One has to wonder if liberals are looking to immigration as their next great experiment in large-scale social engineering. 

Close on the heals of desegregation, liberals gave us Welfare and followed it up with Affirmative Action. Sad to say, no liberal is bragging about either today. Welfare may have been well intentioned when it was created, and it may have done some people some good, but it can justifiably be accused in the end of fostering the proliferation of large, poor, fatherless black families by financially rewarding black women who remained unmarried and bore children at regular, three year intervals. Affirmative Action was able to counteract some of the debilitating effects of Welfare by neutralizing competitive selection as a means of filling jobs and college desks, but is now being debunked by many of its beneficiaries (i.e. Clarence Thomas) for  diluting the value of - arguably - unearned positions and degrees.

So how else can liberals demonstrate their tradition of laboring for the poor, the downtrodden, the disinfranchised?

Universal medical care? Poor choice. To be universal, a new Medical Care System can't just serve the poor - there are too many  middle class families and trades workers who lack access to affordable medical care.

Immigration? Good choice. Just consider: millions of unfranchised poor, hard working people who lack representation and are being threatened with expulsion. John Edwards and his retro-campaign be damned! Brown is the new black! (Yes, we know that there are asians and europeans here illegally along with hispanics, but, for whatever reason, perhaps to incite Geraldo Rivera, the media do paint the face of the illegal immigrant brown.). 

It will be interesting to see if liberals choose illegal immigrants as their next great cause, and if they can solve the problems illegals pose without simply (a) building fences over which to toss them, (b) making them untouchable, ignoring them along with the crime and identify theft that accompany them, or (c) enfranchising them all with instant, universal amnesty and risk racking up a bill that will make Welfare's seem small.

Islamic supremacist and Iranian leader Ahmadinejad disclosed on "60 Minutes", that, because of his religion, he "can not tell a lie." His statement, a virtual Rosetta Stone of Ahmadinejad-speak, explains why he answers so few questions directly.

His religion may prevent him from telling a lie, but it does not require that he tell the truth. Keep this in mind when you hear him respond to questions.

When asked if he plans to follow through with his threat to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, for example, he obfuscates by bringing up situations in which nuclear weapons have not been or can not be used successfully. He won't say "no" because it would be a lie. So instead, in a riff on Ali's rope-a-dope bouts, he dances like a butterfly around the issue.

So why doesn't he just say "yes?" Confirming his intentions to a western questioner would make him appear submissive, and that is even worse to a Persian than lying is to a devout Muslim.

Pay attention to he responses at Columbia, children. The faster he dances, the closer you are to getting at the truth.

The way to punch back at  "I can not tell a lie Ahmadinejad" is to simply follow his non-sequiturial response to "are you going to bomb Israel?" with a "we'll take that as a 'yes.'"

Politicians actively seeking office should be able to avoid answering difficult questions or voting (if they already occupy office) on difficult issues in the same way an individual giving testimony can avoid incriminating himself. Since it is not a matter necessarily of self-incrimination, they should be able to plead a different constitutional amendment than the 5th. Perhaps the 20th? So if Hillary Clinton doesn't want to support the resolution to slap wack MoveOn's fingers with a ruler for the Patraeus ad, she should be able to safely avoid the question by pleading the 20th. This would be like her saying she was not going to take a side in the matter on the grounds that it could endanger her candidacy. Pleading the 20th would be limited to being a rationale for refusing to take action, of course, not for adopting a rediculous position.

We have cable TV shows using pornography to attract eyeballs, comedians using profanity to attract ears, and Columbia University using a terrorist to attract, what, minds? All are doing a good job of "pushing the boundaries." Unfortunately, they are pushing them in the wrong direction.

Columbia is hiding its decision to sponsor the Ahmadinejad Show under the blanket of free speech, rationalizing that giving the Islamic supremacist a platform does not mean Columbia agrees with his ideology and his behavior. What a crock. It's not about speech, it's about communication. And what Columbia's decision communicates is that an incumbant President might not sit down with Ahmadinejad lest the meeting increase the importance of the Iranian on the world stage, but the American academic community will.

Ahmadinejad does not come in order to dialogue, he comes in order to preach. He comes to preach in order to go home and brag to his followers there how important he has become, how clever has been to fool the stupid Americans into believing he has come to dialogue. Ahmadinejad is not content, as the 911 terrorists were, to just live in the belly of the beast, he wants demonstrate his bravery by standing on the great beast's nose and spit in the great beast's eyes. And Columbia is happy to oblige by roping the unsuspecting beast, tying it down, and offering the Iranian dictator a leg up onto its nose.

One of my favorite scary movies of all time is the original "Thing," the one in which James Arness (in lifts) plays an alien who, dug out of the ice near his frozen-in flying saucer, and accidentally defrosted by researchers living at the north pole, sets about killing the researchers and hanging them up to feed their dripping blood to its seedlings. The next best scene in the film (the best one is the alien being electrocuted by a few survivors) is when the lead scientist approaches the alien to reason with it, and - wait for it - is subsequently smashed to a bloody pulp. In today's remake of the movie, the part of the foolish scientist is played by Columbia University.

They made speeches to impress their colleagues and constituencies. They asked General Patraeus and Ambassador Crocker to justify themselves, justify the decisions of their superiors, and predict the future. In general, members of the Senate and the House acted like lawyers for the prosecution (democrats) or the defense (republicans). What they did not do was behave like the partcipants in the problem that they in fact are and ask the following question:

If leaving precipitously is not an option with you, and staying interminably is not an option with us, what do you need in terms of resources and support to conclude your activities in Iraq within the next (pick a number) months?

Congress is about the business of allocating funds and resources for the military. Congress can threaten the administration and the military and those of us who hate defeat with severing funds for the war in Iraq. Congress also has the power to threaten the enemy by allocating additional resources and committing to ending the war successfuly as well as quickly.

How sublimely ingenuous that democrats in the House of Representatives berated General Patraeus and Ambassador Crocker about the Iraqi government not being able to achieve concensus on highly contentious issues. The cat was calling the kettle black. The Iraqi government is a representative government in which each member stubornly represents the cultural/sectarian constituency that sent him. Not much different that our houses of Congress at times. Members of the Iraqi government at least have an excuse for not budging from their positions. If they make concessions, they risk being assassinated by their constituents. Ambassador Crocker reported that the Iraqi government, though it had not acheived its formal milestones, was in fact getting the work done. That approach makes sense: lets just do it; if it works and we like it, we can formalize it later. Too bad we are not capable of comprehending that a grass roots, organic approach to law, order and government is perfectly acceptable. Too bad we have forgotten that our own Constitution has been a living, growing reference for us.

As always, the enlightened will appreciate the spirit of the law while the unenlightened insist on the letter of the law.

Pay attention to what Representative Lantos said during the hearing held to hear what General Patraeus and Ambassador Crocker had to say about the status of the war in Iraq. It is an outstanding example of how elected officials in government endeavor to intimidate the people who are responsible for doing the job into telling them what they want to hear. What Lantos is doing, and it is likely that the Executive has done the same, is what causes large scale program failure in both the private and public sectors.

Ultimately, if we are successful in Iraq, it will be due to leaders like Patraeus plainly and simply being allowed to do the job they were given to do in the first place.

It was indeed symbolic that General Patraeus' microphone did not work when it came time for him to deliver his report to Congress. The democrats who run Congress these days obviously didn't want to hear what he had to say.

They would rather listen to the tapes repeating their own stories playing incessantly through their ear buds. One of those stories is that their job is to end the war in Iraq even if it means destroying our country, the people who believe in it, and the people who defend it, in the process. That story is a successive approximation of the truth. The truth is that the American people want to leave Iraq as successfully as possible with a successful outcome. Democrats have no idea how to do that. So they have settled on defeat and escape instead. Another tape democrats are playing for themselves is that a defeat in Iraq will keep then in office in 2008. Another fiction.

That Congress would require an independent assessment of anything, and then engage in a campaign to refute the results of that assessment before they are completed and presented clearly illustrates just how dysfunctional Congress has become, and it also explains Congress' historically low approval rating.

What a shame that so many celebrities today feel obligated to take political sides and use their celebrity to further causes rather than or as a means to further their careers. Are they making so much money they can risk losing fans by pandering to bizarre conspiracy theories, launching rude personal attacks on the President, and sucking up to socialist dictators? Bad enough many of them can not stay out of jail or rehab or maintain stable relationships or families. When you watch a show today, in addition to having to suspending your disbelief to buy the setting and plot, you have to suspend your disbelief to see the actors as the characters they are playing, and not political hacks and operatives. What a shame.

Is Oprah supporting Obama - and no one else - because he is black? If so, what kind of a problem would it be for her if a black woman (Condi Rice) stepped us as a vice presidential candidate? Would a classy black woman trump a classy black man for her? How can she possibly justify her support of Obama by saying she agrees with his positions when no one knows all of his positions and some of them are in left field?

Our country was founded on principles that ensure we are able to protect ourselves. We have assigned the responsibility of protecting our nation to our federal government. We have assign the responsibility of protecting our states to our governers. We have assigned the responsiblity of protecting ourselves to our local city and county governments. We have retained the right to have weapons and defend ourselves. 

There are times when, for the benefit of others, we must relinquish our right to carry weapons and defend ourselves. In the olden days, we might have checked our six shooters at the saloon door. Today, we leave our guns and fngernail files home when we head for a football game, concert, or airport.

When, in order to travel or attend an event, we relinquish our right to defend ourselves, we don't do so thinking we will be temporarily defenseless and vulnerable. We assume instead that the event sponsor or airline is capable of and assuming responsibility for our personal safety. We don't give up personal security, we temporarily assign it to others.

It is therefore incumbent on the airline or the event coordinators to have in place whatever means are needed to ensure we remain safe while we remain in their venue. If the airline or event coordinators will not or can not ensure the safety of the individuals they are transporting or entertaining, they should not then prohibit those individuals from taking apropriate means to ensure their own safety.

What the runes said 10/5/07 about party and candidates:

 

Democrats [Raido/Union Reversed] Will experience ruptured relationships, inconveniences, blockages and failures resulting in opportunities to change direction toward bi-partisanship.

Joe Biden [Berkana/Rebirth Reversed] Dismayed by a blocked candidacy, must start anew by examining his role in the problem and cleansing himself of self-serving motives.

Hillary Clinton [Ansuz/Message] Must remain ready to receive a message which will come from an unexpected (possibly suspicious) source and could be a timely warning or a calling to a new beginning and a new life.

Christopher Dodd [Perth/Secret] (Same as McCain) Will experience either earthly or spiritual gains and rewards and a new, broader vision that may not be shared easily or appropriately with others.

John Edwards [Mannaz/The Self] Must prepare for growth by grounding himself, re-learning who he is, regaining humility, integrity and his sense of self, disentangling from the complex weavings of the world, and opening his senses to what is around him.

Mike Gravel [Jera/Harvest] Will attain success, but must remain patient, tend to himself and his life, and allow success to come at its own time.

Dennis Kucinich [Raido/Union] Is approaching a partnership, but can not be aided by others or material things, must give up resistance and remorse from trying to force things to happen, and seek only right action in order to attain it.

Barack Obama [Gebo/A Gift] Will be offered a partnership, but must remain grounded and free to act, and not lose himself in it.

Bill Richardson [Nauthiz/Constraint] Facing internal and external obstacles, must look inside to find cause of stunted growth, pay debts, restore balance, and show good humor and perseverance in order to overcome them.

 

Republicans [Eihwaz/Aversion] Should be aware that there are unforeseen consequences of their actions, and should act from a place of patience, not in lust for a desired outcome. Spring will be a good time to act. Until then, they should think, plan, set their house in order, and wait for the way to become clear.

Fred Thompson [Eihwaz/Aversion] (Same as for party) Should be aware that there are unforeseen consequences of their actions, and should act from a place of patience, not in lust for a desired outcome. Spring will be a good time to act. Until then, they should think, plan, set their house in order, and wait for the way to become clear.

Tom Tancredo [Ehwaz/Progress Reversed] His candidacy blocked and his opportunities limited, must be patient and wait for his time to come.

Mitt Romney [Dagaz/Day] Facing a major shift in who he is, must trust in himself, not act recklessly, and but be prepared to leap empty-handed into the void in order to attain a period of great achievement and prosperity.

Ron Paul [Othila/Inheritance] Can obtain real success but must first submit, retreat or give up something, some aspect of himself, his work, his position in society, or his beliefs.

John McCain [Perth/Secret] (Same as Dodd) Will experience either earthly or spiritual gains and rewards and a new, broader vision that may not be shared easily or appropriately with others.

Duncan Hunter [Teiwaz/Warrier] Doing what is right and honorable, he should focus on his inner self, maintain his courage and dedication, and allow the universe to act through him rather than trying to control the outcome.

Mike Huckabee [Eihwaz/Aversion] (Same as for party and Thompson) Should be aware that there are unforeseen consequences of their actions, and should act from a place of patience, not in lust for a desired outcome. Spring will be a good time to act. Until then, they should think, plan, set their house in order, and wait for the way to become clear.

Rudy Giuliani [Mannaz/Self Reversed] Blocked by an internal barrier, must look inside for the way around, over or through it.

Sam Brownback [Berkana/Rebirth] In order to be more successful, must consider issues with care and awareness, be clear and controlled, modest, patient, fair and generous.

Ron Paul [Kano/Fire (reversed)] Will be presented with a closing, an ending, which if not consciously faced, will cost him a lost opportunity.

During the infamous Salem witch hunts, it wasn't so much their behavior as the testimony of the accused during the subsequent inquisition that led to their conviction and hanging. One strategy being used by the Democrat Party to chew at the ankles of the Bush administration is to hold Congressional hearings to investigate alleged crimes and then indict the focus of the investigation for perjury. Basically, Congress targets a key employee of the Bush administration, initiates an inquisition based on false accusations inflated to appeal to the paranoia of a conspiracy-seeking populace, tortures the victim of the inquisition by dragging him through the press to besmirch his good name, and then finds him guilty of making inconsistent statements in his testimony.

What else have the Democrats in Congress been doing if not conducting witch hunts? It is certainly not good government.

The latest alleged witch to be hung in Salem-on-the-Potomac is Alberto Gonzales. And Democrats have a problem with water-boarding?

Local officials in alleged sanctuary cities justify their refusal to identify criminal/illegal aliens to federal officials on the basis of insufficient manpower. If local officials have manpower issues, you would think the FIRST thing they would want to do  is reduce the case loads of their police and judges by removing as many illiegals as possible. It should be a no-brainer. You pick up a guy who is alleged to have broken the law, you find he is in the county illegally, you call ICE, the feds come and haul him away, you don't have to deal with the problem.

Instead, local officials insist on treating illegal aliens to the same justice system available to alleged lawbreakers who are citizens or legal visitors: one that is so overloaded, it immediately releases really harmful people back onto the streets to continue their destructive behavior.

Not to make light of a serious situation, if LA jails were not so overcrowded with illegal aliens taking up cell space that could be used to house our own citizen population, people like Lindsay Lohan and Nicole Ritchie would be doing more time for their dangerous recitivist behavior than 24 hours and 82 minutes respectively.

Many Muslim women living in non-Muslim countries have been quoted as saying they are doing so for modesty, not symbolic reasons. One has to wonder, though, if what is protecting their modesty is not covering up their hair with a simple scarf as much as it is wearing a very obvious and off-putting religious symbol on their heads. If the goal of observant Muslim women is modesty, and modesty is obtained by covering their hair (one would assume it would involve avoiding plunging necklines, bare midriffs and miniskirts), why don't they just wear big floppy hats? A big floppy hat would meet the need for modesty through hair coverage, but not identify the wearer as a Muslim and, by association, probable terrorist threat.

People make "political statements" with the clothing they wear, all the time. Wearing certain styles or articles of clothing is a passive method of communication, so when they are called on their attire, people usually claim their choices were innocent, the results unintentional. Like the Muslim women. The truth of the matter is that if it looks like a religious symbol and functions like a religious symbol, it IS a religious symbol.

Speaking of underwear, has anyone other than me noticed the increasing numbers of young women out in public pairing low rise pants and skirts with high rise thong underwear? The effect is not dissimilar to young male hip-hoppers and ganstas wearing their baggy jeans under their butts so their spiffy plaid boxer shorts will show. I'm old school (meaning I'm just old). I am still adjusting to women feeling they no longer have to hide their bra straps under their tops. But am I the only guy who feels under pants (thong or boxer) exposed in such a manner is an open invitation to a wedgie?