Those evil drug companies

Look what big pharma is up to now. Putting syringe companies out of business!

Seriously, can anyone imagine a nationalized health industry ever investing in the R&D necessary to develop such a drug? It's my opinion that the pharmaceutical industry is unfairly targeted by liberals precisely because it's a clear refutation of their argument for nationalized health care.

Leave them alone, and let them continue to make our lives better.

Da Blogfather says it all for me

Glenn Reynolds encapsulates the source of my political activism:

It's not that I'm that big a fan in the abstract, really, it's just that the viciousness and stupidity revealed in its enemies tends to make me view it more favorably than I otherwise would.

I could apply that to any number of issues lately. Living in the SF Bay Area, with its rabid and very prevalent politics, tends to get to me.

Hamas in Charge

Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters is understandably dire about the election results in the Palestinian parliament. I see a possible silver lining, and it's not the typical one - that Hamas will moderate under that responsibility. (Scott Johnson pointed to David Horowitz's dashing of that hope here.)

First of all, I can understand why the voters voted as they did. Fatah operated under extreme corruption. Aid intended for citizens was routinely siphoned off - leaving virtually nothing for the needy. At the same time, the social services wing of Hamas provided what Fatah should have - food, schools, etc. I agree with some that Hamas is firstly a charity, but I also believe that it tightly holds to it's commitment to the elimination of Israel through terrorism - and that violence is endemic to its members. In short, I think Palestinians voted with their wallets, so to speak - with the militant foreign policy a secondary concern.

I think this will be a case where things have to get worse before they get better. Hamas will have a majority government and thus total responsibility for the Palestinian territories and its people, something they are unprepared for. If things go as expected, they will impose a fundamentalist regime - alienating the moderates. At the same time, a lot of funding for the territories will dry up - reduding their ability to provide for its citizens, The government will face extreme pressures from abroad to renounce terrorism, and will lack the political skill to make friends and supporters.

Assuming that there will be another election on schedule (when is that, by the way?), Hamas will by then have lost most of the good will it has earned among the voters. That's a big assumption, I know, but I think holding elections is one of the few things that the international community will insist upon.

I'll acknowledge a weakness I see already in my argument, and that is the conditions for maintaining financial assistance from the international community. If Hamas agrees to elections, they'll continue to receive money - which in turn will improve their standing among voters. My head hurts!

Is the U.S. under attack or not?

Via Power Line, I found an article by NY Congressman Vito Fosella (no, I never heard of him before) arguing for renewal of the Patriot Act. This paragraph stood out to me:

Bin Laden's impotence is due not to a lack of trying, but rather to new and enhanced U.S. security measures. Since 9/11, U.S. officials and forces have disrupted 150 terrorist threats and cells, incapacitated 3,000 operatives worldwide and captured or killed nearly two-thirds of al Qaeda's senior leaders.
emphasis mine).

Think about that: 150 or so terrorist events that did not happen in the U.S*. So we're batting 150 for 150 since 9/11. Remarkable.

There are many on the more extreme Left that dispute that we are under any threat at all at home. They go on to base many of their political positions on this assumption, arguing that Bush has ulterior motives for the WoT (oil, racism, imperialism). I think this single fact, if true**, completely undermines their position.

How can anyone, knowing this, possibly take them seriously?

[* Not clear that all of these were in U.S. territory. It's much more likely that local officials are the ones to act abroad, and not "US officals and forces." The exceptions would naturally be in Afghanistan and Iraq. If these are included, then I'm not as impressed.

** I can't 100% accept this fact yet, given that this is the first and only time I've seen this statistic. I like to give the benefit of the doubt, especially when something rings true, but I naturally will come to trust some sources over others. I'm going to keep my eyes open for corroboration or refutation. (Ain't I fair?)

For the record, I don't think I'm not too conspiracy minded - as I think it's very difficult to keep such things secret for long and "truth will out" - usually. Lies, especially using specific numerical facts, will eventually be exposed. (Not that this will necessarily be well-noted or impact public perceptions - sadly.)]

That Benjamin Franklin Quote

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - B. Franklin

"Those Who Would Sacrifice Liberty for Security Deserve Neither" - misguided fools

I've heard this quotation referenced a number of times the last few years with regard to the War on Terror - mostly in discussions (email) with some liberal peers. Of course, it has assumed new prominence lately in light of the NSA controversy.

Last week, at an address given by Attorney General Gonzales at Georgetown University (broadcast on CSPAN), a group of student protestors unveiled a large banner with the second, abbreviated, quote. They were allowed to keep the banner up and to remain in the auditorium (God Bless American and the First Amendment).

Later, on CSPAN's Washington Journal call-in program, the host invited comments on this quote. Most of the calls where hysterical reactions to the alleged dramatic loss of freedom under King George - even those on the Republican line (a common tactic of liberals these days, to pretend to be converts).

I was watching the program (at 4:00 am on the West Coast) because I was having trouble sleeping - but the callers' comments only made things worse. I got to thinking about it.

First of all, the now-accepted abbreviated version has eliminated some critical modifiers. Take the word "essential" - in the sense of "necessary and indespensible." The abbreviated quote implies that the idea applies to the giving up of any liberty. This is nonsense. We all gladly give up minor liberties every day, from locking our doors to obeying the speed limit. So then, what is an "essential liberty"? I couldn't say for sure, but I'm pretty certain this does not include the liberty to accept calls from foreign terrorists while expecting the conversation not to be eavesdropped upon. What is essential about that? Dropping that modifier radically changes the Franklin's idea.

Let's move on the the exclusion of the word "temporary" and the substitution of "security" for "safety." As I see it, the NSA eavesdropping is a tool in the global War on Terror. The goal of the WoT is to win, and such a victory - once it is achieved - will not be a temporary guarantee of security, but a permanent relegation of Islamofascism to the "dustbin of history." I think if Franklin were addressing such means to long-term guarantees of safety, he would not have included the word "temporary" as he did (as much as the Left wish he had). As for "security" in place of "safety", I'm not sure. Perhaps the difference has to do with "national security" vs. "personal safety." In any case, the Liberal partisans have disingenously altered Franklin's quote (without his permission, I might add) to suit their political agenda.

Finally, there's one aspect of the original quote that I've always had misgivings about. How can one say that any person does not deserve liberty or safety (with the exception of convicted felons or terrorists)? I mean, this is essentially condemning to slavery anyone timid enought to not stand up for their rights. This is not just or fair, no matter what the Great Man said. "Liberty is God's gift to man," and just because one might be weak or timid does not make them second-class citizens undeserving of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution - no matter how much disrespect they may deserve.

It think on this basis alone, we should give Franklin's comment little notice.

"Unlimited" Executive Power?

Like any wanna-be blogger, I try to pay close attention to what is going on in the political sphere. And like most bloggers, I don't have much expertise particular to such issues. I try to apply fairness and common sense in interpreting events. I try to identify my own biases and be honest about those. And I try to gain as much knowledge of the facts (as presented by both sides) as I can muster.

An in the name of fairness, I'm continually making good-faith efforts to understand just what is going through the collective minds of the political opposition. My first instinct, for better or worse, is to assume reasonable intelligence and good faith in others.

Many a time, though, my good faith runs thin. I have to ask myself, how is it that these otherwise decent people can come to believe such outrageous things (i.e. the litany of leftish political conspiracy theories). I've started to develop a number of ideas of what's happening here, but I'm only just now starting to articulate them.

The latest "meme" among the Dem/Left is that Bush is accumulating "unlimited powers" befitting a dictator. They will cite the current NSA controversy as evidence of this. But as other bloggers have made clear, Bush is in fact being remarkably even-handed in his bid to do "what is necessary" to disrupt terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

Why the paranoia? What makes otherwise sane people interpret these quite minor constitutional questions as full-fledged totalitarianism?

My theory is simple: When Bush first assumed office in 2001, the Democratic Party for the first time in seven decades were shut out of both the executive and legislative branches. That's a very long time - the entire lifetime of most Democrats. Being out of power was a totally alien experience for them, and the adjustment has been excruciating. For the first time in a long time, the Democrats had little or no ability to "check and balance" the executive branch. Furthermore, as their influence in the Federal Courts continues to wane, their feeling of powerless is only increasing.

This can be emotionally very trying for the "true believers" - the activists of the Party, the policy makers and the base. And once such strong emotions enter the equation, you can kiss goodbye rational and good faith politics. Hello paranoia.

Under such circumstances, I can start to understand how they could interpret Bush's confident and aggressive leadership as simply too much. Their paranoia forces them to see the entire Republican establishment as a monolith, with Bush (and Rove) in complete control - with no check or balance at all. Couple that with a deep-seated faith in Bush as evil and power-mad, then they have no choice but to conclude that the United States is on the road to becoming a totalitarian state.

Those of us with clearer heads understand that this is nonsense. We understand that Congress and the Judiciary are still comprised of individuals, the great majority of whom are decent-minded folks capable of making their own decisions - none of whom would cotton to the U.S. becoming a dictatorship. The blessed checks and balances are very much intact. And it's also clear that Bush respects this, as evidenced in the legal due diligence paid to Congress and the Justice Department when instituting the NSA surveillance program.

We clear-headed folk also aren't under the delusion that Bush is some sort of criminal - having had 6 years or more to take a measure of the man from his words and deeds. Not to say that there aren't some in the Administration or Congress with malicious intentions. But we just don't see that in George Bush.

I'm back!

Things were getting so heated before, I thought I should take 10 months off so that everyone could calm down.

Now, let's all try to keep this civil. 'Kay?

[end of sarcasm]