Year: 2007

The Party of Values

Calvin Freiburger 2008, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, morality, scandal
————–

—
—————
I hadn’t seen Mrs. Giuliani on the stump with her husband before now (has she done this anywhere else yet?), but, from this performance, I’d have to say the campaign might want to be more careful with how she frames her remarks.

Here, she starts off by saying, “I wanted to tell you all a little bit about how Rudy and I came to be our team together.” The problem with this is that we all know their relationship began as an affair, while he was still married — be it in a publicly “distant” (that’s how the press likes to put it) marriage. She then goes on to describe some of their early flirtations.
I don’t think I was the only one at this point thinking: Ick.
The former Ms. Nathan is, after all, describing the beginning of an affair that would lead to an ugly and painful divorce that still is affecting the former mayor’s relationship with his children.
————-

—
——–
The GOP should be so proud.

Hey Hackbarth! Am I a Bad Conservative?

Calvin Freiburger bureaucracy, Coulter, military, scandal, Walter Reed
———–
Ann Coulter, 3/14/2007

————–
Democrats have leapt on reports of mold, rats and bureaucratic hurdles at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as further proof of President George Bush’s failed war policies.
—————-
To the contrary, the problems at Walter Reed are further proof of the Democrats’ failed domestic policies — to wit, the civil service rules that prevent government employees from ever being fired. (A policy that also may account for Robert Byrd’s longevity as a U.S. senator.)
————-
Thanks to the Democrats, government employees have the world’s most complicated set of job protection rules outside of the old East Germany. Oddly enough, this has not led to a dynamic workforce in the nation’s capital.
—————
Noticeably, the problems at Walter Reed are not with the doctors or medical care. The problems are with basic maintenance at the facility.
————–
Unless U.S. Army generals are supposed to be spraying fungicide on the walls and crawling under beds to set rattraps, the slovenly conditions at Walter Reed are not their fault. The military is nominally in charge of Walter Reed, but — because of civil service rules put into place by Democrats — the maintenance crew can’t be fired.
————–
If the general “in charge” can’t fire the people not doing their jobs, I don’t know why he is being held responsible for them not doing their jobs.
————–
You will find the exact same problems anyplace market forces have been artificially removed by the government and there is a total absence of incentives, competition, effective oversight, cost controls and so on. It’s almost like a cause-and-effect thing.
———
The Washington Post could have done the same report on any government facility in the Washington, D.C., area.
————–
In a typical story from the nation’s capital, last year, a 38-year-old woman died at the hospital after her blood pressure dropped and a D.C. ambulance took 90 minutes to pick her up and take her to a hospital that was five minutes away. For 90 minutes, the 911 operator repeatedly assured the woman’s sister that the ambulance was on its way.
———–
You read these stories every few months in Washington.
———-
New York Times reporter David Rosenbaum also died in Washington last year after being treated to the famed work ethic of the average government employee. Rosenbaum was mugged near his house and hit on the head with a pipe. A neighbor found him lying on the sidewalk and immediately called 911.
———-
First, the ambulance got lost on the way to Rosenbaum. Then, instead of taking him to the closest emergency room, the ambulance took him to Howard University Hospital, nearly 30 minutes away, because one of the “emergency medical technicians” had personal business in the area.
——-
Once he finally arrived at the hospital, Rosenbaum was left unattended on a gurney for 90 minutes because the “emergency medical technicians” had completely missed his head injury and listed him as “drunk” and “low priority.”
—————
Months later, the deputy mayor for public safety told The Washington Post that “to the best of his knowledge, no one involved in the incident had been fired.”
————–
No one has any authority over civil service employees in the nation’s capital. Bush probably lives in terror of White House janitors. The White House bathroom could be flooding and he’d be told: “I’ll get to you when I get to you. Listen, fella, you’re fifth on my list. I’m not making any promises, just don’t flush for the next week.”
—————–
It’s especially adorable how Democrats and the media are acting like these are the first rats ever sighted in the Washington, D.C., area. There are rats in the Capitol building. There are rats in The Washington Post building. Bush has seen rats. But let’s leave Chuck Hagel out of this for now.
———-
On “ABC News” last year, a CBS radio reporter described a rat jumping off the camera in the White House press briefing room in the middle of a press conference. (And a shrew sits right in the front!) The Washington Post called the White House press room — located between the residence and the Oval Office — “a broken-down, rat-infested fire trap.” During David Gregory’s stand-up report on MSNBC about the damage done to Republicans by conditions at Walter Reed, rats appeared to be scurrying on the ground behind him.
————
Instead of an investigative report on the problems at Walter Reed, how about an investigative report on what happens when the head of janitorial services at Walter Reed is told about the dirt, mold and rats at the facility? If it’s before 2:30 in the afternoon and he’s still at work and he hasn’t taken a “sick day,” a “vacation day,” a “personal day” or a “mental health day,” I predict the answer will be: “I’m on my break.”
————-
The Democrats’ response is: We must pass even more stringent rules to ensure that all government employees get every single break so that public-sector unions will continue giving massive campaign donations to the Democrats.
———-
This was, you will recall, the precise issue that led to a partisan battle over the Homeland Security bill a few years ago: Whether employees at an emergency terrorist response agency could be fired — as Republicans wanted — or if they would be subject to civil service rules and unfireable — as the Democrats wanted.
————
HELLO? HOMELAND SECURITY? THERE’S A BOMB IN THE WELL OF THE SENATE!
———–
Sorry, not my job. Try the Department of Public Works.
———-
When Republican Saxby Chambliss challenged Democrat Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia Senate race, he ran an ad attacking Cleland for demanding civil service protections for workers at the Homeland Security Department. Naturally, Republicans were accused of hating veterans for mentioning Cleland’s vote on the Homeland Security bill.
———–
Now that the Democrats are once again pretending to give a damn about the troops by wailing about conditions at Walter Reed, how about some Republican — maybe Chambliss! — introduce a bill to remove civil service protections from employees at Walter Reed and all veterans’ hospitals? You know, a bill that would actually address the problem.
———–
And don’t worry about the useless, slothful government employees who can only hold jobs from which they cannot be fired. We’ll get them jobs at the EPA and Department of Education.

"I’m a Clinton – Of Course I Know a Scandal When I See One!"

Calvin Freiburger Bush, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Justice, scandal
Hillary Clinton—that pillar of integrity—is warning America about the “widening scandal” of the US Attorneys fired by the Bush Administration (yeah, that’s the same gal whose husband’s Attorney General canned a whopping 93 US Attorneys). So what’s the ex-First Lady’s idea of a scandal?

Routine, responsible administrating. Yawn.

Victory & Defeat Surge in the Reporter’s Pages

Calvin Freiburger GOP, Iraq, reporter, RINOs
Recently, two local Republicans (who I’ve had the honor of working with over the past few years)—Holly Schwefel & Jim Kiser—had this editorial published in the Reporter:
—
“The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.” — Abraham Lincoln
These words are as true today as they were nearly 200 years ago.
We are in a struggle. We have endured falls. We are not only at war, but we are in a fight for our lives and for the very existence of this country that we so dearly love.
It is easy to forget this reality as we tend to our daily business. It’s easy to separate ourselves over time from the terrorist attacks five years ago that catapulted our nation into this war. It’s easy to say, “Stop the war, bring home the troops, and give peace a chance,” yet have no other credible plan.
However, no one ever said this was going to be easy. No one ever promised that the terrorists would lie down and surrender their weapons and their ideologies and their hatred. In fact, President Bush warned from the very beginning that this would be a long battle and that it would require much sacrifice, not only from the American military, but from the American people.
Only two weeks ago, the U.S. House of Representatives, with the support of 17 wayward “Republicans,” decided to take the easy way out through passage of a resolution condemning President Bush’s plan for a troop surge.
Their very public vote now deserves a very public response. In supporting this resolution, these “Republicans” gave our troops and our president a vote of no confidence. They gave not only hope, but validation to the enemy — the terrorists that would rejoice to see you and me dead in the streets.
These “Republicans” told the enemy that if they only resist long enough, America will give up and turn its back on our friends. These “Republicans” sent a message across the globe that not even the Bush Administration’s own party is willing to stand up for what is right.
But worst of all, these 17 Republicans turned their backs on the people who elected them — the same people who re-elected President Bush because of his tough action against terror and for his ability to lead during times of crisis.
Why is it so difficult for these Republicans to see how much their actions affect the morale of our soldiers and their families? Why are they so blinded by stature and chairmanships and re-election campaigns? Why do we stand by while they continue to prove how out of touch they are with our American way of life?
True Republicans support “peace through strength,” which does not mean looking for a fight, but most surely doesn’t mean backing down from one. True Republicans have a fundamental passion for freedom and for protecting that freedom, whatever the cost.
True Republicans work to secure our country today so that the children of tomorrow may have peace. True Republicans never turn their backs on the brave troops who daily risk their lives to ensure that we are able to enjoy all the blessings of this great land.
So, shame on those 17 Republicans for being out of touch with our American reality; shame on them for not recognizing the country’s need for unity rather than politics; shame on them for turning their backs on American troops; shame on them for giving hope to the enemy; and, what a shame it is that in this very Republican Sixth District, our own Congressman Tom Petri was one of those 17.
—
Predictably, it didn’t take long for a liberal genius to enlighten them:
—
Mr. (Jim) Kiser and Ms. (Holly) Schwefel, I would like to thank you for your editorial on March 6 concerning Rep. Tom Petri’s recent vote.
Perhaps we will see it reprinted in high school textbooks in the year 2050 to explain to future generations why the United States did not survive to see its 250th birthday. Blind partisanship is as dangerous to our future as Communism or terrorism ever was.
The Republicans had complete control of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of our government for six years. They accomplished nothing with Social Security reform, aside from a weak and confusing prescription drug plan. They achieved little to solve the health-care problem, they looked the other way as the president set up secret prisons in Eastern Europe and condoned and even encouraged torture of terrorist suspects, and suspended habeas corpus, a process put in place by civilized society 900 years ago.
I could go on but the point in question is the troop surge in Iraq. We have seen the administration completely mishandle Iraq from the nonexistent WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) to the “stay-the-course” mentality. More than 3,000 soldiers were killed, 25,000 injured and a civil war springing up in the middle of it all. How can anyone have confidence that suddenly, after four years, despite all the signs that tell us otherwise, the tide will be turned and democracy will flourish?

The Republican Party has been hijacked by the neo-conservatives. We need free-thinking politicians who have the personal integrity to do what Rep. Petri did.
When given the choice of what is best for the country and what is best for the party, Mr. Petri chooses the former. You choose the latter and for that you should be deeply ashamed.
Bill Zeleske
—
If Holly & Jim are blind partisans because they advocate the conservative position on the war, then what does that make Mr. Zeleske, who assails no less than seven supposed Republican flaws, and then raises the Left’s knee-jerk specter of “neo-conservatives”?

(Oh, and I’m sure history books will blame the Right for all of America’s troubles for many years to come—but not because some conservative-induced downfall.)

So what’s my take? I’m cautiously optimistic on the surge. Though I’m not sure 21,000 will be enough troops in the long run, we’re already seeing results:

—

Bomb deaths have gone down 30 percent in Baghdad since the U.S.-led security crackdown began a month ago. Execution-style slayings are down by nearly half. The once frequent sound of weapons has been reduced to episodic, and downtown shoppers have returned to outdoor markets — favored targets of car bombers. There are signs of progress in the campaign to restore order in Iraq, starting with its capital city.

—
The plan is substantive enough that it deserves a chance, and the support of all who seriously want victory in Iraq. As a non-binding resolution, this condemnation bill Petri voted for serves no other purpose than to distance politicians from both President Bush and the idea that we’re going to stay in Iraq until the mission is accomplished. Whatever the intentions behind it, the effect is just as my friends said: to give “our troops and our president a vote of no confidence. They gave not only hope, but validation to the enemy.”

Petri’s alternative is to partition Iraq into three basically-autonomous provinces for the Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds. Offhand, here are just a few of the problems I see in this plan: 1.) While certain sects dominate certain parts of Iraq, each has its share of minorities. Does Petri expect that it would be easy (or easier than the surge, at the very least) to forcibly uproot, say, Shiites from their homes in Iraqi Kurdistan & just plop them elsewhere nice & neat? 2.) Petri acknowledges his plan “will require negotiations over territory and oil revenues.” You think THAT’S gonna be a walk in the park? 3.) He also mentions “policing to keep the different parties apart,” which emphasizes that he’s advocating an Iraq governed by religious segregation. Won’t that serve as validation to the various bigotries that animate a segment of the violence in Iraq? After all, saying that segregation is the only way to resolve sectarian animosity suggests that there’s something natural & permanent to it. It seems to me that’s the very opposite of what our war against religious fanaticism should be.

But the real shame in Petri’s vote isn’t rejecting Bush, or touting a foolish alternative. It’s the fact that Petri has kept his mouth pretty much shut about Iraq all this time, and especially the surge plan, which has been on the table since early January. So the man we send to Washington to represent us doesn’t tell us that he opposes a major Republican position until after he casts his vote? That might be Bill Zeleske’s idea of “personal integrity;” it’s not mine.

General Unrest

Calvin Freiburger homosexuality, military, PC
Another reason for liberal hatred of the military:
—
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday he considers homosexuality to be immoral and the military should not condone it by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly, the Chicago Tribune reported. Marine Gen. Peter Pace likened homosexuality to adultery, which he said was also immoral, the newspaper reported on its Web site. “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way,” Pace told the newspaper in a wide-ranging interview […] He said he supports the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” in which gay men and women are allowed in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private. The policy, signed into law by President Clinton in 1994, prohibits commanders from asking about a person’s sexual orientation. “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” Pace said.
—

Though he says he “should have focused more in the interview on the Defense Department policy about gays — and ‘less on my personal moral views,’” he’s not going to apologize for his moral belief. Good. There’s a difference between respecting somebody as a human being and condoning the actions of one’s lifestyle. Refusal to recognize that distinction only adds to tension between Gay & Straight America.

An Idea Whose Time Has Come

Calvin Freiburger humor, robots
You thought the animal-rights crowd was on the cutting edge of humanitarian causes? As if. The government of South Korea is taking a stand for the world’s most repressed minority—the organically-challenged:

“An ethical code to prevent humans abusing robots, and vice versa, is being drawn up by South Korea. The Robot Ethics Charter will cover standards for users and manufacturers and will be released later in 2007. It is being put together by a five member team of experts that includes futurists and a science fiction writer. The South Korean government has identified robotics as a key economic driver and is pumping millions of dollars into research. ‘The government plans to set ethical guidelines concerning the roles and functions of robots as robots are expected to develop strong intelligence in the near future,’ the ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy said […] The Ministry of Information and Communication has also predicted that every South Korean household will have a robot by between 2015 and 2020.”

Umm…yeah. And yes, this story’s from the BBC, not the Onion.


(Jet Jaguar, robot-rights movement leader)

Hat tip: The Corner

Pardon Scooter Libby

Calvin Freiburger Armitage, Bush, Democrats, Fitzgerald, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Krauthammer, lying, prosecution, Wilson
Charles Krauthammer analyzes the pathetic trial, spearheaded by a pathetic prosecutor, that ended in Scooter Libby’s conviction:

—
“There are lies and there are memory lapses. Bill Clinton denied under oath having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Unless you’re Wilt Chamberlain, sex is not the kind of thing you forget easily. Sandy Berger denied stuffing classified documents in his pants, an act not quite as elaborate as sex, but still involving a lot of muscle memory and unlikely to have been honestly forgotten.

“Scooter Libby has just been convicted of four felonies that could theoretically give him 25 years in jail for . . . what? Misstating when he first heard a certain piece of information, namely the identity of Joe Wilson’s wife.

“Think about that. Can you remember when you first heard the name Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame? Okay, so it is not a preoccupation of yours. But it was a preoccupation of many Washington journalists and government officials called to testify at the Libby trial, and their memories were all over the lot. Former presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer testified under oath that he had not told Post reporter Walter Pincus about Mrs. Wilson. Pincus testified under oath that Fleischer definitely had.

“Obviously, one is not telling the truth. But there is no reason to believe that either one is deliberately lying. Pincus and Fleischer are as fallible as any of us. They spend their days receiving and giving information. They can’t possibly be expected to remember not only every piece but precisely when they received every piece.
“Should Scooter Libby? He was famously multitasking a large number of national security and domestic issues, receiving hundreds of pieces of information every day from dozens of sources. Yet special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald chose to make Libby’s misstatements about the timing of the receipt of one piece of information — Mrs. Wilson’s identity — the great white whale of his multimillion-dollar prosecutorial juggernaut.
“Why? Because on his essential charge as special prosecutor — find and punish who had leaked Valerie Plame’s name — he had nothing. No conspiracy, no felony, no crime, not even the claim that she was a covert agent covered by the nondisclosure law. Fitzgerald knew the leaker from the very beginning. It was not Libby but Richard Armitage. He also knew that the ‘leak’ by the State Department’s No. 2 official — a fierce bureaucratic opponent of the White House, especially the vice president’s office — was an innocent offhand disclosure made to explain how the CIA had improbably chosen Wilson for a WMD mission. (He was recommended by his CIA wife.) Everyone agrees that Fitzgerald’s perjury case against Libby hung on the testimony of NBC’s Tim Russert. Libby said that he heard about Plame from Russert. Russert said he had never discussed it. The jury members who have spoken said they believed Russert.

“And why should they not? Russert is a perfectly honest man who would not lie. He was undoubtedly giving his best recollection.
“But he is not the pope. Given that so many journalists and administration figures were shown to have extremely fallible memories, is it possible that Russert’s memory could have been faulty?
“I have no idea. But we do know that Russert once denied calling up a Buffalo News reporter to complain about a story. Russert later apologized for the error when he was shown the evidence of a call he had genuinely and completely forgotten.
“There is a second instance of Russert innocently misremembering. He stated under oath that he did not know that one may not be accompanied by a lawyer to a grand jury hearing. This fact, in and of itself, is irrelevant to the case, except that, as former prosecutor Victoria Toensing points out, the defense had tapes showing Russert saying on television three times that lawyers are barred from grand jury proceedings.
“This demonstration of Russert’s fallibility was never shown to the jury. The judge did not allow it. He was upset with the defense because it would not put Libby on the stand — his perfect Fifth Amendment right — after hinting in the opening statement that it might. He therefore denied the defense a straightforward demonstration of the fallibility of the witness whose testimony was most decisive.

“Toensing thinks this might be the basis for overturning the verdict upon appeal. I hope so. This is a case that never should have been brought, originating in the scandal that never was, in search of a crime — violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act — that even the prosecutor never alleged. That’s the basis for a presidential pardon. It should have been granted long before this egregious case came to trial. It should be granted now without any further delay.”
—
Look up “travesty of justice” in the dictionary, and you’ll see a picture of Patrick Fitzgerald.
But the Democrats don’t care. Just when you thought the Party of Babykilling couldn’t come up with fresh ways to disgrace itself, they manage to come through. They’re glad Libby’s been nailed. After all, it makes the Bush Administration look bad. When chronicling the despicable double standard for political prosecutions (and how Republicans have been “gutless appeasers” in standing up to it) this week, Ann Coulter called this exactly what it is: “a surrogate for political warfare.” It’s official: the Democrat Party will send innocent people to jail for political gain. If this is not evil, what is?
Mr. President, you have been silent on this witch hunt against one of your own from Day 1. Still you’re silent. Why haven’t you pardoned Scooter Libby already? If you’re worried about your image (which would be disgraceful), can it—your reputation is in a shambles, and the only chance you have of salvaging any of it is to start showing true courage in your leadership.
There aren’t too many people on Capitol Hill who should feel proud of themselves these days.

What a Mess….

Calvin Freiburger birth control, embarassment, Hannity, HLI, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, religion
Reverend Thomas Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, has picked a fight with Sean Hannity. Apparently, Hannity’s not a good enough Catholic:

—

“If apologies are the order of the day, then the repentance I would like to hear out of Sean Hannity’s mouth is for his shameless—even scandalous—promotion of birth control. Yes, I have heard him personally say, ‘I have no problem with birth control. It’s a good thing.’ (Another bit of profound theological reasoning.) Given the size of his audience and the importance of his status in pop culture, Hannity’s anti-witness to a fundamental tenet of Catholic moral doctrine is just devastating for the faith of others who may be weak or vacillating in this area. His impact is greater, and so his judgment will be stricter. ‘To those who have been given more, more will be required…’
“The moral of the story is that Catholic men and women in the media need to be truly Catholic or at least stop being hypocrites. We have enough pretenders to the title of Catholic in public life without being treated to superficial assessments of profound moral issues. Rules are important, but Lent is not about rule-breaking, it’s about conversion of heart; and on the most important moral issues of our day, public Catholics like Hannity have no right to profess ‘another gospel,’ or the faith of millions—and indeed their own souls—are in serious jeopardy.”
—
I’ve never heard anything from Hannity on birth control, so it would have been interesting to learn just what the problem was. For instance, what exactly is the Reverend citing? Was Sean talking about what couples ought to do, or government authority to regulate birth control? That’s a big distinction—Hannity should be criticized if the former, but the latter is wholly appropriate (that is, if we’re talking about birth control that prevents conception, and not methods that kill already-created babies).
Unfortunately, both men gave pitiful performances on H&C last night; it was one of the sloppiest, most unfocused debates I’ve seen in a while. So I didn’t find out. Let that be a lesson, boys & girls: know what the heck you’re talking about before you pick a fight, and clarity is key to making sure you don’t look like a fool.