Hi there, !
Today Mon 11/20/2006 Sun 11/19/2006 Sat 11/18/2006 Fri 11/17/2006 Thu 11/16/2006 Wed 11/15/2006 Tue 11/14/2006 Archives
Rantburg
531688 articles and 1855967 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 88 articles and 526 comments as of 10:39.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    WoT Background    Non-WoT    Local News       
Moroccan convicted over 9/11 plot
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 4: Opinion
1 00:00 Mike [] 
31 00:00 trailing wife [1] 
71 00:00 .com [] 
4 00:00 trailing wife [2] 
6 00:00 3dc [] 
0 [1] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
1 00:00 C-Low []
37 00:00 Frank G [1]
7 00:00 pihkalbadger []
16 00:00 Anguper Hupomosing9418 []
3 00:00 Mike N. [1]
2 00:00 trailing wife [1]
2 00:00 Shipman []
8 00:00 Bobby []
1 00:00 Pappy []
3 00:00 Malone []
1 00:00 mojo []
1 00:00 Nimble Spemble []
2 00:00 Sneaze Shaiting3550 []
7 00:00 BA []
2 00:00 Glenmore []
0 []
17 00:00 xbalanke []
2 00:00 Shipman []
0 []
2 00:00 Atomic Conspiracy []
1 00:00 Chuck Simmins []
2 00:00 trailing wife [1]
0 []
1 00:00 gromgoru []
2 00:00 Glenmore []
0 []
0 []
Page 2: WoT Background
4 00:00 Lanny Ddub []
5 00:00 Thinemp Whimble2412 []
7 00:00 bigjim-ky []
1 00:00 anonymous5089 [1]
3 00:00 JosephMendiola []
6 00:00 twobyfour [2]
1 00:00 Old Patriot [1]
8 00:00 Whaviper Phereling1843 []
2 00:00 Shipman []
12 00:00 JosephMendiola []
4 00:00 trailing wife []
4 00:00 RWV []
10 00:00 Old Patriot []
1 00:00 tu3031 []
3 00:00 Grunter []
0 []
4 00:00 BA []
1 00:00 mojo []
11 00:00 Mike N. []
0 []
3 00:00 Pholing Glineque9578 []
1 00:00 SpecOp35 []
1 00:00 Redneck Jim []
7 00:00 Eric Jablow []
0 []
7 00:00 DarthVader []
Page 3: Non-WoT
10 00:00 trailing wife []
13 00:00 trailing wife [1]
5 00:00 eLarson []
22 00:00 Alaska Paul [1]
9 00:00 Shipman []
9 00:00 Deacon Blues []
3 00:00 Excalibur []
15 00:00 JosephMendiola []
0 []
0 []
7 00:00 DMFD []
3 00:00 Zhang Fei []
6 00:00 Shipman []
1 00:00 wxjames []
5 00:00 Glenmore []
2 00:00 Monsieur Moonbat []
1 00:00 Frank G []
2 00:00 Anonymoose []
0 []
5 00:00 Bobby []
Page 5: Russia-Former Soviet Union
8 00:00 JosephMendiola []
2 00:00 gorb []
17 00:00 djh_usmc []
10 00:00 3dc []
11 00:00 JosephMendiola []
6 00:00 Frank G [1]
1 00:00 frozen Al []
2 00:00 Fred []
11 00:00 tu3031 []
-Short Attention Span Theater-
Consecutive Thread Titles Returns!
In: Opinion

Socialism Presented as Rational Public Policy Proposals

Europe is Finished, Predicts Mark Steyn
Posted by: Zenster || 11/17/2006 13:16 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Nice catch, there, Z-man!
Posted by: Mike || 11/17/2006 14:58 Comments || Top||


Europe
Europe is Finished, Predicts Mark Steyn
by Daniel Pipes

Mark Steyn, political columnist and cultural critic, has written a remarkable book, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It (Regnery). He combines several virtues uncommonly found together – humor, accurate reportage, and deep thinking – then applies these to what is arguably the most consequential issue of our time: the Islamist threat to the West.

Mr. Steyn offers a devastating thesis but presents it in bits and pieces, so I shall pull it together here.

He begins with the legacy of two totalitarianisms. Traumatized by the electoral appeal of fascism, post-World War II European states were constructed in a top-down manner "so as to insulate almost entirely the political class from populist pressures." As a result, the establishment has "come to regard the electorate as children."

Second, the Soviet menace during the cold war prompted American leaders, impatient with Europe's (and Canada's) weak responses, effectively to take over their defense. This benign and far-sighted policy led to victory by 1991, but it also had the unintended and less salutary side-effect of freeing up Europe's funds to build a welfare state. This welfare state had several malign implications.

Continued on Page 49
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 11/17/2006 08:50 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Regretfully, not fast enough.
Posted by: gromgoru || 11/17/2006 9:45 Comments || Top||

#2  At this point, America doesn't have the will to do this. So, Fortress America (great game too) will become a reality and we will become more isolationist.
Posted by: DarthVader || 11/17/2006 10:35 Comments || Top||

#3  Yes it is a wonderful game...which my copy of was 'kept' by Laurence of the Rats...he lets me play it when I go down to visit him.

But yes, the Fortress America is a bad strategy, far better to do as the Roman's did and fight battles outside of your home country.
Posted by: Silentbrick || 11/17/2006 11:03 Comments || Top||

#4  America Alone is a good book. It reads fast and Steyn painlessly imparts painful facts about the decline of the West. The main thesis is that the West with the exception of America is depopulating. Birth rates are well below replacement levels, in some cases less than half. Aging shrinking western populations spell doom for Europe. In Russia, 70% of pregnancies end in abortion. By 2050, Europe as we know it will be gone. Steyn is a master of snark, but this is a very depressing book.
Posted by: RWV || 11/17/2006 12:32 Comments || Top||

#5  Fortress America (which I still have never lost to anybody 'Brick, hahaha) as a strategy would only work if it was complimented with a full on Roman "mess with us and we destroy your entire nation and crucify anybody that looks at us sideways" attitude.

But the US doesn't even seem to want to defend itself or even fight our enemies at all, so what we'll get is head down turtle strategy.

That turtle route leads directly to Belmont's Three Conjectures, either by the US or Russia/China after we're gone.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats || 11/17/2006 13:08 Comments || Top||

#6  "Pre-modern Islam beats post-modern Christianity."
Well put. And this is the group that we should appeal to for a coalition in out struggles.
Hogwash.
Posted by: wxjames || 11/17/2006 13:38 Comments || Top||

#7  I just don't think it is accurate to say that we (Americans) aren't willing to fight for our beliefs/culture. I think that we just haven't seen enough pressure yet. Until the man in the street sees his way of life under threat, why would he want to fight? Unless you read these doom and gloom blogs a person wouldn't have a clue as to the subtle erosions already taking place. The people who say we've already given up the fight are no better than the global warming fear mongers. Yes, there is a problem, is it an imminent threat? No it's not, so most people are just going to keep on living their lives. When a real, tangible threat to our way of life manifests, we'll fight. Guaranteed.
Posted by: AllahHateMe || 11/17/2006 13:54 Comments || Top||

#8  When a real, tangible threat to our way of life manifests, we'll fight. Guaranteed.

I'd say it is "real" and "tangible" right now. Problem is, the MSM is hiding the reality from the majority of the population. By the time the threat is so severe that the MSM can no longer hide it, it might be too late for anything other than a 3rd Conjecture type response.

That to me is the biggest crime of all. That the MSM is apparently, willingly complicit in trying to engineer our demise is shocking. I would like to see all of them decorating the trees and light poles. I believe that things are far worse than anyone realizes, and it could all go over the edge in the blink of an eye. JMO.

Posted by: Mick Dundee || 11/17/2006 14:54 Comments || Top||

#9  ...we'll fight. Guaranteed.

What if there is very little left to fight with? Seems to me we are being led by the nose into financial ruin. Imagine, bled white, exhausted, broke and with a fractured society, we're done.

Nothing left to do but push the button, if only to make sure our antagonists won't be in a position to take us when we are down.

Posted by: Mick Dundee || 11/17/2006 15:00 Comments || Top||

#10  Not too doom and gloom, Mick. The plus is, those of us who see what's REALLY going on are prepping and have all the weapons.
Posted by: BA || 11/17/2006 15:20 Comments || Top||

#11  Not too doom and gloom, Mick. The plus is, those of us who see what's REALLY going on are prepping and have all the weapons.

I'm not talking about individual situations, I'm armed to the teeth as well. I'm talking about being exhausted as a nation, by all these half-ass battles we're fighting. It will bleed us dry, and then when the main event is sprung, the only thing left will be annhilation of the enemy and probably the world. That is if we have the will to do it.

If it ever gets to the point where citizens have to defend themselves, it is over. Individuals can last only so long. "United we stand, divided we fall", actually means something! Seems to me the Dems/MSM/Commies (same-same) have done their dirty work all to well. Also, it is obvious that a significant percentage of the Western world wishes to commit suicide, for the whole civilization.

Also, all of this talk in the various threads about "W" knows this, or "W" knows that...etc. etc. is hogwash! "W", knows exactly what his advisors tell him, and considering that CYA and PC are the names of the game in government employment, you can bet he does not have the unvarnished truth.

Couple that with his own "born-again" religious bias and all that it includes and it goes a long way to explaining his behavior.

Until "WE the PEOPLE..." clean house, the slide will continue, and it is accelerating.

I got to step away, my nose just started bleeding from a BP spike.

Posted by: Mick Dundee || 11/17/2006 15:34 Comments || Top||

#12  my nose just started bleeding from a BP spike.

That's actually a good thing! Better a bleed in the nose, than a bleed in the brain. Seriously.
Posted by: Pholing Glineque9578 || 11/17/2006 15:41 Comments || Top||

#13  The plus is, those of us who see what's REALLY going on are prepping and have all the weapons.

Don't forget bottled water, canned food, rice, grain, whiskey, and a sizable stash of porn for when it gets lonely.
Posted by: Pholing Glineque9578 || 11/17/2006 15:45 Comments || Top||

#14  That's actually a good thing! Better a bleed in the nose, than a bleed in the brain. Seriously.

Indeed, it actually saved my mother's life once.
Posted by: xbalanke || 11/17/2006 17:11 Comments || Top||

#15  I believe that things are far worse than anyone realizes, and it could all go over the edge in the blink of an eye.

Also, all of this talk in the various threads about "W" knows this, or "W" knows that...etc. etc. is hogwash! "W", knows exactly what his advisors tell him, and considering that CYA and PC are the names of the game in government employment, you can bet he does not have the unvarnished truth.

Couple that with his own "born-again" religious bias and all that it includes and it goes a long way to explaining his behavior.


Too right, Mick! Especially your last sentence. I've been shouting this ever since I got here and have taken routine beatings over it. Bush's religious crack pipe forbids him to declare another fundamentalist creed as invalid. His obsession with religiosity is solely responsible for it taking five long years before the word "Islamofascism" was finally spoken, instead of it being trumpeted on 9-12-2001.

Couple this with the "CYA and PC" bullshit by goverment careerists and you have a truly toxic brew. Per your first sentence, a bare few terrorist nuclear attacks upon American soil definitely could make everything "go over the edge in the blink of an eye". Our economy would be set back a decade, if not decades, or even near-permanently crippled.

The lessons of WWII have been mostly forgotten as Americans have enjoyed several decades of the good life. Pols are driven by the polls and no one has the ostiones to call a spade a spade. In view of the monstrous outside threats we face, America's security may be at its most fragile ever in history.

The entire MME (Muslim Middle East) must be put on notice that they will all perish should greivous harm come to America. The ball must be lobbed firmly back into their court vis combating terrorism and reforming Islam. All we should be doing is holding a nuclear sword of Damocles over their collective heads as they scurry to rectify decades of perfidy and murderous conniving.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/17/2006 17:23 Comments || Top||

#16  We can't win. Best to get used to it and learn new yo-yo tricks or collect quality pRon while you can. It's hopeless.

Or incinerate every living thing on the planet except Iowa. Hard choices. Difficult times. Best to put your money in ammo and quality dried food. Remember your pets while working your survival plans. Many tropical fish need a warm tank and special food, cats do well on their own, dogs are iffy, tend to pack up and kill without a strong hand. Watch out for angry stray whippets.
Posted by: Shipman || 11/17/2006 17:24 Comments || Top||

#17  President Bush is a Methodist, guys. Granted, he did convert from the Episcopalian faith of his parents, but last I heard the Methodists weren't considered one of Christianity's more extreme sects.
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/17/2006 17:34 Comments || Top||

#18  President Bush is a Methodist, guys.

What part of "born-again" and the mentality that usually follows it do you not understand?

Zenman, thanks for the kind words. If it isn't obvious, I've reached my own personal breaking point. FIVE years of dithering on SO many issues and fronts by the Commander in Chief Cowboy and the GOP playing politics as usual has put me in a foul mood.

The GOP "had" a mandate and the majority and they pissed it away by being greedy spineless idiots. They all deserve hemp neckties.

L8R

Posted by: Mick Dundee || 11/17/2006 18:29 Comments || Top||

#19  Back at 'cha, Mick. Five years without significant progress, either by moderate Muslims or our politicians has seen my breaking point pass as well. Either we start offing the top tiers of Islamic clergy right away or we off Muslims by the millions in a few years.

I'd wager there's a few in our military who understand the equation, but this sort of new math is lost on our idiot politicians. These assholes are rearranging porkbarrel deck chairs on the Titanic while they let it sail into Arctic waters.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/17/2006 19:47 Comments || Top||

#20  Wow, Zenster, I thought you were all for "The" Final Solution, but now it turns out you have two: ethnic cleansing of Muslim clergy OR ethnic cleansing of Muslims in general. How many years are you going to go goose stepping all over Rantburg before you realize that genocide is the last resort, not the first?
Posted by: Darrell || 11/17/2006 20:01 Comments || Top||

#21  Contempor LEFTISM-SOCIALISM, includ LIBERALISM/LIBERAL SOCIALISM, stands for nuthin except Gubmint > SOCIE UTOPIAN HUMANISM = NEW FEMINISM/PASSIVISM. Radical Islam = GOD/FAITH-BASED REGRESSIONISTS-PRIMITIVISTS, among othewr premises-labels. * " ISLAM > "PRINCIAPL SUPPLIER OF [FUTURE] NEW EUROPEANS" > most academics + snalysts classify or categorize Arab-Semitic-Aryan peoples of Asia Minor + North Africa as CAUCASIAN/CAUCASOID, i.e. NON-EURO WHITES. Iff one wants to be ETHNICIST/RACIST/PROFILIST about it, WOT > then, can be surreally ascribed as a[MOSTLY]INTRA-CAUCASIAN WAR, BTWN NOTHERN HEMISPHERE WHITE "HAVES", versus CENTRAL-SOUTHERN HEMIS "HAVE-NOTS" [HAVES vs HAVE MORES?], NORTHERN GLOBAL ELITES vs CENTRAL-SOUTHERN GLOBAL "WHITE TRASH"??? WIthin this narrow scope, OSAMA & Co. are fighting A RACE WAR WHOSE OUTCOME INCLUDES A RADICAL SHIFT FROM WHITE NORDIC EUROPEANS TO WHITE ARABO-SEMITICS/"ARYANS". TINA TURNER > WHATS GOD GOT TO DO WID IT!?
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 11/17/2006 20:11 Comments || Top||

#22  "The preservation and expansion of freedom are today threatened from two directions. The one threat is obvious and clear. It is the external threat coming from the evil men in the Kremlin [Mosques] who promise to bury us. The other threat is far more subtle. It is the internal threat coming from men of good intentions and good will who wish to reform us [ie, Zenster]. Impatient with the slowness of persuasion and example to achieve the great social changes they envision, they are anxious to use the power of the state to achieve their ends and confident of their own ability to do so. Yet if they gained the power they would fail to achieve their immediate aims, and in addition, would produce a collective state from which they would recoil in horror and of which they would be among the first victims. Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it."
Posted by: M.Friedman || 11/17/2006 20:19 Comments || Top||

#23  Darrell, you just can't help wetting yourself in your haste to slander me, can you? When you grow up and learn how to participate in constructive forensic debate, I'll let you know.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/17/2006 20:21 Comments || Top||

#24  Slander? Just pointing out your homicidal mania, that's all.

Constructive forensic debate? Your blathering genocide all over this site all day long, every day for months, is more like a six hour Hitler or Castro speech than a constructive forensic debate. You don't debate: you preach deportation of citizens and genocide.
Posted by: Darrell || 11/17/2006 20:29 Comments || Top||

#25  Darell, it's people like you, not Zenster, making that what you so abhor almost innevitable.

The "Last Resort" is a fable, it i so remote in your scheme of things that it becomes meaningless.
And the enemy knows it. And they will bleed you dry by thousands of papercuts, so when the time comes for the "Last Resort", you may not have any will left, or if you have, it will be the "Last Resort" for everybody--cornered, lashing out, you will press the button indiscriminately, seeing no way out.
Posted by: twobyfour || 11/17/2006 20:47 Comments || Top||

#26  BS, twobyfour. I have no problem with controlling the border, restricting immigration, deporting enemies of the state, attacking terrorists, or even bombing hostile states. But I'm sick and tired of Zenster's constant genocidal spew. He pushed me over the tipping point a few weeks ago when he advocated deporting ALL Muslims. He would deport parents and children who are citizens, have lived in this country their whole life, and have never advocated violence against anyone. He paints with a broad brush.
Posted by: Darrell || 11/17/2006 20:55 Comments || Top||

#27  Zen is working on the premises of known knowns. As far as I recall, he always qualifies the conditions that lead to certain step he advocates.

Point in case: "The entire MME (Muslim Middle East) must be put on notice that they will all perish should greivous harm come to America."
Posted by: twobyfour || 11/17/2006 21:05 Comments || Top||

#28  Good point indeed. He would have them all perish -- the whole Muslim Middle East -- for the terrorist acts of a few. Hundreds of millions of innocents killed. Are you ready to sign on to the greatest genocide in history as retribution for an act of a few dozen terrorists, twobyfour?
Posted by: Darrell || 11/17/2006 21:17 Comments || Top||

#29  Darrell, when Zenster first came here, I thought he was a troll. I still have my doubts. Some people are remarkably persistent (Aris being a case in point, who still reads the Burg BTW).
Posted by: phil_b || 11/17/2006 21:21 Comments || Top||

#30  Perhaps we could confine the two of them to a single thread and let them fight it out. Fred could charge admission to cover their bandwidth costs.
Posted by: Darrell || 11/17/2006 21:25 Comments || Top||

#31  Darell, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Zenster advocates a very big, credible stick. That is all.

The people that don't know any better, I forgive them, But you, who has some comprehension (albeit it seems rather limited) what we are up against, your (and likeminded people) refusal to use practical leverages will get more people killed than otherwise.

It is not few dozen terrorists. In an interview two years ago, Soddy Prince Nayef declared the mere 10% of muslims are raving radicals and that the West is making too much of it. He probably put the figure much lower than is the reality known to him, as is the Arab custom.

Now, do the math, just based on Nayef figure.
Posted by: twobyfour || 11/17/2006 21:32 Comments || Top||

#32  And what of the 90% that are not raving radicals? Are you eager to kill them with Zenster's "very big, credible stick"? It's not credible unless you'd do it, twobyfour.

"a very big, credible stick. That is all."
That is not all. That is genocide on a scale that makes WWII look like a fist fight.
Posted by: Darrell || 11/17/2006 21:41 Comments || Top||

#33  Not to mention it wouldn't work at all.
Posted by: Pholing Glineque9578 || 11/17/2006 21:43 Comments || Top||

#34  Zenster, as one who grew up in Iowa and has travelled much of the world, I find a lot to like in the "incinerate everything but Iowa" approach.
Posted by: RWV || 11/17/2006 21:52 Comments || Top||

#35  Sorry, but I see Zen's point on this. He's the canary in the mine.

At some point, most of America will get fed up with this shit and decide something has to be done. The gloves will come off.

Not incinerate them all, so much as, do something now, or we WILL incinerate them all.
Posted by: bombay || 11/17/2006 21:59 Comments || Top||

#36  Anyone see the Borat movie?
Posted by: Pholing Glineque9578 || 11/17/2006 21:59 Comments || Top||

#37  Zenster left an hour and a half ago -- no doubt in search of "constructive forensic debate".
Posted by: Darrell || 11/17/2006 21:59 Comments || Top||

#38  And what of the 90% that are not raving radicals?

They're the "raving radicals" raving support group, money pipe and supply chain.

They've stated unambiguously that it is us or them. Choose which side you want to be on. Also, look up the word implacable, it might provide you with a clue. Although I doubt it.

One more thing, how would you deal with a primitive tribal culture that practices a death cult and has sworn to exterminate you or enslave you? Just askin'.

Posted by: Mick Dundee || 11/17/2006 22:00 Comments || Top||

#39  how would you deal with a primitive tribal culture that practices a death cult and has sworn to exterminate you or enslave you?

That's easy. I would hold my nose when passing by one of them.
Posted by: Pholing Glineque9578 || 11/17/2006 22:03 Comments || Top||

#40  Zenster is not the canary in the mine. He is the poison gas. He will kill indiscriminately. Re-read #22. Good night.
Posted by: Darrell || 11/17/2006 22:03 Comments || Top||

#41  They bomb St. Peters Cathedral.
We bomb 10 major mosques, Mecca, Qom, and several others.

They nuke one of our cities.
We nuke 10 of their cities.

In time, they'll get the math.

But, if we say we'll do it, before they try, thinking we are paper tiger (and I think they are already at that point and it is not if but when), it may be that they'd think twice.

That is the big stick I think is on Zenster's mind.

Sounds crude? Sure it does. But that is the language they understand.

Once they launch major attacks, with some success, the 10% will swell to 60% or more.

Sure, you could always find 10 righteous ones after that, provided that you'll be alive to take count.

The thing is, I fucking don't want to be right. But I am watching a future train wreck in motion and so far it is going precisely as I expect, given the circumstances--dealing with it by hope that it will run out of fuel midway, despite that we know it has more than enough for the whole trip.
Posted by: twobyfour || 11/17/2006 22:04 Comments || Top||

#42  D, you don't get it. Simple then. There is a tipping point, where what was once unthinkable, is now rational.

When we get attacked on a WMD scale, it will tip. That's it.
Posted by: bombay || 11/17/2006 22:05 Comments || Top||

#43  Not to go back too far, but from #15:

Bush's religious crack pipe forbids him to declare another fundamentalist creed as invalid. His obsession with religiosity is solely responsible for it taking five long years before the word "Islamofascism" was finally spoken, instead of it being trumpeted on 9-12-2001.

You're completely wrong here. A true Christian Fundamentalist would shout from the rooftops that ALL other religions are "invalid." I know, I am one. But, to the larger picture, Zen, I think you're the one smokin' crack here. I wish you'd get off your "Bush's Fundamentalism" kick. The lack of calling a spade a spade for the President has nothing to do with his religious beliefs, but the P.C. atmosphere in Washington. Yeah, he would've had a LOT more sympathy had he called it what it is on 9/12/2001, but he didn't. Has NOTHING to do with his religious beliefs, cause if it did (assuming he's a "True" Fundy), he'd be casting them all to Hell right now.
Posted by: BA || 11/17/2006 22:13 Comments || Top||

#44  Right decent of you, twobyfour. I really appreciate your efforts in fighting such willful opacity. Some people just aren't on speaking terms with the truth. Speaking of which ...

phil_b, after years of participation here, your inability to decide says more about you than it does me.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/17/2006 22:14 Comments || Top||

#45  11 minutes, Zenster. I knew you'd come back as soon as I said good night. It speaks volumes about you.
Posted by: Darrell || 11/17/2006 22:18 Comments || Top||

#46  I wish I could agree with you, BA, but I don't, nor do others here as well.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/17/2006 22:18 Comments || Top||

#47  I was walking my animal you insufferably smarmy git.

He will kill indiscriminately. Re-read #22.

I will ask that you DO NOT try to infer that your own postings (i.e., # 22) are somehow part of my argument. That is a significant ethical breach.

I'll also note that the moderators here at Rantburg rightfully take an very dim view of advocating genocide. Somehow, my posts are not very often the target of their censure. How is that?

I find a lot to like in the "incinerate everything but Iowa" approach.

That's up to you, but please do not attribute other peoples' posts to myself, RWV. That was Shipman's snark and had nothing to do with my own position.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/17/2006 22:32 Comments || Top||

#48  Zen, in this case (Bush -- ROP), I have to side with BA. I think it is a case of PCism and has little to do with religion. Or to be more precise, it is PCism that creeped also into the religious sphere for the last 50 years. I have a kinda keen sense for that, being from former commie environ, and have seen its corrosive effects right smack obvious.
Posted by: twobyfour || 11/17/2006 22:32 Comments || Top||

#49  I wish I could agree with you, BA, but I don't, nor do others here as well.

That's your perogative, Zen. And, in fact, in the realm of us getting pushed too far, I'm actually with ya. I was just pointing out the fallacy in calling Bush a FUNDY and then trying to blame that FUNDY-ness on WHY he would NOT call Islamofascism what it is. That argument doesn't make sense at all, because if he were TRULY FUNDY, he WOULD be calling, not just Islam proper, but ALL other religions "invalid." That's what FUNDY means, just look at Ahmadinijad and the Paleos. They not only hate the Jooos and Christians, but spew hatred and mock those religions as well. Personally, as an American, I could care less what you believe. But, you cross a line when you try and FORCE me to believe what you do, like the jihadis.

And, twobyfour's point about P.C. sneaking into the Church as a whole and religion in general is equally as valid.
Posted by: BA || 11/17/2006 22:38 Comments || Top||

#50  Zenster, you are leaping to false assumptions. I did not post #22, as any moderator can tell you. Furthermore, you clearly don't understand what #22 is saying about you.

"Either we start offing the top tiers of Islamic clergy right away or we off Muslims by the millions in a few years."
That's #19 -- your words. Sounds like "ethnic cleansing" to me

Posted by: Darrell || 11/17/2006 22:42 Comments || Top||

#51  Geebus Darrell!

Please google "either ... or", and particularly peruse the segments with emphasis on logical meaning--a hint...the two statements in that sentence are mutually exclusive.
Posted by: twobyfour || 11/17/2006 22:57 Comments || Top||

#52  No problem, twobyfour. On that count we can certainly agree to disagree. You summed up much of my argument rather well and I would like to thank you for it.

As I've said before. I neither relish nor look forward to the nuclear annihilation of the MME. What becomes increasingly clear is that, absent any authentic and genuine reformation of Islam, there will eventually be perpetrated an Islamic atrocity of such jaw-droppingly horrific magnitude that there will be little choice but to retaliate with total war.

In its current state, Islam can no more avoid this than make rivers run backward. Left unrestrained, their radical factions will precipitate the Muslim holocaust. Be it, Israel's Sampson Option, our own nuclear response or the Asian superpowers unhesitating reply after our own demise, Islam's current course is guaranteed to bring about its own destruction.

The mere existence of Israel's Sampson Option speaks volumes towards this point. Why would they even have such a terrible capacity held in abeyance without ample justification? Ahmadinejad's threat to convert his entire nation into one vast suicide bomber for the sole sake of perpetrating genocide upon the Jews is a pluperfect illustration of the larger picture I am attempting to demonstrate.

Fanatical death-obsessed Islamists would think nothing of all Muslims ascending to a post-incineration paradise if it were the cost of destroying the West. This is the warped but inescapable illogic of the terrorist mind. The promise of wholesale slaughter, on either side means exactly ZERO to the radical Islamists.

This is why I continue to advocate that we blanket the MME with DVD copies of a highly realistic Middle East version of "The Day After Tomorrow", showing the aftermath of nuclear retaliation that the radical Islamists threaten to bring about. Only this one measure has the possible potential to persuade enough Muslims whereby the masses might rise up and begin deposing their violent jihadists. Few other avenues, save for a demonstration of might in some unoccupied area, would carry sufficient impact necessary to intitate the reform that might avert the Muslim holocaust.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/17/2006 22:59 Comments || Top||

#53  BA, my associations about Bush's religiosity are more along the lines of Mick's comments regarding the "born again" syndrome, whereby (as I see it) all religion is suddenly sacrosanct because of its potentially redeeming power.

Again, I'll certainly concur as to the tremendously poisonous influence of PC mentality. When it first started cropping up many years ago, I immediately compared it (long before other articles doing the same) to George Orwell's "Newspeak" as found in 1984. The PC mentality's ability to constrict free thought and deconstruct factual history is an outright abomination. A glaring point in case is the 9-11 memorial statue showing the "Iwo Jima" style flag-raising. The PC groups demanded that, contrary to reality, the firefighters be shown as a racially mixed group even though they were nothing of the sort. It is this sort of revisionism that makes me puke. The abject refusal of our media and government alike to portray Islam as the immense peril it is today elicits a similar response.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/17/2006 23:08 Comments || Top||

#54  Darrell, post # 22, coming so quickly upon the heels of similar accusations by you seemed to be your doing. I withdraw the accusation.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/17/2006 23:11 Comments || Top||

#55  Fanatical death-obsessed Islamists would think nothing of all Muslims ascending to a post-incineration paradise if it were the cost of destroying the West.

Think nothing of it? Hell, they come right out and state it. That is what they want. I watched a grainy copy of Glenn Becks "Obsession" on YouTube today. Anyone that sees that cannot escape the conclusion that we are in serious trouble.

Indoctrination begins at a very early age and continues nonstop throughout a Muslims life. They become rabid, and there is only one way to deal with a rabid creature.

Islam, delenda est!

Posted by: Mick Dundee || 11/17/2006 23:16 Comments || Top||

#56  Mick's comments regarding the "born again" syndrome...

And that is exactly what it is, a syndrome, it has nothing to do with Fundamentalism. One can be "born again" and not be a fundamentalist.

Posted by: Mick Dundee || 11/17/2006 23:22 Comments || Top||

#57  Please google "either ... or", and particularly peruse the segments with emphasis on logical meaning--a hint...the two statements in that sentence are mutually exclusive.

Um, not necessarily. The Logic Book says so.
Posted by: Pholing Glineque9578 || 11/17/2006 23:22 Comments || Top||

#58  Pholing Glineque9578 , why don't you see what happens when you try to wrap your mind around my post # 52. As always with your type, I note a complete and total lack of postulated alternatives.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/17/2006 23:26 Comments || Top||

#59  Zen, no need to thank me. I am trying to clarify my position that does have quite a bit overlap with yours. Remember, I was called genocidal maniac a while ago too, based on simple pronouncement that "Islam has to go".

It was immediately misconstrued as "Kill all muslims".

So, it's the same problem like in your case--some posters here tend to infer/inject their interpretation into others' positions. Or rather misinterpretation may be better suited here.

Instead of asking "How do you propose to do that?" they scream "Genocidal maniac!"

Does it look like PC programming can claim more than a marginal success rate? Yewbetcha.
Posted by: twobyfour || 11/17/2006 23:30 Comments || Top||

#60  You are confused and you contradict yourself, Zenster. Can you wrap your mind around that?
Posted by: Pholing Glineque9578 || 11/17/2006 23:32 Comments || Top||

#61  I think all three of you need to quit back-slapping eath other and notice how few other commenters want to get wrapped up in your threads. They disagree WITHOUT BEING UNPATRIOTIC, but don't need the hassle. Think about it. I'll take your flames all you want, thx
Frank
Posted by: Frank G || 11/17/2006 23:33 Comments || Top||

#62  Oh yeah, nice, Frank. With 20 minutes left??
Posted by: Pholing Glineque9578 || 11/17/2006 23:39 Comments || Top||

#63  Can you wrap your mind around that?

Not coming from the likes of you.

Frank, please feel free to interject a bit earlier next time. Thank you for playing.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/17/2006 23:43 Comments || Top||

#64  twobyfour, it seems that in debate about counter-terrorism the "genocide" card is going to be a substitute for the "racist" card as played by pro-Islam and liberal types.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/17/2006 23:47 Comments || Top||

#65  You never know, Zen, but to be sure you'd have to off them too.
Posted by: Pholing Glineque9578 || 11/17/2006 23:48 Comments || Top||

#66  Zenster - You need to get off this "holding court" thingy you've got going in your head. You made a similar comment to me the other day, something about "thank you for dropping by". That's some silly shit - and self-defeating since it guarantees it won't happen again.

Otherwise, please carry on, folks - it's an interesting thread.
Posted by: .com || 11/17/2006 23:50 Comments || Top||

#67  by the way. This isn't a "timed" game. Yours' and my own comments are there forever, feel free to flame on tomorrow's thread. Notice though, that a large part of RB's commenters are shying away from any discourse with you. Wonder why? Think about it....

you know my comments over the last 5 yrs. Am I unpatriotic? Dhimmi? A PC Puss? Wonder then why I find a disagreement with your recent statements?
Posted by: Frank G || 11/17/2006 23:50 Comments || Top||

#68  You never know, Zen, but to be sure you'd have to off them too.

While I do not, there's people here who do.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/17/2006 23:55 Comments || Top||

#69  While I do not [advocate such], there's people here who do.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/17/2006 23:56 Comments || Top||

#70  .com, there's only one person who holds court here and his name is Fred.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/17/2006 23:57 Comments || Top||

#71  Le bingo.
Posted by: .com || 11/17/2006 23:57 Comments || Top||


Fifth Column
Franken Leaving Air America Radio
Is this the end for Stuart Smalley on the airwaves? We're hearing that Al Franken is leaving Air America and giving up on talk radio, most likely for good.

His last day on the air will apparently be December 8. Already, a few libtalk stations have begun to leak word of Franken's impending exit.

One is KQKE Radio in San Francisco, which recently cancelled Franken and replaced him with Thom Hartmann, a more obscure "progressive" who airs in the same time slot. A check of Franken's site Thursday evening did not turn up any mention of a departure and the company itself has as of yet said nothing.

This confirms rumors we'd been hearing for weeks from industry sources and Air America listeners that are now backed up by these on- air announcements. What A Mockery, a liberal blog site, captured the audio of KQKE Radio's announcement here. Its main page is found here.

While Franken's contract was recently rewritten in order to extend through the spring of 2007, all bets were off once Air America entered bankruptcy, since Franken's continued participation was directly tied to the network's solvency.

With just a week remaining in which to nail down a buyer, Air America is truly skating on thin ice at this point. Does the impending loss of Franken's show hurt its resale value?

In addition, is there any connection between this move and the five stations that have dropped the liberal talk radio format since election day?

As for his likely US Senate run, it would not have required Franken to exit his radio show until a formal announcement was made, which is likely to occur at least nine months from now. So this departure appears to be tied to the network's financial troubles.

We'll have much more on this breaking story as details emerge.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 11/17/2006 08:13 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Rats desert sinking ship.
Posted by: Mike || 11/17/2006 8:47 Comments || Top||

#2  Stewart milked that cow for every last drop.
Posted by: wxjames || 11/17/2006 9:16 Comments || Top||

#3  Franken-door-ass
Posted by: Phineter Thraviger1073 || 11/17/2006 13:00 Comments || Top||

#4  Thank God for the printed word! You'd never heard about this on the radio, unless you live in the 4 or 5 market areas ::smirk:: served ::/smirk:: by "air america" (tm).
Posted by: Almost Anonymous5839 || 11/17/2006 16:49 Comments || Top||

#5  JG saw the iceberg first.

Hi Muck!

Posted by: HalfEmpty || 11/17/2006 17:36 Comments || Top||

#6  Franken is not much different than the boiler room folks in the movie "Prime Gig".
Posted by: 3dc || 11/17/2006 23:02 Comments || Top||


Olde Tyme Religion
Steyn : Franchising terror, mosque by mosque
Communists had 'deep sleepers' who had to be controlled in a hierarchical chain. But with Islam, who needs that?

Mark Steyn
National Post

Islam is not just a religion. Those lefties who bemoan what America is doing to provoke "the Muslim world" would go bananas if any Western politician started referring to "the Christian world." When such sensitive guardians of the separation of church and state endorse the first formulation but not the second, they implicitly accept that Islam has a political sovereignty too. There is an "Organization of the Islamic Conference": It's like the EU and the Commonwealth and the G8 -- that is, an organization of nation states whose heads of government hold regular meetings. Imagine if someone proposed an "Organization of the Christian Conference" that would hold summits attended by prime ministers and presidents and voted as a bloc in transnational bodies.

So it's not merely that there's a global jihad lurking within this religion, but that the religion itself is a political project -- and, in fact, an imperial project -- in a way that modern Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism are not. Furthermore, this particular religion is historically a somewhat bloodthirsty faith in which whatever's your bag violence-wise can almost certainly be justified. And, yes, Christianity has had its blood-drenched moments, but the Spanish Inquisition, which remains a byword for theocratic violence, killed fewer people in a century and a half than the jihad does in a typical year.

So we have a global terrorist movement insulated within a global political project insulated within a severely self-segregating religion whose adherents are the fastest-growing demographic in the developed world. The jihad thus has a very potent brand inside a highly dispersed and very decentralized network much more efficient than anything the CIA can muster. And these fellows can hide in plain sight. As the Times of London reported in 2006: "An American al-Qaeda operative who was a close associate of the leader of the July 7 [2005] bombers was recruited at a New York mosque that British militants helped to run. British radicals regularly travelled to the Masjid Fatima Islamic Centre, in Queens, to organize sending American volunteers to jihadi training camps in Pakistan. Investigators reportedly found that Mohammad Sidique Khan had made calls to the mosque last year in the months before he led the terrorist attack on London that killed 52 innocent people. Mohammad Junaid Babar, one recruit from the Masjid Fatima Islamic Centre, has told U.S. intelligence officials that he met Khan in a jihadi training camp in Pakistan in July 2003. He claims that the pair became friends as they studied how to assemble explosive devices. Babar, 31, a computer programmer, says that it was at the Masjid Fatima centre that he became a radical."

And so it goes. The mosques are recruiters for the jihad and play an important role in ideological subordination and cell discipline. In globalization terms, that's a perfect model. Unlike the Soviets, it's a franchise business rather than owner-operated; the Commies had "deep sleepers" who had to be "controlled" in a very hierarchical chain. But who needs that with Islam? Not long after Sept. 11, I said, just as an aside, that these days whenever something goofy turns up on the news, chances are it involves some fellow called Mohammed. It was a throwaway line, but if you want to compile chapter and verse, you can add to the list every week.

- A plane flies into the World Trade Center? Mohammed Atta.

- A sniper starts killing gas station customers around Washington, D.C.? John Allen Muhammed.

- A guy fatally stabs a Dutch movie director? Mohammed Bouyeri.

- A gunman shoots up the El Al counter at Los Angeles airport? Hesham Mohamed Hedayet.

- A terrorist slaughters dozens in Bali? Noordin Mohamed.

- A British subject self-detonates in a Tel Aviv bar? Asif Mohammed Hanif.

- A terrorist cell bombs the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? Ali Mohamed.

- A gang rapist preys on the women of Sydney? Mohammed Skaf.

- A Canadian terror cell is arrested for plotting to bomb Ottawa and behead the prime minister? Mohammed Dirie, Amin Mohamed Durrani and Yasim Abdi Mohamed.

These last three represent a "broad strata" of Canadian society, according to Mike McDonnell, assistant commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and a man who must have aced sensitivity training class. To the casual observer, the broad strata would seem to be a very singular stratum: In their first appearance in court, 12 men arrested in that Ontario plot requested the Koran.

When I made my observation about multiple Mohammeds in the news, Merle Ricklefs, a professor at the National University of Singapore and South-East Asian editor of the 16-volume Encyclopedia of Islam, remarked sarcastically, "Deep thinking, indeed." Well, gosh, maybe it's not terribly sophisticated. But then again, when you're dealing with fellows who decapitate female aid workers in Iraq and engage in mass slaughter of Russian schoolchildren, maybe sophistication isn't always helpful. Particularly when sophistication seems mostly to be a form of obfuscation by experts wedded to the notion that Islam is something that simply can't be understood unless you've read all 16 volumes of their Encyclopedia, or, better yet, written them.

For those of us who aren't professors of Islamic studies, the obvious course is to step back and try to work from first principles: What's happening? Who's doing it? The five-thousand-guys-named-Mo routine meets the "reasonable man" test: It's the first thing an averagely well-informed person who's not a multiculti apologist notices -- here's the evening news and here comes another Mohammed.

- From America Alone: The End of the World as We Know it, by Mark Steyn. Published by Regnery Publishing, Inc. Copyright (Copyright) 2006 by Mark Steyn.
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 11/17/2006 08:46 || Comments || Link || [2 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Isn't this column 'hate speech' in Canada/Euro-speak? Will Mr. Steyn require a lawyer?
Posted by: Glenmore || 11/17/2006 10:06 Comments || Top||

#2  Good for Steyn. Now that Fallaci is no longer with us, we need Steyn, Pipes, et al. to place the Muzzie threat front and center with the general populace. A few of us get it, but what do we comprise .005% of total US population ? We're still just howling at the Moon (Bats), unfortunately.
Posted by: SpecOp35 || 11/17/2006 12:50 Comments || Top||

#3  So it's not merely that there's a global jihad lurking within this religion, but that the religion itself is a political project -- and, in fact, an imperial project -- in a way that modern Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism are not.

There you have it: Political ideology and not a religion. I rest my case.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/17/2006 23:37 Comments || Top||

#4  Both, Zenster. Intertwined and feeding off one another aspect. And the situation must be, has to be handled on both levels if we are to be effective. Let's not argue this one anymore, please? It's counterproductive and drives people away.
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/17/2006 23:59 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Culture Wars
Socialism Presented as Rational Public Policy Proposals
(EFMIP)Edited for the more insane parts

Note to mods: I like the accordian lady!

Sorry, she's booked for pending announcements on dead bad boys.
Beginning with this post, I will lay out a series of suggestions that we as citizens and consumers might do well to ponder and pursue. Taken together, these suggestions will, I would hope, be helpful in shaping dialogue in Washington and point us toward a rational energy future. In brief, here is what I would like to propose:

• Create a National Oil Trust to oversee our still-undeveloped and hugely significant energy resources.
Translation: No more oil leases on federal lands, Ever.
• Clamp down on oil-industry royalty and depreciation practices that shortchange American taxpayer, fatten oil company profits and deprive the nation of a clear and significant revenue stream that could be dedicated to programs reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.
This suggestion is a hoot. The writer is an expert in leftist polemics writing as if oil companies, their investors and emoplyees aren't taxpayers, thereby suggesting that anyone who agrees with the writer is exclusively a taxpayer. I'll take a pass on this. If "alternative fuel" sources can't come into the market by market rules, then they aren't an alternative, now are they? More proof that liberalism is based on contradictions and lies.
• High oil prices transfer enormous wealth to malign regimes, funds terrorism and insurgencies around the world placing our nation at great geo-political risk. Efforts must be made to bring down the price of oil starting with far greater transparency and oversight to energy trading markets to prevent price manipulation.
I got an idea on how to bring down the price of fuel Elimnate/cut federal taxes from the wellhead to the fuel pump. That way not only will be price of gas plummet but it would be good for the economy as well. Of course what's good for the economy isn't good for the socialst scheme this fella proposes.
• Make transparent the oil industry's monetary contributions and lobbying initiatives that are designed to influence government energy policy.
The monetary contributions which fund the left's pet projects which also influence government energy policy will be exempt, of course.
• Restructure the Interior Department to eliminate deep seated oil-industry favoritism.
Translation: more environMENTALists.
• Assure that the Energy Department end its acquiescence of OPEC and begins to take a more cogent and pro-active policy when they and other suppliers insist on playing monopoly games by colluding to cut supplies to drive up their prices and profits.
Allow me to render that sentance. When ever the left has a bald faced socialist scheme they can't define it in anything less than 25 word, it usually translates into: Raise taxes and write targeted regulations.
• Revoke the sovereign immunity of OPEC suppliers, thus opening them to antitrust charges.
The law is a crappy instrument for dealing with monopolies. The market is much more efficient.
Revoke 'sovereign immunity' of OPEC suppliers? Does that mean we can invade Saoodi-controlled Arabia?
• Mount a full-scale drive to achieve energy independence by backing the full gamut of alternative fuel sources including conservation initiatives, citizen initiated lifestyle changes and tax support for hybrid vehicles.
Raise taxes, spend money on money losing non market viable "alternatives." After **==>Forty years<==** of this mantra you'd think we'd get by now that alternatives don't work and they won't work in the marketplace.
• Consider introducing consumer vouchers for gasoline, diesel and other oil related products as a way to reduce their usage by establishing a national cap on their consumption. With a voucher program in place we would have the added benefit of a system extant to quickly and fairly allocate energy resources were a major oil shock ever to occur.
Translation: Rationing. That means the writer just contradicted himself, by first advocating policies to lower prices and then later in the same article advocating policies that will raise prices. Proof yet again that liberalism/socialism is based on a contradiction, any contradiction, and its basic premises cannot be realized without expressing such contradictions in some form.
I will sketch out the thinking behind each of these propositions in the days ahead. Do stay tuned.I'll be on pins and needles waiting for the next one!
Posted by: badanov || 11/17/2006 10:26 || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Socalism failed 34 times and you still want to bring that crap here. How uneducated the author truely is.
Posted by: closedanger@hotmail.com || 11/17/2006 12:28 Comments || Top||

#2  Well it just wasn't done *properly* the other umpty billion times. By the moustache of Karl Marx, this time we'll get it right. Swear!
Posted by: Seafarious || 11/17/2006 13:25 Comments || Top||

#3  It's all about the oil...
Posted by: Raj || 11/17/2006 13:32 Comments || Top||

#4  Sea is right. Just because Socialism doesn't work doesn't mean there is something fundamentally wrong with it.
Posted by: SteveS || 11/17/2006 14:14 Comments || Top||

#5  How many folks in the US have health coverage (insurance) as a percentage of the total population?

If US-style anti-socialism is the answer, why are there so many poor people in the US? (Compared to Germany, for instance)
Posted by: Pholing Glineque9578 || 11/17/2006 15:23 Comments || Top||

#6  How many folks in the US have health coverage (insurance) as a percentage of the total population?

If US-style anti-socialism is the answer, why are there so many poor people in the US? (Compared to Germany, for instance)


Government is a recursive entity. Where is the economic logic that states transferring value from one entity ( evil oil companies) to government is a good idea. Which sector benefits?

Government.

Even when money derived from increased taxes is used for programs to encourage conservation ( which oil and gas companies do anyway ) which sector benfits?

Government.

Whether you refuse to accept it or not face the facts: government is by definition a tyranny, the degreee of which is determined by how much it wants to tax its citizens.

The moke who wants to use then power of the federal government to attack a critical sector of our growing economy uses the language of the tyrant by splitting citizens and setting them one against the other all because of his personal socialist agenda.

It sounds good: believing you are achieving "economic justice" through the power of government against a sector of the eocnomy, but how it comes out is just another charletan trying to sell the public on his personal brand of tyranny.
Posted by: badanov || 11/17/2006 15:54 Comments || Top||

#7  Because we define poverty differently, Pholing Glineque9578.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

- Forty-six percent of all poor households own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and porch or patio.
- Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
- The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
- Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.
- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
- Seventy-three percent own a microwave oven, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family isn't hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, activists and politicians.


http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,132956,00.html
The Specter of Poverty in America
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
By Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

Or, to make it more personal, my darling sister-in-law, whose husband owns a successful small business, has two children at university, and goes on one or more sea cruises every year, has only catastrophic health insurance, because that is a choice they made; they are all frighteningly healthy, and don't need more. When Mr. Wife's job took us to Germany, we lived in a lovely little 150 square meter house in Bad Soden am Taunus alongside German bank vice presidents and Grafs (a German title of nobility, possibly the equivalent of a count?) and such. Trailing daughter #1's German Kindergarten playmates would look at our house and ask which flat we lived in, because that was their experience. And yet at the time my husband was only a lower level manager, and we were living a lifestyle equivalent to what we were accustomed to Stateside.

I do hope that helps.
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/17/2006 17:14 Comments || Top||

#8  Where is the economic logic that states transferring value from one entity ( evil oil companies) to government is a good idea.

That is a normative aspect and best left for policy makers rather than economics. Hence, there's no such economic logic, unless you ask the question in a slightly different way, mainly "Is the transfer of value from one entity to the government an effective means"? (But even then you run into problems, "means of what?" etc)

Government is inescapable. If you wish to maintain the rules of the game (liberal markets), you need a government.
Posted by: Pholing Glineque9578 || 11/17/2006 17:33 Comments || Top||

#9  What Pholing Glineque9578 is trying to ask is why are 25% of American citizens doomed to be found in the lowest quartile? We need EUmetrics.
Posted by: Shipman || 11/17/2006 17:39 Comments || Top||

#10  Because we define poverty differently

Even then, my question still stands, why are there so many poor people in the US? Your answer only dealt with the "compared to Germany" part. Or are you saying that there are no poor people in the US?
Posted by: Pholing Glineque9578 || 11/17/2006 17:44 Comments || Top||

#11  I compared to Germany because I lived there. But the fact of the matter is that most poor people in America are actually only poor by comparison to those who have more; by comparison to the rest of the world, even prosperous Germany, almost all of our poor people are extremely well off. By my perspective real poverty means ongoing hunger and cold, and no possiblity of changing the situation; not many of America's "poor" are anywhere near poverty-stricken by that definition. Shipman defined beautiifully the question you are trying so hard not to ask openly.
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/17/2006 17:54 Comments || Top||

#12  Government is inescapable.

All tyrannies are inescapable.
Posted by: badanov || 11/17/2006 18:03 Comments || Top||

#13  Government is inescapable.

All tyrannies are inescapable.


True. Doesn't follow that all governments are tyrannical, however.
Posted by: Pholing Glineque9578 || 11/17/2006 18:18 Comments || Top||

#14  All governments are tryannies. The difference is the degree.
Posted by: badanov || 11/17/2006 18:24 Comments || Top||

#15  Ok, let me asky my question in another way: What the hell is Lou Dobbs complaining about in his book The War on the Middle Class? "The government, big business, and special interest groups are enriching themselves at our expense. Now more than ever, we're finding ourselves at the mercy of those individuals and organizations that control jobs, provide goods and services, and wield power... The middle class is being picked apart and its future mortgaged for the benefit of a small group of powerful American interests."

Is Lou nuts? (I kinda think he is, but for different reasons. Here, I agree with him,)
Posted by: Pholing Glineque9578 || 11/17/2006 18:26 Comments || Top||

#16  small group of powerful American interests."

said interests being government...
Posted by: badanov || 11/17/2006 18:27 Comments || Top||

#17  And please don't say the US government is a tyranny.
Posted by: Pholing Glineque9578 || 11/17/2006 18:28 Comments || Top||

#18  There may be a dichotomy I have inadvertantly advanced.

As I wrote, all government is a tyranny. The difference is the degree. In the US we have decided that government should play a small and hopefully smaller role in American society.

The idea that increasing the power of government by raising taxes, which all tyrants do, is somehow an improvement in society is a contradiction, and thus a deliberate deception.
Posted by: badanov || 11/17/2006 18:34 Comments || Top||

#19  Lou dobbs is many kinds of pompoous idiot, and the particular whine you quoted is a perfect example, Pholing Glineque9578. "Now more than ever"? More than when the Rockefellers, the Carnegies, and the other Robber Barrons controlled things? When uncontrolled speculation was the rule of the day? When the boom and bust cycles were so bad that families had to send their 5-year olds to work in the coal mines and the powered looms to keep a leaky roof over their heads? Do get a sense of perspective, my dear Pholing Glineque9578, please!
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/17/2006 18:35 Comments || Top||

#20  My dear tw, when one posts from the maternalistic arms of Canada, one is apt to have a different view.
Posted by: Pappy || 11/17/2006 19:02 Comments || Top||

#21  Too bad Milton Friedman has passed away before having a chance to enlighten PG9578.
Posted by: Phineter Thraviger1073 || 11/17/2006 19:20 Comments || Top||

#22  When uncontrolled speculation was the rule of the day?

And that is not the case today? Gasoline prices are affected by speculators, with the result being immediate.

I agree with Lou Dobbs on one thing: NAFTA isn't working the way it was sold to us. In particular, it didn't work for Mexico, as evidenced by the number of illegals streaming into the US.

Now, if it's true that there's a problem with NAFTA, then perhaps there's a problem with Milton Friedman's vision of a laissez-faire system. After all, he did formulate most of his ideas before NAFTA came into being.

I wonder what Friedman thought of the illegals.

Actually, I like what Milton Friedman had to say more generally: "The fact that these arguments against the so-called Capitalist ethic are inavlid does not of course demonstrate that the Capitalist ethic is an acceptable one. I find it difficult to justify either accepting or rejecting it, or to justify any alternative principle. I am led to the view that it cannot in and of itself be regarded as an ethical principle; that it must be regarded as instrumental or a corollary of some other principle such as freedom."
Posted by: Pholing Glineque9578 || 11/17/2006 19:39 Comments || Top||

#23  when one posts from the maternalistic arms of Canada, one is apt to have a different view.

That is so true, Pappy!!! ...but not for the reason you think. Our Conservative government is enjoying considerable popularity here in Canada. How is your conservative party doing?
Posted by: Pholing Glineque9578 || 11/17/2006 19:44 Comments || Top||

#24  Our conservative party stopped being conservative and immediately lost its support from the voters.

Fiscally conservative, that is. They decided to pander to the social conservatives and lost big time.
Posted by: Seafarious || 11/17/2006 19:49 Comments || Top||

#25  They decided to pander to the social conservatives and lost big time.

Spot on, Seafarious! The GOP's unholy alliance with the religious right has dragged it down into a pit of distorted messages and moral preening that is total anathema to conservatism.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/17/2006 20:06 Comments || Top||

#26  FOX > DICK MORRIS > the Dems won 2006 by fielding GOP/Rightist or Right-leaning or "Centrist" Conservative candidates, ERGO POST-ELEX ARE GIVING OR OFFERING KEY GUBMINT + LEADERSHIP POSITIONS TO FAR LEFTIES, ANARCHISTS + SOCIALISTS.
IOW, DEMOLEFT > "MODER/CENTRIST", RIGHTIST SOCIALISTS NOW, ULTRA-LEFT TOTALITARIAN COMMUNISM -GUBMINT-IST LATER. Minister POTEMKIN would be proud.
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 11/17/2006 20:23 Comments || Top||

#27  I thought it was the other way around. Bush abandoned the faith-based initiatives, and in turn they turned against him at the polls.
Posted by: Pholing Glineque9578 || 11/17/2006 20:25 Comments || Top||

#28  If US-style anti-socialism is the answer, why are there so many poor people in the US? (Compared to Germany, for instance)

This assertion is false. Go to nationmaster.com and poke around in the income and income distribution statistics. You will find that the poorest Americans are better off than the poorest of any other country, except Norway and a couple of other small states.

And as far as health coverage is concerned. As a practical matter everyone in America has access to healthcare through public hospitals and clinics. This includes illegal aliens.

In contrast in the UK and Australia (examples of socialized medicine), you would definitely be refused healthcare if you can not prove you are a legal resident.
Posted by: phil_b || 11/17/2006 20:48 Comments || Top||

#29  To further phil_b's arugument, when liberals "worry" about people not having health insurance, it's only to pick your pocket. PG9578 lives in a country with "free" health care. Problem is, PG, if you were to need an emergency appendectomy or something how long would it take you to get it? A lot longer than a US citizen. We cover "emergency" situations already, so it doesn't matter whether or not you have insurance, they HAVE to treat you, assuming you're a citizen (and in some cases, even if you're not). Also, all those stats on the "uninsured" in America all count adults (18 years old & up) who have health insurance themselves. How many 18-22 year olds have their OWN insurance (not many, if any)? But, most of them are covered under their parent's insurance, but they appear to be uninsured in these stats.

I won't even get into my numerous dealings with the poor here in America. I can't tell you how many times I've been to my local grocery store (I live in a decent middle class suburb of Atlanta), only to see some youngsters (usually black or Hispanic) who are dressed to the T, flip out their welfare check or their WIC Program check (that's "food stamps") to pay for their groceries and then I follow them to the parking lot to see them hop in a brand new BMW or Mercedes or Escalade or Chevy pickup. THAT's what TW is getting at. Our (America's) poor are NOT poor compared to the rest of the world.
Posted by: BA || 11/17/2006 22:32 Comments || Top||

#30  Wait a minute -- poor people have Mercedes in Atlanta? Darn it, I want to be poor -- I'm driving a beat up, six year old minivan, and his vehicle is seven years old.

Posted by: trailing wife || 11/17/2006 23:55 Comments || Top||

#31  erm... Mr. Wife's vehicle is seven years old. PIMF!
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/17/2006 23:56 Comments || Top||


Michael Fumento : Covering Iraq - The Modern Way of War Correspondence
Long, but interesting. HT No Pasaran!

He explained that Nancy says, “When I go grocery shopping, I listen to people’s conversations. What are they talking about?” So this is what passes for “war correspondence” of the Baghdad Brigade.
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 11/17/2006 07:52 || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:



Who's in the News
88[untagged]

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.

Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.

Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has dominated Mexico for six years.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Fri 2006-11-17
  Moroccan convicted over 9/11 plot
Thu 2006-11-16
  Morocco holds 13 suspected Jihadist group members
Wed 2006-11-15
  Nasrallah vows campaign to force gov't change
Tue 2006-11-14
  Khost capture was Zawahiri deputy?
Mon 2006-11-13
  Palestinians agree on nonentity as PM
Sun 2006-11-12
  Five Shia ministers resign from Lebanese cabinet
Sat 2006-11-11
  Haniyeh offers to resign for aid
Fri 2006-11-10
  US Rejects UN Resolutions on Gaza Violence as One-Sided
Thu 2006-11-09
  Indon Muslims on trial over beheading young girls
Wed 2006-11-08
  Israeli Forces Pull Out of Beit Hanoun
Tue 2006-11-07
  Al Qaeda terrorist captured in Afghanistan
Mon 2006-11-06
  Pakistani AF officers tried to kill Perv
Sun 2006-11-05
  Saddam Sentenced to Death
Sat 2006-11-04
  More Military Humor Aimed at Kerry
Fri 2006-11-03
  Turkey: Muslim vows to 'strangle' Pope

Better than the average link...



Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
44.221.83.121
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Operations (27)    WoT Background (26)    Non-WoT (20)    Local News (9)    (0)