"MY SPEACH IS GOOD, YOUR'S IS BAD"

Yeah yeah, really long time – I’m sorry, you know the drill. Anywhoo, Patti Davis, one time Playboy Celebrity Playmate, Ronald Reagan’s daughter has a pity piece in Newsweek. She’s mooning that she was dis-invited to be a speaker at some group because of her stance on stem-cell research. More specifically, the part where she supports the killing of babies for their stem cells.

“The group, which opposes such research, had booked a date with me in November to speak on the same topics I have been dealing with in lectures for years now—losing a loved one to Alzheimer’s, navigating the treacherous waters of grief—without any explicit mention of stem-cell research or, in fact, any kind of medical treatment. The lecture was to coincide with the publication of my next book, "The Long Goodbye."

Getting the news that I was canceled was one of those moments when one realizes that the personal really is political. I certainly support anyone’s prerogative to hire or not hire whomever they choose, and I definitely don’t want to work for someone who doesn’t want me. But when people aren't permitted to speak because their opinions are considered inappropriate, it's a sign that something is amiss beneath the surface. Particularly, as in this case, when those opinions have nothing to do with the job itself.”

This is the line that gets me

But when people aren't permitted to speak because their opinions are considered inappropriate, it's a sign that something is amiss beneath the surface.

Patti, you are still permitted to speak, in fact, Newsweek is letting you speak. What you can’t do is say whatever you want, wherever you want, on someone else’s dime. If this un-named organization doesn’t want you around because of you baby-killing ideas, that’s up to them.

She then goes on to list other people who have suffered because of their views and, who would have guessed it, they’re all liberals:

“Performers like Linda Ronstandt are fired from gigs because of an opinion expressed on the stage; people who are angry at Bruce Springsteen’s political views want to boycott his music. We all know what happened to the Dixie Chicks. What became of calm, civilized disagreements, acceptance of the fact that we don’t always agree with each other? When did things turn so ugly, and when did anger reach this kind of crescendo?”

I wonder why she didn’t mention Bob Casey, who was pulled from the 1992 Democratic Convention speaker list because he was anti-abortion? How about David Horowitz, who is regularly shouted down at speeches? Must have been an oversight.

The main point of her article isn’t that she has been denied her free speech rights, it’s about how civil discourse has been lost in politics. The tenor of the speech is fevered and angry today and she longs for the time when people at her fathers cocktail parties could have political discussions and,

“…that not everyone agreed with everyone else. But there were no raised voices, no angry words. This was apparently how adults talked about very important things—in civil, understated tones.”

I agree with her, it has become a tad crazy out there. But what she doesn’t mention is WHO is running around, waving their hands over their heads, frothing at the mouth and reducing debate to attacks, abandoning facts and truth for insults and lies.

It’s the left.

It’s groups like the NAACP, who run commercials saying Bush killed James Byrd again because he vetoed hate crime laws. It’s MoveOn, doing everything they do. It’s Democratic consultants who say bush “betrayed” his country by not fighting in Vietnam. It’s the psychos at DemocraticUnderground who think Bush has plans to cancel the 2004 elections, it’s Michael Moore and his entire “documentary”.

How come you didn’t mention that, Patti?

SHOOTING BLANKS

People often accuse the United states of being overly militaristic. We “worship” the gun and are willing to use military power recklessly. Of course, this comes from countries like France, whose one and only aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, almost sank on it’s maiden voyage and Canada, whose navy was so tuckered out, they had to pull their War on Terror naval force (a whopping one ship) from the mid-east. But, I am disappointed to see Great Britain following the pack.

It seems the new British version of the famed Euro-Fighter aircraft has a gun in it, but the RAF has decided they won’t let the pilots use it. Hey, not buying ammo saves money, you know?

Oh, and buying an aircraft without a machine gun is a bad idea. The United States already tried that with the F-4 Phantom II. The first planes delivered had no gun and it was quickly added for the later models.

Yet, to the left, it’s the geniuses in Europe that should be a model for us.

'FREE IRAQ FROM FREEDOM, OR SOMETHING!"

The LA Times has a doozy of an editorial today. IT was so full of silliness, I feel the need to reprint and fisk in it’s entirety.

The Hand-Over That Wasn't
Illegal orders give the U.S. a lock on Iraq's economy.

By Antonia JuhaszAntonia Juhasz is a project director at the International Forum on Globalization in San Francisco and a Foreign Policy in Focus scholar.August 5, 2004

Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy. These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people. The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life — from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition [Iraq ] from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Oh, no!! Not a market economy! The horror!!

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi — a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

Ah, ha! All people close to the CIA and British Intelligence are evil!! Look at James Bond!

Further, the interim constitution of Iraq, written by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, solidifies the orders by making them virtually impossible to overturn. A sampling of the most important orders demonstrates the economic imprint left by the Bush administration: Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.

Lets take these one at a time:

1. We wouldn’t want privately owned businesses, would we?
2. So, you don’t like foreign ownership of businesses in Iraq (which you called Iraqi businesses to make it sound bad). I hope you don’t drive a Honda.
3. No “national treatment” is often called “fair” in the rest of the world.
4. Tax free remittance of profits is also called “fair” in some quarters.
5. This means your business can’t be nationalized, dipstick.

Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations — Halliburton and Bechtel, for example — to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home.

Oh, no – Halliburton again! And they want to bring money home for their investors!

They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount.

You idiot. Common sense will tell you plenty of Iraqi’s will be hired. As for “requiring” a company to re-invest in the Iraqi economy, what do you mean by that? Seriously, what exactly do you want them to do? Donate all their profits? Then why in the world would ANY company invest in Iraq if there isn’t any chance of making money? And why shouldn’t a company be able to take out THEIR investments? What do you expect?

Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.

Wouldn’t want to make sure everything is according to Hoyle, would we?

Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.

What this really means is that there will be protection for foreign workers. As you yourself point out, it’s not a get out of jail free card, they will still be prosecuted in American courts. And if you think that’s a walk in the park, talk to Lyndie What’s-her-name from Abu Ghraib.

Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.

So?

Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.

15%!! Will the horror ever stop?!

Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors.

Ever hear of fair trade? And we wouldn't want those Iraqi's to have reasonably priced goods now, would we?

Clearly, the Bremer orders fundamentally altered Iraq's existing laws. For this reason, they are also illegal. Transformation of an occupied country's laws violates the Hague regulations of 1907 (ratified by the United States) and the U.S. Army's Law of Land Warfare. Indeed, in a leaked memo, the British attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned Prime Minister Tony Blair that "major structural economic reforms would not be authorized by international law."

So, when we “transformed” Japan and gave women the right to vote, that was illegal? Maybe that should be reversed?

With few reconstruction projects underway and with Bremer's rules favoring U.S. corporations, there has been little opportunity for Iraqis to go back to work, leaving nearly 2 million unemployed 1 1/2 years after the invasion and, many believe, greatly fueling the resistance. The Bremer orders are immoral and illegal and must be repealed to allow Iraqis to govern their own economic and political future.

Look, it’s obvious Juhasz is an America hating, un-reconstructed communist. He’s afraid of private property, fair trade and low taxes.

"DIPLOMATIC CREDIBILITY"

Sorry about the lack of posting, I’ve been busy, the fork ran away with the spoon, the cow jumped over the moon, etc., you know my excuses.

Anyway, the New York Times had a little ditty today about Iran. It was actually pretty good. It was realistic about the threat Iran poses on the nuclear front and pretty much admitted the United Nations is useless confronting this:

“…the best choice is to support Britain, France and Germany as they search for a diplomatic settlement. The chances of success do not look good; the European initiative has had minimal results and seems to be losing ground.”

What the Times fails to mention is the United States has decided to work multi-laterally on Iran, through the United Nations and not acting Uni-laterally. The Times doesn’t mention this because it doesn’t let the facts get in the way of blaming George Bush for everything:

“The invasion of Iraq, which President Bush has often said would help stabilize the Middle East, is now hindering efforts to deal with a real nuclear threat: Iran. Despite its ritualistic denials, Iran gives every indication of building all the essential elements of a nuclear weapons program. And while the United States has hoped to pressure Iran into halting that program, the government in Tehran has clearly concluded that it has little to fear for now from an American government whose diplomatic credibility has been damaged and whose military capacities have been stretched by the war in Iraq.“

The Times has decided that it’s not the UN with a diplomatic credibility problem, it’s the United States. Perhaps if the Times would take it’s head out of Kerry’s butt, it might see that diplomatic credibility comes from backing threats up with bullets and therefore, United States should have diplomatic credibility. I say should, because people like the Editorial staff at the New York Times rail against backing up words with actions to the point that this countries diplomatic credibility is compromised. Did I just blame the Times? It's not the Times alone, but all on the left who give the terrorists and evil governments the impression that we are divided to the point that we won't back up words with bullets. Any diplomatic credibility problems we have come for ilk like Howard Dean, John Kerry and the New York Times.