politics
<i>Of course</i> they made <i>Jarhead</i> in to a movie
Anthony Swofford's book Jarhead, which I will not link to, was a sad account of a mentally disturbed--which Swofford admits to--man's time in the Marine Corps and his deployment to the first Gulf War. Panned by myriad current and former Marines as riddled with half-truths, the book became a minor cause célèbre for the mouth-foamers on the angry Left. Anything that is anti-military, especially when it's written by someone who was in the military, is always accepted as gospel by the radicals. Brad Torgersen has a good summation. So of course the book was optioned for a motion picture, which debuts in November. Looking over the cast of characters, and knowing their politics, I'm not the least bit surprised to see who signed on. Non-mouth-foamers are advised to pass.
My wife finds the positive
My wife grew up in Kenner, in Jefferson Parish. For you geographical neophytes, Jefferson is due west of Orleans Parish. If you've ever driven in to New Orleans from the west, or flown in to New Orleans International Airport, you've driven through Kenner and Jefferson Parish. My wife's childhood home is certainly under a good bit of water at this point. Though we have no word from him yet, her father is north of Lake Pontchartrain, at his horse farm in Franklinton, so hopefully, we have no family worries, post-Katrina. She has been very distressed, however. This was where she grew up. We lived in the area for six years. I grew up sixty-odd miles away in the Baton Rouge area. We have ties. We have friends. We feel despondent. I confessed to Tom earlier today that my heart aches. My wife comes in to the study a few moments ago, to browse online news, and says:
"The only positive thing about all of this is that we haven't heard Cindy Sheehan's name in the past three days." Crap.
"All things bad are America's fault."
So sayeth the Sheehan's professionally choreographed media frenzy, as reported by someone who was at Camp Casey. [Wave of the phin to my favorite Toad.]
Hagel Huh?
Chuck Hagel, Senator, Nebraska-D:
"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur." Follow the good Senator's logic with us: 1. The U.S. toppling of the Hussein government in Iraq, and construction of a democratic republic in same, destabilizes the Middle East. (Funny, we thought the fact that a mad dictator known to have invaded his neighbors and gas his own people would have contributed to the already destabilized Middle East.) 2. A continued U.S. presence in Iraq destabilizes the Middle East. 3. If the U.S. pulls out, there will be destabilization in the Middle East. So according to the good Senator from Nebraska--who cannot be questioned because he has "absolute moral authority" as a Purple Heart-receiving Vietnam veteran--we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't, so we may as well damn millions of other people while we're at it. What the hell is wrong with people like Senator Hagel, that they wish to condemn millions of people to (a) the constant worry that the dictator's secret police will whisk them off to a torture room (Saddam's Iraq), or (b) sudden U.S. withdrawal will plunge them in to a hard-line Islamofascist government (Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, Iran)? The arguments over whether or not we should have gone in to Iraq are over, people. It's done. There is no time machine, we can't go back and change it. (And if we could, would you really? Can you honestly say the Iraqis are worse off now than under Saddam?) It would be nice to bring most of the troops home. (Note, I did not say "all". We should always maintain a presence in Iraq as we move in to the future.) However, we can not wholly withdraw overnight and allow the fledgling Iraqi republic to implode. The future of the United States is, for good or ill, now tied to the future of Iraq, and for the sons and daughters of both nations, we owe the Iraqis our continued support. [Prompted and inspired by today's Best of the Web.]
Time to retool, Je$$e
Like the March of Dimes' victory against polio in the U.S., civil rights organizations can claim victory as well. At one time, black Americans did not enjoy the same constitutional guarantees as other Americans. Now we do. Because the civil rights struggle is over and won doesn't mean that all problems have vanished within the black community. A 70 percent illegitimacy rate, 65 percent of black children raised in female-headed households, high crime rates and fraudulent education are devastating problems, but they're not civil rights problems. Furthermore, their solutions do not lie in civil rights strategies.
Civil rights organizations' expenditure of resources and continued focus on racial discrimination is just as intelligent as it would be for the March of Dimes to continue to expend resources fighting polio in the U.S. Like the March of Dimes, civil rights organizations should revise their agenda and take on the big, non-civil rights problems that make socioeconomic progress impossible for a large segment of the black community. For the record, Dr. Williams is a black American, lest anyone accuse him of racial bias. (Which, no doubt, he'll be accused of anyway.)
We should stay in Iraq — for decades...
So sayeth the editors in this past Friday's Federalist Patriot (link is a PDF): The usual Demo-gogue suspects -- Kennedy, Kerry and company -- are increasing the tenor of their demands that the Bush administration commit to a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. A few misguided Republicans have even signed on to this legislative folly. Insisting that we cap our military support for the new Iraqi government is a dangerous political ploy intended to help Demos rally their peacenik constituency in the run-up to next year's midterm elections. Dangerous, because challenging the administration to agree to a timetable only emboldens Jihadis, who would very much like to move the frontlines of the Long War from their turf to ours. The Demos know President George Bush will not agree to such a timetable. As the president has said repeatedly, "Our exit strategy is to exit when our mission is complete." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld protests that any such deadline for withdrawal would "throw a lifeline to terrorists." Indeed, but it is always easier to sell anti-war rhetoric like "give peace a chance" than it is to advocate peace through superior firepower, and to use force in defense of critical U.S. national interests.
Not exactly thinking this through
OpinionJournal's Best of the Web today has one aspect of Sheehan's "protest" that I've found particularly amusing:
There's One for You, Nineteen for Me
In a speech last week to the self-styled Veterans for Peace, Cindy Sheehan issued the following declaration:Another thing that I'm doing is--my son was killed in 2004, so I'm not paying my taxes for 2004. If I get a letter from the IRS, I'm gonna say, you know what, this war is illegal; this is why this war is illegal. This war is immoral; this is why this war is immoral. You killed my son for this. I don't owe you anything. And if I live to be a million, I won't owe you a penny.
<p>And I want them to come after me, because unlike what you've been doing with the war resistance, I want to put this frickin' war on trial. And I want to say, "You give me my son, and I'll pay your taxes."</p>This has received less attention from Sheehan's critics than many of her other pronouncements, perhaps because in the land of the Boston Tea Party, all of us harbor a little secret sympathy for tax protesters. But Sheehan's gesture is even more empty than it appears, for you can't just "not pay" your federal taxes.
According to Time magazine, before losing her job for absenteeism, Mrs. Sheehan worked for a government agency in Napa County, Calif. Presumably local governments in California do not pay their employees in cash, which means that estimated taxes would have been withheld from her paycheck.
So how exactly is she carrying out this protest? Did she file a frivolous return claiming a refund on all taxes due for 2004? It's unlikely that the Internal Revenue Service would fall for such an obvious trick and issue a check. More likely, she simply is refusing to file a return--which is illegal, but which deprives the government only of taxes that were underpaid.
It is quite possible that Mrs. Sheehan overpaid her taxes. It's not clear when she stopped working, but if it was before the end of 2004, then taxes were withheld under the assumption that she would be working for the entire year. Because the income tax system is progressive, the average annual tax rate is lower if a taxpayer works only part of the year. Moreover, by failing to file, she would forgo any deductions to which she is entitled, such as for mortgage interest or state and local taxes (and California is a high-tax state).
It is possible to reduce one's withholdings by claiming nonexistent dependents on the IRS's W4 form. But if we take Mrs. Sheehan at her word that her tax protest came in reaction to her son's death rather than in anticipation of it, she would not have done this prior to earning the income in question.
The only way Mrs. Sheehan's protest would amount to anything significant in financial terms would be if she had a large amount of taxable income from investments (à la Teresa Heinz Kerry)--and even then, her husband would have paid half the taxes on any assets they owned jointly.
One final wrinkle: U.S. servicemen are subject to withholding but not taxation on their military pay while stationed in a combat zone. That means that Casey Sheehan is entitled to a refund, which his parents, as his next of kin, could claim. It's possible that the result of Mrs. Sheehan's protest is that her fallen son ends up paying taxes he didn't even owe on the money he earned helping bring freedom to Iraq. I really feel sorry for Mrs. Sheehan, sorry the loss of her son, Casey. I feel sorry for her, that she's allowing herself to be a tool of the anti-war mouth-foamers on the left, and that she has become one herself. War is a terrible, terrible thing, and I believe we did not enter in to this one lightly. There are clear, rational, logical reasons for the ousting of Saddam and reconstruction of Iraq in to a constitutional democracy. We may not see the fruit for decades. People in this country need to take a long-distance view of what we are trying to accomplish in the Middle East, and think of Germany and Japan after World War II, instead of how soon things get resolved on an episode of The West Wing.
Still getting it wrong on Social Security
Social Security is not a handout. Workers and employers contribute jointly through payroll taxes. Social Security had become part of the American economic fabric. And the Bush administration should stop treating Social Security as if it were just another government program. What exactly is Social Security, Ms. Thomas, if not a handout? That's exactly what it is. There are no "accounts". There is no "lockbox". The monies for Social Security go in to and come out of the general fund. The government robs Peter to pay Paul. It's a handout. Employers contribute nothing to Social Security. Just ask the millions of self-employed businesspeople in this country, who have to pay the full load. The "half" of Social Security employers "pay" is simply monies never seen by the employee. That's one reason why more people aren't up in arms over Social Security reform. They don't understand how much of their money is going to this increasingly wasteful handout, because they never see that money in the first place. And even if that money was going to the employee, it would be going to some person, either the business owner or shareholders. Businesses never pay taxes. People do. Finally, Social Security is "just another government program." Like many such programs, it had its time, when it was needed, but that time is past. There are so many options out there for investors to save money through, that will offer greater returns than Social Security ever will. (Not to mention that with the increasing reduction in benefits people have seen over the decades, it's not very secure, is it?) Some pols need to have the guts to grandfather Social Security and kill it. It's the only reasonable and sane thing to do so our great-grandchildren aren't having to deal with it.
Still wanting it both ways
Meanwhile, Democrat leaders want to have it both ways. Some say we should withdraw from Iraq. Others demand that we add many more troops, while simultaneously complaining about the enormity of the federal deficit (despite the recent good news on this front, by the way).
Democrats condemn the president for "nation building" and intermeddling, yet insist we micromanage the Iraqi constitutional drafting process to ensure American-type civil rights for women (which, of course, is laudable). Along with the press they shamelessly prop up and exploit a grieving mother to serve as a sympathetic vehicle to carry their inane conspiratorial charges against the president with total disregard for how that demoralizes our troops and undermines our cause.
Responsibilities of the states vs the federal government
"[T]he States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore...never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market." --Thomas Jefferson The term you're looking for here is "rolling over in his grave."
Debunking the "chickenhawk" argument
Ben Shapiro takes aim at the anti-war mouth-foamers on the left.
Multiculturalism is still a bad idea
Tolerating intolerance, goodhearted people are beginning to see, does not necessarily produce tolerance in turn.
[...]
Multiculturalism is based on the lie that all cultures are morally equal. In practice, that soon degenerates to: All cultures are morally equal, except ours, which is worse. But all cultures are not equal in respecting representative government, guaranteed liberties and the rule of law. And those things arose not simultaneously and in all cultures, but in certain specific times and places -- mostly in Britain and America, but also in various parts of Europe.
In America, as in Britain, multiculturalism has become the fashion in large swathes of our society. So the Founding Fathers are presented only as slaveholders, World War II is limited to the internment of Japanese-Americans and the bombing of Hiroshima. Slavery is identified with America, though it has existed in every society and the antislavery movement arose first among English-speaking evangelical Christians.
But most Americans know there is something special about our cultural heritage. While Harvard and Brown are replacing scholars of the founding period with those studying other things, book-buyers are snapping up first-rate histories of the Founders by David McCullough, Joseph Ellis and Ron Chernow.
Mutilculturalist intellectuals do not think our kind of society is worth defending. But millions here and increasing numbers in Britain and other countries know better.
Denigrating military service
I felt "The Patriot Perspective" from today's Federalist Patriot (PDF file) was worth reprinting.
Fundamentally Asinine Administration
If you had any doubts that the FAA's (see post title for definition of acronym) flight regulations regarding anti-terrorism were completely insane, there's this, courtesy of the Air Finance Journal:
Before deploying from Savannah, Georgia to Iraq by a chartered airliner, the troops of the 48th Brigade Combat Team, a National Guard unit, had to go through the same security checks as any other passengers. Lt. Col. John King, the unit's commander, told his 280 fellow soldiers that FAA anti-hijacking regulations require passengers to surrender pocket knives, nose hair scissors and cigarette lighters. "If you have any of those things," he said, almost apologetically, "put them in this box now." The troops were, however, allowed to keep hold of their assault rifles, body armour, helmets, pistols, bayonets and combat shotguns. [Via Political Diary, emphasis added. --R]
We call them like we see them
If you didn't hear Nancy Pelosi's press conference yesterday, you missed the pure sound of a loser who will never be anything but a loser because she cannot get above her own bitterness to ask what it is that allows the president to keep winning hand after hand. (The press conference in question was held on Thursday, 28 July.)
We'll do anonymity, but not transparency
So a journalist from the Washington Post calls Hugh Hewitt, asking for an interview. Sure, replies Hugh. But it has to be on the air, live. Journalist declines. Hugh posits:
Isn't journalism supposed to be in the public interest? If Goldstein wants information from me, and I am willing to give it to her, isn't she putting her own interests in a "scoop" or an "angle" ahead of the public's by refusing to conduct an interview she thought would be useful in the first place? And isn't she going forward with a story she knows may well be unnecessarily incomplete because she doesn't like the fact that her questions and my answers would have been on the record?
I of course want my listeners to get a chance if not to see the sausage that is MSM "news" being made, at least hear it being ground fine. I had hoped to compare whatever I was able to provide Ms. Goldstein with whatever it is that she publishes on the subject. Interesting all around, no?
But she declined to conduct the interview she requested. How interesting to note that the Post is willing to use sources that insist on anonymity, but not sources that demand transparency. [Emphasis added. --R]
The Long War or the Short Surrender
This is the third and final part of a series on national security run in the pages of The Federalist Patriot. This part can be found in today's issue (PDF file), and is reprinted here with permission.
Howard Dean is on drugs
How can anyone, including the Kool-Aid drinkers on the Left, honestly take Howard Dean seriously when he says tripe like this?
"The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is," Dean said... First, the President has not, to my knowledge, commented publicly on the Kelo decision. The only thing I found at the White House site referring to Kelo was when someone asked Press Secretary Scott McClellan about the campaign by a California advertising magnate to acquire Justice Souter's home in New Hampshire so he can build a hotel on it. Second, how much dope does one have to grow and smoke in the hills of Vermont to say the current make-up of the Supreme Court is "right-wing"? The dissenters in Kelo were the Court's acknowledged conservatives, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Scalia and Thomas. The left's favorite swing-vote justice, O'Connor, was the fourth dissenter. The justices voting against property rights were all from the left, the same side of the political spectrum Dr. Dean-mento inhabits. Why is no one in the mainstream media pointing this out? Sorry, sorry, rhetorical question, I realize...
Our modern hubris
Senator Rick Santorum, (R-PA):
A generation ago, liberals figured out something that most conservatives couldn't have dreamed of in their worst nightmare. A few well-positioned autocrats can do what most Americans thought, and the Constitution says, takes two-thirds of the Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures to do: namely, change the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean. The plan was simple. Put justices on the Supreme Court, backed up by lower court judges, to "modernize" our Constitution by fiat, with the claim that Supreme Court decisions, whether based on the words of the Constitution or not, have the same status as the Constitution itself.
How often do we hear that our founding compact needs to be a living, breathing document whose meaning changes with the times? Never mind what the words of our Constitution actually say; never mind the clear intent of the Constitution's writers and signers; never mind two hundred years of judicial interpretation; never mind the centuries-old wisdom of the common law: We are much wiser today than our predecessors. Or so goes the liberal boast. In fact, it is said, we are now able to see just what they were "getting at" even better than they could — as if the U.S. Constitution were only a "nice try" at a plan of government.
Providing the tools for homeland defense
Yesterday's Federalist Patriot (PDF file) contained part two of the series on U.S. National Security. Titled "Homeland Defense," it discusses the steps taken since 9/11, including the Patriot Act, and looks forward. I've reprinted it below.