Thursday, March 17, 2011

If Teachers and Cops Are Worth $100K Per Year, Why Aren't Servicemen?

I had been thinking the thought for a little bit but Russ Vaughn beat me to it in a post at American Thinker entitled, "An Abominable Discrepancy":

. . . And that brings to my mind a question I have long held about cops and firemen, Just what precisely is it they do in their jobs that makes them any more deserving of special pay and special status than our serving military, especially the troops who serve in combat arms organizations and who face far greater risk of bodily injury or death than police and firefighters?

I'll tell you the difference with one word: unions. . . .
And he doesn't just complain about this problem. He offers a solution to it as well. Read the whole thing.

Saturday, March 12, 2011


Talk of fighting “bullying” has been popular of late. Of course, the “anti-bullying” jihad is just a front to silence opposition to the left. And the fact that the Right is willing to indulge the left in the idea that “bullying” needs some kind of national cooperation to confront and defeat shows just how much the left controls the language/debate, and how the Right can’t break free of this grip even as it says it realizes the left controls things.

The proper response of the Right to the left’s “anti-bullying” campaign should be (a) to identify what it really is and then (b) to reiterate that if our culture hadn’t feminized and PC-d the nation, we would still teach our kids that the proper way to deal with true bullying goes something like this (from Lars Anderson’s book, Carlisle vs. Army - Random House, 2008; pp 19-20):

. . . The other boys laughed while the schoolyard bully jumped up and down on the cap, expecting Butter [Glenn “Pop” Warner] to melt in the face of the challenge and slink away like he always did. But as suddenly as a shift in the wind, Warner’s comportment stiffened. . . .

. . . With a crowd of boys watching, Warner balled his fists and swung wildly at the classmate who had tossed his hat into the puddle. Butter was only ten years old, but years later he would recall this moment as a significant one in his life, as the day he learned that he could assert his will on others. . . .
But the Right won’t give this response. As much as it loves to complain about the left and all the wrongs the left truly is guilty of, the Right doesn’t like to take the necessary responses to changing things for the better. And it loves to join in the beat down of anyone who does.

Al Green (D-TX)

The Daily Caller reports on U.S. Representative Al Green (D-TX) responding to Congressional hearings on Muslim radicalization in the U.S.:

“I think that all criminals should be prosecuted. I think that all terrorists should be investigated which is why I said we ought to investigate all of them and that would include the KKK,” Green said. “Over a hundred years of terrorism why not investigate them too. They are rooted in a religion as well. Check their website out. You’ll see.”
Others have noted the stupidity of such a statement but I haven’t yet seen anyone point out that his entire analogy is wrong. See, if we’re going to accept the notion that “most Muslims in the world are peaceful and only a handful of extremists have hijacked this Religion of Peace,” then an analogous KKK response should be to issue an apology to it for the past investigations, infiltrations, and prosecutions of it. Al Green and other Democrats then should state that “most KKK members in the U.S. are peaceful and only a handful of extremists have hijacked this Ideology of Peace.” The U.S. government then needs to perform “outreach” to the KKK and try to “win the hearts and minds” of KKK-ers as it tries to learn “why some of them hate.”

But, we live in a world of farce. And so while society will continue ostracizing the KKK (rightfully), it will continue insisting (wrongly) that Islam is a Religion of Peace.

Communists Defined

One of the things I’ve long said about communists and free market advocates is that they both enjoy making money. However, the difference between the two is that free market advocates think that everyone ought to be able to earn as much as he can honestly make while the communists believe that only they should have wealth—everyone else should be equally poor.

Arianna Huffington and Michael Moore brought this thought back to the fore of my mind with their latest shenanigans that made the news.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Be Bipartisan: Tax Democrats at 110%:

Stephen King doesn’t think he’s taxed enough. Fine. The stupidity of this statement is so massive that I won’t even bother going into it.

However, I will state what I want my next presidential candidate to propose based off this story. And here’s what it is.

The media beats us down with the need to be “bipartisan.” “We can disagree and argue, but at the end of the day we must get along,” we are told. I don’t know why this is so but people from the left and Right repeat something along this line on a regular basis so I guess it must be true. Therefore, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I want to see my next presidential candidate propose taxing all Democrats and other leftists at a 110% tax rate.

Democrats should be taxed at a 110% tax rate because they constantly riot clamor for higher taxes. Those on the Right should be taxed at much lower rates since we don’t like taxes. Thus, we have a bipartisan solution.

As far as how we get 110% out of the Democrats and left: we take everything they own and earn in a year and then we make them work some more after which they get to keep nothing of their labors.

A perfect, bipartisan solution.

Some People Get It

I ran across, “Russia Unleashes ‘Black Hawk’ Vigilantes Against Caucasus Terrorists” at Big Peace and the first paragraph immediately caught my eye:

The conflict in the North Caucasus (Russia’s mostly Muslim southern provinces) has taken a dangerous turn, as a group of grass-root vigilantes threaten, with apparent Kremlin approval, to retaliate against the families of suspected terrorists.

The author clearly doesn’t like the idea of the Black Hawks (if true—I’ve found reporting coming out of or about Russia to be sketchy), going so far as to call them vigilantes. (By the way, if the government is in anyway approving of the Black Hawks, doesn’t that by definition eliminate them from being vigilantes? Unpaid mercenaries, maybe, but even that’s a stretch. After all, doesn’t our own Constitution allow for the government to issue Letters of Marques to ordinary citizenry when appropriate?)

The author also seems sympathetic to Islam, going so far as to say that, “Wahhabism is the hard-line sect of Islam adopted by jihadists who distort Islam to justify terrorism.” This is simply a repetition of the Muslim apologist’s notion that Islam really is a “Religion of Peace” and that all the Islamic jihad that’s happened for the past decades and centuries has been conducted by “hijackers” of Islam. Nothing like denial.

The commenters on the article seemed to have a much clearer mindset. They realize that rational people might actually be happy to see someone fighting back against their attackers as needs done: brutally and with a will to win.

But perhaps the article's author doesn’t realize this is a war of civilizations, and that the jihadists want nothing less than the annihilation of the West and then the rest of the world. Maybe he doesn’t realize that the Muslims regularly make killing civilians—men, women, and children—a part of their jihad on humanity, and that only an overwhelming and completely destructive response will stop them.

Even still, there's no excuse for such ignorance or, frankly, such hostility towards the Russians who might just be getting fed up with being slaughtered and terrorized. I can only hope that someday the rest of the world wakes up and also realizes that there is nothing honorable or humane about surrendering to an enemy intent on our destruction.