A Few Things To Ponder

by John Hawkins | July 7, 2003 9:23 pm

A Few Things To Ponder: Here are some things I wanted to mention that probably weren’t quite developed enough to merit their own posts…

— I don’t have a problem with keeping the name of rape victims out of the media to avoid stigma, but why should their accusers be given the same courtesy? Does their reputation not suffer as well because they’re being accused of rape? I bring this up since Kobe Bryant[1] now stands accused. Is he guilty — is he innocent — I don’t know. But if they’re going to keep the woman’s name quiet, Bryant’s name shouldn’t be revealed either.

— Howard Dean has picked up a lot of momentum by winning the moveon.org primary[2] and I can’t say that displeases me. First off, I think he’s unelectable — in fact the campaign commercials practically write themselves…

(In The South) “Howard Dean said signing gay civil unions into law was the ‘most important event in my political life’ — does Howard Dean represent North Carolina (fill in the Southern state) values?” Then of course, there’s “Can we trust Howard Dean to defend America?” You have to love Dean as an opponent for Bush.

Perhaps better yet, Dean may push Bush to the RIGHT on a couple of issues. Dean has an excellent record on gun rights and on balancing the budget. That could mean that Bush will feel compelled to perhaps introduce a Balanced Budget Amendment or really beat the drum for the NRA crowd in order to keep Dean from stealing any voters away. That would be a big plus.

— A lot of people on the right don’t like Ann Coulter. Want to know why? Here’s a quote from Coulter about Joe McCarthy that could just as easily be applied to Annie herself…

“McCarthy was a popularizer, a brawler. Republican elitists abhor demagogic appeals to working-class Democrats. Fighting like a Democrat is a breach of etiquette worse than using the wrong fork. McCarthy is sniffed at for not playing by Marquis of Queensbury Rules — rules of engagement demanded only of Republicans.”

I believe the Conservatives who don’t like Coulter have a problem with her largely because she “Fight(s) like a Democrat.” I for one am glad we have her around because she hammers home some very important points and brings them to the public’s attention in a way few others can.

— This[3] is the first time I’ve heard a full and complete explanation for why the power isn’t on in Baghdad yet. Apparently they’re having the same sort of problems California did — they just don’t have enough juice to go around…

“The two also conceded that the electric power level in Baghdad was now lower than before the invasion of Iraq earlier this year because reconstruction officials were using improvements to the national grid to distribute more power to the rest of the country.

“Here in Baghdad, they typically enjoyed 23 to 24 hours of power” before the war, Strock told reporters. “But there are other places in the country that only got two.”

“And as we have brought the system back on line, we have tried to get more equitable in the distribution of that power. So what you’re seeing here is the people of Baghdad are receiving less than they did before, but about 80 percent of the population (of Iraq) is receiving more.”

— Byron York[4] points which political party really has the support of the “little guys” and which party is really “party of the rich”…

“A new study by the Center for Responsive Politics found that in the last election cycle, people who gave less than $200 to politicians or parties gave 64 percent of their money to Republicans. Just 35 percent went to Democrats. On the other hand, the Center found that people who gave $1 million or more gave 92 percent to Democrats – and a whopping eight percent to Republicans.”

— David Warren[5] explains Bush’s “Bring em on” comment and a couple of benefits of having our troops in Iraq that have not often been discussed…

“What the media, and U.S. Democrats affect not to grasp, is that the soldiers are now replacing targets that otherwise would be provided by defenceless civilians, both in Iraq and at large. The sore thumb of the U.S. occupation — and it is a sore thumb equally to Baathists and Islamists, compelling their response — is not a mistake. It is carefully hung flypaper…

…At the moment it appears that most of the infiltration of Iraq is coming from the west, through Syria, and consists of Lebanese-based Hizbullah elbowing their way into Saddam’s old territory. Their intention is to do to the U.S. Army in Iraq what they did to the Marines in Beirut in 1983. The chief source of both men and materiel is what Gal Luft has called “Hizbullahland” — the 1,000 square kilometre patch, that Hizbullah now rules under Syrian protection, which was formerly Israel’s security enclave in southern Lebanon (until they withdrew in a peace initiative in the year 2000).”

I hate to see our troops in Iraq under fire, but better to have the terrorists fighting and dying against our military in Iraq rather than slaughtering our civilians here on the home front. Moreover, if Hizbollah attacks our men, it proves that they’re enemies and it gives us every reason to swoop in and slaughter them (or to make Syria do it rather than risk our wrath).

A Few Things To Ponder

by John Hawkins | May 15, 2003 11:55 am

A Few Things To Ponder: Here are a few things I wanted to mention that probably weren’t quite developed enough to deserve their own posts…

— The Hammer[1] is going to shut down the Assault Weapon ban in the House. That’s great news! That means GWB won’t have irritate the NRA guys by fulfilling his campaign pledge and signing the ban and yet we’ll still be able to get rid of the legislation. It’s largely symbolic anyway since the number of people killed with assault weapons was minimal anyway. Personally, I’m looking forward to being able to get a bigger clip for my HS 2000[2] when this ban goes away.

— You want to talk about chutzpah? The Democratic Party of Texas is calling the 53 Dems from the state House of Representatives who fled to Oklahoma, “heroes”. They’re even calling them the “Killer D’s[3]“! Lol, is that really the appropriate moniker for Democrats who who ran away to Oklahoma? Heck, the GOP in Texas should slap their faces on a deck of cards and give it to the Texas Rangers who are trying to hunt these fugitive legislators down.

— My roommate just got this new dog. Well, the dog got into my room and not only does he take a crap on my Afghan War Rug, but he starts chewing on my blinds. The blinds? Out of all the things in my apartment, what is the attraction to the blinds supposed to be? I mean could see my socks or the cat’s toys, but the blinds? That’s just bizarre.

— I’m still confident that we’re going to find WMD in Iraq. Some of them Saddam may have destroyed, some of them he may have sent to Syria, but somewhere, buried in the desert, are WMD waiting to be found. Come on folks, you don’t produce mobile weapons labs, prepare thousands of chem protection suits for your soldiers, refuse to let your scientists talk to the UN, and lose billions of dollars worth of oil money unless you have something to hide. And we will find some WMD which will be all it’ll take to back up the Bush administration’s claim that they had them.

— Notice what sort of targets terrorists have been hitting across the world since 9/11. A nightclub in Bali, a theater in Moscow, apartment buildings in Saudi Arabia, & buses in Israel (among other targets). Now think about America. Do you think those types of soft targets in the US are well protected enough to stop a large team of terrorists from hitting them? Not on your life. The reality is that America’s borders and society are too open to truly be protected from terrorists. That’s why defense won’t work and why Bush’s preemption strategy and decision to go after the state sponsors of terrorism are the only way to go. Long-term, we have to cut the terrorists off at their source if we’re going to stop them.

— I’ve always been a big Star Trek fan and I’ve liked all the series (although Janeway did grind on my nerves). However, I tend to think that the Star Trek world, one where resources are nearly unlimited, wouldn’t be as benign as we imagine. My guess is that you’d have a whole planet full of holodeck junkies who’d only come out long enough to replicate some food. I mean once you can create a machine that allows to shape your own reality in any way you wish, how many people would want to experience the real thing? People would spend so much time in their own private holodecks that eventually most of the human race would die out and the luddites would have to replenish the earth.

— I’ve seen several columns like this one[4], that tell us, “don’t blame diversity” for Jayson Blair. Well, why not? Blair is a poster boy for everything that people don’t like about racial preferences. At every stage of his career he got promotions and breaks that he didn’t deserve despite what the Times itself has admitted was a mediocre performance. If the Times had been colorblind, Blair would have been fired well before this scandal broke, the readers of the NYT would have gotten more accurate news, and the Times would have saved themselves a lot of embarassment. Too bad they cared more about diversity than excellence.