Why does the rest of the world hate the US?

I'm listening to Diane Rehm interview Kishore Mahbubani.

"He's Singapore's former Ambassador to the United Nations and has just written a book on his perspective of how the world sees the United States. He writes about growing disillusionment with the U.S. and what the world's only remaining superpower should do about it."

It is his opinion that the world's favor doesn't swing on four year cycles. Diane was flabbergasted and actually said that she disagreed with him. Of course Ms. Rehm disagreed. We saw very clearly in the last election that the Left believes the hatred of the US is a result of Republicans. John Kerry campaigned on the notion that there were many European leaders, though he could not name them, that wanted him to be President more than Bush. Surely the world would love us more if JFK redux was in charge. (Picture: Sally Fields -- you like me, you really like me).

The Dem's are able to rationalize just about anything. The first WTC bombing during Bubba's presidency was really Papa Bush's fault, but 9/11 was entirely on W's head. All of these rationalizations which buttress Diane's planes of existence were about the come crashing down. Mr. Mahbubani said, 'you claim to be against genocide and yet you allow Rwanda.' Hmm, who was President then? The rest of the interview was subtly but decidedly icy.

I thought for sure that Diane would love the descriptions of America bashers around the world. But the reality was even scarier.

I've seen a bumper sticker that stated the Left was only anti-war unless a Democrat is President. It seems that they are understanding if not supportive of anti-Americanism so long as a Democrat isn't in the White House. Tell them that people all over the world hate us even when the Reverend Bill was preachin' to the choir, and see how fast their 'open minds' shut.

FactCheck.org are they really interested in facts?

I wrote a letter to FactCheck.org regarding a recent article.


I really do appreciate the efforts you go through to clarify and demystify political rhetoric.

But let me throw this at you…

From the second presidential debate:

Bush defended his opposition to importing cheaper, price-controlled drugs from Canada, saying another way to make drugs cheaper is "to get our seniors to sign up to these drug discount cards, and they're working." But in fact they're not working nearly as well as originally advertised.

So you agree with the President that they are working, they’re just not working for as many people as they initially said they would. In the debate, Bush didn’t claim the program was perfect – that would be factually inaccurate and should be subjected to scrutiny. Earlier in the story you indicated

Kerry claimed the "the president has underfunded [the No Child Left Behind law] by $28 billion," but that's an opinion and not a fact.

It’s good that you also go beyond fact vs. fiction and measure opinions on how well-informed they might be. As long as the critique you provide is labeled as such, it’s a real service.

But what Bush said was factually accurate, he never made statements as to how well, or how much money was saved or how many people were covered. You moved from setting facts straight to parsing opinions without making the shift clear. Worse yet, there was no opinion to shift to and the fact of the statement you agree with. It’s clear that this was pure opportunism. You used an accurate and unambiguous statement as an opportunity to include other facts which you wanted in the story.

The European Dream

I was listening to Jeremy Rifkin on the Marc Steiner Show. He repeated a dangerous notion that I've heard several times recently. He said that workers in many European countries are more efficient than Americans PER HOUR WORKED. That's like the last place marathon runner telling the winner or the race, 'I ran faster than you for the first 100 feet.'

If I worked for 20 hours a week, I'd get more done in those 20 hours than I would in the first 20 hours of a 50 hour week. But I wouldn't get done the same amount as I do in the 50 hours I work. In this case a normalized number is not the best comparison. No one goes to a store and buys product based on their normalized salary. They buy things on their net salary.

The "bottom line" is not normalized.

Environmental Math - Reagan able to warp time.

I was listening to a 'debate' about America's oil dependence. One of the commentators said that President Carter put us on the road toward renewable energy and then Reagan came along a cost us 25 years of scientific development. Huh?

Carter was replaced by Reagan in 1980. There haven't even been 25 years since then, let alone 25 years of Republican White Houses. Before 2000, the White House was evenly split 12 years for the Democrats (4 Carter, 8 Clinton) and 12 years for the Republicans (Reagan, Bush 41). Over 12 years, Reagan and the Evil Republicans managed to set back scientific research into renewable energy sources by more than 12 years. Not just 14 or 17 years, over a 12 year period, but 25 years -- more than double.

It's no wonder they believe the temperature is sky high -- they can't add.

News media sells better than an infomercial

I was reading a little blurb in Newsweek. A college student, Traci Carpenter, was telling the world why politician should pay attention to her and her ilk. She didn't want to be talked down to. She didn't want pandering. To her credit, she does admit to being confused. And in this, she is entirely accurate.

She declares, "I am told to care about issues like Social Security and health care, when chances are high that I won't even be able to find a job..."

I'm leaning towards agreeing with that statement but not for the reasons she believes. Her lack of employment opportunities has everything to do with what is inside her, or lack thereof. Maybe her choice of major leaves her without job prospects. Maybe she understands that her intellect leaves much to be desired. More than likely she's been convinced by Jon Stewart that the job situation in this country is dire. I know that my grandmother also believes this and she doesn't watch Mr. Stewart.

If I gave you a raffle ticket and told you the chances that you will win are 96 in 100, would you tell the world that the probability was high that you would lose? It's a real shame that we report an unemployment statistic. It's obviously a difficult concept for some. Why not report the employment statistic? From the heady prosperity of the late 90's to today's "economic quagmire" the employment level has gone from 96% to 95%. Whoa! Stop the presses. The economy is a flippin' disaster. At least, that's what the young, collegiate Newsweek author believes. (I almost wrote 'thinks', but that involves working synapses.)

She claims that she knows what is going on in the world even though most of that knowledge comes from Comedy Central. That's right, the Daily Show with Jon Stewart is her main source of knowledge. I am acutely aware that every generation bemoans the perceived deficiencies in the the generation that follows, but I have no choice but to fall into that trap. This young adult has access to more information at her very fingertips than any other person in the history of the world. She can read, at no charge, opinions and commentary from sources around the world within minutes of their publication. But sadly, she purports to be informed and informed by a Jay Leno wannabe. 
 

"Sometimes I feel that no matter how I vote, there will still be war, crime and poverty".

Who promised her that it was the job of those she votes for to prevent these things?

No one asked for Hitler to attempt world domination, or Hirohito, or Stalin. No one asked Saddam to terrorize his people and attack his neighbors. No one went to Mao and asked him to create an enemy of the free people of the world. There will be war -- it will continue to be a matter of fact. You can vote for an entire non-violent government and the most likely outcome will be the loss of your country and your right to vote.

She must buy the idea that the law is there to prevent crime. This is the direction recent legislatures have been taking but it is a fool's errand. Would you rob a bank? If no, is it because it is illegal? Of course not. You are a rational and moral person who chooses to be a productive member of society. Those of you who answered yes, clearly did so in spite of the laws against it. No matter which answer you gave it was not based on the legality of such an action. I suppose there may be a few of you who would rob the bank but do not out of fear of being caught and subjected to the law. Even so, you could still commit the act -- the law stops you from nothing. Laws do two things, deter the rational or punish the guilty. They do not 'prevent' crime.

This year is the 40th anniversary of the War on Poverty. Forty years of taking money from some people and giving it to others. Are we any closer to a final victory? You can read plenty of stories from those on the Left about how the gap between the Rich and the Poor is ever widening. How can this be? President Johnson kicked it off, the Democrats controlled the House for forty years until the Gingrich revolution, and America has increased its GDP year after year. With all this, isn't it time to acknowledge that government is not a solution for poverty. I bet all of these facts would come as a surprise to our favorite coed author. All except for the ever widening wealth gap, that is the media's message after all. That's what she gulps down night after night from Jon Stewart or Ted Koppel or Dan Rather. If we only wanted peace, it would happen. If only we had a draft, evil Republicans wouldn't go to war. If only we took even more money from the rich, we'd have less poverty. If only we had more laws, we would have less crime. Government should be seen as the solution to all problems.

I look forward to the day the Ms. Carpenter starts to earn a living, keep up a household, have a family. I want to be there when she begins to pay attention to the 'gross' line on her paycheck instead of obliviously living off the 'net' line; when the concept enters her mind that there is no such thing as 'the government's money', it's her money... and there are people taking it away to give it to someone else. 

Labels

I couldn't care less what language Teresa Heinz uses. But it's quite remarkable that EVERY story refers to the conservative Pittsburgh newspaper. If you check the Google search I listed, it's practically plageristic. The media, collectively, has decided to attach the epithet "Conservative" to the Post_Gazette.

In the parallel story of Veep Cheney and Sen. Leahy you don't find the main stream media labeling Leahy as a liberal senator. MSNBC, Washington Post, NY Times, etc.


Yeh, keep thinking there's no leaning to the Left.

World Famous Beatings

I was listening to a discussion of the scandal at Abu Ghraib. A Black caller claimed that this scandal was no different that many of the scandals that have rocked domestic police forces. He listed Rodney King, Timothy Thomas (of Cincinnati), Abner Louima, Amadu Dialo to support his point that Abu Ghraib was merely the extention of white brutality of people of color.

Whatever.

But it got me thinking.

Name 4 white people beaten by the police? I can't do it. Can you? How about 4 of anyone besides black people. Latinos, Asians, Australians, Inuit?

Man, the NAACP does some good advertising.

Abstinence-Only Held to a Higher Standard

There have been a lot of stories in the media recently about abstinence-only policies. Over and over the charge of "no proof of efficacy" is repeated. Fascinating.

Since when do we put a requirement of efficacy on any government policy? This is especially suspicious from the Left. Not that they push ineffective more frequently than the Right, but rather because they believe in Government solution to most problems.

Does spending more money on government-run schools correllate to better educated students? Should these schools be asked/required to present evidence? Not in the minds of most Democrats.

How about the local Believe campaign? The 90% Democrat City of Baltimore has spent millions of dollars on the program and to what measurable benefit. Mind you, the city has discovered a ~$80 million deficit in the city's school system. Was there any requirement before spending the money, creating city policy, that there be a proof of efficacy?

Which policy has been based on demonsterable efficacy? Social Security, Medicare, Taxes, Immigration, Drug interdiction, Prohibition, Gun Control? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for demonstrations of efficiency and efficacy but those things are almost the antithesis of government. There is nothing about government which moves it toward efficiency or efficacy especially when it comes to public policy. This is one of the key reasons Libertarians want to move the Government out of these policies.

Back to the topic... is it better to teach only-abstinence and deny kids the potentially life-saving information about condoms or is it ok for teachers to pull a condom over a banana giving kids the message that sex is an acceptible activity so long as you have a raincoat? How about this, why don't we get the government out of this decision and leave it up to parents. Can we not allow for the possibility that both of these two alternatives have appropriate applications and that there is, more than likely, a continuum between these two extremes which can only be fine tuned to the maturity level and social development of a child by his or her parents? Like most debates which are described in one dimensional terms of Left and Right there is a totally unmentioned dimension which is completely ignored by the media.

Missing men get no Respect.

Women (mainly the FemiNazis) whine and moan, "we don't make the same pay", "we pay more for haircuts and drycleaning". You don't see them turning down free admission and free drinks at Ladies Nights. You don't see them asking judges to give sole custody to their husbands to make sure there's a 50/50 balance of such awards. And in this article we find yet another example of bias in our world. The Feminist have an attitude well summed by Freddie Mercury, "I want it all, and I want it now."

Find me the document that says life would be fair.

Brokaw must have studied under Bluto

Not Popeye's nemesis but rather the eminent scholar John Blutarsky. I’ll return to this momentarily.

This morning on Meet the Press, Mr Brokaw had this to say:

The president has been talking a lot about the comparison between World War II and now saying that the choices are the same between tyranny and liberty. In the Air Force Academy speech, he said we were the subject of a ruthless, treacherous attack. I pointed out to him that that attack came from al-Qaeda, not from Iraq, but he plainly believes that the choices are the same in terms tyrannical behavior.

His voice carried with it overtones of superiority while revealing he corrected the President.

Of course in Brokaw's zeal to show up the President, he demonstrated his own ignorance. It's just a shame that Bush isn't as quick-witted as Reagan or Clinton, or Brokaw would have been given his comeuppance.

To set the stage, the interview took place on the escarpment above the beaches at Normandy where American, British, Australian, and other Allied forces were killed or maimed fighting the... wait for it... Germans. That's right, the celebration you were attending was the Allied victory over the Germans. So Tom, when President Bush was comparing 9/11 (committed by Al-Qaeda) to "a ruthless, treacherous attack" from WWII, which German attack was he referring to? You see, Tom watched Animal House a bit too often and began believing that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. Bush should have pointed out that Tom was right that it wasn't Iraq that attacked the US Homeland. Then with a thoughtful pause, followed up with, "It wasn't the Germans either."

From a State Department webpage,

Soon after the United States entered the war, the western Allies decided that their essential military effort was to be concentrated in Europe, where the core of enemy power lay, while the Pacific theater was to be secondary.

We were hit hard by the Japanese. We not only had to deal with them, but had to save the rest of Western Europe as well. Pearl Harbor got us into a war which had already been raging all around us. We took on and beat all comers - Germany, Italy, and Japan. It did not matter that neither the Germans nor the Italians attacked American soil. There was evil afoot in many places and we stopped it. September 11th may have been 19 individuals with coordination from a cave in Afghanistan, but it doesn't mean the core of enemy power starts and ends there.

Abortion bias in the media

The title of this NPR piece is Abortion Study Could Shift Debate over Ban. This is absolutely fascinating.

The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology has published the first peer-reviewed study of an abortion procedure Congress banned last year. The study has the potential to shift the debate over the law. Contrary to claims by opponents in Congress, the study finds the procedure is no more dangerous than others used in the second trimester of pregnancy.

Dangerous to whom? The mother? I think it's the danger to a baby that is the issue. There is a Constitutional requirement, as determined in SCOTUS after they overturned the previous law, the health of the mother must be protected. I've written a letter to NARAL asking to provide examples of when partial-birth abortion is medically necessary. Not surprisingly, they were unable to provide such. Congress didn't pass the ban to eliminate a dangerous procedure to the mother; they did it to eliminate a dangerous procedure to the baby. This strawman is so obvious, NPR must be counting on the overwhelming Leftist tendancies of their audience to see this fallacy as a well constructed argument.

The "Corporate Run"-"Right Wing" media's quotes

From the "If you can't beat 'em join 'em" file:

It's rather clever, actually. Since the main-stream media, on a regular basis, proves that it leans Left (I mean really leans), the Left gratuitously claims the main-stream media is Right leaning. They love to point out that most major news outlets are owned by large conglomerates. As if being a large company and being Republican somehow equate. Sure, Ted Turner founded and ran a huge corporation and he and his wife are bigtime right-wingers but that doesn't mean every other corporate head is also part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

So, from time to time I'll be using various sources to gather and disseminate quotes with obvious intent.

Let's take Charlie Gibson on World News Tonight, 21 April.

We’ll take ‘A Closer Look’ tonight at John Kerry’s distinguished war record. His opponents are trying hard to use it against him.

Is this news? If it's commentary is it anywhere close to fair or balanced?

I guess one day of sucking up to Kerry wasn't enough.
Peter Jennings on World News Tonight, April 26.

We’ll take ‘A Closer Look’ tonight at John Kerry’s dilemma: After brave and honorable service in Vietnam, a post-war record that dogs him.

Brave, honorable, and distinguished are not facts in evidence. In fact, most of the men who served with him claim the opposite.

So where do the facts line up? According to Capt. Charley Plumly, who had Kerry under his command for two or three naval operations, Kerry's attitude and behavior were less then honorable. "Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive," Plumly said, "but the most common phrase you would hear [was] 'requires constant supervision.' "

How about the proof of the assertions made on ABC? Honorable, brave, distinguished? The mere fact that medals were awarded, is that proof? That would be enough if there weren't questionable circumstance around the winning of said medals coupled with Kerry's refusal to release his records.

But does any of this matter to ABC... that media outlet owned by huge, corporate conglomerate? Well, I may have been born at night, but I wasn't born last night.



You know, I was going to end it here. Gibson's line is just over-the-top bizarre.

We’ll take ‘A Closer Look’ tonight at John Kerry’s distinguished war record. His opponents are trying hard to use it against him.

Only a moron would try to use a distiguished service record against its owner. Not only that but the phrase 'trying hard to' intimates failure, as in the little engine was trying hard to get up the hill. Let's rewrite this quote so it's news and not spin.

We’ll take ‘A Closer Look’ tonight at John Kerry’s war record. His opponents are using it against him.

Pretty big difference when we remove the spin, huh? Hey Charlie, I'll figure out whether Kerry's war record is distinguished or not. I don't need you to make that decision.
Just lay out the facts as they're known and I'll do the thinking.

Moms Unleash Their Anguish, Anger -- All 8 of them

Moms Unleash Their Anguish, Anger (washingtonpost.com): "Moms Unleash Their Anguish, Anger
Thousands March to End Gun Violence, Renew Assault Weapons Ban "

What's interesting is that this was the Million Mom's March that had 2,000 marchers. And this makes page B1 in the Post? Come on, there are marches of a few thousand all of the time in D.C.; there is absolutely nothing which makes this page 1 coverage. In fact, C-SPAN planned to cover the march on cable and satellite television, but the turnout was so bad they played reruns of "Book Notes". I mean, C-SPAN will show even the dullest of political event but they passed on this pitiful gathering.

But no, the Washington Post headlines the article with the ultimate in Mexican Soap Opera drama, Moms Unleash Their Anguish, Anger. If that's not enough, it fronts section B.

Where is the article about the counter protest sponsored by he Second Amendment Sisters? No Bias, my ass.

Protesters, most of them women, gathered on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol yesterday for the largest gun-control demonstration in four years, a loud and calculated effort aimed at forcing President Bush to renew the soon-to-expire federal ban on assault weapons.

This is the best they can do in four years. No wonder Gore and now Kerry are running from the gun issue.

Inaction by Levin proves politics rules

This morning on Fox News Sunday, the host asked Senator Carl Levin as the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Service when the prison abuse scandel originally broke in January of 2004 what he did? Nothing. Levin said that the reports of allegations of abuse didn't indicate the depth of the problem.

Huh?

Senator Levin, how would you know how deep the abuse goes unless you investigate? Are you saying that when you hear that there are allegations of abuse it doesn't cause you to wonder?

What it says to me is that you don't care at all about the abuse, only the reaction of the public and the world to the abuse. It says your disgust is partisan, your questions are political, and your values are suspect.

Q&A with Richard Miniter on Osama bin Laden on National Review Online

Caskets in the Media

One side wants pictures of the caskets to be kept out of the media for political purposes. The other side wants the pictures on every front page and on every news broadcast, also for political purposes. Both sides have rational reasons for their point of view but in the end they are both political.

This is clear from the reversal of the positions mere weeks ago. A political ad for the people opposed to the caskets of soldiers being shown contained a casket being lifted from Ground Zero. The other side who wants to see all of the caskets of soldiers coming back from Iraq were outraged by the brief shot of a casket in the advertisement. They claimed that it was insensitive to the families of the victims. I wonder why they don't feel the same about the military families of the fallen heroes.

The debate is a waste of time.

Since John Kerry has vowed to 'Stay-the-course' in Iraq, if he's elected he can reverse the policy and show the caskets. Anyone want to bet that will happen?