The height of arrogance

The Honorable Senator Kerry just can’t get it through his thick head that the election in Iraq today is not about him…and it’s certainly not about this “International Community” he keeps speaking of.

His interview with Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” is just case in point. The arrogance is strictly startling:

“MR. RUSSERT: Election day, Iraq. Condoleezza Rice, the new secretary of State, has just told the United States and the world, “It has gone better than expected.” What is your sense?

“SEN. KERRY: I think it’s gone as expected. I think it was a good report by Brian. I think it starkly lays out the challenges, Tim. Let me begin, if I can, by saying first of all I was just there a few weeks ago. I think our troops today deserve yet again a thanks and a word of praise from everybody. They are at extraordinary risk. They’re doing a remarkable job, and I want to give them that credit.

“Secondly, it is significant that there is a vote in Iraq. But no one in the United States or in the world– and I’m confident of what the world response will be. No one in the United States should try to overhype this election. This election is a sort of demarcation point, and what really counts now is the effort to have a legitimate political reconciliation, and it’s going to take a massive diplomatic effort and a much more significant outreach to the international community than this administration has been willing to engage in. Absent that, we will not be successful in Iraq.

“MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe this election will be seen by the world community as legitimate?

“SEN. KERRY: A kind of legitimacy–I mean, it’s hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can’t vote and doesn’t vote. I think this election was important. I was for the election taking place. You may recall that back in–well, there’s no reason you would–but back in Fulton, Missouri, during the campaign, I laid out four steps, and I said at the time, “This may be the president’s last chance to get it right.”

He wasn’t talking for 45 seconds before he was talking about his own election platform. And…”I’m confident what the world response will be.” I just don’t understand how anyone could possibly sit and listen to this guy. Even the liberal pundits are wondering what the political motives (their largest concern,of course) are for taking this sort of line. I’m simply at a loss.

Posted at 12:05 am by Logipundit

Inauguration Pics

Courtesy of our good friend Plauche using my camera (what can I say, I just don’t take a lot of pictures), I have a few shots of the Presidential Inauguration, so check out the gallery.

Posted at 11:06 pm by Logipundit

Posted by John Broussard @ 01/31/2005 11:03 PM PST
Hey Logi,

One of my liberal friends (Nader Kerry voter, but preferred Dean and McCain) commented on the inaugural in an e-mail, “Everybody looked cranky and gloomy” etc. I figured it was just cold outside. What was your take? I think this warrants a separate post?

One more thing

What about that “Wilsonian Inauguration speech“?

Posted at 11:15 pm by Johnny B

Posted by logipundit @ 01/26/2005 10:07 PM PST
As in Ronald Wilson?

We need a little idealism, don’t you think?…the Democrats have enough pessimism for both parties, so someone has to be able to see past their own eyeballs. I think a little bit of realism could have helped. You know, “It’s going to be a lot of hard work,” etc, etc. But it’s not like we haven’t heard that before.

Someone has to project a view of how much better the world can be, and this time it has to be the Republicans.

Posted by BP @ 01/28/2005 10:17 AM PST
I added the link, by the way. Just in case ya’ll didn’t get to hear it, (or freeze your arse off seeing it live.)

Delayed Reaction to Scottie

Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Delayed Reaction to Scottie
Scottie’s voluminous posts certainly require thought to address…hard to know where to begin. Let me start by saying that it pays to be a client state of the United States. Of the horrible evil the U.S. has unleashed upon the rest of the world in the last 60 years, let’s examine a few of those countries the U.S. managed to turn into client states, as opposed to those countries that attempted wholesale collectivism or communism as part of a revolution against neo-imperialism.

First the client states:
Chile South Korea Japan Great Britain Ireland Thailand Greece Saudi Arabia Phillipines Australia
Canada

Countries that were client states but now are trying to determine their own hegemony (economic, at least)
Germany (Western at the time)

France Italy Spain

Let’s look at some of those non-client countries…

Russia China Vietnam Cuba Cambodia North Korea

and formerly non-client countries

Poland Bulgaria Yugoslavia Czechoslovakia Romania

Just a short list, but simply to make a point. One can look at U.S. intervention in, say, Greece. Papandreau is elected, and he’s not a communist, but he’s not “our guy” to use Clinton’s words. Military coup ensues and right wingers rule. In a vacuum, America’s part in overturning a democratic Greece is shameful. But in the long run the people of Greece are better off than those in Bulgaria. Whether Greece would have fell under the iron curtain had we not intervened, well, they didn’t know at the time. If the ONLY reason America allowed South Korea, or France to be kept from incorporation into the USSR was so we could have a market to buy and sell stuff (and a populace to “enslave”), so be it. The freedom you enjoyed in France, Scottie, would not have been available had not the U.S. meddled in international affairs.

That all being said, with the cold war with Russia at a reasonable ebb, it is good to learn lessons from the past, and as such discussing which policies would work instead of those laid down by history and our government, is not “bullshit”.

Posted at 11:12 pm by Johnny B

Posted by BP @ 01/26/2005 10:08 PM PST
Scottie, you there? Haven’t heard from you in a while.

Posted by Jordan @ 01/27/2005 10:13 PM PST
Nice.

Posted by BP @ 01/28/2005 10:05 AM PST
HE LIVES! Hello Jordan. We don’t hear from you in for a month and your comment is exactly one word.

Cool.

A right to food, a right to a car, a right to a house

Why is universal public schooling listed as an accomplishment of the liberals? Why are America’s public schools so shoddy? No Child Left Behind is pretty new, so we can’t lay all the blame there. I go to graduate school in a biological field and met many graduate students who work in the empirical sciences. I constantly wonder why there are so few Americans in general studying biology rather than, say, studies about racial profiling. This is one reason why I think learning Chinese may not put me at an advantage but may be mandatory if I am to work with future graduate students.

I’m kind of inspired by Scottie here to look at other countries for examples of how they educate their kids. In Taiwan, everybody pays something to send their kids to school. Most people pay tuition. This is an interesting concept, tuition. Until recently, Great Britain didn’t charge it at all, even for University. When Reagan reformed the California school system, students rioted. Now faculty come from all over the world to do research in America. I’m not talking about Asia, although many top notch researchers come from here, but also European professors often come to America. Professors in America get paid, and often work in very beautiful state-of-the-art buildings. It is often a cushy living. Faculty have time to travel to “conferences” (i.e. ski trips) on the school’s dime, and some professors even have time to write anti-american polemical tracts, the royalties of which I’m sure go entirely to third world revolutionaries.

What’s my point, besides verbally harassing professors? Some professors get paid a lot of money because they are very productive and kick-ass research. In some cases, they may even deserve a six-figure income for the research they bring to the table. Why not unleash tuition on public schools? Why not give parents a choice as to whether they want to pay tuition for their kids now rather than pay property taxes for the rest of their lives? That way they can send their kids to whatever school they can afford. And even if a crack addict, or graduate student, can’t pay full price, they should pay something.

BTW, Taiwan is #2 in Math and Science, and Reading education (Hong Kong and Singapore are city states and don’t count as “countries” in my opinion. Japan is #1, and they charge tuition as well.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1216/p17s01-legn.html

Posted at 11:24 pm by Johnny B

What would we do without Liberalism?

Monday, January 24, 2005
What would we do without Liberalism?
Here is Daily Kos’ summary of the liberal virtues extolled by the Democratic Party. This after telling us proudly that “Liberals are the Democratic Party” (my comments are in Italics):

“Civil rights- All people are equal under the law. Any type of discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or gender is not only inconsistent with a free and civil society, but is immoral as well.”
Unless that Discrimination is against the majority race, religion, gender, etc, then it’s OK.

“Universal public education – Equality of opportunity requires all Americans to have access to a basic education consistent with maintaining informed citizenship and the ability to participate fully in society.”
They can participate freely in society unless it involves practicing the religion of their choice.

“A Social Safety Net – Recognizing that circumstances beyond mortal control play a part in all our lives, a basic social safety net shall be available to all who need it, not as a permanent lifestyle, but rather as a helping hand to get back on one’s feet.”
Agreed. Is our current system set up that way, or is a more “progressive” system in order.

“Employees’ Rights – We spend most of our lives working. Work is the foundation of our economy and a major part of the glue holding together communities. The employee is an equal business partner with the employer, and as such, has the right to collectively bargain for terms of employment.”
Yes, and the employer also has rights, including being able to pay their employees a fair wage without being shaken down by unions every day.

“Environmental Protection – Contrary to some people’s opinions, it is possible to both protect the environment and sustain economic growth. We support taking all reasonable and responsible steps to protect the environment and the species contained therein.”
That is not contrary to a real Conservative’s opinion. A conservative would simply add the caveat that when it becomes a choice between the lives of humans and the lives of non-humans, then the humans take a higher priority.

“Free Enterprise – The capitalist economic system is the most efficient solution to providing for peoples’ wants and needs. Government’s role is that of a regulator, not a controller of industry, and any regulation must only be for the good of society as a whole, and not for the benefit of any one entity.”
When the “good of society as a whole” becomes more important than the benefits granted to individual entities, then by definition, Free Enterprise, and regulators’ role in it, become less than free.

“Rule of Law – Law is the framework in which society operates. There can be no society without justice. Justice means that those who commit crimes must be made to answer for them, and that the criminal code is fair and wisely constructed. When criminal actions go unpunished, respect for the law weakens. The law applies to all, including all agents of the government.”
OK, and when was the last time that a true liberal took a stand on the dangers of criminal actions going unpunished?

“Progress is what Liberalism really means; moral progress, economic progress, and social progress to benefit all humanity. This represents the path towards a better world. At its heart, Liberalism is an optimistic philosophy.”
Huh?

“Accomplishments of Liberalism

“GI Bill – This act of Congress enabled millions upon millions of Americans to get college educations, something that most Americans had never had the opportunity to do previously. An entire generation of leaders, scientists, and business people owe their education to the GI Bill.

“Labor Laws – An end to child labor, 40 hour work weeks, the right of employees to collectively bargain, overtime pay, workplace safety, all of the things we take for granted today are thanks to liberal laws passed in the first half of this century. It was the conservatives who fought tooth and nail against the end of sweatshops and exploitation.

“Environmental Laws – The environment has gotten much better in the last 30 years thanks to liberals. Bald Eagles fly once again thanks to endangered species laws, most rivers and lakes are clean again due to anti-pollution laws, and frequent smog days are a thing of the past in most big American cities.

“Workplace safety laws -Long hours in unsafe conditions are much rarer today than in the past. Tragedies such as the Triangle Shirtwaist fire and child labor have been eliminated by liberal and progressive legislation.

“Social Security – This program has provided three generations of Americans retirement benefits, and nearly eliminated poverty among the elderly. The program is weakening now, but for 50 years it did its job to a T.

“Peace corps – Kennedy inspired thousands of Americans to ask what they could do for their country, and the Peace Corps is his most visible and effective legacy

“Civil rights movement – Liberal ideals drove the biggest change in American society since the Civil War, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. All Americans who believe in freedom and opportunity cannot help but be inspired by the valiant struggles of MLK and others. Also recall if you will that the major opponents of civil rights were conservatives.

Case in point. How much of the above has been actually accomplished over the last 30 years. So if liberalism hasn’t accomplished didley squat in 30 years, and “Liberalism is the Democratic Party”, then…well…you see my point. Big hattip to CavalierX.

Friday, January 21, 2005 Mass e-mail with qu…

Friday, January 21, 2005
Mass e-mail with questions for our Representatives
Polipundit came up with a great idea of sending an e-mail to each of our Representatives and Senators with some basic questions to respond to regarding how they will choose to represent us. If it’s sent enmasse, then the results can be looked at and tallied and analyzed more effectively than if we were all doing it separately. The readers are coming up with some great questions.

However, one of the readers pointed out that when any question comes across to a Congressman that isn’t clearly from an identified constituent, then the response is generally, “I don’t care what you think because you don’t vote for me”.

SO, what a few of us figured is that if we just started with one signor from each state, then when Polipundit sends the questions out in a mass e-mail, then the Senators would have to respond. The goal of course would be to have one signatoree from each Congressional District…all 435 of them. Think we can pull that off?

We can start with the States and once we get all 50 we can go into the districts.

Virginia here. Anyone else in?

UPDATE: So far we have:

Missouri–ZBM2
South Carolina–Jeannette
Oregon–Marc
Ohio–Johnny B
Virginia–BP
Maryland–Dianne Russell
Texas–DJ
California–Janet Nichols
Wyoming–Joel Thompson

Posted at 07:37 pm by Logipundit

Posted by ZBM2 @ 01/21/2005 08:22 PM PST
Count Missouri as represented.

Posted by John Broussard @ 01/21/2005 10:33 PM PST
Sign me up for Ohio for now

Posted by Johnny @ 01/26/2005 12:34 PM PST
Nobody from Louisiana?

So, how does this work? I don’t even know my Ohio rep. I know the Senators, though. When do we do this?