Larry Craig Ready to Resign Tomorrow (Saturday, September 1, 2007)?

It looks like Larry Craig (R-ID) will announce his resignation on Saturday, effective September 30th..

If he was guilty of seeking some hot "man on man action" in an airplane restroom, he probably should've resigned sooner, as that kind of thing is generally frowned upon ("not that there's anything wrong with that") because it reeks of reckless and irresponsible judgment, which is a pretty negative trait in a public office holder. If he was innocent, he should've fought the initial charges and NOT pleaded down to misdemeanor "disturbing the peace."

But WHY is it that Republicans continue do the "right thing" (resign) in the wake of such scandals, while Democrats seem to revel in the debauchery?

Seriously, I don't get it!

I'm afraid I must once again give my Party (I remain a registered Democrat....I like to call myself a "Zell Miller-Democrat") some much needed advice.

The next time such a scandal touches a fellow Democrat (and believe me, there WILL be a "next time"...and sooner, rather than later) we should take on the tack of going the Republicans one better. Forget contrition and the tearful resignations, no, I say, in celebration of "diversity" and in honor of our "Muslim brothers" we should take out the next Democrat involved in such a scandal and stone him/her to death in the public square.

What could be better than that?!

We kill two birds with one stone (no pun intended). First, we show our utter contempt at moral depravity, while at the very same time giving a wink and a nod to Muslim culture! And think of the ratings!!! My GOD...the ratings for such an event would be through the roof!

I know what you're thinking, maybe I haven't thought this all the way through.....but I HAVE!

Democrats, like Republicans have a "Muslim problem" - not to put too fine a point on it, they think we hate them.

OK, so most of us do, but that's besides the point. In doing this, we silence those critics who think that Democrats "celebrate moral depravity and decay," while at the same time reaching out across cultural lines to our Muslim pals, by engaging in one of their most time honored traditions - stoning.

Hey, it's true, sometimes even savages have some pretty good ideas! Welcome Muslims and grab a stone to throw.

Think about it....we could really have some fun with this.

About Time!...

Lost in all the hoopla was last week's sentencing of John Evander Couey to death for the rape/murder of NINE y/o Jessica Lundsford, of whom "Jesica's Law" was named.

Florida Judge Ric Howard sentenced Couey to death for the 2005 abduction, slaying. The jury that convicted Couey last month, voted 10 - 2 for the death penalty in this case.

An attorney for Couey has argued that Couey cannot be executed for his crimes because he is mentally retarded, but Howard brushed that aside, as Couey has a criminal record that includes 24 burglary arrests ("mentally retarded people cannot generally commit burglaries") and was already a registered sex offender when he killed Jessica Lundsford, a designation he earned after exposing himself to a FIVE y/o girl in 1991.

WHY was this guy ever out of jail after his initial offenses?

Outisde the court, Mark Lundsford, Jessica's father had some advice for Couey, "Skip all the appeals. Take your punishment. Stand up and be a man."

The quicker Couey is executed the sooner it can be deemed that he's "no longer a threat to society." So long as he breathes, he's a very real threat to any children he'd get near.

Violent Crime has DOUBLED in England Over the Past 10 YEARS!!!

The Labour Party came to power in England back in 1997 promising, at the time, to tackle both crime and its causes.

Ah, 1997 - "The GOOD OLD Days!"

Since then violent crime has doubled in jolly old England.

Before he left office, Tony Blair addressed the problem of out of control violence by Britain's non-white (mostly Muslim) population. The statistics are undeniable. Violent crime has doubled from 60,000 offernses in 1998-1999 to over 120,000 offenses in 2005-2006!

The problem seems to be that Britain's tough penalties for violent crimes are rarely, if ever enforced. " Norman Brennan, Director of the Victims of Crime Trust, has said, "None of the new legislation that they (Labour) have introduced has made any difference at all. It's just been window dressing. There were already heavy penalties on the statute books for going armed for the purpose of committing a crime - you can get a life sentence - but they are just not enforced and youngsters know it."

Sound familiar, doesn't it?

People respond to incentives. Laws can't make people any better, they can merely raise the costs of anti-social and violent behavior...and that's often the best we can hope to do. Make the costs for violent criminal behavior steep enough that the thugs either avoid those activities due to their higher costs, or wind up in jail for such actions for an inordinate amount of time.

Beyond that, prisons should re-emphasize punishment. Prisons were more effective when few inmates were able to survive tens years locked up. Today, inmates can work-out, use the prison library, etc. Many of them come out of prison better equipped to commit crimes and more knowledgable about crimes than when they went in.

Of course, people who are worked nearly to death, don't have time for such perverse self-improvements.

And there's still another thing England has in common with America - an aversion for facing a stark reality, that England's crime rate has skyrocketed along with its Arab/Muslim population.

A focus on community policing and more jail time for violent offenders are all good palces to start, BUT simply expelling its burgeoning Arab/Muslim population would be the fastest and most drastic way that England could reduce its violent crime rate!

SEE: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/26/nrcrime126.xml&page=1

I Wonder WHY...

....Why were so many firefighters sent up to the 14th floor of a raging inferno in veritable vacant, toxic waste dump...WITHOUT any water? You never send firefighters into a fire area WITHOUT a charged line. Yes, in occupied buildings, Truck Companies often force entry, search and vent ahead of the Engine's hoseline, BUT (1) they KNOW the hoseline is coming (and not an hour from when they start their search) and (2) Companies operating ahead of the hoseline generally do so with extreme caution, as a fallen or trapped firefighter becomes part of the problem and diverts precious resources AWAY from the search for other victims.

Why was there no fire plan established for the Deutsche Bank building even though the city was mandated to have one?

Why were BOTH standpipe systems out of order despite claims that City law required that at least ONE of those ALWAYS be servicable?

Why were FDNY inspections of the Deutsche Bank building reportedly suspended?

Reports state that the FDNY was "fortunate to have lost only two members last Saturday," as scores of other firefighters cut their way through thick plastic sheeting to reach the exterior scaffolding around the building.

Two more FDNY firefighters were hurt today, as the first of the two Funerals was held for the younger of the two firefighters killed last Saturday (33 y/o Joe Graffagnino), at least one of them is in serious condition, after a large pump fell from some scaffolding.

Why is the Deutsche Bank building still standing SIX YEARS after 9/11???

Yes, originally Deutsche bank and its insurers wrangled over whose responsibility the demolition was, then the LMDC bought the building from Deutsche Bank and began demolition, when remains from 9/11 were found inside the building back in 2004. The families of the 9/11 victims sued and demolition was halted for awhile.

So far, this 41 story building has been reduced to a 26 story toxic dump replete with toxic black mold, asbestos, leadand many other toxic substances.

Earlier this week, the John Galt Contractor was fired because its workmen repeatedly engaged in unsafe practices in that workplace.

I smell lawsuits...and lots of'em!

Has Anyone Noticed.....

....That even as oil prices have risen this summer, gasoline prices have dropped?

Oil is now over $70/barrell, but gasoline has come down to UNDER $3/gallon in New York and UNDER $2.50 in nearby New Jersey!

Is it Bush manipulating oil prices?

The Dem Congress coming to the rescue??

Or is it something else???

If you said "something else," then you nailed it, it's something else alright - the end of the "Summer Blend" season that began on March 1st and ended in late May. The various "summer blends" add about 24 cents per gallon to the price of gasoline - THAT'S your government at work!

Since early June, gasoline prices have come steadily down....and neither Bush, nor the Congress have done a darn thing to make that happen.

NYPD Report Points to Growing Homegrown Jihadist Threat

Last Wednesday (8-15-07) the NYPD made a 90 page report entitled Radicalization in the West (SEE: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/pdf/dcpi/NYPD_Report-Radicalization_in_the_West.pdf). It highlights the pathway toward radicalization and points to the ease at which a small band of trained operatives could inflict devastating harm on a major city.

In the wake of Adam Gadahn’s (the first American charged with treason in over half a century) openly siding with al Qaeda and Abdullah al-Muhajir/Jose Padilla (BOTH pictured above) being convicted by a federal jury, which found that he conspired to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism, the NYPD’s report is extremely relevant.

As the New York Post noted, “Padilla also applied for admission to an al Qaeda training camp - a form filled out by Padilla and recovered from Afghanistan in 2001 bore seven of his fingerprints and other identifying factors.

“His conviction only underscores the very real dangers warned of in the NYPD report: That despite the constant attempts by al Qaeda to infiltrate its killers into this country, the greatest threat, more often than not, can be found where you'd least expect it - living next door.”

The NYPD’s report highlights that most homegrown terrorists are often indoctrinated in local "radicalization incubators" that are "rife with extremist rhetoric."

Instead of mosques, those places were more likely to be "cafes, cab driver hangouts, prisons, student associations, non-governmental organizations, butcher shops and bookstores," the report says.

The Internet also provides "the wandering mind of the conflicted young Muslim or potential convert with direct access to unfiltered radical and extremist ideology."

The threat posed by homegrown extremists — from "eco-terrorist" groups to neo-Nazis — has long been a top concern for federal counter-terror officials.

The NYPD report highlights the fact that most radicals are difficult to detect because they generally don’t have criminal records and often appear as Westernized as Mohammed Atta and the rest of the 9/11 hijackers!

Which brings about the obvious question, “Why not continue the ban on Muslim immigration to the United States?” We had that ban in place after 9/11, why not continue to quarantine that part of the world until their “sickness” is over?

That very idea is being floated in, of all places, Australia, where Senate candidate Pauline Hanson has urged Federal Parliament to hold a moratorium on Muslims entering Australia.

The right-wing former One Nation leader is seeking a political comeback by winning a Queensland senate seat in the upcoming federal election.

Questions Surround the Fatal Duetsche Bank Fire

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
On Saturday night, two FDNY firefighters were killed in the Deutsche Bank building, a 40 story toxic hulk that hovered over Ground Zero for the past six years.

It was in the process of being demolished, floor by floor, when Saturday’s blaze broke out. There was only one freight elevator available, as the primary, initial access into the building and because the nearby Fire Company wasn’t allowed to inspect the building due to high levels of asbestos, lead, mercury and other hazardous materials, first arriving Units didn’t know whether the Stand Pipe system worked...it didn’t.

As a result, 23 year veteran Robert Beddia (age 53) and 8 year veteran Joseph Graffagnino (age 33, he’d have been 34 yesterday – 8-20-07) from the same firehouse (Engine-24/Ladder-5) were killed.

Worse still, they died for nothing, in an empty building that no one wanted standing any longer. There was no life hazard in that building, except that of the firefighter’s who entered. There wasn’t even any real property value worth securing either, as the building was in the process of demolition.

It seems that both Beddia and Graffagnino were caught in the maze-like building, in blinding smoke, as their air ran out.

Because of the standpipe failure, there was a very long delay in getting water on the fire numerous members inside the building got lost at various times – many Maydays were transmitted, many from lost firefighters, fearing their air supply was dwindling.

The fire was initially reported on the seventeenth floor. Firefighters made it to the fifteenth floor before being forced to retreat. Both Robert Beddia and Joseph Graffagnino were found on the fourteenth floor.

Another problem firefighters encountered was that the walls of the building had been coated with a thick polyurethane covering to prevent the release of the toxic soup inside that building, but once the fire broke out, those coated walls held in and intensified the intense heat and added to the thick, blinding smoke condition.

At least one of the building’s two standpipe systems (a system that allows FDNY Units to pump water through that building) was supposed to be operational and neither was on Saturday. As of yesterday, City officials still didn’t know why.

UFA President Steve Cassidy called the building “a vertical Love Canal.

The saddest thing of all is that two NYC firefighters were killed in a building in which there was no life hazard, and one that was in the process of being torn down.
.
Glenn Corbett, a professor of fire science at John Jay College and technical adviser to the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, asked the following questions;
.
1) How is it that two firefighters are dead because a standpipe wasn't working in a skyscraper that was being demolished?
.
2) How come the fuel load in the building was so big? "There was all of this plywood and apparently, polyurethane kept in the building — that increased the fuel load and caused the fire to spread," Corbett said. Why didn't they use sheet metal or gypsum board? They're more expensive than plywood, but they're not combustible, Corbett said.
.
3) How is it that downtown residents had raised questions about fire safety and toxicity at the former Deutsche Bank building for years, yet there was no comprehensive fire prevention or fire safety plan in place despite all the assurances from officials?
.
They’re all good questions.
.
Unfortunately they come to light too late for Robert Beddia and Joseph Graffagnino.

John Edwards, Well...“Edwards’ Himself"...Yet AGAIN!!!

You’ve gotta love John Edwards, for in his own mind he must believe that he still lives in the 19th Century when news travels so slow that you can say one thing to one group and something completely antithetical to another without either of them hearing of the other before an election.

Previously he opined about “other” Democratic candidates taking monies from News Corp.

Apparently he figured his own profiting off of News Corp would go unnoticed...IT DIDN’T. In fact, one of News Corps house organs (the New York Post) made sure of it.

Still, you’d think that Uber-Capitalist, john Edwards would realize the futility of his attacking “greedy Capitalists,” like himself. See, when you parody yourself like that, most people prudently presume your tongue is planted firmly in cheek.

A few months ago, Edwards explained his raking in millions from his stint managing a Hedge Fund as “trying to better understand the chasm between wealth and poverty.”

.

OK, what better way to do that, then raking in millions in Hedge Fund profits?
.
And more importantly, what better way to better understand what side of the wealth/poverty divide one wants to be on?
.
Now it turns out that Edwards has profited off of a hedge fund tied to subprime lenders who foreclosed on victims of Hurricane Katrina. Now there's nothing at all wrong or illegal about that. Hypocritical, yes, illegal...no.

It seems, Edwards, who has denounced such lenders, invested $16 million of his $30 million in assets in Fortress Investment Group. The Wall Street Journal reported that 34 New Orleans homeowners struggling to overcome Katrina's aftermath faced foreclosure suits from sub-prime-lending units of Fortress.

A spokesman for the Edwards campaign said he didn't know how quickly Edwards would be able to divest the controversial funds. Of course, not! There’s some serious profit and loss considerations at stake here!

The spokesman also declined to say whether Edwards would give back the adviser's fee or the campaign contributions. Uhhh, for all those wondering, that "no comment," is a resounding "NO."

Ironically enough, Edwards has made the plight of Katrina victims a recurring theme of his bid for the Democratic nomination. He even chose New Orleans to kick off his campaign in December, when he vowed to help poor residents recover from Katrina. In April, he returned to the city to promote his plan to end the "shameful lending practices" of subprime-mortgage firms.

Asked yesterday if his investments damaged his image as a poverty fighter, Edward's said: "No. Everyone knows I am completely committed to eliminating poverty in this country."

Me TOO!

I’m completely committed to eliminating poverty (my own family's) in this country...I can only presume that’s what John Edwards means too – he’s completely committed to eliminating the Edwards’ family poverty in this country.

Come on John, you’re a Capitalist and a good one, just revel in it and stop embarrassing yourself with all the anti-capitalist talk!

Wisconsin’s Universal Healthcare Plan Shows Real Costs of National Healthcare...

The Democrats who run the Wisconsin Senate are looking to pass a plan designed to insure every resident of Wisconsin under the age of 65 in the state. And, in the process they’ve proven just how expensive all this "free" health care really is.

For starters, the plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in ALL income, sales and corporate income taxes. It represents an average of $510 a month (over $6,000/year) in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker. Under the WI Democrats’ plan, both employees and businesses would pay for the plan by sharing the cost of a new 14.5% employment tax on wages.

Wisconsin businesses would be forced to compete with lower burdened out-of-state businesses and foreign rivals while shouldering a 29.8% combined federal-state payroll tax, nearly double the 15.3% payroll tax paid by non-Wisconsin firms for Social Security and Medicare combined.

In all, the tax burden in the Badger State could rise to 20% of family income, which is slightly more than the average federal tax burden, a level that would make it nearly impossible for the vast majority of Wisconsin’s workers to maintain ownership over their homes.

As if that's not enough, the health plan includes a tax escalator clause allowing an additional 1.5 percentage point payroll tax to finance the predicted higher future outlays. This would bring the payroll tax to 16%. And one reason to expect costs to soar is that the state may become a mecca for the unemployed, uninsured and sick from all over North America. Since the legislation doesn't require that you have a job in Wisconsin to qualify, merely that you live in the state for at least 12 months, it’s far more likely than not that Wisconsin would attract more of the unemployed and uninsured (“health-care free-loaders”) while losing productive workers who could be expected to leave for less-taxing climes.

Proponents of the system, including WI Governor Jim Doyle (ribbon-cutting above), use the familiar argument, often used in favor of national health care - that this will save money (about $1.8 billion a year) through efficiency gains by eliminating the administrative costs of private insurance. And unions and some big businesses with rich union health plans are only too happy to dump these liabilities onto the government.

But those costs won't go away, they'll merely be shifted to all taxpayers and businesses. Small employers that can't afford to provide insurance would see their employment costs rise by thousands of dollars per worker, while those that now provide a basic health insurance plan would have to pay $400 to $500 a year more per employee.

Private companies that are currently making modest progress in sweating out health-care inflation by making patients more cost-conscious through increased co-payments, health savings accounts, and incentives for wellness are ignored by the Wisconsin model. In fact, the Wisconsin program moves in the opposite direction: It reduces out-of-pocket co-payments, bars money-saving HSA plans, and increases the number of mandated medical services covered under the plan.

So where will savings come from? Well, it figures that they'll come where they always do in any such government plan, in the form of rationing via price controls and, as costs rise, longer waiting periods and more and more drastic coverage restrictions.

At least Wisconsin Democrats are admitting how much it will cost Americans to pay for government-run health care. Without ANY doubt, it shows the enormity of what a national, government-run healthcare program would cost.


SEE: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010374

The Usual Nimrods Call for Higher Taxes...

Why can’t pro-taxers EVER get their facts straight?

Why, WHY, WHY?!

In the wake of the Minnesota bridge collapse, the lemmings of the Left predictably crowed that “THIS disaster is proof that we need higher taxes and more government spending...”

One of those espousing the gas tax hike is St. Paul. James Oberstar, the Minnesota Democrat who runs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who recently stood beside the wreckage and recommended an increase in the 18.4 cent a gallon federal gas tax, as a way to prevent future bridge collapses. His wing man, Alaska Republican and former Transportation Chairman Don Young, agrees whole-heartedly.

Ironically enough, these are the same men (Oberstar and Young) who played the lead role in the $286 billion 2005 federal highway bill. That's the bill that diverted billions of dollars of gas tax money away from urgent road and bridge projects toward Member earmarks for bike paths, nature trails and inefficient urban transit systems.

As recently as July 25, Mr. Oberstar sent out a press release boasting that he had "secured more than $12 million in funding" for his state in a recent federal transportation and housing bill. But $10 million of that was dedicated to a commuter rail line, $250,000 for the "Isanti Bike/Walk Trail," $200,000 to bus services in Duluth, and $150,000 for the Mesabi Academy of Kidspeace in Buhl. None of it went for bridge repair.

Minnesota's state budget is also hardly short of tax revenue. The state spends $25 billion a year, twice what it did 10 years ago. The Tax Foundation reports that Minnesota has the seventh highest personal income tax rates among all states, the third highest corporate tax rates, and the 10th highest taxes on workers.

The Legislature started the year with a record $2 billion budget surplus, and the economy threw off another $149 million of unexpected revenue. Where did all that money go? Not to roads and bridges. The Taxpayers League of Minnesota says the politicians chose to pour those tax dollars into more spending for health care, art centers, sports stadiums and welfare benefits.

Even transportation dollars aren't scarce.

Minnesota spends $1.6 billion a year on transportation - enough to build a new bridge over the Mississippi River every four months. But nearly $1 billion of that has been diverted from road and bridge repair to the state's light rail network that has a negligible impact on traffic congestion.

If Minnesota, like the feds would simply stop WASTING tax monies, it would have plenty of money to do the things that must be done.

Within that E$1.6 BILLION/year Minnesota currently spends on transportation, there’s certainly MORE than enough to maintain the current infrastructure.

Italian Town uses Incentives to Reduce Resident’s Bulk

Overweight residents of an Italian town will soon be paid to lose weight.

Men living in the northwestern Italian town of Varallo will receive 50 euros ($70) for losing 9 pounds in a month, Mayor Gianluca Buonanno said. Women will get the same amount for shedding 7 pounds.

If they can keep the weight off for 5 months, they will get another 200 euros ($280), he told Reuters.

.
"Lots of people are saying, 'I really need to lose some weight but it's really tough.' So I thought, why don't we go on a group diet?" said Buonanno, who said he was about 6 kg (13 pounds) overweight.

.
The town of 7,500 people started the campaign on Friday and some residents have already signed up, he said.
.
Currently, about 35 percent of Italians are overweight or obese, according to European Union figures, with waistlines expanding as the country's healthy Mediterranean diet has given way to processed foods rich in fat, sugar and salt.

.

Well, there's no question that "people respond to incentives," a truism that is the basis of Capitalism.
.

All the residents in American cities run by Liberals get are bans.

I Have a Slightly Better IDEA...

On Monday, August 13th, a Roman Catholic Bishop (Bishop Tiny Muskens, pictured left) in the Netherlands proposed that people of all faiths, especially Christians and Jews, refer to God as Allah to foster a better interfaith understanding. In the process he stoked an already heated debate on religious tolerance in a country with one million Muslims.

Bishop Muskens, from the southern diocese of Breda, told Dutch television on Monday that God did not mind what he was named and that in Indonesia, where Muskens spent eight years, priests used the word "Allah" while celebrating Mass.

Hmmmmm, OK, good one, but as usual, I have a slightly better idea.

(What, are you surprised by that? It’s what I do.)

I’d prefer to foster a better cultural understanding by having Christians and Jews, as well as Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, etc., adopt the Muslim habit of simply slaughtering both those who are different and those they disagree with.

As a for instance, say a Muslim complains about “racial profiling,” or some other such nonsense, well, in that case, we simply form a mob, drag him/her out into the middle of a very public place (a crowded park or a busy thoroughfare) and saw off their head in a very public spectacle, as an example to other Muslims not to rile up the local savages.

We could then move onto...oh, I don’t know, say instead of stoning adulterous women (we tend to like adulterous women in the West...we like’m a lot), maybe we'd stone women who wear the hijab to death.

See?

While I’m pretty damn sure that calling God, or Jesus, "Allah" wouldn’t mean shit to your average Muslime, stoning his hijab wearing wife or daughter to death certainly may grab his attention, at least in a kind of “Holy SHIITE, look what these crazy Christian muthafuckas is up to now,” kind of way.

Seriously, the problem with Bishop Muskens’ idea is that it’s timid and weak, besides, it literally wreaks of rancid appeasement.

Mine, on the other hand, says “Hello Muslim son-of-bitch-bastard, and how are you today? I hope you are well and sufficiently fattened Muslim, because today I’m going to slaughter you and feed your lifeless carcass to my hungry dogs.”

Now you tell me, which one fosters better interfaith, inter-cultural understanding?

Well, I know I’m biased in all this, but I truly believe that mine does.

WHY?

HOW?

Easy, see mine actually puts Westerners in the mindset of a rabid Muslim. And what could possibly generate more inter-faith, inter-cultural understanding than that?!

Think about it!

No, really, just think about it...and you’ll see that I’m right about this.

Not only that, but the Muslims, who tend to view kindness as weakness and any kind of appeasement as an even more disgusting form of weakness, would come away from the ordeal I set out with a new found respect/fear of the Westerner.

It’s a God-damned WIN-WIN!!!

Ooooops! Sorry bout the blasphemin’ Bishop.

Islam and the Failure of Multiculturalism

The fundamental tenet of the canard called "multiculturalism" is that “ALL cultures are equal, there are no superior/inferior cultures.”

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

The absolute and unavoidable truth is that just as “all science isn’t equal” (ie. the “junk-science” that once blamed cerebral palsy on medical problems during childbirth), all cultures aren’t equal either.

The closer one looks at Islamic culture, the clearer it becomes that it is completely and irretrievably incompatible with the modern West.

It is a culture that makes a religious stricture over ethnic, religious and cultural intolerance and it is one rooted in a savage, barbarity that would’ve made even the cruelest of 18th Century European Slavers blush.

And that’s just the start!

One of the lessons of 9/11/01 is that the cultural intolerance and jihadist hatred inculcated by traditional Islam CANNOT be educated out of a person, as virtually ALL of the 9/11 hijackers were well-educated, outwardly Westernized Arabic-Muslim men, just as were the 7/7 bombers in London and the recent Glasgow bombers of England - almost all of them were physicians! Mohammed Atta (pictured above) was a trained engineer, the son of an Egyptian physician, a well-educated and outwardly Westernized man, but deep down inside, he was a Muslim extremist first and foremost.

The dirty little secret that many in Europe and America refuse to see is that there is no such thing as “fundamentalist Islam.” Since Islam has never had a Reformation, traditional Islam, as it exists today IS “fundamentalist Islam.”

Moreover, there is NOTHING espoused by the so-called militants and radicals of the Taliban and al Qaeda that aren’t espoused in the Koran. At most, they are Muslims who interpret the Koran somewhat more strictly than do those we call “Moderate Muslims.”

The fact is that ALL cultures that do not recognize property rights, have been rife with chattel slavery, abominable torture and the violent suppression of the most basic liberties. That’s true of the American Indian culture, European feudalism, the indigenous African culture, Chinese Agrarian Communism and Russian Soviet Socialism, as well as German National Socialism.

In Europe, the control of all property by the state (by the “Royals”) during the feudal period, has given way to more and more advanced systems, up to today’s private ownership of property (land and businesses)...a system with roots in England, but which was first put into practice in America.

Today, ALL non-market-based systems, and systems that do not respect private property and individual liberty are indeed inferior to the market-based cultures and economies of America, Europe and Japan.

Let’s be clear about that and let traditional Islam serve as proof that the foundation of this sham called “multiculturalism” is made of sand.

Current Sports Scandals and Their Importance...

.

.

This summer, three major sports scandals have broken. The most vital and vile is the arrest of the now former NBA referee Tim Donaghy for betting on games he officiated and possibly changing the outcome of games for bookies he was involved with. The other two involve Micheal Vick’s arrest on dog fighting charges and Barry Bonds ongoing steroid controversy in light of his recently passing Hank Aaron on the all time home run list.
.
Of the three ONLY the Tim Donaghy arrest challenges the notion of “integrity in sports.”
.
Vick was arrested and charged with what amounts to a cultural violation. I like bull fighting and rodeos. If the PETA Nazis had their way rodeos would be illegal here and those Americans who enjoy spots like bullfighting, even abroad, would be criminals here at home. In short, I sympathize with Michael Vick, at least I sympathize with him over PETA as I’d side with just about ANYONE versus the IRS. I sympathized with Leona Helmsley versus the IRS). Some groups, PETA, the Aryan Nation, ELF & ALF, the Nation of Islam, the Nazi Party, the Black Israelites, etc., are just too despicable to side with no matter what.
.
I support an individual’s right to bear arms and I think tobacco should be made illegal, so did the Nazis on both counts, BUT I’d never join a Nazi protest, nor accept Nazi support for either of those two laudable goals.
.
I think dog fighting is extremely inhuman, but, it could reasonably be argued, so is training dogs to be “attack dogs,” “guard dogs,” etc.
.
Ironically enough, it’s the "multiculturalists" among us who are the most passionate over the alleged crimes of Michael Vick! The same voices who extol “ALL cultures are equal,” the same people who demand “Due Process” for terrorists, wanted Vick suspended without pay over the indictment, WITHOUT his ever being convicted. In fact, he has as yet been convicted of NOTHING. I guess the multiculturalists REALLY believe that “ALL cultures are equal, so long as they all comply with modern Western standards.”
.
Barry Bonds is guilty of living and playing in the age of steroids. Jose Canseco, Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, Jason Giambi and scores of others both known and unknown have routinely used steroids and other “performance enhancing drugs,” over the course of their careers.
.
Hell, millions of weekend athletes and others seeking to “stay younger longer,” have used things like HgH, testosterone, andro and other such performance enhancers. Hell, testosterone and estrogen replacement therapy is often used by physicians in treating the symptoms of aging!
.
YES, the records of today ARE “tainted,” but there’s really no way to compare the records of any of the different eras. Babe Ruth played a completely different game than the one played today, just as Roger Maris and Hank Aaron played a different game than either Ruth or Bonds played in.

.

When new technologies, new advancements in sports medicine, training, sports gear, etc. are introduced, they’re invariably used. That’s human nature – things evolve, our games and hobbies have evolved.

.

Did Barry Bonds take performance enhancers?

.

Almost certainly, YES, but so did almost every other player. In fact, high school athletes have been using various performance enhancers for decades now!

.

Barry Bonds is the BEST baseball player of the modern/performance enhanced era. He may soon be replaced by A-Rod, who may one day face similar questions of his own.

.

Michael Vick did NOTHING to disgrace football or the NFL. He was charged with a crime (dog fighting) that’s as much cultural, in nature, as anything else. For better or worse, dog fighting remains very popular in many inner city neighborhoods around the country.

.

The Tim Donaghy scandal is THE sports scandal of the year, perhaps of the decade!

.

Donaghy sold out the trust of the NBA, in fact, his actions raise serious questions about all sports, specifically, “How much are ANY of these games on the level?”

.

Neither Bonds nor Vick is what’s wrong with America. Bonds is guilty ONLY of using every available resource to improve his own human potential. There was no steroid ban in baseball until a scant five years ago!

.

Michael Vick’s “crime” is entirely cultural in nature, proof that “multiculturalism” really means, “You’re culture’s OK, so long as it conforms to Western standards of decency and decorum,” which is pretty much what I believe, but so-called "multiculturalists" insist on calling me an "American-nativist," which they seem to believe is synonymous with "racist, sexist, xenophobic." I guess it's true what they say, "It takes one to know one." Looks like those multiculturalists are deep-down closer to my "nativist" views than they'd like to admit.

.

Tim Donaghy, on the other hand is exactly what’s wrong with America today – the willingness on the part of more and more people to violate the law and subvert their own integrity just to make a little extra, on the side.

.

Bonds cheated?

.

NONSENSE!

.

What laws did he break?! In an age where anyone with any sense used performance enhancers, how is it "cheating" for one person to use them and not so much of a big deal for others to do the same? I mean who did he cheat, Babe Ruth? It's impossible to make real comparisons across the different eras anyway!

.

In fact, Major League Baseball didn’t even have a steroids ban until 2002. Indications are that, like the vast majority of weekend athletes, virtually every major league athlete has used some kind of performance enhancers over the course of their careers, most of them routinely used such substances, so is Bonds any MORE guilty than any of the others?

.

So what is Bonds guilty of, getting better drugs, or using them more effectively?

.

Similarly, what did Michael Vick do to undermine the NFL, or bring into question the integrity of pro sports?

.

Answer, nothing. He just pissed off PETA, that’s all and he MAY have violated some federal laws against dog fighting, which like it or not, are cultural in both their intent and application, much like the disparate sentencing between crack and powdered cocaine.

.

Tim Donaghy is THE guy who violated the ethics of pro sports and brought into question the integrity of all pro sports. The other day Donaghy quietly pled guilty to TWO felonies! It's a travesty that his REAL scandal has been overshadowed by the controversies surrounding Michael Vick and Barry Bonds.

.

Come ON!

.

Donaghy’s the real sports scandal, the ONLY real sports scandal of the three.

.

Donaghy faces a maximum of 25 years in prison when he is sentenced for conspiracy to engage in wire fraud and transmitting wagering information through interstate commerce. He is currently free, on a $250,000 bond.

.

Tim Donaghy did real damage to the integrity of pro sports, but judging from the newspapers and sports talk shows, he’s a distant third behind Bonds and Vick in the scandal circuit and the vitriol of the fans and that’s unwarranted, because Tim Donaghy has done more damage to pro sports than anyone else since Shoeless Joe Jackson back in 1919.

Bush’s Illegal Alien Crackdown Targets Illicit Employers

And that’s a VERY GOOD thing!

I’ve said from the start, there’s no need to round up the estimated 11 million illegal alien, migrant workers, just fine their employers, charge them with felonies after that first (fining) offense and the illicit jobs that draw these illegal alien migrants here will dry up! Those here for those illicit jobs will self-deport and those here for other, more nefarious purposes would stand out that much more and be easier to target and go after.

That seems to be the plan here and let’s hope it’s given a good faith effort, because there’s no way this would fail to correct the situation, so long as it is faithfully followed. As expected Liberal Democrats have opposed this measure and predict gloom & doom over the coming crackdowns.Senator Dianne Feinstein, (D-CA), who has worked closely with growers, described the new enforcement as a “catastrophe.”

.
“The crisis is that crops will not be harvested,” Mrs. Feinstein said.
.

Employers in low-wage industries were critical but guarded, reluctant to admit openly that they hire illegal immigrants. Randel K. Johnson, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, said the measures were “one more kick in the pants” for meat-packing, construction and health care companies that employ immigrant workers in unskilled jobs.

.
Farmers were even more open to admitting that at least 70 percent of farmworkers are illegal immigrants.
.
Opponents are going to point to short-term price rises as the reason “America needs these workers,” but that’s utter nonsense.
.
Illegal immigration COSTS America far more in services, from free emergency room care that’s killing our hospitals to education and social costs to prison costs. Illegal immigration, at the present time, costs EVERY American some $19,000 over each of our lives!

Yes, a select few illicit employers make lots of money off the cheap labor that illegal immigration has provided, BUT (1) those costs have really NOT been passed on and (2) the ancillary costs of illegal immigration far outweigh any price bumps in the products we buy.

Moreover, as prices for produce, etc., go up, U.S. buyers will become a lot more finicky and new pressures will be placed on businesses to come up with new ways to provide better quality at lower prices, as the market ALWAYS does.

Let’s hope this new crackdown on illegal immigration is a sincere one. Eliminating these illicit jobs COULD result in more jobs for Americans (last January when a Swift meat packing plant was raided, Swift responded by raising salaries and instituting “productivity bonuses” and had scores of American workers lined up around the block for those jobs), reduce our social costs tremendously (we’re now paying for free health care for illegals as emergency rooms MUST treat all comers regardless of insurance status) and create another barrier for suspected terrorists!

Putting Babe Ruth into Perspective....

In light of Barry Bonds breaking Hank Aaron's Major League Baseball (MLB) home run record, now's as good a time as any to put Babe Ruth into proper perspective.

Here is the simple, unvarnished truth, not only was Babe Ruth the BEST home run hitter ever, he dominated his sport in a way that no other athlete has ever dominated ANY sport at ANY time! Here's why;

(1) Babe Ruth hit his home runs in the "dead ball era," when a baseball was more like a "wet sock" than today's baseballs that are closer to a superball, then an original baseball, and he hit them out of ball parks that would be considered cavernous by today's standards.

(2) Babe Ruth was MLB's THIRD home run king. Harry Stovie held the record until 1895 with 120 dingers, a record broken by Roger Conner who hit, a then astounding, 138 homers. Conner's record lasted until 1921, when it was broken by Ruth on July 18th of that year.

(3) Pre-Ruth, the best home run hitter in MLB was a player named Frank "Home Run" Baker, who led the league in homers from around 1910 to 1914, with a high of 12 homers in a season in1913. These were Ruth's contemporaries - the "best" of his day.

(4) Ruth began his career as a pitcher and a very good one, going 18-8 in his rookie season in 1915 while hitting .315 helping the Red Sox to a 101 win season. He went 23-12 with a 1.75 ERA an 9 shutouts in 1916, 24-13 with a 2.01 ERA and 6 shutouts, and 13-7 in 1918 with a 2.22 ERA. He also extended his World Series scoreless streak to 29 2/3 inning that year. he didn't play every day until 1919!

(5) When Ruth hit 60 home runs in 1927 he hit more home runs than any other team in MLB. In 1920, when he hit 54 homers, only the Philadelphia Phillies hit more as a team (64) in what was then known as the "hitter friendly" Baker Bowl.

Sure, you can only directly compare athletes to those of their own era, but you can compare how the best athletes of each era dominated their own eras. For a modern MLB player to dominate the sport the way Ruth did, he'd have to hit somewhere around 250 home runs! That last fact (#5) is why Ruth is on a completely different level than virtually any other athlete. Surely Ruth never played night baseball, nor travelled cross-country for games, and he never played against ball players like Satchel Page and the other stars of the Negro Leagues, but he did dominate that era in a way that no other player dominated any other era, and that's really the only comparison one can make.

For Barry Bonds, or Hank Aaron or Joe DiMaggio or Ted Williams or A-Rod to match Ruth they'd have to hit more home runs in their eras than any other team did!

In all of sports perhaps only Wilt Chamberlain, who once averaged fifty points for entire NBA season and scored an incredible 100 points in an NBA game comes close to dominating a sport the way that Ruth did, and only Mohammed Ali transcended sports the way Ruth did. In fact, Ruth is the prototype of the "modern athlete," a person possessed of incredible athletic prowess, combined with immense personal charisma and failings almost as super-human as their talents.

It's so easy to forget how incredibly great Babe Ruth is because of all the changes in the game since his day - the increasinly juiced ball, the smaller ball parks and the lowered pitcher's mounds. Even changes in the fair/foul poles instituted in 1934, at the end of Ruth's career (he hit his last home run on May 25th, 1934 with the Boston Braves.

An example is vividly given in Bill Jenkinson's 2006 book The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs http://www.amazon.com/Year-Babe-Ruth-Home-Runs/dp/0786719060/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6624297-1395135?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186676499&sr=8-1 In Jenkinson's book, he makes the case that had the foul pole been moved to the modern standards adopted in 1935 and had Ruth played in the modern ball parks, he would've hit 104 homers in 1927!

I don't blame modern athletes for using "performance enhancing drugs," almost everyone, including "weekend warriors" routinely use some of those same drugs - HgH, Andro and other such performance enhancers are all too common among both athletes and those interested in longevity or "life extension." If Ruth were alive today, he'd almost undoubtedly use them himself. Hell, it'd have been a better regimine than his traditional hot dogs and beer.

In fact, in Ruth's case, the other changes - smaller ball parks, wider foul poles and a baseball that's more like a super ball then the "wet sock" Ruth hit, have had a far greater impact on any comparisons. The game itself has changed. In many ways, Ruth himself transformed the game of baseball, as many of the changes were the result of MLB looking to find "another Ruth."

Hail Bonds, hail and recall the great Hank Aaron, but remember and revere George Herman "Babe" Ruth, for he was not merely a record holder, but remains a sports legend!

Rudy’s Daughter an Obama Supporter?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

A lot’s been made, by friends and foes alike, of Caroline Giuliani’s Facebook Page that proclaims her support for Barack Obama.

The simple answer is, “She’s SEVENTEEN years old!!!”

Who isn’t naïve, immature and impractically Liberal (that’s “progressive” to Kos, MoveOn and Huffpoos) at that age?

Hell, when I was nearly that age (going on seventeen) I wrote a paper about how food, being a requirement for life, should not be sold as a commodity.

And I had family out west who ran (and still run a ranch) that produces food stuffs, and my maternal grandfather had made his living as a grocery store owner.

I was a hopelessly naïve, immature, misguided and impractical teenager at the time.

Today, I would be embarrassed by that paper.

I've since learned that "work is the rent we all pay to live."

And those who produce (work) generally have the “rent money” to pay for their own food, housing, clothing, etc. Those who don’t work are the enemy of all those who produce. They are enemies just as surely as is a foreign soldier in arms occupying your nation, just as surely as the terrorist who straps bombs to his back.

Those who see work as demeaning and dehumanizing are enemies of everyone who believes in order, decency and excellence, they are enemies of the established (Capitalist) order.

Moreover, everywhere government has sought to control farming, ranching and food distribution, mass starvation and rampant deprivation has been the result. So, as flawed as Capitalism may be, there's no other system that works.

I am embarrassed at my own seventeen year old self. Why would Caroline Giuliani be any different?

And why are Giuliani’s children being hounded by the press?


SEE: http://www.nypost.com/seven/08072007/news/nationalnews/rudy_kid_stabbed_daddy_in_the__barack_nationalnews_carl_campanile_______in_fort_dodge__iowa__and_____maggie_haberman_in_n_y_.htm

It’s Now OFFICIAL! The NSA Eavesdropping Program is Officially and Awesomely Legit

A few weeks back the SCOTUS ruled that the warrantless wiretaps conducted on numerous U.S. to foreign and foreign to U.S. calls/emails did NOT violate the Constitution.

Now the Congress has codified that common sense decision into law.

The Bill that widened surveillance procedures was passed 227 to 183 with some 41 Democrats, most of them from among the 20% of the “New Democrats,” mostly Conservative Democrats from down south and out west.

Many Democrats expressed fear that failing to pass that Bill would have exposed them to Republican attacks of being “weak on terrorism.”

So, take your pick, either the Democrats support these new guidelines wholeheartedly, or caved into fear of being made to appear “soft on terrorism.” Though both are anathema to the anti-war Left, the former is clearly the position with the most integrity, as the latter is a position devoid of any integrity at all. Hey! How about this? All those Democrats who voted FOR the Bill fall into that first camp, while those who didn't fall into the second?

.

(Pictured above is an aerial view of the NSA's Fort Meade Complex.)

SEE: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/washington/05nsa.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

GOOD News for America!!!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

General Motors Corp., America’s largest automaker, reported an $891-million profit for the second quarter of the year, driven by strong sales in emerging global markets and reduced costs from its restructuring efforts (it’s companywide pension and healthcare buyouts).

GM’s quarterly profit of $891 million, or $1.56 per diluted share, is an improvement of $4.3 billion compared with a reported net loss of $3.4 billion, or $5.98 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. In a single year, GM went from a -$3.4 Billion LOSS to a +$4.3 Billion PROFIT, a $7.8 Billion turnaround!The positive results boosted GM’s stock 7% in pre-market trading this morning, with shares of the automaker trading up $2.29 a share to $34.90 on August 1st, 2007.Overall, Credit Suisse analyst Chris Cerasco said in a note Tuesday morning that GM’s earnings — at $2.48 per share — had “a big upside,” coming in significantly higher than the consensus analyst estimate of $1.13 per share. But, he said, North America again fell “short of expectations,” with 80 cents of its earnings improvement coming from tax-related gains.

.

To put this in the simplest terms, so that "progressives" can understand, "THIS is GOOD NEWS for America, because more profits for American-based corporations means more American jobs, more American tax revenues and more of that prosperity stuff we all pretty much take for granted.

.

Think about it, WITHOUT government there would still be commerce, but without commerce there'd be no need for government, not much ability to fund it, at all.

SEE: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070731/BUSINESS01/70731014

Unskilled, UNPAID Labor Seeks to Organize a “Labor Union”

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

OK, now THIS really IS quizzical, if not all that comical.

What a concept! A collection of Lefty bloggers is seeking to form a “Labor Union” they hope will “help them receive health insurance, conduct collective bargaining and even set professional standards.”

Uhhhh, OK, you’re UNPAID, unsolicited and a brief perusal of the Left side of the blogosphere will certainly show the unprofessional, as well as largely UNSKILLED aspects of that segment of the “labor market,” and they think a “Labor Union” will get them payment, healthcare benefits and that elusive “professionalism” they long for?

Isn’t that kind of like what the scarecrow aseked for in the Wizard of Oz?

Guys! A hobby or avocation isn’t “real labor.” Real labor is a JOB that you are solicited and paid to do. No wonder so many “progressives” don’t understand economics. They don’t even understand its most basic terms.


SEE: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2007-08-06-blogger-union_N.htm?csp=Tech&POE=click-refer

Court Rules that the Jefferson Raid was Unconstitutional....Well, at Least Parts of it...

Just as Newt Gingrich said and as the rest of the GOP, as well as many Congressional Democrats agreed, the FBI raid on the office of La. Rep William Jefferson was declared unconstitutional.

Well, it didn’t declare the raid itself unconstitutional, just the collecting of legislative documents as evidence.

According to Matt Apuzo an Associated Press writer, “The FBI violated the Constitution when agents raided U.S. Rep. William Jefferson's office last year and viewed legislative documents in a corruption investigation, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

“A federal court ordered the Justice Department to return any legislative documents it seized from the Louisiana Democrat's office on Capitol Hill. The court did not order the return of all the documents seized in the raid and did not say whether prosecutors could use any of the records against Jefferson in their bribery case.

“Jefferson argued that the first-of-its-kind raid trampled congressional independence. The Constitution prohibits the executive branch from using its law enforcement powers to interfere with the lawmaking process. The Justice Department said that declaring the search unconstitutional would essentially prohibit the FBI from ever looking at a lawmaker's documents.

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected that claim. The court held that, while the search itself was constitutional, FBI agents crossed the line when they viewed every record in the office without giving Jefferson the chance to argue that some documents involved legislative business.”

.

None of this makes Jefferson any less guilty of blatant corruption and malfeasance and the court went to great lengths to limit the scope of its ruling to the LEGISLATIVE documents only. If they hadn't ALL the evidence gathered in that raid (including that $90,000 of cold, hard cash found in a freezer) would've been thrown out...and it wasn't.

SEE: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_go_ot/raid_on_congress

Hillary Booed by the Kos Kids

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton refused Saturday to forsake campaign donations from lobbyists, turning aside challenges from her two main rivals with a rare defense of the special interest industry.

"A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans, they actually do," Clinton said, drawing boos and hisses from liberal bloggers at the second Yearly Kos convention.

Despite their own infatuations with special interest money, former Sen. John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama put Clinton on the spot during a debate that featured seven of the eight major Democratic presidential candidates.

You know you’re a moonbat when the likes of Hillary Clinton are “too far Right” for you!


SEE: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292151,00.html

What Happened to the Anti-War Democrats???

One of Murphy’s laws goes, “When a politician gets an idea, he/she usually gets it wrong.” That would certainly seem to be the case in Barack Obama's new found support for military invasions of soveriegn nations.

A scant two days after being called naïve over his stating that he’d be willing to unilaterally “sit down and talk” with rogue leaders, by Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama abandoned his anti-war position and stated he’d consider invading an allied nation, Pakistan.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," said Obama in a speech billed as a major security-issues address.
"They are plotting to strike us again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Nice sentiments, albeit, Senator Obama is coming over to the “war-mongering side” a little late. Worse still, is the fact that there really isn’t a “war-mongering side” in America, merely those who understand the need for a military war on terror and those who do not.

Until now, the only Democrat who seemed to support our military war on terrorism was Hillary Clinton.

She officially has company!

In truth, NONE of the Democrats have any intention of doing anything other than woo the naïve anti-war folks. They KNOW that (1) this naïve group is and always has been more anti-Republican than anti-war (they had no problem with the Balkans) and (2) they’re naïve enough to be counted on to accept the old “New information has come to light,” or “The situation has changed,” once they get into office.

In short, they have as low a regard for the die-hard anti-war folks – the Kos Kids, the MoveOn morons and the HuffPoos as most Americans do.

Do I think Obama’s idea of invading Pakistan is a good one?

No, not at all. They’ve been an ally, an imperfect one, to be sure, but an ally, none-the-less and there’s a better than even money chance that such an invasion would indeed trigger an overthrow of the Musharef government, with a radical Islamic one likely to replace it...and we could NOT allow a radical Islamic state to have nuclear weapons. THAT would indeed be a direct pathway to perhaps a Third World War.

So I don’t agree with, nor like Senator Obama’s idea very much, BUT I do like his abandoning the peaceniks.

All you passionate anti-war folks out there, YOUR own candidates are calling you stupid!

Well, That Didn’t Take Very Long!

In Tuesday’s WSJ Brody Mullins and Sarah Lueck declared, “Some prominent Democrats are beginning to rethink proposed tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers' earnings, after an aggressive pushback by industry lobbyists and arguments that the impact could extend far beyond Wall Street.”

"When you first hear about it, it seems like, 'Yes, this looks like an appealing way to generate a lot of revenue,' but when you study it more it seems like there are some serious unintended consequences," said Rep. Brian Baird of Washington, a member of a coalition of centrist Democrats who often play a deciding role on business and tax bills."

As Mullins and Lueck note, “Among other things, lawmakers say they worry a tax boost could take a bite out of public pensions' investment returns, adversely affect financial-sector profits and employment or, more broadly, disrupt investment incentives.

“It remains to be seen, however, how any individual Democrat might vote on the issue, especially if it is combined with another, more popular Democratic priority. One such vehicle might be legislation to reduce the hit of the alternative minimum tax, which was designed to prevent the richest Americans from dodging their taxes but will ensnare growing numbers of middle-class taxpayers. That combination would fit with Democrats' broader push for tax equity.”

The real threat is its impact on public employee pension funds. Public employee Unions are one of the Democrats most powerful constituents.

According to Mullins and Lueck, “New York Sen. Charles Schumer, the top fund-raiser for Senate Democrats -- and a perennial favorite of Wall Street donors -- was among the first in his party to question the legislation. He says Congress shouldn't single out hedge-fund and private-equity managers. Any legislation, he says, should be expanded to include managers of other investment partnerships, such as real estate, oil and gas, timber and agriculture investment vehicles. Such a move, though, would likely boost opposition to it.

“Lawmakers' emerging concerns may open the door to compromise. Some Democrats have discussed a plan to raise the tax on carried interest above 15%, but lower than the 35% proposed in the House bill, an idea floated by some in the private-equity industry.”

.

Still, Charels Rangel (D-NY) supports the tax hike, in fact, there are few tax hikes he doesn't support, so it'll be interesting over the next few months.

SEE: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118584621735982940.html?mod=politics_primary_hs

Is it Possible? The Liberal Brookings Institute Documents GOOD News in Iraq?

Yes, it seems to be true that both Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack, two Iraq war critics have reported a great deal of progress in Iraq...that’s “good news” to Americans, maybe not so much, for committed hardcore Leftists.

In a piece entitled A War We Just Might Win, which appeared in Monday’s (July 30th) NY Times, they said; “In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.

“The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.

“Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.”

“After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

“Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

“Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.”

Read the entire article HERE: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html

An Intrusive Government for Health Issues but NOT Terror?

.

.

.

A few weeks ago, I was surprised to hear a number of very Liberal people, people otherwise disposed to support and defend “freedom of choice,” applauding New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg’s “Nanny State” edicts banning trans fats and all but making smoking illegal, even allowing employers to take a smoker’s off the job activities into account.

The problem with such local bans or prohibitions is that they are (1) easy to subvert by merely crossing a state or city’s border and (2) hypocritical in that they refuse to make ILLEGAL substances that some public officials obviously believe are detrimental to life and health. If these substances are THAT unhealthy why not just make them ILLEGAL?

Ironically enough, many of these same Liberals claim to support drug legalization, at least the legalization of marijuana.

How do we rationalize banning smoking tobacco in public when a new study shows that ONE, single marijuana joint does the equivalent lung damage as FIVE cigarettes!
"The study shows that one cannabis joint causes a similar degree of lung damage as between 2.5 and five tobacco cigarettes," said lead author Sarah Aldington.

“Marijuana smokers had symptoms that included wheezing, coughing, chest tightness and phlegm — all of which were associated with tobacco smokers, except chest tightness.

“Last week, another study published in The Lancet medical journal suggested that using marijuana may increase the likelihood of becoming psychotic, with even infrequent use potentially raising the overall small risk by up to 40 percent.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_he_me/pot_vs_cigarettes;_ylt=Ar6V0_1_EScnfAwRUUQyU8IR.3QA

Trans fats, used mainly to maintain the shape and consistency of some foods amount to just 2% of the American diet, while saturated fats that also increase the risk for coronary disease account for 15%...and THEY’RE not getting banned...at least not yet.

For now obesity is going the very same way of smoking, as Joseph Epstein, writing in the WSJ notes

“A new study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine and done at Harvard Medical School (those twin towers of false authority), claims that not only do fat people do great harm to themselves but, through the influence of social network, can harm friends, especially close friends, by making it easier for them to overeat. Not only food, it turns out, but the wrong friends can make you fat.”

Can THAT be true? Second-hand FAT???

According to Epstein’s review of Harvard’s Gravaman Study, it CAN. “The Gravamen of the Harvard study holds that, if you hang around the heavy, soon heavy indeed will be the added bulk hanging about you, in the form of double and triple chins, pot bellies, love handles, ample cabooses, thunder thighs, thick calves, chubby fingers . . . good God, it's enough to make one tape a photograph of Joan Didion in a body stocking in one's locker down at the gym.

“The Harvard study, a work of medical sociology, is based on the famous Framingham, Mass., federal study of heart disease, which has been tracking some 12,067 people over the 32-year period between 1971-2003.

“Like much sociology, what the study has to report is obvious: If lots of one's friends are fat, it naturally makes it more likely that one will pick up their eating habits. In such company, putting on an extra 30 or 40 pounds isn't going to result in social censure.

“Like much sociology, too, the Harvard study is also preposterous: It apparently allows for environment (lots of junk food out there) and genetics (some people can eat Seattle Sutton meals with the tread mill turned all the way up without loss of a gram), but its single new finding -- that fat friends make it easier for their friends in turn to become fat -- dominates and is the only reason for the study's temporary prominence. In one of his poems, Wallace Stevens speaks of the "lunatics of one idea," and this particular idea -- fat friends make you fat -- sounds like a nice instance of Stevens's fine phrase.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118593336631384258.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Oddly enough, the world is replete with examples of “unhealthy things’ suddenly found to be “healthy.”

Alcohol is without question one of the most abused drugs and perhaps the ONLY drug that doesn’t have to cross the nerves synapses, but can be absorbed directly through the cell membrane. It has long been seen as a healthcare nightmare, leading to cirrhosis, renal disease and cardio-pulmonary problems among many others.

And yet, today one to two glasses of an alcoholic beverage (especially red wines) has been shown by numerous studies to be very healthy.

A recent study from Japan shows that coffee use can reduce colon cancer rates in women by up to one half! Coffee and its primary ingredient have been lambasted by many health-nanny’s for it’s many unhealthy effects on people.

All that’s to say that it’s incredible to me, that so many people, people who seem ready to jump to the defense of our “freedom to choose” at a moment’s notice, are so willing to allow the government, a government they DO NOT trust in being more intrusive over terror concerns, to control what they can and cannot eat.

I mean seriously, if you’re going to let government make such personal decisions for you as what you can eat, how much you can eat, etc., then what possible problem can such a person have with surveillance cameras in the subways, on street corners, etc.? For that matter, what possible problem could that person have with government listening in on cell their phone calls, looking over their bank records, etc., etc.?

If you’re going to allow a government to ban various food stuffs based on studies that can often change or be contradicted down the road, based on various “health concerns,” or “public health threats,” then how can you then balk at the government being much more intrusive in its dealing with the current terrorist threat – a “public safety threat?”

It just DOESN’T make any sense.

In fact, the reverse could better be argued. The government’s police and military powers are both enshrined in the Constitution (“To provide for the Common Defense” AND “To ensure domestic tranquility”), but the entire Bill of Rights protects “We the People” from government intrusion, certainly any government intrusion that would seek to control what we eat, how long we must exercise, how much wealth or property we can accrue, etc.

Yes, the same Constitution gives criminals those same protections from government, BUT terrorism is NOT a “crime.”

Terrorism is an act of “unconventional warfare,” making international terrorists, or “terrorists for a cause” warriors or non-uniformed soldiers, who are (1) not subject to our Constitutional protections and (2) not even protected by the Geneva Accords which strips POW status from those who fight without uniform.

It was an interesting exchange, if only to show how badly misguided some far Left Liberals are today.