blogs4God - a Semi-Definitive List of Christian Blogs Rate this blog




This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

6/06/2003

 

time to vacate the premises



well, i'm off. vacationing for one week. be back probably the monday after next, the 16th.

locdog will be returning tanned, rested, and ready to rock




 

arafat behind hamas withdrawal?



here's a quick thought on this hamas business.

i've got a theory. this is all arafat's doing. if he was steamed by the evil zionists and their lapdogs in the white house meeting abbas without him, then the arab leaders doing the same--and giving the thumbs-up to the roadmap--must have left him outright incensed.

so he goes to his buddies in hamas, and tells them to back out of negotiations with abbas. maybe blow up a few jews instead. the roadmap is doomed! palestine will never exist as an independent state! --but wait! what's this? why, it's yasser arafat riding in on a white charger and promising he can deliver hamas if only bush and sharon would be willing to sit down and talk peace with him. and what could be more reasonable than that? of course arafat succeeds because he engineered the crisis in the first place, and, long story short, he's right back at the center of world affairs with abbas safely marginalized.

locdog thinks sharon should have taken this guy out when he had the chance




 

help me out here...



the democrats are in a tizzy over the new tax bill, and the poverty jihadists are waging holy war against the bush administration. bob graham, whose rhetoric typifies the latest bout of marxist class-crusading, laments the fate of the downtrodden proletarian:

The people who are at the lowest income levels are precisely the ones that you would want to put money in their pocket. They're the ones who certainly are going to spend it to help create the demand to move us forward.


democratic "deficit hawks" like tom daschle and charles rangel have been complaining about creating a "deficit tax" on our children by "spending" a trillion or more though bush's foolhardy cuts--although, oddly enough, this hasn't stopped the democrats from demanding an additional 3.5 billion in "tax cuts" for america's working families as graham has ably shown.

so what, exactly, is the democratic beef? they seem to feel that this tax cut will ruin our economy and bury our children under mountains of debt, and yet they want the size of the package increased to incorporate what, in essence, is a true spending increase. hey, as long as we're bar-b-q'ing rome we may as well tune up our fiddles and throw a few nice, juicy pork chops on the flame.

the glaring inconsistency is ignored in favor of the perceived compassion in their message: over-sized or not, how can a tax cut not extend the child rebates to the poorest american families? don't they need the relief most of all?

well, no, actually, they don't.

those in the 10-15% bracket (the ones the democrats accuse bush of leaving behind) haven't needed tax relief since the inception of the orwellian-named "earned income" tax credit--a welfare program which offsets or exceeds income paid by families at the bottom end of the economic ladder. the democrats aren't asking for a tax cut, they're asking for an increase in welfare. they want a tax rebate for people who don't pay any taxes--who in some cases actually come out of april better off than they went in. figure that one out.

can anyone explain to me how we can give a "tax rebate" to people who don't pay taxes? does anyone know why the media isn't pointing out to you that the democratic rhetoric emanates from a lie? does anyone know when, exactly, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" became the democratic platform? can anyone show how giving welfare indirectly to mcdonalds and nascar through the "working poor" will better serve the economy than returning confiscated wealth to people who have proven they know how to generate capital?

locdog just doesn't see it




6/04/2003

 

hillary's crocodile tears



file this one under "yeah. right."

Sen. Hillary Clinton writes that her husband lied to her about Monica Lewinsky until the very end and that she wanted to "wring Bill's neck" when he finally came clean about the affair.

"I could hardly breathe," she writes. "Gulping for air, I started crying and yelling at him, 'What do you mean? What are you saying? Why did you lie to me?' I was furious and getting more so by the second."

"I was dumbfounded, heartbroken and outraged that I'd believed him at all," she writes.


so after bill spent the eighties nailing anything with a pulse in the great state of arkansas, hillary is "dumbfounded, heartbroken, and outraged" to learn that her husband has been unfaithful?

the clinton marriage was one of political expediency long before the lewinsky story broke. it's nearly impossible to believe that hillary (who had had extra-marital affairs of her own) was the last to know, or that she could have been particularly surprised when she found out. i would be considerably less incredulous had she said that she sat in on the lewinsky damage-control strategy meetings and took an active part in spin formulation from the very beginning.

so why write this junk? commercial reasons for one thing. as the article suggests, no one would buy a biography that didn't cover lewinsky. but it's not like hillary needs the cash. far more important are the political considerations. she's trying to spin her relationship with bill into an otherwise healthy marriage damaged by a moment of weakness rather than a political marriage that had whatever love once existed beaten out of it by bill's perennial infidelity. in so doing, she can generate sympathy for herself (a tactic she mastered during whitewater-gate) and turn a potential liability ("why does she stay with that slimeball, anyway?") into an asset ("she's such a strong woman to single-handedly hold her marriage together.")

locdog's best guess




6/02/2003

 

redshift



just a quick thought.

following the enlightenment and late 18th century revolutions came modern ideology. on the left were the socialists, who sought, among other things, the abolition of private land ownership, a steeply progressive tax structure, the end of nation-states, and the end of the traditional family. on the right were the conservatives, who accepted some of the enlightenment's conclusions, but felt that reason alone was insufficient to maintain social order. religion and class must play a roll. the Old Regime should incorporate reform, rather than reform supplanting the Old Regime. about halfway between the two were the liberals.

the liberals of the 19th century were the moderates of their day. children of the enlightenment, they, like the philosophes, embraced private land ownership and the social responsibility it brought with it. they favored industrialization and praised the conveniences it brought. they also understood the need for reform, that the revolution was an ongoing process rather than a conclusion of one. but unlike the conservatives they wanted the last traces of absolutism swept away, and unlike the socialists they realized this needed to be done gradually. it's not hard to see why they appealed to the educated middle-classes of their day.

what's my point?

did you notice that today, the conservatives stand where the liberals stood, the liberals have crept to within a hair's breadth of the socialists, and the socialists have held their ground?

locdog finds that scary as hell