion (Minnesota shouldn’t give more money to the federal government than it receives) is correct, but his reasoning is seriously misguided. While I agree that Minnesota-and any other state- shouldn’t give more than it receives, we disagree on the reasonings- mine being rooted in a proper understanding of federalism and the Constitution, his being based on some false understanding of fairness. After all, if it’s private citizens, Coleman thinks the rich should pay more than the poor. But when it comes to states, the better off states have no responsibility to poorer states with more serious problems.


And finally, Coleman makes the assumption that an active governor (and therefore an active government) would be a good thing in this economic downturn- I refuse to label market corrections as a “crisis.” Simply put, he’s wrong.

Plainly put, it seems futile to argue against Coleman. No one actually puts stock in his opinion. But, often his opinions are indicative of overall liberal sentiments, so their destruction is important.

While I find it hard to defend Pawlenty on economics, it’s easy to show the errors in Nick Coleman’s logic.

The Cult of Man

To paraphrase one loyal reader's gadfly of a question, "If we expect Muslims to loudly condemn the Islamist violence in Bombay, shouldn't we hold men to the same standard in instances of violence against women?"

Being a man of course is not a choice (er, alas, I suppose that's an antiquated axiom), but shouldn't men want to clear their name anyway?

Yes, if men killed 200 women in Bombay in the name of the universal cult of men (and took down the WTC/Pentagon, and beheaded, crucified, and suicide bombed women on a daily basis across the world in the name of men), men should make a point to condemn it.

But even so, Muslims were livid and wrote letters to my college newspaper when I suggested Islam might be a violent religion; Muslims torched embassies when the Danish cartoons made a similar insinuation. The Bombay Islamists made this point better than me or the Danes did, so shouldn't we expect more letters to the editor and more embassy torchings?

And yes, if a man passionately wrote letters or torched embassies to denounce the cult of man's inclination to violence, I'd expect him to vigorously denounce men who killed women in the name of men.

But here's the analogy's problem: Men don't share a common ideology based on the life of an illiterate pedophile who spent his life mutilating Arabs that opposed his delusional cult fantasy of a global caliphate. The ultimate ideal of Islam is for everyone to become Muslim. The ultimate aim of men is not for everyone to become men, I can assure you.

Besides, which ideology is it that reveres as the unalterable, ultimate, and perfect word of God a book that commands men to beat their wives if they are disloyal? Under which ideology are the females genitally mutilated so they can't experience sexual pleasure, and forced to sit in the back when they worship?

It begins with an "I" and ends in "slam," as Mark Steyn would say. He must have read this blog's posts before he wrote his most recent article: "Silence = Acceptance," because he makes the same points about calling the Islamists mere "gunmen," and the victims "ultra-orthodox."

If you're silent on AIDS, you were thought to accept it. What if you're silent on Islamist terror?

5 December 1933 Headline: "Prohibition Ends After 13 Years"

Interesting note to end a Friday afternoon at work: 75 years ago today, Prohibition was repealed.

I seem to remember a story I read about Marquette University on the day Prohibition was repealed. It said that Miller Brewing Company opened up and beer flowed down Wisconsin Avenue to Marquette University where the party last for a whole week.

I plan on goin out tonight and celebrate this day in history by partaking in the consumption of a few alcoholic beverages. But, on a serious not. Whenever Prohibition is brought up it is always a good opportunity to talk about the current "War on Drugs" and whether or not a Prohibition of drugs is worthwhile in the U.S.

Why pity Bombay when you can pity yourself?

I only caught the end of the 92KQRS (Twin Cities) crew's discussion of the Islamist terrorism in Bombay (I regret previously using "Mumbai," which is to Bombay as "Myanmar" is to Burma) but if I were a Muslim apologist 10 seconds would have been enough for me to scoff and take offence. Since I am in fact an apologist of reason and liberty, however, I commend Tom Bernard and co.

Their point was, simply, Muslims get outraged over Muhammed cartoons, but are not so incensed after these murders in the name of Islam.

How many Muslims voiced self-pity and self-righteous indignation over the Danish cartoons, the Dutch films, and the prophet muhammed soccer balls, ice-cream treats, and teddy bear (you'd think an innocent teddy bear would be more deserving of the name of a prophet than us vulgar, mammilian humans, but it's the most common name in London). Where is all that emotion now, when Islamists killed a couple hundred infidels? Muslims get so worked up telling people like me Islam is a religion of peace. You'd think they'd get more worked up telling Islamists that. I regret it isn't so.

Woe to Islam, it's true spirit shines in these massacres.

Who Is This Man?

Much talk has been spent criticizing Barack Obama’s lack of experience. There have also been a number of groups concerned with his rather radical attachments. Further, he has no record of executive decision making. Despite what we speculate about this man, there is one thing we can all acknowledge: we don’t know what this guy will do or what he is capable of.

His recent appointments suggest some good news. Well, maybe not good news. It’s just not as bad as market-respecting, freedom-loving critics of Obama would have thought. Among them is his new Chairman of the Economic Recovery, the renowned Paul Volcker. The same man who partnered with Ronald Reagan to tame wild and unruly inflation. Interestingly, he is not what most free-market thinkers expected, as they feared the worst.

He may be reconsidering his tax proposals too. Is this true?

Similarly, his defense and military strategies are also painting a blurred outline of his upcoming tenure in office. In keeping Robert Gates in office and appointing Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State (who’s opinion is starkly different on Iraq, meeting with belligerent dictators, and the like) he has thumbed his metaphorical nose at the moveon.org crowd. He hasn’t actually committed to reducing any war efforts at all, simply moving the front to Afghanistan.

Don’t confuse what I’m saying. I’m not looking for the “bright side” of what will likely be a miserable four years. Obama has proposed some of the most unjust, harmful, and simply asinine governmental endeavors in American history. My point is simply to say we have what most conservatives and classic liberals pointed out long ago: an empty suit for president. He pays lip service to anything and anyone who will earn him support, yet he has set out his administration in another direction.

One thing we do know: he is as foolish as he is unpredictable. It’s going to be an uncomfortable four years.

Happy Late Thanksgiving

Hey folks, hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving! I headed south to Charleston, SC with three Marine buddies. I also had the pleasure of visiting fellow-blogger Pat, who was staying with his father there.

On the day after Thanksgiving my buddies and I took driving/walking tour of Charleston. What a beautiful place it is. At one point, out of curiosity, we drove onto the campus of The Citadel to look around.

Then, this morning I read this headline on news Web sites: Marine killed recently in Iraq was a graduate of The Citadel, the college is reporting.
“Capt. Warren A. Frank was killed in action while distributing humanitarian aid in the Ninewa province of Iraq Nov. 25, according to the college.”

Rest easy Sir. Semper fi Marine.

Meek "Gunmen" kill "ultra-orthodox Jewish group"

Had the ghastliness in Bombay been wrought by Christian fundamentalist terrorists, how religion would steal the headlines! But it was Muslim fundamentalist terrorists, and for seven years we've had to put up with Muslims stoning adulteresses and beheading infidels under their mad religious laws, and been told that we must not offend their religion. And so MSNBC's headline today - 3 days after the first bombs, 7 years after 9/11, 15 years after the first WTC bombing - blames the horrors on "Pakistani militants." The victims are described in more radically religious terms than the killers: the office of "an ultra-orthodox Jewish group" was one site attacked by "gunmen." I'd rather be called a "gunman" than an ultra-orthodox anything.

Perhaps the only consolation of these murders in Bombay is that they'll inspire more Indians, Israelis, and Americans to take up arms against terrorists. The US is creating terrorists by being in Iraq, the 2007 National Security Estimate reports. Well then, the terrorists' invasion of Mumbai is creating more freedom loving warriors.

Kindness Kills

Starbucks doesn't need a coming-out day to convince me that they're 'red,' but here it comes: Starbucks goes (RED) for World AIDS Day! So on December 1, it's a nickel to the Global Fund for every coffee served.

Its facebook group members include the pitifully innocent: "I will be there! I love coffee and I love to help any way I can;" the idealistic: "They should give way more than 5 cents per beverage;" and the so-liberal-they're-conservative: "How about instead of them giving 5 cents, you go get a cup of coffee from somewhere that isn't a corporate giant, saving yourself about an entire dollar, and give that dollar to the aids fund?"

Few, though, share my reasoned pessimism. It's high time we question whether the "end AIDS" crowd really cares about Africans. Of course Starbucks is motivated by profit - it's a business! But what excuse remains for the Global Funds acolytes?

For it's been well documented that these earmarks for AIDS devastate Sub-Saharan Africa. Children are dying from diarrhea and asphyxia because foreign donations pay for AIDS pills, not oxygen ventilators. If you practice medicine in, say, Lesotho, it's more lucrative to get trained in AIDS treatment than in how to save the lives of sickly babies born in roach-infested hospitals.

If you oppose money for AIDS in Africa, people suspect the basest of motivations. How long, though, until we who know the "unintended consequences" of liberals' bravados stop assuming they have the best intentions? It's eye-catching and hip on the résumé to say you led your college's Global Fund chapter. Not so glamorous to watch people's faces frost over as you explain the need for better basic health infrastructure and diarrhea treatment in Rwanda.

Who better than a profit-seeker like Starbuck's to know what sells, anyway? "Well duh, of course I'll be there!!" writes Laura from California.

Laura's five cents will help buy AIDS pills for some sickly kid, who's too hungry and nauseated to keep from vomiting when he swallows them: Like whatever, I just want to buy coffee so I can like end poverty in the Africa.

If these people want to help save African lives more than they want to be self-righteous and accepted in the gay community, they can start by buying McDonald's coffee on Red Day. For my part, I will assume liberals understand the economics of disease in Africa, and will suspect the basest of motivations.

For more on this, read the LA Times’ “Unintended victims of Gates Foundation generosity”:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gates16dec16,0,6256166,full.story

“It was a good day for the Marine Corps. We killed a lot of bad guys, and none of our guys were seriously injured.”

Ladies: Generally we'll try to limit this blog to original pieces belonging to Steve, Pat and Rob, only posting short clippings from others' work. But, here's a pretty good piece about Marines dominating in Afghanistan:


Marine Makes Insurgents Pay the Price
November 18, 2008
Marine Corps Newsby Cpl. James M. Mercure


FARAH PROVINCE, Afghanistan — In the city of Shewan, approximately 250 insurgents ambushed 30 Marines and paid a heavy price for it.
Shewan has historically been a safe haven for insurgents, who used to plan and stage attacks against Coalition Forces in the Bala Baluk district.
The city is home to several major insurgent leaders. Reports indicate that more than 250 full time fighters reside in the city and in the surrounding villages.

Shewan had been a thorn in the side of Task Force 2d Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force Afghanistan throughout the Marines’ deployment here in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, because it controls an important supply route into the Bala Baluk district. Opening the route was key to continuing combat operations in the area.

“The day started out with a 10-kilometer patrol with elements mounted and dismounted, so by the time we got to Shewan, we were pretty beat,” said a designated marksman who requested to remain unidentified. “Our vehicles came under a barrage of enemy RPGs (rocket propelled grenades) and machine gun fire. One of our ‘humvees’ was disabled from RPG fire, and the Marines inside dismounted and laid down suppression fire so they could evacuate a Marine who was knocked unconscious from the blast.”

The vicious attack that left the humvee destroyed and several of the Marines pinned down in the kill zone sparked an intense eight-hour battle as the platoon desperately fought to recover their comrades. After recovering the Marines trapped in the kill zone, another platoon sergeant personally led numerous attacks on enemy fortified positions while the platoon fought house to house and trench to trench in order to clear through the enemy ambush site.

“The biggest thing to take from that day is what Marines can accomplish when they’re given the opportunity to fight,” the sniper said. “A small group of Marines met a numerically superior force and embarrassed them in their own backyard. The insurgents told the townspeople that they were stronger than the Americans, and that day we showed them they were wrong.”

During the battle, the designated marksman single handedly thwarted a company-sized enemy RPG and machinegun ambush by reportedly killing 20 enemy fighters with his devastatingly accurate precision fire. He selflessly exposed himself time and again to intense enemy fire during a critical point in the eight-hour battle for Shewan in order to kill any enemy combatants who attempted to engage or maneuver on the Marines in the kill zone. What made his actions even more impressive was the fact that he didn’t miss any shots, despite the enemies’ rounds impacting within a foot of his fighting position.

“I was in my own little world,” the young corporal said. “I wasn’t even aware of a lot of the rounds impacting near my position, because I was concentrating so hard on making sure my rounds were on target.”

After calling for close-air support, the small group of Marines pushed forward and broke the enemies’ spirit as many of them dropped their weapons and fled the battlefield. At the end of the battle, the Marines had reduced an enemy stronghold, killed more than 50 insurgents and wounded several more.

“I didn’t realize how many bad guys there were until we had broken through the enemies’ lines and forced them to retreat. It was roughly 250 insurgents against 30 of us,” the corporal said. “It was a good day for the Marine Corps. We killed a lot of bad guys, and none of our guys were seriously injured.”

My favorite line is the last one.

Defying the Way

Say what you will about Sarah Palin (or about her children, if you prefer the lights of SNL), but savor her modest contribution to breaking the business-of-politics daze in Washington and at CNN, if only mild and fleeting. In DC you spend your career working up the ladder, rung by rung, quid pro quo after quo, and then someone who doesn't know how it works fixes to take the #2 spot. Katie Couric and others reassured themselves that Hillary-style personality-consuming calculations have their merit, and unorthodox Palin could not have her cake and eat it too.

So credit Palin for characteristically declining Wolf Blitzer's political schemas last Sunday. First, Wolf had been reading off questions from Obama voters. That's how it works. Don't question it.

PALIN: As you're reading these viewers' questions, got any questions from anybody who voted for McCain?
BLITZER: I think we do but we're going to get to that.
PALIN: Oh good! OK!

He never got to it.

Later Wolf tried to get her to play the hide-your-ambition game, obligatory in Washington, where most play but few win. Palin didn't play.

BLITZER: You're not ruling out a run in 2012 for president of the United States, are you?
PALIN: Not ruling that out but there again, that is based on my philosophy that it's crazy to close a door before you know what's even open in front of you...

It would be so easy to rule it out, then say in 2011 "times have changed. I'm running." Some would say you have to lie, that's how it works kid. And thus Obama in 2006 with Tim Russert:

RUSSERT: So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?
OBAMA: I will not.

So let us give Palin a stilted cheer or two for keeping her soul off the shelves.

Obama on 60 Minutes: Wants to "emulate" FDR and a "willingness to try things."

In an interview with 60 Minutes' Steve Kroft, President-elect Barack Obama shed some light on to his political thought: "what you see in FDR that I hope my team can-- emulate, is not always getting it right, but projecting a sense of confidence, and a willingness to try things. And experiment in order to get people working again."

This kind of nonsense would be easily dismissible save for the fact that it's absolutely dangerous. I expected him to be elected and to be very liberal, but the idea that he actually said this really does scare the hell out of me. It's either extremely ignorant on his part or a legitimate attempt to fundamentally change this country.

One of the biggest problems about liberalism is that liberals usually tend to oversimplify economics. They do not understand, or choose to ignore, the unintended consequences and secondary effect of any governmental program or action. For example, Welfare was supposed to be a great thing, but it actually helped cause the breakdown of the black family as the father's role as breadwinner and provider was usurped by a government check doled out on the 1st and 15th of every month. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) actually dissentivized (or dis-incentivized) two-parent households and working single mothers. No one had the foresight to predict this consequence. A well-intentioned piece of legislation was instrumental is tearing down the family structure of ~12% of our nations population!

Messing with an economy as interconnected and difficult to comprehensively understand as ours will always have huge consequences, that's a fact. These consequences aren't limited to the economic realm -or corporate America-either, as seen above. (note: You can thank my favorite politician, Newt Gingrich, for forcing welfare reform on Clinton after he vetoed it twince, I think, in the form of Temporary Aid to Needy Families TANF).

In this case, Obama is saying he understands there will be unintended consequences when he and his cohorts in Congress meddle with theeconomy, but he's OK with that. In other words, governmental action is better than a reclusive government. This violates one of the primary axioms that has made the US so unique and successful: Maximizing economic freedom.
Obama's tinkering with the economy is also a gross violation of individual freedom. If a "rich" person's taxes are going to go upbecause of the actions of the Congress and President, there must be ademonstrable clear and present issue that needs rectifying. Arbitrarily raising taxes based on whimsical language like "a willingness to try things" is an assault of freedom on those wageearners and wealth-creators. Any limitation on our freedom (taxation) is only justifiable if the ends are legitimate. "Experiment[ing]" on such a grand scale is not legitimate in the slightest. Every action our government takes should be prudent, slow and the bare minimum(unlike all the recent bailouts).

Words have consequences! His comments may seem trivial, but for a man who voiced his intentions of "creating 5 million 'green collar jobs'", we probably should believe him

Finally, I will not grant ANY of Obama's "points" about FDR, whoselegacy of wealth redistribution helped propel this country down thepath towards socialism. In my view, his legacy was bailed out by thewar, which reenergized out industrial means. But, that's for anotherdebate. Take away from FDR that many of his programs lived out theirpurpose- do we really need a Rural Electrification Administration tothis day-despite that its "name has been changed to protect how guiltyit is?" Was Reagan right, or what, when he said, "Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a governmentbureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on thisearth!"?

First Post

Hey folks, welcome to our blog. It's the brainchild of Steve, Rob, and Pat. Steve works for Wells Fargo and graduated from Hillsdale College. Pat is a Specialist in the Army and graduated from Luther College. Rob is a lieutenant in the Marine Corps and graduated from Marquette University. Let's see where we go from here.