This video is brought to you courtesy of Fort Hard Knox, my new favorite political blog. Though it was launched just recently, it has already amassed a library of links through their daily "Blog Honor Roll" that should keep any intelligent reader engaged for hours. Warning to liberal wackos, Fort Hard Knox might cause you to break out in convulsions.
Nancy Pelosi’s recent speech on the House floor provides us with an opportunity to understand her “real” position on the war, Iraq, Bush, and the troops. This video will help you to understand the “real” motivations of Nancy Pelosi.
I used to think that I was a moral absolutist, and I would regularly dismiss my friends when they would attempt to justify something I considered "inhumane" as the position of a moral relativist, who sees fundamental differences in the way one human-being values the life of another based on cultural differences. It did not take long after I became interested in China for me to abandon my preconceived notions, which were likely the by-product of nearly two decades attending Catholic schools, and an attempt to more fully understand why it is that human life is not valued equally by all, or more importantly, why it cannot be such.
I always knew China was huge, but it never registered with me exactly how huge until I began studying the Chinese Communist Revolution and the major social movements subsequently led by Mao Zedong in an effort to "purge" his country of right-wing dissidents that may eventually pose a threat to the Communist Party's universal authority. The two largest massacres of human life in the 20th century were at the hands of Communist Chinese cadre, some of whom reverted to truly barbaric practices like cannibalism at the instigation of local and national party leaders. Literally tens-of-millions of Chinese citizens were murdered piecemeal during the "Long March" and "Cultural Revolution", yet still the country's population multiplied exponentially during the baby boom era. Growth was so amazing and untenable that the Party was forced to institute drastic population control laws, which we know as the "One Child Policy". Every living Chinese citizen has spent most, if not all, of their life in a fractured society built according to a strict social plan that harshly punished even the slightest deviation.
It is through the lens of this grossly incomplete history of 20th century Chinese growth and development that the West has chosen to judge the ethical standards of a civilization that makes up one-fifth of the worlds population, and has been wholly isolated from the world community until the last thirty years because of internal strife and political instability. I would never pretend that these are ideal circumstances from a Western perspective, or that these tragedies were unavoidable, but I believe it is essential that we not hold the common Chinese citizen responsible for the sins of paranoid men now but a memory. We must recognize that the Chinese people are aware of the differences between our cultures, and are ashamed of the history that we consider to be barbaric.
I have friends from China who comment to me often on how compassionate American culture is compared to their own. They can hardly believe it when they turn on the news to see 30 minutes of coverage on the investigation into the disappearance of one person, and they comment often on the propensity of Chinese media to completely ignore incidents such as floods, and poisonings of water reserves that literally kill whole towns of people in rural provinces.
I had a very difficult time trying to understand what the fundamental difference between the two civilizations that creates this culture of apathy on matters that we in America mourn daily as a nation. The value of each individual life in the US is truly held sacred by the media, which is largely due to the fact that these stories are the driving force behind stronger ratings because of the emotional response they elicit from viewers. Chinese media are much more interested in telling stories about great economic growth and massive engineering projects instead of the more emotionally charged stories, both because they cast the government in the most favorable light possible, and because this is what draws the attention and fascination of the average Chinese citizen.
You may be asking yourself, what is the underlying cause of this cultural divide? After much thought and reflection, I have reached two conclusions. First, Chinese society is essentially atheist, the antithesis of traditional American society, which has largely evolved from small communities built around the local church. Those who are deeply religious in China are absolutely in the minority, and their activities are viewed with great suspicion by the political classes of society because of the role religion has played historically in revolutionary political movements around the world. Secondly, the collective pride of Chinese society and the feelings of inferiority and lack of appreciation they have received from the more "developed" societies of the world, have created within the greater society a more focused and goal oriented vision of where their country is going and how progress toward that end earns them the respect they deserve around the world.
Though this narrow-minded, and less compassionate view on the world is largely the result of government suppression of dissent and censorship of news that serves as a distraction from Party plan, we should not be so jingoistic as to assume that we have any right or reason to pass judgment on a society that we should not even claim to understand. 1.5 billion human-beings is a staggering thought, and such circumstances are truly unprecedented in the history of nation-states.
To judge the undoubtedly complex and morally taxing decisions of the Communist Party Officials according to moral absolutes that we have concluded to be non-negotiable measures of social progress and worthiness of full diplomatic and economic recognition, is to me one of the most ignorant distortions of 21st century realities and further evidence of the poisonous opportunistic political culture that currently reigns in Washington. We cannot presume to understand the responsibility facing the Chinese Communist Party, and it is highly ignorant and dangerously presumptuous to arbitrarily decide that we can better judge the method of governance that is best for a country that in no way, demographically or ethically, resembles our own.
Continuing the movement to boycott the Beijing Olympics next summer is one of the most disturbing examples of political opportunism, worse than most because it is based on an assumption of clearly non-existent moral absolutisms. The only way to effect the social ethos of Chinese, or any other civilization, is to earn both their trust and respect. The more American politicians deride the "values" of our competitors, the greater the chances that mutual prosperity will fall victim to cultural resentment and unhealthy competition between the two greatest and most dynamic societies the world has ever known.
This was written in a stream of consciousness, so it may be fractured and incoherent. I would appreciate any comments that you may have so I can revise and clarify my thought. Thanks.
Another favorite political talking point of Democrats is the federal deficit, which they scream about as if it has been getting worse by the minute. Never mind the fact that the country does have serious fiscal issues, specifically an unsustainable social security program, that the Democratic Party has been in blatant denial of since George W Bush decided to boldly embrace the issue following his 2004 re-election. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other party leaders instead find it more constructive to hammer away at an issue that clearly is not the greatest evidence of George Bush's mismanagement of anything, and in fact should end up being one of his parties strongest arguments that his tax cuts and economic growth plan is moving in the right direction.
Part of the reason the Left gets away with such gross distortion of fiscal facts is that people fail to understand that higher taxes does not automatically equal high government revenues. The Right has done an absolutely horrendous job building a buzz around Bush's wildly successful economic policies, and instead rely on subtle defections on the issue of Iraq to make headlines, which leaves the larger party in a precarious position going into the 2008 campaign. If the Republicans are duped into making Iraq and foreign policy the central issue of the campaign, in my opinion they will lose. Any successful Republican candidacy must embrace the economy, particularly the unprecedented success of the stock market, to convince voters that they are better off because of Republican economic priorities. As long as the Democrats are going to make healthcare the major domestic issue, which all of the major candidates seem intent on, any Republican armed with a coherent explanation of why this would be a disaster for the economy and stock market should be able to whether any disadvantage due to the war.
I recently received an anonymous comment directing me to a new social bookmarking site that is dedicated to promoting stories and ideas that are favorable to the right-minded reader (pun intended). For the last year or so, the Web 2.0 sphere has been dominated by the communists, and it is high time the more intelligent and responsible aspects of American political discourse take back the internet from the likes of Reddit and Digg, who overtly censor the information submitted to reflect their Democratic biases.
They certainly cannot suppress us any longer, or complain because of a supposed "lack of balance". What is really hilarious to me is the fact that so many liberal bloggers have used these self-censored forums to blast Fox News and Rupert Murdock for their supposed lack of balance. GOPHub.com offers the first Web 2.0 site that is completely dedicated to furthering the cause of conservatives and I am excited to see it grow and mature as more conservatives come to understand how to utilize it to reach new readers and proliferate intelligence. I encourage everyone who cares about keeping the GOP in control in 2008 to submit stories and contribute to the fight of the right to take back the internet!
On an Iowa radio station this morning, Bill Clinton and his wife must have forgotten to have their coffee, because somehow they were lured into a discussion of the merits underlying President Bush's decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby, former-Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney, who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice earlier this year. Interestingly, Bill and Hillary pounced on the opportunity to criticize the ethics of the White House and its motives for granting clemency to the loyal former-White House employee. It might have been the least eloquent response Bill has given to a question since he tried to redefine the word "is".
The host failed (of course) to challenge the Clinton's on their own suspicious record of pardoning those close to themselves and the Democratic establishment, which included Bill Clinton's half-brother Roger Clinton (cocaine dealer), former-Democratic Congressman Mel Reynolds (pervert, rapist and defrauder), Carlos Vignall (cocaine trafficker) and the most infamous and high-profile pardon, that of billionaire Clinton-ite Marc Rich**, who was at the time living outside the country as a fugitive.
**Marc Rich's wife, Denise Rich had coincidently donated $450,000 to the Clinton Presidential Library just prior to her husband receiving the 11th hour pardon from Clinton, but that isn't a conflict of interest, how dare anyone suggest such a thing. The Washington Post featured an outstanding editorial outlining the corrupt nature of the Clinton library fund raising machine on the day the library opened in November 2004, and I suggest everyone read it before they cast their ballot for Hillary Clinton, but I digress.
In fact, most of the criminals that President Clinton found to be deserving of a presidential pardon were drug dealers, whom are unquestionably less deserving of such consideration than Scooter Libby. However, it seems that the Clinton's disagree with this and in fact believe that Scooter Libby was let off easy for committing the same crimes that Bill Clinton was impeached for, though I don't remember him serving any jail time. Besides becoming a joke in the eyes of history, the only punishment that Clinton suffered because of his impropriety was a $25,000 fine and disbarment from practicing in the State of Arkansas and in front of the US Supreme Court. Apparently presidents are above the consequences of normal citizens, because had Clinton been convicted by a jury instead of the House of Representatives he would have been sentenced just as Libby was, which makes it even more outrageous that he would insist Libby is subject to unfair treatment.
Chris Matthews had one of the jurors from the Libby trial on his show Hardball shortly after Libby was convicted, though prior to his sentencing. The juror shocked both myself and Matthews as she raved about Scooter, whom she said she had become quite fond of through the course of the trial, and whom she characterized as a victim of political posturing. She went so far as to say that she hoped Libby would eventually be pardoned, a statement which nearly knocked Chris Matthews off of his chair.
To quote Tucker Carlson, who said it better than anyone today, "Bill Clinton must have something seriously wrong with him to have the stones to go after the president (on this issue)!"
I had long ago intended on starting a blog focused strictly on the potential bid Chicago will be making for the 2016 Olympic Games, with the intention of tracking the process from beginning to end in hopes of creating a unique and comprehensive glimpse into the history of Chicago and the Olympics. However, because of other preoccupations, I was unable to launch last year as I had hoped, and instead http://2016Chicago.blogspot.com was launched last night once I had heard that the 2014 Games were awarded to Russia, which makes the likelihood of a Chicago Olympiad much greater. Please see the new blog for links to detailed plans of Chicago's bid and subscribe to the RSS feed to stay up to speed on how Chicago has changed to best accommodate an Olympic-sized crowd.
President Bush has taken the bold move of commuting the prison sentence of former-Cheney Chief of Staff Lewis Scooter Libby, and I applaud him for this. The entire affair had become so absurd and overblown by the likes of Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman, who would sell their souls' to make George Bush look corrupt, that a man's distinguished career has been ruined in the course of an investigation that sought to uncover information about something in which he had no direct involvement.
Matthews actually had the audacity to assert that Bush gave Libby a free pass by "pardoning him", and made it sound like the independent investigator was supposed to be judging the way in which the administration sold the war to the public. I absolutely love to hate Chris Matthews; it is a bliss that is hard to convey, though it is nearly impossible to pacify. Every time he mentions the Libby issue I end up screaming at the TV.
Guess what Chris, Wilson's own report said Saddam was seeking uranium in Niger. But above all, it is ridiculous to say that 30 months in prison is just as bad as being impeached by Congress, as Clinton was for the exact same crime. In the end, Clinton had to pay a fine and he was disbarred for his offense, but nobody argued seriously that he should go to prison, and he was not removed from his job. The journalistic integrity of MSNBC is seriously in question whenever this issue comes up because of the obviousness of their Bushitus. At least they always have the most intellectually inept guests, probably since nobody of any integrity will fall in line with their talking points.
Zealous partisans who burst out in twitching fits every time they hear the name George W. Bush will no doubt accuse the president of ignoring the court and doing a special favor for his friend, and maybe it is a favor for a loyal friend and colleague, it matters very little. Bush is well within his right as Chief Executive, every president has done it, and by leaving the $250,000 fine and two year probation in place, Bush has shown that he believes some punishment was appropriate. As far as I am concerned, Libby should be allowed to go about his life, this matter should be closed.
I hear people ignorantly insist everyday that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are criminals and should be removed from office as such, though every reasoning I have ever encountered for taking such extreme action implies that these people also believe that Lincoln deserved to be impeached and removed from office following his decision to suspend habeus corpus during the Civil War. Thus, every time I hear someone ignorantly spewing hate-filled accusations against the president, labeling him a criminal and insisting that he has shown total disregard for the constitution and our rights as citizens, I retort with exactly this point. On a rare occasion people agree that they believe Lincoln should have been removed from office and I commend these people for consistency, though I still believe they are crazy and misunderstand the constitution.
I would like to challenge those who believe that Bush is guilty of gross violation of the constitution and believe he should be impeached, but do not agree that Lincoln should have been subject to the same consequences following his radical decisions during the civil war, to please submit their logic so I can better understand. I am of the opinion that most people have become so deeply inflicted with Bushitus, which I define as hyper-reactionary convulsions and uncontrollable foaming of the mouth following the mention of the name "Bush", that they have lost touch with reality. I am here to help those of you who suffer from this chronic ailment cope with your disease and find peace in the world of common sense. Please submit your argument so I can assess your symptoms and diagnose a remedy.
Senator Joesph Lieberman has been one of the few lawmakers in Washington that speaks the truth always, rather than taking whatever his staff tells him is the most popular position. One might think that it is only too obvious that the truth would take precedent over all, but sadly our culture has allowed the politics of opportunism to prevail and there is little evidence that anyone cares. It is almost as if we are living in collective denial, choosing to see things as we hope they were instead of how they actually are. Fortunately, there are still a few who hold themselves above such petty partisan posturing, but sadly these principled individuals are dismissed by most of the media as less relevant or somehow crazy and off-base.
Senator Lieberman has called for the US to seriously consider air strikes against Iran because of the refusal on the part of the Iranian government to cooperate with the international community and cease all uranium enrichment. As a result, he has been dismissed by the mainstream media as a psycho, hell-bent on waging war all across the Middle East. Rather than having a serious discussion about how important/essential it might be to strike the Iranian regime, it is taboo to even raise such an issue and thus no serious consideration is even possible.
We all accepted Bill Clinton at his word that it was absolutely necessary to strike against Saddam's WMD facilities the day impeachment proceedings began against him in the House of Representatives. In fact, anyone who dismissed the president's decision as a diversionary tactic was accused by the Democrats and mainstream media as failing to take national security seriously. Yet any discussion of striking Iran, a country that is developing nuclear weapons openly and without shame, is considered crazy.
Now Senator Lieberman has gone off the deep end by suggesting that we should institute a similar closed-circuit television (CCTV) system as the one used in London to track the perpetrators of the recent terror attacks in our own large cities here in America. "Oh my goodness, how dare he suggest something so Orwellian!", is the typical response we should expect from the mainstream media and Democratic presidential candidates. Only the Republicans, at least at the national level, are willing to discuss such measures seriously and Lieberman would do himself and the country a huge favor by switching parties officially.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=cefadf03-defc-4471-8424-de00b860ec70)
