ME

My Photo
I am retired from government, law enforcement, politics and all other pointless endeavors. I eat when I am hungry and sleep when I am tired.

Thursday, July 31, 2014

FROM ONE POCKET TO ANOTHER

CNN just announced the release of a substantial number of mortar rounds to Israeli forces now pounding Gaza.  That's not surprising.  What is, is that the delivery will take place from a massive depot of American weaponry and ammunition already placed in Israel.  How many people knew that the US pre-positions huge munitions stockpiles within Israel for the convenience of Israel?  My guess is that this is a reaction to the events of 1972, where Nixon had to emergency airlift munitions to Israel during that war.  There is the fiction that the Israeli's pay for this, except that they do so under a regime of loan guarantees in which they never really have to pay.  Now apparently we just skip the fictive transaction altogether and just let them take what they want.  

We conveniently positioned masses of mortar bombs in country so that our gallant allies in Jerusalem don't run out while they kill the children of Gaza.  

Of course this fact must never be allowed to interfere with our bogus assurance to the surrounding states that we are even handed.   

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Why Does America Tolerate Indian Immigrant Medical Fraud?

Why Does America Tolerate Indian Immigrant Medical Fraud?

Saturday, July 26, 2014

DREHER REJECTS DIMMITUDE?

I noticed Rod Dreher cancelled his subscription to the New York Times today.  He finally got the message the Times has been sending him for twenty years, which is, drop dead.   Some of us learn faster than others I suppose.  Yet he is still capable of writing…"NPR is hopelessly liberal in its biases, but it’s also a great news organization, one from which I learn every single day. I get the idea that NPR doesn’t really understand people like me (social and religious conservatives), or care to learn much. But — and this is a key difference between NPR and the NYT — I also don’t think NPR hates us and would like to see us go away."

Is Dreher really this dense?  Can he be this dense? I'm beginning to feel sorry for him.  But it's a sorrow mixed with contempt.  To have limped along with the Times for twenty years and only just now get the message is a sign of stupidity or weakness or both.  The idea that he thinks all the lefties, lesbians and others at NPR have anything but the same contempt for him as the Times is Candide on wheels!

BTW, I long ago stopped commenting on his blog.  Not because I disagree with him, though I do.  It's because he started actually editing them.  That, and because he cowardly refused to respond to me on this very issue of National Public Radio.  He wrote some nonsense based on bogus numbers put out by NPR to the effect that NPR had a substantial conservative listenership  These numbers seem off to me,  I took the time to research the actual numbers. He failed to post my research or reply in any way.  I concluded at that point  that he was a self serving lightweight and not worth my efforts.  

It's noteworthy that he still "learns" things every day from NPR.  Is it beyond him to see that the things he "learns" might just be selected to provide him with a skewed angle on events?  How much of what he learns is actually true.  Inquiring minds might want to know, but not his.   Personally  I rarely  hear reporting on NPR that is not a collection of "facts" designed to advance the interests of one side or the other.  NPR get's its facts wrong a lot.  Readers can confirm this by remembering the last time NPR reported a story about which they had some expert knowledge.  How accurate were they?  

So what if anything is Dreher willing to do to prevent this "Dimmitude" he worries about for his progeny?  As the chaplain of the church of fine-tuned niceness at TAC, I suppose his answer is,  nothing at all.  Dreher wants Christianity without Christian defenders.  He wants the church of St Francis without the church of St Louis the crusader.  He can't stand Clovis, but wants St. Martin of Tours shrine saved by magic.  

And that is why I find him so repulsive.  

Thursday, July 24, 2014

IMPEACH OBAMA? NO

There is some nonsense going around about impeaching President Obama.  If I were one of the president’s advisors and backers, I’d encourage it.  But I’m not.  I’m a conservative.  I dislike self-inflicted wounds among people with whom I generally agree. 

Of course the President does deserve to be impeached.  But that’s hardly the point.  Although we may more than suspect his mentality and motives, he hasn’t committed a crime as such.  He could be impeached because he refuses to perform critical constitutional functions, while claiming powers clearly not his.  But this would be a ponderous case, involving constitutional interpretation and mountainous documentation the President’s people will never produce. His obvious malice toward Caucasians is another matter, difficult to prosecute in the context of impeachment.  A number of those sitting in the House of Representatives share his distaste for our pale folks.  So that’s a difficult sell.

No, we have entirely selfish reasons to avoid the temptation to lash out at this president via impeachment. 

Impeachment is a path away from the public’s increased understanding of the president’s manifold failures and incapacities.  Impeachment becomes the gleaming, fascinating object in the room, rather than the actual failures of this president and his party.  To impeach Obama is to hand our fate over to a million lawyers and their world of legal detail and stratagems.  It would be the usual circus of quibbles and misdirection with very uncertain results. 

This brings to mind the last time we tried this.  I deliberately placed myself in very public places to witness public reaction to the Clinton hearings.  In my naiveté I thought the public would be disgusted by Clinton’s barnyard sexual appetites and the forensic evidence of same.  I was wrong.  It was clear that the majority resented this information thrust on them, at least as much as they resented the behavior itself.  The stains on Monica’s dress just didn’t go well with their burgers and fries.  The GOP embroiled them in an ugly fight and they didn’t appreciate it.

I suspect something similar would happen with Obama hearings.  His supporters in the media would help the public see the whole business as a pseudo-racist witch hunt to depose our first black president. 

No, the wise course of action is to keep Obama around and prosper by his endless wrong-headed, arrogant, semi-legal administration.  For the time remaining, he will bestow one damaging blow to the Democrat coalition after another. 

By openly encouraging the inflow of illegal aliens he actually gets the majority population of this country to see how they are betrayed. Recent weeks have seen protests by African Americans over their displacement by cheap, foreign interlopers, who displace them on the job and in their neighborhoods.  This catches the Democrat Party in a pincer movement, as the Hispanics who are also a large part of their base are still unsatisfied at the rate of Hispanicization of our country.

The President can be counted on to support Israel more and more grudgingly.  He just cut off American passenger service to Israeli airspace.   This removal of the velvet gloves when it comes to Israel fits in well with Obamas moral compass.  He sees Palestinians as people of color to be protected.  It will grow worse from a Jewish and Israeli point of view as time goes on.  The Democrat party gets a very large percentage of its funding from Jewish sources.  Obama no longer cares. He is not running.

The President continues to advance an internationalist foreign policy that inserts our national prestige into every midget wrestling contest on the globe.  The whole world sees him as a poltroon who picks rhetorical fights that he lacks the will to prosecute.  For a supposedly brilliant man, he doesn’t seem to have the wit to see the mismatch between his high-flown pronouncements and his practical capacity.  The public doesn’t like seeing our president as an international joke.   

Obama seems to have no economic education at all.  That’s just judging by his record.  His academic records are sealed. He issues cooked numbers beyond the gift of Baron von Munchhausen, and he expects all to believe them. He thinks debt doesn’t matter but solar subsidies do. He can be counted on to keep the economy down and crawling in the wrong direction.  At some point people with some real money to lose are going to walk away and leave his party dry.

The President’s loyalty to his Attorney General makes him look biased as it is.  Nothing the Attorney General or Homeland Security Director says is believed.  They both act as the President’s henchmen in increasingly unpopular policies.  The Presidents’ signal achievement, Obama Care, is melting away under the heat of judicial review.  It will discomfit a great many voters before 2016.  The poor that it’s designed to help, his party already has.

So why try to get rid of him when we can only profit from him for the next two years?  Why interfere with his systematic dismantling of that coalition of grasping fringe groups that makes up his party?  We gain adherents every time he goes golfing while events pass him by.  Every time his favorite appointees appear before Congress, he and his party look worse in the eyes of the public. 

There is every chance that the economy, such as it is, will tank again before he leaves. He doesn’t seem inclined to start another counterproductive war, but we can be sure of his bungling foreign policy in the time remaining to him.   He will make sure that the last blue collar American still voting “D” will have leave. 

We may get an historic chance to turn our country around, but only if conservatives prepare for 2016.  They can do this by making a case that our President will only help us build. What more can we want?


Monday, July 21, 2014

RURITANIANS WITH MISSILES

Occasionally experts on the tube actually contribute something to our understanding of events.  Such happened two days ago on CNN.  They had on an expert who knew how the Russian missile launcher works and gave a convincing, commonsensical explanation of how the downing probably took place.  

It seems the launcher had at least two radars and the one that interrogates the transponder on the airliner may not have been switched on.  This is the unit that would have told them they were seeing a civilian airliner.  So the ignoramuses operating the launcher had only altitude, direction and mass of the aircraft.  I suppose they were expecting a Ukrainian transport plane, so they launched.  

Our government knows the location from which the missile was launched.  It's within the area ruled by the pro-Russian rebels.  Not much mystery there.  Those rebels are handling the crash scene about as badly as slavic yokels with access to alcohol and firearms are likely to.  The Russians let these idiots play with dangerous toys and now have egg on their faces.  

None of this changes the fact that a dispute between these related peoples is none of our business.  We have no vital interest in the area.  We made the mistake of backing one side in the endless ruritanian farrago that is Ukrainian politics.  Victoria Nuland of our Sate Department was caught red handed in this, without it seems, any career consequences.  The Russians who were already playing this game, doubled down. And so here we are, blundering about in a matter clearly more in the orbit of the EU than our own.

Let's not dignify this tragedy with the term crisis.  Let's just back up our European allies in getting compensation for the families, curb the recklessness of the Russians and in seeking a future not dependent on the east for their energy needs.    


Friday, July 18, 2014

TAC'S DECLARATION OF IRRELEVANCE

Daniel McCarthy, one of TAC's dwindling number of adults, weighed in on the Hobby Lobby decision after a long silence.  He wanted to make his displeasure with traditional conservatives  clear, deriding their "Buy your own contraception' Snark." Why is this reasonable observation "Snark?"  MCCarthy goes into a tortured exposition that in essence grants the government's right to force citizens/businesses to purchase things they don't want.  Further, the government can then quibble with the citizen/business about the extent and all the particularities of the forced purchase.  Pointing out the obvious, that Hobby Lobby employees have multiple means both within and without their insurance coverage to avoid pregnancy is simple common sense.  It's a fact.

That's what you get when so called conservatives ceed unconstitutional powers to the state, then try to find "Conservative" positions in the mess that follows. Frankly, I don't intend to bother with his sophistical point making.

What depresses me is the tendency of McCarthy and almost all the TAC writers to feel the need to position themselves to one side of any orthodox conservative position.  It's hard to see this as anything but a posture designed to differentiate themselves from other strands of conservatism.  All well and good if you have some alternative.  But all they seem to embody in a sort of offended sensibility.  Trying not to be FOX news is hardly  a worthy exercise in itself.

They classify themselves as Burkians.  So do many Neo-cons and other political mountebanks.  They expelled all the Paleocons.  Perhaps they though divorcing themselves from their own traditions and wisdom would free them to create some new conservatism.  Someone should have told them that that is an oxymoron.  They grasp at every floating bit of the zeitgeist, like Reforma-cons, Crunchy Cons New Urban-cons, etc.  Of course these are just marketing mechanisms designed to sell books.

McCarty was just meeting with Ralph Nader, the great shaman of self promotion disguised as moral principle.  Perhaps this is the new model for TAC?


Thursday, July 17, 2014

THOUGHTS ON REVOLUTION

While posting a comment in response to another commenters observation that the Iranian Revolution of 1979 was the work of the middle class, I posted the following.  It's a good summation on my thoughts on revolution in general and deserve to be reprinted here. 

@ Gordo.  Absolutely true.  Rutgers University, where I went in the Seventies was filled with Iranian foreign exchange students.  almost all were anti-Shah from what I could tell.  Quite a few are living here still, with deep chagrin.  Or perhaps they're not wise enough to see how they played into the hands of the Mullahs.

The fall of Iran is just one more example, like the French Revolution, of the middle class and lower nobility reforming themselves into oblivion.  Dictators usually fall when the  business class give up on them.  So it was in the case of Nicaragua.  The revolution begins but is then hi-jacked by Commies, Islamic extremists, or as in the case of Russia by minority oligarchs.

Starting a revolution or a reform for that matter is usually a dangerous move.   Reasonable people are rarely capable of prevailing in the tempest they call up.  It's the hard men with unlimited objectives that win.

That's why helping the Syrian opposition is so foolish.  However awful Assad may be, he is very unlikely to be followed by anyone who is not considerably worse.

I think we Americans have a hard time seeing this clearly, since our revolution turned out so much better.   We are blessed that our founders were so moderate and averse to  savage temptations.  Just so,  Robert E. Lee setting his face against continuing the Civil War as a guerrilla war.

The late Malcolm Muggeridge remarked that the crucial word association in "Revolution"  was "To Revolve."  That is, in the revolutionary context, to move ahead only to find yourself in the same place.  That always stayed with me, as with age, I notice how little changes for the better no matter how  furious we plunge ahead with "Change." 

As above, the tragic consequence of middle classes everywhere is to assume that the civil and social ground on which they stand is firm.  This leads them to tinker with mechanisms that support their own survival.  

How obvious it seemed in the Fifties and Sixties to upset the constitutional principle of free association and freedom of contract in favor of government imposed racial equality.  Equality today is as elusive as ever, but are the rest of us truly free anymore?  In the Mid-Sixties many thought that we should open up our borders to the world rather than the wellsprings of our own patrimony.  The white population that allowed that to happen will very soon be supplanted. 

And so it goes, the comfortable extinguishing themselves on the altar of good intentions.