tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15222264088797790462024-03-14T13:31:51.805-05:00The Immovable MoverCapitalism. Liberalism. Miserablism. And the Pursuit of Happiness.James Henry Baileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03531804253435200353noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522226408879779046.post-57243982276497682762007-03-06T14:42:00.000-05:002007-03-06T14:44:54.758-05:00THE IMMOVABLE MOVER ...<span style="font-size:130%;">HAS MOVED! AGAIN!!<br /><br />Please visit me at <a style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);" href="http://www.jameshenrybailey.com">IMMOVABLE</a> (www.jameshenrybailey.com)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></span>James Henry Baileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03531804253435200353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522226408879779046.post-48200412679728076802007-02-04T20:13:00.000-05:002007-02-04T20:19:13.074-05:00THE IMMOVABLE MOVER ...Has moved!<br /><br />Thank you to <span style="font-weight: bold;">Gay Concervative Liberal</span> for linking to me. It was his blog on <span style="font-style: italic;">Compassion,</span> or lack thereof, that compelled me to start my own blog.<br /><br />After a month of growing frustrations with Blogger, I have decided to head over to TypePad. I hope y'all follow me there.... <a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://immovablemover.typepad.com/">http://immovablemover.typepad.com/</a>James Henry Baileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03531804253435200353noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522226408879779046.post-5194257230910801132007-01-30T14:00:00.000-05:002007-01-30T14:07:25.795-05:00Hannity, We Have A Problem!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUVDjXnHO0sg3L15t9EWAaew7sDurceKTY41ZoSFcwDT8TUCywERBFUotrmioXSZ44CbVUBlH5JWZR6Fu0zflf82Bk5a00Suip7QzJGGfkHBdscn0BZQAoqYrQ5QbfVpLh98lppFIxm9D4/s1600-h/Colmes.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUVDjXnHO0sg3L15t9EWAaew7sDurceKTY41ZoSFcwDT8TUCywERBFUotrmioXSZ44CbVUBlH5JWZR6Fu0zflf82Bk5a00Suip7QzJGGfkHBdscn0BZQAoqYrQ5QbfVpLh98lppFIxm9D4/s200/Colmes.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5025901668014188210" border="0" /></a><span class="992055417-30012007"><span id="intelliTXT"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 204); font-weight: bold;">"I know how well Sandy Berger is regarded. I'm a fan of his, and I just want to understand </span></span></span></span><span class="992055417-30012007"><span id="intelliTXT"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 204); font-weight: bold;">this because — and I want Americans to understand how a good man would do something that, on the surface, doesn't look that good. Right?"</span> - Alan Colmes</span></span></span> <div><br /><br /></div> <div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="992055417-30012007"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Alan Colmes, Miserablist<br /><br /></span></span></div><div> </div><span class="992055417-30012007"></span><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="992055417-30012007"><span style="font-family:Arial;">I do not envy Alan Colmes. He is Fox's resident token liberal who must spar with his intellectual superior, conservative co-host Sean Hannity, daily. <span class="992055417-30012007">I watch the Hannity & Colmes show regularly. I do not enjoy it. However, it is often the only chance to see conservative politicians given a fair chance to speak. </span><span class="992055417-30012007">It is clear to me that Alan Colmes was purposefully brought in as a lightweight "foil" to Sean Hannity. Instead of standing up as a serious debating partner to Mr. Hannity, Mr. Colmes often comes across as either dishonest or disingenuous.<br /><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><span class="992055417-30012007"></span> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="992055417-30012007"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Although my respect for Mr. Hannity is limited, any hint of respect that I had for Mr. Comes has disappeared with his recent support for Sandy Berger. No one debates the fact that the former National Security Advisor to Bill Clinton stole classified documents prior to his testimony with the 9-11 commission, preventing the group from ever gaining access to what could have been information vital to the defense of this country. He has admitted it himself. However, the question remains, what information was in the purloined documents? Mr. Berger claims he can't remember. If he is incapable of remembering, so be it. Some might say that it's frightening to think that a man who was partially responsible for the the safety of the U.S. had such a memory problem, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt.<br /><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="992055417-30012007"></span><span class="992055417-30012007"></span></span> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="992055417-30012007"><span style="font-family:Arial;">The American public is left to speculate: what was so important in those documents that a man would risk embarrassment on a national level at the very least, and possibly a long prison term? A reasonable, I would suggest required, inquiry since the man can't answer it himself.<br /><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><span class="992055417-30012007"></span> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="992055417-30012007"><span style="font-family:Arial;">On his radio show and television show, Mr. Colmes has commented many times in the last several years regarding the Berger case. He has gone from defending the accused of absent mindedness, to trying to shut down any line of inquiry on his watch as host. Shameful!<br /><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><span class="992055417-30012007"></span> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="992055417-30012007"><span style="font-family:Arial;">In one instance, he suggests that Mr Berger removed the documents to study them at home. Can he truly believe that? Can anyone? Is Mr. Colmes simply extremely gullible? Later, he tries to shut down any real debate by introducing the idea that there is no evidence to support the prosecutions claim that the documents were vital to the 9-11 commission. Since Mr. Berger stole the documents, as he admits, then of course there is no evidence. All the more reason to question exactly what was in those papers that left the archive in Mr. Berger's pants.<br /><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><span class="992055417-30012007"></span> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="992055417-30012007"><span style="font-family:Arial;">We may never know, since he destroyed the documents!<br /><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><span class="992055417-30012007"></span> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="992055417-30012007"><span style="font-family:Arial;">As Alan Colmes finished his segment last night, he asserted that the prosecution was making a big deal out of nothing! It is clear, as my husband pointed out, that Mr. Colmes is incapable of the intellectual honesty required to step away from his political ideology and admit that there is a problem here!!<br /><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><span class="992055417-30012007"></span> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="992055417-30012007"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Alan Colmes, Miserablist.</span></span><br /></div>James Henry Baileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03531804253435200353noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522226408879779046.post-5154448547461321602007-01-29T17:52:00.000-05:002007-01-29T19:04:41.827-05:00Business as usual II<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:arial;" ><span onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"></span></span><span style="font-family:arial;">Last Wednesday, the Senate </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00022">voted down</a><span style="font-family:arial;"> the first real opportunity to reign in and expose wasteful spending via a line item veto.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Democrats overwhelmingly rejected the vote. Republicans overwhelmingly attempted to move the bill forward.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Again, I am waiting for the outcry from the left.</span>James Henry Baileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03531804253435200353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522226408879779046.post-45854411747867874052007-01-29T17:28:00.000-05:002007-01-29T17:51:00.675-05:00Business as Usual<span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 204); font-weight: bold;font-family:arial;" >"I have asked the Education and Labor Committee, as they go forward with the legislation, to make sure that all of the territories have to comply with U.S. law on the minimum wage"</span><span style="font-family:arial;"> - Nancy Pelosi<br /><br />So why has the American Samoan exemption <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070122-111120-5465r.htm">remained in the bill</a> through to its final version? Ms. Pelosi promised to include the impovrished state after Republicans exposed the dubious exemption. She also promissed to run the House with a higher standard for ethics.<br /><br />If a higher minimu wage is good for all the other territories, then surely it would be good for one of the most poor.<br /><br />I am waiting for the outcry from the left ...<br /></span>James Henry Baileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03531804253435200353noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522226408879779046.post-64087978600911607092007-01-25T16:45:00.000-05:002007-01-25T16:56:01.496-05:00A Tale of Two Budgets<div style="color: rgb(102, 102, 204); text-align: justify;"><span class="standardcontent" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="676471420-25012007"><span class="standardcontent"><span class="676471420-25012007"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><strong>"Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the federal government, and we can balance the federal budget."</strong> -- George W. Bush<br /><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></div><div> </div><div style="color: rgb(102, 102, 204); text-align: justify;"><span class="standardcontent" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="676471420-25012007"><strong></strong></span></span></span> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="color: rgb(102, 102, 204); text-align: justify;"><span class="standardcontent"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong><span class="676471420-25012007"></span></strong></span></span></span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;">"While tax revenues continue to rise, entitlement spending is projected to drive the budget deficit to $367 billion by 2012 and $704 billion by 2017."</span> -- Brian M. Reidl, The Heritage Foundation</span><span class="standardcontent"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="676471420-25012007"><em><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"></span><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></em></span></span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><span class="standardcontent" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="676471420-25012007"></span></span></span><span class="standardcontent" style="font-size:100%;"><span class="676471420-25012007"></span></span><span class="standardcontent" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="676471420-25012007"></span></span></span> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="standardcontent" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="676471420-25012007">In an <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1329.cfm">article</a> published by The Heritage Foundation, Brian M. Reidl presents a sobering look at how fiscally responsible the government would need to act to balance the federal budget by the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070123-2.html">President's target</a> in 2012. In short, after years a spending growth near 50% , the Government would need to limit spending growth for the next five years to 2%.<br /><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><span class="standardcontent" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="676471420-25012007"></span></span></span> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="standardcontent" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="676471420-25012007">This outlook presents an interesting challenge to Mr. Bush's plea that Congress impose spending discipline in DC. Like anyone else, members of Congress have great difficulty voluntarily limiting the money they spend, especially when they have been on a spending spree.<br /><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><span class="standardcontent" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="676471420-25012007"></span></span></span> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="standardcontent" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="676471420-25012007"><span class="standardcontent"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="676471420-25012007">Obviously, limiting spending growth by the Government to 2% is highly unlikely. It would require, I believe, that spending on current entitlement programs be limited to below inflationary rates.<br /><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><span class="standardcontent" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="676471420-25012007"></span></span></span> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="standardcontent" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="676471420-25012007">However, this forecast presents a terrific opportunity, though I doubt the President will take advantage of it. Here is his chance, and that of the entire Republican party, to show exactly what kind of discipline is required to balance the federal budget. It will not happen by 2012, but he could propose a budget that provides a balanced budget by 2014, or 2016, or 2020 (I am not certain why he chose 2012 -- a balanced budget is worth waiting for, if it is an honest assessment) and still keep his tax cuts and fund the wars at a steady rate of inclination.<br /><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><span class="standardcontent" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="676471420-25012007"></span></span></span> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="standardcontent" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="676471420-25012007">To do so, he would need to stand firm and show Congress that a balanced budget is only going to be possible if they re-visit and FIX the mess of entitlement programs that are forcing every American to be an agent in his own doom! Explain to Congress and the American public in clear and concise language that these programs are going to bankrupt this country unless something is done to correct it. Force Congress to limit spending growth, not to 2%, but to 5%, or 7%, or 8%.<br /><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="standardcontent" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="676471420-25012007"></span></span></span> </div><div> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="standardcontent" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="676471420-25012007">Such resolve would also expose the tax-and-spenders. For years even liberals have gloated how President Clinton balanced the budget and left Mr. Bush with a surplus. Never mind that doing so required a Republican Congress. No doubt, all of those Liberals who have been gloating would not stand for any reduction in spending. They do not really want to limit spending and balance the budget. They want to extract the money from the American people.</span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><span class="standardcontent" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="676471420-25012007"></span></span></span> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="standardcontent" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="676471420-25012007"><br />However, we have seen how fiscal discipline leads to vilification in today's mains stream media and left wing blog-o-sphere. When President Bush vowed to limit the growth of spending on the Education Department (a middle-man organization that prevents millions of dollars from reaching the local schools) he was accused of sacrificing our children's education in favor of small government (of course than fact that spending actually increased was largely ignored- it did not grow at the rate his critics wanted it to, so they attacked him).<br /><br /></span></span></span></div><div> </div><span class="standardcontent" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="676471420-25012007"></span></span></span> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="standardcontent" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="676471420-25012007">Hence, no doubt Mr. Bush will continue on with his rose colored glasses and attempt to leave a fiscally conservative legacy of no substance. He is handing the Republicans a tool so they can say to the next Democrat President: "We left you with a plan to balance the budget, but you ignored it" with no reference to how unrealistic the plan was.</span></span></span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div>James Henry Baileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03531804253435200353noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522226408879779046.post-42999980966103237102007-01-24T21:43:00.000-05:002007-01-24T21:46:57.603-05:00New Glasses<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSpBM8uGGb_8Q_80GQjVexHQ9wvjXMFd-7hyphenhyphenGur2Xi6jiE-oYkMiP27R0kjp__BeQTRtisfBxzWPiIznbwpst_KmcKB8S8x-Frmj6-oyLzDriTNcT3JLu1STdp4mCNg8hORv63XK9345cH/s1600-h/Glasses.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSpBM8uGGb_8Q_80GQjVexHQ9wvjXMFd-7hyphenhyphenGur2Xi6jiE-oYkMiP27R0kjp__BeQTRtisfBxzWPiIznbwpst_KmcKB8S8x-Frmj6-oyLzDriTNcT3JLu1STdp4mCNg8hORv63XK9345cH/s320/Glasses.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5023793710950213282" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Finally. I can see again.</span></span>James Henry Baileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03531804253435200353noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522226408879779046.post-1884591776440751722007-01-23T13:42:00.000-05:002007-01-23T13:55:23.516-05:00Name the Enemy!<div style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 102, 204);"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span class="794231017-23012007"><span style="font-family:Arial;">"U.S. soldiers are trained only to defend America and her allies against foreign threats and aggression, and to preserve our freedom."<br /><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="794231017-23012007"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" >In tonight's State of the Union address, the President should use his time to identify and name the only rational objective for the war in Iraq, and the wider War on Terror: to defend the U.S. against any foreign element that would remove or restrict U.S. citizens and allies of their unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution does not authorize the President or Congress to fight a war for any other reason.</span></span><br /></div><br /><div> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="794231017-23012007"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" >It is time for Mr. Bush to stop trying to sell this war as an attempt to bring democracy to the middle east. Or to remove an evil dictator. Such notions are foolish and prone to defeat, both at home and in Iraq. Suggesting that our soldiers should serve such an end is ludicrous. U.S. soldiers are trained only to defend America and her allies against foreign threats and aggression, and to preserve our freedom. Tonight might be the last opportunity to provide the American public with a clear definition of the objectives of both fronts.</span></span><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="794231017-23012007"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" >America invaded Iraq because the President and his administration thought that Saddam Hussein was capable of developing "weapons of mass destruction" if, in fact he did not already have them. The President was not alone. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/">John Kerry</a> agreed. <a href="http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm">Bill</a> and <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/">Hillary</a> Clinton agreed. As did many others. Thus congress gave the President <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj107-114">authority</a> to attack Iraq.</span></span><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="794231017-23012007"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" >Given the strong evidence that Iraq did in fact have the technology and the capability to create biological and / or nuclear-lite weaponry, Our government had a moral, and Constitutional obligation to let our troops do their job.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="794231017-23012007"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" >However, there should have been more. The invasion of Iraq should have been billed as the first step in a greater campaign to rid the world of states that sponsor and commit terrorism against the U.S. Such a decree would have legitimized our continued efforts in Iraq despite the lack of proof of WMDs (which, <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm">new evidence</a> suggests, may have been diverted to Syria). Additionally, our troops should have been provided adequate forces and protection to complete this job! With the proper troop levels, tools and direction, the U.S. could have achieved all of its objectives and left Iraq much sooner.</span></span><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="794231017-23012007"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" >Now, we sit on our hands and watch as Iran threatens the free world with a nuclear jihad, and Syria joins them in supporting the insurgency in Iraq with conventional weaponry-- killing our soldiers daily!!</span></span><br /></div><span class="794231017-23012007"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><br /></span></span></div><div> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="794231017-23012007"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" >Now we watch our troops fight valiantly, but against a rising tide of violence against them. We watch our leaders try to sell this war as something it is not.</span></span><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><span class="794231017-23012007"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" >We watch as America slowly loses her footing as the moral leader and superpower in the world.</span></span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="794231017-23012007"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" >Mr. President, I urge you, pledge to:</span></span><br /><br /></div><div> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="794231017-23012007"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" >- Complete the job in Iraq: Kill the insurgents and those who harbor them; Install- yes, INSTALL a US friendly government-- The Iraqi's DO NOT have the right to vote for a new anti-U.S. dictator.</span></span><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><span class="794231017-23012007"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" >- Name the enemy: Terrorism and states that sponsor it!</span></span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="794231017-23012007"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" >- Destroy Iran's capability to develop a nuclear arsenal that would be used to destroy Israel, and soon enough, America.</span></span><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="794231017-23012007"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" >- Send out a message to Syria, and all who would threaten the U.S- stop sponsoring terror now, or pay the price with your destruction.</span></span><br /></div><br /><span class="794231017-23012007"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ></span></span><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><span class="794231017-23012007"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" >You owe that to each and every man, woman and child in this country, Mr. President.</span></span>James Henry Baileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03531804253435200353noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522226408879779046.post-10343512652668810882007-01-18T17:22:00.000-05:002007-01-18T22:40:44.411-05:00House of Blarney<div style="text-align: justify;font-family:arial;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 204); font-weight: bold;font-size:10;" >"Comments on the past behavior of the speaker might be interesting, but they are not points of order!"<br /></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);font-size:10;" ><o:p></o:p></span> </div><p style="font-family: arial; text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkq6CC951NKg38rCzjDHGQ9fyDgi-UcTOzWtvzNwTbWCFBEoBo92jEPtVzk2rrEac177k6IgnSVWz_iA7uGNgwhCBwFrg98nRvFonIK38D9pcgql0CNmIJoWC2222Hm2dBPqjXCy-tTtae/s1600-h/braneyfrank.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkq6CC951NKg38rCzjDHGQ9fyDgi-UcTOzWtvzNwTbWCFBEoBo92jEPtVzk2rrEac177k6IgnSVWz_iA7uGNgwhCBwFrg98nRvFonIK38D9pcgql0CNmIJoWC2222Hm2dBPqjXCy-tTtae/s200/braneyfrank.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5021504635115366002" border="0" /></a></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNsMnTwvDW1Irr6h9r3gop8slJyyiGK3_hdVfSL7czaKwcLhkUJlOknBeK5tc1WbKcdmE8XGjqKN6k7W1QmFW9HjOJ9PKq7KiBoslzUraMfQt3-gVm9NWYqmSqVv5Ux0baMS_YatYaIdb3/s1600-h/mchenry.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNsMnTwvDW1Irr6h9r3gop8slJyyiGK3_hdVfSL7czaKwcLhkUJlOknBeK5tc1WbKcdmE8XGjqKN6k7W1QmFW9HjOJ9PKq7KiBoslzUraMfQt3-gVm9NWYqmSqVv5Ux0baMS_YatYaIdb3/s200/mchenry.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5021547258370811538" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">No doubt just about everyone has seen or heard this exchange on the House floor last Thursday. If you have not seen the footage, watch it. Please. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Some background for anyone who is not aware of the circumstances leading up to this funny, brilliant display of Congressmen behaving badly: </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">On Jan 10, in the 63rd hour of Nancy Pelosi's self-lauded "1st Hundred Hours" the</span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;"> house passed a bill to raise the federal </span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 </span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">per hour. This wage increase was seen as so critical to the well-being of millions </span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">of low-wage earners, that the House made sure to extend its reach beyond the </span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">50 states (and the District of Colombia) to all </span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">outlying American territories, which has </span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">some of the </span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">lowest wages in the west. All outlying areas, </span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">except one: American Samoa. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">American Samoa: Where the current minimum wage is $2.68 / hour! American Samoa: Where the citizens do NOT deserve the same living wage that the rest of us do, apparently. American Samoa: Where a certain tuna company in Madam Speaker's San Francisco district would be exempt from the minimum wage increase!</span></span></div><p style="text-align: justify;font-family:arial;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);font-size:85%;" > </span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);font-size:85%;" ><o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="font-family: arial; text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Whenever the House Republicans have pulled a stunt like this they were instantly subjected to at least 48 hours of public lynching by the main stream media outlets. But this shameless exclusion went largely unnoticed. Only a few marginalized voices attempted to make the hypocrisy of the "ethics reform" party known. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">So a handful of House Republicans took matters into their own hands: during a "debate" of the <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-3">Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act</a>, Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina attempted, several times, to introduce an amendment that would exempt American Samoa from the new act. A lively discussion ensued, as you will see if you watch the footage.</span></span></div><p style="text-align: justify;font-family:arial;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);font-size:85%;" ><o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="font-family: arial; text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;font-family:arial;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Congressman McHenry deserves to be commended for his civil disobedience. Barney Frank deserves the same for sticking to the house rules and shutting the Republicans down using only the rules at his disposal to do so (even though his enforcement of those rules is hypocritical based on his tantrums on the floor when he was in the minority). The Republicans staged a protest, for the right reasons, during a parliamentary procedure. In doing so, they broke the established House rules. However, they were successful in making more of the public aware of the shameless amendment, and in getting Madam Speaker to correct her "oversight" and ensure that American Samoa would be subject to the same minimum wage increase as the other territories (too bad so many Samoans will lose their jobs as a result, but that's another post).</span></span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);font-size:85%;" > </span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);font-size:85%;" ><o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="font-family: arial; text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">My eternal gratitude goes to Mr. Frank for his instantly classic, patently Bostonian rebuttal to McHenry's suggestion that the Speaker, in the past, had used Parliamentary Inquiries as a guise for protest: "Comments on the past behavior of the speaker might be interesting, but they are not points of order!" </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Watch the video. Please. It's entertaining. But more importantly, it is very revealing. This was supposed to be a debate over the stem-cell bill. But Nancy Pelosi was nowhere to be found! Frank was sitting in for her. Apparently, Madam Pelosi does not take seriously her pledge to be "Speaker of the House", not "Speaker of the House Democrats". The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll020.xml">passed 253-174</a>.</span></span><br /></div><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" ><br /></span></span>James Henry Baileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03531804253435200353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522226408879779046.post-19613745351586034062007-01-17T19:13:00.000-05:002007-01-17T20:24:15.253-05:00Nora Ephron: Miserablist<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; font-family: arial;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:10;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 102, 204);">"why would someone so talented with words, so capable of </span></span><span style="font-size:10;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 102, 204);">expressing truth in the most comical and beautiful ways write such a horrendously insulting parody of Condoleeza Rice?"</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; font-family: arial;font-family:arial;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimJmQzrsqvlCVUrGpzRPZdHSLl1g2DTcD5PPkxu_gzm201gGTmsBZg2ikFAqM9A659Q5vHRW9FlBoZfURK9w94rhbp2mUyQ3TbgT4OC0aokv-IpWJKwuNoEek0qXVczvKNxTnp99YvnP9y/s1600-h/Ephron.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimJmQzrsqvlCVUrGpzRPZdHSLl1g2DTcD5PPkxu_gzm201gGTmsBZg2ikFAqM9A659Q5vHRW9FlBoZfURK9w94rhbp2mUyQ3TbgT4OC0aokv-IpWJKwuNoEek0qXVczvKNxTnp99YvnP9y/s200/Ephron.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5021172737222600290" border="0" /></a><span style=";font-size:85%;" >I try very hard not to resort to name calling when having a disagreement, and to respect the opinions of every one who feels compelled to express them. It's not always easy. Being a conservative / libertarian in <st1:city st="on">Boston</st1:city>, I am often outnumbered when it comes to discussions revolving around the fine, and not so fine, points of <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> policy, local government, and social issues. However, somehow I have managed to never attempt to win or end a discussion or disagreement with an insult. In return, I have had more than my fair share of nastiness thrown at me, even by my good friends (often, the final "insult" is to shut down after something like "you're just a Republican! so what's the use?"). Sadly, I have lost friends simply because my pro-capitalist philosophy happens to be more oft in agreement with the Republican agenda than with that of the Democrats.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; font-family: arial;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><o:p></o:p>That being said, most of my friends are equally respectful of my views, and I daresay I have helped them see the world from a different point of view.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; font-family: arial;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Again, it is not easy to take the “high-road” and not to resort to the sort of name-calling that seems to come so easily to most of the talking heads on TV. It is very difficult at times. But I make it work. I refuse. And I grow a little stronger every time I don’t give in to such childish behavior.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; font-family: arial;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">However, there are certain people who exhibit such a lack of restraint, such an intellectual void that causes them to transcend normal, civil discourse that I can’t help but believe that they are intent making everyone as miserable as they are.<span style=""> </span>For the purposes of this blog, a Miserablist is someone who seems like a rational, reasonable person, who has exhibited true talent in communication, but who is unable to support their ideas and opinions without insulting someone.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; font-family: arial;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">In my mind the term “Miserablist” is not an insult. It is a description.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; font-family: arial;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Nora Ephron is responsible for many wonderful, funny, and touching films and books- her contribution to “When Harry Met Sally” has earned her my gratitude forever! So why would someone so talented with words, so capable of expressing truth in the most comical and beautiful ways write such a horrendously insulting parody about Condoleeza Rice? You can read “Condi’s Diary” <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-ephron/condis-diary_b_38619.html">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; font-family: arial;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">In short, it portrays the Secretary of State as an air-head, totally unaware of her own culpability in the current war, as well as her own achievements within the current administration. She is “drawn” with the intellectual capacity of a 12 year-old. When one of her “rivals”, Harriet Myers submits her registration, Ephron’s Condi is euphoric: “A big victory pour moi. They forced her out. Goodbye Harriet, good riddance to you and your royal blue suit” Of course, Ms Ephron does not dare to try to explain why Condi would consider this a victory. So we are left to assume that Nora knows best and it must be funny!<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; font-family: arial;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">After an exchange where Nancy Pelosi asked Madam Secretary what personal sacrifice they (both Pelosi and Rice) would be making for this war since they could not offer their children or husbands (I’m being nice!), we are treated to this: “…[Karl Rove and Tony Snow] were calling to ask about what Barbara Boxer said to me at the hearing. I felt so dumb, Dear Diary. It turned out she had really insulted me, but I was so busy wrinkling my forehead I hadn't really clocked it.”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; font-family: arial;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Huh? Condoleeza Rice sincerely and elegantly avoids distraction from the discussion, and Nora draws her as too stupid to realize when she is being insulted.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; font-family: arial;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">There is much more, but you can read for yourself.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; font-family: arial;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">How does a respected journalist, screenwriter, author, director, etc, use her talents in such a horrendously childish way?<span style=""> </span>Envy?<span style=""> </span>Ephron graduated from Wellesley, a fine school.<span style=""> </span>However Rice earned her PhD and won several prestigious awards when she was Professor of Political Science at <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Stanford</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">University</st1:placetype></st1:place>. Her accomplishments are too many to list here, but you can see the full list <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/rice-bio.html">here</a>.<span style=""> </span>I don’t think any of these accomplishments and contributions are greater than Ephron’s.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; font-family: arial;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">So why would someone with so much talent use such a vile vehicle to dress down such an accomplished woman?<span style=""> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; font-family: arial;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">I think it’s quite clear.<span style=""> </span>Insults in the guise of comedy cause the audience to lose focus.<span style=""> </span>It’s easy to make a point without backing it up if the reader is laughing or appalled.<span style=""> </span>Clearly Ms. Ephron does not have the intellectual gravitas to truly stand up to the (outstanding, in my humble opinion) Secretary of State.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" face="arial" style="text-align: justify; font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Nora Ephrom- This week's Miserablist.</span></p>James Henry Baileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03531804253435200353noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522226408879779046.post-40944983792546223172007-01-11T18:32:00.000-05:002007-01-12T07:43:13.998-05:00Consideration<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS1a_rdG9tuqnfzxDMStCbg_b8mrxQA8D6O2z65STi3t622rfC92MGSfhg4WFFSBh_dcXIj0gAFRzOKU8Gss1j4RKKiS-AOyeETQGon_qzldqeu9BGqP8Bl1ScH-3wJpaxCBRe4Q9HeFAW/s1600-h/Troops+Iraq.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS1a_rdG9tuqnfzxDMStCbg_b8mrxQA8D6O2z65STi3t622rfC92MGSfhg4WFFSBh_dcXIj0gAFRzOKU8Gss1j4RKKiS-AOyeETQGon_qzldqeu9BGqP8Bl1ScH-3wJpaxCBRe4Q9HeFAW/s200/Troops+Iraq.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5018982037613667922" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">There are plenty of more thoughtful analyses of the President's speech last night than mine </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2007/01/the_speech.html">here</a><span style="font-family:arial;">, </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.wizbangblog.com/#com018197">here</a><span style="font-family:arial;">, and </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-beinhart/winning-in-iraq-realitie_b_38461.html">here</a><span style="font-family:arial;">. I don't necessarily agree with them, but they all make fair and good points.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Apparently, 20,000 troops is not "a LOT". While </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/01/10/mccain-endorses-plan-to-s_n_38329.html">John McCain is calling for 35 ,000</a><span style="font-family:arial;">, Larry Elder says we need 100,000! They both support the President's new plan. McCain claims that the President's 21,500 "meet his criteria" (of 35,000? Huh?) while Larry Elder would have preferred a much larger expansion.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I would tend to agree. However, I think the President is on the right track, finally, and I hope the troop level increase will provide the US with enough manpower to start to turn Iraq around.</span></span></div>James Henry Baileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03531804253435200353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522226408879779046.post-9579206686963541442007-01-10T22:36:00.000-05:002007-01-12T07:41:05.294-05:00Welcome to the Game, Mr. President<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 204); font-weight: bold;">"Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and will prevail"</span><br /><br /></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgow1LUpvJsqoZqvCZYC7BPUwdCv-5j-ADBk2QDk9fSyw9BLxWpBirp0W4hCcuLEeryPSlT3duQXLuEWcxk9frgsGnViqAU5JCoUG_wE2GQOnK0TyCFfwsjJosfgs3vHkZYOooVjNMyeD93/s1600-h/Bush+on+Iraq.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgow1LUpvJsqoZqvCZYC7BPUwdCv-5j-ADBk2QDk9fSyw9BLxWpBirp0W4hCcuLEeryPSlT3duQXLuEWcxk9frgsGnViqAU5JCoUG_wE2GQOnK0TyCFfwsjJosfgs3vHkZYOooVjNMyeD93/s200/Bush+on+Iraq.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5018613349031044674" border="0" /></a><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >Change the course! </span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >That is how the president framed his new plan to stabilize <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> and bring Democracy to the once fertile crescent.<span style=""> </span>He introduced “bold” new initiatives, like vastly expanding the <st1:country-region st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> presence in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>, and guarantying an oil sharing plan that would not favor any region.<span style=""> </span>He also described a world wherein <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> fell to the insurgents and Al Qaeda was left to flourish unchecked.<span style=""> </span>And, perhaps most importantly, he accepted responsibility for <st1:country-region st="on">America</st1:country-region>’s failure to secure <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> to date.<o:p></o:p></span></div> <p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><o:p> </o:p><br />One question for the A.L.F. claiming to be George W. Bush this evening: Who are you and what have you done with our President?<span style=""> </span>And, why couldn’t you deliver this speech repeatedly over the last 4 years?<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><div> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><o:p> </o:p><br />Overall, the speech tonight was strong message that spelled out exactly what is at stake for the U.S. in Iraq, what American’s should expect to accomplish the mission and how it will be accomplished.<span style=""> </span>Remember The Powell Doctrine?<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><o:p> </o:p><br />First, the President admitted that he expected the destruction of the Hussein Regime to bring Iraqis together.<span style=""> </span>Why he thought that I will never know.<span style=""> </span>Wishful thinking?<span style=""> </span>Maybe.<span style=""> </span>But, while I supported the move to invade <st1:country-region st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region>, it seemed to me that there was plenty of evidence that the invasion of <st1:place st="on"><st1:city st="on">Baghdad</st1:city></st1:place> would unleash a bloodbath if not managed correctly.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><o:p> </o:p><br />Still, a President who rarely accepts responsibility acknowledged that the blame rested squarely on him.<span style=""> </span>Perhaps if he had said that prior to the invasion, all the “Darth Cheney” and “Lord Rumsfeld” rumors would never have surfaced. It’s a crucial step for this President.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><o:p> </o:p><br />However, the most powerful statement the President made this evening was to reiterate that the loss of <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region></st1:place> is <i style="">unacceptable</i>.<span style=""> </span>Both sides of the isle need to hear this point, again and again.<span style=""> </span>All of <st1:country-region st="on">America</st1:country-region> needs to understand that the fall of <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region></st1:place> would endanger our security for a generation.<span style=""> </span>The Honorable Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid should think very carefully before they force the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> to surrender.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><o:p> </o:p><br />Mr. Bush’s description of an <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region></st1:place> in the grips of Al Qaeda and as a safe haven for Islamist terrorists was powerful and accurate.<span style=""> </span>He should have abandoned the WMD position long ago (even if it is proving to be true) and focused on the strategic importance of such an <st1:country-region st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region>, bordering <st1:country-region st="on">Iran</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Syria</st1:place></st1:country-region>.<span style=""> </span>I appreciated his understanding of why the insurgents are fighting so fiercely- to them, Democracy equals Death.<span style=""> </span>Equally important, he stressed that the violence is being caused by a small minority who are holding the vast majority of peace loving Iraqis (Shiite and Sunni) hostage.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><o:p> </o:p><br />As for the practical- well, I guess those Generals on the ground are finally asking for more troops, because Mr. Bush is allocating 20,000 more!!<span style=""> </span>Sorry to sound so glib, but that’s a LOT!<span style=""> </span>If in fact the Generals were holding back when they needed that many new troops, they should be court marshaled.<span style=""> </span>However, since the President has accepted responsibility, I can overlook that gross dereliction of duty.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><o:p> </o:p><br />Seriously- everyone knew the troop levels were too low over 3 years ago.<span style=""> </span>While the increase is welcome (my best wishes and sincere thanks go with them), it’s long overdue.<span style=""> </span>The President needs to explain why he waited so long to do this. He should also immediately bring Colin Powell and John McCain on as his dedicated advisors in <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region></st1:place>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><o:p> </o:p><br />The expansion of <st1:country-region st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> forces will enable the troops to secure all of <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> in the coming year, according to the President.<span style=""> </span>Ok.<span style=""> </span>That sounds good.<span style=""> </span><st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> troops will team with Iraqi troops to go door to door throughout neighborhoods and hunt down insurgent safe havens.<span style=""> </span>That’s a good idea.<span style=""> </span>Why haven’t we done it until now?<span style=""> </span>Well, according to the President, sectarian interference has prevented our troops and Iraqi police from entering the most important neighborhoods, where sympathetic citizens hide and harbor the insurgents.<span style=""> </span>Well, no more! PM Maliki has just last week told all of <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> that he will not tolerate any sectarian interference to these sweeps!<span style=""> </span>Thanks for that, Mr. Maliki.<span style=""> </span>I’m glad you finally got around to that.<span style=""> </span>Such a move is purely symbolic.<span style=""> </span>As the President noted, Al Qaeda is still very active in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>.<span style=""> </span>They will hardly listen to the elected PM.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><br /></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><o:p> </o:p>Perhaps it is also wishful thinking to hope that a new oil sharing plan will quell fears of a bloodbath to control oil revenues after the U.S. leaves. I hope there is a plan to prepare the Iraqi army for this eventuality. It is certain to be brutal and could threaten any new democracy. Maybe he is saving that speech for 2010.<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >However, President Bush recognized the immediate danger and warned us that we will see more blood, more death and more destruction throughout the coming year.<span style=""> </span>But he also described a world with a stable, secure and DEMOCRATIC <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>! He suggested that <st1:country-region st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region> would be stabilized by November (2007, I presume), that <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Saudi Arabia</st1:place></st1:country-region> would rally to the new Democracy, and the troops could start coming home.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><o:p> </o:p><br />There is much more to discuss, and I will update this post over the next few days.<span style=""> </span>I have not read the <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242958,00.html">transcript</a> yet- so far this post is based solely on the notes I scribbled during the speech.<span style=""> </span>My overall reaction is that it was a powerful speech, and <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> would be a much stronger country if it had been delivered in March, 2003, instead of January 2007.<span style=""> </span>While I am optimistic that we can accomplish our objectives in <st1:country-region st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region>, I fear the <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region></st1:place> has suffered through a season of trials and tribulations unnecessarily.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.25in; text-align: justify;"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >In short:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.25in; text-align: justify;"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><o:p></o:p></span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >President Bush accepts responsibility, finally. <o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.25in; text-align: justify;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style=";font-family:Wingdings;font-size:10;" ><span style=""><span style=""> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >Defeat in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> equals a victory for Al Qaeda and Islamist fascism.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.25in; text-align: justify;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style=";font-family:Wingdings;font-size:10;" ><span style=""><span style=""> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >More troops will help root out the insurgents and keep them out.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.25in; text-align: justify;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style=";font-family:Wingdings;font-size:10;" ><span style=""><span style=""> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >There will be much more bloodshed in the months to come.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.25in; text-align: justify;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >By November, a new era of democracy and security in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> will portend a homecoming for our brave and tireless soldiers.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >Godspeed Mr. President.<span style=""> </span>I hope it’s not too late.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><o:p> </o:p></span></p>James Henry Baileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03531804253435200353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522226408879779046.post-20708175226010642312007-01-07T22:44:00.000-05:002007-01-12T07:42:45.640-05:00Introduction: Freedom and the Pursuit of Happiness<p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >Thanks to an ever-expanding, and</span></b><b style=""><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" > misrepresentation of, the meaning of “pursuit of happiness”, our government has system</span></b><b style=""><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 153);font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >atically deprived too many of our most vulnerable citizens this vital right.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRd6GzEnLsvhl8_KlyBuaxbbADSKJmY2a3pbBUF3UZliIZ4KTMvbGlDTNPm11mdeRdih4lLxz94uo4nzw9UIvHnW2pZ9NN5K6-xnNaPwkmG99Q2b4H0d77ztFTjmDYl36wM3OzVekxXpFY/s1600-h/US+Flag.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRd6GzEnLsvhl8_KlyBuaxbbADSKJmY2a3pbBUF3UZliIZ4KTMvbGlDTNPm11mdeRdih4lLxz94uo4nzw9UIvHnW2pZ9NN5K6-xnNaPwkmG99Q2b4H0d77ztFTjmDYl36wM3OzVekxXpFY/s200/US+Flag.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5017501207502847698" border="0" /></a><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >Upon the founding of the <st1:country-region st="on">United States of America</st1:country-region>, the framers of the constitution recognized and identified a very limited set of inalienable rights: Life, <st1:place st="on"><st1:city st="on">Liberty</st1:city></st1:place>, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Furthermore, they charged the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> government with an equally simple, and limited, task: to defend these inalienable rights of our citizens against outside forces that would attempt to deprive us of them.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >No doubt over the last 225 years, our government has done an excellent job of protecting our lives and liberties.<span style=""> </span>However, thanks to an ever-expanding, and misrepresentation of, the meaning of “pursuit of happiness”, our government has systematically deprived too many of our most vulnerable citizens this vital right.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >To most of us, the emphasis falls naturally on “pursuit”. We understand that the constitution guarantees that all of us have a right to the <i style="">pursuit</i> of happiness.<span style=""> </span>It does not guarantee that we will achieve it. American citizens were once expected to build their lives on their own volition, their own motivation, and their own desires.<span style=""> </span>Families conquered Nature to serve their needs, and built a great nation along the way. As long as you did not interfere with the rights of another man, you were not expected to answer to anyone. You were left alone to pursue your happiness.<span style=""> </span>If something got in the way, you either overcame it, or succumbed to it.<span style=""> </span>The government was not available to bail you out for bad decisions, or bad luck.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >Over the 20<sup>th</sup> century, however, politicians and elected officials shifted the emphasis to “happiness”, leading many Americans to believe that happiness itself is a right, to the detriment of the original intent of our Founding Fathers. <span style=""></span>Today, our founding fathers would be shocked and dismayed to see how the very means of happiness- wealth derived from productivity- is being deprived of the many to secure the happiness of the few, via the vast welfare state and entitlements.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >Too many Americans each year fall below the poverty line because their taxes are raised, local fees escalate, and prices on goods skyrocket because our Government needs the money to make sure others are happy with healthcare, good schools, and “fair” wages.<span style=""> </span>These Americans are being denied their right to pursue happiness while others live off of their hard-earned income.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><o:p></o:p>It’s time for our Government to stop protecting our right to happiness, and start taking seriously its task of securing our right to Life, <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">Liberty</st1:place></st1:city> and the <i style="">Pursuit</i> of Happiness.<o:p></o:p></span></p>James Henry Baileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03531804253435200353noreply@blogger.com1