World Debate

Response on Terry Schiavo

2005-03-28T18:11:00.000-08:00

I think this is a subject upon which reasonable and wholly rational people may disagree. The most important thing I can add to this debate is that I am saddened that an intensely personal and difficult family matter has become fodder for a national media circus. Even the Shindler family has had to ask the protesters to tone it down, reminding them that the family can and does speak for itself, and that the protestors do not. This is an area into which politicians don't normally venture, and yet it appears that many have become involved for their own gain (or to prevent "political loss of face") .

I believe that both parties are disgustingly using the Schiavo issue for partisan hacking and or gain. And I am sickened by it on both sides of the aisle. The Democrats indicated their willingness to take action by unanimous consent, many of them refusing to vote or speak about their respective consciences. Yet we are all aware that some of them believed that this was a prime example of a Republican government deeply overreaching into private lives. These are people (Senators and Representatives) who are stridently opposed to the regulation of "marriage," or in matters regarding sexuality, believing them to be private things out of which the government should stay. Yet they are apparently comfortable hopping in bed with those who would deem to make legislative life and death decisions that are clearly private family matters. And it appears that a recent alleged "Republican Talking Points Memo," is in fact a fake, perhaps planted by Democratic operatives.

Just in case you think I believe the Republicans fare better on this issue, let me make clear that I do not. The Republicans, like a freight train speeding out of control in reverse towards the inevitable cliff of insanity, are reaching deep into the alleged sanctity of the private family, and legislating completely private matters on behalf of a single individual! Meanwhile, the cry of "small government" lies squealing for mercy, tied to the tracks of the GOP, completely aware of it's rapidly approaching demise. Oh where, oh where have "conservatives" gone?

As for the President's record on the pro-choice / right to life issue, I think you may be correct. This is just an opinion, but perhaps he's not as strident as everyone made him out to be. Remember, personal beliefs on single issues do not mean that those will be central policy pieces of any Administration.

For example, I do believe that President Clinton intended to remove all policies against homosexuality in the military upon taking office. However, faced with the actual political reality of doing so, Clinton did an about face, and left the gay community out to dry. Further, under political pressure, he signed the Defense of Marriage Act. I have heard this referred to as the most openly anti-gay act in American history. Yet, I still think President Clinton believed in what he planned to do. But the military and political realities of the time prevented him from doing so.

And congratulations, while this has long been a bone of contention in the "far right" of the Republican Party, you are the first Democrat I have run across who understands that President Bush, intentionally or not, has been the best friend the pro-choice movement has ever had. During a time when Roe v. Wade is the most vulnerable to being overturned as anytime in its history, and when the public climate has most supported it, President Bush has not pushed the issue as many Democrats feared he would. The fundamental "right to choose" has been safe from all but rhetoric during President Bush's term. Agree with the rhetoric or not, factually it's true.

Out of each of life's seemingly insane situations, some good must arise. This is no exception. Out of the Schiavo / Shindler family public spectacle comes awareness of an important issue. We are a society that does not believe in facing death. We let it come, and we are unprepared for it's vagaries. It's almost as if we didn't know it was coming. But in the last two weeks, the Shindlers and Schiavos have given us the gift of awareness. It's hard to imagine being unaware of the potential consequences of lack of planning.

If you are an adult in the United States, the odds are that you are now aware of your responsibility to plan for all eventualities and to have a "health directive" on file so that your family and loved ones know your wishes. It's called "personal responsibility," and though it now seems somewhat out of style, it's the bedrock upon which this nation was built.

The American Bar Association offers free forms and provides online resources available at their website. It's a good starting place. Be responsible. There are people who love you that might appreciate it someday.

I hope your Easter (however you celebrate, or even if you don't) was as filled with love and joy, as mine was.

What we can learn from Terri Schaivo

2005-03-24T09:12:00.000-08:00

It's been way too long since anything's been posted by either of us, so I thought I would take a stab at something that has been given entirely too much thought and attention lately: Terri Schaivo. Recent actions in the Senate, by President Bush, and his brother Jeb, leave me scratching my head. I was hoping that my favorite band of conservatives could help to provide an explanation about what the hell is going on here.

I've seen the discussions, the debates, the protests, the people being arrested for attempting to bring Schaivo water, and I feel like I have a pretty decent grasp on what the issue is here. For a large number of religious people in our country, Schaivo's situation represents protecting life, which all of the sudden has become very important. The sad irony here is that many of these people are the same ones who supported bombing Iraq into the stone age. What's even more sick and sad is the fact that thousands of Americans suffer similar fates each year as the result of persistent vegetative conditions, and no one shows up in their honor.

The political three-ring circus that has resulted from this situation is even more disgusting. While the President, his brother and Congress sit by every year and let thousands of Americans with similar conditions die without even choking on a pretzel, the Terri Schaivo case apparently warrants it's own laws and judicial consideration. What is so special about this situation that it differs from the thousands of other Americans who live in this condition?

It's certainly not Terri's hope for recovery. An entire team of nationally-respected neurologists have evaluated Terri previously and determined that her condition is permanent and terminal. The definition of a persistent vegetative state is based on those two features. Jeb Bush in the last two days has made claims that Terri may have been misdiagnosed. He even has a neurologist who is apparently willing to back him up. Does Jeb tell us what the neurologist thinks Terri's actual diagnosis is? Of course not. It's a disgusting abuse of medical opinion for political gain.

Congress and the President saw the Terri Schaivo case as a publicized opportunity to appear to care about a "Culture of Life". The President hasn't seemed to concerned with life lately. As the Governor of Texas, he was our country's most experienced practitioner of the death penalty, executing more prisoners than any other STATE has since the death penalty was reauthorized in 1977. All of this during a time when other states, including Illinois, elected to commute death sentences to life in prison because the death penalty is fraught with injustice.

The President and his friends in Congress NEEDED to do something to support a culture of life. After all, abortion is still legal, even after all that talk during the campaign about a culture of life and support from the religious right. How would you like to be the religious right these days? No abortion ban, no constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Even Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act while President. Wasn't Bush supposed to be more conservative? We all know from our previous discussions that his spending habits haven't been, but now it also appears that he's selling out his religious base as well.

I'm really not trying to pick a fight here. I just want someone from the right to explain to me why Terri Schaivo is more important than the thousands of Americans who die as the result of being denied nutrition during a persistent vegetative state? Why does Bush talk about a culture of life, and despite all his political capitol, not do anything to back it up? I'm beginning to wonder if maybe I should have voted for Bush, since he's protected a women's right to choose for over 5 years now, despite having the Congress and Supreme Court that would be needed to get things done. Or maybe the President really is Pro Choice? I'll be interested to hear your thoughts.

A few points of clarification

2005-03-10T20:08:00.000-08:00

Before we start all this talk about house training and calling people dishonest, let's be straight about a few things here. Not one single thing that was written in my previous post was dishonest. From reading OtM's last post, you'd think that I said Bush was aborting fetae or some nonsense like that. Since this is a debate, let's actually look at what OtM addressed of my previous comments.

OtM spends as much time as Shakespeare took writing Henry V (which for those of you from Alabama or Utah was a LONG time) hammering on me for claiming to be an arrogant bastard. I figured I was just pointing out the obvious. I think that's one thing we can all agree on. He tries to use it to harm the credibility of my previous post, but that's why I put links in what I write, so that regardless of what type of bastard I happen to be, you, as the reader, can explore things and make up your mind on your own. It's not just my opinion. I'm giving you links to look at things for yourself, so that if you disagree with me, we can discuss it. I guess if providing links to the Congressional Record so that we can all read the bills that we're discussing represents a lack of research, as OtM said, I'm not sure what the standard of proof is here.

OtM goes on to say that he did address my previous comments on Social Security with this statement:
"I'll concede Ottl's point in a previous post that some powerless Democratic Senators have proposed alternatives (in part), but not one has been so much as even mentioned by the Democratic leadership in a press conference, let alone championed as an alternative plan. In fact, the Democrats are in all out attack and defeat mode instead of championing any alternative ideas. But that is standard fare for the Democrats." OTM
If you go back and read the original post, you will see that it's not just the Democrat's proposals, but also bipartisan proposals that are being offered as alternatives to the President's plans for Social Security. I wanted to have a discussion comparing some of the alternatives that are out there to the President's plan.

One of the reasons that Democrats are in attack mode is that, as OtM pointed out, in may cases they are politically helpless without bipartisanship. If they don't work with Republicans, they may not be able to pass ANY legislation. This is one of the reasons why many of the proposals I outlined for Social Security and the Budget Deficit are bipartisan plans. The Democrats know they have no choice but to cooperate with Republicans on key issues, or risk losing complete control in Congress.

OtM has not taken the opportunity to discuss any of the alternative, bipartisan legislation that's out there, despite the fact that in all my "poor" research, I provided links to the actual legislation so that people could make up their own minds, and maybe we could have a discussion that didn't involve OtM accusing Democrats of playing politics. The ignoring that I was talking about is OtM's denial that the Democrats, despite their politically helpless situation in Congress, have continued to propose alternative solutions. Because the MSM isn't discussing them, I figured this might be a good place to have that discussion. Apparently not.

OtM goes on to cite numerous examples of those who question the President's spending habits, which is EXACTLY what I wanted him to show us, since I was unable to find examples myself. I do enjoy searching the internet, but I am not the expert that OtM is, particularly when it comes to Conservatives Blogs. I knew if I asked, he would provide the evidence, so that we could have a discussion about it. Hence, the reason that I included this in my last post:
I'm certain that there are conservatives out there who, like OtM and Mountain Man, are calling the President out on this, but it's simply not happening in the established conservative media, including blogs. It's not even happening in the traditionally liberal MSM.
I'm glad that he provided some evidence in this area, because I find it quite fascinating that there is evidence that conservatives actually don't think the President is the second coming of Jesus Christ.

My point was simply that for an average person looking at a good sample of conservative media and websites, you wouldn't see the outrage about the President's spending, unless you looked very closely. I wasn't accusing OtM of lying about the conservative media. Such a statement, even given my own arrogance, would be beyond ridiculous, since I would be claiming to know the conservative media far better than someone who actually has extensive knowledge on the subject. I'm not THAT unreasonable.

All I'm asking for is to have a discussion that doesn't involve statements such as: The Democrats are Devoid of Ideas, when it is apparent that despite their obvious political disadvantage in Congress, many of them have crossed over the aisle to work with Republicans on alternatives to the President's proposals. Not because the Democrats are better or smarter people, or because they care about America, but because their political lives depend on it. I provided examples so that we could discuss those policies.

How have the Democrats in the Senate been rewarded for their attempts at bipartisanship? As this article points out, despite the fact that Democrats allowed 219 of Bush's 229 judicial nominees during his first term (and filibustered only 10), the Republicans might invoke "the nuclear option" and attempt to eliminate the filibuster, to push through all of Bush's judicial nominees, including a replacement for ailing Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. All they need to do this is a simple majority vote.

OtM has taken numerous posts to hammer home the point that Democrats are not supportive of bipartisanship, despite my numerous examples provided in the last few posts in Social Security reform and Resolving the Budget Deficit. Despite that fact and the Republicans significant resistance to Clinton's judicial nominees (which if you need a refresher, check this link out), they seem to have a short memory when it comes to what bipartisanship really means.

True Bipartisanship - Rebuttal - Absolute Lies and a Total Lack of Real Research

2005-03-10T11:36:00.000-08:00

Well, once again, I find myself in agreement with something said by OttL in his post on Bipartisanship. Here's the quote:

"Pattern #1 is that I'm an arrogant bastard." OttL

Unfortunately, I am going to have to agree with at least part of that one. Dictionary.com defines arrogant as follows:

"1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others"

I guess there's no need for me to actually demonstrate the fact that OttL is arrogant. For some reason, he's proudly claimed the title for himself. And while many liberals act in this manner (and yes, many don't), I know few who will gladly take the title. Even those who are, often deny it. Bravo to OttL for admitting it. And a caution to all of you who read his posts; you now must understand that they derive, at least in part, from his self proclaimed arrogance. He apparently thinks he's pretty darn important and far superior to those of you who read this blog.

As for the second part of the quote, wherein OttL calls himself a "bastard" I suppose we need a bit of clarification. Dictionary.com defines "bastard" in the following manner:

"1. A child born out of wedlock.
2. Something that is of irregular, inferior, or dubious origin.
3. Slang. A person, especially one who is held to be mean or disagreeable."

In regard to #1, I can't speak about OttL's parentage. Unlike OttL, I won't speak about things that I can't or don't adequately research. In regard to definition number two, well, if he's not #1, and he chose the term of "bastard" to refer to himself, let the chips fall where they may. He's either "irregular, inferior, or of dubious origin," or perhaps only #3 fits. As to #3, clearly he's made that one fit by stating that he's an "arrogant bastard" and that

"The only reason I draw so much satisfaction from it is that it pisses those of you who disagree with me off." OttL

Enough said there. I don't get it, but it's apparently what he was looking for.

Now on to my disagreement and rebuttal. First of all, OttL says that he's not "changing anyone's mind" regardless of the quality of his arguments or supporting evidence. Let's start with the fact that he's certainly not going to score any points, intellectually or otherwise by claiming he is an "arrogant bastard" who is intellectually superior. Perhaps a few lessons in social etiquette, and he might find himself more able to muster a convincing argument, rather than simply insulting those who read this blog. How could one get past his opening about being such an arrogant bastard and then take anything he writes seriously?

Now a big surprise for OttL. He occasionally changes my mind and teaches me things. And I'm the chief conservative here. I invited him on board here at World Debate because though we might disagree, he occasionally changes my perspective or enriches my knowledge base through his thorough research and sharp prose. So, OttL, contrary to your thoughts, you do make a difference in the dialogue if you can contain your belief in your personal superiority long enough to get your point across. Unfortunately, in the present post you have failed miserably in every regard.

So disagreement aside, and a lesson in etiquette given, let's go to the rebuttal. Here's another great yet completely factually inaccurate quote from OttL which is an outright lie simply intended to make me look bad.

"Recall during our Social Security discussion, however, that after OtM's tirade about how little Democrats had contributed to solutions for the Social Security system and bipartisan dialogue in Congress, I gave multiple actual examples of bills that had been introduced either by Democrats and Republicans or Democrats alone, that were fundamentally different than the President's plan. The conservative response: Nill. If you don't believe me, go back and read it for yourself. No discussion of the actual proposals, just outright ignoring." OttL

That is a very interesting and inaccurate memory. Perhaps OttL doesn't know how to scroll down a page. The following is my response to OttL revealing that there were in fact, proposed Democratic alternatives to President Bush's Social Security Plan:

"I'll concede Ottl's point in a previous post that some powerless Democratic Senators have proposed alternatives (in part), but not one has been so much as even mentioned by the Democratic leadership in a press conference, let alone championed as an alternative plan. In fact, the Democrats are in all out attack and defeat mode instead of championing any alternative ideas. But that is standard fare for the Democrats." OTM

Now remember, he said that my response was "Nil" and "just outright ignoring." That's pretty clear. Not that he disagreed with me, or that my response was in a post on our next subject, or that it was inadequate. He said that I completely failed to respond. But, as Ottl so arrogantly said to you, "go read it for yourself." And unlike OttL, I mean that with the utmost humility. I'm just trying to create some decorum here, and stick to the truth, as it is in print here. Bottom line, he's simply making this up. I responded, and even gave him credit for showing me something that I didn't know existed (yes, he taught me something). Yet he somehow thinks it's a good idea to pretend that I ignored him.

Now to slice and dice OttL's contention that fiscal conservatives aren't attacking the President's lack of fiscal discipline. Here's what he said:

"Did I find a single blog, website, news organization that wrote something critical of the President's spending? No, and OtM has done an excellent job of getting a good sample of excellent conservative websites over there." OttL

Previously, OttL had shown tremendous tenacity and skill as a web researcher. Here, simple research would have shown that my contention was true and that there is a conservative backlash which has been consistent for years against this President's big spending policies. Apparently he is too "arrogant" to bother with the research, so now I am forced to do it for him.

Now those who read them (and OttL is among us) know that blogs are creatures of the moment. Whatever is in the news that day or that week will be written about extensively in the blogs of the moment. This week we are reading about Iraq suicide bombings, the nomination of new U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., daily developments from Lebanon, the killing of the family of a prominent Federal Court Judge, etc. etc. etc. The Federal Budget is absent from the current news. Yet somehow, OttL has decided by clicking on the links to conservative blogs on World Debate, if what I am saying is true, then he should find rancor and revolt about the debate on those blogs. I had to laugh when I read that.

If he wanted to know if what I was saying was true, he could have searched the archives of the blogs, or even easier, done a simple Google search like I did. I simply typed in "Bush budget not conservative." Below are just a few of the dozens upon dozens of links I found with content that supports my position.

IndyStar.com - Online Version of the Indianapolis Star - TODAY - Alan Framm- AP

"Reflecting the House's more conservative tenor, its budget seeks $69 billion in such savings, cutting almost $20 billion deeper than the president suggested.That will set the stage for months of partisan battling. "Personally, I -- and I know many of my colleagues -- would like to have gone even further" in restraining spending, said House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa."

From Powerlineblog.com -
Bush Pledges Spending Limit
The biggest complaint of conservatives like us about the Bush administration has been its apparent lack of interest in reining in spending. (link)

CPAC Meeting Shows Frustration of Fiscal Conservatives - Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) -- has become over the last three decades, the premier annual gathering of conservatives and one of the most important political events in the nation. If the representatives of the nations CONSERVATIVE Political Action Committees don't represent overall conservative political opinion (love 'em or hate 'em), I have no idea who might.

[February 21, 2005 evote.com] "Fiscal conservatism is on life-support!"(link)

Victor Davis Hanson (Highly Respected Conservative Historian) - Jan. 28, 2005 - Questioning why fiscal conservatives are no longer fiscally conservative, and complaining about it. (link)

"Shrink Government, the Right Tells the Right" - NYT

Reform revolt spreads from RSC to centrists - The Hill, The Newspaper For and About the U.S. Congress. Conservative lawmakers also agreed to demand that the Republican House budget include greater discretionary and mandatory spending cuts than President Bush's budget.

I could spend many hours doing this, but I think I've proven my point. OttL didn't even have the common decency to do a quick Google search to determine if there was any truth to my statements. Instead, he simply played the 'I couldn't find it on the blogs' card. He may be an arrogant bastard, but we aren't stupid enough to fall for that.

And last but not least on OttL's dishonesty here, in my post I said that the conservative base was following the lead of the "talking heads" like Limbaugh, Savage and Hewitt. And notice that he couldn't and didn't try to refute that. Yet ALL liberals I have ever spoken to acknowledge that the most prolific and strongest of the conservative voices are mostly on talk radio. Now I understand and acknowledge that OttL couldn't (and shouldn't have to stomach) days upon days of conservative talk radio. But he could have at least acknowledged that he didn't have a clue what was going on there, so he couldn't comment. Unfortunately, he simply chose to reinforce the stereotype that most conservatives have of liberals, which is that they think they know everything. Wait, maybe he does. He has told us he is an "arrogant bastard" right?

I have to be honest, I'm burnt out on this subject, and a bit disappointed. Because OttL chose to take the "arrogant bastard" route, and because he had to accuse me of lying about the conservative movement against the President's fiscal policies, I had to waste an immeasurable amount of time and keystrokes simply showing that in the case of this posting, OttL is indeed, an "arrogant" fraud.

And to take my honesty one step further, I simply can't answer everything else in OttLs post. This answer, required to defend my honesty and integrity, has already taken far too much of your time. I know there are other things in there, and perhaps he will be "arrogantly" angry that I haven't responded to them, but it appears that we're just about out of keystrokes here, and have to be trying your patience by now. I hope you'll forgive us this indiscretion, and perhaps we can all convince OttL to be a bit more polite, do a little research and stick to the facts from now on.

In closing let me say that personally, I'm surprised. We finally had an agreement between a conservative and a liberal about the President's unsound fiscal policy, and instead of moving forward with that, and seeing if we could talk solution, and really build consensus on the rare occasion on which we agree, he chose to attack, and did it with lies backed by an inexcusable lack of simple research. (Heavy sigh.) And all this in his post about "bipartisanship." Well, let's hope for better behavior in the future, shall we? Don't be too harsh on him. We'll house train the liberal yet.

True Bipartisanship: Blame the Other Guy

2005-03-09T17:49:00.000-08:00

For those of you who have been following On the Mark (OtM) and my recent discussions, you're probably beginning to see some patterns. I know I am. Pattern #1 is that I'm an arrogant bastard. Get used to it. The only reason I draw so much satisfaction from it is that it pisses those of you who disagree with me off. I realized a long time ago that I'm not changing anyone's mind, regardless of how excellent my arguments and the supporting evidence are. If someone aside from OtM, and on occasion, Mountain Man, would actually post something of substance, we might actually have a discussion here.

Pattern #2 is that both times (see our previous discussion on Social Security and the current one about the Federal Budget Deficit) I have built an argument indicting conservatives for their idol worship of our President, OtM and several others have responded that all the Democrats want to do is tear the President down and insult his policies. Democrats never have anything productive to contribute, except criticism.

Recall during our Social Security discussion, however, that after OtM's tirade about how little Democrats had contributed to solutions for the Social Security system and bipartisan dialogue in Congress, I gave multiple actual examples of bills that had been introduced either by Democrats and Republicans or Democrats alone, that were fundamentally different than the President's plan. The conservative response: Nill. If you don't believe me, go back and read it for yourself. No discussion of the actual proposals, just outright ignoring.

The Federal Budget deficit is really no different. All one has to do is go to The US Congress website and enter "budget" as a search term under legislation. Here are a couple examples of numerous bipartisan and Democratic solutions to the growing problem of the Federal Budget Deficit:
-Rush Holt (D - New Jersey) HR 116 Social Security and Medicare Lock-Box Act of 2005. Addresses Social Security and budget concerns.
- Fiscal Responsibility for a Sound Future Act S 19:: (14 Bipartisan Sponsors)

This article shows that a bipartisan group of 55 Senators is opposed to key provisions of Bush's budget. Once again, OtM wants you to believe the Democrats are part of the problem, not the solution, but he doesn't want to discuss the Democratic or even bipartisan proposals that are out there. He just wants to pretend, as he did during our Social Security discussion, that the Democrats have nothing constructive to add. This is obviously not the case.

OtM goes on the summarize unified budgetary theory, the process of putting all your bills together to create imaginary surpluses. The excellent point he makes here is that ALL administrations do this. This makes comparison's between Clinton's "surplus" and Bush's current budget meaningful. Despite the fact that Clinton's "surplus" may have been a numbers game, the Bush Administration can't even attempt to hide these sorts of numbers:

"the Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) estimated Friday that Bush's policies as outlined in his 2006 budget would add $1.6 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years." (source)

My point was simply that Clinton, love him or loathe him, obviously did a much better job restraining spending than Bush has. Clinton may not have had $1 in actual surplus during his presidency, but I can tell you that the CBO never projected adding $1.6 trillion to the deficit during his time as President.

OtM goes on to explain that the right, particularly bloggers and those in the right-wing media, are critical of Bush's spending. I was curious what they were saying, so I clicked on EVERY link on the right margin of this website. Did I find a single blog, website, news organization that wrote something critical of the President's spending? No, and OtM has done an excellent job of getting a good sample of excellent conservative websites over there.

How about Rush Limbaugh? Powerline Blog? Hugh Hewitt? Michael Savage? Democracy parties? Yes. Hillary Clinton burning in Effigy? You better believe it. Support the Troops Banners? Hundreds. Criticism of President Bush's spending? Like Santa Claus, Bigfoot, and Jimmy Hoffa's corpse, there is no evidence to support its existence. The mainstream conservative outrage that OtM cites remains to be seen.

I'm certain that there are conservatives out there who, like OtM and Mountain Man, are calling the President out on this, but it's simply not happening in the established conservative media, including blogs. It's not even happening in the traditionally liberal MSM.

Once again, I would be happy to discuss the merits and limitations of Democratic or Bipartisan solutions to budgetary matters, particularly compared to the President's budget. Instead, we've digressed into baseless partisan bickering. The Democrats are proposing solutions, both alone and with Republicans, but denying their existence does little to further discussion on the issue.

Answer on the Budget - I Agree - From a "Caring Conservative" - When Will Democrats Propose an Alternative, to Anything?

2005-03-08T17:28:00.000-08:00

Once again OttL makes himself feel good (along with all Liberals) by painting himself as far too "caring and intelligent" to be a "conservative." Productive discourse from the left? No. But I've come to expect nothing more. Now that we have the obligatory and unproductive generalizations out of the way, let's talk reality.

OttL and I completely agree on the absolute lack of fiscal conservatism shown by this administration. It is horrifying to witness the bloated deficit, especially when you understand the long term implications. But OttL attempting to paint the Democrats as the fiscal conservatives of this country is absolutely ludicrous, and totally unsupported by the facts.

The reality is, there NEVER was any budget "surplus." The "surplus" was created through false manipulation and semantics. Here is an excellent example (from the Washington Post in Feb. 1998) of the falsehoods peddled during the Clinton years:

It's easy to determine the truth. All one needs to do is determine how much more one spends than is earned in a year, as every family does. Accordingly, one should ask: Does the president's budget receive more than it will spend, or does it spend more than it receives? Once again, as it has for the past 30 years, the government will spend more. In fact, the president's budget projects more spending than income each year for the next five years. Instead of surpluses "as far as the eye can see," deficits will be the order of the day -- Washington will continue to borrow and spend.
While the president talks about reserving 100 percent of every surplus, his budget borrows the pension fund surpluses in order to report a budget surplus. These pension funds are then spent on food stamps or foreign aid or some program other than Social Security. The same is true of the gasoline tax, which is intended for highways. In reality, the deficit is not eliminated; the deficit is merely moved from the general fund into the Social Security trust fund or the highway trust fund.

This gimmick is called "unified budgeting" with a "unified" deficit or surplus. It's a fraud. With the present surplus fever, the people think the government is finally on a pay-as-you-go basis. But in reality, the politicians continue to spend, running huge deficits in the trust funds. The following trust funds are in deficit for the following amounts as of FY 1999: Social Security, $845 billion; Medicare $148 billion; Military Retirement, $140 billion; Civilian Retirement, $490 billion; Unemployment Compensation, $81 billion; Highways, $35 billion; Airports, $15 billion; Railroad Retirement, $21 billion, and all others, $58 billion.

One can see that instead of making the airports safe with modern radar, we have spent $7 billion of airport travelers' money on everything but airports. No wonder the highways are crumbling, the bridges falling. We have spent $22 billion of the gas tax on everything but highways and bridges.

At the beginning of the fiscal year we owed the Social Security trust fund $631 billion, and are scheduled to owe $732 billion by the end of September this year, and under President Clinton's "unified" budget, we will owe Social Security $845 billion. As he loots another $113 billion from the Social Security trust funds, the president cries, "Save Social Security first." Obviously, the first way to save Social Security is to stop looting it." (link)

So as you can see, the budget "surplus" during the Clinton years was all a big lie. To be fair, Presidents have done this for a long, long time. And while he initiated many new sorts of malfeasance in office (including oral sex in the Oval office, and a conviction and Arkansas disbarment for perjury), Clinton can't take credit for this particluar shell game.

Here's the major difference, not between the parties, but between the constituenties. Unfortunately, the parties are very similar in this regard. Their respective constituencies are not. Current day, grass roots conservatives are frothing at the President's lack of fiscal restraint. You will find it in the blogs, in the news, and even within the political establishment. People are quite simply pissed off at the President's lack of fiscal conservatism.

Am I really saying that Republicans at large aren't a bunch of mindless, numb, Rush Limbaugh ditto heads. Nope. I'm not saying that at all. Why? Because if you bother to listen to Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Hugh Hewitt, or any other of the plethora of conservative talking heads out there, they are ALL attacking the President on this issue. So the majority of the conservative constituency is not happy about this. Maybe they aren't mindless, numb ditto heads, but they are following the lead of the talking heads on this one.

So, when Democrats flail, where is the Democratic constituency? Where is the outrage when the "leaders" of the Democratic party fail to put forth, or support alternatives to the President's plan for Social Security reform. I'll concede Ottl's point in a previous post that some powerless Democratic Senators have proposed alternatives (in part), but not one has been so much as even mentioned by the Democratic leadership in a press conference, let alone championed as an alternative plan. In fact, the Democrats are in all out attack and defeat mode instead of championing any alternative ideas. But that is standard fare for the Democrats. They have become the party of "no." "No" to everything proposed by Republicans. No to almost everyone nominated by Republicans. And most importantly, "no" to coming up with any full fledged policy proposals of their own.

When Democrats put forth no policy alternatives to the President's State of the Union address, where is the outspoken constituency, demanding that their party come up with legitimate, concrete alternatives? Find them for me. Find the blogs, websites, or newspapers articles demanding that the Democrats actually "do" something other than whine. Find me the rumblings of the masses expressing their discontent with anything Democratic. Such criticism doesn't exist on any sort of comparable scale within the party's constituency at large.

Perhaps the Democratic failure to propose alternative budgets, solutions to the Social Security debacle, or to our current foreign policy simply doesn't concern the Democrat's constituency at large. I hope this isn't correct, because the Democratic party is due for some serious criticism and reformation by the folks it claims to represent. Such a reform could challenge the Republicans. And as I've expressed over and over, such a challenge is healthy for our country. The current Democratic lack of ideas is not.

The Democratic party needs the same sort of criticism from "real" Democrats, that this Administration is dealing with from their conservative base regarding all matters fiscal. The conservative base is demanding accountability from it's leaders. When will the liberal base demand the same of theirs?

George W. Bush: Fiscal Conservative as Dick Cheney: Kind, Lovable Young Man

2005-03-08T16:42:00.000-08:00

If I were conservative, which I am far too caring and intelligent to be, I would be downright flabbergasted with the spending going on in the Bush Administration. The Congressional Budget office is a good place to start, if you want to talk about the President's budget and what the impact will be in the coming years. The CBO is a great source of information because unlike the Administration's budget estimates, they're non-partisan and excellent at math. If you find the CBO report too ambiguous or boring, check out this article, in which analysts determine that the President's budget proposals will continue to cause ballooning deficits.

What's particularly sickening about the current budget situation is that under Clinton, the budget was balanced and there was actually a multi-billion dollar surplus. Weren't we liberals supposed to be the ones who lacked fiscal responsibility? Empirical evidence is making us look pretty good when it comes to spending and containing the deficit.

Why should we care about the deficit? Deficits are bad, not just because Republicans claimed to be against big government and the spending that comes along with it, but because they can have significant negative effects on the economy in the long term. Fed Chairman Allan Greenspan has even been quoted as saying that budget deficits pose a long-term threat to the stability of our economy. It looks like the economic uncertainty of supply side economics continues, as it did during the Reagan Administration.

What do all you fiscal conservatives who support the President have to say for yourselves?

Surprise! Republican Egocentrism: Bush's Social Security Reform Proposal Not the Only Plan on the Table!

2005-03-03T18:07:00.000-08:00

On the Mark got so carried away in his dream for bipartisanship, that he forgot the first step in being bipartisan: look at what the other side has proposed. On the Mark claims that the Democrats are just tearing the President's reform plan down, without suggesting an alternative. If you look at the bills that have been filed in the actual Congress, you get a much different picture than the one On the Mark has painted for you.

On the Mark and the conservative party loyalists don't want you to know that, in fact, Democrats and Republicans have made several proposed plans that differ significantly from the President's plan. You can view all of the comprehensive Social Security reform proposals before Congress here, Democratic and Republican, including the bipartisan HR 1793 21st Century Retirement Act, sponsored in the House by Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) and Rep. Charles Stenholm (D-TX) and the aptly named S. 1383 Bipartisan Social Security Reform Act, sponsored by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Sen. John Breaux (D-LA). The Democrats also have two additional comprehensive reform plans that are on the table that are not bipartisan.

I guess that means that the Democrats aren't just whining and crying about the President's plan. They're working with Republicans to propose other solutions because like On the Mark (OtM), they have reservations about the President's plan for reforms. And they absolutely should. If you want to debate the advantages and limitations of the proposals that have been suggested, I'm game. However, I will not stand around and let you say that the Democrats haven't tried to be a constructive part of what is definitely a bipartisan process.

If the President is so willing to work with Democrats as OtM suggesting in his rebuttal, why hasn't the President mentioned the Democratic proposals publicly as well? Why hasn't he attempted to work on a compromise? Why is he still only promoting his own plan which includes private accounts and includes no mandates for benefits provided to orphaned children and the disabled?

OtM says that the jury is still out on private accounts. Actually, if you look at compelling evidence from seven states in the US that have already tried private accounts, they have empirically been shown to be grossly ineffective compared to traditional Social Security. Take my current state of residence, Nebraska, as an example:

"But when Nebraska's state and county workers were given do-it-yourself accounts, they made so many investment errors that they ended up making less than colleagues with fixed-benefit pensions and less than what analysts have said is needed for old age. Their poor performance led the Nebraska Legislature two years ago to junk the accounts for new employees."

"If people have private accounts in Social Security and they're left to make the decisions themselves, the results likely will not be positive," said Anna Sullivan, executive director of the Nebraska Public Employees Retirement Systems, which replaced its private account system with a centrally managed plan in 2003.

That's a pretty powerful statement coming from a state official in Nebraska, where President Bush could have run with David Duke and still carried the state. The fact is that while private accounts would benefit rich, educated people, who understand how to weigh the risks of investing, the vast majority of the American public would not fare well, as Nebraska and a number of other states have demonstrated empirically. Not only do you have to worry about the costs, as Greenspan has mentioned, but also the increased risks of economic volatility when people's retirement benefits are a stake.

To review, the Democrats and Republicans in Congress have been cooperating to propose viable alternatives to the President's plan. I would much rather discuss the merits and limitations of proposals than have OtM mislead you into thinking that we liberals are just complaining. The President's plan is terrible to be sure, but his proposal is not the only one on the table, as OtM and most of the conservative establishment would like you to think.

The President wants you to believe that his plan is our only hope to save an ailing program. But as the polls I listed in my original post on this topic indicate, the American people are not fools. Additionally, private accounts have been empirically shown to be an abysmal failure for the vast majority of participants. Liberals and conservatives alike should be looking at what other options we have, because the President's plan is certainly losing steam across the country and in Congress. The issue of Social Security will be a true test of the bipartisanship in the Republican party, since Republican cooperation is required given the current party configuration in Congress.

Social Security - Rebuttal - Sort Of - The Democrats are Devoid of Ideas

2005-03-03T10:27:00.000-08:00

For once it appears that OttL and I might actually agree upon something. I too wonder at the wisdom of this President spending his political capital on the reform of a system that won't really even show it's first signs of being broke until 2042. I really don't have an answer for "why Social Security now?" There are surely programs which are in more desperate straits, such as Medicare.

As for private accounts, I'm not sure the jury is back on that one. For some reason the U.S. Congress has such accounts for themselves. And Alan Greenspan has backed such accounts, though definitely with reservations regarding the costs of establishing them. So, I'll reserve judgment on whether that is part of a prudent plan.

Finally, and most importantly, OttL and most other liberals agree that the program needs a fix. Unfortunately, the Democrats are once again the party of the "empty attack" and devoid of real solutions to real problems. Conservatives understand that simply attacking the proposals of Democrats doesn't lead to a stronger country, or better governance. If they don't like what the Democrats propose, they are notorious for coming up with proposals of their own. Having a clearly stated and easily articulated agenda is what has brought Republicans to power. The Democrats need to get their own.

I am a fervent believer in a strong two party system. And while I am absolutely a Republican and a conservative, I sincerely wish to see a strong and vibrant Democratic Party challenging the Republicans with concrete ideas and proposals that reflect their core beliefs. Such challenges will allow real plans to be debated in the marketplace of ideas, which is good for all. However, by all accounts, the Democratic party is currently struggling to determine if it even has "core beliefs."

Throughout this discussion, while acknowledging that there is a problem, the Democrats have put forth no plan of their own on Social Security. President Bush has repeatedly asked the Democrats to put a plan on the table and indicated he's willing to talk. And to the horror of many conservatives, Bush has even indicated a willingness to raise the ceiling above the current $90K in annual income upon which people pay Social Security taxes. Contrary to his promises to his fiscally conservative base, this would constitute a tax hike. But he's willing to talk about it. Which you think would please the Democrats immensely if they were genuinely interested in compromise, bipartisanship and fixing the system. Yet Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said his party would be attacked for advocating tax increases if it embraced the idea. "We're not going to fall for that," he said. (link)

This is the ultimate in absurdity. The Democratic Party has said repeatedly that we should look at raising taxes to fix the system. Yet when the President says, contrary to his own political interests, he's actually willing to look at it, Reid says, "We're not going to fall for that." What sort of insane Orwellian double-speak is that?

This country needs genuine interest in a bipartisan fix for the Social Security problem. Right now the only thing the Democrats have shown is that they are excellent naysayers. Well, for the health of the country, and the health of the Democratic Party, it's time they stepped up to the table, presented their own plan, and engaged in some real discussion.

Bush's Social Security Reforms Out of Step with American Public

2005-03-03T05:01:00.000-08:00

"When President Bush said during the 2000 Presidential campaign that he wouldn't participate in nation building, I didn't know he was talking about his own country." - Al Franken

The more we learn about the President's and other Republicans' plans to restructure Social Security, the scarier the situation becomes. A poll conducted this week, indicates that a majority of the American people believe that allowing citizens to invest their Social Security taxes in private accounts is "a bad idea." It's tragic that the only domestic issue the President has had on the agenda for his entire presidency is one that will likely put the average American in poverty for retirement.

No one doubts that Social Security needs to be reconsidered. Anyone who can do basic math can tell you that we're headed for a time, because our grandparents were completely horny after World War II, where there will be substantially more retirees drawing from the system than workers paying in. Most realistic estimates indicate that Social Security will not be able to pay full benefits by 2042.

The problem with the President's plan, or anyone's plan who wants to divert Social Security taxes into private accounts, is that it's ill conceived. Diverting money away from Social Security will speed up the demise of the program significantly. Under many of the reform plans under consideration, anyone over 55 would still be supported by Social Security as it exists today. Bush has not suggested how the program would be solvent to support these retirees or orphaned children and the disabled, who also receive benefits through the Social Security program.

Even Bush's closest allies, like Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee are in doubt (source):

"Maybe we ought to focus on the solvency and bring people to the table just over what do you do for the solvency for the next 75 years," Grassley, R-Iowa, said Wednesday. Grassley said "personal accounts don't have a lot to do with solvency," a distinction that Bush glosses over but that his advisers concede."

He goes on to suggest a more realistic fix to the problem:

"The program's problems could be fixed, he suggested, with a combination of benefit cuts and tax increases."

A GOP leader in the Senate conceding that the President's plan does little to address the solvency of the Social Security program? It's not just the Democrats on Capitol Hill who are having doubts in the President's plan these days.

Republicans in Congress realize that because of their strong numbers in the House and the Senate, they won't be able to pin policy failures on the Democrats, as both parties have a tendency to do in more politically balanced Congressional Delegations.

The number of domestic issues that need to be addressed in this country is staggering. Health care, education, homeland security, energy, and environment are just a few of the areas that should have been addressed during the Clinton administration. But, isn't Bush supposed to be a better President than Clinton? I won't make excuses for Clinton, but President Bush has the opportunity to prove me and the rest of the critics out there wrong by addressing even a few of these pressing issues. We know from his first term that he's not afraid to spend money.

Instead, he has chosen to spend his "political capital" and the tax payers actual financial capital to wreck our Social Security program, and even GOP loyalists are questioning if the President's would do anything to help Social Security. Social Security needs to be fixed, but the President's plan brings us no closer to a solution.

Standards of Evidence - Rebuttal

2005-03-02T09:19:00.000-08:00

OttL accuses me of not citing sources in the Lebanese press. I have to admit. He's right on this. The reality is that I never said that I was, and never intended to. I didn't quote the Iraqi press during the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. either. In fact, I generally don't quote the press of any country that gets violently and physically attacked for telling the truth. Never have, and never will. I guess conservatives just have higher standards for "journalism" than that. I don't know what else to say on that count.

Secondly, OttL says that we shouldn't trust the words of the leader of the Lebanese intifada, Walid Jumblatt. He says that because Jumblatt has been such a consistent hater of the U.S. in the past, we shouldn't trust his words now. I believe that is PRECISELY the reason that we should listen to his words. He's not one to say anything even remotely positive about the U.S. And you'll note from his words...he's still consistent in that. No compliments to the U.S., a simple acknowledgement of the fact that the Lebanese intifada is a natural outgrowth of the Lebanese people hearing and seeing what has happened in Iraq. Seeing the Iraqis vote has made a huge difference in entire the region.

Do the Lebanese people know about or understand the "Bush Doctrine?" OttL thinks not, and on this point I agree. The majority of them, not being exposed to a free media, have probably never heard of the "Bush Doctrine." As Walid Jumblatt indicated, they are simply looking to their near neighbors over in Iraq, see and hear that 8 million voted, and say, "why not us?" I am not alone in this analysis. It's all across all forms of media, from liberal to conservative, from the U.K. to the U.S. If OttL wants to stand alone in the hinterlands of liberal thought, with arms crossed and a sour look on his face, reassuring himself that our invasion of Iraq can't possibly be producing the desired results in the region, and refusing to see what the entire world is now beginning to see, so be it. I cannot remove the liberal blinders. And in the end, reality will triumph anyway.

OttL demanded a credible source of information. I must admit, he has me stumped. I can provide no more credible source than the man leading the intifada himself, Walid Jumblatt, who speaks against his own past when he says that the uprising was made possible by the U.S. invasion. That source has been vetted and confirmed by the liberal mainstream media (starting with the Washington Post), many of whom are now chiming in to say the "Bush Doctrine" may actually be working. I suggest that Ottl open his eyes and take a look at what the rest of the world apparently finds self evident.

Standards of Evidence

2005-03-02T05:51:00.000-08:00

In the process of disregarding a good portion of my posting, On the Mark created a dangerous double standard that is going to make it difficult to have any discussion about this issue. I'm sure many of you will be disappointed to learn that I am going to try anyway.

On the Mark has conceded that his only source of information about the Bush Doctrine's impact on Lebanon is Walid Jumblatt, a Lebanese Political leader. But, can we really trust what this guy says? Before you answer that question, you should read this. On the Mark's sole source of information has also been quoted as saying that the US invented Osama Bin Laden to launch a war against Arab Nations. He's also a racist and anti-Semite. Jumblatt's credibility and sudden reversal of opinion are highly suspicious. And so far, Jumblatt's comments in the Washington Post editorial are the only piece of evidence that On the Mark has for the Bush Doctrine's impact on Lebanon. Jumblatt's opinions might not be so suspicious, if they weren't required to stand on their own, with no additional corroboration.

On the Mark goes on to say that my sources weren't actually Lebanese media anyway, but neither were any of his. Most of the bloggers in Lebanon that he cited in his original posting mentioned nothing about the Bush Doctrine. The few that did, cited the same Washington Post editorial that we've been subjected to consistently. My point stands that if the Bush Doctrine is so influential, why aren't we reading about it anywhere except the Op Ed page of the Washington Post from a guy who is obviously not credible?

On the Mark contradicts himself in the process of trying to refute my Lebanese news sources. He claims that on one hand, the government controls the media and what the Lebanese people have access to in terms of information, but his entire argument that the Bush Administration's policies have influenced the people of Lebanon to rise up and overthrow the government would require that the Lebanese people have some knowledge of the Bush Doctrine. Wouldn't you have to have knowledge of something to be inspired by it? He can't have it both ways.

Except for the incredibly educated people, most Lebanese wouldn't have access to the Washington Post Editorial in Arabic or English. Additionally, in the event that the Lebanese people did have widespread access to the only media source in the entire world that says anything about the Bush Doctrine's impact in Lebanon, it highly unlikely that most Lebanese people, as I cited yesterday, have a very high opinion of the US foreign policy anyway.

The fact remains that 99.9% of the articles that you read in any media outlet in any country will tell you that the people of Lebanon are rising up because of the assassination of Al-Hariri. I'm not being unreasonable here. I simply want a source of credible information that describes the Bush Administration's impact on the situation in Lebanon. Given the widespread coverage of the issue, it shouldn't be this difficult.

Lebanese Media Accuracy and Freedom - NOT

2005-03-01T15:20:00.000-08:00

Off to the Left attempts to say that the opinion of the acknowledged LEADER of the current intifada is irrelevant in regard to what gave the Lebanese people the courage to rise up against their government and demand real democracy. If you've been following this debate, you are aware that Jumblatt specifically and unequivocally stated, as the leader of the intifada:

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

Unfortunately, like most liberals, Off to the Left (OttL) believes HE knows better than one of the main leaders of the revolt. Liberals always know better. Instead of relying upon the man leading the event, he says we should look to the Lebanese press for our information. I might be mistaken, but it seems he's referring to the same press that is either run by, or censored by the Lebanese Government (read "Syria"). Their methods for press control are often brutally violent, but apparently OttL thinks this makes for quality reporting.

According to the International Press Institute's latest report on press freedom in Lebanon: 2003

Press freedom in Lebanon weakened in comparison to the previous year. This year was marked by rocket and police attacks on media outlets. It was a year of pressure and attacks on the media sources and journalists, by the Lebanese government itself, as well as by foreign governments. The Lebanese media also faced attacks from non-governmental bodies. (link)

Okay, so we have the choice of trusting a media that gets attacked by rockets and police when they say anything the government doesn't like, or we can take the word of the man credited with being the "leader of the intifada in Lebanon," as reported by a liberal democratic journalist who met with him. While I often don't trust the liberal media in this country, I think circumstances warrant taking their word for it on this one. I think most rational folks would agree with me. Then again...we're dealing with the liberal propensity to refuse to validate anything that comes from President Bush, so we're out of the realm of rational here.

OttL also has the following inaccuracy in his posting: "In fact, if you look specifically at an editorial in Dar Al-Hayat, you get a different picture of how the general public in Lebanon views the US invasion of Iraq and the overall US foreign policy in the region.."

Unfortunately, if you read the article which OttL cites as an example of the Lebanese press, you must first note that it is a guest editorial written not by someone from Beirut, or even Lebanon, but a foreign peace worker and the President of Seeds of Peace, Aaron David Miller. While Miller has the credentials to talk about the Middle East (having advised multiple U.S. Administrations on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process), he is NOT Lebanese, and NOT part of the Lebanese press. Further, in the cited article, he never even mentions the current situation in Lebanon, nor the emerging democratic movements across the region. He makes some great points about working to win the hearts and minds of the majority of people in the region, but this article has absolutely nothing to do with the current situation in Lebanon.

OttL's citation of this article as an example that the Lebanese press, representing the Lebanese people, doesn't believe U.S. policy in the region had anything to do with the current events in Lebanon, is unsupportable by any standard. It's the usual liberal ploy. When you can't find anything to support your "theory," just throw out something general as a decoy. Well, it's not going to work here. Plain and simple, this article absolutely NEVER mentions Lebanon, and only has a small passing reference to the U.S. invasion of or presence in Iraq.

That being said, I appreciated OttL's citation to this article. Miller has some great points in there about the battle for the hearts and minds of the majority in the middle east. It's worth reading, and important to note, as OttL did, that military action alone is not the path to permanent and sustainable security for the U.S. We must continue to work to do a much better job disseminating information and programs that support a pro-Western vision which the average person in the Middle East can embrace. But first, freedom of the press and democracy must come so that such information will be available to the average person.

OttL also cites the Daily Star as a good example of the 'Lebanese Press.' Unfortunately, the Daily Star is NOT a Lebanese paper. It was founded decades ago, by a Lebanese man, long since deceased, and is now a regional, middle eastern paper, distributed by the International Herald Tribune. It does carry plenty of Lebanese news, and as such, I'd be shocked if they admitted that the current revolt was "inspired" by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Even Walid Jumblatt, the leader of the intifada admitted that though it was certainly the case, he felt weird saying it. This is a country, media, and people that are not used to being inspired by the U.S. They get bombed when they say things that the government disagrees with. And you'll note, if you choose to read the Daily Star, that they even fail to carry Jumblatt's quote regarding the role the U.S. has played in Iraq.

Interestingly, after reading and reading the Lebanese press reference by OttL, I simply cannot find ANY reference to the U.S. After years and years and years of slandering our country, they are suddenly silent on the issue of the U.S. So I hardly think that this supports OttLs theory that the U.S. invasion had almost nothing to do with the events in Lebanon. They simply can't bring themselves to say "thanks" quite yet. That's okay...we'll leave the light on. And when they join the brotherhood of democratic nations, we'll be there to welcome them, as we always have been. Oh yeah, I almost forgot; we'll be serving up a nice slice of apple pie when they arrive.

Republican Hubris:Failure to Appreciate the Larger Context of Democratization in the World

2005-03-01T13:47:00.000-08:00

On the Mark makes a valiant effort to denounce my challenge from last night, but unfortunately, like most Bush supporters during these critical times for Democracy, On the Mark fails to see the development of democratic governments around the world in its larger context. It's like giving my third grade teacher credit for the Human Genome Project, because she taught me about genetics when I was a kid. Sure, democracy is happening all over the world, but invading Iraq has not had the cascade effect that conservatives would like to believe.

If you read the Lebanese media, which I would remind you is likely the information that the Lebanese people have access to, it says nothing about the Bush Doctrine or the invasion of Iraq. Here is a link to the Lebanon Daily star. No where in the in depth analysis and coverage of the breaking events in Lebanon does it indicate that the Bush Administration's foreign policy had any influence whatsoever. Here's another link from Lebanese newspaper Dar Al-Hayat. If you look through the comprehensive and detailed analysis of the events unfolding as a type this from a Lebanese perspective, and not just the view of one leader, you see that the US Foreign Policy has had little influence in Lebanon.

In fact, if you look specifically at an editorial in Dar Al-Hayat, you get a different picture of how the general public in Lebanon views the US invasion of Iraq and the overall US foreign policy in the region (link). Aaron David Miller has this to say about the impact of the Bush Doctrine on the attitude of Arabs and Muslims:

"A disturbingly large minority of Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East and South Asia will likely remain opposed to the United States regardless of what we do; but the majority of hearts and minds there are still very much in play. Devising a strategy that stands a better chance of influencing them ought to be a key priority for the second Bush administration. Frankly, it wasn't much of a priority for the first."

Hmmm... doesn't seem like this guy share's Jumblatt's opinion about the US influence on the situation in Lebanon. More from Miller:

"Finally, we need to refocus our policies in a way that responds to the sensitivities that resonate in these regions: Two problems shape the Middle East's view of the U.S. these days. A major U.S. course correction on Iraq (very much a work in progress) is unlikely any time soon. But on the Israeli-Palestinian problem, a change in U.S. policy is not only necessary, but possible now. No other action we could take right now would do more to enhance U.S. credibility, improve our image, and advance our regional interests, including the war on terror, than a serious American effort to diffuse the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.
One thing is clear. Continuing not to take a serious approach on hearts and minds and to hang a "Closed for the season sign" on our policy toward Arab-Israeli peace, will win us no new friends, influence no new people, and virtually guarantee another very bad season."

If you read this analysis, you can see that the US foreign policy and specifically the US action in Iraq has actually been quite unpopular among Arabs and Muslims throughout the region. A change in US foreign policy is the fix recommended in Miller's opinion.

My final point on this issue is that the emergence of democracy around the globe in never completely attributable to one single factor or action. In his initial post, On the Mark claimed that what was happening in Lebanon is "because of the Bush Doctrine." The only person that shares On the Mark's view is Jumblatt. If you read the Lebanese media, you see that most Arabs and Muslims have a negative attitude towards Bush's foreign policy, and are not encouraged by it and that the US foreign policy is receiving very little attention during this exciting time, except obviously from Jumblatt, and conservatives who want to promote the President's imperialistic policies. If the President's policies were so influential, why is Jumblatt the only one talking about them?

If anything, I would argue that the President's invasion in Iraq has increased resentment of US policies across the Middle East and has provided substantial opportunities for recruitment for terrorists. I'm not the only one who holds this view as you can see here or here or here. The fact is that our invasion of Iraq, despite achieving one goal in the removal of Saddam Hussein, had a number of undesirable and unintended effects.

The emergence of democracy is a combination of economic, political, and social factors. An excellent analysis of the complexity of emerging democracy around the world can be found in this National Geographic article from November 2004. If you're interested in how democracy actually arises, it's a great resource. It doesn't oversimplify the process. I think it makes a great point that simply having a democracy is not sufficient, and that democracies vary widely, and encompass everything from what we know and love in the US to countries where voting is practiced, but voters only have one party they are allowed to vote for.

Update on Lebanon - CNN's Wolf Blitzer Believed Democracy in the Middle East Was "Impossible"

2005-03-01T10:09:00.000-08:00

This morning I was on the bike at the gym, listening to some great music and working up a sweat. Unfortunately, by no choice of my own, CNN (the Communist News Network) was playing on the TV in front of me, and I was forced to look at Wolf Blitzer. Suddenly, I saw that he was interviewing David Ignatius of the Washington Post (and subject of my post below) about the current situation in Lebanon, and the democratic changes that appear to rolling across the Middle East with increasing momentum. I switched to FM and listened in.

David Ignatius mainly restated what he had said in his article (quoted extensively in the post below). However, the most revealing, and actually stunning moment in the interview came from Wolf Blitzer. I was so shocked by what I thought he said, that after the interview I got off the bike, packed my bag and headed for home. I needed to see a transcript.

When I got home, I went to CNN's website and obtained the transcript, and he really did say exactly what I thought he said. Revealing his unbelievable bias, and the kind of deep cynicism that can only be held by a liberal Democrat who desperately disagrees with the policies being pursued by our country, he said,

"Is there a potential right now for some sort of speedy development along those lines, setting the stage for real democracy in a part of the world that many of us thought would never see real democracy? " Wolf Blitzer

Many of "who" thought the Middle East "would NEVER see real democracy?" I certainly never thought that. Did you? Who does he speak for? Surely not the soldiers giving their lives in Iraq to make democracy a reality. Surely not our President, who has had a clear vision from the start and who has never wavered. Surely not the brilliant strategist, Paul Wolfowitz, who has seen the outcome of this card game since before the first hand was dealt. Surely he isn't pretending to be speaking for the "majority" in this country who believed in what President Bush was doing enough to reelect him. So when he says "many of us," who does Wolf Blitzer presume to be speaking for?

It is my opinion that he was speaking, as do so many in the main stream media, for the liberal elite, who simply find it impossible to believe that when you provide human beings with the opportunity for, and the possibility of freedom (yes, sometimes through the use of military force) they will take it. History is replete with examples.

Unfortunately, Wolf Blitzer and his clique find this sort of thinking beyond their limited imaginations. He and those he claims to speak for are apparently content to sit back and comfortably prognosticate that the Arab world must live under tyranny and repression forever. Luckily, President Bush wasn't buying the Blitzer line, and the repressed peoples of the Middle East aren't buying his line any longer either. They smell freedom, and they are going to take it for themselves, now that they know it's possible.

Thank goodness for the wise, visionary and brave souls in our government who believe in freedom for all people. Freedom is on the march in the Middle East my friends. And tyranny everywhere is trembling in its collective boots. Perhaps the tyrants and despots can offer Wolf Blitzer a government media job promoting the thought that freedom isn't possible for their people. He's pretty good at it, but he's certainly not convincing the Arabs in the Middle East anymore.

Walid Jumblatt, Leader of Lebanese Intifada - "This Process of Change has Started Because of the American Invasion of Iraq"

2005-02-28T22:02:00.000-08:00

Well, the liberal gauntlet has been wildly thrown once again, and I'd be remiss if I didn't grab the easy pickings on this one and bring it home for those who actually grasp the situation in the Middle East. Everything isn't always the fault of the U.S. and our hideous misguided policies. And we can and will take credit where it's due. Let's go directly to the case in point.

Here's a quote from Off to the Left's post below:

"What On the Mark and even President Bush have failed to do is to show us specifically how the Bush Doctrine has had any influence on what's occurring right now in Beruit, Lebanon."

I'd like a serious challenge, but this one won't qualify. You see, according to a Feb. 23rd article in the Washington Post, "The leader of this Lebanese intifada is Walid Jumblatt, the patriarch of the Druze Muslim community and, until recently, a man who accommodated Syria's occupation."

During the interview by David Ignatius, Mr. Jumblatt, the "leader of this Lebanese intifada" had this to say about the impetus for the change in Lebanese politics.

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

I'd say that qualifies for a major and direct hit. Don't you think so? Off to the Left wanted to be shown "how the Bush Doctrine has had any influence on what's occurring right now in Beirut, Lebanon." In case you didn't catch what Jumblatt, "the leader of the Lebanese intifada" said (maybe you're a liberal practicing cognitive dissonance), he said that 'THIS PROCESS OF CHANGE HAS STARTED BECAUSE OF THE AMERICAN INVASION OF IRAQ." I'm not sure one could be more clear. And Jumblatt goes even further to say that the Syrians and the Egyptians also all say something is changing. The Bush Doctrine IS moving all of the Middle East towards democracy. The facts are undeniable.

Making the article and its contents even more significant is that the Washington Post usually goes well out of its way to trash the right, and our country in general. It's a well known extension of the Democratic party. Unfortunately for them, the quote came straight from "the leader of this Lebanese intifada." Hard to argue with that. And Jumblatt isn't one who is normally full of praise for the U.S. Again from the Washington Post interview with Jumblatt, David Ignatius reports:

"Over the years, I've often heard him [Jumblatt] denouncing the United States and Israel, but these days, in the aftermath of Hariri's death, he's sounding almost like a neoconservative. "

Of course, our friend on the left is correct that the assassination of a popular opposition leader gave current and immediate impetus to the historic events now taking place in Lebanon. But when the anti-American leader of the very movement in question states openly that this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq, and gives credit where it is due, surely the left wing in our own country can be reasonable enough to do the same. Then again, maybe not. It seems that liberals would prefer to express their disdain for our President and his policies, regardless of the reality on the ground.

The Bush Doctrine: Examining the Web of Lies

2005-02-28T19:04:00.000-08:00

Great things are happening right now in Lebanon, as On the Mark pointed out in his last post. People are taking to the streets in protest, and there is some wonderful coverage on different blogs. The problem is that On the Mark attributes the entire situation to "The Bush Doctrine", which is a complete overstatement and gives the President way too much credit for doing absolutely nothing. It's safe to say that the Bush Doctrine, whatever it really is, has had little tangible effect on the current situation in Lebanon.

If you're interested in reading more about the Bush Doctrine, you can read the Administration's version of things here. Basically, President Bush wants to promote democracy all over the world. It sounds wonderful, and if it were truly being implemented, I would absolutely support it. How can one who believes in democracy not support it?

What On the Mark and even President Bush have failed to do is to show us specifically how the Bush Doctrine has had any influence on what's occurring right now in Beruit, Lebanon. He provides 5 websites for your consideration. Three of those websites (Caveman in Beirut, Digital Revelations, and Syria Comment) say nothing about the Bush Doctrine leading to democracy in Lebanon.

Publius Pundit refers to the Bush Doctrine, but pulls an internet sleight of hand trick by saying in this post that a NY Times Editorial supports the Bush Doctrine. Further investigation, however, reveals that if you actually try to find said editorial, it was published in 1988 in reference to the end of the Cold War. Wasn't 1988 the year W. got his DUI? I think his only doctrine at that point was running several companies into the ground and drinking whiskey. If you don't believe me, click through yourself.

That leaves us with the only website that On the Mark included that says ANYTHING about the Bush Administration being linked to what is happening in Lebanon, Across the Bay. Across the Bay refers to this post from Michael Young. The keystone of Across the Bay and Young's case for the Bush Administration's influence on the events in Lebanon is this editorial from the Washington Post.

In that editorial, author Michael Ignatius correctly identifies the antecedent event in Lebanon as the assassination of former Lebanese PM Rafiq Hariri, and not the Bush Doctrine. Young and Across the Bay try rather pathetically to make the case that US actions in Iraq and Bush's recent statements in Brussels are what inspired the Lebanese people to take to the streets in powerful protest.

The Bush Doctrine cannot be shown empirically to have any influence on what is happening in Lebanon. You will certainly find numerous opinions, particularly of Bush supporters like On the Mark, who want so badly for it to be true. The Bush Doctrine, however, is essentially a history book-friendly way of disguising the fact that the entirety of the Bush Administration's foreign policy is the threat of sanctions and eventual military action to force regime change.

My challenge to all you conservatives out there and On the Mark, if you're going to make statements about the effectiveness of the Bush Doctrine as a foreign policy, is to provide an example of a Bush Administration Policy, that has fostered democracy in Lebanon. And not simply some conservative pundit's opinion, but a tangible action.

The real truth is that the people of Lebanon took to the streets because one of their formers leaders was assassinated. Bush's comments, probably not even available to most Lebanese citizens without passing through the filter of an oppressive regime, had nothing to do with it. Let's give credit where it is due: The Lebanese people, and not our foolish President.

People Power in Lebanon - The Rapidly Chaning Middle East

2005-02-28T14:17:00.000-08:00

Today in the news we are treated to a spectacle that is becoming more and more common in the Middle East, as a result of the Bush Doctrine; ordinary citizens turning out to push real democracy on their despotic governments.

The people of Lebanon, after the assasination of popular businessman Hariri, have taken to the streets, demanding and obtaining the resignation of the Syrian puppet government. Not content with this victory, apparently hundreds of thousands of peaceful demonstrators (ala Kiev) are now demanding the removal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. It is incredible to witness.

There are some blogs covering it live. Here's the best list I've been able to put together so far:

Caveman in Beirut - The best I've seen. Postings by a foreign linguist living in Beirut. Also has postings from others living there.

Syria Comment - A Fulbright Scholar on leave from Oklahoma and living in Syria.

Digital Revelations - An American living and teaching in Lebanon.

Across the Bay - Good summary and compilation of sources...direct from Beirut.

Publius Pundit - Great compilation of sources on the current situation in Beirut.

I'll continue to research, and if I find more, especially from sources on the ground in Lebanon, we'll be adding it.

Warning: Security Breach in Progress - Liberal in Residence

2005-02-27T22:16:00.000-08:00

'Tis the wee hours of the morning, and much to my delight, there is change in progress and controversy afoot. As many of you know, since the inception of this blog I have sought a left leaning voice, a counterpart from deep in the hinterlands of liberal insanity, who might wield their keyboard gallantly, and blog to the "other side" of the issues. After all, I named the site "World Debate" for a reason. And finally, the day of reason has arrived.

Today, I'm pleased to introduce you to Off to the Left, who will do his best to poke holes in the views that we as conservatives cherish so deeply. He'll be challenged to keep his arguments sane and supportable, and generally free of highbrow rhetoric. (Ouch...that hurts.) And we on the right will face the same rigors.

Now those of you who consider yourselves as aligned with or leaning to the right, I'll need you to back my play. You know who you are. If you listen to the lefties tell it, you're the redneck, beer drinking, illiterate religious fanatics. Remember, this is just a debate here, so no pinching, biting, kicking, swearing or calling names (forget that last one; we'll make an exception for calling names). But I do need you to jump in and comment, both on my posts, and those from the new guy over there on the left.

A warm welcome to our new found left wing friends who are following Off to the Left to his new home here on World Debate. We appreciate having you here. Please consider our home, your home. Just promise that you won't wear your tinfoil hats on this blog. We do have to draw some lines about who we can be seen with. And remember, you're the folks who are going to make it or break it on the left. You need to jump in and support the posts that reflect your views, feel free to add your own, or let me know when my membership card in the "vast right wing conspiracy" is showing.

What do we expect of you, our loyal readers? We expect that you'll participate. Really, you'll be the judge, jury and part of the team on the playing field, all at the same time. You'll be right there in the fray with us, whether you're backing the posts from the conservatives rallying the troops in the red states, or the liberals in the blue attacking the unguarded flank of the conservative argument.

Will it be dangerous? Only to half baked ideas, and factually unsupportable arguments. Will it be fun? Only if you're interested in the issues of the day, and like to hear at least two sides to an argument. We do, and that's why we got together to blog here.

Both Off to the Left and I were tired of reading blogs that just reinforced what other blogs had to say when they themselves were restating only what other bloggers had to say. We called it the "echo chamber." We grew weary of conservatives writing for conservatives, and liberals writing to liberals. We felt that a good, open, honest debate of the issues of the world was in order. We believe that to express our ideas, and then be challenged to support them, was a great way to learn. Perhaps even a way to be convinced by a more "liberal" or "conservative" position than we had previously held (gasp). I encourage you to visit daily, because we'll be posting!

Just to level the playing field and to follow Off to the Left in his first posting, I'll end mine with one of my favorite quotes: "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains. " Winston Churchill

Who let this clown in here?

2005-02-27T18:36:00.000-08:00

Attention all World Debate devotees: A liberal has breached this website's security. Many of you are accustomed to dropping in, basking in the bright red sunshine of On the Mark's political commentaries, and maybe even taking part in some good, old fashioned, right-wing liberal bashing.

The good news is that you'll still be doing a lot of that. The difference is that me and my left-wing, commie, pinko-liberal friends are not going to let you get away with saying that Howard Dean is the next human incarnation of Satan, and you're no longer going to let me get away with referring to President Bush as Jed, at least not without some serious discussion and analysis.

On the Mark and I are in agreement that in order to be a debate, more than one viewpoint should be at the forefront of the discussion. On the Mark has done a beautiful job of creating an environment where that type of discussion can take place. The internet is literally soiled with political blogs framing the key political issues of our day from one perspective. We figured it was time for a more dynamic discussion, and we hope that regardless of your viewpoint, you'll join in the debate.

To start things off on the left foot, here's one of my favorite quotes from Philosopher John Stuart Mill: "While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is fact that most stupid people are conservative."

Another Misleading Story by the Main Stream Media - Plot to Assassinate President Arises from Saudi Islamic School in Virginia

2005-02-23T07:53:00.000-08:00

Mainstream media has now repeatedly identified Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, the US citizen charged with planning and conspiring to assassinate President Bush, as a former Virginia high school valedictorian. That evokes pretty pictures of middle America and an outstanding American student gone bad, doesn't it? That would make it an incredibly surprising story.

Unfortunately, what most of the MSM hasn't revealed is the name of the school that Mr. Ali, the esteemed valedictorian attended. The reality is that he was valedictorian of the American madrassa, the Islamic Saudi Academy (ISA), which is entirely funded by the Saudi government, and operates under it's auspices. His father apparently works in a technical capacity at the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington, DC. Rusty Shackleford has details: Terrorist Son of Saudi Embassy Worker Attended Saudi Run School.

There is ample proof, on the Jawa Report, that the ISA is teaching hatred of other religions and cultures, including direct teachings on the value of Jihad and the killing of Jews. You can read much of the detail at the Jawa Report , including direct quotations from materials that these students are being taught, right here in America. More is being discovered and posted by the minute, and thanks to the blogosphere, this story is moving into the mainstream.

While government officials like Congressman Rangel continue to attempt to convince us that there is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist, mosques and schools such as the ISA, continue to indoctrinate, educate, and train them, right here on our own soil. Rangel stated, "We just take for granted that there is an Islamic terror movement because we do have some fanatic people who come from Islamic countries." Could he, as a government official, be more out of touch with reality? He may be, but luckily, you and I are not.

Islamic terrorism is real. It's hateful and murderous doctrines are preached in many, many mosques and schools right here in the United States. Isn't it time that we did something about it? Or do we need to wait until we are hit again, and again, and again? The choice is ours to be vigilant and loud, or to be like the ostrich Rangel, bury our heads in the sand, and hope that the problem just "goes away."

Hollywood's Top Gun in Washington Woos the GOP - Hillary Gets Religion - The Democratic Party Drops Ideals and Goes "Pragmatic"

2005-02-21T09:05:00.000-08:00

There are rumblings in the Democratic Party, and they are not good news for those that believe the party is already on the right path. In an article on MSNBC today, Tamara Lipper reports that the new head of the Motion Picture Association of America, Dan Glickman, is doing his best to woo the GOP. At a time when the industry at large is about as anti-GOP as it gets, such a move is pragmatic on the part of Glickman. According to the MSNBC article, "Glickman generally tries to avoid plunging into the culture wars, but admits that last year's Bush-bashing by Hollywood celebs made him "cringe." He's clearly out of political step with his constituency within the MPAA, but pragmatism is forcing his approach.

The motion picture industry is currently struggling with the issues of illegal downloads and swapping of copyrighted materials. With the Republicans firmly in control of Washington, Glickman knows he must deal with the party currently in power to deal with these issues.

"Now Tinseltown must come to terms with the new political landscape: Republicans have tightened their grip on Washington just as Hollywood's need for help in fighting illegal movie downloads is rising. "I've got some bridge building to do," Glickman, a lifelong Democrat, admits. "

And it appears that there are many more such "pragmatists" appearing across the Democratic Party these days. At the top of the list, and another great case in point is Hillary Clinton.

Senator Clinton has traditionally spoken to the far left of her party. However, lately, in obvious moves designed to appeal to more conservative Democrats, and possibly to moderate Republicans, Clinton has begun to publicly speak about her "deeply held" religious beliefs.
She said there must be room for religious people to "live out their faith in the public square." (Boston Globe - Jan. 20, 2005)

This is new territory for Senator Clinton. Apparently she has conveniently forgotten even her own quite public history. In an editorial on the subject on January 21, 2005 at Newsmax.com (an avowedly right wing news source on the web), the following could be found:

"Though she was raised as a Methodist, Clinton's open embrace of God, along with her insistence that she's "always been a praying person," has to come as a shock to those who remember her college days.

Back then, Clinton was far more likely to be seen reading not the Bible but the writings of Marx and Mao - and had close associations with unabashed Communists, to whom the mere mention of religion was heresy.

One was Robert Treuhaft, who, as noted in the late Barbara Olson's Hillary biography, "Hell to Pay," had "dedicated his entire legal career to advancing the agenda of the Soviet Communist Party." In 1972 Treuhaft offered the future senator a summer internship at the Universiy of California's Berkeley campus. Clinton accepted, immersing herself in Truehaft's brand of radical Stalinism. When she returned, she was, according to Olson, "a budding Leninist."

If Sen. Clinton was "a praying person" back then, she must have kept it well concealed from her radical mentors."

I'm not trying to say that there's anything wrong with a little political pragmatism. However, let's all do our best to be fully aware of the political games being played here. We are watching the makeover of a party, after all. And let's keep our eye on the ball as we watch the dramatic changes in the public persona of an already legendary political figure, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, as she "remakes" herself in a bid to become the first female President of the United States.

For a great parody of Senator Clinton's in process transformation from left wing liberal stalwart of the Democratic Party, to whatever she will eventually become in her bid for the Presidency, see Gerard Baker's piece in the UK's Timesonline. Baker follows Senator Clinton's fictitious move from liberal to conservative in the near future in hilarious fashion. And as you read it and laugh, remember that the UK press in general is no fan of Bush. So this piece of hilarity cannot be wired into some vast right wing conspiracy, try as we might. There is a trend here, and across the "pond" it has been duly noted.

Where are the "Moderate" Muslims?

2005-02-18T12:50:00.000-08:00

Everyday around the world Muslims inflict terror and violence on innocent civilians. Call them "insurgents," "terrorists," "freedom fighters," or whatever you will. The moniker matters not. From Beslan to Bangkok, from Baghdad to Beirut, there are those who call themselves Muslims and engage in violence too horrible to imagine. In Iraq, a primarily Sunni Muslim "insurgency" slaughters thousands of innocent fellow Muslims and Iraqis, ostensibly to protect the country from the "evils of democracy." These are people who claim to kill in the name of God. What could be more outrageous?

The indiscriminate, escalating killing of innocent civilians around the world in the name of Islam is beyond comprehension. It is the "dark ages" revisited. It is a slice of hell on earth. The huge majority of the planet's population is horrified by this growing phenomenon. And yet, among the minority who are apparently not horrified, are the literally hundreds of millions of Muslims who do not claim allegiance to fundamental Islam, yet who do not condemn the violence as a stain against what Muslims so often try to characterize as a "religion of peace." They are the quiet millions. And day by day, week by week, year by year, they are making themselves into the willing accomplices to the murderers.

Where is the hue and cry from the masses of Muslim "moderates"? Where are the Islamic leaders willing to step up and issue condemnations in the mosques? Where are the Imams and the sheikh, the Mullahs and the politicians who will step forward and say, "Enough is enough"? Where are they? Their silence is deafening in its intensity.

Today, the Muslim leaders who fail to speak against these unthinkable atrocities are paving the way for the armageddon that must and will surely come against their people. By their inaction, by their silence, they give their implicit blessing to horrors that most people cannot even think of without becoming sick. And by their silence, they lead the rest of us to believe, perhaps correctly, that they support the death, destruction and terror.

The world is awakening to a threat more severe than any that has ever been seen. It is a threat that crosses borders, ignores cultural differences, and laughs at every plea of reason thrown against it. It is a threat from people who desire, and are happy to give their lives for the achievement of a dream. It is the dream of a planet enslaved under Islamic (sharia) law. It is the dream of a planet where women are routinely stoned to death for social transgressions. It is the dream of a planet where those who are not "believers" in Allah, are infidels. And as infidels, at best they are to be treated as second class citizens. At worst, they are simply to be destroyed.

In short, the world is currently plagued by people with a dream that for the great majority of us is a nightmare. And yet I hear constantly in the media that this is a movement of "radical fundamentalists" and that all Muslims should not be condemned along with them. Yet search as I might, I find few Muslim voices willing to speak out against their religious brethren. They do exist. Sites such as Free Muslims Against Terrorism, and Islam Denounces Terrorism, express their ideas eloquently and are much appreciated. Yet it leaves me wondering, where is the leadership? Why are these apparently moderate individuals left to stand alone, shouting into the the wilderness of fundamental and militant Islam?

Where are the major figures in the Muslim world who are speaking out against the terror? Where are the leaders of the movement that must happen if Islam is to be reformed as a positive force in the world? The sad and apparent fact is that they do not exist. Those who do not speak out against terror, condone it. Those who speak out against terror and follow their pronunciations with tirades against the Jews, Israel and the U.S. as the cause of the terror, are simply hiding their implied support for terror. They are attempting to "ride the fence" between sanity and hell. They try to walk the line between two worlds.

One is a world in which people believe that peace is possible, and that people are created equal and should live under free democracies. The other is hell on earth. It is a vision of the world under sharia law, where infidels are punished or killed, women are property, and government is religion and religion is government, and both rule with an iron fist of totalitarianism. There is no "walking the line" or "riding the fence" between those worlds.

The line is clear. One can step over the line to the side of freedom and democracy, and stand with those who believe in justice and peace for all. Or one can try to ride the fence, but the slide into hell for those is rapidly gaining speed. The tide is turning in the world, and those who ply the trade of violence, terrorism and oppression are on the run. The world is more democratic today than it has ever been before. And freedom is on the march.

As the tide turns, the question remains...where are the "moderate" Muslims? Do they exist on a large scale? And if they do, will they slide into a hellish oblivion with the fundamentalists driving the public face of Islam today? Or will they stand up en masse, and make a stand against the drive to make Islam into a dirty word around the modern world?

Democratic Leadership Threatening Democrats Who Cooperate With Republicans on Social Security Reform?

2005-02-10T13:41:00.000-08:00

In what could prove to be an explosive and damaging situation for the Democrats, Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-Wis) alleges that he has been told by his friends across the aisle that though some of them like his proposed approach to Social Security reform, they won't be supporting him.

" Under his legislation (HR 4851), no new taxes would be needed to pay for "transition costs," participation in the new system would be voluntary and individuals would be allowed to divert a portion of their payroll tax into a mutual fund." (Human Events Online)

Unfortunately, he alleges that the Democrats to whom he has been speaking have been told that they will face serious retribution from the Democratic leadership if they cooperate with the Republicans.

According to an article today in Human Events Online ,

"We were in planning stages [with friendly Democrats]," said Ryan. But each essentially told him: "I like what you're doing. I like this bill. I think it's the right way to go. But my party leadership will break my back. The retribution that they are promising us is as great as I have ever seen. We can't do it."

If this proves to be true, it is another example of the absolute arrogance of the Democratic Party. They move further and further away from any connection with the American people, and deeper and deeper into partisanship that isn't good for the country.

Ryan said that he believes the only way to counter the back room partisanship from the Democrats is an outpouring of public support for some sort of Social Security reform. Hopefully, he'll get his wish.

Palestinians and Israelis Announce Historic Cease Fire - Again...and again...and again

2005-02-08T08:36:00.000-08:00

Yet another "historic" cease fire has been announced in the interminable Palestinian-Israeli conflict. While I'd like to be excited about this development, unfortunately I am a student of history. And anyone who is a student of history will note that "cease fire" has always represented Palestinian for "regroup and prepare for more violence and senseless civilian death."

The Israelis and Palestinians have been down this very road many times before. That's not to say that it can't succeed, and at very least there is some additional hope without hate monger, and megalomaniac Yasser Arafat at the helm of the PLO. Perhaps Mahmud Abbas can motivate the varied and violent factions within the West Bank and Gaza to lay down arms in favor of negotiation and peaceful resolution. I will pin my small hope here.

Unfortunately, based upon statements from the terrorist organization Hamas, that piece appears unlikely. According to the AFP, "Palestinian Islamist militant movement Hamas said that it was not bound by the ceasefire announced by Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas at a Middle East peace summit in Egypt." As Hamas has been responsible for many of the most violent attacks, and many of them during "cease-fires" (see history below), this doesn't look good for the potential of the current situation to result in any sustained peace for the parties.

Back in 2003, AJN reported that "A cease-fire could be an intermediary step toward conflict resolution, accommodation and peace, or it could be only a lull in violence. It all depends on the intentions and plans of the parties seeking a cease-fire. From the beginning of the Arab-Israeli conflict Israel has always perceived a cease-fire as an intermediary step towards conflict resolution, while the Arabs perceived it as an interlude between rounds of warfare." (AJN.com.au) If this is the case again, then the recent Israeli release of prisoners, and the declared "cease-fire" will prove to be another useless, and probably dangerous move which only repeats historical mistakes.

The following is a historical review of the "cease-fires" and their surrounding events and collapses from 2000-2004. This list has been collated from several sources on the web as indicated. Hopefully it is a helpful overview of the "history" of the cease-fires between the parties, and the results thereof. It is not intended as a complete historical review, and my apologies in advance for any holes you might find in this timeline. However, I think it's important that we at least take a look back at history as we consider the current situation.

The Fate of Past Cease-Fire Efforts (Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs)

October 4, 2000 -- Barak-Arafat meeting in Paris with U.S. Secretary of State Albright and French President Chirac. "Points of Understanding" document concluded, but Arafat refused to sign.

October 16-17, 2000 -- At the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit, Arafat agrees in front of President Clinton to issue a public statement unequivocally calling for an end to violence. In exchange, Israel agrees to Fact-Finding Commission that becomes the Mitchell Committee. Arafat does not issue the cease-fire statement, nonetheless the Mitchell Committee is formed and begins its work.

November 1, 2000 -- Former Prime Minister Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat meet. As a result, Barak and Arafat conclude a "Joint Statement on the Cessation of Violence." Car bomb explodes in Jerusalem. Cease-fire is not implemented.

November 17, 2000 -- After a November 9 meeting with President Clinton, Arafat declares a cease-fire in Area A. Shooting incidents drop from 53 per day to 34, then rise again to 53.

June 2, 2001 -- Arafat declares in public that he is ready to issue a cease-fire after Dolphinarium Disco attack in Tel Aviv. Incidents of mortar shelling increase from one attack on June 1 to 3 attacks on June 4 to 4 attacks on June 10. Attacks using explosives return to highpoint of 12 per day.

June 13, 2001 -- Arafat agrees to Tenet Work Plan. Mortar attacks drop from 4 per day on June 13 to 2 attacks per day on June 18. Shooting and other attacks continue.

June 4, 2003 Aqaba Summit - Abu Mazen and Ariel Sharon vow to stop violence, end occupation according to the road map. Hamas and Islamic Jihad vow to continue violence. Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad joined in killing four Israeli soldiers in Gaza (June 8) despite the call to end violence from Fatah leaders.

June 10-11, 2003 Failed Israeli assassination attempt on Hamas leader Ahmed Rantissi (June 10) and Hamas suicide attack that kills 15 in Jerusalem (June 11) jeopardize the future of the road map.

Aug 20, 2003 Hamas suicide bombing in a Jerusalem bus claims 21 lives August 21, 2003 Israel, vowing that all Hamas leaders were now targets, assassinates Hamas leader Ismail Abu Shanab. Others killed in widespread operations in the West bank; Arafat moves to replace Abbas appointee Mohamed Dahlan as security chief in Gaza and to weaken Abbas.

Nov 12, 2003 Palestinian PM Ahmed Qurei forms a government after a long period of negotiations, pledging to end terror and chaos in the Palestine Authority

Nov 19, 2003 UN Security Council passes resolution 1515 in support of the roadmap for peace.

Nov 24, 2003 Israeli PM Sharon announces Disengagement Plan for unilateral withdrawal of Israeli forces if the roadmap fails to produce an end to terrorism. (Source: MidEast Web)

So, while I will pray for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, there has yet to emerge a Palestinian leader who has the authority within the terrorist organizations to quell the violence that separates the parties with a river of blood. I will also be praying that I am wrong and that history is not doomed to repeat itself in the Middle East.