mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

August 19, 2005

Newt in Iowa and Liberalism 3.x

I just heard Newt on CSPAN giving a speech that sounded to me like a dry run of his Presidential campaign. He was asked, on a scale of 0 to 10, what the odds are that he'll run for President. He responded that it was somewhere between 1 and 10, which got a laugh. But... it's not zero! To my practiced political ear he seems closer to 10 than 1. For all practical purposes he's running for President now, and the only issue is whether he'll withdraw at some point before November, 2008.

He expressed his thoughts on a number of critical topics, from health care to the "Long War Against Irreconcilable Islam." To me, this sounds like the much awaited Liberalism 3.x. In this view Iraq is just a "campaign," although a clearly important one to us and to the Jihad. I'd also say that if Iowans are getting the idea that we're losing in Iraq that's understandable if their source of information is Mainstream Media. But the odds that Mainstream Media has it right this time are demonstrably zero. (See Michael Yon's thoughts on the inept way media covers the war.) That doesn't mean we're winning "The Long War," though. In fact, I don't think we are. We're essentially attempting to fight Totalitarianism 3.x with the institutions and attitudes typical of Liberalism 2.x. But our military is rapidly making the transition to Liberalism 3.x, and if Newt gets his say the rest of the country may soon follow. I'd vote for him. I thought his presentation was excellent, and I think he has an answer for those discouraged about Iraq, immigration, the economy, etc..

A Newt candidacy also counters what Democrats feel are their main strengths. He's a conservative intellectual, which flies directly in the fact of the standard characterization of Republican candidates. Also, if his recent appearances have helped Hillary harden her foreign policy and defense credentials they've probably helped Newt soften his image even more. He now occupies a policy area that's not really fixed in the liberal-conservative domain. He has new formulae that resolve the primary socio-economic problems that Democrats feel are their proprietary market share. He has the Clintons' wonkishness, but unlike Clinton (either one) he also has a coherent vision and is serious about realizing it.
more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 02:37 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 1360 words, total size 8 kb.

Rusty's Blogger Military Service Survey

Regarding Rusty's military service survey of the blogosphere, a commenter objects:

Its disgusting that you legitimize this fraudulent meme of the Left, Rusty.

The meme SPQR is talking about is the often-repeated phrase "chickenhawk" tossed at war supporters who haven't served in the military, or (since G.W. Bush is a veteran, and therefore passes the test) haven't served in combat. Yes, it is a meme, but Rusty isn't legitimizing it. In fact, quite the opposite.

more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 02:22 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I followed an argument on a blog last year whereby one person called the other a chickenhawk. The recipient of the insult said he had indeed served in the military. The insulter got snippy and said, "What were you? A pot scrubber?" the other fellow said (I'll paraphrase because I can't find the actual words again), "Actually, I was a bomb technician. And before you have anymore inane questions or comments, yes, my time was mostly spent bored to tears punctuated occasionally with moments of sheer terror. And I had as much respect for the guys who washed dishes, typed reports and mopped floors. They all had a purpose and deserve respect." The insulting party never returned. If he had any character at all, he would have apologized. THAT TOO is why Rusty's project has merit. Idiots like that guy.

Posted by: Oyster at August 19, 2005 06:52 AM (YudAC)

2 Has everyone forgotten that use to be in war everyone did what they could? Thats how you win. Americans out there right now are totally ignoring this. Should we loose they are as much or more responsable then even the opposition to the war. I may not have served but to ignore it would shirking my duty as an American citizen. If all you do is send a Private some cookies you are helping.

Posted by: Howie at August 19, 2005 09:02 AM (D3+20)

3 Yeah, I saw Starship Troopers the other night too, and couldn't help thinking of the enigmatic connection between Heinlein's fictionalized attitudes and modern resistance to the GWOT and Iraq. You'll never hear anyone in the Bush admin utter anything like Doogie Howser's line, "I send thousands of people just like you to their deaths every day; I'm sorry if that sounds harsh to you. But listen, boys and girls, we're in it for the species. It's simple numbers - they have more." But the main problem I have is one of the premises in the Chickenhawk discourse, that military/combat experience gives one moral authority. Morality is concerned with what is right, what is good, and what is virtuous, and, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is "based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty. I believe people, deceptively or otherwise, are substituting the use of "moral" for "empirical," meaning "Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis;" or "Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws" or "Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine." The problem with this is that one person's empirical observations prove useful only in terms of what they themselves can replicate, such as how to behave in combat, but not in terms of applying this to a larger, unrelated sphere, such as strategy. Even a greater sampling of soldiers will only yield information on how to soldier, not how to strategize a war. So whatever the anti-chickenhawks call themselves, they have no more authority on the war in Iraq to claim, moral or otherwise, than any other informed observer, unless you change the argument entirely. I therefore find Rusty's correlation between service, bias and opinion to be very interesting.

Posted by: tee bee at August 19, 2005 09:55 AM (q1JHF)

4 This certainly extends Markos's expertise from the military to foreign policy. He was almost in a war and, now we come to learn, that Markos almost worked at the State department. {Jerome} Armstrong: Markos started reading MyDD in 2001, and was one of the first people to write comments on my postings. He emailed me to tell me he was starting his own blog, Fishy Shark in 2002, which I linked to. Later, he started DailyKos. We started e-mailing back and forth, and he {Kos}told me near the end of that year (2002) that he was going to stop blogging because he was about to start working for the State department. I was already talking to the Dean folks and Trippi was asking me to build a blog and other stuff. I knew Markos had a strong computer background, and so I invited him up to Portland where I was living, and so we gelled in a day or two. cite This sort of parallels the story of Fidel Castro, then aspiring baseball pitcher, not getting called up by the Yankees back in the 50s. Had Markos gone to work at the State Department, had DailyKos not gone through its growth and had the influence that it did -- who knows what would have happened? My guess: President Kerry. ~ and ~ not to mention now the State Department has lost out on that clear-headed pragmatic world view that Markos "You know the Quote" Moulitsas brings to the table. Thanks, Kos!!

Posted by: BumperStickerist at August 19, 2005 10:02 AM (EgPEq)

5 Chickenhawkalotaatalk - Paul Wolfowitz and his assgang are getting whupped outta dodge! NEOCON FOOLS ARE LOSERS!!!!

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at August 19, 2005 10:04 AM (90EsJ)

6 Logic has entered; let the screaming on the left commence. Downs, you're practically ahead of schedule here, and somewhat short on the usual vitriol.

Posted by: tee bee at August 19, 2005 10:11 AM (q1JHF)

7 Fidel Castro and Marcos "screw em" Kos. Wow! I'll bet Fidel channeled his personality to Kos and now we see what a Fidel blog would look like. Now there's something that has to make DSM happy.

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 19, 2005 10:27 AM (DDXXI)

8 teebee: But the main problem I have is one of the premises in the Chickenhawk discourse, that military/combat experience gives one moral authority. Morality is concerned with what is right, what is good, and what is virtuous, and, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is "based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty. Actually, I think the term "moral authority" is misleading, because it simply means that the person who has it also has a low probability of being hypocritical in terms of physical courage. I have no problem with that, but it's different from "moral clarity," which has a great deal more to do with morality, justice, and even validity. There's also experiencial and expert authority. I agree that everyone ought to be paying some price for this war, and it's ironic that one reason it has become unpopular is precisely because the costs are borne so narrowly. We aren't yet invested in it, as a nation.

Posted by: Demosophist at August 19, 2005 10:49 AM (0sVKo)

9 fwiw - I think it's reasonable to ask "If you support the War, what have you done in support of this war?" Some non-enlist, train, deploy to Iraq options would include: * donate blood - You've had 12 opportunities to donate blood since the war started, how many times have you actually donated blood? * donate time/money - Have you donated time or money to a charitable cause for either the troops or the families of the troops. There doesn't have to be a specific level reached for either dollars or blood, but people who just bang away on a keyboard on either side might consider doing either of the above.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at August 19, 2005 11:54 AM (EgPEq)

10 What is this National Guard-thingie Bush was in? Some "you guys stay home and protect the women"-unit?

Posted by: A Finn at August 19, 2005 11:59 AM (lGolT)

11 Finn, I'm guessing GW could have been in the Marines and it wouldn't have been valid in your eyes - his privileged background provides the obscuring lens for any of his accomplishments to certain dog-in-the-manger types, and the permanently politically opposed, such as Democrats and liberals. And, by the standards of the chickenhawk argument, you'd have had to serve in order to criticize. Maybe you have. Dem, I wonder if the whole notion of "authority" isn't another linguistic red herring. When words have their meanings twisted and facts such as pre-war intelligence are regularly discounted by one side, it's difficult to have much faith in managing a reasonable discussion. Such chicanery is typical of people who will use any means to get what they want. You mentioned on my post that there was a use of the term, moral authority. Is this among historians? I'm liberal arts, so I have some history along with the social sciences and lit. In my academic and personal reading, I've never come across it. Thanks.

Posted by: tee bee at August 19, 2005 05:54 PM (q1JHF)

12 Bumper Sticker, I have tried to donate every chance I can, but unfortunately for me, I was in Germany in 1982 for more than 6 months. (Mad cow disease.) I go in everytime, and I am denied. But I am told to come back next time because they "might" have a test to tell if I have MCD. MOOOOOOOOOO. I have also donated several tins of cookies, and crayons.

Posted by: Butch at August 22, 2005 03:49 PM (Gqhi9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 14, 2005

Should Mr. Fitzgerald be reappointed?

US Attorney Patrick FitzgeraldÂ’s term in office is just about up. He will need to be reappointed by President Bush if he is to continue his work. What does he do? Well letÂ’s see. The CIA leak case, he is after the Chicago city government, he is holding my former governor GEORGE RyanÂ’s feet to the fire. You bet we should keep him. ItÂ’s refreshing to see a man go after both parties and hold them up against the laws they make for everyone else. I mean like they do us. Too often people in power think that the laws are just for you know people like me. Well Patrick Fitzgerald goes after them. America is far better off when politicians know there are people like him who donÂ’t give a ratÂ’s ass about the D or R next to your name. Is he overzealous? Yep, but he is not going after poor little people with no ability to defend themselves he goes after the top. Mr. Bush, give Mr. Fitzgerald to another four year term. I know itÂ’s kind of like letting the fox guard the hen house. But Mr. Bush has iron balls, WeÂ’ll see.

DEAN POLALES: I don't think Democratic or Republican Party politics has anything to do with the way he does his job. And I think his track record in Chicago demonstrates that -- when dealing with political corruption cases, he's an equal opportunity prosecutor.

Posted by: Howie at 02:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

August 03, 2005

When is Losing not Losing?

Why when you're the Democratic party, of course. The party of "we've got everything backwards" seems to not be able to tell a win from a loss in this latest congressional race. The AP hosts the story this morning in which Democrats claim a victory in Ohio (why is it always Ohio?) even though their candidate only recieved 47% of the vote. And why did they claim a victory? Because their candidate managed to get 47% of the vote, up from 29% for the last joker they tried to run in that district. Of course there were a number of contributing factors. After warning Bush in the last election that using Iraq and 9/11 would be playing dirty pool, they disregard their own rules and hype their own candidate as a seven month Iraqi war "veteran." Not only that, but the man is a rabid Bush-hater, coming out with statments like the following:

He drew attention to the race with his flame-throwing assaults on Bush, namely for the president's July 2003 "bring 'em on" comment about Iraqi insurgents. Hackett called the comment "most incredibly stupid comment" he ever heard a president make, and said it "cheered on the enemy."

Oh yeah. Calling them "Minutemen" certainly wouldn't cheer the enemy, now would it? Calling our own soldiers (in which Hackett would be lumped) Getstapo, or Pol Pot wouldn't cheer the enemy soldiers on now would it? Publicly stating your wishes that our troops would die certainly wouldn't cheer our enemies on, would it? Trying to say that everything the President does is wrong and creating a huge rift within this country wouldn't do anything to cheer the terrorists on at all, now would it? All those and more are things that have been done by the Democrats. And yet they want to choose one instance and latch on it. Worry it like a dog with a bone. And then they can't even choose anything that might have real substance.

This race is a harbringer of what is to come in 2006. We're going to see more and more attacks on our President as the Democrats attempt to sling mud in the general direction of the people whom they are running against. We're going to see the wedges of diviseness driven even deeper into our communities as they attempt to portray how "evil" the Republicans are. They count the Ohio race as a victory because they played dirty, smear politics and came close to a win. Of course they also fail to account that most of their runners will NOT be associated with the Iraq war and will be running against an incumbent. But the "reality-based" community will continue to see only what they want and continue to play the kind of dirty pool that divides this great nation and loses them elections. To them, I say "Bring it on!" Because the more of this junk you try, the more support, and elections, you're going to lose. Just think, you might could have had a victory in Ohio if you hadn't been spewing hate.

Posted by: Drew at 04:30 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 522 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Scary, isn't it - how one guy who runs solely on a platform of his military service and his opposition to the war can come so close. A guy who hasn't claimed one single position on one single social issue. Is he pro or anti abortion? Is he pro or anti gay marriage? What is his stance on property rights for Ohioans? What ideas does he have to ease taxes. For state welfare? How does he feel about unions - Ohio is a big manufacturing state. Plans or ideas for Social Security? No one seems to know. Look at this website. He doesn't answer any of these questions. He complains a lot. That's about it. Republicans better get a clue and I hope they watched this race very closely.

Posted by: Oyster at August 03, 2005 06:37 AM (YudAC)

2 You're right, but I also think the fact that he wasn't battling an incumbent helped matters somewhat. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing if you put this Dem up against an incumbent Republican, he would have gotten the requisite 21% just like all the Dems before him. At least that's what I'm hoping. Either way, you're right. Republicans need to stand up and take notice now.

Posted by: Drew at August 03, 2005 06:53 AM (Ml8z/)

3 He did pretty well. See that's what I'm worried about. I didn't have to vote for him and hey obnoxious statements I'm like the king of that when I don't watch myself or feel bad. Yep that's my natural state ornery little punk. If this guy could have watched his mouth ,oh god I'm like so empathetic, he may have done a bit better. In my opinion she was the better candidate from what I know but see his was a heavily conservative district so the fact that this guy did well even with the ornery statements gives me a bit of foreboding for my party next Nov. I've been bitching about the fact that the middle so often ends up not participting on election day and then whines all year afterward. Maybe the middle is waking up to the fact that if they don't vote they hjave no right to whine about it. I vote so I'll whine bitch complain grouch gripe but I'll try and keep it to a minumum when I can but some times I fall back into my natural state of ornery little punk.

Posted by: Howie at August 03, 2005 08:55 AM (D3+20)

4 One more thought, It's not about the war. It may seem that way but it's not. The London bombings have taken care of that. It's the domestic bull in a china shop stuff. At least it is for me.

Posted by: Howie at August 03, 2005 09:59 AM (D3+20)

5 In this politically correct world, he did not "lose". This is known as just "deferred success."

Posted by: Jerry Burns at August 03, 2005 10:25 AM (sYhjT)

6 Schmidt is a tax and spend Republican that didn't play well with the base. The Club for Growth took a pass on her. So she started out as damaged goods. In a special election it's mostly the base that votes. Given all the lies, the deceit, she still won. The Rs need to get a better stronger candidate for 2006, that much is clear. The Republicans need to realize they must field good candidates.

Posted by: tarpon at August 03, 2005 10:35 AM (QJhZY)

7 Republicans who run as conservatives should govern as conservatives if they want to win again. It just cannot be said enough.

Posted by: Brent at August 03, 2005 04:20 PM (Ltkej)

8 Give a (D)umbassrat enough rope and they'll hang themselves *smirk* is hoping they do a bad thing ?

Posted by: Jonathan at August 03, 2005 07:52 PM (wdVtc)

9 His mouth and playing to the hate Bush crowd lost it for him. He was obviously playing for the black vote, the anti-Bush vote, the anti-so called war vote. Not proud that he is an EX-Marine.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 06, 2005 07:20 PM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 02, 2005

Tin Soldiers and Schmidt is coming

Also today in Ohio there is a special election with two pretty good candidates. IÂ’m not from Ohio so IÂ’ll keep my nose out of it. Well maybe not.

We have a conservative Marine Corps Democrat VS a established well rounded Republican candidate. ItÂ’s a pretty conservative district too. I think Hackett has a chance but for that fact that all the moderates that might vote for him will be at the mall ignoring politics and running up credit card debt. So I think Schmidt will probably win. IÂ’m jealous Ohio has two pretty good candidates here. Good race to watch, well the about the only one to watch right now.

Posted by: Howie at 11:17 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Hackett is no conservative democrat. There was a story about him on ABC news Sunday evening. He called the president a chickenhawk. Seems like sort of a punk.

Posted by: Finlay at August 02, 2005 11:31 AM (A8rF5)

2 Sure beats what Ill comes up with. sheesh

Posted by: Howie at August 02, 2005 11:33 AM (D3+20)

3 Hackett also said that he thought Bush was a bigger threat than Osama bin Laden.

Posted by: IreneFingIrene at August 02, 2005 11:39 AM (DyTGg)

4 Uh you were watching ABC???? I gaave up on them a long time ago. Well I always liked when sam said, "And now over to GEOOORGE STEPHANOPOLIS!!!!!!!".

Posted by: Howie at August 02, 2005 11:41 AM (D3+20)

5 Hackert fooled you, maybe you should look deeper. He is a liberal who won't even admit he is a Democrat in his ads. Wants to raise taxes and the rest of the liberal tripe. Hackert is a John Kerry clone.

Posted by: bill at August 02, 2005 12:43 PM (QJhZY)

6 Hey I don't have to choose Ya notice the Tin Soldier part. Subtle but it's there. Close minded sheep.

Posted by: Howie at August 02, 2005 12:58 PM (D3+20)

7 I must have woke up in Iran today. Since when do we all have to agree on everything. I like W for the most part but I think if I said, "I think his ears look funny". I might find myself hanging from a crane tomorrow. Gees.

Posted by: Howie at August 02, 2005 01:02 PM (D3+20)

8 Also voted for him twice bill.

Posted by: Howie at August 02, 2005 01:10 PM (D3+20)

9 Hey Bill is like a big advocate for the constitution but you have to register to comment on his site. Let's see here I see 0 0 0 0 0 Wow you're really piling them up there bud.

Posted by: Howie at August 02, 2005 01:13 PM (D3+20)

10 Also if we could get two crowbars in betweek W's asscheeks and hook you up to grandpa's 53 jubilie Ford tractor with a chain around your feet. We might be able to pull your head out of W's ass.

Posted by: Howie at August 02, 2005 01:29 PM (D3+20)

11 Jeez Howie, five posts in a row? Looks like a schizophrenic rant when you do that.

Posted by: Finlay at August 02, 2005 02:16 PM (A8rF5)

12 Better than cowing down.

Posted by: Howie at August 02, 2005 02:24 PM (D3+20)

13 Hate to see a Marine playing the card he is playing. Cheapens the Corps. It's obvious who he is playing to for votes.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 05, 2005 07:41 PM (/rKIG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Californiaaaaaa!!!!!

IÂ’ve been getting an email every so often from California conservative. I must say that having the time to review and get up a post for me is a pain. Lately I noted that the emails have stopped. CanÂ’t say I blame him. I mean he has taken the trouble to email me and IÂ’ve failed to give it proper attention. One of my projects this week besides sucking air on the blog is to link up and give credit to those that have helped me in my new blogging adventure. So guest posters and regulars email me because IÂ’m working on a post for Sunday to give all of you the credit you deserve for helping out the Jawa while Rusty has been away. I donÂ’t want to miss anyone. So send me your name and site url if you have one and IÂ’ll shamelessly give you a plug this weekend. Right, middle, way right, sort of kind of left I donÂ’t care just no far left crap. Yes the far left scares me far more than the far right. How many times can I use the word Â“farÂ”. Far more than I think I should. I should look further for more words to replace far or derivatives thereof.

So on to the California Conservative.

It seems Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been having a tough time of late. The new has kind of work off and now the real work is going on. Hey I can relate Arnold. We all get those days where nothing goes right. It seems the Gov is getting some support from an unlikely source here. Check it out to see who it is.

Posted by: Howie at 10:55 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

August 01, 2005

I bet all jawas can agree on this.

Well my good Senator Mr. DICK Durbin of Illinois is at it again. Hey I take it out on all parties. If I disagee I say so. It seems DICK shot off at the mouth again. I've been looking for a good Democrat to vote for you know a moderate conservative honest one. Good luck Howie. Yes I'm a big fat swing voter. Kind of out of place aren't I, a moderate in a sea of heavy right wingers. But if this is the guy they are going to put on the ballot for me. Well sorry I just can't do it. Actually I've only Voted for two Democrats that I can recall. Simon and Poshard VS Ryan (that's George Ryan the crook). At least on a state or national level. In local races where I know people I tend to go more by the person than by the party.

From my ILL Republican newsletter dated 07/29.

DURBIN LEAKED INACCURATE INFORMATION TO TURLEY.U.S. Senator Dick Durbin went back on a previous denial that he was the leak for Jonathon Turley's Los Angeles Times column, published Monday, where it claimed that when Durbin asked what Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts would do if faced with a case that conflicted with his Catholic upbringing Roberts said he would have to recuse himself from a judgment. Turley had verified his conversation with Durbin's press secretary before publishing the story but was rebuked Tuesday by the Senator's office. On Wednesday, Durbin admitted that he was indeed the source for the column but that the account was inaccurate because Turley never identified himself as a journalist. "He (Senator Durbin) made a serious mistake that could have had major implications on the nomination process," Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna said, "Senator Durbin's actions are disrespectful to both the integrity of t he process and the people of Illinois who demand the highest level of honesty from their U.S. Senator. (Washington times 7/27/05)

Also seems we have some out of state influence in the 8th district here in ILL.

Ã‚Â·BEAN CAN'T RAISE CASH IN THE 8th. U.S. Rep. Melissa Bean (D-8 IL) has been raising a lot of campaign cash, the only problem is that only 7% of her individual contributors are from her district. In her Q2 FEC report, Bean raised more than $130,000 through liberal pro- choice fundraising conduit Emily's List out of Washington D.C. and over fifty percent from individuals outside of Illinois. "Melissa Bean needs to ask herself which group she wants to represent, the people of the 8th district or the people in Washington D.C.," Andy McKenna said, "The evident lack of support will catch up to her in the voting booth."

Well mark another one off the list.

Posted by: Howie at 04:32 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 473 words, total size 3 kb.

58kb generated in CPU 0.0235, elapsed 0.1107 seconds.
122 queries taking 0.0987 seconds, 297 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 3636
Files: 88
Bytes: 92.5M
CPU Time: 7:10
Queries: 447160

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76633

Feeds

August 19, 2005

August 14, 2005

August 03, 2005

August 02, 2005

August 01, 2005

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds