New TSA restrictions: Knee-jerk reaction (with an emphasis on the "jerk")?

An Amsterdam-Detroit Northwest/Delta flight is almost blown up on approach to Detroit by a Nigerian man, Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab (son of a Nigerian banker, by the way; don't forget - poverty breeds crime!).  He tried to detonate a powder-liquid mixture which he had strapped to his leg, having mixed the deadly cocktail in the washroom moments before.  And the Transportation Security Agency responds thusly: According to the New York Times, passengers on U.S.-bound flights will be prohibited from leaving their seats during the last hour of a flight, nor will they be permitted to have any "personal items" on their laps during the same time period.

Since this policy was obviously well thought through, and was certainly not a knee-jerk reaction to a foiled terror attack, I am sure the TSA has considered the following possibilities/questions:

1. Is it not possible to mix a deadly potion earlier than the last hour of the flight?  Or all all in-flight incendiary devices limited to this window of opportunity?
2. Is it not possible to mix a deadly potion at one's seat, and not in the washroom, under the guise of it being a health shake, or some other kind of innocuous beverage?
3. Questions 1 & 2 lead to the following: How would the new regulations, even had they been in effect before Flight 253, have prevented the terror attempt?  At least the regulations adopted in response to the liquid explosives plot in 2006 and the shoe bomber would have stopped them from carrying out their attacks.  But the recent regulations could have been easily thwarted.
   
4. Does "nothing on passengers' laps" include laptops, newspapers, and books?  What about an iPod in a passenger's pocket?  A book held in the air?  Do these count as "on the lap"?  The potential Talmudic hairsplitting of these new regulations is endless.
5. Will passengers have to beg to use the washroom during the last hour like children (I really, really have to go!!!").  Assuming flight attendants do not want passengers urinating on the floor of the cabin, the exceptions to these "regulations" will effectively render them moot.
6. Can you imagine the outrage when a flight is delayed in the air, and the passengers cannot leave their seats for the last hour and a half?  ("See?  I could have worked on my presentation for another half-hour!")  Do flight attendants really need this virtually-certain headache?
   
7. Will all writing implements be banned after a flight attendant is stabbed with a pen in an attempt to force her to get the pilots to open the cockpit door?  There comes a point at which one must recognize the absurdity of all the security regulations.  Our enemies must be laughing their heads off, seeing how insecure we all are.  They have won.
   

I realize, of course, that the TSA puts all of these regulations into effect in order to reassure the public that they are on the ball.  The result, however, is to further convince travelers that the TSA has no clue about how to deal with international terrorism, and is a) always defending against the last terror attack, and not the next, and b) refuses to go after people, but rather against objects.

As I have said for many years now, if I were on a flight packed with Mormons, priests, ministers, rabbis, nuns, and Miami Beach grandmothers et al, all of whom were packing heat, I would feel tremendously safe.  I have yet to hear of a terror attack committed by anyone from these groups.  If, however, I were on a flight with one 25-40-year-old Muslim male who had not been given extra security scrutiny, I would feel nervous.  I might even watch him carefully during the entire flight.  Does this make me an Islamophobe or a racist?  I am sure some might see it that way.  I see it as watching out for Number 1 and Number 1's loved ones, without regard for how such efforts will be perceived by others.

Finally, a pop quiz: What is the common denominator between the 1970s terrorists who precipitated the stringent security measures at international airports,  the Pan Am 103 bombers, all the way up to the above-mentioned liquid explosives plot, the shoe bomber, and the powder bomber?

I'll give you one guess.  But be careful in your guess; you might be labeled a racist.

What Norman Borlaug taught us about feeding the world

A great man died this past September.  Though he was one of the four living American recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize (including President Obama), most people in his native United States had never heard of him, but approximately one billion (yes, that's a b) people owe their lives to him.  The man's name was Norman Borlaug.  (See this Wall Street Journal article from September 16, 2009, and one from the Atlantic Monthly from January 1999.) How did he save so many lives?  By giving birth to the Green Revolution, which helped many societies in the developing world become self-sufficient, or nearly self-sufficient.  One of the major components of the Green Revolution was high-yield agriculture, which used the same amount of land as before, but also used pesticides and fertilizers.

And who opposed his techniques?  Environmentalists, who were upset that a) Africans were not farming in traditional ways, without tractors or modern farming techniques,  and b) as mentioned, high-yield agriculture required the use of pesticides and fertilizer.  In other words, they cared more about preserving classical farming techniques than in feeding hungry people, and they cared more about the possible impact of pesticides on some animal species than they did about the certain effects of no food on humans!  (Do I think they consciously decided this?  Of course not.  But we are concerned with results, not with intentions.  Had the environmentalists had their way, hundreds of millions would have starved.)

So what do we learn from Norman Borlaug and his efforts?

1. Don't rely on governments to solve the world's problems.  Turn to the private sector.  When even the  World Bank cut funding, Borlaug turned to Ryoichi Sasakawa, a Japanese investor, and also got the support of the Rockefeller- and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations.  Private enterprise will be more than willing to support an effort it thinks will succeed (read make them money).  Some will scoff at this notion - "One should want to do the right thing; you want to make money off of poor Central Americans and Africans?!"  I would answer in two ways: A) That is what anyone in a for-profit business is doing - making money off of those who want his product.  In effect, he is taking advantage of others' needs.  B) Why do you care?  Don't you want hungry people fed?  What difference does it make if someone makes money off of it?  If someone else can do it more efficiently for less money, the hungry will still get their food.
2. Environmentalists in general are much more concerned with saving plant- and animal life than with  saving human life.  Why else would they oppose Norman Borlaug?  Let us say that some animal species died as a direct result of Borlaug's agricultural efforts.  So what?  Is it more important to save an animal species, or to save hundreds of millions of human beings?  The same is true about the ban of DDT, which could have saved the lives of at least hundreds of thousands of Africans.  But since they care more about animals than about people, the environmentalists were willing to sacrifice the Africans on the altar of saving some birds.  Rachel Carson must be proud of the impact Silent Spring had.  Does anyone think that if asked, Africans would say, "Some birds might die due to DDT?  In that case, I'd be glad to let my children die of malaria.  Thanks for enlightening me"?  Yet to the environmentalists, the birds' value far outweighed the African villager's children's.
3. You need not be famous to be important.

If we imbue the lessons of Norman Borlaug, there is no telling how much actual (not theoretical) good we can do throughout the world.

Blacks upset Tiger cheated with white women. Seriously.

So it now appears that Tiger Woods cheated on his wife, Elin Nordegren, with at least a half-dozen women.  The fact that anyone is surprised by this amazes me.  The man had everything going for him in life, but everything going against him when it came to marital fidelity: One of the world's richest men, handsome, athletic, literally at the top of his profession et al.  This is a perfect recipe for thousands of attractive, young women to literally throw themselves at one's feet, in the hopes of getting close to a man with that combination of assets.  As a woman, Ms. Nordegren probably has no idea what kind of effect that can have on the most loyal of spouses.  But give in to his lower instincts Tiger did.  It seems like your typical athlete-adoring females-jilted wife story, right?

Wrong.  According to an NBC/MSNBC article, there are some blacks who are upset about the race of woman with whom Tiger chose to cheat!  I thought it was a joke, too.  But they're serious.  Apparently, there are a fair number of blacks who are resentful of the fact Tiger married a white, Swedish woman, and not "one of his own."  What is remarkable is the fact that Tiger Woods is as close as one can come to being a "post-racial" or "non-racial" person.  He has described himself as "Cablinasian" - a mixture of Caucasian, black, Indian, and Asian.  He does not consider himself as an ambassador of golf for blacks, because he does not consider himself one!  But they do consider him one.  And that is why they are upset that he chose to cheat outside of his race, as they see it.  As one black woman, Ebonie Johnson Cooper, put it, "...we still see him as a black man with a white woman, and it makes a difference.  There's just this preservation thing we have among one another. We like to see each other with each other."

Three questions for those blacks who are upset that Tiger cheated with white women:

1. How does it feel going around every day feeling that you are a victim, no matter how good America has been, overall, to your people?  I cannot imagine very well.
2. Why is it not OK for whites to desire to marry only intraracially (can you imagine the reaction if a public figure advocated only intraracial marriage among whites?) but it is OK for blacks to publicly express their desire that fellow blacks marry only other blacks?  Is that not anti-white-/Latino-/Asian racism?
3. What if it were your daughter or sister with whom Tiger cheated?  Would this make you satisfied, knowing that Tiger cheated "within the family"?

I think these are important questions to ask.  Those blacks who express frustration at the fact Tiger only cheated on his wife with white women make themselves look extremely foolish.  They should spend more time appreciating all of the opportunities America has afforded them and their children.

And be grateful it was not your daughter/sister on the news with Tiger.

Air America's Ron Reagan on/off the mark

Air America Radio's Ron Reagan was on and off this week, in his remarks criticizing Arizona Republican Congressman John Shadegg for suggesting that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's children might become terrorist targets for kidnapping, due to the upcoming Manhattan trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM).  Here are some excerpts from Mr. Reagan's comments, with my remarks:

• "...planting the idea of kidnapping the mayor's daughter in any wayward nutjob's head [involves potential risk to innocent people]..." - Mr. Reagan, you are correct to strongly criticize Rep. Shadegg for his comments, but do you really think that no "wayward nutjob" (read Radical Islamist terrorist) had thought of this possibility already?  I would be quite nervous to be in New York City during this trial, as every new day will bring with it the possibility that some terrorist will blow himself up, with the hopes that this act will contribute to the chances of KSM's release.  A more likely scenario would be the threat of blowing up various sites unless their demand for KSM's unconditional release is granted.  Just think: "There is a bomb somewhere in the Empire State Building.  Unless you release KSM in two hours, we will detonate it.  You do not have enough time to find it on your own.  When we knew he is safe, we will give you further instructions as to how to disarm the bomb."  Is this so out of the realm of possibility?  Does anyone think they have not considered this option?
  
• (In response to Rep. Shadegg's apology to Mayor Bloomberg, issued through the AP) "...as apologies go, that was really weak and transparently insincere, a little like retracting a front page error at the bottom of the obit page." - I agree completely.  If you are going to make the statement on the floor of the House, have the guts to issue the apology there, too, or call the person whom you offended.  I strongly agree that apologizers should be as open with their regrets as they were in making their remarks to begin with.  Issuing a statement to the AP just does not cut it.

For Ron Reagan this week, one thumb up, and one thumb down.

Had the Ft. Hood murderer been a devout Jew or Christian...

Just when you think the media cannot be any more politically-correct (read falsifying the news), we hear about the slaughter of at least thirteen US soldiers and others at Ft. Hood, Texas.  Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, was shot by fellow soldiers to end the killing spree.  And of which religious faith was he a member?  Surprise!  Islam.  But reading the vast majority of reports about the incident, one might never find this out.  We know that he was upset about his upcoming deployment to Iraq.  But are not more soldiers of this same feeling?  Why have they not burst out in anger as Maj. Hasan did, mowing down their fellow American servicemen and -women?  Here are the two New York Times stories of today, November 8, 2009:

• Painful stories take a toll on military therapists
• When soldiers snap

According to the Associated Press, Maj. Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before he began shooting.  A Google search of the New York Times comes up with zero references to this fact.  (Even the Huffington Post reported it!)  A few questions for my readers here:

1. Is it not noteworthy that what should be a beautiful phrase (God is great!) has become besmirched by the practitioners of one faith in particular?  For those who read things that are not being implied, I do not mean to say that all Muslims are terrorists, but that nearly all terrorists seem to be Muslim.  Are there Jewish terrorists?  Christian terrorists?  Yes and yes, of course.  But the scale is not even close, and terrorists of other faiths hardly ever claim that their actions are in fulfillment of their religion's dictates.  Muslim terrorists nearly always make it abundantly clear that their actions are motivated by a desire to worship their god.
2. Had the Ft. Hood shooter been a practicing Christian or Jew, and  cried out "Praise Jesus!" or "Am Yisrael Chai!" (the Jewish people live!) before shooting, would this fact not have been splayed over every headline about the attack?  Would we not have read demands to root out the evil from among the Christians and Jews, to ensure this would never re-occur?  The questions are rhetorical.
3. Why is the New York Times, flagship of mainstream liberal thought, barely mentioning the fact that Maj. Hasan was a practicing Muslim?  They have been focusing on other, possibly-related, aspects of the story, as mentioned above: the psychological effects of counseling so many soldiers returning from war, and the occasional occurrences of soldiers "snapping."  Is not Maj. Hasan's Muslim background, with parents from a small Palestinian town near Jerusalem, as relevant, if not more so, than the other Times perspectives?
4. On May 20, 2009, a Nidal Hasan wrote on scribb.com that a suicide bomber is the same as a soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his comrades' lives, since both committed suicide for a "noble cause."  In its mention of this, the Times wrote: "It could not be confirmed, however, that the writer was Major Hasan."  Is it possible that there was another Nidal Hasan who wrote this?  Undoubtedly yes.  Is it possible that had the Ft. Hood shooter been a Yaakov Moshe Goldberg, and a Yaakov Goldberg had posted a similar message months before, the Times would have offered the same disclaimer?  I will let you, my readers, decide.
   

As long as our media continue to whitewash terrorist acts by Muslims, there is no chance we will ever decisively defeat the terrorists.  In general, political correctness is an annoyance; when life, limb, and national security are at stake, it can be deadly.

Two opinion pieces on President Obama's silence on Iran

On Monday, September 14, I posted a piece on J Street's view on dealing with Iran. Here are two opinion pieces (admittedly from conservative sources) on President Obama's response to the Iranian elections. It is highly telling that President Obama has no compunctions about "meddling" in Israeli affairs (particularly with regard to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria), with no fear of upsetting the Netanyahu government, but utters barely a word to the mullahs, Ahmadinejad, and the "Supreme Leader" in Iran. Not exactly a man of courage. There is no courage in talking tough to those whom you know will respond with deliberately-chosen, calm words. Courage is taking on the bully, the one who may respond by trying to punch you in the nose.

Punch him back much harder.

• Daily Telegraph, UK - Barack Obama's cowardly silence.
• Weekly Standard, US - Mr. President, another speech please.
  

Kudos to Air America for calling out Olbermann

There is not much I agree with on Air America, but when they do something positive, I am glad to acknowledge it.  On October 13, 2009's Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, Mr. Olbermann attacked conservative columnist Michele Malkin for attacking the alleged writer of the now-infamous "Obama song."  In fact, Ms. Malkin identified the wrong person, who, according to Air America, received "death threats and harassment."  Mr. Olbermann then proceeded to make fun of Ms. Malkin's voice, Valley-Girl-style, and then said that without her "hatred," she would just be a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick."  In other words, she would be a victim of domestic violence.  (And the left accuses the right of hatred?)  Air America roundly criticized Mr. Olbermann for these remarks; I applaud them for doing so to a fellow left-winger.  It is always good when a political side can criticize one of its own.  I also hope that the National Organization for Women (NOW) will be so forthcoming with a critique.  They did so after David Letterman made outrageous comments about Sarah Palin's daughter being "knocked up" by New York Yankees third-baseman Alex Rodriguez.

Question: If this had been a conservative comedian, and the targets of the jokes had been Sasha and Malia Obama, does anyone think for a moment that the media would have let the comedian get away with it?  Letterman only apologized after Gov. Palin roundly criticized him for his remarks.  There was hardly a peep from the mainstream media (MSM).  Why?  Because the target was the daughter of a conservative woman, an unpardonable crime in liberal circles.  The MSM have stopped even trying to appear non-biased in their reporting (not editorials, but reporting).

But back to Air America.  I am glad to give them credit for standing up to a fellow liberal, and I hope that others, particularly at MSNBC, will realize that Keith Olbermann is a major liability to their network.  He makes a mockery of the concept of the talk show, with his frequent ad hominem attacks.  I liked him when he did sports on ESPN.  I wish he would go back to them.

Meet me in St. Louis? Not if you're Rush Limbaugh

In a posting in August 2009, I strongly criticized Rush Limbaugh for comments in which he compared President Obama's health care reform logo to a Nazi emblem. Now, I am writing to defend him from a smear campaign.

Rush is back in the news, after his bid to become a part-owner of the St. Louis Rams American football club was ended, after concerns that his "divisive and incendiary" comments would be detrimental to the "image-conscious" National Football League (NFL). And who was the accuser? Why, Rev. Al Sharpton, the healer of racial wounds, and the builder of bridges of understanding himself. Rev. Al Sharpton, he of the 1987 Tawana Brawley non-rape-of-a-black-girl-by-a-white-cop scandal, in which he destroyed the reputation of an innocent man? Rev. Al Sharpton, he of the instinctive playing of the race card in the 2006 non-rape-of-a-black-woman-by-white-lacrosse-players scandal, in which he participated in the destruction of the reputations of innocent Duke students? Al Sharpton is one of the most vile race-baiters there is. He makes up racial tensions out of thin air, and the ones who really suffer are the real victims of racial hatred, whose concerns will not be taken as seriously, since Al Sharpton has cried "Wolf!," and smeared innocent people's reputations, too many times. Yet for some reason, he is still turned to as a representative voice of concerned citizens regarding racial issues.

And just what were these "divisive and incendiary comments"? Here's the choicest, a comment he made on ESPN in 2003, commenting on Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb: "I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well." For offering his opinion, for suggesting that the media are (obviously!) desirous that a black quarterback do well, the left and the liberals have decided to destroy Mr. Limbaugh, and undermine his ability to purchase an NFL team. Why? Because if you state the obvious, and/or if you offer an opinion which does not comport to their understanding of reality, they do not engage you in debate, but rather seek to destroy you. It is a much easier (as well as disgraceful) way to go, but they know it will work. Mr. McNabb himself has emphasized the fact that he is black, but also accused his critics of being a bit harsher on him because he is black.

Where does he come up with this stuff? Why are we constantly told to look beyond race, that we are now in a "post-racial America" (whatever that means), yet are then told that there is immense importance in race? When Donovan McNabb throws a bad pass, do you think there is anyone in America who says, "Tom Brady would have completed that," or "Brett Favre would have completed that," or "[Gloriously-drafted-before-Dan-Marino-in-1983-what-the-heck-were-the-Jets-thinking?] Ken O'Brien would have completed that"? No, they're thinking, "Man, I wish Donovan would have completed that!" Mr. McNabb's comments are cowardly. They are an attempt to conceal feelings of inadequacy (though he is a very good quarterback), so that whenever he fails, he can always fall back on, "Well, there's much more pressure on me than on a Tom, Brett, Peyton, or Eli." It is a complete cop-out, but he knows the media will swallow it whole.

As we have all learned from Al Sharpton, accusations of racism go only one way. And even when you have been discredited on the issue numerous times (I only provided two examples), you will still be turned to for your "expert" opinions.

I suppose it takes one to know one.

J Street - Dangerous for the State of Israel

To those who might consider participating with J Street in any projects, let me issue a word of caution:

J Street is dangerous for Israel and the Jewish people.

They have an Executive Director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, who a) possesses an Israeli-sounding last name (it is), and b) has a father who fought in the War of Independence with Menachem Begin (he does; the elder Ben-Ami also purchased the Altalena). The man's Israel credentials are relatively untouchable. But let's take a closer look at J Street. Are they the mainstream organization they claim to be? Are they really pro-Israel, or are they merely a mouthpiece for liberal-, pro-Palestinian-, and in-actuality-supporters-of-a-discredited-peace-policy people?

1. J Street advocated for an early end to the 2008-2009 Gaza War, instead of supporting Israel's attempts to end the rocket attacks, once and for all, having endured eight years of them. True, they criticized Hamas' firing rockets, but also opposed Israeli military measures to stop those attacks. How would they have ended it? Just impose a ceasefire, during which Hamas can re-arm itself. This is pro-Israel?
2. Stephen Walt, co-author of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, has praised J Street's "Israel advocacy" in a Washington Post opinion piece. J Street was asked about this vote of confidence in a Jerusalem Post article, and responded, "There are plenty of people who talk about J Street that we don't agree with. Just because they mention us in an article doesn't mean that we therefore endorse their analysis. We don't come out with a statement on every person who's spoken about us." Fair enough, but when Stephen Walt praises you, should that not give the rest of us pause? One is known by one's enemies and by one's friends.
3. J Street conducted a rigged opinion poll of American Jews, in which they wrote the questions, conducted the poll, and analyzed the results. Brilliant! And who heads the firm which was "hired" to conduct the poll? A founding vice-president of J Street, Jim Gerstein. Simply incredible.
4. See also Shmuel Rosner's analysis of the J Street "poll," as well as Shmuley Boteach's opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post on J Street's condescension towards ideological opponents.
5. Rabbi Eric Yoffie (Rabbi Eric Yoffie!) wrote a scathing critique of J Street's response to the Gaza operation. When you are a liberal Israel advocacy group, and you have lost Rabbi Yoffie, things are not looking good for you.
6. See J Street's policy makers' comments in a flattering, it-could-almost-have-been-written-by-J Street-itself New York Times Magazine article. If their views on Middle East peace do not frighten you, then I really do not know what more to say.
   
7. Finally, please see my blog posting on, among other issues, J Street's willful misrepresentation (read lying) about a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report. Referring to page 7 of the document, they claim the NIE estimates Iran having nuclear weapons capability in 2013 (which would allow time for more diplomatic efforts), whereas in fact, the NIE estimates this capability possibly as early as next year, 2010. But then again, this information does not fit with their agenda, so they lie about it. Read the report yourself, and then judge.

I urge all of you to read these articles. Do not be fooled by J Street. I do not believe they are anti-peace, as they accuse those of us on the right of being. I believe they do want peace, but are pursuing it through means which have been discredited time and time again. There is literally nothing that the Palestinians can say or do which will convince J Street, and like-minded people, that the Palestinians have no intention of ever making peace with a Jewish state.

As I wrote to a friend in July 2009, we have had sixteen years of pursuing peace according to the designs of the left. They have failed. It is time to give someone else a chance.

Enough already! Maureen Dowd and race, Part III

I am sorry if it seems that I am picking on Maureen Dowd, but she just provides so much fodder for my posts. I must say, she is a great writer (hence my regularly reading her), but she is a perfect example of what is wrong with liberals today. They constantly tell us to look past race and gender, that we are living in a "post-racial" America, yet just as constantly remind us of the race and gender of this or that person, as if this will tell us all we need to know about his or her thought process and values.

People's Exhibit C, Your Honor (Exhibits A and B have already been discussed): Maureen Dowd's September 15, 2009 column in the New York Times. In her second column on the subject of Rep. Joe Wilson's disrespectful "You lie!" outburst at President Obama, she continues her theory that what was really behind the accusation was racism. Her proof? Nothing, except her conviction that "black members of Congress were fed up" with "sulfurous attitudes towards the first black president." She quotes former President Jimmy Carter, who was equally convinced that the overwhelming animosity towards President Obama is "based on the fact that he is a black man."

If you were paying attention during the 2008 election, you knew this was bound to happen. It had to. Barack Obama was so built up as the first black president, that it came to totally define him. Not that he was a president armed with arguably the flimsiest of public records coming into the White House. Not that he was undoubtedly the first leftist (not liberal, but leftist) person to occupy the Oval Office. He was a black man, and that was all anyone needed to know. Any attack on him, I predicted to friends, would be seen as racist, no matter how documented the charge. Liberal blacks (the "liberal" label being almost a redundancy) are immune from any kind of attack. Conservative blacks have no protection whatsoever (see Thomas, Justice Clarence; Blackwell, Ken; Keyes, Alan et al).

Note to liberals: Stop assuming that whenever conservatives attack one of yours, the reason is due to that person's race or gender. You focus on those externalities much more than we do. For us, values are paramount. For you, if you know a person's race, gender, or social class, you feel you know all you have to about him or her. We're a bit deeper than that. Ever noticed that conservatives hardly ever accuse liberals of attacking one of theirs on the basis of race or gender? An exception might be Sarah Palin, but that was because the attacks on her were so overtly directed at her gender. Nothing riles up liberals more than a conservative black, Hispanic, woman, or homosexual. Those groups belong to the liberals, no matter how many policies liberals support which hurt those groups (the topic of another posting; stay tuned!).

So, write on Ms. Dowd! But let's try and hold onto the race card for a few weeks, shall we?

J Street - Helplessly naive on Iran

In August, I posted a cartoon by Dana Summers of the Orlando Sentinel, depicting Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and North Korea's Kim Jong Ill hammering away on a nuclear bomb, as they say to Barack Obama, "You don't mind if we work while we talk, do you?" That cartoon really summed it up for me. President Obama, and his fellow leftists/liberals, subscribe to the belief that no matter how evil a person may be, there is always some carrot one can offer him to change his ways. They say, "You can't only talk to your friends! You must also talk to your enemies!" It sounds great, in theory, but so did Communism.

Enter J Street, the leftist/liberal answer to AIPAC. They have released a position statement on how best to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions. Here are some selections, with my comments:

• "...we are outraged at the Iranian regime’s apparent vote fraud..." - Apparent? Apparent? To say that the Iranian vote was apparently fraudulent is like saying that pro wrestling in America is apparently rigged. Everyone knows the vote was rigged. Everyone, that is, except for, apparently, J Street. MSNBC knew it. CNN knew it. Even the New York Times knew it, quoting an Interior Ministry worker who said the fraud had been planned "for weeks." But J Street describes the fraud perpetrated as "apparent."
• "The international community must, in the words of the President, “bear witness” to the disturbing events taking place right now in Iran." - "Bear witness," eh? "Bearing witness" does not usually help those in need. Usually, those in need require others to stand up on their behalf and deliver them from oppressors. The international community "bore witness" to the genocide in Rwanda, the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the mass starvation of Ukranians, and continues to "bear witness" to the slaughter in Darfur. An international, or unilateral, military force might work better than merely "bearing witness."
• [Should President Obama involve himself further in the Iranian election issue, it will be] "perceived [as the] US meddling in internal Iranian affairs." - Here is what President Obama had to say about the Iranian election results: "The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching." Yes, Mr. President, as you suggested, the world is "bearing witness." "...free speech must be respected..." Excellent suggestion to a tyrannical regime. Excellent. "...the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights." Yes, by "bearing witness." Not exactly let's-make-Ahmadinejad-quake-in-his-boots-statements, right? But here was Ahmadinejad's reaction, as reported by CNN: "Do you think that this kind of behavior is going to solve any of your problems? It will only make people think you are someone like Bush." Priceless. Barack Obama is compared to George W. Bush by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And J Street insists that President Obama might be accused of "meddling" should he "involve himself more directly." He didn't, yet was still accused.
• "As the leadership struggle in Iran continues, we suggest that a tactical pause be considered in the United States’ diplomatic outreach efforts and a hold be placed on any new sanctions against the Iranian government." - Is J Street seriously in the dark as to whom will emerge victorious in the "leadership struggle"? Ahmadinejad's side has guns. Moussavi's doesn't. Guns win.
  
• "...we take note of the recent US national intelligence assessment, placing a possible Iranian nuclear weapons capacity in 2013..." (Actually, the NIE suggests it could be as early as 2010. Read the report. Folks, that's next year. But what's three years between friends?) And if they're wrong, and Iran gets the bomb earlier? What will J Street say? "Oops! Our bad!" When one is dealing with a government like Iran's, which has expressed its desire to wipe out another nation, and which is building a nuclear bomb, it is advised to deal with such a threat seriously, and not hope that said threatening nation is really a few years off from having nuclear weapons capabilities. Then, it will be too late. But J Street will still be able to say, "At least we tried, right?" A nation can not threaten another with extinction, proceed to build a nuclear bomb, and expect no reaction from the threatened nation.
• "Under the current circumstances, it is our view that ever harsher sanctions at this time are unlikely to cause the Iranian regime to cease weapons development. In fact, tougher sanctions, let alone military action, are only likely to strengthen the resolve of Iranian hardliners to pursue weapons development and confrontation with the United States." - So Iran keeps breaking the rules, the United States will do nothing except negotiate, and this will stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear bomb? Only liberals could come up with such logic. In truth, what will cause Iranian hardliners to pursue weapons development is not "tougher sanctions" or "military action," but rather the perception that America (not Europe) is weak, and that the Obama Administration will endlessly negotiate, no matter what Iran does. When the sharks smell blood, as they do now, they will close in for the kill.

When one reads pieces like this from groups like J Street, one has to wonder how much longer western civilization can last with such thinking. The naivete is breathtaking. History be damned. Just because endless negotiations with dictators never stopped them in the past, is no reason to believe it won't stop them in the future, right?

Maureen Dowd plays the race card...........again

In a previous posting, I noted that Maureen Dowd enjoys playing the race and gender card, even as she and her fellow liberals exhort the rest of us to see beyond someone's race, and that men and women are, sans anatomy, essentially the same. But now she is at it again. Does she not realize how foolish she is sounding recently? She may be very smart, but she is not wise. On Wednesday evening, September 9, 2009, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) interrupted President Obama's speech on health care with a shout of, "You lie!" when the President claimed that Democratic health proposals would not cover illegal immigrants. Now there is a whole brouhaha over the lack of respect Rep. Wilson showed to the President. Was it the right thing to do? Probably not. Was it disrespectful? Yup. Would I have done it? Nope. I must say, though, it's a tad tamer than outburst I have seen from the House of Commons or the Israeli Knesset. President Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, "No President has ever been treated like that. Ever." Sorry, Mr. Emanuel, but President Andrew Johnson was treated like the Antichrist by the Radical Republicans after the Civil War, so let's not go overboard here.

But the piece de resistance goes to the New York Times' Maureen Dowd, who in her September 12, 2009 column claimed that Rep. Wilson's outburst was racially motivated. In her words, "...what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!"; "Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber"; "Some people just can't believe a black man is president and will never accept it." In response, the White House claimed that race was not a factor in Rep. Wilson's outburst. When even the White House itself repudiates a New York Times' claim, you know something is awry. (By the way, why was Fox News the only media outlet to cover this part of the story? It can't be because the rest of the MSM agree with Ms. Dowd, right?)

Where to begin? During the campaign in 2008, we were inundated with claim after claim that if then-Sen. Obama would lose it would be due to his race (which is half-white, by the way. It's the half which raised him, and did not abandon him as a child.). By that logic, if John McCain would lose, would it not be due to his age, and those who did not vote for him were age-ists? The argument was so foolish, but made it was. I remember listening to NPR (as a conservative, I often listen to and read opposing viewpoints) back in August 2008, and wanting to rip the radio out of my car when Harvard Law Prof. Lani Guithier said that if Barack Obama would lose, it would mean that America "was still caught up in the original sin...of slavery." I screamed at the radio, "I am not not voting for him because he is black! I am not voting for him because I disagree with almost everything he stands for! If I agreed with a three-headed Martian, I'd vote for him! I care about values, not color!"

Why is it near-impossible for liberals to accept the reality that overwhelmingly, we conservatives disagree with President Obama because of his policies, and not because he is black? Are there racist conservatives? You bet. Are there racist liberals? Undoubtedly. But consistently, when liberals oppose a non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual, candidate for office, it is always presented as principled opposition. When conservatives do it, it's because they are racist, misogynist, homophobic pigs.

Nobody ever said standing up for your principles was easy. Ms. Dowd, if Barack Obama were whiter than the whitest Office Depot copy paper, we conservatives would still oppose his policies. Unlike you and your friends, we believe values trump the liberal trinity of race, class, and gender.

Assaf Ramon ע"ה, son of Israeli astronaut Ilan Ramon זצ"ל, killed in training accident

Tragedy in Israel today: Assaf Ramon, the son of the late Israeli Air Force (IAF) pilot and astronaut, Ilan Ramon, was killed this morning (Sunday) when his F-16A fighter jet crashed in the southern Hebron hills. According to the Jerusalem Post, Assaf announced his intention to join the IAF after his father was killed in the Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu expressed sorrow on behalf of the people of Israel to the Ramon family.

May the new Jewish year of 5770 bring comfort to the Ramon family, and only good news to all of Israel.

Will Israel be Obama's fall guy?

Britain's Guardian reports on August 25, 2009 that President Obama is offering to increase US pressure on Iran in return for Israel's pledge to halt building in settlements. In other words, if Israel refuses to halt its settlement activity, the United States will do nothing when President Obama's self-imposed September deadline for an Iranian response to cease its pursuit of nuclear weapons expires. Sounds like blackmail to me. What President Obama is saying is, "Jews may not build or expand homes in certain areas of Israel. If you continue to do so, you are on your own with the existential threat which Iran poses. Good luck!" These do not sound like the words of a concerned friend.

As Caroline Glick writes in the August 27, 2009 Jerusalem Post, President Obama is setting Israel up to be the fall guy. If and when Israel refuses this "deal," President Obama will point to them and say, "I tried to take a tough stand versus Iran, but Israel stood in my way." Never mind that there was no chance Iran would respond positively to President Obama's peaceful overtures to begin with. They saw him as one of Lenin's "useful idiots." President Obama is one of those (almost always liberal) people who believes that if you just offer the right deal to evil people, they will cease their evil ways, and be reasonable. Those of us in the (almost always) conservative camp understand that often there are those who just wish to do evil, and no amount of incentives or coaxing can influence them. History is replete with examples of evil people who take advantage of good people's (well-intentioned) naivete. Many good people are genuinely so good, they cannot fathom that there are those who are equally genuinely evil. As much as the good wish to do good, the evil wish to do evil (though the evil rarely see their actions as evil, but rather as necessary, or even good).

I hope that American Jews finally come around to the realization that Barack Obama is not a friend of Israel. From his statements on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the advisors with whom he has chosen to surround himself, he has chosen between support for Israel and currying Arab favor.

He has chosen the latter.

PA professor: No Jewish connection to Western Wall

In a previous post, I commented on a Palestinian Media Watch report which detailed an official Palestinian Authority claim that Israel is a racist state, and wishes to expel all Palestinians. Here is another report, in which a Palestinian Authority professor claims that there is no Jewish connection to the Western Wall (Kotel). Mountains of archaeological evidence and written records apparently mean nothing to this academic. The fact that his salary is paid by the group with whom Israel is to make peace means nothing to those on the Left who insist Israel must create a Palestinian state out of Israeli territory. There is literally nothing which the Palestinians can do or say which will convince the Left that peace with Israel is the furthest thing from the Palestinians' minds.

For example:

• Teach hatred of Israel and Jews in school textbooks? Check.
• Celebrate the deaths of innocents slaughtered in a pizza parlor? Check.
• Refuse to acknowledge Israel as the Jewish state? Check.
• Smuggle anti-tank weapons into the Gaza Strip? Check. (Against whom would these weapons be used? Egypt?)
• Randomly fire rockets at civilian centers, from civilian centers? Check.
• Stand in line at a disco and detonate a bomb belt with ball bearings? Check.

And Israel is still pressured to make "goodwill gestures." Incredible.

New York Times - Abbas lacks political weight

The New York Times certainly has a way of creatively interpreting events. On May 28, 2009, the Times reported that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' meeting with President Obama was "more amicable" than Israeli officials' meetings were. I interpret this, in light of President Obama's Cairo speech the next week, to reflect President Obama's clear preference for engaging the Arabs in dialogue, and heavily taking their side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The President has essentially frozen Israel out of negotiations, only talking to the Palestinians.

But the Times has a different take. Why were the talks "more amicable" with President Abbas? Because Abbas "does not have the political weight at the moment to push through anything on the Palestinian side." Poor, poor Abbas. All he wants is to forge a peace with Israel, but he lacks the political ability. On what do they base this? Back in April, Abbas made it clear that he would not recognize Israel as the Jewish state (!). The Israelis have had the audacity to make this request of the Palestinians.

Does anyone honestly believe that all that is holding President Abbas back from making peace with Israel is "political weight," as the Times would have it? Or perhaps it is that, like his predecessor Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas has no desire to make peace with Israel? For if he would do this, as Arafat himself feared, this would spell the end of his career. President Abbas knows that if he reaches an agreement with Israel, there will be no more excuses. No more blaming Israel for the Palestinians' woes, no more claiming impotence when dealing with terrorism. It will be time to mature as a people, and take responsibility for one's own actions.

Leave it to the New York Times to make excuse after excuse for any perceived victim group. It is never their fault, always external factors'. Mahmoud Abbas categorically rejected the notion of Israel as the Jewish state. And the Times says that American-Palestinian talks were amicable due to President Obama's desire to build up President Abbas' political weight.

Somewhere, George Orwell is smiling.

Rush Limbaugh - Stop the Nazi comparisons!

I have received some emails from conservative friends likening President Obama to Hitler. Not that President Obama is interested in slaughtering masses of people, but that aspects of his style of governance are Hitlerian. I have responded strongly to these friends, telling them that it cheapens the memory of Holocaust victims to use Nazi comparisons for politicians with whom we disagree. In my book, Nazi imagery is off-limits, except for discussions of Nazis.

And then Rush Limbaugh (whom I do not listen to on the radio) says in response to Nancy Pelosi's contention that there were swastikas at health care reform townhalls that the Obama health care reform logo reminds him of a Nazi logo. Are you kidding me? First of all, he is flat-out wrong. The logos look nothing alike. Secondly, using Nazi comparisons when they are incorrect is disgraceful. There is a tendency to use Nazi comparisons when one has no better argument. This goes for both liberals and conservatives (though I find it more frequently among the former, particularly against President George W. Bush). Why did Limbaugh say this? Was he trying to be funny? There is nothing funny about it. And even if the logo was similar, so what? Does he sincerely believe that President Obama's PR people would have created that on purpose?

Republicans must write to Rush Limbaugh demanding an apology. He cheapened the memory of Hitler's victims, and he made the GOP look foolish. Sort of like what we accuse the Democracts of regularly. To maintain our moral high road, we must reject this kind of demagoguery.

Write to Mr. Limbaugh at: ElRushbo@eibnet.com. Following is a sample email:

Dear Mr. Limbaugh,

As a concerned American about President Obama's health care reform plan, I appreciate your efforts to alert all Americans to its dangers. I reject, however, the demonizing of our fellow Americans on the left, by your use of Nazi comparisons. I saw the logo montage on your website. The logos do not at all resemble each other. Regardless, Nazi comparisons are absolutely unacceptable as part of civil political discourse in this nation. As Republicans, conservatives, and Americans, we are better than that. We can let our reasoned arguments win the day. I believe your comments warrant an apology to Holocaust victims and to those who look to you for smart political thought.

Thanking you in advance,

Sincerely,

Liberal Bumper Stickers, Part 1 - War is Not the Answer

I was driving behind a liberal-bumper-sticker-covered car today, and knew immediately the driver was a woman. I was correct. (Try this experiment once: When you see a car with any bumper stickers, try and guess the sex of the driver by the stickers. The more stickers, the more likely the driver is a liberal. The more liberal the stickers are, the more likely the driver is a woman.)

When I got home, I jotted down the stickers I could remember. I plan to analyze them (and others I have seen) in this and future posts.

• Liberal Bumper Stickers, Part 1 - War is Not the Answer

As Dennis Prager has said, "It depends what the question is." If we want to know how to make a key lime pie, then war is certainly not the answer. If, however, we want to know how to defeat major evils in the world (like Nazism, Communism, Radical Islam), then war may, in fact, be the only answer. Was it peace activists who defeated the Nazis and Imperial Japan, and who liberated Auschwitz? No, it was the combined Allied military forces who bombed and bombed and bombed until both Hitler and Hirohito realized that there was no chance at victory. Neville Chamberlain felt that war was not the answer, and he is remembered by history as one of its great fools. Did Prime Minister Chamberlain mean well? Undoubtedly. But as Winston Churchill said to Chamberlain at the time, "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war." How many tens of millions of innocent lives, from the Allies, the Axis, and other victims, would have been saved had Chamberlain said to Hitler, "You touch Czechoslovakia, and Britain will not hesitate to use all of its resources to stop you." Might there have been battles between England and the Third Reich? Might many soldiers have died. Of course. Have we learned nothing from history, with millions upon millions of innocent victims crying out to us, "Do not negotiate with evil. Destroy it!"?

"All we are saying, is give peace a chance," went the old folk song. But were those who sung it serious? Did they really want to give peace a "chance"? Or did they really want to avoid war at all cost, even at the expense of others' liberty? Saying that one wishes to give peace a "chance" means that if negotiations fail, force may be a necessity. "Speak softly, and carry a big stick," advised President Theodore Roosevelt. Know when to use wise diplomacy, he was telling us, but make the other party aware that if necessary, the United States is willing to use its military might to protect its interests. Otherwise, America will be seen as a paper tiger. And weakness is not a helpful reputation in the world today.

Here are some other examples of war being the proper and moral answer:

• Was it peace activists who brought down the Soviet Union, freeing millions trapped behind the Iron Curtain? No, it was Ronald Reagan's promise to Mikhail Gorbachev that the United States would spend more than the USSR on more advanced weaponry. It was the United States military, which showed the Soviets that they would never be able to defeat America in battle.
• Was it peace activists who saved South Korea from being swallowed up by the North, from being included in the current concentration camp which is North Korea? No, it was the Korean War, fought by America and its allies, purely to save a foreign people from being put under the yoke of Communism.
• Was it peace activists who stopped the cross-border raids of the PLO from Lebanon into Israel in the 1980s? No, it was the Israel Defense Forces, fighting a war, which forced the PLO out of Lebanon.
• Was it peace activists who liberated Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Army, having been swallowed up as another province of Iraq? No, it was the American-led military invasion (which, incidentally, Vice President Joe Biden opposed) which saved Kuwait from being wiped off the map.
• Was it peace activists who saved Kosovar Albanians from being slaughtered by Serbs in the late 1990s? No, it was NATO forces which bombed Serb forces. Militarily.
• Was it peace activists who saved the Iraqi people from their murderous tyrant of a ruler, Saddam Hussein? No, it was another American-led military invasion which did the job. (For those who opposed the Iraq War, you must admit that the US Armed Forces did infinitely more to protect the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein and his henchmen than any peace activist ever did. Perhaps America should not have invaded in the first place, but you must admit this fact.)

I think the historical pattern is clear. War is most definitely the answer to many conflicts in the world, especially when one of the actors is bent on murdering as many innocents as possible. When dealing with conflicts between democracies - say, America and Canada - war is most likely not the answer. But when one is dealing with a Hitler, a Mussolini, a Saddam, a Kim Jong Il, an Ahmadinejad, a Radical Islamist, war is oftentimes the only answer.

PA: Israel is a racist state; threatens all humanity

In a Palestinian Media Watch article, the official Palestinian Authority news agency, WAFA, published an article on July 27, 2009, in which it accused Israel of plotting to expel its Arab citizens, as well as the Palestinians from their areas. It also accused Israel of being a racist state, a threat to the entire world, and of refusing to accept the return of Palestinian refugees.

1. If Israel had wanted to expel its Arab citizens and the Palestinians, does anyone honestly think they could not have done so by now?
2. Israel is not a racist state, because though it was founded as a state for the Jewish people, anyone can become Jewish, and hence earn citizenship. Additionally, Israel accepts non-Jews as citizens.
3. Israel being a threat to the entire world is such an odd accusation. I suppose that since there are so many who wish to see her destroyed, if she were to be destroyed, there might be a tad more peace in the world. Then again, those who destroyed her would most likely move on to their next target. Antisemites rarely satisfy themselves merely with the Jews (thanks to Dennis Prager for this point).
   
4. The "right of return" is nothing more than code for the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. Millions of Palestinians streaming into Israel would "democratically" vote out the Jews. As opposed to what Israel did by absorbing and acculturating around 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands around the time of Israel's founding in 1948, the Arabs have kept their Palestinian brethren languishing in refugee camps, maintaining their feelings of anger and sense of victimhood, promising them that one day, they would return, and drive the hated Jews into the sea.

It is with people like these that the world wishes Israel to make peace? Peace is not a possibility for this generation; yet another generation of Palestinian children has been taught to hate the Jews. I hope and pray that future generations of Palestinians are taught to live in peaceful coexistence.

Until then, peace through strength and deterrence!

Finally! New York Times endorses napping

Count me among the lovers of the New York Times. Well, perhaps that's overstating the issue. The Times' August 6, 2009 editorial page quoted a Pew Research Center study which asked the subjects if they had napped within the past 24 hours. I never would have predicted the results; they seem so random:

• Men napped more often than women.
• Blacks napped more often than whites or Hispanics.
• The unhappy napped more often than the happy (this one's pretty obvious).

I would have also been interested in knowing the numbers of liberals versus conservatives. During the past school year, I'd say I napped about once every two weeks. When I say "napped," I mean head down in folded arms, hardcore power nap. Ten to fifteen minutes later, I am good to go. I recommend it to all as a great invigorator.

So I say to all with much conviction, "Nap on, MacDuff! Nap on!"

New York Times ignores President's call for reporting on fellow Americans

Just to clarify that title - it was not that the New York Times honorably refused to heed the President's call for reporting on Americans, but rather that they treated it as a non-issue. A Google search on August 6, 2009 of the terms "obama, white house, fishy, new york times/washington post/los angeles times" received a grand total of zero hits. The only mainstream hits were of abcnews.com and foxnews.com. Not sure what I am talking about? You're not alone.

On August 4, 2009, abcnews.com reported that White House director of new media Macon Phillips asked that Americans who receive emails or hear conversations with incorrect information about President Obama's health care reform (he calls it "something...that seems fishy") report it to the White House. Supporters of the President's plan might say, "He just wants to correct the information out there. He wants to pass responsible health care reform, and his efforts will be hindered by incorrect information." Opponents (full disclosure - like myself) might counter with, "Fair enough. But just think if George W. Bush would have done the same thing regarding the Iraq War. Can you imagine the outrage in the media? You know they would yell, 'Witchhunt! McCarthyism! Freedom of Speech!' " Though there is technically nothing wrong with this, it stinks to high heavens of a police state, with citizens reporting on each other. You want to go tell the President what your friend Bill said at the water cooler? Go ahead, but that the request for information come from the White House itself? It does not seem appropriate.

Time and again, the media elites (New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, NPR, PBS et al) demonstrate that they are in the tank for President Obama. If one is going to be tough on George W. Bush (as well they should have been), they need to be consistent with Barack Obama. But then again, he's their man.

Iran and North Korea - Talking while working

Dana Summers, Orlando Sentinel - This about sums it up. President Obama has made it clear he plans on engaging Iran and North Korea with no preconditions. Just talk to them, see what their concerns are, see where we can see eye to eye. After all, you can't only talk to your friends, right? Are President Obama and his supporters so blind to the notion that when you negotiate with thuggish or illegitimate governments, you are giving them an international seal of approval?

At what point will President Obama understand that it is futile to have any dealings with such governments? When they actually possess a nuclear device? Then it will be too late, and the response from the White House will be, "At least we tried. Best of luck to you, Israel."

It all comes down to Psalms 120:7 - "I am for peace, but when I speak of it, they are for war." This explains Middle East politics perfectly. Middle East actors understand one thing, and one thing only: power. If they sense you are negotiating from a position of weakness (which is what they feel with America and Israel), they will go for the jugular. They will interpret your "good-will gestures" as a sign that you can be defeated, perhaps now, perhaps later. But you will be defeated. The only response to those who announce they wish to destroy you is to take them at their word. Do not rely on others for help. Take your enemy's word seriously, and destroy him. The alternative will be disastrous.

Charles Krauthammer on ObamaCare

In his July 24, 2009 column, the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer points out that President Obama's health care reform (read transformation) package is beginning to collapse. As more and more people (including Democrats!) work their way through the more than 1,000 pages of legislation, they are realizing the folly of implementing it. Krauthammer has 3 main points:

1. President Obama claims that soaring medical costs are destroying the economy. Then the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office announced that the President's plan would increase costs by $1 trillion (yes, that's a "t"). Oops.
2. President Obama claims that health care reform is above politics, that it is completely for the American people. Really? says Krauthammer. Then why do we not hear anything about reforming the malpractice system, where doctors must pay between tens- and hundreds of thousands of dollars every year in malpractice insurance? Answer: because trial lawyers make up a large percentage of Democratic Party contributors. You think they want to see changes in the torts system? I think not. But remember, this is not about politics, right?
3. Another source of great medical financial waste is the unnecessary tests ordered by (understandably!) lawsuit-fearful doctors. Why are they fearful? Surprise! It's the trial lawyers again. The doctors know that if they do not order the smallest test for a patient, the patient may turn around the next day and sue, claiming, "Why didn't you try everything?" Because we have to consider the greater good of society, dear patient. And if it so important to have that test, pay for it yourself, or with some caring friends and family members. But keep the insurance companies (and higher premiums for the rest of us) out of it.

President Obama is hanging his hat on health care reform. The hat's about to fall.

Investor's Business Daily - The uninsured myth

As the Obama health care plan slowly receives more and more scrutiny, it is becoming clear that the underlying goal is not to correct the problem in the current health care system, but rather to further expand government's reach. I thought this was fairly elementary. Conservatives wish to reduce the size of government, while liberals wish to expand it. These are basic to each ideology.

Investor's Business Daily's August 29, 2007 editorial, using Census Bureau data, effectively refutes the notion that "47 million" Americans lack health insurance. After calculating the total number as just under 45 million, they break the numbers down. Let's see where we end up:

1. 10.231 million illegal aliens - Surely they should not receive government-provided health insurance, being illegal.
2. 9.283 million with income above $75,000 - They cannot afford health insurance? Surely you jest.
3. 8.459 million with income between $50,000-$74,999 - They could also probably pay for their own health insurance.

So how many people are we really talking about who do not have health insurance? Subtracting number 1 above, one is left with 34.76 million Americans (12% of the population). Subtracting number 2 above, one is left with 25.48 million Americans (8.5% of the population). Subtracting number 3 above, one is left with 17.02 million Americans (5.7% of the population).

Let me get this straight: since between 5.7-12% of Americans do not have health insurance, we are going to trash the entire system, and let government take it over? This will save costs? Governments never have an incentive to cut costs; they can always a) raise taxes, or b) print more money. Private enterprise, by definition, must watch its costs.

This is yet another example of the liberal Obama Administration trying to control Americans' lives. Those in government know better for the American people than the American people do. This is also an example of the liberal child-like view of the world: since a tiny minority do not have all that the overwhelming majority do, we will take away that which the majority has. Then all may share in the negatives of the system, instead of the vast majority of us (that is right - not all of us) sharing in the positives of the system. Make no mistake - when it is government versus private enterprise, in the long run, government wins, for the reason noted above.

Does this mean I think that the current system is working? No, I do not. But the solution is not to destroy the system already in place. We need to tinker with it. Then again, candidate Obama never disguised his intentions. He told us on a campaign stop in Missouri that he was going to "fundamentally transform the United States of America."

And fundamentally transform the United States of America he is doing.

Maureen Dowd, champion of "diversity"

When will Maureen Dowd realize that values matter much more than gender or race?

Apparently, not any time soon.

It is telling that those who label themselves "progressives" consistently act in a regressive manner. They constantly tell us that what matters most (not only) in selecting a public servant, student, coach, etc. is the candidate's race or gender, never his qualifications. This is why we always hear about how we must have "diversity" in public office or the workplace, why we must support affirmative action (also known as anti-White discrimination), and why we have the Rooney Rule in the NFL (which states that any team hiring a head coach must interview at least one minority [read Black or Hispanic] candidate, even if the team has its sights set on one particular coach). I thought what matters most is a person's credentials and competence. Of course, I realize that not all people have the same opportunities to develop their skills, but the way to solve that is not by promoting or hiring people to positions for which they are not qualified. But Maureen Dowd plays the race and gender cards in her July 15, 2009 op-ed, in which she describes a "gaggle of white Republican men...out to trip her [Judge Sonia Sotomayor] up." (Ironic, is it not, that in the city where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of the day when his children "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" these vile words were written?)

Lest one think I am taking this comment out of context, try this one: "It was a disgrace that [former President George] W. [Bush] appointed two white men to a court stocked with white men." Can one get more racist and sexist than that? What is the difference as to an appointee's race and gender for public office, university, or sports coach? If I were to ask Ms. Dowd if she believed race should be a factor in appointing and hiring, she would have only one of three answers: 1) yes, in which case she is no different than the 1960s Southern racists she so (correctly) deplores, except in the reverse, 2) no, in which case there is no way to defend what she wrote, or 3) no, except for Blacks and Hispanics, because the "system" has shortchanged them for many years, and this is a way to level the playing field. I suspect the answer is #3.

A second problem with Ms. Dowd's "stocked with white men" comment is that it implies that all white men think alike. After all, why else would there be a problem? Does anyone honestly think she would have been happier had President Bush appointed a Black male conservative, such as Ken Blackwell or Thomas Sowell? How about a White female conservative, like Sarah Palin or Kay Bailey Hutchison? (I realize none of the above are jurists, but my point is that she is not really concerned with diversity, but rather getting more liberals on the High Court. Which is fine with me, by the way. I just wish she would admit it.)

A third problem - how far does diversity extend? As of July 16, 2009, the Court had:

1. 5 Catholics (Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito), 2 Protestants (Stevens and Souter [Episcopalian]), and 2 Jews (Ginsburg and Breyer). Considering Protestants represent more than 50% of all Americans, Catholics fewer than 25%, and Jews fewer than 2%, should not Ms. Dowd be concerned with the Court's 55% Catholic representation, 22% Protestant representation, and 22% Jewish representaton? Are my "Jewish views" represented by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg? No, but my conservative views are well-represented by Catholics Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. And, if given the choice of having a Jew or a Red Sox-loving, Yankee-cursing conservative replace any of those four, give me the Sox fan any day of the week.
2. 2 West Coasters (Kennedy and Breyer), 2 Midwesterners (Stevens, Roberts), 4 Northeasterners (Scalia, Alito, Souter, Ginsburg), and 1 Southerner (Thomas). Looks like the North has 66% of the Justices! Might Ms. Dowd be interested in some more Southerners? What's that you say? Southerners tend to be conservative? But I thought we want diversity!

Maureen Dowd, and those who think like her, mask their desire for more liberals in higher office with calls for "diversity." As we have seen, though, "diversity" has its limits. Take Ms. Dowd's employer, the New York Times, for instance. Of their regular columnists, the ratio of liberals to conservatives is 10:1, and David Brooks is a pretty moderate conservative. We won't even talk about newspaper editorial pages, network news, cable news, or university professors.

So let's just stop this talk of desiring "diversity." Ms. Dowd, you want liberals, I want conservatives. Have a great day.