You are viewing [info]piercedjai's journal

About this Journal
Links:
FARK FAIR TAX PLAN MATT MURPHY My Persoanl Space
Current Month
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930
Jun. 1st, 2006 @ 02:59 am Roy Moore, the Imperial Congress, and the Rule of Law

When Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore defied an order from Federal Judge Myron Thompson in 2003, and refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building, he was summarily expelled from office under the pretense that America is a nation of laws, not of men.

Moore contended that those laws could not define or promote a healthy and free society if they were established or enforced as the result of arbitrary whims of those in power. Thus, he asserted that moral and ethical absolutes, as codified in the Ten Commandments, have been and should remain as the basis for American law.

Members of the American Civil Liberties Union, aided and abetted by their toadies in the media, were quick to warn our society of the dangers it faced if Moore’s insolence was allowed to go uncontested. Furthermore, even many on the right who detest the agenda and strategy of the ACLU were nonetheless in agreement that Moore ought not be allowed to retain his position.

Sadly, the government of the State of Alabama proceeded to carry the water for the ACLU by pursuing Moore with a zeal it never displayed when attempting to defend itself against that organization. Ultimately, Moore became another victim of a federal judge who himself had perverted not only the law, but the Constitution itself.

Among institutional “lawbreakers,” Moore is hardly alone. Yet in comparison to other violations of U.S. law being perpetrated at the highest levels of government, what are the real consequences to the rest of America of Moore’s actions? Admittedly, he may have “offended” the God-hating liberals at the ACLU, but most of America perceived no threat or impending danger from him.

While the ultimate propriety of Moore’s action could still be debated, his contention that a society which rejects the boundaries of absolute truth is on the road to collapse, has since proven prescient to the point of being nearly prophetic.

Some abominable events of the past week only serve to solidify this notion. The duplicity of Congressman William Jefferson (D.-LA) is likely a greater crime against the nation by far, since hard evidence suggests that he is involved in major corruption and an institutional cover-up.

But even Jefferson’s behavior pales in comparison to lawlessness prevailing in the United States Senate, where duly enacted laws are simply being ignored and the borders of the nation are thus being systematically destroyed.

The United States Senate has now passed its immigration “reform” bill. Despite the claims of the bill’s proponents, if implemented in its current form, it would grant amnesty to the flood of illegals presently invading the country.

The Senate relentlessly pursued this course with absolute indifference to the concerns and well being of the American people. Instead the nearly universal consideration of the Senate was how such a bill might affect its own standing and future.

Furthermore, the arrogant reaction of the bill’s key Senate advocates to their critics has been to disparage and demean them as bigoted or insensitive. Hence, legitimate debate on the issue all but vanished, and any remaining discussion is conducted according to the intellectually bankrupt premises of the “political correct.”

With each passing day, it becomes ever more obvious that government, from the local to the national level, perceives itself to be in the business of accruing power and wealth, while “We the people” are increasingly relegated to the status of serf, resource, and ultimately, state property.

In keeping with the arrogant and elitist mindset of those inside the Beltway who regard themselves as an elected aristocracy, consider the overwhelming Congressional response to the FBI raid and seizure of incriminating evidence in the office of William Jefferson.

In one of those odd displays of “bipartisanship” (which increasingly reflect Washington pitting itself against real America), major spokesmen from both parties condemned the FBI action as a violation of the “separation of powers.”

Apparently, many members of Congress see themselves as somehow above the laws meant to control and maintain the peasantry in its subservient condition. The overwhelming reaction from the Congress can only be construed to indicate that Jefferson and his kind should be immune to scrutiny as long as they maintain the evidence of their criminal activity within its hallowed halls.

Meanwhile, out in the hinterlands, Judge Moore made the bold and courageous move that represents the only recourse for an individual who seeks to correct the wrongs of such an inherently flawed and hypocritical system. He decided to run for Governor of Alabama.

Hardly seeking to foment a movement of defiance against the law, Moore merely recognized the degree to which lawlessness has already overtaken our governing institutions, regardless of which political party holds dominance. In stark contrast to those who regularly acquiesce to the opposition in hopes of getting along, Moore has already proven that he will put principle above politics and personal gain, regardless of the cost to him.

The country is being increasingly ravaged by an ongoing series of issues that the political class refuses to effectively confront, either because of the enormity of special interests seeking to define them, or from fear of the “pc” armies waiting to politically assassinate any who dare to deviate from their orthodoxy.

Only such a person as Roy Moore could be expected to possess the courage and steadfastness sufficient to tackle the difficult issues threatening to cripple America and eradicate its future. Win or lose, he is showing the nation what needs to be done if it is to have any hope of restoration.

Godspeed Judge Moore.

About this Entry
Needles
May. 31st, 2006 @ 12:41 pm Things I am truely sick of...

As I write this, today feels like a day to just “vent,” so here goes…

I’m sick of hearing about high gas prices. The national media is obsessed with the issue, hoping that the more stories they run about big, evil, price-gouging oil companies versus poor, victimized, SUV-driving consumers, the more the American people simultaneously will learn to hate their gas guzzling vehicles and President George W. Bush.

I’m sick of hearing that the president’s low poll numbers are due to his handling of the war on terror, especially the war in Iraq. If the self-righteous inventors of The News would stick their heads out of their ivory towers long enough to see past their own political prejudices, they would realize that the president’s poll ratings are, in large part, the result of his own abandonment of virtually every conservative constituency he has asked to trust him for the last six years. With the exception of modest (and so far temporary) tax cuts and a couple of seemingly solid Supreme Court appointments (one of which had to be forced upon him), there is precious little in the president’s domestic agenda for a social and/or fiscal conservative to love.

I’m sick of hearing Ted Kennedy tell me how unfair it is that the rich have more than the poor. When he redistributes his portfolio among the less fortunate, then I might have a modicum of respect for the old windbag. Until then, he can just shut up and keep his greedy hands off my modest (lack reallly) income.

Likewise, I’m sick of hearing John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Arlen Specter and Chuck Hagel blather on about what is fair and decent and right, as if only they have the righteous understanding to know such things.

I’m sick of hearing that everyone has a right to be proud of his or her race, creed, gender, sexual preference, marital status, religion and national origin — everyone except happily married conservative white male heterosexual Christian Americans.

I’m sick of hearing that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a radical few. Of the approximately 1.5 billion Muslims in the world today, it has been estimated that at least 150 million of them are in support of the goals of worldwide terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda. That’s a pretty big hijacking. If ten percent of American Christians supported abortion clinic bombers, we would all be under surveillance.

I’m sick of hearing political correctness on every TV show. King Solomon was right when he said there is nothing new under the sun, but come on, Hollywood, get an idea in your heads that doesn’t involve bashing Republicans, conservatives, pro-lifers, businessmen, Christians, the Pentagon or the NSA.

I’m sick of hearing about all the jobs that Americans won’t do. Yank all the “safety nets” out from under able-bodied Americans and just watch how quickly they will take those jobs.

I’m sick of hearing that millions of illegal aliens cannot be removed from our country. Make it a felony to be here and a felony to hire them and watch how quickly they leave.

I’m sick of hearing that requiring people to learn English is discriminatory. You bet it is, and that is a good thing. I was raised to believe that discriminating people were ones with high standards. We have made the word “discriminate” synonymous with “bigotry.” That is nonsense.

Finally, I’m sick of hearing that America is a nation of immigrants. I welcome anyone from anywhere who yearns to legally breathe free and who will swear allegiance to my country, but don’t call me an immigrant. My ancestors have been in this country since well before the Civil War. Read my lips: as for me and my house, we are not immigrants. We are Americans!
About this Entry
Needles
May. 23rd, 2006 @ 10:11 am Liberals are Economically Ignorant

The third in a potentially never-ending “liberals are” generalization series focuses on how liberals are economically ignorant.

As usual, the term “liberal” is meant to included progressives, communists, socialists and all others on the political left that, if left to their own devices, would turn America into a place very much unlike traditional America and very much worse.

Liberals don’t understand economics, but that doesn’t stop them from following a “liberal economic theory.” This theory is fallacious in its assumptions that the “rich” (who, according to liberals, are evil) only got that way at the expense of the poor, that government can actually pay for things and that businesses are no different than rich people, that is they are evil and must be punished.

Liberals abhor the concept of profit, especially “excessive” profit. Just what is excessive profit? Any profit that is more than a liberal thinks it should be. Surprisingly, I’ve never heard of a case where a liberal sold his or her house for less than market value or took less than the maximum profit.

Liberals get the vapors just thinking about “tax cuts for the rich.” Liberal economics dictates that you take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Most wealthy people didn’t get rich by accident nor did many poor people get there by accident either. People largely achieve their economic status by the decisions they make. Wealthy people start companies and create jobs. Poor people don’t. Who would you rather work for, a poor person or a rich one?

The recent run up in gasoline prices has gotten liberals in a lather about oil company profits. Too much profit! Those fat, greedy, cigar-smoking oil company executives must be laughing it up as they just keep raising prices higher and higher.

If liberals were capable of more than three seconds of thought at a time (the same amount as a typical goldfish), they just might figure out that if the oil companies were manipulating prices, why did it take them until five years into the 21st century to do it? I bought gas for 79 cents a gallon in 1999. Where were those greedy executive back then?

Liberals hate big companies. I don’t exactly at how many employees a company must have before liberals consider it a “greedy, rich corporation” but once that title is earned, liberals want to punish (i.e. tax) that corporation for being big. What economically challenged liberals don’t understand is just as coffee beans and milk are expenses for Starbucks, so are taxes. The price of coffee beans goes up, so does the price of a latte. Taxes go up, so does the price of a latte. Corporations don’t pay taxes only people pay taxes.

If only everyone was equally rich (or poor) would liberals be happy.

To that end, there are a number of liberal-backed initiatives around the country, notably in Santa Fe, New Mexico to raise the minimum wage. Again, invoking the three-second rule, if a $9 or $10 per hour minimum wage is good, why not $100 per hour?

The vast majority of minimum wage workers (1) live with others that is are not supporting a family, and (2) do not continue to work at the minimum wage for long. Yet superficial intellectuals (liberals) insist that the minimum wage should constitute a “living wage” and conveniently ignore the fact that jobs are inevitably lost as prices are increased to cover costs. Increased prices mean that the higher minimum wage ultimately doesn’t buy anything more than it did before and minimum wage workers are no better off.

In the world of liberal economics, the government would pay for such things as universal healthcare and fund everyone’s retirement. But, alas, as is the case with coffee beans, the government doesn’t pay for anything – only people pay.

The prosperity of a society does not come from the benevolence of its people – it comes from greed. The baker doesn’t bake bread because he likes bread. He bakes bread to make money. Similarly the hair stylist, mechanic and coffee house don’t exist to style hair, fix cars or make coffee. They all exist to make money. The society benefits the most when all are allowed to be greedy – fulfilling the needs of the society by pursuing their own self-interest. The more that are successful, the more others will try to achieve similar success.

A society that embraces liberal economics will stagnate, become more dependent on government and, in general, become less prosperous, e.g. France. There is time for the United States to avoid such a fate, but not if the liberals have their way.
About this Entry
Needles
May. 16th, 2006 @ 09:06 pm Relax! It's Only a Movie

Bless me Father, for I have sinned. I have read a Dan Brown novel. Worse, I enjoyed it. I feel soiled, and I fear I may do it again. Am I doomed to dwell in Purgatory?

I haven’t read The Da Vinci Code, although I have read the prequel, titled “Angels and Demons.” The whole story takes place in just a couple of days, and it had me wound tighter than an eight-day clock. Brown is a superb author. I disagree with some of Mr. Brown’s views on religion, but why should that stop me from enjoying harmless fiction?

I don’t agree with Neal Boortz on abortion, but he’s still my favorite talk radio host. I disagree with Rush on a couple of items, too, but I still enjoy his show. None of us agree on everything. Think how dull the world would be if we did.

I can’t imagine why the Da Vinci Code has created such a furor among Christians. Don’t we have greater things to worry over than a book or movie? If the notion of a fictional account of Jesus offends you, then don’t watch the movie or read the book. It’s so simple, and you won’t make nearly as big a fool of yourself as you would by standing outside the cinema waving a sign or passing out leaflets. If enough people skip the movie, it’ll bomb commercially and that will send a clear message to both Hollywood and Mr. Brown.

With all of the recent unwarranted attacks on Christian culture, I can understand why many Christians may have a short fuse. But that does not justify creating such a stir over a movie. How’s about concentrating instead on the actions of universities that routinely block Christian students from forming groups on campus? Or how about the Soledad Cross issue? Or maybe our energies could be better used by combating lunatics like Michael Newdow and the ACLU?

Here’s an excerpt from an ad posted on the Crossroads Initiative website regarding “The Da Vinci Deception.” This is a study guide to “protect” you from being led astray by the Da Vinci Code...

“The Da Vinci Deception is a powerful antidote to the spiritual poison found in The Da Vinci Code. This easy-to-read, question-and-answer book tackles the key errors in this devastating cultural phenomenon. It is the perfect giveaway to family, friends, parishioners, and anyone you think may be in danger of having their faith in Christ and His Church eroded by the mockery of Truth that is The Da Vinci Code.”

Devastating?

Dan Brown isn’t the first author to blend fact and fiction. Michael Crichton, Tom Clancy and the writing team of Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child have done it for years, and with great success. Brown’s mistake was that he crossed a line by twisting the history of Christ. It’s one thing to use factual information regarding our military to write a credible novel about a POW rescue in Viet Nam. It’s something else altogether to suggest that Christ engaged in a sexual relationship. The fact of Jesus’ celibacy is a central tenet of the Christian faith.

Even so, we do not live in a theocracy. I can sit down and write a book on any subject I choose. It’s my right as an American to do so, and I would willingly step up and defend Brown’s right to write as he sees fit, even though The Da Vinci Code has probably guaranteed him a hot-seat in Hell. The consequences of his work lie between him and God, and it’s not my place to judge him.

Here’s something you can count upon: There is presently an e-mail campaign afoot to stage protests outside theaters showing The Da Vinci Code. If there are widespread protests, the MSM will compare the protesters to the Muslims who had their burqas in a knot over the Mohammed cartoons. Images of hysterical protesters waving signs will be plastered on the front page of every major newspaper in America. Why? Because such a gross overreaction would be worthy of ridicule.

Neither the book nor the movie can stop you from worshipping as you see fit. We have plenty of real opponents to deal with. Dan Brown isn’t one of them. He has plainly stated that the book is a work of fiction and that people should make up their own minds about the story. The following statement is from his website FAQ…

HOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS TRUE?
The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.

Misguided? Yes. Devastating? Hardly.

Related Reading…

Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code FAQ
http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html

The Crossroads Initiative
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/index.html

Cracking The Da Vinci Code (from the Catholic Church)
http://www.catholic.com/library/cracking_da_vinci_code.asp

The Da Vinci Conspiracy
http://acct.tamu.edu/smith/ethics/BP_DaVinciCode.htm
About this Entry
Needles
May. 15th, 2006 @ 01:45 pm Liberals are Intellectually Dishonest

Due to the considerable feedback I received in response to my previous article, “Liberals are Insane,” I’ve decided to continue my series of sweeping generalizations of liberals, today on how liberals are intellectually dishonest.

The term “liberal” as used here includes the “progressives,” communists and socialists, all lumped together.

Those on the political left, that is the liberals, such as Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean are intellectually dishonest, that is, they know better. Most of your everyday liberals are simply intellectually stupid.

The 2004 presidential campaign was full of intellectual dishonesty and much of it continues today, in particular the notion that “Bush lied” about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam Hussein had WMDs and used them, those are the facts, and every Western intelligence agency indicated that he had WMDs at the beginning of the war. With the (apparent) expectation that the U. S. military would simply stumble across huge stockpiles of WMD material in the middle of the desert not fulfilled, the only “logical” conclusion that liberals could come to was that “Bush lied.”

Liberals, proud of their ability to understand fine nuances that are over the heads of us common people, still can’t see the difference between making a statement that later turns out to be wrong and intentionally making a statement that is untrue.

“Bush went to war for oil” is another example of liberal “deep thinking” that is still being repeated. If the president wanted to go to war for oil, it certainly would have been a lot easier to invade Canada or, better yet, Mexico. It wouldn’t take more than five minutes for the American military to take over the Mexican oil fields. Now with oil prices skyrocketing, the same brainiacs that claim the war was over oil are now crying that the president should do something about high oil prices.

Liberals in Washington blamed the administration for the failures in intelligence that could have prevented the attacks of September 11. Today many of those same liberals are up in arms over the NSA wiretapping program that is, of course, designed to gather intelligence to prevent another attack. What would these two-faced hypocrites say if the U. S. was attacked again? That the administration didn’t do enough to prevent the attacks, of course.

Liberals say that they are the champions of free expression and free speech. Liberals want no restrictions on what may be broadcast on television and Hollywood liberals are constantly pushing the envelope of decency.

On the other side of the coin (the intellectually dishonest side), there are speech codes and codes of conduct on college campuses across the country that are in direct violation of the First Amendment. These codes are designed, of course, to prevent liberals from being “offended” or “feeling threatened.”

When it comes to free expression, liberal college administrators welcome the Michael Moores and the Ward Churchills to their campuses to spew their own intellectually dishonest propaganda but ask a conservative such as Ann Coulter, to name one, how welcome they are on most campuses. Universities are the places where all viewpoints should be debated, not just those that don’t offend someone. Liberals can’t see it that way.

A common trait of liberals is that when they can’t make a logical argument to defend their position (and most liberal positions cannot be logically defended), they resort to attacking the person with the opposing view. When challenged with a logical argument, a liberal’s response will invariably include the words “you are a(n)” followed by an obscenity. Any position that cannot be defended is, by definition, dishonest.

Liberals hate so-called “big business” and deplore capitalism but yet cry like babies that there aren’t enough “good jobs” that pay a “living wage.”

Liberals restrict land use in many areas of the country, the San Francisco Bay area is one example, preventing development and driving up real estate prices, but then decry the lack of “affordable” housing.

Liberals always think they know what is best for others and liberal always want it “both ways.” They want free speech, but not offensive speech. They want affordable housing but no development. They want cheap energy, but no oil drilling or refineries. They want national security but not at the expense of war.

The fact is that no one knows what is best for anyone else and you just can’t have it both ways. Every policy, program or action has a cost, like it or not. Liberals are intellectually dishonest because they are either delusional or just plain dumb.
About this Entry
Needles
May. 8th, 2006 @ 01:50 pm Liberals are insane

The liberal way of thinking is incompatible with the realities of the world. Liberals will never solve problems and, in fact, will cause and perpetuate them because they cannot and do not understand how the world works. This has been proven throughout history.

The liberal view is defined by what “should be” rather than “what is.” On the other hand, conservatives are pragmatic and accept that what is … is. That is, conservatives know the definition of “is” and can appreciate that while “should be” is a worthwhile goal, it can never be achieved given “what is.”

This difference is clearly seen by the way liberals and conservatives would deal with sex offenders. The liberal position is that molesting a child is no different than shoplifting. This position maintains that once the sentence has been served, the perpetrator, having paid his or her debt to society, should be given a clean slate.

The problem is that the rate of recidivism among all criminals is greater than zero and for sex offenders it is much greater than zero. That is what is.

When it comes to shoplifting, a repeat offender doesn’t physically harm anyone so even if some do re-offend, there is no serious damage done. However, this is not the case with sex offenders. A re-offender destroys another life, namely that of his or her next victim. Sex offenders must never be given a clean slate. To do so simply denies what is. Liberals would sacrifice another child than to accept that a sex offender is different than a shoplifter.

The war on terrorism completely confounds the liberal mind. In the liberal view, no one will act irrationally based on a religious belief. Liberals cannot rationalize why Islamic extremists would kill for no other reason than because their religious beliefs compel them to do so.

Liberals hold that terrorists kill because they want something or because we did something that makes them kill and if we only gave them something or stopped doing whatever it is that they don’t like, they would be happy and stop killing.

What is reality is that Islamic terrorists would kill millions if they simply had the means to do so. Negotiating or appeasing those whose position is non-negotiable and are willing to die for their cause is no different than negotiating with a great white shark. While you talk, they kill you.

Liberals wailed against the NSA wiretapping program, defending their position in the name of protecting “civil liberties.” It does no good to have civil liberties if you’re dead.

The goal of the program is to prevent terrorist attacks that could kill hundreds or thousands of American citizens, which would, of course deny the dead of all of their civil liberties. What is a fact is that would-be terrorists make international calls.

Liberals are also wrong on border security. They say that illegal immigrants only come to work and seek better lives. Some do, but the reality is that illegals also come to the United States to feed at the welfare trough and to engage in criminal activities. One day, if nothing is done, terrorists will find their way across the southern border as well.

To think that America will continue along its merry way no matter how many poor people, criminals and terrorists stream across the border is nothing more than wishful thinking about what “should be,” but not “what is.”

Liberal thinking is timid thinking. It denies the realities of the world and of human nature. It is shallow and shortsighted. Liberals are naïve and, if allowed to come to power are, frankly, dangerous. History has proven liberal views to be wrong again and again. Insanity is the belief that the same action will produce a different outcome. Liberals are insane.
About this Entry
Needles
May. 2nd, 2006 @ 12:52 am Relieving Gas Pains
I am reluctant to toss another missive onto the ever-growing pile of gas-related commentary that has accumulated in the past few weeks, but since it seems to be on the top of almost everyone’s list of talking points, I just can’t help myself. The foolishness and shallow thinking that has been offered up by politicians and pundits on the subject of gasoline prices has been astounding.

Windfall profits tax? That’s been done before and didn’t work. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing again and expect a different outcome. Senator Schumer suggested breaking up the oil companies. First, it wouldn’t help and second, just three of the ten largest oil companies are American [1]. I doubt BP or Shell would follow the Senator’s recommendation. A better idea would be to break up government.

How about a $100 “gas tax rebate” check? Another great idea – set up a multi-million dollar bureaucracy to send people $100 checks. Drilling in ANWR and off the coasts of Florida and California would help, but it would take years before we see the effects. Build some more refineries or nuclear plants? Same story.

Some think ethanol and hydrogen are the answers. While both could potentially replace a percentage of the nation’s petroleum consumption, those solutions are also for the future and won’t come without a cost.

Ultimately, the laws of supply and demand will determine where we get our energy. It seems certain that we will reduce dependence on petroleum in the long-term and that ethanol and hydrogen along with nuclear, solar and wind power will likely comprise a larger percentage of energy sources in the future, but that doesn’t help us today.

So, what can we do to relieve our gas pains now?

By saving just $30 per week in other areas, the cost of a 20-gallon per week “gas habit” (at $3 per gallon) can be effectively cut in half. Save $60 per week elsewhere are you’re driving for free. Sharing a ride to work isn’t always possible and it certainly isn’t convenient, but even if you had to drive five miles to meet someone willing to share a ride instead of driving the full 25 miles to work alone, you’ll save you 100 miles per week (assuming you take turns driving). At 20 miles and $3 per gallon, that’s $15 right there.

Do you go out for lunch every day? Bring lunch from home twice per week and save another $10 to $20.

If you buy soft drinks for a buck apiece and drink three per workday, you can pocket another $15 per week in savings by drinking tap water instead.

Are you a smoker? And you’re complaining about gas prices? Complain about gas prices when you’ve given up the butts.

Ditch the expensive extra services on the cell phone. Have the maid come in every other week instead of weekly. Eliminate premium channels on your cable TV service. Cancel the subscription to that left-leaning newspaper and those unread magazines. Skip the mousse on your next haircut. Cancel the gym membership that you don’t use and go for a walk instead. Don’t tip the pool boy so much. Drink cheaper beer. There is more than enough money spent on frivolities by most families to more than make up for higher prices at the pump.

Americans today are pampered and soft. Few know real hardship. The Americans that lived through the Depression and fought World War II knew hardship. Those that think times are tough because it costs a few dollars more to drive to Starbucks need to get a grip. We think that we’re entitled to cheap gas, but we’re not going to see cheap gas anytime soon.

The pandering politicians and bloviating commentators won’t solve America’s energy problems, but the free market can and will if given some time. In the meantime, consumers can mitigate the effect of high gas prices with some simple lifestyle changes and frankly, that is the only viable short-term option. Crying like babies isn’t going to help.
About this Entry
Needles
May. 2nd, 2006 @ 12:38 am "UNITED 93" ISN'T CONTROVERSIAL, THE REACTION TO IT IS

"United 93" surprised me. I was expecting a large dose of sentimentality, of sugary vignettes from the passengers' lives, along with a musically enhanced final battle scene.

The actual film is so much better than that. It is strikingly realistic. In fact, it contains not a trace of cheap sentiment, but rather transfixes viewers with its sharp realism. Ordinary people are seen doing quotidian things -- airline pilots chat about training schedules, businessmen call their offices, flight attendants delight in a lightly loaded plane. It is so true to life it feels almost like a documentary.

Part of that realism, and the most brilliantly executed scene in the film, is the depiction of the second plane slamming into the World Trade Center. This image is so much a part of our national psyche now that one might think a cinematic portrayal would seem somehow cliched. But to the contrary, Paul Greengrass has managed to convey the shock and horror of that moment and remind us again of what a savage enormity was committed against us that day.

The film also captures the confusion and chaos that gripped air traffic controllers, the military and other officials forced to respond to an unprecedented emergency. We are reminded of the rumors that flew, of the inevitable misinformation and of the difficulty in establishing lines of communication. Above all, like a basso continuo beneath the action on screen, is the pulsing reality of fear.

What, then, are the critics talking about when they describe this film as "controversial"? The Washington Post ran a front-page story called "When Hollywood Makes History: Invented Details in 'United 93' Raise Real Questions." What were these "invented details"? In the film, the terrorist piloting United 93 places a photo of the Capitol on the plane's console. This is incorrect, the Post intones, since the 9/11 Commission said investigators could not determine whether the White House or the Capitol was the actual target. Is that it? No, the film also shows the terrorists killing the pilot and co-pilot, whereas we don't know if they really did that. Finally, the passengers are depicted as breaching the cockpit, whereas the tapes leave that issue unresolved.

Big deal. These are trivial details in the scheme of things. We do know that the ordinary Americans on that flight who found themselves in the midst of a nightmare were able to gather their wits about them, assess the situation and act -- all within a very few minutes. They were tragically unable to save their own lives, but they saved the lives of many others, as well as one of (and it doesn't really matter which one) the key symbols of our nation. President Bush should consider awarding each one a posthumous Medal of Freedom.

The Post didn't cavil about historical details in "Fahrenheit 9/11" on its front page. That film was a tissue of lies and distortions from start to finish. The paper didn't protest the tendentious misrepresentations in "Munich." Why now?

It seems that some people are worried about "United 93" not because they think it isn't true but because they know it is and don't want Americans reminded of the merciless enemy we face. Philip Martin, writing in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, explained that he does not intend to see "United 93" because "I might experience some of the same feelings I felt on September 11 all over again. And I don't want to be angry like I was then -- I don't want to hate the terrorists who committed these crimes."

I wonder, did that sentiment also infect the people who rate movies? "United 93" is rated R. In theory, no one under 17 can be admitted without a parent (though these rules are widely flouted). Yet the same people gave "Scary Movie 4" a PG-13 rating. According to Kids-In-Mind.com, an Internet movie guide for parents, "Scary Movie 4" contains crude depictions of homosexual sex, oral sex between a man and a woman, a woman using the bathroom in full view of a room full of people, etc, etc.

Everyone should see this movie.  Take your kids. They need to see the face of the enemy.
About this Entry
Needles
Apr. 27th, 2006 @ 10:52 am So You want to be a liberal?
Thinking of becoming a liberal? Consider the inconsistency and irrational thinking needed to embrace the liberal agenda:

*Rising gasoline prices are devastating to working Americans, but protecting obscure organisms at the bottom of the food chain is of greater concern. Which is why drilling for oil & adding refining capacity are unacceptable.


* Large profits are obscenely un-American, except when it comes to George Soros, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey and other liberals.


*Undocumented immigrants deserve driver’s licenses to avoid  breaking the law by driving illegally.


*The earning power of the average American worker is in serious decline; even so, America should grant amnesty to 20,000,000 illegal aliens who will work for lower wages and no benefits.

*Killing the sale of port security to UAE was necessary to protect home land security, but closing the borders with Mexico would unfairly “scapegoat” Hispanics.

*Bilingualism is essential in a tolerant, diverse society, except when it comes to Hispanics who are perfectly justified in refusing to learn English.

*Conservatives who work to preserve American culture and tradition are hate mongers. But immigrants from other nations must be allowed to retain their ‘cultural identity’ at all costs.

* Execution of a convicted killer is cruel, unusual & barbaric; whereas a woman’s right to abort the life of an innocent child is inalienable.


*Starving an innocent, hehelplessictim like Terri Schaivo to death is fine, whereas using lethal injection to end the life of a brutal killer is not OK.

* Invading a foreign nation is wrong, except when illegal immigrants from Mexico invade America.

* Discrimination based on race or gender is wrong. Except when waged against Caucasian men, in which case it is mandated by law & called Affirmative Action.

*Masculinity & all things male are the source of all evil,
whereas feminism is liberating & spiritual in nature. Jesus was probably female, truth be known!

* Freedom of speech must never be repressed, except when “hurtful” to any constituency of the Democrat party.

* Tax cuts are wrong if it means returning money to the people who actually paid taxes, but perfectly fine when sent to those who paid no taxes.

* Christmas, the Holy Bible & other symbols of Christianity must be quashed so as to offend no one; whereas, Ramadan, the Koran & symbols of Islam must be heavily promoted in the name of religious awareness & tolerance.

* Businesses are oppressive, fascist institutions that must not be allowed to grow too large, while big government, when run by Democrats, creates wealth & happiness & must be expanded.

* Military force must never be used, except when absolutely needed to advance interests not vital to the US, or to obscure a Democrat president’s sexual misconduct in the Oval Office.


The big question: Are you mindless enough to be a liberal?
About this Entry
Needles
Apr. 26th, 2006 @ 08:16 am The Gas Price Blame Game
There is no denying the pain felt at the pump as gas prices flirt with the $3.00 a Gallon mark. The life blood of this nation IS oil, whether we like or acknowledge it or not. So when gas prices rise there is a predictable rush to blame someone. Bill O'Reilly has been a crusader in the effort to blame the oil companies for "gouging". But is he right? Democrats, smelling blood in the water, are ready to levy new punitive and confiscatory taxes on the oil companies. Have they considered the "Law of Unintended Consequences'? A "Windfall Profit Tax" to punish the oil companies for making a profit? Let's look a bit closer.Yes, the oil companies operate in a world of big numbers. Their profits are in the billions. But is that obscene? Think of the trillions of gallons of oil our nation consumes (not to mention the burgeoning demand of other nations). They are meeting an incredible demand, and doing so with a profit to costs ratio in the 9 to 10% range. Few businesses can operate at all on that small a margin. It's hardly an obscene rate of return.

The companies bear the costs of purchasing all that oil – much of if from less than friendly sources abroad, transporting it halfway around the world, refining it, meeting governmental regulations for upwards of 25 different custom blended formulations of gasoline – not to mention motor oil, home heating oil, kerosene and other petrochemicals, and the demands of the plastics industry. They must then transport and distribute these products around the country. Getting crude oil out of the ground in Saudi Arabia – turning it into a legal-to-sell-in-Podunk blend of gasoline – and then getting to the Podunk Gas-n-Wash on Main Street is not exactly an inexpensive proposition.

And who gets those profits? The shareholders. How many shares are in circulation?? I wouldn't dare speculate… but is there any mutual fund out there that doesn't have SOME of it's assets in oil? Do you have a 401K or IRA? You are probably an oil profiteer!

What would happen to the economy if suddenly the value of every mutual fund in America were to have to absorb the impact of confiscatory taxes on the oil companies?? The Law of Unintended Consequences!

Bill O'Reilly has touted that it is the patriotic duty of the oil companies to hold the line on prices against their increased costs because we are in a time of war. Hey, Bill. How about the CABLE TV people holding off price increases… we're at war! Why is a pound of hamburger so expensive these days? We're at war, for goodness sake!

It seems to me that the oil companies ARE doing some level of holding the line. When oil was $20 a barrel, we were used to gasoline around $1 a gallon. Why then wouldn't gasoline break thru the $3 a gallon mark by the time the cost of crude went over $65? But it's at $70 and the average price nationwide is only now just bumping the $3 mark. There is some restraint built in there! The cost of crude has gone up 3.5 times since we saw dollar-a-gallon gas, yet we're just now getting to $3 at the pump. And while sudden oil price rises make news, several times in the last year there were precipitous drops in the price – which, while temporary (all pricing in this market is temporary!) these drops received little press.

So who CAN we blame for our pump-pain? There is plenty of blame to go around.

Did you realize that for every gallon sold, more money goes to the Federal, State and Local Tax coffers than to the bottom line of the oil companies? Who is the oil profiteer? The government profits MORE than the oil companies, and they don't have to find, buy, transport, refine, or distribute anything. And that's just in direct taxes on the gas! They also tax the company's profits. Blame government taxes.

India, China, Korea and other nations have finally moved into the 21st century. As their economies grow, so does their demand for oil. OPEC no longer feels any pressure to keep prices in line, as we are not their only or even their biggest market anymore! If WE drop our consumption – they'll just sell more to other nations happy to pay the price. Europe has been paying over $4.00/gallon for years. We have enjoyed prices artificially lower than the market price in the rest of the world for a long time. As the world's economies become increasingly global, what makes us think we can continue to get discount prices when other markets pay full price? Blame the emerging nations!

Did you know that government regulations on gasoline formulations force the oil companies to create numerous custom blends that can only be sold in specific regions? The companies must predict the demand in each of these markets so their refineries can produce one blend for so long, and then another. If they miscalculate, there will be a glut in one area and a shortage in another. The glut cannot be tapped to meet the shortage, because the formulations may not be sold across regions. So instead the price drops in the region with the glut, and rises in the region of the shortage. Then the people in the shortage area note their price is higher than perhaps their neighboring state… and they cry "Gouging!" Blame the environmentalists who pushed for the boutique blends regulations.

We have not built a new refinery since the Carter Administration, yet several have come off line in that time. With reduced refining capacity, the burdens of boutique formulations, and environmental regulations – even with adequate crude supplies, heavy demand outstrips the capacity to turn that crude into marketable product. Blame the environmentalists who won't let us build refineries!

Our dependence on foreign sources of crude makes us beholden to the pricing whims of nations not always friendly to our interests. Where is the oil we import coming from? Islamic nations of the Middle East, Venezuela, & Mexico primarily. Not exactly our blood-brother allies. On the other hand, environmental groups quash every attempt to develop our domestic reserves. Alaska? Off Florida? California? There's plenty of oil to extract, but the environmentalists won't let us drill. Once we pay the price at the foreign well-head we still have to transport all this crude halfway around the world on Diesel Burning ships! Very eco-friendly!

The environmentalists complain that drilling in ANWR might disturb some native caribou, yet one square mile of tundra looks like another… they can walk a mile and not even see a drilling rig! They worry about the possibility of pipeline spills – yet existing pipelines have excellent records in that regard. Where a spill does occur, it is always of limited scope as turning a valve upstream from a rupture cuts the flow. On the other hand, floating billions of barrels of crude across the oceans in tankers isn't exactly without risk. The possibility of dropping the entire load of a tanker is absolutely frightening. Of course, a wreck of the magnitude of the Exxon Valdez is rare – but ships can and do get into trouble on the high seas. And what is the first line of defense a ship's captain has against foundering in angry weather? Yes, lightening the ship by jettisoning cargo! Now THERE is an environmentally friendly thought!
Blame the environmentalists who won't let us drill our own resources!

As in ANY commodity trading, uncertainty and instability raise prices. The current fears regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities and other Mideast turmoil certainly casts doubts and uncertainties on the markets. This drives up prices. Blame the jihadists who can't coexist with anyone else in this world!

Oil is a worldwide commodity, with worldwide influences on its price. There is no single culprit in the rising price of oil, but the fact is that blaming the oil companies themselves is myopic and punishing them is counterproductive.

We must develop our domestic sources – environmentalists notwithstanding. We must reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil. We must build new refineries. We must reduce consumption. We must encourage alternative fuels. We must remove the disincentives to explore for new oil deposits.

The machine that is the United States runs on gas, and is lubricated with oil. The oil companies are very efficient at delivering those commodities to us despite numerous obstacles as listed above. But putting more obstacles in their way is not going to get more oil here, and won't make it any cheaper.
About this Entry
Needles