Thursday, April 27, 2006

Why I hate the Fed

The Federal Reserve continues its unconstitutional, undemocratic assault on the welfare of the American people. From the Washington Post: "The Fed remains concerned about the inflationary risks it sees in high energy prices and rapid economic growth."

Two things:
1. High energy prices don't cause inflation, prices don't actually cause inflation. What causes inflation, you ask? The Fed itself. Yes, the Fed, by increasing the money supply, causes inflation. It does not prevent it. It would be great if one of those "free market" economists on TV pointed this obvious fact out to the rest of us.

2. Equally infuriating is the fear of "rapid economic growth." Last time I checked, that was a good thing. I don't know about you, but I don't go to sleep worried about excessive growth.

What should we do? Abolish the Fed, pure and simple.

Monday, April 24, 2006

How does he have an audience?

I hate Fox News host Bill O'Reilly. There are many, many reasons to hate O'Reilly, but I'll enumerate just a few:

1. His obsession with the trivial. He runs feature after feature on items like Natalee Holloway and the imaginary war on Christmas/ Easter that just don't matter.

2. Constant hypocrisy. He criticizes the non-FOX media (whom he calls "secular") for engaging in personal attacks, while constantly engaging in them himself. (e.g. he called Paul Krugman and Barbara Boxer "nuts." He also has the nerve to complain that the non-FOX media spends too much time on unimportant issues (I guess he never heard of the pot and the kettle).

3. Perhaps most annoying of all is his constant use of logical fallacies. To keep this post short, I'll mention just two. One time he asked an opponent of the Iraq war, "Who do you support, George Bush or Michael Moore?" Uh, Bill that would be a false dilemma. Don't they teach you that at Harvard? Second he resorts to the ad populum argument ad nauseam. True, many others do it but that doesn't make it any less infuriating. It's one poll after another. (Of course, when the polls are against him he either ignores them or blames it on the so-called secular progressive media for distorting the numbers).

4. Blatant dishonesty. He just makes it up as he goes along, shamelessly distorting his opponents' positions to make his points. I won't enumerate his many lies, but you can check out his lies online at Media Matters .

The last straw was when he invited race demagogue and buffoon Al Sharpton to comment on the Duke lacrosse scandal. Yea, that's a reliable source. My question: how does this man have a primetime TV show and a radio show with many listeners? Are Americans that intellectually lazy? My conclusion is regrettably yes.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

No sanctions on Iran

I've probably said it before, but Ron Paul (R-Texas) is my favorite Congressman. To name just a few issues that he's on the side of the angels: border security, ending the "war on drugs", the war in Iraq, abolishing the Federal Reserve, etc.. Now Paul is rightly opposing sanctions in Iran. He makes his case at his website :

(They) increase poverty and misery among the very poorest inhabitants of targeted nations, and they breed tremendous resentment against those imposing them. But they rarely hurt the political and economic elites responsible for angering American leaders in the first place. While embargoes sound like strong, punitive action, in reality they represent a failed policy that four decades of experience prove doesn't work. Conversely, economic engagement is perhaps the single most effective tool in tearing down dictatorships and spreading the message of liberty.

Exactly. We can look back to the sanctions against Iraq. They killed many innocent Iraqis while doing nothing to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Let's not make the same mistake in Iran. I know there's a desire among the American people to get tough with Iran, an admittedly nasty regime, but this is not the answer.

Friday, April 14, 2006

The real reason 9-11 happened?

Although it hasn't been covered very much by the mainstream press, there was a huge revelation in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. FBI incompetence was a huge factor in the government's inability to stop the 9-11 attacks. From the great conservative magazine The New American by William Jasper:

Harry Samit, who arrested Moussaoui and his Oklahoma University roommate Hussein Al-Attas on August 16, confirmed on the witness stand that he and other agents in the Minnesota office had argued repeatedly with their Washington, D.C., superiors, urgently requesting permission for a warrant to search Moussaoui’s laptop computer, as well as Moussaoui and Al-Attas’ apartment and possessions.

Agent Samit said he had contacted his superiors 70 times, urgently requesting assistance with the Moussaoui/Al-Attas investigation, only to be repeatedly rebuffed without any rational explanation. He said the superiors who thwarted the Minnesota investigation were guilty of “criminal negligence and obstruction.”

“You tried to move heaven and earth to get a search warrant to search this man’s belongings and you were obstructed,” defense attorney Edward MacMahon said to the agent. “Yes sir, I was obstructed,” Samit replied, noting that these actions were a “calculated” decision “that cost us the opportunity to stop the attacks.” His superiors even blocked him from sending a memo to the Federal Aviation Administration to apprise them of the information he had uncovered about Moussaoui and Al-Attas and his belief that they were involved in an international hijacking plot. They also prevented him from putting an undercover Arabic-speaking agent in the same cell with Al-Attas.

Samit’s charges echo those of Minnesota FBI agent and lawyer Coleen Rowley, who wrote a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller bitterly criticizing Washington’s obstruction in the Moussaoui case. (end of article).

To my knowledge, no one at the top levels of the FBI has been held accountable for these bureaucratic snafus. The federal government has shamelessly exploited 9-11 for its own purpose- aggrandizing centralized government power,(see the patriot act). The disastrous war with Iraq was sold on Saddam's supposed links to 9-11. It's time for the government to admit what is now obvious to all: 9-11 was the result of government ineptitude. It was not the result of the government not having enough power. We don't need more Patriot Acts, we need more common sense.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Orwell would be proud

The current "immigration" debate is dreadfully depressing. I wish open-borders advocates would be honest and start saying illegal immigrants, not "undocumented workers." Two reasons why the latter term is inappopriate: 1. Many illegals have documents from mexico, and 2. Many illegals do not want to work, but want free health care, education, etc... Our public discourse could use a little honesty. Oh, and to the reporters at the Washington Post- stop referring to J.D. Hayworth as an "anti-immigrant firebrand." He is not against immigration, he's against illegal immigration. Get it? Good. It's not that complicated.

Andrew McCarthy of the National Review puts it well:

Calling illegal aliens “undocumented workers” is about as transparently deliberate an effort to pervert the language of a debate as it gets. The way the Big Business guys portray themselves as noble when they are transparently scheming to legitimize the way they are circumventing the labor laws and depressing wages is insulting. And can you imagine if we handled any other law enforcement problem in this country by just throwing up our hands and saying the functional equivalent of you can’t just deport 12 million people? Like how 'bout: “You can’t just prosecute every single drug deal”? Or, better yet: “Identity theft is too pervasive to deal with as an enforcement problem – the better solution here would be to create a legal path to legitimize these fraudulent identities”?

As someone who spent over 20 years in law enforcement, I have to confess that it makes my skin crawl every time I hear that moronic "you just can't deport ..." slogan. You don’t have to deport 12 million people. You just start enforcing the law reasonably – something that has never been tried before. When you set that example, some people will leave voluntarily, others who would otherwise come won’t, and in a few years the number of illegals will be 4 million rather than 40 million – which is to say, it will be a typical, manageable law enforcement problem

(Emphasis in original).

Monday, April 10, 2006

No need for war

Wisely, the Bush administration has backed off from talk of a military strike against Iran. According to an AP report a White House lacky, er spokesman, said that “The president’s priority is to find a diplomatic solution to a problem the entire world recognizes." At the same time, the Administration insists all options are on the table. Hopefully, the Iranians are stupid enough to think our military is capable of an invasion after the Iraq debacle. It really isn't, of course.