Not Exactly A Mind Bender

Havent been posting too much lately - and doesnt seem too many people have been reading. Its hard to try and keep this blog thing going. But I plan on trying.

Anyway, I've been working on a post about why John McCain should never be President. Hopefully that will be done soon. Until then, I thought this was kinda funny...

A Pretty Easy Question:

As I type this, the VC is featuring an ad for the movie Fast Food Nation, which asks, "Who do you think is harmed most by fast food chains: the animals; the workers; or the consumers?"

Hmm, unless McDonalds et al. are paying for the slaughter of workers and consumers, grinding them up, cooking them, and serving them in their restaurants, I'll have to go with "the animals."

From the Volokh Conspiracy - probably the best law blog (also called a "blawg") out there.

"Its The War (in Bosnia), Stupid!"

The conventional "wisdom" these days (and among certain commenters on this site) is that Bush's Iraq war has "bred" a new crop of terrorists that would not have otherwise existed. This, in turn, has made the U.S. less safe. I do not intend to get into a whole debate about the Iraq war. Admittedly, there were plenty of good reasons not to get rid of Saddam when we did, and plenty of good reasons to take action. Its just that "Bush lied," "war for oil," "U.S. imperialism," "Bush was avanging his father," and "3000 troop deaths" are not among the serious arguments why the war was not a good idea.

Anyway, a few points on the "Iraq caused more terrorism" argument:

1. We were not in Iraq on September 10, 2001.

2. I have a hard time believing that the terrorists, or Muslims teetering on the brink of becoming terrorists, were just "A-Okay" with the war in Afghanistan. Why is Iraq responsible for more terrorists, but not Afghanistan? No one ever mentions troop deaths or "women and children" in connection with the war in Afghanistan, either. I guess war is the answer, sometimes.

3. Attempts to rationally explain terrorist motivations are futile and often contradictory. According to one of the 9/11 terrorists, his involvement was "inspired by an urge to avenge the suffering of Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya." That's right. He was set to blow up the WTC, the Pentagon, and likely the White House because of... Bosnia.

Yeah, I'm scratchin' my head about that last one, too. I mean, our involvement in that war saved the lives of thousands of Muslims. Guess that guy didn't get the memo.

But if we're to take the terrorists at their word, which the left seems willing to do, who is to blame for our involvement in Bosnia which resulted in 9/11? Clearly it was Clinton.

Yet, for some reason, I don't hear the Bush critics blaming Clinton for 9/11. I wonder why that is...

A Silver Lining... Gridlock!

In my view, the second most important role of the federal government is to promote commerce among the states - e.g., create conditions that permit a fluid and prosperous national economy. Despite what the NY Times says, the economy these days is doing terrific. (Try to prove to me otherwise without stating that some loosely defined group of people "are being left behind.")

The view from the business community appears to be that, when it comes to the economy, the government that regulates least, regulates best. Thus, while the Democrats may want to raise taxes and further regulate business, Bush's veto stamp should prevent them from doing so. For the next two years at least.

So, the market reaction to the election results? Stocks go up! Why? Gridlock!

From the LA Times:

Yet many analysts said they had little fear of a rash of anti-business measures — or tax increases — given President Bush's veto power."It's not like the Democrats now are going to sweep through their legislation," said Milton Ezrati, economic strategist at money management firm Lord, Abbett & Co. in Jersey City, N.J.

The idea of legislative gridlock appeals to some investors who believe that the economy fares best without government interference. That theme helped to underpin the market's strong rally since late July, as it became clearer that a power shift could occur in the House, analysts say.

One congressional move that Wall Street wanted — an extension of the 2003 tax cuts on capital gains and dividend income — was approved in May. The cuts won't expire until 2010."The extension of those tax cuts took the single biggest danger out of this election," said David Kelly, economic advisor at Putnam Investments in Boston.

Amen.

And What Say You, Speaker Pelosi?

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

"The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly, those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of U.S. troops participating in the current action.

"I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is, unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program..."

- Nancy Pelosi, Supporting military action in Iraq, December 1998

Its refreshing to have such principled leadership back in the House!

Sigh...

Where Was Michael Moore When We Needed Him??

Since many Americans appear to have "voted for change" (whatever that means) and the Democrats now control the House and likely the Senate, I thought I'd take this opportunity to make my first official post in the political blog world.

It will be interesting for me too see what happens now. This is the first time I've really paid attention to politics when the Republicans haven't been in control of everything. Back when I didn't pay much attention, and before information was so easy to come by, I generally voted either Democrat or Republican (or for Perot) based on little more than how I felt about a particular candidate. 9/11 opened my eyes much wider.

Since 9/11, I have found little in the Democrat platform that I can identify with. To me, their behavior post-9/11 has been nothing short of disgraceful - casting Bush as the enemy instead of the growing wave of violent Islamic radicalism. Thousands marching in the streets in support of Saddam in late 2002 will be a tough image to erase from my memory.

Sure, the Clinton years seemed great. But shortly after we learned that things were not as they seemed. The economy was built on a house of cards and began to collapse shortly before the 2000 election. The foreign diplomacy for which Clinton is lauded, revealed broken promises in North Korea and emboldened Islamic radicals to continue to further their agenda through acts of mass violence.

By the way, I did not vote for Bush in 2000. And when Bush took office in 2001, he was not much better at taking action to stem the tide of Islamic terrorism than Clinton, but he was only in office for 8 months - not 8 years - when 9/11 happened. The difference for me is that Bush and many Republicans realized the old way of approaching the problem was wrong. And Bush would be damned before he would let another attack happen on his watch. Luckily, that attack has not happened. Yet. But it is being planned. And it would have been planned regardless of any action taken in Iraq.

Michael Moore did the Democrats a huge favor by shutting the hell up this cycle. We'll see if the Democrats will continue to distance themselves from the likes of Moore and Kos in the coming two years. The answer to that could well determine who wins in 2008.

Anyway, this post is way too long already, so I'll wrap it up. I just hope in the coming two years that Republicans and conservatives show the Democrats what civility in politics looks like, even though they were not extended the same courtesy by the Democrats. And I hope people can stick to the issues, and not side shows. This is the greatest country in the world, no matter who is president. And if you cant agree with that, we have little to discuss.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are encouraged and will be approved if they are civil and generally do not contain any foul language. Disagreeing with me is also encouraged, but I might not always have the time to respond. I hope I can post often, but work commitments as well as two adorable kids, a wife, and a dog, keep me pretty busy...

Thanks for dropping by.

Jeff (a.k.a. Jordan and Mina's Dad)

Testing...

3...2...1...