The Washington Re-Post

We are moving to ThinkerToThinker

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:27:46 GMT

In an effort to focus my blogging efforts, I am eliminating multiple blogs in favor of a single one on the ThinkerToThinker platform. Therefore, I am moving this blog as part of the consolidation.

The new platform is superior in features to the AOL Journals platform.

So, please go to Words by Woods and see what is available.

Existence is Non-negotiable

Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:13:03 GMT

Can Hamas and Hezbollah be negotiated with? Evidently, even those they claim to champion can’t negotiate with them.

The Post reports comments from one refugee family in Gaza. Regarding the rocket attacks on Israel before its recent response, Mariam el-Selgawi said:

“All the time I get in fights with [Palestinians launching rockets at Israel] when they come. They know it will bring Israel back to the area. The last time I said: ‘The Israelis are going to come and kill us. Aren’t you afraid you’re going to make us orphans?’ And one of them said: ‘We will launch the rockets from your house. You deserve it,’” and they fired it from outside her fence, she said. [1]

Her 76 year-old father-in-law, Ali el-Selgawi said of his dealings with these Hamas terrorists, “You can’t talk to them, or they just hit you.”

The initiation of force by these thugs against this woman and old man are characteristic of the nature of these terrorists. Negotiation is not possible as the terrorists only offer is to kill you now or later. In the post 9/11 world, we hunt these terrorists down and we kill them just as Israel is doing now. The Bush Administration should follow the principle its own professed war doctrine and without reservation support a disproportionate response by Israel against the terrorists.

[1] John Ward Anderson, “Israeli Troops Move Into Gaza Again,” The Washington Post, 7/17/2006, A10.

Secretary of Loot

Thu, 11 May 2006 22:23:48 GMT

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson has apologized for the following remarks, which he called a made up story:

Jackson said that when the man approached him to thank him for the contract, the contractor said he didn't like Bush.

"He didn't get the contract," Jackson told the group, according to the newspaper. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe." [1]

While those who are calling for him to resign are correct, they are not only missing the point but they are complicit in the real scandal.

In an abuse of his office, Jackson’s lie expressed that federal contracts were spoils to be distributed to loyalists. Further, as the story reads, it was an implied threat against his audience. His actions are inexcusable.

Meanwhile, the storyline that has been missed is that HUD is a department of loot to be redistributed to the politically favored based on statute and regulation instead of partisan loyalty.

So why isn’t HUD just called the Department of Loot? Because such a designation would fail to distinguish it from the other Looter departments.

Yes, Secretary Jackson’s statements are reprehensible. However, the target of our moral indignation should be the Looters in Congress that make it possible by failing to protect individual rights.

Image Source: Cox and Forkum

Further Reading

Michael J. Hurd, “Looters in ‘Public Good’ Suits,” Capitalism Magazine, 2/17/2002

Robert Tracinski, “An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State,” TIA Daily, 9/2/2005

[1] Associated Press, “HUD Chief Says He Made Up Story of Rejecting Bush Foe,” The Washington Post, 5/11/2006, A15.

When Looters Pick Their Own Pockets

Thu, 11 May 2006 19:11:30 GMT

Just as they have convinced themselves that they are going to win both houses of Congress in November and having started to pick out curtains, Democrats are now fighting between themselves about having enough money to get their voters to the polls.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and Sen. Chuck Schumer of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) are facing off against Howard Dean of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). According to the Washington Post, the congressmen are concerned that Dean is spending money too fast, leaving Democrats high and dry in November. Further, they are concerned that he is spending money in Republican leaning districts instead of competitive districts. [1]

Despite exceeding funding raising expectations, the DNC has only raised $74 million for this election cycle and has only about $10 million in cash on hand. Since DNC money traditionally is spent on get out the vote efforts at election time, Democrats could be short funded.

In contrast, the Republican National Committee have raised $142 million and have about $43 million in cash on hand, during the same period. So approximately, at the national committee level, Republicans have raised twice as much money, spent about a third more money, and still have four times as much cash on hand.

While the DCCC and DSCC want to pick the DNC pocket to take advantage of the opportunities they perceive in November, Dean is spending money in districts and states where the Democrats will not win a seat this fall. Further, Dean does not plan to change this behavior because this spending fulfills the pledge he made to build the party for the long term but making it a party that can compete everywhere.

Will Democratic hopes of electoral victory flame out like the Dean presidential campaign? Perhaps not, but they are sure giving it a good shot.

[1] Thomas B. Edsall, “Democrats Are Fractured Over Strategy, Funds,” The Washington Post, 5/11/2006, A1.

Udder Nonsense (12/29/2003)

Dean RetrAction Figure (1/14/2004)

Campaign Trailing(1/30/2004)

New Direction (2/7/2005)

Image Source: Cox and Forkum

If You Want to Count Them, Then You Can Keep Them

Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:51:52 GMT

With almost 1.5 million Americans in prison, localities who house criminals are complaining that the localities that inter them are receiving their share of the federal pie. Since the beginning of the republic, prisoners are counted as residents of the location of their prison. Because federal funding formulas are based upon census figures, the old haunts of the criminals are seeking a change in the rules so that they can get rid of their prisoners but keep federal funding. [1]

It is completely unnecessary to change the funding, if you want the funding build the prison in your own backyard Mr. NIMBY.

However, the high number of inmates point to another more important problem which is the number of individuals incarcerated for violation of non-objective laws. Our paternalistic legislatures have made actions illegal in which no ones individual rights where violated, as a result there are TOO MANY Americans in prison.

The most significant example is drug prohibition. I do not take drugs and do not advocate taking drugs; however, if someone is going to destroy themselves, I am not going to force them not to eventhough I will argue that they should not. Not only does the criminalization of this self-destructive behavior increase the prison population but it also foments the violence and corruption associated with the drug trade. Further, drug criminalization weakens our allies in South America so correctly argue that it is a consumption and not a production problem.

[1] Zachary A. Goldfarb, “Census Bureau, Activists Debate How and Where to Count Inmates,” The Washington Post, 1/30/2006, A15.

The Pork Lie

Tue, 31 Jan 2006 04:08:10 GMT

Columnist Robert Novak writes about Senator McCain and Coburn’s efforts to fight pork. These Senators plan to challenge earmarks setting funds aside for specific projects in their districts as a violation of Senate rules. According to Novak, these earmarks account for $27 billion in federal spending last year. [1]

Does that mean that without the earmarkets that federal spending would have been $27 billion less last year? No. The issue at dispute is whether the bureaucracy or the Congress should be deciding how appropriate money should be spent. Thus these Senators are engaged in demagoguery, which is one of Senator McCain’s favor activities.

Forget about PORK (a.k.a. congressional earmarking), the real issue is spending. While it is easy to complain that the bridge to nowhere should not have been build, it is far more important to attack ANY federal spending on roads, which should be a PRIVATE endeavor.

[1] Robert D. Novak, “Looking to Fry Pork,” The Washington Post, 1/30/2006, A17.

The Anti-American Right

Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:30:28 GMT

Demonstrating how little difference there is between the far left and the far right, a group of Christians are protesting at the funerals of our dead soldiers. According to these protestors, these soldiers’ deaths are part of a pattern of God’s vengence on America for tolerance of homosexuals. According to the church’s attorney, “Our goal is to call America an abomination, to help the nation connect the dots. You turn this nation over to the fags and our soldiers come home in body bags.” [1]

While several states legislatures are looks at regulating this activity to prevent the abuse of the fallen soldier’s family, a private group of vetrans called the Patriot Guard upon request of the family will create a buffer zone between the grieving families and the protesting Christians.

It is not enough to denounce the acts and deeds of groups like the Westboro Baptist Church; instead, the ideas at the foundation of their thoughts must be rejected as not only un-American, but also unhuman. Their words and deeds are based upon a revealed truth that has no correspondence to reality. Do more than denounce this church. Proclaim reality and reason as the basis of human knowledge then act accordingly by checking your premises against reality.

[1] Kari Lydersen, “5 States Consider Bans On Protests at Funerals – Proposals Aimed at Anti-Gay Demonstrations,” The Washington Post, 1/30/2006, A09

Further Reading

Craig Biddle, “Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It (Part 1 of 7),” Capitalism Magazine, 9/15/2005

For additional parts of this exerpt, click the auther name at the article site.

Captured Terrorist Walks Free In Casablanca

Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:01:04 GMT

The story of Al Qaeda terrorist Abdallah Tabarak demonstrates weaknesses in the law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism. According to the Post, Tabarak is either a top ranking terrorist leader or he is not. [1]

Even Tabarak’s lawyer admits that Tabarak was a member of Al Qaeda. Further, the Bush Administration released him from Guantanamo to be prosecuted by the Morrocans, where he was released from custody pending trail. Shocking in a country like Morroco that was the target of an Al Qaeda bombing.

Depending upon who is to be believed, either Tabarak as a bodyguard to Osama bin Ladin was critical in facilitating bin Ladin’s escapse from Tora Bora by leading American forces in the oppposite direction toward Pakistan, or he was not.

Depending upon who is to be believed, the detainees at Guantanamo considered Tabarak to be an emir at the prison, or he was not.

Depending upon whos is to be believed, Tabarak ran a smuggling operation to fund Al Qaeda activity, or he did not.

If we ignore the contradictions, we see that a member of Al Qaeda walks the streets of Casablanca today because the Bush Administation does not treat all members of terrorist organizations as an enemy to be executed.

Aggressive War, Not Retreat

Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:22:55 GMT

Former Senator and Democratic Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards demonstrated in a Washington Post op-ed why he and John Kerry were defeated last year. [1] In summary, he calls for the weaknesses and failures of the Bush Administration’s policies be pursued to an ideal standard divorce from reality. However, in calling essentially from withdrawal from Iraq and the War on Terror, he make a more fundamental error.

Mr. Edwards wrote, "The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth."

The truth of the matter is that we correctly invaded Iraq, because Saddam's Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. Ending state sponsorship of terrorism is a critical success criteria in our War on Terror.

It could be legitimately argued that we should have attacked Iran first, but questions of timing do not negate the moral legitimacy of our invasion of Iraq.

To be a moral leader, America must SELFISHLY assert our interests and our right to destroy those countries that have supported international terrorism without submitting to the permission of any other nation or international body.

Therefore, now is not the time to retreat from Iraq, but to call for a Declaration of War against Iran and Syria for their past support of terrorism and their current support of terrorists in Iraq.

President Bush's infernally moderate war policy must be replaced with a congressionally declare war that will destroy state sponsors of terrorism. President Bush promised that war policy, and has failed to deliver.

[1] John Edwards, “The Right Way in Iraq,“ The Washington Post, 11/13/2007, B07.

Post Giving Voice To the Terrorists' Views

Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:14:25 GMT

In a report on “Operation Iron Fist” against terrorists in western Iraq and their supplies coming from Syria, a substantial portion of the article was devoted to giving voice to anti-American Iraqis who support the terrorists. [Jackie Spinner, “U.S. Troops Target Rebels In Town in Far Western Iraq,” The Washington Post, 10/2/2005, A21].

While the skeptical media reports any statement by the Bush Administration and our military as a potential lie that only remains to be proved to be so, they seem to have no problem reporting anti-American statements without only a minor caveat that they are unverified.

The Post provided the following example from the article:

"Two more families were killed Saturday at 11 a.m. when they were fleeing the town, driving on a dusty road," Rawi said. An ambulance rushed to the area, but "the driver was shot by the U.S. forces and his assistant was wounded," the physician said. "This is the only ambulance we have, as the others were either stolen or destroyed by the American forces."

Rawi's account could not be independently verified.

In another statement from the article:

They want to avenge their dead

This statement reflects an ignorance of American objectives. However, it is not reported by Jackie Spinner as ignorance. More importantly, the article does not report on the source of this ignorance as that would actually have been useful.

Regarding US efforts to sort civilians from terrorists, the article reports:

In this quote, Nabeel Mohammed explicitly expresses support for the terrorist attacks and wishes injury to our forces! Individuals like him are terrorists, as their lose affiliation with the terrorist organization provides assistance to the violence. Mohammed’s statement is not a rational opinion subject to debate, and he should be jailed like the dangerous criminal that he is instead of quoted respectfully by the Washington Post.

Meanwhile, the Post reports a conspiracy theory that the goal of our effort is the opposite of one of its stated goals:

"These operations will be an obstacle in the way of going to the polling centers," Hadeethi said.

Unfortunately, the report gives less space to mentioning that one of our objectives is to secure the voting from terrorist intimidation.

While the Washington Post has an important role in the War on Terrorism, this article fails to fulfill that responsibility. The Post should be leading the backlash in non-governmental opinion against terrorism yet it is failing to identify and condemn those who participate in terrorism.