Bill Kristol, who is one of my favorite pundits, has written one of his usual bitingly insightful pieces titled appropriately enough Boneless Wonders.

As you would expect, it castigates the spineless politicians on both sides who are putting electoral considerations before national security while seeking to take no responsibility for failure or defeat, an extremely difficult juggling act requiring  these modern day Solons to contort themselves into the most ridiculous of positions. They really couldn't do any of this if they had any kind of skeletal structure.

I highly recommend you read the article which is short but hardhitting.

One specific sentence towards the end really caught my attention:

And how about Sen. Obama on the Today show? "We're not going to babysit a civil war."

Kristol rightfully calls this nothing more than a soundbite, but why should we allow Obama, the darling of the Left, off so easily.

This flippant remark is actually saying we have no dog in this fight, and that it's none of our business.

Does this mean Barack doesn't understand that the lifeblood of the industrial world, oil, is on the verge of being held hostage by an enemy which is trying to destroy our civilization? 

Does it indicate that he does not see that a fleeing US will energize the entire IslamoFascists movement like nothing to date, and that these people who value strength more than anything will claim the prize of having defeated the World's Superpower?

Does he not care that it is almost unanimously thought that a bloodbath involving the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives will result from our leaving Iraq prematurely?

Does he not grasp that Iran will fill the void we leave behind, and that their President is making preparations for Armageddon even as we speak?

And if none of this matters to Obama, how does he feel about Darfur, or is it okay for the US to fight where we have no strategic national interests?

Obama is a blank slate, and so far that has been his strength. However, with remarks like this we are starting to be able understand this hero of the Left, and the picture slowly developing is not attractive or encouraging. His lack of knowledge and compassion, so succinctly summed up by this one sentence, should give all the moderates in this country pause, for they indicate that the Liberal darling is not only boneless but brainless as well.

Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski proves that the Carter administration's ineptness extends way beyond it's fearless leader in a piece in the WaPo criticizing the President's speech. After reading this my only thought was "How did we ever survive the years these fools were in office"?

The article is short and bitter, and yet manages to succinctly capture so much of the Liberal propaganda that you have to give ZB an "A" for concise writing. Unfortunately this is balanced out by the "F" it deserves for total lack of truthfulness or facts.

Its language was less Islamophobic than has been customary with President Bush's rhetoric since Sept. 11, though the president still could not resist the temptation to engage in a demagogic oversimplification of the challenge the United States faces in Iraq, calling it a struggle to safeguard "a young democracy" against extremists and an effort to protect American society from terrorists. Both propositions are more than dubious.

Yes, we wouldn't want to appear Islamophobic when talking about the enemy trying to kill us, would we? War is war, but political correctness trumps all. I am glad to see Brzezinski's priorities are straight.

As for the complexity of the situation, this is the usual Liberal obfuscation which seeks to hide the true issues while making them feel smart while we are all obviously stupid. Well, count me stupid, because I do believe we are trying to protect that democracy while defending the US against terrorism.  But then again I believe WWII was about defeating fascism while I am sure ZB sees it in a much more sophisticated, complicated geopolitical prospective that I would never understand.

The commitment of 21,500 more troops is a political gimmick of limited tactical significance and of no strategic benefit. It is insufficient to win the war militarily.

Gee, this isn't too politically partisan, is it? I mean, this is the man who help handle the Iran hostage crisis so adeptly that I really trust his military acumen as I am sure you do. Besides, I was never really fooled by that 21,500 number anyway- I can recognize a photo op when I see one. 

But I do admit a small part of me wishes he would explain why the commitment of a major increase in our military strength committed to securing Baghdad, a tactic many real military experts are advocating, is not significant. Must be that Liberal complexity thing again.

The speech did not explore even the possibility of developing a framework for an eventual political solution. The search for a political solution would require a serious dialogue about a joint American-Iraqi decision regarding the eventual date of a U.S. withdrawal ...The U.S. refusal to explore the possibility of talks with Iran and Syria is a policy of self-ostracism that fits well into the administration's diplomatic style of relying on sloganeering as a substitute for strategizing.

Surprise, cut and run combined with negotiations with those two stalwarts of the area, the always reasonable and humane Iran and Syria. He should have just tipped his hat to the ISG for this whole paragraph, but I guess sharing the spotlight is not his strong point.

The speech reflects a profound misunderstanding of our era. America is acting like a colonial power in Iraq. But the age of colonialism is over. Waging a colonial war in the post-colonial age is self-defeating. That is the fatal flaw of Bush's policy.

Here we just have a flagrant untruth casually pawned off on us. In the lexicon of the used car salesman, he is "assuming the sale" and hoping to intimidate us into buying it without looking under the hood. The reason is simple- this statement is just a lie.

Colonial wars were not fought to free people and set them up in their own sovereign governments. Rather, they were aggressive actions to obtain strategic goals and resources and extend the power and influence of the country waging it.

Now try as I might, I see nothing  colonialistic  [or imperialistic, basically the same thing]  about this war. In fact, to some degree I  feel that our basic problem in waging it is our refusal to project our full power and take complete responsibility instead of deferring so soon to the local power structures. 

We can be accused of many things, but as far as this being a an exercise in colonialism, even the complicated and complex mindset of Brzezinski cannot truly believe or justify that,  and he doesn't , just stating it as a fact.

To use that car sale analogy one last time, when the salesman hesitates to let you take it for a ride, its time to go home. In this case, he couldn't even get the thing to start.

In reading this article it struck me how similar the tactics of the Liberals are to terrorists. They throw random bombs which scare the onlookers, but when they are confronted they meld back into the protective coloration of the population, talking about "supporting our troops" and "achieving real security" and even "being in favor of a troop surge".

Like the Terrorists, they use our own strengths against us, knowing we cannot silence their propaganda and lies without compromising our principles, and steadily wear away at our will. And like the Terrorists they can only win if we allow them to demoralize us.  Unfortunately it seems to be working.

John Stoessel and Steven Pearlstein of the WaPo have laid out their opposing views regarding raising the minimum wage and have therefore given us an opportunity to assess the logic and practicality of their two very different perspectives.

Stoessel has basically espoused the commonsense opinion that , there being no such thing as a free lunch, someone has to pay for the raises, and the most likely group to be hurt are the lower rung employees who will lose their jobs.

As he says, this is just supply and demand, a basic economic law which you would think even a Liberal would have to acknowledge. He also makes the trenchant observation that if raising the wage by fiat were truly a solution, than why not raise it significantly and take everyone right up the food chain? The stupidity of that idea speaks for itself, as Stoessel intends it to.

Now to prove that the concept of supply and demand has not quite filtered down to all Liberals, Pearlstein makes the Leftist lament for raising the rate, calling it the "economical, political and moral " thing to do. Put like that, who can argue with it, right?  I mean, it seems kind of petty to point out the delusional basis of his reasoning, doesn't it? Well, its a thankless job, but someone has to do it.

To begin, Pearlstein , as Liberals love to do, makes it more complicated that it has to be, a favorite Liberal ploy to confuse the masses, by arguing not so much for the minimum wage increase as against the countervailing tax breaks for small businesses that are being offered as part of the political negotiations, in the process taking a meanspirited swipe at Max Baucus for not being " Democratic" enough. Liberal tolerance once again notable for its absence.

To briefly summarize his points, Pearlstein's argues that raising the wage will not hurt businesses because they will just raise prices, resulting in a "little inflation",  that economists generally agree that adult employment will not be affected, that small businesses don't make that many jobs anyway ,even though he himself says they account for half of all job creation, and lastly, most small businesses are tax cheats so we should be prosecuting them not helping them.

So for Pearlstein, there is a free lunch, or at least you don't have to pay because the restaurant owner is a thief. And you probably thought he didn't know what he was talking about.

But let's consider his arguments. First,a "little" inflation always hurts the lower classes, who are the earners of the minimum wage, disproportionately, and so Pearlstein is in effect giving with one hand and taking away more with his other, but I guess he just doesn't see this.

As for "most economists" not seeing employment being hurt, his list must start and end with Paul Krugman, because everyone I read still abides by that supply and demand thing, which Pearlstein seems to have willed into non existence.

The last two points are actually irrelevant to the case for raising the wage, instead being the justification for not helping small businesses to weather the effects.  Thus the fact that they may not create the majority of  new jobs  means that we should just hang them out to dry, and besides, they are tax cheats and they deserve it anyway.  This is just liberal populism and not worth rebutting, and so I will leave it at that.

So the gist of his argument for raising the minimum wage consists of accepting the resulting inflation , and dismissing out of hand the  the possibility of job losses, while throwing in some class politics just for good measure.  So is  that  "political, moral and economic" righteousness justified?

Morally, you are nominally giving a raise which you know will result in a surge of inflation which will leave your constituents worse off. Economically...well economically you are ignoring the basic laws that are the foundation of the dismal science and just declaring jobs won't be lost .

Politically however you score all sorts of big points with those lower income people who have been brainwashed into believing their victimhood can only be solved by Big Government free lunches. 

Suddenly Pearlstein is starting to make sense.

Several months ago I posted about the fallacy of "Health Insurance", something I consider just as threatening to us as the Islamic Jihad if we allow Liberals to impose any kind of Universal, government sponsored program . Now with California following Massachusetts in doing "HealthCare lite", and the Dems taking control of Congress, my anxiety level is rising, and so I am reprinting my original article:
 

Health Care and Social Security are the two weak points of the US economy, and unsurprisingly, both are Socialistic as opposed to Capitalistic entities.
 
In fact , Health Insurance is not insurance as defined and implemented in other ways, such as car or house insurance, but straight out socialism, where everyone pays in, and everyone takes out what they pretty much want.
 
True insurance is an actuarial function which uses probability to estimate and disburse risk, hence if ten people out of a 100 will statistically have an accident, the Insurance company spreads the estimated payments over the 100 payers, adds a little for profit, and makes a nice living while its insured rest easily.

Why is Health insurance different? Because just having it affects its usage, and therefore the actuarial tables are made useless. Think about it. Do you know anyone who says "well, I have health insurance, I might as well use it" and then proceeds to incur charges that they never would have if they weren't covered? I do, and most of you do as well I bet.

Well, there goes the insurance company's expectations, and next thing you know, premiums are rising, which incentivizes the insured to use even more services, and so it goes. This one fact, that the insured can use the insurance pretty much at their discretion, as opposed, let's say, to car insurance which requires an accident, and if you do that intentionally it is called insurance fraud, means that once you have insurance you are going to use it, and as much as possible. 

And to magnify this vicious cycle, no one monitors the costs of health services supplied [I've asked numerous people if they know what their doctor charges for a checkup, and none knew anymore than their copayment]; insurance companies, after having tried HMO's to provide just such oversight and having been excoriated for it, pretty much pay whatever is asked and then just factor the ever rising price into the premium. 

Put these pieces together, and you have an ever more used, unmonitored, uncompetitive economic ecosystem which is running riot, and the solutions being proposed are MORE insurance!

The answer is to allow the greatest economic system ever devised , capitalism and the free market, to work its magic. I can hear all the liberals out there gnashing their teeth, saying how this is an inhumane and horrible solution because we need health care to live. Well, we need food to live, but how many of you have food insurance? Yes, the destitute will need help, but that is fine, we should give it to them  as we give them food stamps. But when a middle class person goes to a doctor for a cold, he or she should pay for it. Then they will know what their doctor charges, then they can make informed decisions as to whether the trip is necessary, and then doctors will have to compete on price just like all other professionals.

For truly catastrophic sicknesses we should have the appropriate insurance, which can work like real insurance,using  probabilities to come up with a reasonable premium which will offer the peace of mind sought by the insured.
 
Liberals have managed to scare us into thinking that without insurance the world would collapse and we would all be dying of untreated diseases, or bankrupt from treating them. Health care can and should be treated like any service or product, and must be if we are not to be destroyed by its cost.

Socialism doesn't work , the world has proved that, so why something as important as healthcare should be subject to the pseudosocialism of insurance is just indicative of the success Liberalism has had in shaping some of our expectations. And like most Liberal programs, it has taken on a life of its own which will destroy us unless we open our eyes, and realize the Emperor has no cold.

  A remarkable man named Wesley Autrey last week saved someone by an awesome display of heroism which entailed jumping into the path of an oncoming subway and shielding  the other man's body with his own.  Coming as it did during a season when the spirit is venerated, it inspired  even in cynical New Yorkers feelings of good will and admiration, and perhaps even, dare I say, moral righteousness.

Yet the NY Times, in an attempt to understand why something like this sometimes happens, has managed to reduce this sublime example of man's capability for goodness into a biomechanical and psychological reaction which involves "mirror neurons" and the anterior cingulate of the brain, as well as references to navy training.

In other words, the proverbial Liberal reductionism which defines us as organic machines which can always be understood and even programmed .

This is the same model which views criminals as "victims" of their environment, with no responsibility for what they do, which is just the consequences of what had been done to them.

It is the reason the word "responsibility" carries so little weight with Leftists- they don't really see us making decisions so much as carrying out our internal programming over which we have limited control. This is Man as automaton.

The bigger picture then is the question of "free will" which the Times also addressed last week in an article which was really quite interesting.
 
Again , the major premise analyzed is whether man is "mechanistic" in that he is subject to the same physical laws which , through the application of cause and effect, determine all that happens. The piece offers a number of ideas, but pretty much comes down on the side that , while we may seem to have free will, it is probably only an illusion because of the complexity of the Universe, and that in truth everything is predetermined by  forces acting according to scientific laws.

It seems to me that this is an attempt to fit into the "scientific box" that men has devised things that do not belong there. As a person with an advanced degree in nuclear physics, I have the utmost respect for forces and actions and reactions, but they do not seem to explain the components involved in moral choices.

As the article explains, there are emergent characteristics which arise from complex systems, and consciousness is one of these. As a result, conscious beings are bombarded with information that nonsentient  objects are not  even aware of.

For instance a  car or mountain would not recognize a "force" from the presence of a crying child,  for a force is defined as a push or pull.  A human will have a "force" exerted on it by the child, but whether that force causes an effect in the human is determined by that human. One may comfort the child, another ignore it. There is no scientific law comparable to F=Ma which correlates a given mass with a given force and acceleration for determining how the human will react to the crying child. The proverbial cause and effect are not established by scientific  principles, but rather by morality  as defined as value choices .

Now it maybe that there are laws which determine our reactions, and we really have no free will.  But trying to prove that by recourse to , and extrapolation of, the scientific laws we have discovered is just plain silly, for not only are we not dealing with apples and apples [in deference to  Newton who gave birth to modern mechanistic determinism], we may be trying to compare apples to the ephemeral and sublime thing we call the soul , and to treat them the same is worse than a mistake, it is a refusal to acknowledge the limits of our knowledge and the magnificence of  what the Universe has given birth to. 

It seeks to find banality in what is awesome , and that does not raise us up, but  rather impoverishes us all.

Liberalism's blind faith in rationalism  reduces the Universe to a sterile, valueless wasteland which blindly enacts an existence which is already written and decided.  There is no room here for goodness or heroism, only machines blindly going through their  paces, dancing to commands they are  not even aware of. 

Even  the attempts by Liberals to pass laws to "improve" us would have to be deemed useless in this environment,  like whistling into the wind, futile efforts to no avail.

Without choice there is really no meaning,  only puppetlike acting which carries no lessons, or consequences or rewards.  Without choice Wesley Autrey is is just another cog performing his assigned task.  I suspect anyone who witnessed his heroic act last week  would take exception to that.

J.R.Dunn has written a brilliant  article which  eloquently outlines and analyzes what he calls hegemonism, the Leftist dogma that  preaches the evil of the US on the world stage and which has resulted in tragedy for the world for generations because of the constraints it has imposed upon the world's only superpower.

I have written several posts on the same topic, but I have never done as fine a job as Dunn, who sheds the cold clear light of reason on a pernicious doctrine that skulks in shadows while draining the will and determination of the only country capable of maintaining order among the 2nd and 3rd rate powers who run riot in our absence.

His description of France is absolutely priceless as he strips away that nation's facade of civility to reveal the evil it perpetuates.

This is a rather long article, but well worth taking the time to read, as just about every sentence contains a truism which you will not see in the MSM or most of the other informational outlets available to us.

As Dunn reiterates over and over, we allow ourselves to be enslaved by lies and the world suffers for it. Periodically we have risen above the stupor we seem to fall into all too easily, the last  time being the Reagan Administration. With the threat of radical Islam now facing us, it is time to again awaken and accept the responsibility destiny has bestowed upon us, and to relegate the Liberal rhetoric of hegemony to insignificance, where hopefully it can't hurt anyone.

The Islamic Congressman Keith Ellison , who has refused to swear on a Bible during his induction into Congress, has pulled off a public relations coup by deciding instead to use a Koran once owned by Thomas Jefferson. For some reason this is supposed to make everything right . Why?

As wonderful as this moment seems as a paean to American idealism , the reality of the situation is very different.

Firstly, Congress, not Ellison, should decide the rules they operate under, and if he doesn't choose to play by them he should be sent packing. After all, in the countries that practice the religion he espouses,  just having a Bible is a punishable crime.  If this is his ideal,  he should understand the concept of authority very easily.

Second, as I discussed in a previous post , it may be irrelevant what Ellison swears on since he seems to adhere to a sect that refuses to recognize any law that contradicts sharia, the Muslim code, and therefore his allegiance to the Constitution would be a charade. Unfortunately I suspect he may just be one of many Congressmen in this regard.

Lastly, as wonderful as it sounds to trumpet Jefferson's owning this Koran, which Ellison is using to make the case of the all encompassing nature of our democracy, the truth is that sometimes a book is, well, just a book to paraphrase Groucho Marx. After all, the Library of Congress must have a copy of Mein Kampf too, but I don't think the American people would use that to argue for a Nazi in Congress.

At least, I hope they wouldn't.

Conservatism was born of  fear of the masses dominating the government through democracy.  The thought of the predominantly poor, recently impotent mob coming to power sent chills through the property owners and aristocracy, who foresaw a world where the lowest common denominator would become the norm, and civilized society discarded in favor of retribution and plundering.

In the US, that bastion of liberal values, suffrage dependent on property ownership,  the Electoral college and  an independent judiciary were all attempts to prevent the have-nots from running riot and destroying the civic body.

Even in revolutionary France, ground zero for the whole concept of "equality", the masses were regarded suspiciously, and Napoleon, who either was the downfall or fruition of the Revolution depending on your viewpoint, never got over his fear of the crowds he witnessed  running amok while overseeing security in Paris in the mid 1790's.

The US, unlike Europe, never having had a serf class, has been able to elevate its population to middle class status  through capitalism at a tremendously quick pace, and so the economic fears of democracy have been alleviated to a great degree. This explains the Liberals need to create other "victims" to elevate, such as minorities, gays and feminists. Without victims, Liberalism is bereft of meaning.

However, there are  areas where the "race to the bottom"  continues, and in the cultural arena especially the lowest common denominator still reigns.

A particularly frightening example of this is occurring in Fairfax , VA where the libraries are using popularity to determine which books to discard [see article ], and thus many classics are being removed in favor of top ten best sellers, with the rationalization that space is limited.

Now any civilization builds on its history, and the accumulation of knowledge is what causes a society to progress. Indeed, the mechanisms of data storage and transmission are the "genes" of a culture, those things which literally determine how the "body" will develop.

Nothing has served this purpose better than books. Yes, I can hear those out there making the argument that computers are going to replace them, and that may be so, but it is not true yet.

Right now books are still the best, most egalitarian means for knowledge to be transferred to our children, and that is what makes what is happening in Fairfax so frightening. We are depriving the next generation of the experiences  and wisdom encompassed in the classics, and we will all be the poorer for it.

The race to the bottom is not over, and if we are lucky we can stop it . The irony is that  if we can't,  whoever wins it will be the loser.

The community of nations is no different than any group of people- self interests are usually overriding, competition and friction arises, and fights occur. And to stretch the analogy a little further, those who are confident and believe in themselves will usually lead, while most will follow. And occasionally there arises a country which believes its destiny is greater than others, and that it has a purpose which makes it unique, and this exceptionalism will cause it to change the world.

In classical times the Greeks and their intellectual progeny, the Romans, exemplified this attitude and their civilizations resulted in the creation of the Western world. Charlemagne grafted Christianity onto this construct, and by 800 A.D. all was in place for Europeans to literally mold  the world in its image, strengthened and comforted by their belief in their special mission.

Regardless of what the Liberal Academic elite will try to teach today, all cultures and civilizations are not the same.  Empiricism and observation shows the intellectual, spiritual , cultural and economic effects worldwide of Western European civilization.

Even with the hiatus of the so-called dark ages, which basically gave the rest of the world time to catch up and surpass them, Europeans are still responsible for most of the progress made by mankind to date. From science to capitalism, spirituality to philosophy,  culture to sports, we live in a world spawned by the West.

Today Europe is an invalid, not having the strength of will or faith in its uniqueness required to face the challenge of Islam, which very much does believe in its special place in  the world.

The Western democracies are a victim of the secularization and relativism of Liberalism, which abhors the thought of exceptionalism, which it sees as the cause of all the wars and problems in the world.  Liberalism is a philosophy of victims, as it has been since its inception, and the exceptional never  see themselves as victims. 

In its striving to make the world a peaceful place, Liberalism is creating  the conditions which will cause its followers to be subjugated by an ideology which cannot fathom the weakness  engendered by Liberal attempts to rationalize problems and negotiate solutions.  All the Muslims see are sheep who, by announcing their compassion and understanding , are admitting their inferiority and ripeness for being usurped.

The United States, from its Puritans origins as a shining city on a hill , has always believed in its manifest destiny , another term guaranteed to make a Leftist apoplectic. In facing down the Nazis and Communists, two ideologies which sought to motivate their followers by creating their own versions of exceptionalism, the US proved the hollowness of their enemies beliefs, while substantiating their own.

Many will claim it is our wealth and power which make us superior, but they miss the reason we have attained those attributes.  We believe  it is our fate to be more than just another nation-state, that we have a destiny which calls to us to make the world a better, safer place. There is a religious component involved, as well as an almost mystical faith, and that is what changes the world, not the nit picking rationalism of Liberalism.

And as we face an enemy like no other we have ever confronted in that it, too, has an almost fanatical belief in itself, the fate of the world hangs in the balance. So try as our Liberal brethren will to deflate our exceptionalism, if we allow them to succeed we will fail in our battle, and all we value will be lost. If we truly believe in the importance of those things, we cannot let this happen.

I bet you didn't know that the US has morphed into a "casino" society with a few big winners and the vast majority of us "losers" , wallowing in squalor like characters in a Dickens' novel, did you? Fortunately ,  Kurt Andersen of New York Magazine has written a piece to open our eyes so that we can be aware of our suffering. After all, there is nothing worse than unrecognized hardship.

The main argument Andersen makes is all predicated on the disparity between the very rich and the rest of us.
Thus:

The asymmetry between the Goldman boss’s compensation and that of his average employee—85 times as big—is virtually Ben-and-Jerry’s-like these days: An average CEO now gets paid several hundred times the salary of his average worker, a gap that’s an order of magnitude larger than it was in the seventies. In Japan, the ratio is just 11-to-1, and in Britain 22-to-1.

He is fair enough to point out that the peons in Goldman Sachs make an average of $623,000 , but since the bosses make so much more , this is totally unfair and indicative of the skewing of the American economy he is trying to illustrate.

Well, I don't know about you, but I would love to be skewed to the tune of $625,000 per year. I guess that proves I just don't understand how bad things are, and hence the need for this article.

Andersen actually says there is "economic dread" overhanging the average American today, and then segues into the argument for economic populism, which actually seems to just be good old fashioned paternal socialism renamed , a la "preowned cars " ,  to be more acceptable to all us poor, destitute serfs. Of course, if we were all starving , I would imagine that socialism would sound pretty good, so you have to wonder why it has to be camouflaged.

Which brings me to my point- I look around and see everyone doing pretty well. Home and stock ownership is at an all time high, while unemployment is at historic lows. Everywhere I look people are driving nice cars, shopping in good stores, and eating out regularly.  Try as I might, I just cannot see even a hint of Bleak House or Oliver Twist  anywhere. Of course there is poverty , but there will always be poor amongst us, and compared to third world nations even those on the bottom rungs of our society are doing pretty good.

My problem then with Mr. Andersen is his need to make comparative wealth the metric for evaluating our economy. Yes, in Europe the dichotomy between extremes is much less than here, but then why do so many long to come here? Maybe because in absolute terms it is still better to be in the US than in Germany or France or even England?

And I always have an argument with those who begrudge the wealthy their success. Listening to a Liberal you would think that a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet tucks their money under  a mattress and thus deprives everyone else of  it's use when In truth, those two gentlemen , as everyone knows, are huge contributors to charity,  as are so many of the wealthy, and so put the lie to that premise.

But even your average millionaire makes investments and purchases,  eats in restaurants,  and does all manner of things which result in jobs and other benefits to society.  Money is constantly flowing through the economy, and the only question is who determines where it flows. A leftist opts for the government, while a Capitalists chooses the individual. If we are living well, I couldn't care less if the wealthiest are getting a disproportionate amount of the riches, whatever that means. I much prefer it in their hands than the bureaucrats and politicians who never made it,  but only took it to begin with.

In countries where the haves have it all, and the majority are truly destitute, like in some South American countries, yes, there is certainly a problem which must be addressed, but those people don't need articles to make them aware. They just have to get up in the morning and reality strikes them in the face.

We, on the other hand, seem to need this constant drumbeat of pessimism and doom to make us aware of how bad we have it because we don't seem to be getting it. Perhaps that is because, regardless of the Kurt Andersens out there, there is nothing to get.

Bill O'Reilly wondered last night who could possibly be against the execution of Saddam Hussein.

The answer is a resounding "The Left", as if that should come as a surprise to anyone who follows the follies of that delusional group who has advanced  enough in  the last 40 years that they no longer need to take hallucinogenics  to attain a psychotic break- they now just live perpetually in that state.

See, your parents were right to warn you of the ongoing effects of using drugs.

In fact, not only do they find fault with the manner of his demise, they abhor the "show" trial that led up to it as explained in an article in the Nation [I know, I shouldn't be reading obscene stuff like that, but every now and then I need comic relief]

Now the execution has already raised the hackles of many European and Religious leaders [see article ] who just can't see past their ivy tower morality to realize that if he was allowed to live he would always be a potential hope to the insurgents,

But to criticize the trial by implying it was not fairly held  indicates they believe he was not given ample opportunity to prove his innocence.  My question is who in their right mind believes he was innocent?

In truth, it was a show trial in that there was no doubt as to his guilt, and therefore nothing could be done to give the appearance that he might go free. However, that is not the fault of anyone but Saddam, who made his monstrous behavior all too evident during his reign of terror.

But the Left has taken this opportunity to once again besmirch what the US has wrought in Iraq, instead of hailing the demise of a brutal heinous dictator who tortured and oppressed millions of people for thirty years.

Some people are never happy.

Rarely are the arguments for and against retreating from Iraq made as plain and simple as they are today by Barack Obama and Joe Lieberman in two articles which  contrasts the defeatism of the Liberals with the belief in the importance of victory that the independent Lieberman, who was rejected by his party for embracing it, so eloquently espouses.

Obama, who is sounding more and more like a Presidential candidate, recites  the usual litany of excuses for why adding more troops is a huge mistake, including that tried and true of the Left: there is no military solution to Iraq, only a political one.  Therefore he seems to conclude no military is necessary.

Obama has obviously never read Clauswitz, who famously referrred to War as politics by other means, and doesn't understand that every war requires a political solution, but that the power projection of armed might provides the security and incentive required to "focus men's minds" on negotiations.

His is the fantasy Liberal world of good faith diplomacy between men of common interests and peaceful intentions.  In other words, he doesn't have a clue, but then again  why should he considering his lack of any foreign policy experience.

Of course he also uses the lame excuse that the Iraqis will do more if we do less, and thus retreat ,using the new age, Liberal term of "redeployment", is the answer.  That certainly sounds good, but we have a vested interest in winning  this war , and just leaving it up the Iraqis is irresponsible and detrimental to our safety. I would love to see them take over, but so far it hasn't worked, and we cannot afford to walk away.

What really struck me in this article are all the "I said" 's and "I predicted" "s that cause this to feel like a paean to Obama's wisdom and obvious foresight that  us mere mortals can only admire from afar.  One almost wonders why he doesn't walk across the Atlantic and end the whole affair with a wave of his hand, but I guess near deities like to appear humble. Perhaps that is the problem: he is viewing all this from Mt. Olympus and it appears different from up there.

Lieberman on the other hand, writes like a man with worldly experience, and he has, in fact, just got back from Iraq, where his observations about the stakes involved and the progress made are trenchant , and his belief that security is the pressing need that will allow victory to take root is realistic and accurate, reflecting the views of the military personnal he met with as well as his own conclusions.
 
His analysis of the progress being made by the moderate Iraqis, and his absolutely overriding concern that we not forsake them but rather support their efforts by adding troops, offers both good news and warning to the American people.  As he points out, we are involved in something much bigger than Iraq, but at the same time  that country is fundamental to our safety and cannot be abandoned.

For Lieberman, adding more troops is the most important thing we can do now to ensure the security of the country and the ultimate defeat of the extremists.

Unlike Obama, Lieberman doesn't seem to be talking to his constituency or the Liberal electorate, but rather
to all the people of the US as he makes the case for continuing a frustrating war because it is THE RIGHT THING TO DO.  Maybe it is so refreshing because so rarely does a politician stake his reputation on anything besides political expediency.

After reading both articles, I was actually uplifted by Lieberman's even though his was the more realistic, grittier message which calls for  the additional sacrifice of blood and  treasure from us, and Obama offers the usual Liberal bromides which entail no costs and promises everything will be fine if the path of least resistance is taken and we just swallow our pride and give up.  The Left just never understands that there is always a price to pay, and the longer we wait, the more expensive it becomes.

The National Ledger has an interesting article  about some Michigan men who are guilty of violating RICO statutes and using some of the proceeds to fund Hezbollah, an organization our government has classified as a "terrorist group".

While the story is well worth reading, what struck me was the attitude of Michigan Congresssman John Dingell, who has declared he is neither for nor against Hezbollah or Israel in a truly magnanimous gesture of nonpartisanship and fairness which is absolutely opposed to our nation's policies and safety.

His stance regarding Israel is, of course, a direct repudiation of our alliance with that country, and considering the present times, would be comparable to declaring oneself neither for nor against Great Britain during WWII. I don't know if their is anything more than moral opprobrium which can be bought against Dingell for this, but that should be at the least.

As for his highmindedness towards Hezbollah, this has to be unacceptable, especially since that group recently gave indications that it would  soon begin to  target America and many believe they were responsible for the attack which killed 241 US military personnal in Lebanon in 1983 [see 1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ]. Having an American Congressman proclaim he is neither for nor against this group is more than bad taste or political equivocation, it is reprehensible, and something should be done about it. Given the imminent Democratic takeover , I am afraid that  may be accolades and fawning emulation.

If any more proof is needed that the Dems are not responsible enough to wage the war on terror, and do not even begin to understand the nature of what we face,  Dingell's stand on Hezbollah should certainly help to remove any lingering doubt. Lenin said the West would sell him the rope that would be used to hang it. Dingell is living proof the Soviet leader knew what he was talking about.

 An Ohio Court has ruled that a KFC rightfully denied an employee workmen comp payments for an on-the- job accident he caused by ignoring the company's safety handbook and repeated warnings from co-workers and a supervisor, including some in writing. I don't often find cause to compliment the legal system when it comes to labor-management decisions so it is nice to see that commonsense still has a place in at least some courtrooms.

Of course there is already being heard the expected Liberal lament that this is the beginning of the end of the world as they know it,  and I can only say to that- I hope so !

As an employer I have been involved in this kind of a case, and was told by my insurance company not to even bother to contest it because my state's impartial and objective judges NEVER  seem to rule against the employee. 

As is the case all too often , justice isn't blind here, it's defiantly holding a picket sign calling for the lynching of business owners, and the court is all too willing to oblige.

Like many people who have worked to create a business in the face of government rules and regulations that not only  hinder but sometimes just plain hurt you, I have spent alot of time trying to understand the "Kill  the Golden Goose" mentality at play here , but I just  cannot fathom the thinking that justifies punishing the successful who are paying taxes and providing jobs for the sake of Liberal policies that are meaningless without them.

A perfect instance of this was a story in the NY Times this morning about a coffee vendor at a train station who lost his business after 8 years because the law requires a blind person get it, so this young man who is supporting a family no longer has a job while his customers are angry and alienated. Just another success for  Liberals!

As Ayn Rand so beautifully put it, if Atlas ever shrugs, the world will stop. Nevertheless, the Left keeps trying to get us to that stage as it persists in pursuing self destructive behavior which will especially hurt those they seek to help most of all.

So my thanks and congratulations  to the Ohio Court for allowing personal responsibility and common sense to rule for at least one day. That is all we Conservatives ask for, and it doesn't seem like much, but it is actually the rarest of commodities in today's world.

Eleanor Clift of Newsweek has courageously announced the biggest Presidential lies of 2006 and after approaching the article with some trepidation of a major revelation I can announce that all I found was the usual Liberal distortion of facts and routine in the service of creating a mountain out of something too small to be a molehill.

Since I cannot in good conscience recommend you waste your time on reading her work, I will attempt to summarize the major points.

First, Clift indicts Bush for changing his position on the war from one in which we are winning to a more nuanced "we are not winning or losing".  Talk about an "All the President's Men" moment!  This is explosive stuff. Yes, I know the MSM castigated Bush for being obstinate, and is now accusing him of being a liar for modifying his position, but this is eye opening don't you think?

In the same vein, Clift points out that Bush, during the campaign, said that the Democrats would "cut and run" if elected. This is so major that Clift labels it a "big lie" and I can see why. Yes, everything I read indicates the Dems are indeed going to cut and run so it may be a little hard to see the falsity here, but by labeling it a "big lie" all doubt should be removed. After all. isn't that what the Nazi's used to do?

The next prevarication has to do with Rumsfeld, who Bush axed after showing support for him. I have to admit even within the context of this story it is hard to see the "lie" here because, for one reason, Bush hurt himself and the Republicans by not firing the SecDef earlier, so for what purpose would he be lying? It seems this was just a bad management call by the President, but Clift seems so sincere that you hate to point this out.

And the last major lie as far as I can tell is Rove disparaging the pre election polls, something I personally think should be a capital offense. Yes, he may have had internal data supporting his position, so technically he might have not have been lying, and he may just have based his views on the useless 2004 polls which anointed John Kerry President, but still he was wrong so he may have been lying. That logic is obviously good enough for Clift.

There are a few more items about missed stories which I was too nauseous to read by the time I got to them.

This is what passes for analysis in the MSM these days, a group of essentially business as usual remarks and actions which are  chosen by the Liberal mind to be reality warped, resulting in them becoming high crimes and misdemeanors against the Republic.  Someone is never wrong, they "lied". Someone cannot adjust their position as facts change, they "lied". Someone cannot take a subjective opinion, they "lied".

And what of the person who writes a story like this?