Big Sky Cairn

Someone should do some scientific studies on exactly what it is in the liberal brain that so effectively avoids cognitive dissonance in their beliefs. Whatever allows them to live solely in a world of lofty ideals, far removed from the real-world also seems to compartmentalize inherent contradictions in their popular partisan attack-memes.

For example:

George W. Bush is a complete idiot.
George W. Bush has perpetuated massively complex conspiracies and duped the whole world.

Government should help the poor.
Government should raise taxes on the things that poor people do (smoke, drink, buy gas).

Denny Rehberg is an uber-wealthy elitist who has gone Washington
Denny Rehberg is a white-trash hillbilly that sleeps on his couch and drinks at dive bars.

Edit: Yeah, I spelled a word in the title wrong.  Sue me.

The Federal Minimum Wage just went up. Doesn’t really matter in Montana since our state minimum wage is already higher then the Federal Minimum, but it did remind me of when I was making the minimum wage at my first job at Wendy’s. Oh, wait. Now that I think about it, as a green high school freshmen with zero work experience, my first job actually paid more than the minimum wage. Turns out, not too many people actually make the minimum wage…

So next time a liberal tells you a sob story about how hard it is to raise a family on the minimum wage, ask him to produce a family that’s trying to survive on the income from a sole breadwinner earning minimum wage.

And while they are looking, I’ll produce hundreds of small business owners who are struggling mightily in a soft economy, pinching pennies everywhere they can just to keep the doors open and the ledger in the black. I’ll show you a small business owner who has to reduce their payroll or postpone hiring new workers. I’ll show you the reasons for increasing unemployment.

And if by some miracle your liberal buddy manages to find someone scraping by on minimum wage, be sure to ask them if they’d prefer a slightly smaller paycheck or no paycheck at all.

Wondering how liberals handle good news out of Iraq? Selective reading. For example, take a look at this story from the Bush Propaganda Machine (you know, the British Times) - Iraqis lead final purge of Al-Qaeda. To read this like a liberal, just read the parts in bold.

Iraqis lead final purge of Al-Qaeda
Marie Colvin in Mosul

American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.

After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul.

A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.

Operation Lion’s Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans’ 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.

The group has been reduced to hit-and-run attacks, including one that killed two off-duty policemen yesterday, and sporadic bombings aimed at killing large numbers of officials and civilians.

Last Friday I joined the 2nd Iraqi Division as it supported local police in a house-to-house search for one such bomb after intelligence pointed to a large explosion today.

Even in the district of Zanjali, previously a hotbed of the insurgency, it was possible to accompany an Iraqi colonel on foot through streets of breeze-block houses studded with bullet holes. Hundreds of houses were searched without resistance but no bomb was found, only 60kg of explosives.

American and Iraqi leaders believe that while it would be premature to write off Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni group has lost control of its last urban base in Mosul and its remnants have been largely driven into the countryside to the south.

Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, who has also led a crackdown on the Shi’ite Mahdi Army in Basra and Baghdad in recent months, claimed yesterday that his government had “defeated” terrorism.

“They were intending to besiege Baghdad and control it,” Maliki said. “But thanks to the will of the tribes, security forces, army and all Iraqis, we defeated them.”

The number of foreign fighters coming over the border from Syria to bolster Al-Qaeda’s numbers is thought to have declined to as few as 20 a month, compared with 120 a month at its peak.

Brigadier General Abdullah Abdul, a senior Iraqi commander, said: “We’ve limited their movements with check-points. They are doing small attacks and trying big ones, but they’re mostly not succeeding.”

Major-General Mark Hertling, American commander in the north, said: “I think we’re at the irreversible point.”

Steve over at Rabid Sanity has a great post up about Democrats. Undoubtedly, this sort of post really rankles Democrats/progressives/liberals who object to any sort of classification (unless it’s about Republicans/conservatives, of course).

Steve quotes extensively from an article that attempts to make sweeping claims about liberal in general. In my personal experience, many of the claims he makes ring true. Liberals claim to be for the little guy, but wealth redistribution is really just a way to force someone else to take care of the little guy. They are often motivated by jealousy disguised as perceptions of social injustice. They preach diversity while trying to force everyone to live exactly like they do (and hatefully attacking those whose ideals vary).

In any case, a few years back I realized that the assumption I’d long had - that poor people were Democrats because they wanted government services - was actually backwards. I suddenly understood:

People are not Democrats because they are unsuccessful. People are unsuccessful because they are Democrats.

It’s the mindset of modern liberals that runs contrary to just about any book about the habits of successful people. The idea that someone else must be responsible for your well-being. That wealth and ambition are bad and should be taxed or curbed. That social mobility is impossible and failure is always externalized. These are the mentalities that inevitably lead to failure which is why it’s not surprising that so many unsuccessful people are also Democrats.

Of course there are always exceptions. Warren Buffet, for example, is so loaded that he can afford a higher tax rate without a significant change in his lifestyle. But you know what I find ironic? The limousine liberals always advocate broadly sweeping policies - tax hikes and social programs - but they never voluntarily send more money than they owe to the IRS. They don’t use their surplus funds to provide people with the things they think Government should provide. Instead, they advocate Big Government policies be imposed on everyone else.

Overall, however, the impression has long been that Democrats were the best advocates for the poor.  The assumption was always that the poor benefit most from social programs, so the Party that advocates more social programs is advocating for the poor.  Now this notion is being dramatically undermined by the current inaction on high energy prices (which hurt the poor most) at the behest of the tree-hugger lobby.  But beyond that, the policies of the left have created a perpetual poverty class dependent upon the government for survival and unable to fend for themselves.

Now who’s looking out for the little guy?

It’s old news that Republicans, as a group, are happier than Democrats or Independents. There’s a lot that goes into that - money, marriage, religion - all the vices that Democrats want to free us from. I also found it interesting that Republicans have been happier for decades, even when Democrats controlled Congress and the White House.

My personal take on this is that dissatisfaction with the status quo leads to an anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

And speaking of happiness, reading George Ochenski’s tirade against the fresh new majority he worked so hard to install increased my happiness by quite a bit. He seems to hate Pelosi more than I do. And hate, of course, leads to suffering.

This is a shameful legacy for the Democrats, who promised us change, then gave us more domestic spying and war. Their betrayal may well backfire, however. Americans are hard pressed right now and looking for relief. But if this is what Democrats call “change,” why would we ever want to vote for more?

I don’t know George. Empirically, it looks like you’re not going to be much happier if you manage to elect a Democrat to the White House, so maybe it’s time to look to other sources of happiness.

Like Laser Quest. Spokane is only three hours away and they’ve got a sweet 3-story Laser Quest course. It’s one of my favorite things to do in the whole world!

Wow.

For international law to have any moral force in cases like Slobodan Miloševi?, Augusto Pinochet, or even Saddam Hussein, the law has to apply to powerful countries as well as weak ones. Given that the architects of the Bush policy of detention and torture are unlikely to be prosecuted here, one only hopes that the international community will act.

These are the people that want to shape our foreign policy?  These are the people that want to negotiate on our behalf with enemies that want to kill us?

I am beginning to think Lamnidae is not even trying to be consistent anymore.

After all the hot air about Erik Iverson, they go ahead and sing the praises of Jim Messina;

It should be interesting to see what happens in Montana Democratic politics with would seem to be a bit of a power vacuum as a result. I get the impression that most major political decisions–at least those that relate to campaigns–get vetted through Mr. Messina.

Where to begin?  Hell, I think I am just going to let the hypocrisy stand.  Or maybe I should try harder to understand a world where it is bad if a Republican CoS handles political issues, but good, or at least non-controversial that a Democrat CoS does the same thing, only you know in smoke-filled backrooms.

On October 26, 1967, John McCain was shot down while flying over Vietnam. McCain parachuted into a lake, breaking both arms and a leg before he nearly drowned. After he was pulled from the water, a crowd attacked him, crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt, and bayoneted him. But his nightmare was just beginning.

McCain spent nearly six years in the infamous Hanoi Hilton. And despite being tortured and beaten on a regular basis, McCain turned down a 1968 offer of repatriation unless the North Vietnamese would release every American soldier taken in before him was released as well.

Due to the injuries that he received in service to his country, McCain has been rated 100% disabled by the Veterans Administration. So, when I read an article in the LA Times saying that McCain is not fit to be president because of injuries, I wanted to scream. Luckily, I have an electronic soapbox.

By any measure John McCain is a hero, who suffered unspeakable torture in service of his country. He then spent the next three decades in public service. And arguing that the injuries he sustained in Vietnam disqualify him from the presidency is abominable.

McCain is hardly the first person with disabilities to enter politics. Max Cleland and Tammy Duckworth are both 100% disabled, and they are both excellent public servants. Should their injuries make them ineligible to be president?

Franklin D. Roosevelt, the hero of the Democratic Party, was horribly disfigured and disabled after contracting polio but he served as President for 12 years. His disability didn’t get in the way of his accomplishments, and they certainly didn’t hinder his ability to bring his country out of the Great Depression and lead us to victory in WWII.

So, if these politician’s disabilities don’t hinder their ability to serve, why is McCain different? Because he’s a Republican? Because some moron at the L.A. Times who is neither a doctor nor a therapist says so?

Anyone who has ever volunteered on a statewide campaign can tell you, the trail is a grueling test of the candidate’s physical and emotional health. And in the last 25 years, McCain has breezed through three campaigns for the House of Representatives, three campaigns for the Senate and two presidential campaigns. Not to mention the travel and schedule he had to maintain in order to become one of the nation’s most heralded and powerful politicians.

If he can do all of that despite his injuries, I have no doubt that he is healthy and strong enough to serve as president.

But perhaps the most deplorable part of the LA Times article and the constant speculation about how McCain’s disability impacts his health is what it says to the thousands of young disabled veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Thank you for serving your country and putting yourself in danger to protect my freedom, but you are no longer qualified to be president. So, if you aspired to a life of public service in government, be advised that your aspirations will be limited to only certain offices. What kind of message is that to send to the brave men and women who have sacrificed more than many of us can imagine in the name of freedom?

McCain’s doctors say he is in great health. And his performance on the campaign trail over the past several months should silence the naysayers. But even if you think that he’s too old and frail to be president, don’t start insinuating that the brace men and women disabled in combat aren’t fit to hold public office. Because anyone who can survive the pain of his injuries, the grueling recovery therapies and the stigma of being disabled while rising to a position of prominence in the unkind world of politics is tougher and more qualified to be president than most of us will ever hope to be.

As a general rule, when an elected official introduces legislation, they almost never call it something bad. If they could get away with it, I’m sure every bill would be called the “Happiness, Puppies and Children Act.” Of course, the devil is always in the thousands of pages of actionable legislation behind the frou-frou title.

Now, Democrats have gotten really good at using bill nomenclature to set up Heisman Votes. Sometimes, they even trick themselves. And here are three examples from recent history.

Read the rest of this entry »

An honest question to those worried that proving citizenship and/or identity is too high a hurdle for voting.  What is the threshold for asking too much?  Is it acceptable to ask for proof of residence in the voting district?  What about asking someone for proof of their name?

If these are okay, what makes them different from asking for difficult-to-forge photo identification?  What’s the bright-line for the amount of effort we can require to vote?

If they’re not acceptable, are you okay with people voting multiple times at as many voting locations as they can drive themselves to in the course of an election day?

It seems to me, there are competing interests both in reducing burdens at the polls and ensuring that polls aren’t being abused.  Pressure from the first interest moves toward eliminating any requirement for voting while pressure from the second moves toward instituting stringent requirements.  Somewhere, there’s a balance between those interests and it’s probably safe to assume that where you think that convergence if interests lies is influenced by your political ideology.  I understand my perspective - but I’m wondering how far toward accessibility the Left wants to take us.