Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Cruisin' in Iran

The U.S. displaying weapons it says Iran is supplying to Iraqi insurgents, used to kill coalition soldiers, and the Iranians (of course) denying it.

"We categorically deny that we supplied these weapons to the Iraqi terrorists -- the fact that they are obviously manufactured in Iran and are used by our military is merely a coincidence," said an Iranian embassy spokesman, adding, "Death to America. Uh, oh and Israel too. Yeah death to Israel. And the Holocaust never happened."

The munitions, primarily armor-piercing rounds (marked "Made In Iran -- Death to Infidels") have killed 170 coalition soldiers.

Congress all in a dither over it, as the House of Representatives votes on its Manifesto of Cowardice, condemning the president's plan to increase troops in Iraq.

"If at times like this we can't turn tail and run, taking refuge in the safety provided by hiding under our beds, when can we?" said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"Hold me, I'm scared," added Congressman John Murtha.

Congress is all nervous because they're afraid the unveiling of the Iranian munitions signals a move by the administration toward war with Iran.

But we don't need to invade Iran and get ourselves all messy in another land war to stop the Iranians and Syrians from supporting the bad guys in Iraq. There's a perfectly good alternative.

Here's what we should do: Park a couple of Aegis guided missile cruisers in the Persian Gulf, along with an aircraft carrier to provide fighter cover.

Then, we tell the Iranians and Syrians that for every weapon or fighter we find in Iraq that we can trace directly back to them, they lose a factory, a power plant, a transportation hub, a bridge or a government building.

Heck, we'll even give them 30-minutes warning on which target we're going to hit before we launch the cruise missiles, so they have time to get people out.

I call it "reverse insurgency via cruise missile proxy."

Effective, humane, and I'll bet it will back them down.

But we won't do it.

Friday, February 09, 2007

Hybrid Conservative

I took delivery of my 2007 Toyota Prius Hybrid this week -- the results of about two years of research/procrastinating.

"But Jblog," you say with astonishment, "Only quiche-eaters, treehuggers, dirt-worshippers and earthmuffins drive hybrids."

Not so, however -- it's actually the PERFECT car for a registered Republican like me. Lemme tell you why:

-- Tax breaks -- The purchase qualifies for a $1,500 federal income tax credit -- that's a credit, not a deduction, so it comes right off the bottom line. (But hurry -- the credit drops to $750 after March 31 and expires later this year. That's why I went for mine now.) Plus in Connecticut you don't have to pay sales tax on new hybrids -- that shaves another $1,500 off the top of the price.

-- Fiscal fitness -- In addition to $3Gs in tax breaks, I qualified for 24 months of 0 percent financing. I estimate that will save me another $2,000 or so over the life of the loan. And I estimate I will save another $1,000 in fuel costs each year. That's $7,000 in savings over the first two years, which well offsets the premium price for purchasing this new technology.

-- Good for America -- I'm currently averaging about 45 mpg, which is about twice what my old car got. America finds itself in direct competition with emerging markets in China and India for the global oil supply, which will push oil prices up over the next decade. Cutting my fuel consumption by half helps take the pressure off. It also means less money in the pockets of terrorists who profit from the oil trade, like Osama Bin Ladin and Hugo Chavez.

-- Rational environmentalism -- Contrary to popular misconception, most conservatives DO care about the environment. We'd just prefer not crater the economy while saving the earth. Adoption of new technologies like hybrid cars is a sane approach to this issue.

-- Intelligent design -- This is an exceptionally well-designed vehicle, inside and out. -- from the gasoline engine/electric motor power plant to the head-up display and touchscreen controls. Purchasing cars like this encourages all the automakers to strive for this kind of innovation and user-centered design.

-- Moral high ground -- "No blood for oil" my ass. How exactly did those hippies get to the antiwar rally, anyway? Next time I'm at the Dairy and Energy Mart giving my hybrid a sip and I see one of those freaks filling up his gas guzzler (with his antiwar, anti-oil bumpersticker proudly displayed), I believe I pretty much have the absolute moral authority to grab the tire iron out the hatch, walk over and bust his windshield.

Friday, February 02, 2007

Catch-up Time: Hillary, Gavin and the rest

Been a little bored with blogging lately -- so haven't been writing.

But thought I would catch up on a couple things.

Fred Barnes writing about WSJ opinion section yesterday about how Hillary Clinton's caught in a political crack -- sitting to the right of her primary opponents, she's feeling pressure to move to the left to gain her party nomination. But if she does, she runs the risk of offending swing voters in the general election.

I wrote the same thing last June -- nice to see the WSJ taking a cue from me (although to be fair, this is pretty obvious to just about everyone -- surprised it took this long for someone else to write about it).

And then we have San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, admitting to an affair with the wife of one of his closest advisors.

And already the same lefties who snickered and sneered at Evangelical leader Ted Haggard's indiscretions last fall are falling all over themselves to excuse Newsom.

"Why is this a public matter?" huffs Arianna Huffington, noting that the parties involved weren't doing it on the public's dime.

Could she be that dense? It mattered with Republican Bob Packwood did it. It mattered when Bill Clinton did it. It certainly matter when Jim McGreevy did it. It matters because character matters.

It matters because if the people closest to our elected officials can't trust them, how can we?

And it becomes the public's business the instant an elected official takes the oath of office and swears to serve in an ethical and honest manner.

At least Newsom didn't go all McGreevy and make excuses for his behavior -- he admitted his guilt and apologized. Be curious to see how he follows that up to make amends -- will he resign?


The most likely outcome? BOOK DEALS.

One for the scumbag major. One for the wife-victim. One for the cuckolded confidant. And one for the floozy.

I'm betting Newsom get a six-figure advance.

In the meantime, Haggard's accuser was welcomed at the former pastor's church this week, with members shaking his hand and thanking him for coming forward with the truth. I wonder what Arianna thinks of that? (Not really -- I don't care what she thinks).

Correction: I didn't follow the time-thread on the Newsom affair properly. Apparently Newsom and his wife divorced before the beginning of the affair. This may not affect her book deal though.