This nails it for today - the original is posted on RealClearPolitics. (Emphasis mine)
By Dennis Prager
The state of the liberal mind is on display on this week's cover of Time magazine.
The already notorious cover takes the iconic photograph of U.S. Marines planting the American flag on Iwo Jima and substitutes a tree for the flag. Why Time's editors did this explains much about contemporary liberalism.
The first thing it explains is that liberals, not to mention the left as a whole, stopped fighting evil during the Vietnam War. As I wrote in my last column, whereas liberals had led the fight against Nazism before and during World War II, and against Communism after the War, the liberal will to fight Communism, the greatest organized evil of the post-War world, collapsed during the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War did to American liberals what World War I did to most Europeans -- it rendered them anti-war rather than anti-evil.
That is why liberals have gone AWOL in the fight against Islamic totalitarianism. As during the post-Vietnam Cold War, when liberals fought anti-Communists much more than they fought Communists, they fight anti-Islamists much more than they fight Islamists. Thus, Democrats routinely dismiss the Bush administration's talk about the threat of Islamic terror as "scare tactics."
But -- and this is a primary reason for Time's cover -- liberals know that they have largely opted out of the fight against Islamists; their only passion on this matter is abandoning the war against Islamists in Iraq. But like nearly all people who believe in a cause, they know that they have to fight some evil -- after all, the world really seems threatened by something. So they have channeled their desire to fight threats to the world to fighting an enemy that will not hurt them or their loved ones -- man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
It is much easier to fight global warming than to fight human evil. You will be celebrated at Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, the BBC and throughout the media world, no one will threaten your life, there are huge grants available to scientists and others who fight real or exaggerated environmental problems, and you may even receive an Academy Award and the Nobel Peace Prize. Individuals who fight Islamists get fatwas.
The Time cover is cheap heroism. It is a liberal attempt to depict as equally heroic those who fight carbon emissions and those who fought Japanese fascists and Nazis.
Second, for much of the left, the cover reflects the primacy of environmental concerns over moral concerns. For example, the left seemed never to care about the millions of Africans who continued to die from malaria largely because of the environmentalists' worldwide ban on the use of DDT as pesticide. The same holds true for another leftwing environmentalist fantasy. Changing corn into biofuels is causing a surge in food prices throughout the world. The European Union continues this policy despite warnings even from some environmentalists that food shortages, starvation and food riots are imminent. But human suffering is not as significant as environmental degradation.
Third, the left is far more internationalist -- global, if you will -- in its orientation than national. As the Time article states, "Going green: What could be redder, whiter and bluer than that?" Whereas, for most Americans patriotism remains red, white and blue, for much of the left it is green.
Fourth, the further left you go, the more inclined you are to hysteria. From the threat of DDT to the threat of heterosexual AIDS in America to that mass killer secondhand smoke, the left believes and spreads threats that, unlike the threat of Islamic terror, really are "scare tactics."
Years from now, Time's cover will be regarded as another silly media-induced fear. But, as with Time's 1974 article warning its readers about "another ice age" and its many articles on the threat of heterosexual AIDS in America, Time will just let public amnesia deal with credibility problems. Until then, however, one fact remains: Today, conservatives fight evil and liberals fight carbon emissions. That's what this week's cover of Time is about.
17 April 2008
Goose Creek Update: Life In Prison, and a New York Connection?
For those of you who read this when it was the old Body Politic, you'll remember the coverage of the two "youths" who were arrested in Goose Creek outside the Naval Weapons Center there. Pictures to left.
Yesterday, a federal grand jury handed down indictments against both men which add up to possible sentences of 65 years to life. These new indictments supersede prior charges.
Today, a third man (also a USF student) was charged by the FBI, allegedly in relation to weapons charges and support for terrorism. This new defendant, Karim Moussaoui, apparently has New York connections. This is just starting to play out.
***
Odd note of the story: Jonathan Turley, the law professor that most of us would remember as defending President Clinton on the cable news shows during the impeachment proceedings, is apparently defending Sami al-Arian, the USF professor who may have started Mohamed and Megahed on this particular terror journey. Now he's trying to claim that these new charges for al-Arian's cohorts are spurious (these charges don't make his client look very good, if proven true). Interesting and strange connection there...
Also reporting/blogging: Michele Malkin, Debbie Schlussel, Tampa Bay Observer
14 April 2008
Random Monday Thoughts on Presidential politics
Barack Obama thinks small town voters are "bitter", and that their bitterness drives them to guns and religion?
Hasn't that pretty much been the Democrat Party Platform since the late 1960s?
I'm just glad he had the honesty to tell us what he really thinks. What thinking evangelical leaders can possibly take his candidacy seriously now?
Matt Lewis (of TownHall and the Leadership Institute) sums it up nicely:
Newt piles on:
***
Not that Hillary can fully take advantage, since her Hubby won't shut up about the Tuzla canard... Clinton Fatigue II, the Return...
Honestly, I don't know who to root for on the D side, the Marxist or the Serial Liar.
***
Is it any wonder, then, that McCain has taken small leads in Florida, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania... and New York??!? This is going to be a fifty state race, but with Hillary and Obama shooting their own feet, you've got to think McCain wins out if the Dems can't hold on to big blue states.
***
Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter sums up what's been wrong with Democrat Presidential foreign policy for three decades: "I've been meeting with Hamas leaders for years."
Hasn't that pretty much been the Democrat Party Platform since the late 1960s?
I'm just glad he had the honesty to tell us what he really thinks. What thinking evangelical leaders can possibly take his candidacy seriously now?
Matt Lewis (of TownHall and the Leadership Institute) sums it up nicely:
The most disturbing aspect of this entire scandal is that Obama's comments demonstrate how liberals truly view religion: As unwelcome competition to government -- their real savior.
Newt piles on:
If you go to the most expensive private school in Hawaii and then move on to Columbia University and Harvard Law School, you may not understand normal Americans. Their beliefs are so alien to your leftwing viewpoint that you have to seek some psychological explanation for what seem to be weird ideas.
They can’t really believe in the right to bear arms.
They can’t really believe in traditional marriage.
They can’t really believe in their faith in God.
They can’t really want to enforce the law on immigration.
Therefore, they must be “bitter” and “frustrated.”
This is the closest Senator Obama has come to openly sharing his wife’s view that “America is a mean country”. Not since Governor Dukakis have we seen anyone so out of touch with normal Americans. It makes perfect sense that it was in a fundraiser in San Francisco that he would have shared the views he has so carefully kept hidden for the entire campaign.
***
Not that Hillary can fully take advantage, since her Hubby won't shut up about the Tuzla canard... Clinton Fatigue II, the Return...
Honestly, I don't know who to root for on the D side, the Marxist or the Serial Liar.
***
Is it any wonder, then, that McCain has taken small leads in Florida, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania... and New York??!? This is going to be a fifty state race, but with Hillary and Obama shooting their own feet, you've got to think McCain wins out if the Dems can't hold on to big blue states.
***
Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter sums up what's been wrong with Democrat Presidential foreign policy for three decades: "I've been meeting with Hamas leaders for years."
27 March 2008
The politics of intimidation?
This is my mirror, as I found my car this morning. Pardon the fuzzy picture - I took this with my phone. Note the eggshell stuck in the space between the mirror and the window, and the pieces of yolk and egg white smeared along the bottom of the window.
Fair warning - I don't intimidate easily. Hitting my car (with over 114K miles on the odometer) with the embryonic remains of a chicken isn't going to do it. Just gives me more motivation.
Oh, and you also tore off the mirror of my next door neighbor's kid's car. Real great work there, Sherlock...
Reason #1 to cut (or eliminate) the income tax
The State newspaper this morning reports that South Carolina's per capita income continues to lag behind the rest of the country. This year our growth was 4.2%, a full point behind the national growth of 5.2%. South Carolina now boasts the 4th lowest per capita income in the nation, slipping from 6th worst a year ago. (Yep, another statistic to be proud of.)
I find it interesting (in a strange, crazy sort of way) that The State can report this statistic without bringing up the obvious reason behind the statistic - an income tax rate that ranks among the ten highest in the country. When you tax productivity and success, you lose business - it's really that simple. Yet we get caught up in the property tax debates and sales tax debates, and our legislature never gets around to cutting the one tax that has a direct impact on our ability to create wealth and jobs - the income tax.
Why do we think it is that we have none of the Top 100 companies in America headquartered in South Carolina? If we, for instance, want to become the haven for the energy companies, taking advantage of the Savannah River site's unique potential to generate hydrogen fuel, we have to have a tax structure that companies want to take advantage of. Or do you think Microsoft landing in Washington state was simply by chance? Washington state has no state income tax, preferring instead to rely on other, lower taxes and a robust economy. That's the formula for success.
What's worse, since no income tax cut is coming this year to stimulate our state's economy, we can already look forward to having this report be just as bad (or worse) next year. Hopefully those who are elected this fall will pay more attention next spring when this report resurfaces.
In the meantime, way to go guys, thanks for keeping us down - again.
I find it interesting (in a strange, crazy sort of way) that The State can report this statistic without bringing up the obvious reason behind the statistic - an income tax rate that ranks among the ten highest in the country. When you tax productivity and success, you lose business - it's really that simple. Yet we get caught up in the property tax debates and sales tax debates, and our legislature never gets around to cutting the one tax that has a direct impact on our ability to create wealth and jobs - the income tax.
Why do we think it is that we have none of the Top 100 companies in America headquartered in South Carolina? If we, for instance, want to become the haven for the energy companies, taking advantage of the Savannah River site's unique potential to generate hydrogen fuel, we have to have a tax structure that companies want to take advantage of. Or do you think Microsoft landing in Washington state was simply by chance? Washington state has no state income tax, preferring instead to rely on other, lower taxes and a robust economy. That's the formula for success.
What's worse, since no income tax cut is coming this year to stimulate our state's economy, we can already look forward to having this report be just as bad (or worse) next year. Hopefully those who are elected this fall will pay more attention next spring when this report resurfaces.
In the meantime, way to go guys, thanks for keeping us down - again.
26 March 2008
Random thoughts with three dots
OK, so I'm not sure how related all of this really is, but it's running around in my brain, so here goes...
Rod Shealy caught with dirty tricks before the race even gets started? Shocked, I say, just shocked... I'm sure he'd never do that in any other race... or arrange for threats... or have people followed... or get unemployed fishermen into the race... nah, not good ole' Rod... (...just sayin')
Just as shocking: Tompkins & Sullivan's mouthpiece racing to Shealy's defense, in an attempt to take whatever the potshot of the day is at the Governor (as well as lay down the marker for future dirty tricks, no doubt). Definitely dog bites man stuff, but still...
(Side note, why do all of the consultant bloggers hate the Governor so much? I haven't figured it out, other than that he doesn't pay them, or they're tired of the second term already a la Bush/Cheney circa 2006... I've never been on his payroll, but that doesn't mean I feel the need to continually bash a sitting Republican Governor with an approval rating in the 70s...)
My take on the Ceips/Shealy/Bates Illegal alien affair: Shealy, Bates and the alien should all get fired. The alien should then work on a green card and list "actor" as his occupation...
Then you've got this "story" out of the Spartanburg Herald Journal, apparently alleging that nefarious groups are trying to influence state politics. You know those nefarious types - the State Chamber of Commerce, the REALTORs, BIPEC, Palmetto Family Council... OH wait, that's not who you thought I was going to say? Well, read to the bottom of the story (Ok, about 2/3 of the way down) to the paragraph entitled "Group Auditions". Bam - there's the list. Ricky B (and his planted mouthpiece Jason Spencer) thinks these are "outside groups"? Umm, we conservatives usually refer to small businesses, family values folks, and limited government types as "the Republican base". But hey, don't let that stop you from writing the story...
"Wilson Charles" at the Other Brooks Brothers has the right of this:
I have to agree with that...
Then there's the little gem of a quote from the aforementioned Mr. Sullivan.
Somehow, that sounds familiar... Didn't Cindi Scoppe call them a "cancer"? And the forementioned Mr. Tompkins called them a "scourge"?
Y'all stay classy, now...
Speaking of classy, the Tompkins & Sullivan mouthpiece has now also attempted to "out" Brooks Brothers columnist Wilson Charles as belonging to another new consultancy group. Y'know, just for once, I'd love to see these consultant blogs focus on actual issues instead of constant attacks on each other...
But, I suppose that's way too much to ask for...
Rod Shealy caught with dirty tricks before the race even gets started? Shocked, I say, just shocked... I'm sure he'd never do that in any other race... or arrange for threats... or have people followed... or get unemployed fishermen into the race... nah, not good ole' Rod... (...just sayin')
Just as shocking: Tompkins & Sullivan's mouthpiece racing to Shealy's defense, in an attempt to take whatever the potshot of the day is at the Governor (as well as lay down the marker for future dirty tricks, no doubt). Definitely dog bites man stuff, but still...
(Side note, why do all of the consultant bloggers hate the Governor so much? I haven't figured it out, other than that he doesn't pay them, or they're tired of the second term already a la Bush/Cheney circa 2006... I've never been on his payroll, but that doesn't mean I feel the need to continually bash a sitting Republican Governor with an approval rating in the 70s...)
My take on the Ceips/Shealy/Bates Illegal alien affair: Shealy, Bates and the alien should all get fired. The alien should then work on a green card and list "actor" as his occupation...
Then you've got this "story" out of the Spartanburg Herald Journal, apparently alleging that nefarious groups are trying to influence state politics. You know those nefarious types - the State Chamber of Commerce, the REALTORs, BIPEC, Palmetto Family Council... OH wait, that's not who you thought I was going to say? Well, read to the bottom of the story (Ok, about 2/3 of the way down) to the paragraph entitled "Group Auditions". Bam - there's the list. Ricky B (and his planted mouthpiece Jason Spencer) thinks these are "outside groups"? Umm, we conservatives usually refer to small businesses, family values folks, and limited government types as "the Republican base". But hey, don't let that stop you from writing the story...
"Wilson Charles" at the Other Brooks Brothers has the right of this:
I always thought that in a representative government like ours, it was our duty to practice advanced citizenship. I’m not talking about that garbage they force you to swallow in elementary school about being nice to everyone. I’m talking about really getting involved.
It’s more than taking a few minutes out of your day to vote every now and then (which not enough people do anyway).
It means that as an American and as a South Carolinian, you should know what your leaders think and feel. You should know if they represent you. You should know if what they do in office is what they said they would do in the slickly designed campaign pamphlet somebody shoved in your door when you weren’t home.
The disturbing thing is that Spartanburg’s NEWSpaper actually condoned the line of thought coming from the party and consultants. Its editors sanctioned and published an article that seemed to include few facts except that someone ran polls.
One consultant accidentally made sense among those quoted in the piece. He said that there are “as many people recruiting candidates, and as many agendas, as you can count.”
What’s wrong with that? Isn’t that what we want? Don’t we want South Carolina’s best in public office? Don’t we want to elect people who believe like we do so that our thoughts and feelings are represented at City Hall, County Council, the Statehouse, or Congress?
I have to agree with that...
Then there's the little gem of a quote from the aforementioned Mr. Sullivan.
These third-party groups are spreading like a rash.
Somehow, that sounds familiar... Didn't Cindi Scoppe call them a "cancer"? And the forementioned Mr. Tompkins called them a "scourge"?
Y'all stay classy, now...
Speaking of classy, the Tompkins & Sullivan mouthpiece has now also attempted to "out" Brooks Brothers columnist Wilson Charles as belonging to another new consultancy group. Y'know, just for once, I'd love to see these consultant blogs focus on actual issues instead of constant attacks on each other...
But, I suppose that's way too much to ask for...
20 March 2008
Obama Reax - It's not the Racism, it's the intellectual dishonesty
I haven't had a whole lot of time to think about the Obama speech (still haven't, really), but I was struck by the unbelievability of the speech more than anything.
Apparently, I wasn't alone.
Victor Davis Hanson pointed out the relativistic nature of the speech, with a hidden rejection of absolutes that guts it of any moral authority.
Newt Gingrich went on Cavuto's FoxNews show to declare the speech "intellectually dishonest." Video at the link.
All things considered, though, it's these two YouTube efforts that best describe what went wrong with this speech. The first shows Obama flip flopping on what he knew and when he knew it. The second compares Obama's own words to those of his wife and his pastor. I think I see the beginnings of a 527 negative ad in that second clip.
First the flipflop:
Then the comparison:
No matter what, this will serve as ammunition for Hillary's campaign, who will surely continue to run the "Red Phone" ad as a contrast to Obama's inconsistency and unreadiness. If she fail to capitalize on this inconsistency, Senator McCain surely will.
Apparently, I wasn't alone.
Victor Davis Hanson pointed out the relativistic nature of the speech, with a hidden rejection of absolutes that guts it of any moral authority.
The tragedy of Obama's speech and the mindless endorsement of it was the rejection of any constant moral standard—an absolute sense of wrong and right that transcends situational ethics, context, and individual particulars. And once one jettisons such absolutes, they won't be there when one wishes to seek refuge in them in a future hour of need.
When he failed to "disown" Rev. Wright, and then brought in parallels of things purportedly as bad, or offered excuses that Wright had done good things to balance the bad, or that there were certain mitigating circumstances that explain his hatred, then the universal wrong of Wright's racism and lying disappears and with it any ethical standard by which we have moral authority to condemn such vitriol.
Newt Gingrich went on Cavuto's FoxNews show to declare the speech "intellectually dishonest." Video at the link.
All things considered, though, it's these two YouTube efforts that best describe what went wrong with this speech. The first shows Obama flip flopping on what he knew and when he knew it. The second compares Obama's own words to those of his wife and his pastor. I think I see the beginnings of a 527 negative ad in that second clip.
First the flipflop:
Then the comparison:
No matter what, this will serve as ammunition for Hillary's campaign, who will surely continue to run the "Red Phone" ad as a contrast to Obama's inconsistency and unreadiness. If she fail to capitalize on this inconsistency, Senator McCain surely will.
12 March 2008
Random Thoughts from Around the Blogosphere
First, I'd like to welcome those of you who have been invited by the Huckster to vote for his VP consideration in our poll (upper right).
Congratulations - you're the new Paul-bots.
Next time you run into your "Christian Leader", try asking him why he left the ministry to go into politics? Isn't that leaving the higher calling for a lower calling?
Was it that he needed the money, so he could go on trips to the Caymans in the middle of a campaign to make paid speeches? Was it that he knew his son would become the foreshadowing of Michael Vick? Or was it that his wife wasn't getting enough Hooters time? And that's not even getting to the whole "wrong side of the Southern Baptist split" thing.
Any way you cut it, Huckster's done politically. Not quite Eliot Spitzer done, but finished nonetheless.
*****
Speaking of Spitzer, Brad Warthen is complaining that too many people are laughing ("sniggering") at the soon to be demise of the New York Democrat Governor. Me, I'm laughing hard, and so are the late-night comics apparently. ("Just goes to show you how ridiculously high the standard of living is in New York City" - Heh.)
I mean, the guy allegedly felt the need to put a hooker (oops, sorry, "High Priced Call Girl") on a train in New York and bring her to Washington (hence the rumored interstate trafficking and money laundering charges). If he really needed to find a whore in Washington, all he needed to do was show up on Capitol Hill and look for the lobbyists... (*rim shot*)
*****
I see FITS has exposed the secret of the week (the true identity of "Harden Gervais" over at Sunny/Shady.) I had seriously suspected Wes and Corey, but hadn't had the proof until this morning. (Corey was the chief writer of seemingly every crazy conspiracy story in print about my employment over the last two years. While I'm flattered at the attention, if you're covering me, you're probably missing the point. This goes for Ross Shealy as well, though Ross has better photoshop skills than Shady Gervais does.)
Now, Corey tried denying this in comments in FITS (OK, well, sort of denying, while admitting he had done some of the "guest writing"), but within hours, Shady was posting an apology that included the nugget that they were done blogging. That's not just a coincidence, kids...
*****
Speaking of FITS, Hades may be in freezing danger. FITS, notverybright and I agreeing on the same issue? (that the Kentucky proposal to ban anonymous internet speech would be blatantly unconstitutional) Break out the ski gear...
Seriously, why is it always Republicans that come up with the Soviet style speech stuff? Aren't we supposed to be the Party that protects the Constitution? Oh, I guess that whole "Party Platform" thing doesn't actually apply to elected officials, my bad...
*****
Speaking of Shady People and Hugh Leatherman, what's this we read about a "Reform Caucus" made up of a bunch of old-line legislators who wouldn't know reform if it bit them and left a mark? If Sandifer and Leatherman think they can get fool people with this stunt, they're in for a pretty large surprise.
Though I certainly like and respect Senators Cromer, Cleary, and Thomas, I do hope their rumored involvement in a sham reform group like this turns out to be false. This won't help them with Republican voters or folks who actually care about achieving real reform in our state.
UPDATE: FITS claims to have documentation that points to Rod Shealy's organization of the "Reform Caucus". That would be an interesting development.
Congratulations - you're the new Paul-bots.
Next time you run into your "Christian Leader", try asking him why he left the ministry to go into politics? Isn't that leaving the higher calling for a lower calling?
Was it that he needed the money, so he could go on trips to the Caymans in the middle of a campaign to make paid speeches? Was it that he knew his son would become the foreshadowing of Michael Vick? Or was it that his wife wasn't getting enough Hooters time? And that's not even getting to the whole "wrong side of the Southern Baptist split" thing.
Any way you cut it, Huckster's done politically. Not quite Eliot Spitzer done, but finished nonetheless.
*****
Speaking of Spitzer, Brad Warthen is complaining that too many people are laughing ("sniggering") at the soon to be demise of the New York Democrat Governor. Me, I'm laughing hard, and so are the late-night comics apparently. ("Just goes to show you how ridiculously high the standard of living is in New York City" - Heh.)
I mean, the guy allegedly felt the need to put a hooker (oops, sorry, "High Priced Call Girl") on a train in New York and bring her to Washington (hence the rumored interstate trafficking and money laundering charges). If he really needed to find a whore in Washington, all he needed to do was show up on Capitol Hill and look for the lobbyists... (*rim shot*)
*****
I see FITS has exposed the secret of the week (the true identity of "Harden Gervais" over at Sunny/Shady.) I had seriously suspected Wes and Corey, but hadn't had the proof until this morning. (Corey was the chief writer of seemingly every crazy conspiracy story in print about my employment over the last two years. While I'm flattered at the attention, if you're covering me, you're probably missing the point. This goes for Ross Shealy as well, though Ross has better photoshop skills than Shady Gervais does.)
Now, Corey tried denying this in comments in FITS (OK, well, sort of denying, while admitting he had done some of the "guest writing"), but within hours, Shady was posting an apology that included the nugget that they were done blogging. That's not just a coincidence, kids...
*****
Speaking of FITS, Hades may be in freezing danger. FITS, notverybright and I agreeing on the same issue? (that the Kentucky proposal to ban anonymous internet speech would be blatantly unconstitutional) Break out the ski gear...
Seriously, why is it always Republicans that come up with the Soviet style speech stuff? Aren't we supposed to be the Party that protects the Constitution? Oh, I guess that whole "Party Platform" thing doesn't actually apply to elected officials, my bad...
*****
Speaking of Shady People and Hugh Leatherman, what's this we read about a "Reform Caucus" made up of a bunch of old-line legislators who wouldn't know reform if it bit them and left a mark? If Sandifer and Leatherman think they can get fool people with this stunt, they're in for a pretty large surprise.
Though I certainly like and respect Senators Cromer, Cleary, and Thomas, I do hope their rumored involvement in a sham reform group like this turns out to be false. This won't help them with Republican voters or folks who actually care about achieving real reform in our state.
UPDATE: FITS claims to have documentation that points to Rod Shealy's organization of the "Reform Caucus". That would be an interesting development.
06 March 2008
NEW POLL ----->
With my thoughts below on strengths, weaknesses, and odds, who do YOU think John McCain should pick as his running mate? Cast your Vote in the upper right corner of the blog.
05 March 2008
Handicapping McCain's Veep Field
So, now that Johnny Mac is the Republican nominee (and with the Dems locked in a battle that will take them all the way to Labor Day and their slugfest convention), let’s take a quick look at the odds and bios for the likely (and some unlikely) possibilities for Republican VP nominee.
THE FAVORITE
MN Governor Tim Pawlenty
ODDS: 4:1
POSITIVES: Executive experience, acceptable to all facets of the conservative base (fiscal, social, security, immigration), battleground state, youth, attractive, long time McCain supporter
NEGATIVE: Relatively low national profile, and his last name is worth 16 Scrabble points all by itself.
COMMENTARY:Pawlenty has it all, and the profile is rising rapidly as more conservatives get to know him. If he doesn’t get the nod, he’s a top tier Presidential option in 2012. Known for strong stands on social issues, and for balancing his state’s budget out of a deficit without raising taxes. Recently praised McCain while criticizing the amnesty bill from last year. Has reportedly been groomed for the job.
THE (EX-) GOVERNORS ON THE SHORT LIST
ODDS: 7:1
Former PA Governor and Original Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge
POSITIVES: Executive experience at state and national levels, honored military service, battleground state, known as tough on crime, strong on school choice and gay marriage.
NEGATIVES: can be too easily associated with George Bush presidency, pro-choice, mixed record prosecuting illegal immigration
SC Governor Mark Sanford
POSITIVES: Executive experience, rock star with the fiscal conservatives, prolific fundraiser with national ties, Wall Street loves him, acceptable to social conservatives, young, attractive family, 2000 McCain supporter, Eagle Scout. Recently praised McCain while criticizing amnesty (see Pawlenty above). If the rumored “hit list” turns out to be true, and Sanford actually engages in a meaningful way, then the primary wins he might accrue would hit in June, maximizing his political capital just as McCain would be cutting down the list.
NEGATIVES: Failed to back McCain in 2008, preferring to be seen as the fair-minded host of the SC primary. Made Time Magazine’s “three worst Governors” article in 2005. SC is already a red state. Needs to overhaul his speaking/communication style before he’s ready for primetime. Has strayed from conservative orthodoxy on global warming at exactly the wrong time. Might have a few skeletons kicking around Will Folks’ blog-closets, as well as a potential ports “scandal” brewing at just the wrong time. If Sanford fails to fully engage the rumored primary “hit list”, then the primary losses his political allies might accrue would hit in June, minimizing his remaining political capital just as McCain would be cutting down the list. McCain might worry that Brad Warthen would pull The State’s primary endorsement retroactively.
LA Governor Bobby Jindal
POSITIVES: Brilliant young mind, tremendous communicator, rock star with every section of the conservative movement, handsome, confirmed reformer, minority conservative, Rhodes Scholar, described by Rush Limbaugh as “the next Ronald Reagan”, assisted in the delivery of his third child. The perfect substantive antidote to Barack Obamessiah’s slick rhetorical emptiness (and Bobby could school Barry O. on the Sermon on the Mount).
NEGATIVE: He’s only 36, and he just started his first term as LA Governor (after a short but solid US House career). Might be too early. (seriously – that’s his one and only negative)
COMMENTARY: Sanford’s reputation with the national conservative movement is enough to overcome most of the negatives, but might not be enough to compete with Pawlenty’s grooming to be VP or Jindal’s star power. Still, if he doesn't get the nod, Sanford may well be considered a top tier 2012 candidate if he chooses to run.
Would be Ridge’s last ride, but his pro-choice Catholic position won’t soothe any social conservatives, though bringing battleground PA’s electoral votes would be a terrific inoculation against losing Ohio.
Oh, and mark it down, barring something truly unfortunate, Bobby Jindal will be President within the next 20 years, whether he’s the VP choice this time around or not. You heard it here. (and, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.)
SECOND TIER GOVERNORS
MA Governor Mitt Romney
ODDS: 10:1
POSITIVES: Presidential contender, potential frontrunner for the 2012 nomination, high name ID, business credentials, great family, handsome looks, well connected, inimitable fundraiser, took solid conservative positions in the ’08 race and stuck by them. Holds 250 convention delegates. Strong in northeastern and Midwestern battleground states.
NEGATIVES: McCain and Romney get along like cats and dogs, the recent endorsement love fest notwithstanding. McCain can’t be sure if Romney will stick to the newfound conservatism (since it was the incessant flip-floppery that cost him the nomination). National conservatives bringing Mitt’s name up now would actually prefer Sanford. Has Mitt mentioned he’s a Mormon?
MS Governor Haley Barbour
ODDS: 12:1
POSITIVES: Was the only executive (Republican or Democrat, state level or national) to exhibit any level of competence during the Katrina disaster. Solid national fundraiser with solid social conservative credentials. History as a reformer in Mississippi.
NEGATIVES: Too close with the Bushes after his stint as RNC chair. Broke promise not to raise taxes as governor, while vetoing tax cuts. Has reportedly been linked to the CCC.
AR Governor Mike Huckabee
ODDS: 50:1
POSITIVES: Just created a run for the Presidency on nothing but terrific communications skills and a reputation as a former Baptist minister. Rose to the Top Tier while only raising $9M. Social Conservative credentials mostly excellent. Made a graceful exit from the race with magnanimous words towards McCain. Holds 250 convention delegates after winning Iowa, Georgia and a few other states.
NEGATIVES: Just burned all of his political capital by staying in the race a month too long. Serious questions about ethics dating back to his governorship, most recently when he took a weekend in the Caymans to make a paid speech while campaigning for President. Total non-starter with the fiscal conservatives, severely suspect on immigration issue. Arkansas is only a battleground state because of Huckabee’s performance as Governor – he’d get clocked if Hillary’s the nominee. Does not have “the look” of a national officeholder. Some social conservative remember him as being on the wrong side of the Southern Baptist Convention split fight a few years back. Only raised $9M for his Presidential race.
Former FL Governor Jeb Bush
ODDS: 100:1
POSITIVES: The Best Bush. Better communicator than his father or brother. More competent than George. More conservative than George. More well liked than George. Almost single handedly governed Florida from being a battleground to being a red state.
NEGATIVE: His last name is Bush, and that isn’t going to get you elected for another century or so. Truly a pity, as on talent and skills, he deserves the White House more than his brother or father ever could have.
Current FL Governor Charlie Crist
ODDS: 100:1
POSITIVES: His endorsement helped swing the critical primary state of Florida for McCain at the time he needed it most. NRA rating of A+, solid on school choice issue, expanded adoption tax credits, illegal immigration, managed tort and eminent domain reforms.
NEGATIVES: Right to Die stance won’t play with pro-lifers. He’s been divorced since 1980 and has developed (fairly or unfairly) a reputation as a “player”. Some left wing blogs have even claimed he’s a closet homosexual, a charge he denied vociferously during his election campaign. Only a first term governor.
Former WI Governor Tommy Thompson
ODDS: 1,000,000:1
POSITIVES: Solid reputation as a conservative Governor and Cabinet Secretary.
NEGATIVES: Has all of the charisma of a potted plant. With no flowers. Ever. Is inexplicably younger than McCain.
Former VA Governor and RNC Chairman Jim Gilmore
ODDS: 1,000,000:1
POSITIVES: Solid reputation as a tax cutter (ran for governor on three words: No Car Tax). Also has excellent history as education reformer in VA.
NEGATIVES: Probably not VP timber. Almost made Tommy Thompson look interesting in the debates. Probably running for Senate from VA instead.
THE FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Former TN Senator Fred Thompson
ODDS: 15:1
POSITIVES: Solid communicator who built a decent national organization despite starting his run too late. Conservative credentials led to an extremely loyal following, despite lack of fundraising prowess. Friends with McCain, going back to their Senate days and his support of McCain in 2000. “Law and Order” reruns keep him on constant cable.
NEGATIVES: Best finish was his 2nd place in the WY caucus. Not a prodigious fundraiser. The “lazy” tag (unfairly, IMHO). His apparent age makes him unlikely pairing for McCain. May run for TN Governor in 2010 instead.
CA Congressman Duncan Hunter
ODDS: 50:1
POSITIVES: Solid, 26-year legislative history, including as Armed Service Chair. Supported McCain in 2000. Would bolster McCain’s immigration creds immeasurably. Vietnam Vet. Excellent Social Conservative credentials. Terrific debate presence, quick on his feet. NRA loves him. Youthful appearance. And you can’t deny the manly sound of that last name.
NEGATIVES: Was unable to build a national network. Fundraising was dismal, though not unexpected for 3rd Tier candidate. Wall Street types have complaints on China trade issue. May be better suited as Secretary of Defense or Homeland Security.
KS Senator Sam Brownback
ODDS: 1000:1
POSITIVES: Solid conservative on life and social conservative issues. Friends with McCain from the Senate.
NEGATIVES: Voted for amnesty before he voted against it. Barely defeats Tommy Thompson in the charisma category. Has actually flip-flopped on his own denominational affiliation twice in the last 5 years.
CO Congressman Tom Tancredo
ODDS: 1,000,000:1
POSITIVES: Unimpeachable immigration credentials. Solid conservative fiscal record across the spectrum.
NEGATIVES: Once called Miami a “Third World City”. Once suggested nuking Mecca. Immigration stance also against legal immigration, which would seem to eliminate him from any contention with McCain. Which is probably unfortunate. Would also make excellent Homeland Security or Education Secretary.
TX Congressman Ron Paul
ODDS: 100,000,000:1
POSITIVES: Makes McCain look younger. Brings out McCain’s sense of humor and his sharp wit. Undeniable fiscal credentials.
NEGATIVES: Too numerous to mention. If you’ve seen this, you know. And don’t get me started on his followers…
WILD CARDS
COMBINED FIELD ODDS: 50:1
Former OK Congressman JC Watts
POSITIVES: Solid Conservative credentials. Terrific communicator. Unafraid – including when he coined the term “race-hustling poverty pimps” to describe Dem politicians. Would be an interesting choice to reach out to African-Americans if Hillary manages to steal the Dem nomination from Obama.
NEGATIVES: Has mostly disappeared from the national political scene since his retirement in 2002. House service might not be enough experience.
Former MD LT Gov Michael Steele
POSITIVES: Solid conservative credentials, great communicator. Was the national conservative “Flavor of the month” for October 2006, until he narrowly lost his challenge for the Senate seat from MD. Current GOPAC Chairman. Excellent Obama antidote or African-American outreach if Hillary.
NEGATIVES: Lack of Experience – is Lite Gov of a small state enough to rise to VP? Hard to say. Has a very bright future, and is said to also be contemplating a 2010 Senate run if the regrettable Barbara Mikulski finally retires.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice
POSITIVES: Extremely knowledgeable on foreign affairs, gifted communicator.
NEGATIVES: WAAAAAAY too close to George Bush for McCain to consider seriously. After 8 years in Cabinet level roles, might be time for a long vacation before she tries to re-enter public life. Played down any electoral ambition speculation on Russert’s Meet the Press. Pro-choice.
Former OK Congressman Steve Largent
POSITIVES: Solid conservative credentials (hear a theme playing in many of these?), solid communicator, well-loved football star in battleground state of WA.
NEGATIVES: Narrowly (and surprisingly) lost OK Gov race in 2002, and has been mostly out of sight since.
Former GA Congressman and Speaker Newt Gingrich
POSITIVES: Brilliant strategist, excellent problem solver, impeccable conservative credentials. Terrific Television presence.
NEGATIVES: Polarizing figure. Might have trouble playing the #2 slot… to anyone, much less McCain. Publicly critical of McCain during campaign. Strayed from conservative orthodoxy on global warming. Personal life is a disaster area.
SC Senator Lindsey Graham
POSITIVES: Loves himself some John McCain. Was out early and often supporting McCain and lining up others to support in SC. May be singularly most responsible for nomination outside of McCain himself. Compelling personal story, including military service.
NEGATIVES: Is the ideological successor to McCain, which is to say he helps McCain in precisely no ways. Grahmnesty, the Gang of 14, Gitmo - every weakness McCain has, picking Lindsey makes worse. If he's going to pick a South Carolinian, it's far likelier to be Sanford. Is single, and has had to fight off whispered rumors about his dating life, not unlike Charlie Crist. Has drawn multiple primary challengers, and is up for election this cycle. May still be frontrunner for Attorney General nod if McCain prevails in November.
THE FAVORITE
MN Governor Tim Pawlenty
ODDS: 4:1
POSITIVES: Executive experience, acceptable to all facets of the conservative base (fiscal, social, security, immigration), battleground state, youth, attractive, long time McCain supporter
NEGATIVE: Relatively low national profile, and his last name is worth 16 Scrabble points all by itself.
COMMENTARY:Pawlenty has it all, and the profile is rising rapidly as more conservatives get to know him. If he doesn’t get the nod, he’s a top tier Presidential option in 2012. Known for strong stands on social issues, and for balancing his state’s budget out of a deficit without raising taxes. Recently praised McCain while criticizing the amnesty bill from last year. Has reportedly been groomed for the job.
THE (EX-) GOVERNORS ON THE SHORT LIST
ODDS: 7:1
Former PA Governor and Original Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge
POSITIVES: Executive experience at state and national levels, honored military service, battleground state, known as tough on crime, strong on school choice and gay marriage.
NEGATIVES: can be too easily associated with George Bush presidency, pro-choice, mixed record prosecuting illegal immigration
SC Governor Mark Sanford
POSITIVES: Executive experience, rock star with the fiscal conservatives, prolific fundraiser with national ties, Wall Street loves him, acceptable to social conservatives, young, attractive family, 2000 McCain supporter, Eagle Scout. Recently praised McCain while criticizing amnesty (see Pawlenty above). If the rumored “hit list” turns out to be true, and Sanford actually engages in a meaningful way, then the primary wins he might accrue would hit in June, maximizing his political capital just as McCain would be cutting down the list.
NEGATIVES: Failed to back McCain in 2008, preferring to be seen as the fair-minded host of the SC primary. Made Time Magazine’s “three worst Governors” article in 2005. SC is already a red state. Needs to overhaul his speaking/communication style before he’s ready for primetime. Has strayed from conservative orthodoxy on global warming at exactly the wrong time. Might have a few skeletons kicking around Will Folks’ blog-closets, as well as a potential ports “scandal” brewing at just the wrong time. If Sanford fails to fully engage the rumored primary “hit list”, then the primary losses his political allies might accrue would hit in June, minimizing his remaining political capital just as McCain would be cutting down the list. McCain might worry that Brad Warthen would pull The State’s primary endorsement retroactively.
LA Governor Bobby Jindal
POSITIVES: Brilliant young mind, tremendous communicator, rock star with every section of the conservative movement, handsome, confirmed reformer, minority conservative, Rhodes Scholar, described by Rush Limbaugh as “the next Ronald Reagan”, assisted in the delivery of his third child. The perfect substantive antidote to Barack Obamessiah’s slick rhetorical emptiness (and Bobby could school Barry O. on the Sermon on the Mount).
NEGATIVE: He’s only 36, and he just started his first term as LA Governor (after a short but solid US House career). Might be too early. (seriously – that’s his one and only negative)
COMMENTARY: Sanford’s reputation with the national conservative movement is enough to overcome most of the negatives, but might not be enough to compete with Pawlenty’s grooming to be VP or Jindal’s star power. Still, if he doesn't get the nod, Sanford may well be considered a top tier 2012 candidate if he chooses to run.
Would be Ridge’s last ride, but his pro-choice Catholic position won’t soothe any social conservatives, though bringing battleground PA’s electoral votes would be a terrific inoculation against losing Ohio.
Oh, and mark it down, barring something truly unfortunate, Bobby Jindal will be President within the next 20 years, whether he’s the VP choice this time around or not. You heard it here. (and, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.)
SECOND TIER GOVERNORS
MA Governor Mitt Romney
ODDS: 10:1
POSITIVES: Presidential contender, potential frontrunner for the 2012 nomination, high name ID, business credentials, great family, handsome looks, well connected, inimitable fundraiser, took solid conservative positions in the ’08 race and stuck by them. Holds 250 convention delegates. Strong in northeastern and Midwestern battleground states.
NEGATIVES: McCain and Romney get along like cats and dogs, the recent endorsement love fest notwithstanding. McCain can’t be sure if Romney will stick to the newfound conservatism (since it was the incessant flip-floppery that cost him the nomination). National conservatives bringing Mitt’s name up now would actually prefer Sanford. Has Mitt mentioned he’s a Mormon?
MS Governor Haley Barbour
ODDS: 12:1
POSITIVES: Was the only executive (Republican or Democrat, state level or national) to exhibit any level of competence during the Katrina disaster. Solid national fundraiser with solid social conservative credentials. History as a reformer in Mississippi.
NEGATIVES: Too close with the Bushes after his stint as RNC chair. Broke promise not to raise taxes as governor, while vetoing tax cuts. Has reportedly been linked to the CCC.
AR Governor Mike Huckabee
ODDS: 50:1
POSITIVES: Just created a run for the Presidency on nothing but terrific communications skills and a reputation as a former Baptist minister. Rose to the Top Tier while only raising $9M. Social Conservative credentials mostly excellent. Made a graceful exit from the race with magnanimous words towards McCain. Holds 250 convention delegates after winning Iowa, Georgia and a few other states.
NEGATIVES: Just burned all of his political capital by staying in the race a month too long. Serious questions about ethics dating back to his governorship, most recently when he took a weekend in the Caymans to make a paid speech while campaigning for President. Total non-starter with the fiscal conservatives, severely suspect on immigration issue. Arkansas is only a battleground state because of Huckabee’s performance as Governor – he’d get clocked if Hillary’s the nominee. Does not have “the look” of a national officeholder. Some social conservative remember him as being on the wrong side of the Southern Baptist Convention split fight a few years back. Only raised $9M for his Presidential race.
Former FL Governor Jeb Bush
ODDS: 100:1
POSITIVES: The Best Bush. Better communicator than his father or brother. More competent than George. More conservative than George. More well liked than George. Almost single handedly governed Florida from being a battleground to being a red state.
NEGATIVE: His last name is Bush, and that isn’t going to get you elected for another century or so. Truly a pity, as on talent and skills, he deserves the White House more than his brother or father ever could have.
Current FL Governor Charlie Crist
ODDS: 100:1
POSITIVES: His endorsement helped swing the critical primary state of Florida for McCain at the time he needed it most. NRA rating of A+, solid on school choice issue, expanded adoption tax credits, illegal immigration, managed tort and eminent domain reforms.
NEGATIVES: Right to Die stance won’t play with pro-lifers. He’s been divorced since 1980 and has developed (fairly or unfairly) a reputation as a “player”. Some left wing blogs have even claimed he’s a closet homosexual, a charge he denied vociferously during his election campaign. Only a first term governor.
Former WI Governor Tommy Thompson
ODDS: 1,000,000:1
POSITIVES: Solid reputation as a conservative Governor and Cabinet Secretary.
NEGATIVES: Has all of the charisma of a potted plant. With no flowers. Ever. Is inexplicably younger than McCain.
Former VA Governor and RNC Chairman Jim Gilmore
ODDS: 1,000,000:1
POSITIVES: Solid reputation as a tax cutter (ran for governor on three words: No Car Tax). Also has excellent history as education reformer in VA.
NEGATIVES: Probably not VP timber. Almost made Tommy Thompson look interesting in the debates. Probably running for Senate from VA instead.
THE FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Former TN Senator Fred Thompson
ODDS: 15:1
POSITIVES: Solid communicator who built a decent national organization despite starting his run too late. Conservative credentials led to an extremely loyal following, despite lack of fundraising prowess. Friends with McCain, going back to their Senate days and his support of McCain in 2000. “Law and Order” reruns keep him on constant cable.
NEGATIVES: Best finish was his 2nd place in the WY caucus. Not a prodigious fundraiser. The “lazy” tag (unfairly, IMHO). His apparent age makes him unlikely pairing for McCain. May run for TN Governor in 2010 instead.
CA Congressman Duncan Hunter
ODDS: 50:1
POSITIVES: Solid, 26-year legislative history, including as Armed Service Chair. Supported McCain in 2000. Would bolster McCain’s immigration creds immeasurably. Vietnam Vet. Excellent Social Conservative credentials. Terrific debate presence, quick on his feet. NRA loves him. Youthful appearance. And you can’t deny the manly sound of that last name.
NEGATIVES: Was unable to build a national network. Fundraising was dismal, though not unexpected for 3rd Tier candidate. Wall Street types have complaints on China trade issue. May be better suited as Secretary of Defense or Homeland Security.
KS Senator Sam Brownback
ODDS: 1000:1
POSITIVES: Solid conservative on life and social conservative issues. Friends with McCain from the Senate.
NEGATIVES: Voted for amnesty before he voted against it. Barely defeats Tommy Thompson in the charisma category. Has actually flip-flopped on his own denominational affiliation twice in the last 5 years.
CO Congressman Tom Tancredo
ODDS: 1,000,000:1
POSITIVES: Unimpeachable immigration credentials. Solid conservative fiscal record across the spectrum.
NEGATIVES: Once called Miami a “Third World City”. Once suggested nuking Mecca. Immigration stance also against legal immigration, which would seem to eliminate him from any contention with McCain. Which is probably unfortunate. Would also make excellent Homeland Security or Education Secretary.
TX Congressman Ron Paul
ODDS: 100,000,000:1
POSITIVES: Makes McCain look younger. Brings out McCain’s sense of humor and his sharp wit. Undeniable fiscal credentials.
NEGATIVES: Too numerous to mention. If you’ve seen this, you know. And don’t get me started on his followers…
WILD CARDS
COMBINED FIELD ODDS: 50:1
Former OK Congressman JC Watts
POSITIVES: Solid Conservative credentials. Terrific communicator. Unafraid – including when he coined the term “race-hustling poverty pimps” to describe Dem politicians. Would be an interesting choice to reach out to African-Americans if Hillary manages to steal the Dem nomination from Obama.
NEGATIVES: Has mostly disappeared from the national political scene since his retirement in 2002. House service might not be enough experience.
Former MD LT Gov Michael Steele
POSITIVES: Solid conservative credentials, great communicator. Was the national conservative “Flavor of the month” for October 2006, until he narrowly lost his challenge for the Senate seat from MD. Current GOPAC Chairman. Excellent Obama antidote or African-American outreach if Hillary.
NEGATIVES: Lack of Experience – is Lite Gov of a small state enough to rise to VP? Hard to say. Has a very bright future, and is said to also be contemplating a 2010 Senate run if the regrettable Barbara Mikulski finally retires.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice
POSITIVES: Extremely knowledgeable on foreign affairs, gifted communicator.
NEGATIVES: WAAAAAAY too close to George Bush for McCain to consider seriously. After 8 years in Cabinet level roles, might be time for a long vacation before she tries to re-enter public life. Played down any electoral ambition speculation on Russert’s Meet the Press. Pro-choice.
Former OK Congressman Steve Largent
POSITIVES: Solid conservative credentials (hear a theme playing in many of these?), solid communicator, well-loved football star in battleground state of WA.
NEGATIVES: Narrowly (and surprisingly) lost OK Gov race in 2002, and has been mostly out of sight since.
Former GA Congressman and Speaker Newt Gingrich
POSITIVES: Brilliant strategist, excellent problem solver, impeccable conservative credentials. Terrific Television presence.
NEGATIVES: Polarizing figure. Might have trouble playing the #2 slot… to anyone, much less McCain. Publicly critical of McCain during campaign. Strayed from conservative orthodoxy on global warming. Personal life is a disaster area.
SC Senator Lindsey Graham
POSITIVES: Loves himself some John McCain. Was out early and often supporting McCain and lining up others to support in SC. May be singularly most responsible for nomination outside of McCain himself. Compelling personal story, including military service.
NEGATIVES: Is the ideological successor to McCain, which is to say he helps McCain in precisely no ways. Grahmnesty, the Gang of 14, Gitmo - every weakness McCain has, picking Lindsey makes worse. If he's going to pick a South Carolinian, it's far likelier to be Sanford. Is single, and has had to fight off whispered rumors about his dating life, not unlike Charlie Crist. Has drawn multiple primary challengers, and is up for election this cycle. May still be frontrunner for Attorney General nod if McCain prevails in November.
03 March 2008
Alan Dershowitz: "Worshippers of Death"
From this morning's Wall Street Journal (and I highly recommend)
Worshippers of Death
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
March 3, 2008; Page A17
Zahra Maladan is an educated woman who edits a women's magazine in Lebanon. She is also a mother, who undoubtedly loves her son. She has ambitions for him, but they are different from those of most mothers in the West. She wants her son to become a suicide bomber.
At the recent funeral for the assassinated Hezbollah terrorist Imad Moughnaya -- the mass murderer responsible for killing 241 marines in 1983 and more than 100 women, children and men in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994 -- Ms. Maladan was quoted in the New York Times giving the following warning to her son: "if you're not going to follow the steps of the Islamic resistance martyrs, then I don't want you."
Zahra Maladan represents a dramatic shift in the way we must fight to protect our citizens against enemies who are sworn to kill them by killing themselves. The traditional paradigm was that mothers who love their children want them to live in peace, marry and produce grandchildren. Women in general, and mothers in particular, were seen as a counterweight to male belligerence. The picture of the mother weeping as her son is led off to battle -- even a just battle -- has been a constant and powerful image.
Now there is a new image of mothers urging their children to die, and then celebrating the martyrdom of their suicidal sons and daughters by distributing sweets and singing wedding songs. More and more young women -- some married with infant children -- are strapping bombs to their (sometimes pregnant) bellies, because they have been taught to love death rather than life. Look at what is being preached by some influential Islamic leaders:
"We are going to win, because they love life and we love death," said Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. He has also said: "[E]ach of us lives his days and nights hoping more than anything to be killed for the sake of Allah." Shortly after 9/11, Osama bin Laden told a reporter: "We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us."
"The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death," explained Afghani al Qaeda operative Maulana Inyadullah. Sheik Feiz Mohammed, leader of the Global Islamic Youth Center in Sydney, Australia, preached: "We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid." Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a speech: "It is the zenith of honor for a man, a young person, boy or girl, to be prepared to sacrifice his life in order to serve the interests of his nation and his religion."
How should Western democracies fight against an enemy whose leaders preach a preference for death?
The two basic premises of conventional warfare have long been that soldiers and civilians prefer living to dying and can thus be deterred from killing by the fear of being killed; and that combatants (soldiers) can easily be distinguished from noncombatants (women, children, the elderly, the infirm and other ordinary citizens). These premises are being challenged by women like Zahra Maladan. Neither she nor her son -- if he listens to his mother -- can be deterred from killing by the fear of being killed. They must be prevented from succeeding in their ghoulish quest for martyrdom. Prevention, however, carries a high risk of error. The woman walking toward the group of soldiers or civilians might well be an innocent civilian. A moment's hesitation may cost innocent lives. But a failure to hesitate may also have a price.
Late last month, a young female bomber was shot as she approached some shops in central Baghdad. The Iraqi soldier who drew his gun hesitated as the bomber, hands raised, insisted that she wasn't armed. The soldier and a shop owner finally opened fire as she dashed for the stores; she was knocked to the ground but still managed to detonate the bomb, killing three and wounding eight. Had the soldier and other bystanders not called out a warning to others -- and had they not shot her before she could enter the shops -- the death toll certainly would have been higher. Had he not hesitated, it might have been lower.
As more women and children are recruited by their mothers and their religious leaders to become suicide bombers, more women and children will be shot at -- some mistakenly. That too is part of the grand plan of our enemies. They want us to kill their civilians, who they also consider martyrs, because when we accidentally kill a civilian, they win in the court of public opinion. One Western diplomat called this the "harsh arithmetic of pain," whereby civilian casualties on both sides "play in their favor." Democracies lose, both politically and emotionally, when they kill civilians, even inadvertently. As Golda Meir once put it: "We can perhaps someday forgive you for killing our children, but we cannot forgive you for making us kill your children."
Civilian casualties also increase when terrorists operate from within civilian enclaves and hide behind human shields. This relatively new phenomenon undercuts the second basic premise of conventional warfare: Combatants can easily be distinguished from noncombatants. Has Zahra Maladan become a combatant by urging her son to blow himself up? Have the religious leaders who preach a culture of death lost their status as noncombatants? What about "civilians" who willingly allow themselves to be used as human shields? Or their homes as launching pads for terrorist rockets?
The traditional sharp distinction between soldiers in uniform and civilians in nonmilitary garb has given way to a continuum. At the more civilian end are babies and true noncombatants; at the more military end are the religious leaders who incite mass murder; in the middle are ordinary citizens who facilitate, finance or encourage terrorism. There are no hard and fast lines of demarcation, and mistakes are inevitable -- as the terrorists well understand.
We need new rules, strategies and tactics to deal effectively and fairly with these dangerous new realities. We cannot simply wait until the son of Zahra Maladan -- and the sons and daughters of hundreds of others like her -- decide to follow his mother's demand. We must stop them before they export their sick and dangerous culture of death to our shores.
Mr. Dershowitz teaches law at Harvard University and is the author of "Finding Jefferson" (Wiley, 2007).
Worshippers of Death
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
March 3, 2008; Page A17
Zahra Maladan is an educated woman who edits a women's magazine in Lebanon. She is also a mother, who undoubtedly loves her son. She has ambitions for him, but they are different from those of most mothers in the West. She wants her son to become a suicide bomber.
At the recent funeral for the assassinated Hezbollah terrorist Imad Moughnaya -- the mass murderer responsible for killing 241 marines in 1983 and more than 100 women, children and men in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994 -- Ms. Maladan was quoted in the New York Times giving the following warning to her son: "if you're not going to follow the steps of the Islamic resistance martyrs, then I don't want you."
Zahra Maladan represents a dramatic shift in the way we must fight to protect our citizens against enemies who are sworn to kill them by killing themselves. The traditional paradigm was that mothers who love their children want them to live in peace, marry and produce grandchildren. Women in general, and mothers in particular, were seen as a counterweight to male belligerence. The picture of the mother weeping as her son is led off to battle -- even a just battle -- has been a constant and powerful image.
Now there is a new image of mothers urging their children to die, and then celebrating the martyrdom of their suicidal sons and daughters by distributing sweets and singing wedding songs. More and more young women -- some married with infant children -- are strapping bombs to their (sometimes pregnant) bellies, because they have been taught to love death rather than life. Look at what is being preached by some influential Islamic leaders:
"We are going to win, because they love life and we love death," said Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. He has also said: "[E]ach of us lives his days and nights hoping more than anything to be killed for the sake of Allah." Shortly after 9/11, Osama bin Laden told a reporter: "We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us."
"The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death," explained Afghani al Qaeda operative Maulana Inyadullah. Sheik Feiz Mohammed, leader of the Global Islamic Youth Center in Sydney, Australia, preached: "We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid." Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a speech: "It is the zenith of honor for a man, a young person, boy or girl, to be prepared to sacrifice his life in order to serve the interests of his nation and his religion."
How should Western democracies fight against an enemy whose leaders preach a preference for death?
The two basic premises of conventional warfare have long been that soldiers and civilians prefer living to dying and can thus be deterred from killing by the fear of being killed; and that combatants (soldiers) can easily be distinguished from noncombatants (women, children, the elderly, the infirm and other ordinary citizens). These premises are being challenged by women like Zahra Maladan. Neither she nor her son -- if he listens to his mother -- can be deterred from killing by the fear of being killed. They must be prevented from succeeding in their ghoulish quest for martyrdom. Prevention, however, carries a high risk of error. The woman walking toward the group of soldiers or civilians might well be an innocent civilian. A moment's hesitation may cost innocent lives. But a failure to hesitate may also have a price.
Late last month, a young female bomber was shot as she approached some shops in central Baghdad. The Iraqi soldier who drew his gun hesitated as the bomber, hands raised, insisted that she wasn't armed. The soldier and a shop owner finally opened fire as she dashed for the stores; she was knocked to the ground but still managed to detonate the bomb, killing three and wounding eight. Had the soldier and other bystanders not called out a warning to others -- and had they not shot her before she could enter the shops -- the death toll certainly would have been higher. Had he not hesitated, it might have been lower.
As more women and children are recruited by their mothers and their religious leaders to become suicide bombers, more women and children will be shot at -- some mistakenly. That too is part of the grand plan of our enemies. They want us to kill their civilians, who they also consider martyrs, because when we accidentally kill a civilian, they win in the court of public opinion. One Western diplomat called this the "harsh arithmetic of pain," whereby civilian casualties on both sides "play in their favor." Democracies lose, both politically and emotionally, when they kill civilians, even inadvertently. As Golda Meir once put it: "We can perhaps someday forgive you for killing our children, but we cannot forgive you for making us kill your children."
Civilian casualties also increase when terrorists operate from within civilian enclaves and hide behind human shields. This relatively new phenomenon undercuts the second basic premise of conventional warfare: Combatants can easily be distinguished from noncombatants. Has Zahra Maladan become a combatant by urging her son to blow himself up? Have the religious leaders who preach a culture of death lost their status as noncombatants? What about "civilians" who willingly allow themselves to be used as human shields? Or their homes as launching pads for terrorist rockets?
The traditional sharp distinction between soldiers in uniform and civilians in nonmilitary garb has given way to a continuum. At the more civilian end are babies and true noncombatants; at the more military end are the religious leaders who incite mass murder; in the middle are ordinary citizens who facilitate, finance or encourage terrorism. There are no hard and fast lines of demarcation, and mistakes are inevitable -- as the terrorists well understand.
We need new rules, strategies and tactics to deal effectively and fairly with these dangerous new realities. We cannot simply wait until the son of Zahra Maladan -- and the sons and daughters of hundreds of others like her -- decide to follow his mother's demand. We must stop them before they export their sick and dangerous culture of death to our shores.
Mr. Dershowitz teaches law at Harvard University and is the author of "Finding Jefferson" (Wiley, 2007).
28 February 2008
Global Warming Strikes Out Again
Yep, it's official: I'm a Global Warming Denier.
And, as usual, the science remains on my side.
Two stories to get us riled up this time. The first is last year's temperature data, which shows a global cooling in 2007 mean temps of between 0.65 and 0.75 Celsius degrees. (Graph above).
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Then there's the Canadian National Post story which basically refutes everything Al Gore has ever said - the Arctic Ice is growing, and is now between 10cm and 20cm thicker on average than it was one year ago. Money quote:
Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."
He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.
Can someone please get this information into the hands of John McCain, quick? This thoroughly discredits the need for a "cap-and-trade" system, which just begs for socialist control of energy resources and a prolonging and worsening of global poverty. If Johnny Mac can use this data to reverse course on the issue, it can be used very effectively against the liberals in the Fall campaign.
Not that he'd ever listen to me, but maybe he'd listen to the data. We all should start paying attention to good scientific data, and not the hyperventilating alarmism of the environmental left.
27 February 2008
William F. Buckley, Jr. (1925 - 2008)
Sad news today - William F. Buckley, one of the founders of modern conservatism has passed away today at the age of 82. Buckley will be remembered as the founder of the National Review, who report this morning that Mr. Buckley passed away in his study. Somehow appropriate.
Buckley will also be remembered as the host of Firing Line, as one of the most gifted writers American conservatism has ever produced, and as a one-time CIA spook turned author and societal commentator. He was a fervent anti-communist, a staunch supporter of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, and one of the most formidable masters of English vocabulary.
He will, most certainly, be missed. Feel free to post your own tributes in comments.
***
Michelle Malkin quotes Reagan at a Buckley/National Review tribute:
One final note: I think eventually the pundits and analysts are going to catch on to the enormous force and deep roots of the conservative movement. Some of them even seem to have finally realized that I actually am one and that I mean it. And when that happens, they are going to realize something not only about this journal, but about its founder and editor: that Bill Buckley is perhaps the most influential journalist and intellectual in our era — that he changed our country, indeed our century...
So, Bill, one last word to you. We thank you for your friendship. You are, of course, a great man. And so we thank you also for National Review, for setting loose so much good in the world. And, Bill — thanks, too, for all the fun.
God bless you.
25 February 2008
Baby Why Don't We Go Down To Kosovo
OK, so this has been percolating in my head for a few days, ever since I flipped past a news channel showing protesters burning the walls of our embassy in Serbia.
Why are we still pursuing a pre-9/11, Clintonian policy regarding Kosovo?
Do we, in our wildest imaginations, think an Islamic state in Europe is a good idea?
Do we consider ethnic breakaway states to suddenly be a good idea?
I happen to think that pursuing an Islamist “democracy” in Kosovo (and encouraging the break from Serbia) is a bad idea, but clearly our State Department disagrees – and therein lies the real problem.
No matter who wins this fall’s elections, the State Department rolls along, career lefty diplomats pushing their own agenda regardless of who takes the White House reins. That’s the only real explanation for why we’d continue on the 1990s path of pushing Islamic breakaway states in Europe.
You’ll notice we backed way off of pushing for an independent Chechnya once the attacks of 9/11 and Beslan showed the Chechen rebels to just be more of the same Islamist thuggery as we’re currently fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So why do we persist with pushing that self-same agenda in Kosovo?
Spain, it seems to me, has the right perspective here. Long campaigns from Basque and Catalan separatists leave the Spanish knowing that an independent Kosovo provides a bad example for their own ability to remain united as a nation. So Spain was one of the countries fighting against Kosovar independence - good for them, bad for the rest of us.
Keep in mind – this was “Monica’s War” the first time around, the “Wag the Dog” scenario (same country, even!) used to change the subject from the Lewinsky/Willey sex scandals of Bill Clinton’s making. We’re still paying for those mistakes. (You will recall the other military strikes done with the same purpose – the slap on the wrist bombing of the Sudanese aspirin factory rather than actually getting Osama bin Laden. Seems Billy Boy went oh-for-2…) Odd timing, this Kosovo thing coming just as Barack Obama looks to put the finishing blows to Hillary's chances...
Other thought – the Kosovar Muslims have spent the better part of a decade trashing orthodox churches. (Yes, the Serbs have retaliated in kind, trashing mosques). In any case, why would we encourage or reward that kind of behavior? This smacks of weakness to me, that we would reward that behavior with a state will resonate in the Islamic mind as proof that the West can successfully be pushed around. That’s not a healthy example to set.
Also: did we do this just to get into the Russians’ grill and make a mess? I would think shooting down a satellite is enough nose-tweaking for one month. (which looked spectacularly like the Death Star scene from Star Wars…) Breakaway Islamic states (Kosovo along with Chechnya) are an area where we should be building bridges with the Russians, not bombing them (see Tim’s excellent notes on what’s been wrong with Russia lately – shouldn’t we be encouraging their youth to see us as reasonable rather than pig-headed?) If the Russians were pushing for New Mexico to become independent (or rejoin Old Mexico), I think we'd have some serious anger issues with them; why don't we see that in this case, I wonder?
So… BOO to the Bush Administration’s decision to encourage and recognize an independent Kosovo. And BOO to our State Department for pushing this along.
Why are we still pursuing a pre-9/11, Clintonian policy regarding Kosovo?
Do we, in our wildest imaginations, think an Islamic state in Europe is a good idea?
Do we consider ethnic breakaway states to suddenly be a good idea?
I happen to think that pursuing an Islamist “democracy” in Kosovo (and encouraging the break from Serbia) is a bad idea, but clearly our State Department disagrees – and therein lies the real problem.
No matter who wins this fall’s elections, the State Department rolls along, career lefty diplomats pushing their own agenda regardless of who takes the White House reins. That’s the only real explanation for why we’d continue on the 1990s path of pushing Islamic breakaway states in Europe.
You’ll notice we backed way off of pushing for an independent Chechnya once the attacks of 9/11 and Beslan showed the Chechen rebels to just be more of the same Islamist thuggery as we’re currently fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So why do we persist with pushing that self-same agenda in Kosovo?
Spain, it seems to me, has the right perspective here. Long campaigns from Basque and Catalan separatists leave the Spanish knowing that an independent Kosovo provides a bad example for their own ability to remain united as a nation. So Spain was one of the countries fighting against Kosovar independence - good for them, bad for the rest of us.
Keep in mind – this was “Monica’s War” the first time around, the “Wag the Dog” scenario (same country, even!) used to change the subject from the Lewinsky/Willey sex scandals of Bill Clinton’s making. We’re still paying for those mistakes. (You will recall the other military strikes done with the same purpose – the slap on the wrist bombing of the Sudanese aspirin factory rather than actually getting Osama bin Laden. Seems Billy Boy went oh-for-2…) Odd timing, this Kosovo thing coming just as Barack Obama looks to put the finishing blows to Hillary's chances...
Other thought – the Kosovar Muslims have spent the better part of a decade trashing orthodox churches. (Yes, the Serbs have retaliated in kind, trashing mosques). In any case, why would we encourage or reward that kind of behavior? This smacks of weakness to me, that we would reward that behavior with a state will resonate in the Islamic mind as proof that the West can successfully be pushed around. That’s not a healthy example to set.
Also: did we do this just to get into the Russians’ grill and make a mess? I would think shooting down a satellite is enough nose-tweaking for one month. (which looked spectacularly like the Death Star scene from Star Wars…) Breakaway Islamic states (Kosovo along with Chechnya) are an area where we should be building bridges with the Russians, not bombing them (see Tim’s excellent notes on what’s been wrong with Russia lately – shouldn’t we be encouraging their youth to see us as reasonable rather than pig-headed?) If the Russians were pushing for New Mexico to become independent (or rejoin Old Mexico), I think we'd have some serious anger issues with them; why don't we see that in this case, I wonder?
So… BOO to the Bush Administration’s decision to encourage and recognize an independent Kosovo. And BOO to our State Department for pushing this along.
22 February 2008
Ted Kennedy SINGS! (en espanol)
There is very little to say to describe this. One need only see it.
Unreal.
Unreal.
13 February 2008
Behold the power of influenza
woke up this morning and wondered if anybody got the license plate number of that truck... Yikes.
I'll be light blogging for a while to avoid light-headed blogging...
I'll be light blogging for a while to avoid light-headed blogging...
11 February 2008
Abolish Parole?
I find it interesting (and a tad ironic) that I start off with a state topic that surfaced during the Presidential campaign – abolishing parole.
Those of you with long memories will recall that one of my first posts on the old blog (and the most regrettable) was one that was particularly rough on Jon Ozmint, SC Corrections Department Director. The upshot is that after my printed apology, Jon and I have actually become friends, which is truly a testament to his willingness to forgive.
Well, as fate would have it, Jon is involved in this latest discussion over parole, or more specifically Attorney General Henry McMaster’s proposal to abolish parole.
General McMaster points to cases where parolees have committed heinous crimes, or where violent sexual predators are up for parole after mere months. He has proposed a new “Middle Court” for non-violent offenders that could keep those folks out of the prison system, focusing prison time for violent offenders and making sure they do more of the time to which they are sentenced.
In response, Mr. Ozmint points to a chronically underfunded prisons budget and asks how we will pay for the increased time for criminals behind bars. With prison guards getting hand-me-down body armor to protect themselves in dangerously overcrowded prisons, we’re one really bad meal away from disaster. We need to be looking to build another Supermax facility, and now we want to hold more folks and for longer? Will the legislative folks pay for all this?
Keep in mind, Ozmint’s been working with a bailing wire and duct tape budget that still manages to keep the prisoners fed (at the lowest per-capita cost in the nation). When I went on a tour of the prison system last summer, I was truly impressed by what this state has been able to accomplish using inmate labor (for cost savings, food production, and inmate workforce rehabilitation training purposes). Under the circumstances he’s been working under, Jon has been doing a terrific job.
Jon also looks at prisoner behavior and suggests that removing the parole option would make managing prisons more difficult, if prisoners know that they have less wiggle room for good behavior.
Here’s the rub: they’re both right.
As long as we have a criminal justice system that lets violent offenders serve miniscule sentences, only to be released to terrorize the citizenry time after time, we don’t truly have justice in our criminal system. Abolishing parole for violent crimes would be an excellent start towards real “Truth in Sentencing”, especially for the violent sexual predators that Attorney McMaster targets most often.
But none of it matters if the Prisons folks can’t get the substantial funding increases necessary to make it work.
Too often, the prison budget process has been misused, either as a political pawn in the Legislature’s ongoing war with the West Wing, or as a place for funds to be diverted from for the latest pork project or legislative slush fund.
What’s needed? Attorney General McMaster’s ideas about alternative sentencing and courts for non-violent offenders show real promise for keeping some folks out of the prison system in the first place. That’s a good start.
More than that, though, is the realization that prisons, as a critical function of state government, must be treated with greater priority by the Legislature. The full funding would be a start, including new facilities to house the growing number of violent gang members and predators that our state is incarcerating every year.
I would hope that some of the wiser heads in the Legislature could work out the compromise deal on this that gets both men what they need – tougher sentences on violent criminals and the funding to do the job right.
***
TIMELINESS UPDATE: Jon Ozmint has an OpEd in this morning's State newspaper.
Those of you with long memories will recall that one of my first posts on the old blog (and the most regrettable) was one that was particularly rough on Jon Ozmint, SC Corrections Department Director. The upshot is that after my printed apology, Jon and I have actually become friends, which is truly a testament to his willingness to forgive.
Well, as fate would have it, Jon is involved in this latest discussion over parole, or more specifically Attorney General Henry McMaster’s proposal to abolish parole.
General McMaster points to cases where parolees have committed heinous crimes, or where violent sexual predators are up for parole after mere months. He has proposed a new “Middle Court” for non-violent offenders that could keep those folks out of the prison system, focusing prison time for violent offenders and making sure they do more of the time to which they are sentenced.
In response, Mr. Ozmint points to a chronically underfunded prisons budget and asks how we will pay for the increased time for criminals behind bars. With prison guards getting hand-me-down body armor to protect themselves in dangerously overcrowded prisons, we’re one really bad meal away from disaster. We need to be looking to build another Supermax facility, and now we want to hold more folks and for longer? Will the legislative folks pay for all this?
Keep in mind, Ozmint’s been working with a bailing wire and duct tape budget that still manages to keep the prisoners fed (at the lowest per-capita cost in the nation). When I went on a tour of the prison system last summer, I was truly impressed by what this state has been able to accomplish using inmate labor (for cost savings, food production, and inmate workforce rehabilitation training purposes). Under the circumstances he’s been working under, Jon has been doing a terrific job.
Jon also looks at prisoner behavior and suggests that removing the parole option would make managing prisons more difficult, if prisoners know that they have less wiggle room for good behavior.
Here’s the rub: they’re both right.
As long as we have a criminal justice system that lets violent offenders serve miniscule sentences, only to be released to terrorize the citizenry time after time, we don’t truly have justice in our criminal system. Abolishing parole for violent crimes would be an excellent start towards real “Truth in Sentencing”, especially for the violent sexual predators that Attorney McMaster targets most often.
But none of it matters if the Prisons folks can’t get the substantial funding increases necessary to make it work.
Too often, the prison budget process has been misused, either as a political pawn in the Legislature’s ongoing war with the West Wing, or as a place for funds to be diverted from for the latest pork project or legislative slush fund.
What’s needed? Attorney General McMaster’s ideas about alternative sentencing and courts for non-violent offenders show real promise for keeping some folks out of the prison system in the first place. That’s a good start.
More than that, though, is the realization that prisons, as a critical function of state government, must be treated with greater priority by the Legislature. The full funding would be a start, including new facilities to house the growing number of violent gang members and predators that our state is incarcerating every year.
I would hope that some of the wiser heads in the Legislature could work out the compromise deal on this that gets both men what they need – tougher sentences on violent criminals and the funding to do the job right.
***
TIMELINESS UPDATE: Jon Ozmint has an OpEd in this morning's State newspaper.
08 February 2008
Yep, I'm Back
I know - you knew I'd be back, eventually. I'm too opinionated to keep away.
The Thompson campaign thing didn't work out as planned (I'll probably end up blogging about that at some point, but those thoughts still need to organize themselves in my brain first) so here we are again...
Before I re-start this in earnest, a few housekeeping notes on what will (and won't) be on this blog, and in the comments.
First, I'm unlikely to discuss the relative merits of those still running for President. If you haven't figured out by now that I was supporting Fred Thompson because he was the consistent conservative, that's your problem, not mine. In the mean time, I just don't find myself enthused enough about the remaining choices to actually discuss any of them. I will probably post mortem those who fall by the wayside as they go (both of my former bosses sadly included), and note any truly interesting developments in the race, but all in all, don't expect this site to talk much Presidential politics.
I am likely to talk conservative issues - that has always been my passion and will remain so. These include: life, liberty, small government, the conflict between Western Civilization and Islamism, taxes, immigration, crime, national defense, government incompetence, school choice, and the myth known as "Man-made Global Climate Change". (OK, I'm pretty sure a large number of you just cringed on one or more of those lines, including in the Governor's Mansion. Heh. Told you I'm back...) I'm also likely to experiment with polls, pictures, video, and the rest of the whole "web 2.0" technology stuff. I don't know what web 3.0 will look like, but if I'm still around, we'll all get to play with that, too.
Now, at the moment, I'm a consulant without much in the way of a clientele (an unfortunate, but natural after-effect of working 110-hour weeks on an all-consuming campaign...) I am quite glad to be back on SC talk radio (on occasional Charleston mornings with Andy Thomas on WQSC), and as the next round of elections approach, I expect to be busier with work (and thus less blog-busy). Those of you who read my work on the old "Body Politic/SCHotline" site know that's happened before, but I'll still try to stay on top of the blogging thing.
Affiliations: with the new blog name comes a split with SCHotline - but this is merely in name. I'm still good friends with Mike and Jeffrey, and still wish them the best with the site (and am very grateful for our past work). I never was a co-owner of Hotline (much to the confusion of many), nor was I remunerated for work there (outside of a few free lunches...) Still, they're doing good work over there, and we're all on friendly terms. Bierbauer is a great addition to what they're doing, and I encourage folks to read his stuff.
Comments: Still moderated. No profanity, no weird baseless/conspiracy theory accusations about the author, and no comments promoting Ron Paul's Presidential campaign (which pretty much count as profanity anyways, but that's a separate issue). Civil discourse that disagrees is not only acceptable, it's encouraged; I'm not interested in quashing points of view. That said, if you keep posting long passages in comments, you might consider starting your own blog instead of trying to hijack mine - most blog sites are free, y'know. Don't assume that just because your comment doesn't come up that I've blocked it - I may just not have gotten to comment moderation duties yet that hour... patience is appreciated - I do have to make money somehow...
Speaking of making money... I need a good name for the new consulting business. I've got a few ideas kicking around the brain, but nothing firmed up yet. Probably want something witty, filled with multiple meanings, having to do with either music or animals (or both). (Ok, hidden talent moment - I write and play music. If you knew that, you're definitely a friend...) Anyhow, any name suggestions are welcome in comments of this post. (as long as they follow the other comments rules...)
Also welcome in comments or email: suggestions for additions to the blogroll. I reserve the right to accept or reject any applications. For the national roll, bloggers should be hitting major national/international topics from a conservative perspective, and be willing to reciprocate linkage. For the SC roll, a conservative perspective is also strongly recommended, though with more room to maneuver within the right-middle sphere, or just be objective on relevant SC topics. If you routinely bash conservatives, conservatism, or our ideals (or me by name), don't expect a link here (Michael Reese, the aptly named "notverybright", and Harden Gervais/Ross Shealy - this means you. Don't waste the bandwidth or the time.)
So... it's good to be back in the 'sphere. I'll see y'all around the 'net. More to follow...
The Thompson campaign thing didn't work out as planned (I'll probably end up blogging about that at some point, but those thoughts still need to organize themselves in my brain first) so here we are again...
Before I re-start this in earnest, a few housekeeping notes on what will (and won't) be on this blog, and in the comments.
First, I'm unlikely to discuss the relative merits of those still running for President. If you haven't figured out by now that I was supporting Fred Thompson because he was the consistent conservative, that's your problem, not mine. In the mean time, I just don't find myself enthused enough about the remaining choices to actually discuss any of them. I will probably post mortem those who fall by the wayside as they go (both of my former bosses sadly included), and note any truly interesting developments in the race, but all in all, don't expect this site to talk much Presidential politics.
I am likely to talk conservative issues - that has always been my passion and will remain so. These include: life, liberty, small government, the conflict between Western Civilization and Islamism, taxes, immigration, crime, national defense, government incompetence, school choice, and the myth known as "Man-made Global Climate Change". (OK, I'm pretty sure a large number of you just cringed on one or more of those lines, including in the Governor's Mansion. Heh. Told you I'm back...) I'm also likely to experiment with polls, pictures, video, and the rest of the whole "web 2.0" technology stuff. I don't know what web 3.0 will look like, but if I'm still around, we'll all get to play with that, too.
Now, at the moment, I'm a consulant without much in the way of a clientele (an unfortunate, but natural after-effect of working 110-hour weeks on an all-consuming campaign...) I am quite glad to be back on SC talk radio (on occasional Charleston mornings with Andy Thomas on WQSC), and as the next round of elections approach, I expect to be busier with work (and thus less blog-busy). Those of you who read my work on the old "Body Politic/SCHotline" site know that's happened before, but I'll still try to stay on top of the blogging thing.
Affiliations: with the new blog name comes a split with SCHotline - but this is merely in name. I'm still good friends with Mike and Jeffrey, and still wish them the best with the site (and am very grateful for our past work). I never was a co-owner of Hotline (much to the confusion of many), nor was I remunerated for work there (outside of a few free lunches...) Still, they're doing good work over there, and we're all on friendly terms. Bierbauer is a great addition to what they're doing, and I encourage folks to read his stuff.
Comments: Still moderated. No profanity, no weird baseless/conspiracy theory accusations about the author, and no comments promoting Ron Paul's Presidential campaign (which pretty much count as profanity anyways, but that's a separate issue). Civil discourse that disagrees is not only acceptable, it's encouraged; I'm not interested in quashing points of view. That said, if you keep posting long passages in comments, you might consider starting your own blog instead of trying to hijack mine - most blog sites are free, y'know. Don't assume that just because your comment doesn't come up that I've blocked it - I may just not have gotten to comment moderation duties yet that hour... patience is appreciated - I do have to make money somehow...
Speaking of making money... I need a good name for the new consulting business. I've got a few ideas kicking around the brain, but nothing firmed up yet. Probably want something witty, filled with multiple meanings, having to do with either music or animals (or both). (Ok, hidden talent moment - I write and play music. If you knew that, you're definitely a friend...) Anyhow, any name suggestions are welcome in comments of this post. (as long as they follow the other comments rules...)
Also welcome in comments or email: suggestions for additions to the blogroll. I reserve the right to accept or reject any applications. For the national roll, bloggers should be hitting major national/international topics from a conservative perspective, and be willing to reciprocate linkage. For the SC roll, a conservative perspective is also strongly recommended, though with more room to maneuver within the right-middle sphere, or just be objective on relevant SC topics. If you routinely bash conservatives, conservatism, or our ideals (or me by name), don't expect a link here (Michael Reese, the aptly named "notverybright", and Harden Gervais/Ross Shealy - this means you. Don't waste the bandwidth or the time.)
So... it's good to be back in the 'sphere. I'll see y'all around the 'net. More to follow...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)