Thursday, November 04, 2004

 

Gavin Newsom is the Ralph Nader of 2004

Ralph Nader can let out a huge sigh of relief, now that Gavin Newsom has taken on the mantle as "the man most responsible for electing George Bush." Who is Gavin Newsom? None other than the sad-sack mayor of San Francisco; the self-same mayor who legalized gay marriage in San Francisco in defiance of California law and set in motion the inevitable chain of events that led to the 2004 election of George Bush. In classic "if you give a mouse a cookie" fashion, Mayor Newsom started the ball rolling by announcing his City Hall would no longer discriminate against gays when issuing marriage licenses. Catch the excitement in this report from SFGate.com:

History was made at 11:06 a.m. today at San Francisco City Hall when Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon took their wedding vows, becoming the first same-sex couple to be officially married in the United States. (By mid-afternoon, at least 15 same-sex weddings were performed and officials issued about a dozen more marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, the Associated Press reported.) Mabel Teng, the city's assessor-recorder, officiated over the first ceremony, inserting the phrase "spouse for life'' in place of "husband'' and "wife.'' "This is a very significant day for Del and Phyllis and for all of us witnessing this historic ceremony,'' Teng said before the couple recited their vows.

It wasn't long before other municipalities followed suit, including Portland Oregon which about.com reports

began issuing same-sex marriage licenses on March 3rd, 2004. On April 20, 2004 a judge ordered the County to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples until the State Legislature rules on the matter. All of the marriages that were performed between March 3rd and April 20th are considered legal.

Massachucets next followed suit, but significantly with the full legal authority of their state supreme court; again about.com reports:

on May 17, 2004 history was made. For the first time in United States, gay and lesbian couples were wed in a state that legally recognizes them. It was a long fight for Julie and Hilary Goodridge, two of the plantiffs who took the case to court. According to the Boston Globe, Julie Goodridge said, "Next to the birth of our daughter, Annie, this is the happiest day of our lives.''

The rest of the story is well enough known, including President Bush's proposed constitutional ammendment prohibiting gay marriage and the score of state ballot initiatives expressly geared to prevent the spread of gay marriages to other states in the union. It has already become part of the accepted lore of the 2004 campaign that these ballot initiatives were instrumental in turning-out thousands of evangelicals and other "family-values" voters for President Bush. But let's not forget that the humble beginnings of the citizen revolt against government sanctioned gay marriage began in San Francisco due to the activism of MayorGavin Newsom. His actions led inexorably to the massive turn-out of Christian/Right voters in the Buckeye State of Ohio, and must now earn him the role and status as the official spoiler of campaign 2004.

Mr. Mxlkpix

Monday, October 18, 2004

 

A Symposium of Choice: Bush Versus Kerry

The only thing that matters, post-9/11, is the risk Islamist terrorists will join forces with rogue nation-states which may provide the terrorists with safe-haven, training, and advanced weaponry. Kerry is on the wrong side of this issue because he believes we are at war with the perpetrators of the Twin-Towers bombing ONLY...and that a worldwide coalition of law-enforcement professionals and special-op units can effectively deal with the threat and return us to pre-9/11 "nuisance" levels of terrorist activity. Bush recognizes that the threat to Western liberal democracy is far broader; that it extends to every corner of the globe, and includes both the terrorist organizations themselves and the enabling governments where they receive support and safe-haven. That Kerry refuses to acknowledge the far greater threat of this deadly nexus makes him unfit to lead and protect our nation. And lest we allow the dynamics of the election season to confuse us, it is important to note Kerry has been on the wrong side of this and similar national defense issues for the breadth of his career. Given the chance, he will engineer a softer, weaker American response to Islamist terrorism. Bush, on the other hand, understands that the era of defensive posture is over. It ended on 9/11. The only sane course of action is to take the fight to the Islamists: to take down the governments that support them, kill or capture their leadership, and so disrupt their evil operations that they become incapable of launching another major attack against us on American soil. This then is the difference. And for this day and this age it is the only difference that matters.

Mr. Mklkpix
 

A Symposium of Choice: Bush or Kerry

The only thing that matters, post-9/11, is the risk Islamist terrorists will join forces with rogue nation-states which may provide the terrorists with safe-havan, training, and advanced weaponry. Kerry is on the wrong side of this issue because he believes we are at war with the perpetrators of the Twin-Towers bombing ONLY...and that a worldwide coalition of law-enforcement professionals and special-op units can effectively deal with the threat and return us to pre-9/11 "nuisance" levels of terrorist activity. Bush recognises that the threat to Western liberal democracy is far broader; that it extends to every corner of the globe, and includes both the terrorist organizations themselves and the enabling governments where they receive support and safe-haven. That Kerry refuses to acknowledge the far greater threat of this deadly nexus makes him unfit to lead and protect our nation. And lest we allow the dynamics of the election season to confuse us, it is important to note Kerry has been on the wrong side of this and similar national defense issues for the bredth of his career. Given the chance, he will engineer a softer, weaker American response to Islamist terrorism. Bush, on the other hand, understands that the era of defensive posture is over. It ended on 9/11. The only sane course of action is to take the fight to the Islamists: to take down the governments that support them, kill or capture their leadership, and so disrupt their evil operations that they become incapable of launcing another major attack against us on American soil. This then is the difference. And for this day and this age it is the only difference that matters.
 

A Symposium of Choice: Bush or Kerry

The only thing that matters, post-9/11, is the risk Islamist terrorists will join forces with rogue nation-states which may provide the terrorists with safe-havan, training, and advanced weaponry. Kerry is on the wrong side of this issue because he believes we are at war with the perpetrators of the Twin-Towers bombing ONLY...and that a worldwide coalition of law-enforcement professionals and special-op units can effectively deal with the threat and return us to pre-9/11 "nuisance" levels of terrorist activity. Bush recognises that the threat to Western liberal democracy is far broader; that it extends to every corner of the globe, and includes both the terrorist organizations themselves and the enabling governments where they receive support and safe-haven. That Kerry refuses to acknowledge the far greater threat of this deadly nexus makes him unfit to lead and protect our nation. And lest we allow the dynamics of the election season to confuse us, it is important to note Kerry has been on the wrong side of this and similar national defense issues for the bredth of his career. Given the chance, he will engineer a softer, weaker American response to Islamist terrorism. Bush, on the other hand, understands that the era of defensive posture is over. It ended on 9/11. The only sane course of action is to take the fight to the Islamists: to take down the governments that support them, kill or capture their leadership, and so disrupt their evil operations that they become incapable of launcing another major attack against us on American soil. This then is the difference. And for this day and this age it is the only difference that matters.
 

A Symposium of Choice: Bush or Kerry

The only thing that matters, post-9/11, is the risk Islamist terrorists will join forces with rogue nation-states which may provide the terrorists with safe-havan, training, and advanced weaponry. Kerry is on the wrong side of this issue because he believes we are at war with the perpetrators of the Twin-Towers bombing ONLY...and that a worldwide coalition of law-enforcement professionals and special-op units can effectively deal with the threat and return us to pre-9/11 "nuisance" levels of terrorist activity. Bush recognises that the threat to Western liberal democracy is far broader; that it extends to every corner of the globe, and includes both the terrorist organizations themselves and the enabling governments where they receive support and safe-haven. That Kerry refuses to acknowledge the far greater threat of this deadly nexus makes him unfit to lead and protect our nation. And lest we allow the dynamics of the election season to confuse us, it is important to note Kerry has been on the wrong side of this and similar national defense issues for the bredth of his career. Given the chance, he will engineer a softer, weaker American response to Islamist terrorism. Bush, on the other hand, understands that the era of defensive posture is over. It ended on 9/11. The only sane course of action is to take the fight to the Islamists: to take down the governments that support them, kill or capture their leadership, and so disrupt their evil operations that they become incapable of launcing another major attack against us on American soil. This then is the difference. And for this day and this age it is the only difference that matters.

Sunday, October 17, 2004

 

Bob Shrum Joins "Fair-Game" Chorus

Given the smelly kettle of fish that Kerry is in over his "Mary Chaney is a lesbian" debate remark, who would believe, in their wildest dreams, that Bob Shrum would go on Meet the Press, and in defense of Kerry's actions, reiterate Mary Beth Cahill's gaffe that "Mary is fair game." Shockingly, this is exactly what he did, twice, when he said:

"Vice President Cheney brought up his daughter's private life. When Senator Edwards brought it up--and by the way, she was a public figure because she was director of gay and lesbian affairs for the Coors Brewing Company. When he brought it up, he said, Thank you. So what's wrong with it--Senator Kerry obviously was trying to say something positive".

And again, when he explained away the inappropriatness of the remark by stating:

"Mary Chaney is an official of the Bush campaign"

There is an obvious rift in the Kerry camp over the handling of this issue. Joe Lockhart stuck to the warm and fuzzy when questioned on Fox Sunday with Chris Wallace. He said there was no orchestrated debate tactic, just two swell guys reaching out to the other side with love and compassion. Shrum, on the other hand, used the old lawyers trick of playing both sides against the middle by explaining that (a) Kerry was just being a sensitive and caring fellow, but if that dog don't hunt than (b) Cheney brought it on himself when he allowed his lesbian daughter to become a part of the campaign.

I don't think this is a situation where you can have it both ways. Either the remark was appropraite or it wasn't. It can't be appropriate on the one hand and require a far-fetched excuse on the other.






Saturday, October 16, 2004

 

Kerry Loses Presidency...Makes Highlight Reel

How deep a hole did John Kerry dig himself when he called the VPOTUS' daughter a lesbian in the polite company of a national debate? The polls will tell the inevitable truth, but those of us with gut-feel already know the answer: John Kerry has lost the presidency. Common sense says that everything Kerry and Edwards said in the debates was calculated, political material. Something this controversial could not have been left to chance. They were both singing from the same hymnal, but Kerry's version of the remark went over like a lead baloon. Common sense also says they did it as a not too subtle attempt to dislodge a bigot or two from the Bush bandwagon. Too clever by half, as the Brits say. Now they've gone and offended all the normal, unsophisticated voters in fly-over country and buggered their shot at the white house in the bargain. As a consolation prize, Kerry will have the special honor of joining all the other losers in the media highlight reel that gets trrotted out every election cycle. I suggest they play the "Kerry lesbian cut" right after they show Nixon sweating under the stage lights and right before Reagan sticks it to Walter Mondale.

Mr. Mxlkpix

Saturday, October 09, 2004

 

Kerry's Appeal to Authority

My high-school logic teacher, Mr. Gugenheim, taught us that using a third party, like a celebrity or a recognized authority figure, to bolster your debate argument was a falacy called "appeal to authority". The basic idea being that one's argument should stand up by virtue of its own inherant truth, not by virtue of a third party's endorsement. The "appeal to authority" falacy is used all the time in advertising; for example when a celebrity with no relevant credentials endorses a product or service. John Kerry employed this falacy constantly in the second presidential debate. "Wes Clark, who won the war in Kosovo, has endorsed me" is just one classic example. John Kerry dropped dozens of names throughout the debate--some recognizable, others not--to bolster his positions. Was this effective? Yes and no. When left unanswered, even the most eggregious debate falacy can turn into a winner. But when overdone, as it was in Kerry's retoric, the offending crutch or device will ring hollow and false.

Mr. Mxlkpix

Friday, October 08, 2004

 

Questioning the Assumptions of Lebanon

Politicians are masters at promoting assumptions as facts. A classic example of this is the broadly-held belief that universal, government sponsored healthcare is a resonable goal for every civilized society. Where did this belief come from? From the original, falty assumption that there is plenty of money to fund universal healthcare services, if only we could more correctly set priorities and manage revenues. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is not enough wealth generated in America to fund grandiose government-sponsored health care for all citizens. Yet year after year, politicians argue about the DETAILS of our growing federal health care system without ever questioning the original assumption that we ultimately can pay for every health benefit we legislate in Washington. So it is with Kerry's recent march into Lebanon. His remarks are based on falty assumptions that he does not care to discuss. He wants to wave that form of discourse in favor of the emotional response images of war-torn Lebanon might evoke in the electorate. So, purely as a public service, here are the assumptions that Kerry is making in equating Iraq with Lebanon:

(1) That he is a "player" in the ongoing drama of conflict in the Middle East. Nothing could be further from the truth. He is a back-bench democrat that has little or no influence on past or present US policy in Lebanon or anywhere elese in the Mid East. He tried this coat on for size in the first debate when he stated that he had warned President Bush well in advance that he was making dire mistakes in rushing to war in Iraq. It's as if he wants us to believe he was warming a seat at the cabinet table, instead of on the back-bench in the Senate.

(2) That he is a recognized expert on military matters. Again, a canard. With the exception of his outreach efforts on behalf of POWs/MIAs in post-war Vietnam, he has no recognized track-record or credentials in resolving armed conflicts. His Navy service does not qualify. He was not in a strategic command position.

(3) That the serious but nevertheless limited-in-scope insurgency in Iraq is equal in magnitude to the complete breakdown of civilization that occured in Lebanon. In equating the two conflicts, Kerry promotes the assumption that "degrees of magnitute" do not exist in foreign wars. They are all equally bad: Vietnam, Kosovo, Lebanon, Iraq, whats the difference?

(4) That a slight-of-hand shift from Vietnam as the working analogy for all-things-bad-and- Bush-inspired will go unnoticed. I suspect the Kerry focus groups grew weary of Vietnam references and responded emotionally to the Lebanon reference, hence the shift.

(5) That the shop-worn sales technique known as a "presumptive close" that works so well for used car salesman will work for him in his race for president. Please! "I don't know what I am going to find on January 20th, the way the president is going," He states, "If the president just does more of the same every day, and it continues to deteriorate, I may be handed Lebanon, figuratively speaking". This is classic attempt to assume the mantle of leadership in advance of the vote. He simply assumes we all agree the "mess" as he defines it will be his to solve in short order.

Mr. Mxlkpix

Thursday, October 07, 2004

 

Only the Nexus Matters

It matters not a whit that stockpiles of WMD have not been found in Iraq. Likewise it is irrelevant whether a direct operational link was established between Sadaam and Osama prior to 9/11. The only thing that matters in the post-9/11 context is the possibility of a current or future coupling of the asymetrical terrorist forces of the Islamist Jihad with a rogue nation-state which could provide them with safe-havan, training, and advanced weaponry. Kerry-Edwards and the Mainstream Media would have us believe we are at war with the perpetrators of the Twin-Towers bombing only--no more no less. But the threat to Western liberal democracy is far broader: it extends to every corner of the globe, and includes both terrorist organizations and the enabling governments where they receive succor and safe-haven. That Kerry-Edwards refuse to acknowlege the obvious global nature of the Islamist Jihad is a major red flag. When was the last time you heard either of them acknowledge that al Queda is active in the Phillippnes, in Indonesia, in Sudan, in Saudi Arabia, in Russia et al? Are we really supposed to wait for the next attack before we can take steps to drain the many swamps they inhabit? Are we really supposed to wait until they trade their grenade launchers for far deadlier armaments? Why does everyone on the left persist in arguing that the only legitimate reason to attack Iraq would be a proven link to the 9/11 attacks? Why do they refuse to acknowlege that the Nexus of terrorist elements and rogue states is potentially far more deadly? The answer is pure politics. They purposefully misrepresent the serious rationale of the Bush doctrine for purely political gain. Only the nexus matters; but to believe the democrats, only the crime committed on 9/11 matters. This is a shockingly naive view of the current crisis.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

 

John Edwards Channels Jimmy Carter

Both Vice-Presidential candidates did well in last night's debate. I give the edge to the Vice-President only because I believe his performance effectively arrested the momentum Kerry-Edwards gained from the Bush-Kerry Debate #1. If I were defining goals prior to the debate, I would be happy with this result. I was shocked at how often Edwards took on the negative, doom-and-gloom persona of Jimmy Carter--especially in his closing statement. I don't know what country he is living in, but even a cursory reality check will tell you that everything can't possible be as bad as he makes it out to be. He makes the mistake of running down literally every acomplishment of the American people over the last four years in an attempt to give President Bush a black eye; furthermore he does it all with a smug, naivete that implies there is some magic button that can be pushed that will resolve all worldly problems. Guess what? There is no magic button that can be pushed that will give everyone healthcare, brilliant children, high paying jobs and secure retirement. The system, and the individuals in it, has to create all the wealth necessary to pay for whatever we as a nation decide we will fund cooperatively. There is no secret Kerry-Edwards mojo that will change the simple economic reality that in our society, each citizen must generate the wealth required to fund their own basic family needs. We can, as a society, work to pool our resources to help others in particular need or to solve large, commonly-shared problems (such as defense); but we can never provide cradle-to-grave entitlements for every citizen. Bush gets this. That's why he is the adult in the race, while Kerry is just an immature panderer.

Saturday, October 02, 2004

 

Will Death-Cult Terrorists Ever Lay Down Their Arms?

Warning: This is a very politically incorrect post: Terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere have taken a page from Colombian drug lords in their practice of kidnapping for monetary and political gain: They kidnap some poor soul, demand ransom (and get it from the weak-sister nations) and then use the money to finance horrible new acts of terror. Communist insurgents in Central America used this technique to great effect. But unlike the South and Central American kidnap cults, Islamist terrorist are not subject to normal disincentives (jail, execution, etc.), BECAUSE THEY ARE DEATH CULTS. They simply do not care if they themselves are killed in the execution of their work. In fact, they consider it a singular badge of honor to martyr themselves in battle with infidels. Clearly, it is impossible to stop someone who embraces death with relish using "normal" military or law enforcement practices. There will always be some new sap in their ranks who will fill the void left by the latest martyr. In this respect, Islamist terrorists HAVE MORE MATCHES THAN WE HAVE FEET. As the Jews have discovered in Palistine, there is no "reasoning" with a Hamas terrorist, and there is always some new, brainwashed sap to take up the arms of their martyred comrade. Therefore, it will someday become necessary for the US to take extremely draconian measures to put today's Islamist Jahadi out of business. Which begets the following question: Just how are we to convince death-cult terrorists to lay down their arms and accept the evolution of their societies into secular democracies? I believe one likely technique will be to hold the Islamic shrines and holy places hostage. You heard it here first. There will come a day when we will threaten to destroy the holy shrines of Islam if and when al Queda perpetrates another heineous act of terror against us. While there is clearly no mandate for such a step today, a new terrorist attack a la 9/11 could easily bring this unlikely and "impossible" idea into the realm of the possible.
 

Bunker Busters R Us

There are at least five problems with John Kerry's debate proposition that the US, and by extension the world, is better off by not persuing a new class of bunker-bustin nuclear weapons:

(1) It is old, pre-9/11 reasoning that does not take into account the truely heineous nature of our enemies: they will stop at nothing to destroy us because their jihad is based on the belief that our secular Western governments are evil and that their destruction serves God's plan.

(2) Its basic premise is moral-equivalence; simply that powerful weapons in the hands of the US are no more righteous than powerful weapons in the hands of anyone else. This is false on several counts, most notably that we are the world's only effective super-power/police force and our use of powerful weapons in the persuit of terrorists is a constructive behavior that brings value to the world.

(3) It is a sophisticated, nuanced argument that is lost on the American people. We want "high-Noon" justice for Islamist Jihadists. We do not feel bad when the town marshal has a faster draw or a better six-shooter when he faces Bad Bart. We want him to win. We don't care if it's "fair".

(4) It is inherantly NOT a matter of nuclear proliferation. "Proliferation" applies to the acquisition of strategic nuclear weapons that may be used as deterance in a mutual self-destruction context. Bunker Bustin Nukes are tactical weapons that do not contribute to the "Nuclear Arms Race".

(5) It is parlour-trick public policy. It belies the other Kerry statements on the need to supply our armed forces with everything they need to prosecute the war on terror. Kerry: "I will ensure our fighting men and women have all the equipment they need to be successful...except bunker-bustin weapons that can actually kill the enemy in their hideouts" is an absurd position for anyone to take except in the context of a political debate.

Mr_Mxlkpix

Friday, October 01, 2004

 

A Sophisticated Man

John Kerry demonstrated a high degree of sophistication in debate with President Bush. His opinions and responses were in every respect intelligent, thoughtful and well-reasoned. Bush on the other hand presented his ideas in a simplistic manner, without guise or nuance. Nevertheless. I think it is Bush who has the correct read on his audience. Most Americans are unlikely to appreciate the more complex answers of Kerry over the straightforward responses of Bush. Case in point, Kerry's observation that America is on thin ice when it promotes worldwide nuclear disarmament even as it developes a new class of bunker-busting nuclear weapons. In this case, I believe most Americans are unlikely to appreciate the irony of the situation as presented by Kerry; like President Bush, they will simply trust that we are the good guys and we need big guns.

Mr_Mxlkpix

Thursday, September 30, 2004

 

The Only Issue That Matters

Joblessness, healthcare, gay rights, immigration reform, abortion et al are issues that effect some percentage of the population. Terrorism is an issue that effects 100% of the population. Consequently, the ability to deal effectively with terrorism is the only issue that matters in this election.

Mr_Mxlkpix

 

Test Tube Indonesia

The likliest place to study non-fundamentalist Islamic democracy in action is Indonesia. This predominently Muslim nation has all the ingredients, some good some bad, that the Bush administration is hoping to engender in Iraq. They are non-Arab, generally moderate, and anxious to achieve a better standard of living. If in 10 years Iraq can toe the line that Indonesis is toeing today (holding elections, generally not acting like despotic assholes etc.) than we should consider the Iraq experiment a success.
 

Who is the Jihad?

The philosphy of Jihad followed by Osama bin Laden was formulated by al Q'tab who held that secular governments which effectively seperate G-d's law from the laws of man are evil; i.e. they propogate the work of the devil. The correct course of action when dealing with the devil is to destroy him and his minions. Jihadists do not believe it is wrong to murder non-believers because the choices they have made in life are contrary to G-d's law. The Jihad movement will only be satisfied when the Devil's work on earth is destroyed and Islamic law, as they understand it, becomes supreme. In this respect they are the worst form of tyranical fundamentalists. They are the antithisis of Western liberalism. And like "The Terminator" they will never stop...until the acheive their goals or die trying.

Mr_Mxlkpix
 

Fortress Iraq

I believe one un-spoken agenda for Iraq is that it become an armed camp for the US in the heart of the Middle East. Note the location, in direct pxoximity to Iran, Afganistan, Syria, Pakistan, etc. Given the nature of the pan-Islamist Jihad movement, it makes perfect sense that the US have a rapid-response base in the heart of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia was becoming untenable and no other options present themselves for access by sea. The Islamist Jihad will be with us for some time. The US is the only functioning super power/police force. Iraq is a likely place to build a police station.

Mr_Mxlkpix
 

John Kerry's Teeth

Real men do not go in for all the appearance changes that John Kerry has resorted to over the course of his campaign. Botox, tanning treatments and designer haircuts are the stuff of hollywood, not mainstreet, USA. The hyper-white teeth, for example, are a sure sign that Kerry does not have a stable sense of himself or what is important in life. In any event it is a leopard spot; a clue as to who Kerry really is.

Mr_Mxlkpix

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?