Thursday, June 28, 2007

The Lincoln Park Pirates

I don't get to the city much. Been there, done that, got the car alarm.

But all over the great State of Illinois, a great confluence of allied actors presents itself to the average person as a monolithic force with the malevolent desire to trap him into paying a hefty fine for whatever infraction he can be charged as having committed.

In Chicago, which I think is on a whole other planet from the rest of Illinois, the cabbies have been asking permission to raise rates. No, that's not right: they've been asking the Mayor Daley to raise their fares. Why on Earth does Hizzoner Da Mayor set the prices for what is ostensibly a private enterprise? The socialists in the Democrat machine are why.

It seems that if you park your car in the wrong place in Chicago, it will be ticketed and towed. There is a $50 fine, but you get your choice: pay the $50, or pay $25 and go tell the judge, who will either order you to pay the other $25 or give you your money back on the first snowy day in Baghdad this summer. Not such a bad deal, unless you want to park your car somewhere other than your driveway, which you don't have because you foolishly live in a city.

And yet, somehow, there are reports of people sending in their $50 fine, getting a receipt for it, but the ticket gets filed as a $25 contested one. Bah. Cities. You can have 'em.

Rod Blagojevich wants to be the guy who provided health care to everyone in Illinois, maybe so someone will like him. Hard to say. But guess what, Rod ol' boy: when the Feds get through with your dirty campaign and even dirtier governance, you will be known as "George Ryan II".

I drive a lot on a particular stretch of Interstate in Illinois. I know where the Illinois State Police have their speed traps, so I'm careful not to exceed the speed limit where those traps are. I also know that when I see someone pulled over by a State Trooper, the motorist is usually Black or Hispanic.

Is it racial profiling? I don't know. All I know is what I see, and I usually see a lot more melanin in the face of the one pulled over than in the one standing under the Smokey hat.


Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

In Defense of Hillary

Eric Naing, in his July 27 opinion piece in the Daily Illini, is to be congratulated on his 20-10 hindsight.

I may just be some punk, college kid but in 2002, I was smarter than a senator. When asked about her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, Sen. Hillary Clinton responded, "If we knew then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote." But as Clinton would like you to forget, there was ample evidence available in 2002 showing that the Iraq invasion would be based on false premises.
Let's take his points in order. But I must note that the President didn't need Senate authorization to invade Iraq. Congress holds the authority to declare war, but the President can order troops to engage in hostilities without a formal declaration of war. It's a lot wiser for him to get Congressional approval up front for a number of reasons including political fallout for war gone unpopular, of which Iraq, you'll agree, is a splendid example.

Mr. Naing quotes Senator Clinton as saying 'that Saddam Hussein was working to "rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program."' Then he cites experts who said Iraq didn't have any, or that there was no proof of such. But working to rebuild something and having it are two very different things. For example, a student is working on a college degree, but does not have one yet.

Everyone (everyone) believed that Saddam wanted WMDs even if he didn't have them already. He had shown over the course of his many years in dictatorial power that he was willing to employ any tactic or use any weapon he had to achieve his ends. It is foolish to wait to be attacked.

That Saddam Hussein was giving "aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members" is again not the same as linking Saddam with al-Qaida. Saddam was giving cash payments of about $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. That alone is enough support for the Senator to make the statement she did. And it was enough all by itself to justify the invasion of Iraq.

And since the Senator did not read the NIE text, but only a summary, Mr. Naing charges her with believing bad advice. How do we know that her conclusions or actions on those conclusions would have been any different had she read the whole eye-glazing thing? Perhaps she would have been even more convinced of the danger posed by Saddam, discounting the State and Energy conclusions just as her advisers did. The only evidence Mr. Naing gives that her conclusion would have changed is that he believes it to be so.

So he twice used the Straw Man fallacy, arguing against a position his opponent did not take, and then circularly assumed conclusion by assertion.

But he compounds those errors by concluding that not only has he defeated those arguments for authorizing the war, but that since he did, there are no other arguments to be made. That he, and many others, concluded that there was no proper justification for the war is irrelevant to the Senator's position, for he could have arrived at his position by rolling dice.

If you readers who are students learn nothing else in college, please learn this: the popularity of a proposition is not an indication of its truth or falsehood.


Sphere: Related Content

Bowling for Burma Shave [Updated]

On my way to work I pass on the highway a series of roadsigns in the spirit of the old Burma Shave advertising signs. You know the kind, a little poem written on signs placed far enough apart so you can read them out loud one line at a time.

Young Thugs

Won't Dare Attack

If A Teacher

Might Shoot Back

Guns Save Life.com

The signs aren't clickable, and that's fortunate, because apparently the site given by the last one has been hijacked by Russian parasuits.
[Update: I mistyped the URL. Take a click at the site that I should have showed you the first time.]

The nice thing about the placement of these signs is that a good portion of the traffic passing them is destined for the Socialist Republic of Chicago. I'll get a picture of the signs, if I can do so without getting arrested by the Illinois Storm Troopers.


Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Hegseth for SecDef

The Best Article Ever on why we must continue to fight in Iraq. Pete Hegseth, an Army National Guard Lieutenant, takes apart the three worst errors held by the Anti-War Left about Iraq:

  1. A deadline for withdrawal would pressure the Iraqi government
  2. We can draw down troops and just fight terrorist
  3. It's possible to give in to full on BDS and still "support the troops"
Read his article. I add:
  1. If the Iraqis could stabilize their country, don't you think they would do so? As if they like having a few dozen of their countrymen cut down by suicide bombs.
  2. The Dems have no intention of fighting anybody.
  3. The first lesson for dealing with troops is: they can spot a liar a mile off. They know when someone is giving them lip service. It doesn't work.
H/T Pejman


Sphere: Related Content

Monday, June 25, 2007

Wal-Mart Caused Global Warming

J. Oliphant at The Minority Report Blog and Redstate notes that even though China has surpassed the US as the world's largest CO2 emitter, that's still the fault of the West, for buying Chinese-made goods.

Leaving aside the ludicrous nature of that idea, with which Jolly melts faster than an ice cube in June, it occurs to me that it isn't all of America who forces China to produce CO2. After all, I personally boycott Chinese goods on the basis of their utter crappiness.

To wit, who distributes and retails all of these crappy Chinese-made goods at a cost that unionized, minimum-wage owing, overregulated, lawyered-up American companies can't beat at wholesale?

Wal-Mart.

The dreaded, evil Wal-Mart.

So, not only is Wal-Mart responsible for first inciting and then delaying John Edwards' purchase of a Playstation by making his staffer wait in line like a common customer, but they have pushed China into becoming the biggest CO2 producer.

It's a wonder they're still in business.


Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Crazy

The international dialogue over Islamofascism reminds me of arguing with an abusive or crazy person.

The bully can go on long tirades about who knows what, but will react with outrage if questioned, "Is the trash in the street really arranged to give you personal messages from God?" The tables are turned, and the true victim is accused of verbally abusing the crazy bully, being small-minded, and all manner of intolerance.

And here's the thing: the nutcase really believes he's been unjustly attacked.

The response to non-Muslims who decry Islamic aggression is similarly disproportionate.


Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

This will hurt me more than it hurts you

If we need an example of truth being in the mind of the believer, perhaps that qualifies. A child about to get his backside warmed knows it can't possibly be the case that his Dad will be harmed in any way by the event. And yet, every parent who has performed the ceremony knows that the sense of failure, of inflicting pain on a loved one, and even the sting on the hand are all things to be avoided whenever possible.

But sometimes physical pain is necessary. Some children don't need it, and that may be why some parents get the silly idea that spanking children is wrong. Or rather, I would say that of course it's wrong, but it's just less wrong than allowing them experience their first pain as their last, or to grow up to be sociopaths who never learned they have to obey the rules.

There is a human tendency to secretly believe that we ourselves are fit and intended to rule the world (why else are we us and not someone else?) When a child looks you in the eye and says, "You ain't the boss of me!", it's time to let them know what, as they say, is what.

Sometimes children grow up without ever being disciplined, without ever learning that no, they aren't intended to rule the world. These adult children struggle to fit in to civilized society. They need a lot of correction, usually by an institution designed for such, or by the end of a rope. In extrema, they find a following of others, who transfer their own uncorrected desire to rule the world to one leader, or to one movement.

And so it is with radical Islam.

While anthropomorphism is always a tricky business, I think the parallel between religious movements and individuals is striking. Some religions may have quirky ideas, but for the most part they don't hurt anyone, break things, or leave the park messy. But this one does.

Despite the Big Lie inherent in cries of "Zionism!", Judaism has learned, through a really long struggle, that it cannot force people to adopt itself. Christianity started out knowing that, then kind of forgot it for a thousand years or so, but now has learned the lesson. While after 9/11 some people, I hope snarkily, suggested forced conversion to Christianity as some kind of solution, I think Christianity as a whole has returned to its forceless roots once and for all.

Other religions operate in the world of ideas, and don't seek to spread by force. And there are some Islamic sects, perhaps including the majority of Muslims, who don't run around blowing themselves up to spread the word.

Those are some of the reasons we don't want to spank Islam as a whole for the sake of its most radical practitioners. But most importantly, we know something that the child only vaguely comprehends: disciplining Islam will in fact cause pain for Western Civilization. We know it, and those who call for disciplining the child with physical force are shouted down as abusers. The child sees only a weak authority, unable to assert itself for lack of moral conviction.

But rather than weakness, our hesitancy to lump all of Islam together comes from the core of our culture: we believe that lumping people together is wrong. It would be something of a refutation of our ideals to persecute a religion in general for the actions of a minority of its adherents.

But Islam grew up with the ability to force its will on non-believers, and includes in its sacred text instructions on how to make second-class people out of them. The voices crying out "Death to America" and such aren't merely expressing some religious ideal, but laying out the grand strategy. America, as symbol of Western Civilization, must die.


Just as the Muslim Saddam Hussein paid $25K to the families of suicide bombers. Pakistani ministers of parliament are now saying that suicide bombing is justified.

If someone blows himself up he will consider himself justified. How can we fight terrorism when those who commit blasphemy are rewarded by the West?

You start by realizing that you weren't born to rule the world.

But it isn't Islamic nations that are the problem, it's Islam. No, it's that faction of Islam, the noisiest one, that desires to spread itself by force which needs to be told that it has to share. It won't listen to reason, to compassion, or to restraint. Violent Islam will only listen to blood, the blood of its adherents, spilled in massive amounts by people explicitly doing so because they will not be assimilated. Only then will it learn, its power-hungry mullahs forced to teach tolerance alongside proselytism.

Islam needs the spanking it never got as a child.

Probably the same folks who consider all physical punishment to be immoral will disagree with me, and say that attacking the violence of Islam with our own violence will only make things worse. Well, we've tried ignoring them, and it still got worse. We've tried giving them what they demand, and they wanted more. We've tried standing them in a corner, and where did that get us?

We have been fooled into believing that religions deserve special protection, because the religions we've been used to seeing promote civilized behavior. But in Islam we find a child with a "struggle": should it throw a tantrum and demand its own way, or should it listen to its parents and play nicely? We'd like not to have to resort to spanking, but for this kid, I think it's going to be necessary. I only hope we gather the fortitude to do what will need to be done.


Sphere: Related Content

Blog stats

Add to Technorati Favorites