I often tell my audience that the slow, incremental movement leftward, particularly in terms of “social issues”, is a function of very clever strategy by the radical left. That strategy is basically to use courts to achieve what they cannot acheive at the polls.

The process in Roe v. Wade was instructive. Some states allowed abortions and others didn’t. How hard can it be to manufacture a “test case,” get a ruling where 2 circuits or two states disagree on an issue of fundamental rights, and jump to the Supreme Court?

This has always been the strategy of the promoters of Gay Marriage, and why not? It works for them, and their feeble “conservative opposition” is too stupid to use similar legal avenues to promote their issues. The next step in this process is will likely be for the left to set up a test case in some state, arguing that since gays on MA and CA have a right to marry, then a gay person in Illinois has the same right.

A court could rule that way, but they may also rule that marriage is left to the states to decide. Either way, two differing results sends the issue to the Supreme Court. Another test case coming down the pike in a few months will be that a gay couple married in CA will enter court in Arizona to adjudicate their divorce.

Here is where defenders of traditional marriage have an opportunity to be strategic in their own right. Rather than pass a law stating that AZ, UT or some other state can’t “rule” on such an issue - thus kicking the case to the Supreme Court - simply pass a law saying that all such matters CAN be adjudicated in that state, but using only the laws of the state where the couple married.

This seems like a simple stop-gap measure that slows the process of getting such a case to the SCOTUS, where marriage will eventually be ruled to be whatever some person (or thing) wants it to be. After gays get the ‘right’ to marry, it is only a matter of time before polygamists and “cross-species” pioneers attain the same rights.

Perhaps the best strategy for the defenders of traditional marriage is to cut to the chase, leapfrog the 5-10 years of “test cases,” and advocate for strong “contract laws” among individuals. Marriage is headed toward “anything you want it to be,” so why not strengthen the definitions of “what you want it to be” early.

For those conservatives who have been arguing that “gay marriage” will spell the end of “traditional marriage,” I can only say that we are all likely going to find out if they are right or wrong.

If there is one thing to appreciate about Bush, it is that he cared little enough for “poll numbers” to stick with an unpopular policy. What ever you may think of Iraq and the bungling that occured, the fact is that Bush manuevered Al Qa’eda into numerous blunders. They may succeed in killing more innocent people, but they will only make themselves less popular in the process.

Demise of al-Qa’eda in sight, US official says
A senior United States counter-terrorism official has declared that the demise of al-Qa’eda is in sight, as the terrorist group’s failure to adapt its violent ideology and tactics has provoked growing dissent across the Islamic world.

The uprising by Sunni tribes against al-Qa’eda in Iraq, combined with protests in northern African countries against suicide bombings and dissent from clerics and former terrorists have put the group’s leadership on the defensive as never before, said the official.

“If al-Qa’eda maintains its current state of play of attacking civilians and Muslims, and continuing to not change its philosophy, it will start to fizzle,” the senior official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said.

Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, he said the end of the movement as a global threat was “visible” and “foreseeable”, in contrast to previous assumptions that it last for generations.

Acknowledging that the threat of a major al-Qa’eda attack remains significant not just in Iraq but in Europe and elsewhere, his remarks reflected a quiet confidence within the George W. Bush administration that one of its major goals will be achieved before too long.

Major declarations of triumph have been precluded by the mockery that followed the president’s “Mission Accomplished” statement in Iraq in 2003, while US generals have been divided about how far to boast about successes in Iraq, where this week Iraqi forces launched an offensive against al-Qa’eda in Mosul, the group’s the last urban bastion.

But White House officials are beginning to express confidence that al-Qa’eda will be defeated and offer some justification for Mr Bush’s policies even after he has left office.

In fairness, all politics has the stench of hypocrisy, given that politics is mostly about compromise with factions that you often disagree with. That said, the story below shows just how little the religious left cares about the enviromment when it goes against their REAL INTERESTS, which is Union Employment.

Environmentalists Oppose Air-Cleanup Plan

LONG BEACH, Calif. — The Port of Long Beach adopted an ambitious plan in February to clean its air by replacing thousands of aging diesel trucks that haul cargo at the facility. But the plan faces an unlikely opponent: a big environmental group.

The point of contention is that the port’s plan doesn’t guarantee that driving jobs will go to trucking-company employees, who are easier for unions to organize than independent owner-operators. That doesn’t sit well with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group whose stated mission is to “safeguard the Earth” and also is tied closely to labor unions. The group, based in New York, has threatened legal action that might block the port’s emission-cutting plan.

Thus making the NRDC lying scum. Like Teachers Unions (who don’t give a damn about ‘the children,’ they don’t give a damn about the environment. They give a damn about raw political clout, and nothing else.

No one debates that Long Beach has a pollution problem. Many trucks hauling containers in and out are old and in disrepair, spewing fumes. The port’s February plan would ban the oldest trucks this year and replace the rest by 2012 with trucks that burn diesel more cleanly or use some other type of clean fuel. But port officials refused demands by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters union that the plan require that truckers there be employees of hauling companies. Most drivers at the port today are independent.

Unionism is more important than the air you breath, folks. Remind the lying scum of the NRDC of that fact when they blather on about “big oil.” Now you can choke on the “Environmental Movement’s” hypocritical “smug”, along with the filthy LA smog.

The growth in India and China may be part of the spiked oil prices, but more and more information is pointing to speculation, and the connected insider firms doing the speculating.

The Reason for High Oil Prices

One of the things I think is very important to realize is that the growth in the world oil consumption is not that strong.” —David Kelly, chief market strategist, J.P. Morgan Funds; The Washington Post, May 4, 2008

“…There is substantial evidence that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased [oil] prices.” —U.S. Senate Staff Report, The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices, June 27, 2006

On May 13, the price of a barrel of oil briefly hit a record of $126.98 on the New York Mercantile Exchange The reason was ostensibly that Iran was cutting oil production. But there is no gas shortage. So why are prices still going up?

In late April the American Association of Petroleum Geologists held its annual invitation-only dinner in Dallas for, as my source put it, “the bigwigs” of the energy industry. During this meeting, influential and knowledgeable CEOs reached the consensus that “oil prices will likely soon drop dramatically and the long-term price increases will be in natural gas.” Of course, despite the pedigrees of those in attendance, their forming a consensus on the direction of energy prices does not mean that it’s written in stone or is even going to happen. The group is clearly bullish on natural gas. But petroleum keeps getting more expensive.

The energy executives’ prediction about the future price for crude oil had sound backing. Just a few days earlier, Lehman Brothers (LEH) investment bank had said that this current oil pricing boom was quickly coming to an end. Michael Waldron, the bank’s chief oil strategist, was quoted in Britain’s Daily Telegraph on Apr. 24 as saying: “[Oil supply] is outpacing demand growth.” Waldron added, “Inventories have been building since the beginning of the year. The Saudi Khursaniya field has just opened, with 500,000 barrels a day of production, and the new Khurais field will start next year with a further 1.2 million b/d [barrels a day].”

…

So how to explain the May 6 report from Reuters (TRI) that Goldman Sachs (GS) announced that oil could in fact be on the verge of another “super spike,” possibly taking oil as high as $200 a barrel within the next six to 24 months? Forget the fact that few other oil analysts agreed with that position, “$200 a barrel!” was the major news story on oil for the next two days. Arjun Murti, Goldman Sachs’ energy strategist, predictably laid the blame on “blistering” demand from China and the Middle East, combined with his belief that the Middle East is nearing its maximum ability to produce more oil. While the outside chance exists that Murti is right, his prediction certainly isn’t backed up by the EIA’s Short-Term Energy Outlook, or by Lehman Brothers’ report from 10 days earlier. As for the Middle East being tapped out on oil production, there might be one more thing to consider.

On May 2, the Friday before this prediction made news, Bloomberg had reported that Iran is again storing its heavy crude on tankers in the Persian Gulf because the country has run out of onshore storage tanks while awaiting buyers. Further, Saudi Arabia has extended discounts on its sour crudes to $7.45 for Arabian Heavy. Doesn’t sound like there’s any real supply problem with that grade of crude, does it?

It is an understatement to say that over the last five years the media have rained reports predicting an impending energy Armageddon. But those reports have tended not to disclose their sources—which often were individuals heavily invested in the oil futures market.

For example, Goldman Sachs was one of the founding partners of online commodities and futures marketplace Intercontinental Exchange (ICE). And ICE has been a primary focus of recent congressional investigations; it was named both in the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations’ June 27, 2006, Staff Report and in the House Committee on Energy & Commerce’s hearing last December. Those investigations looked into the unregulated trading in energy futures, and both concluded that energy prices’ climb to stratospheric heights has been driven by the billions of dollars’ worth of oil and natural gas futures contracts being placed on the ICE—which is not regulated by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

Goldman Sachs seems to be in the middle of every financial debacle visiting the American middle class. We are approaching the point where America is as “mercantilist” as China. At that point, there will be no “free market” in commodities, labor or ideas.

Read the rest of this entry »

…Or can it?

Massachusetts Police Get Black Uniforms to Instill Sense of ‘Fear’

The city’s new police commissioner, William Fitchet, says members of the department’s Street Crime Unit will again don black, military-style uniforms as part of his strategy to deal with youth violence.

Fitchet’s predecessor, Edward Flynn, had ditched the black attire as part of an effort to soften the image of the unit. Flynn left Springfield in January to become the police chief in Milwaukee.

Sgt. John Delaney told a city council hearing Wednesday that the stark uniforms send a message to criminals that officers are serious about making arrests.

Delaney said a sense of “fear” has been missing for the past few years.

Yeah, that’s the ticket, Benito. More fear.
While our awful public schools turn us into a nation of feminized and frightened rabbits clamoring for handouts and pharmaceuticals, the fascisti don new uniforms to keep the “un-feminized” in line. What is next - reeducation camps for those whose “public schooling” didn’t “take?”

Mark Helprin promotes the idea that we spend more on aircraft carriers and F-22s to make sure we can defeat China in a military confrontation. I would argue that if we ever get into a military confrontation with China, we’ve already lost. Our best bet is to exascerbate their already growing social problems, and let their own people defeat them from within.

One Dalai Lama is worth 10 Aircraft Carriers.

The Challenge From China

China has a vast internal market newly unified by modern transport and communications; a rapidly flowering technology; an irritable but highly capable workforce that as long as its standard of living improves is unlikely to push the country into paralyzing unrest; and a wider world, now freely accessible, that will buy anything it can make. China is threatened neither by Japan, Russia, India, nor the Western powers, as it was not that long ago. It has an immense talent for the utilization of capital, and in the free market is as agile as a cat.

Unlike the U.S., which governs itself almost unconsciously, reactively and primarily for the short term, China has plotted a long course, in which with great deliberation it joins economic growth to military power. Thirty years ago, in what may be called the “gift of the Meiji,” Deng Xiaoping transformed the Japanese slogan fukoku kyohei (rich country, strong arms) into China’s 16-Character Policy: “Combine the military and the civil; combine peace and war; give priority to military products; let the civil support the military.”

Shut down access to our market, and we pay a bit more for stuff at Walmart and temporarily lose some value in our portfolios. They collapse into social unrest. On to the next problem, all with out massive defense spending and rich military contracts.

Check out any of these posts for some balanced thinking in terms of the Big Bad Chinese

There is a great quote by Dagny Taggart, the heroine in Atlas Shruuged. She’s talking to a Union Boss who is trying to guarantee union jobs on a train line his union was against. The quote by Taggart (co-owner of the railway) goes something like this…

“I know exactly what you want. You want a stranglehold on my company, by the means of the jobs I’m capable of providing, and you want a stranglehold on your workers, by the means of their labor.”

The role of a Union was/is ostensibly to improve working conditions and pay for workers. In true “Animal Farm” irony, some workers are more equal than others.

Unions Forge Secret Pacts With Major Employers

Two of the nation’s largest labor unions have struck confidential agreements with large employers that give the companies the right to designate which of their locations, and how many workers, the unions can seek to organize.

The agreements are raising questions about union transparency and workers’ rights.

…

The SEIU’s president, Andy Stern, said the unions sought the agreements after realizing that traditional organizing campaigns at individual sites were proving ineffective. “The old ways aren’t working, and we’re trying to find different relationships with employers that guarantee workers a voice,” he said. He dismissed the idea that the new agreements are undemocratic. “These workers have no unions; that’s where we start from,” he said.

Nothing proves the Dagny Taggart quote more effectively than this exposure of these “secret deals.” We are now at the stage where the Corporations and the Unions are negotiating the “worker’s rights” before the worker is even unionized!

This while the quotes by Andy Stern prove that the need for Unions is declining. Look folks, if you want to join a union because you believe they can negotiate a better deal for you than you can yourself, that’s fine. But go into it with your eyes open. Unions aren’t working for you. They are working for the Union, which is nothing more than another Corporation - merely structured differently.

In the recent dust up between the Obama and McCain campaigns, the Obama camp howled about McCain’s assertion that Hamas wanted Obama to win, while the McCain camp complained about Obama’s use of the words “lost his bearings.” McCain, ever the gentlemen, graciously announced that he didn’t mind Obama losing elderly votes (which he will, based on that comment).

Of course, McCain’s assertion that Hamas wants Obama to win is now proven 100% true, as another Democrat gets the heave ho from a campaign for exposing the truth about allied interests. Obama was stupid, McCain was right.

Barack Obama sacks adviser over talks with Hamas

One of Barack Obama’s Middle East policy advisers disclosed yesterday that he had held meetings with the militant Palestinian group Hamas – prompting the likely Democratic nominee to sever all links with him.

Robert Malley told The Times that he had been in regular contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza and is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation. Such talks, he stressed, were related to his work for a conflict resolution think-tank and had no connection with his position on Mr Obama’s Middle East advisory council.

“I’ve never hidden the fact that in my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people,” he added.

Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Mr Obama, responded swiftly: “Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future.” The rapid departure of Mr Malley followed 48 hours of heated clashes between John McCain, the Republican nominee-elect, and Mr Obama over Middle East policy.

“He never worked for us, but we fired him anyway…”

This should not fool anyone. The fact of the matter is that Hamas PROBABLY DOES want Obama to win, as do the Iranians and Al Qaida-in-Iraq. They likely want what is in their interests, and this should surprise no one. The fact that pro-Hamas “advisors” are in Obama’s “kitchen cabinet” should surprise only those who don’t already know that Barack Obama’s Administration - should it come into existence - will be the most overtly “anti-American” administration in our history.