Your Weekly Rush

Well here's Rush on taxes.

"If they were honest they'd say, "We can't afford to pay for defense, education, cleaning the environment, or prescription drugs. We can't even afford to pay our own salaries and staffs because we don't have any money. We take money from you!"

When you hear this whole business of debate over the budget, keep in mind it's just another way of expressing how they look at your money as theirs. They do not have a dime until they take it from us! Always remember that."

I think we've all heard this said at one point. It's your Money. What right does the Government have to take it? Why shouldn't they go out and get honest jobs instead of taking our money?

What crap!

We as a nation have mandated the Government to do a number of things. Run a national retirement account for example. Provide public roads. Provide a mail service. Ensure that our food is produced in a safe manner. Ensure that products manufactured by corporate America meet minimum safety standards. Ensure that workers in America have safe working conditions. Regulate public properties, such as airwaves. Provide a safety net for Americans who fall onto hard times. Promote American Security through the Armed Forces and the Diplomatic corps.

So here's a basic principle. If you want something you have to pay for it. Now I admit that you may personally not feel the need for a safety net or an armed forces. But this is representative Democracy. The will of the people is made known through their representatives. If that means some things happen that you don't agree with, well that's the way things go. There are always other nations in the world that do things differently. But if you are going to live here you are going to be expected to pay your fair share, through Income Taxes, Property Taxes, Sales Taxes, Payroll Taxes, etc.

If you want to know what the Government is spending your money on check out this site. You might notice that that the money earmarked for foreign aid and supporting the arts (two programs that people apparently hate) is minimal.

On the War

It occurs to me that I have not articulated a very clear position on the upcoming war with Iraq. So I thought I would take a few moments and explain myself.

First of all, it seems that war is inevitable. I realized recently that this understanding has dictated much of my attitude. I haven't really examined the case for war, because the decision to invade Iraq has already been made. Rather than argueing whether or not this war was appropriate, I have contented myself with suggesting the proper way to prosecute the war.

If the war has to happen, it is best that we work through the United Nations. This will give our activities the semblance of international approval, and will render our assault less offensive to the Middle East (on who's good graces we rely to successfully prosecute the War on Terrorism.)

However this does not answer the question of whether or not War is justified. One of the most brilliant steps those who desire this war have taken is to make the arguement about why we shouldn't go to war rather than why we should. Instead of asking, "is this war necessary or justified," the question has become "what possible reason could you have for opposing the war?"

So lets list out a few facts.

1. Iraq has done nothing to us to justify our immediate invasion. They were not involved in September 11th, and that shouldn't be used to justify this war.

2. Iraq is probably seeking weapons of mass destruction. So is every other tin-pot dictator around the world.

3. In prosecuting this war, President Bush has carelessly squandered any moral credit the United States might have recieved for September 11th. This has the potential to jeapordize our ability to prosecute the war on terror.

While I will support my country if and when they settle on this course towards war, I still do not believe this war to be necessary. And wars are bad. They can go directions we don't expect. And probably will. So while I do support President Bush in his decision to work through the United Nations, I still question the necessity of this course of action.

Website of the Week

Today we crown a new feature here at Make me a Commentator. Yes its "everybody-send-Bryant-a-Dollar-day." Hooray! Oh wait a second--we had to put that off. It's actually a new feature that we call "Website of the Week." Each Friday I will post a Website on politics that I want to make fun . . . er, offer insightful commentary on.

Today I have selected a page from the Citizens Against Government Waste entitled Porker of the Month. At this website they investigate how the government wastes our money. They describe themselves as "a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, mismanagement and abuse in government. Non-partisan, eh? Interesting.

So lets look at the record. They started in January 2001 by profiling Bill Clinton as their porker of the month. Since then they've profiled 31 one people (They have often profiled two porkers working together, and at one point three). Of those 31 people, 18 were Democrats, 10 were Republicans and 3 were other (including the U.S. Post Office). The breakdown looks something like this;



I don't know about you, but that doesn't look very bi-partisan to me. It also helps to note that several of the Republicans, including Arlen Spector, Lincoln Chafee (profiled twice), and Jim Jeffords (Profiled before he went independent) are not exactly the conservative's favorite Republicans. So maybe they are partisan after all.

Traffic Tips

Your headlights are not lasers, even with the high beams on. Should you point them at the car in front of you, it will not disintegrate. All it will do is make me . . . . uh, the driver in front of you annoyed.

Just something to keep in mind.

News from Parallel Earth

Townhall printed an article today by R. Emmett Tyrell. But I can only assume that this is not the normal R. Emmett Tyrell who lives in the same earth as we do, but an R. Emmet Tyrell from another plane of existence. One very much like ours, but with some key differences.

For example on parallel R. Emmet Tyrell's world, the Democrats have been decisively defeated. "Bush II's control of all three branches of government and the presence in his government of public figures whose eminence traces from the "Reagan Revolution" demonstrates that this presidency represents not just a change of government but the arrival of a new political era -- marking the final passing of the liberals, so-called." In our world, of course, we are well aware that Bush's victory in the midterm elections, while impressive, was not decisive. It seems likely that the Democrats are going to be around for quite a bit longer.

Also Parallel Tyrell comments on the Kissinger affair from a while ago. President Bush nominated Kissinger to head an investigative committee. Apparently in Parallel Tyrell's world, Bush stood by Kissinger rather than quietly standing aside as he removed himself from the position promised him. Perhaps that's because Parallel Kissinger was such a wonderful guy. Parallel Tyrell writes, "For decades, Kissinger's bona fides as a statesman and patriot have merely grown. All the paranoid charges against him, claims of plotting in Latin America and scheming in Southeast Asia, have proven as vaporous as the liberal Democrats' more recent paranoia over October surprises and Vast Right-Wing plots."

Of course as this universe's Molly Ivans has commented, Kissinger is a bona-fide war criminal. "Two generations of Americans have come to adulthood since Henry Kissinger last held political power, so I need to explain that War Criminal is not an affectionate sobriquet: The man is, in fact, a war criminal--wanted for questioning in Chile, Argentina and France (concerning French citizens who disappeared in Chile). He cannot travel to Britain, Brazil and other countries because they cannot guarantee his immunity from legal proceedings."

Still, it's nice to have a glimpse at another world, even if our own doesn't quite measure up.

Tales to Terrify Troubled Twenty-Year Olds

Shudder at the terror inflicted on Conservatives on Campus, as reported in this speech by Roger Custer at the Conservative Political Action Committee.

Custer reprots that Students of Ithica College have suffered under to following horrors.

- The school Student Government Association passed "anti-Bish, anti-war resolution." Apparently they did not pass a similar pro-Bush, Anti Tax bill. Oh the horror!

- When the Young American's (Conservative group) brought a Conservative African-American speaker to campus during Black History Month, they recieved mild dissapproval from some faculty members and students.

- The Students next brought Bay Buchanan promoting her with the phrase "Feminazis, Your Nuremburg has Come." They were forced to change their fliers. For those who know Nuremburg was the site of the tribunal that executed the real Nazis who killed millions through war and the concentration camps. The Feminazis have similar goals; they want woman to recieve a place in society equal to males. Of course the speech was allowed to proceed as planned.

- Custer concludes his chilling comments by saying, "Liberal professors and ideologues use any means possible to thwart conservative ideas." Horrors!!

Ithica also spent money to send a professor to Iraq as a protest--not sure how this hurts the students, but apparently its really bad.

For an alternative view, here's Cory Lehnbeuter, a Student of Business Administration with a concentration in Finance. "I like Ithaca alot except the demographic needs to be a bit more diverse. Too many white kids dressing up and going to the clubs to molest and be molested all the time. There should be a bit more variety and open-mindness up here."

The Wisdom of Brandy

Here are some more comments by Brandy, reacting to the article by Ben Shapiro from last week.

"I agree with Shapiro (of course -us Jews must stick together).

The media tells so many ignorants what 'history' and 'religion' REALLY are, and for the most part they follow. . . . So not only do most people think what Shapiro was arguing against [that the Wailing wall is the most important holy spot to the Jewish faith, rather than the Temple Mount], but most people actually think there was a Palestinian nation. They think the Jews took the land from the Muslims (oh wait, didn't that religion start THOUSAND of years after Judaism?) When in fact the Western Strip and Gaza were owned by Syria and Jordon respectively (both countries threw out Arafat and his faction) and then lost those sections of land in the 6 day war. Israel, being understanding toward Arafat’s group (ah a blunder that will haunt them forever) said 'hey, we know what its like to be pushed around, come, share, you can live on this land'. Anyway, the whole thing sickens me, there are 2 things allowed to be hated and loathed in this PC world. Jews and fat people. (of course maybe I'm taking things too personally) . . .

Viva Israel!"

I asked Brandy to clarify her comments in relation to Arafat’s group.

"I agree that in the making of Israel people who were living there were unfairly pushed off the land...however, after the 6 day war it is ISRAELI land. Once someone has won a war it is theirs.
And everyone else should shut-up about it or take up arms and take it back (without the US tying Israelis hands).

If we are going to start with 'who's land is it really, just by who inhabited it first' then there are a lot of Americans who need to move off the Indian land. Look, its harsh and some people don't like to face the real world, but here it is, the stronger survive, the harder workers win and when the smoke has cleared those left standing are the victors, whether 'we' think they are the good guys or not. And the last note on this - I didn't know what to call Arafat's faction, cause the term ‘Palestinian' wasn't used for this particular group of Arabs until AFTER 1968."

Brandy also commented on the rise of anti-Semite attacks in France in the past two years. An article at the Guardian Unlimited confirmed the general thrust of her remarks. These attacks include a burning of a synagogue in France, and the stabbing of a Rabbi January 5, 2003. The French Authorities have belatedly acknowledged the problem, but claim that the incidents are on the decline. President Jacque Chirac stated, "There is no room in our country for anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia or for manifestations of religious intolerance." France has a large and growing Islamic population as well as a fairly large Jewish population, and there is some concern that if hostilities break out in Iraq, there will be another spike in anti-Semite violence.

On Aids in Africa

Some thoughts from Michael Kelly, at Townhall today.

"President Bush did not until now appear to promise much better than Clinton. His last previous global AIDS proposal was a modest $500 million program aimed solely at the politically safe goal of preventing mothers with AIDS from passing it on to their babies.

But then this: $15 billion, and not just for babies--for vast programs of treatment with the cheap generic drugs, for wide-scale condom distribution. Billions in taxpayers' money. For condoms for Africa. In a recession. In a time of record budget deficits. It is a rare and wonderful thing.

History will very easily be able to judge whether a world led by America stood by and let transpire one of the greatest destructions of human life of all time--or performed one of the greatest rescues of human life of all time. President Bush has opened the door to the latter possibility. The drugs that are, day by day, saving the lives of thousands upon thousands of Americans can do the same for millions upon millions of Africans.

The response to the president's proposal has been faint and largely uncaring. It must become deafening. It must become--from Congress, from conservatives and Republicans, from liberals and Democrats, from the media, from our wealthy European friends, from all of us: Yes, do it. Do more. Up the ante. Make that $15 billion $30 billion. Do it now. Save 10 million lives."

Obviously I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Kelly's assessment.

In Other News

They did get the Stats page back up at blogger--but you should still write me. I reached my goal for January--now we need to see if I can reach it for February. Have a nice day.

Clinton's Legacy

Clinton is one of those figures in recent history who is incredibly polarizing. Reagan used to be that way, particularly when he was in office. But after his presidency he largely got off the stage. And Reagan had a way of charming people who really disagreed with his policies. Although his policies might be terrible, people wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. Clinton got no such break. Those who disagreed with Clinton's policies have always imputed them to his charectar.

Clinton was power-hungry, greedy, covetous, aggressive, grabby, betraying, catchy, deceitful, deceptive, disloyal, double-crossing, double-dealing, duplicitous, faithless, false, false-hearted, fly-by-night, insidious, misleading, perfidious, recreant, shifty, slick, slippery, traitorous, treasonable, tricky, two-faced, two-timing, undependable, unfaithful, unloyal, unreliable, unreliable, untrue, untrustworthy, chicken, cowardly, dastardly, fearful, gutless, lily-livered, mean-spirited, nebbish, poltroonish, pusillanimous, scared, timid, timorous, unmanly, weak-kneed, wimp, wimpy, wuss, yellow, blue, cheap, coarse, dirty, erotic, gross, indecent, indecorous, indelicate, lascivious, lecherous, lewd, libidinous, licentious, lustful, obscene, prurient, ribald, risque, rude, salacious, suggestive. Probably some other things too.

I personally lead to the idea that while he may have had some noble ambitions, he only wanted to win elections and didn't care that much about the American people. He was willing to risk his presidency and to tie up the Government for months in order to have an affair with an intern. So I don't like him that much myself, or have much respect for him.

I can tell you who does love Clinton; conservative Republicans. They are thrilled with his desire to stay in control of the Democratic Party. I'm sure many large corporations are too. One presumes they know what we all know--Clinton is no enemy of Business. He stated recently, about the Democrats, "We've got to be pro-business and pro-accountability." So he's not too dangerous to the desires of Wall Street. On the other hand he's such a polarizing figure that one Clinton is worth 20 real liberals (proposing Progressive reforms) in terms of energizing the conservative base. Bizarrely, most conservatives seem readily able to accept Clinton as both a loser sell out who never stood up for anything and as a blazing Communist reformer dedicated to destroying America.

Anyawy I hope some figure within the Democratic party rises who can challange Bill Clinton's hold on the party. He needs to retire from public life if the Democratic party is ever to return to its progressive roots. As William Greider has stated at the Nation, commenting on the effect of Clinton on the Democratic party, "one consequence could be to smother any internal debate about what the party really believes and how to enlarge its sense of purpose. Democrats and allied constituencies are deeply riven on that question--some wishing to revive an aggressive reform spirit and the big progressive ideas that Clintonism effectively dismantled with its small, symbolic answers to big problems. Congressional Democrats are beginning to understand that Clinton's "rope a dope" style no longer works in the Bush II era (when they make a smart gesture, Bush simply grabs it as his own). On the other hand, most Dems seem to have internalized Clinton's conservative economic doctrine as party gospel--fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets are the first principle of governing, and managing the economy for growth is ceded to the Federal Reserve. This doctrine conveniently has wide appeal among the major contributors from business and finance, but it doesn't promise much for the folks who vote."

Hey

Blogger has temporarily disabled the part of its service that lets me check my statistics--so I have no way of knowing who's looking at this site. So maybe now would be a particularly good time if you've seen something you don't like or that really got you mad or that you really agreed with to write me and let me know.

Because here at make me a commentator, quality is job three or four depending on whether or not there's anything on tv.

politicalcombryant@hotmail.com

Contrast

"Long before I returned to Washington as President of the United States, I had made up my mind that, pending what might be called a more opportune moment on other continents, the United States could best serve the cause of a peaceful humanity by setting an example. That was why on the 4th of March, 1933, I made the following declaration:

In the field of world policy I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor--the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others--the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.

This declaration represents my purpose; but it represents more than a purpose, for it stands for a practice. To a measurable degree it has succeeded; the whole world now knows that the United States cherishes no predatory ambitions. We are strong; but less powerful nations know that they need not fear our strength. We seek no conquest: we stand for peace. . . .

Peace, like charity, begins at home; that is why we have begun at home. But peace in the Western world is not all that we seek.

It is our hope that knowledge of the practical application of the good-neighbor policy in this hemisphere will be borne home to our neighbors across the seas."

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

"I now realize that the most important goal America and its president can pursue is to be liked, hopefully loved, by mankind, and especially by France, Germany, China, and the Arab world.

I now realize that we Americans who think in terms of good and evil are simpletons. We should think, as the professors do, in multicultural terms and, therefore, render no moral judgment over Iraq or any other nation except Israel."

Dennis Prager suggesting what President Bush should say to please Europe and American liberals.

Maybe We Should Just Give Up

Rich Lowry believes that American ingenuity and ability have been beaten. We just aren't smart enough, creative enough or clever enough to develop any alternative to using oil. We've failed so repeatedly, that we should just give up. True science is knowing when giving up is beneficial to America's Oil Companies. Of course Lowry is responding to President Bush's timid proposal to fund research into a Hydrogen car.

While I support the proposal, it's clearly a way to pretend to care about the environment without doing anything about it. This proposal doesn't improve standards for corporate polluters (said standards President Bush is doing everything he can to weaken). It does nothing to help improve the cars that already exist. In the short term it does nothing at all. And it's hardly any money for this kind of project. So while I support it, my hands not getting tired patting anybody on the back over it.

Your Weekly Rush

I actually have two points on my listening to Rush earlier--but the second is going to take some research.

Rush has come up with a new argument agains those who protest for peace and congressional democrats and those nations in the world who aren't behind the United States--it is they who are causing the war. Yep. That's right. You see if everybody in America, and all the Democrats, and all the Nations of the Earth stood opposed to Saddam Hussein, he'd immediately flee or accept exile. But when he sees protests in the United States, or France and Germany saying that this war is not neccessary, he thinks he can take a stand and US resolve will fade away.

Of course that would apply any time the United States decided it wanted to invade anybody. We should always let President Bush invade whoever he wants, because it's the only way to avoid war.

When Commentators Attack

Ok, so here's the first paragraph of Kathleen Parker's latest article about SUV's. "Honestly, if I didn't already own an SUV, I'd go out and buy one. While I'm at it, I might grab a Big Mac and fries, shoot a deer and run over a war protester."

So here's a simple question for those of you playing along at home, don't these two setences kind of imply Ms. Parker's already ran over a war protester? I could be wrong.

Later on, Ms. Parker comments that Marijuana may not be much help to Terrorists. "There's probably more marijuana being grown between Tallahassee and Thomasville than seeps across our national borders." Well, good for the local economy I guess.

Hollywood

Well, Debra Saunders is mad at Hollywood for failing to recognize the brilliance of the movie "Signs." As she says, ""Signs" is about real American beauty, the inner souls of regular folk. There's no preaching down to middle America. Instead, there is a real preacher. His name is Graham Hess (played by Mel Gibson), a Pennsylvania corn farmer/minister who loses his faith after his wife is killed in a freak accident -- and is sunk in despair be cause God is no longer in his life."

But rather than stay down in the dumps, Ms. Saudners offers several helpful hints for M. Night Shyamalan in his future search for an oscar.

1) First of all, the main charectar should end the story by discovering his or her sexuailty. Ms. Saunders suggests "gay, other wise, or why bother."

2) As an alternative, Mr. Shyamalan might have the main charectar sell his farm "in order to dedicate him self to a fight against bio-engineered corn."

3) You might borrow more from other alien invasion movies, such as Independence Day. Yes, Ms. Saunders suggests, the key to future Oscar victories: being more like Independence Day.

4) Preach to your audience, tell them what they should think. After all look at Erin Bockovich and Traffic, two big preachy movies that won Oscar Nominations (and then lost out to Gladiator).

On a side note I'm nominating This is Spinal Tap for the eighteenth year in row, because, once again, all the movies made this year sucked.

New Quote

Well, I haven't written in a couple of days. First of all I didn't have anything to write about, and then I had the Shuttle tragedy. I lived for several years on the Space Coast of Florida (the bit of Florida where most of the space industry is), and talking to friends who live there, it's going to be very tough for that area for a while. Because apparently in America when you fall off a horse, rather than get back on, you pawn the saddle.

Mankind is meant to be explorers and discoverers. For the 19th and 20th century America largely led the road to new scientific and technological innovation (with a number of other peoples, of course). If America turns away from the road of discovery, well eventually someone else will pick it up eventually.

I'm also familiar with the whole "Why don't we take that money and give it to schools" argument. That's nonsense. Nobody goes hungry because we invest in space travel. There are inventions and discoverys that we will find if we continue our investment.

Anyway i'll pick back up tomorrow--and I changed the quote at the top.