Full disclosure: I smoke. I live in the Grate State of Kalifornia. (For those who think I’m spelling-challenged, I’m not. “Grate” and “Kalifornia”. Think about it. LOL).

You may not care about the war on smokers; you may support it. But read on. There’s a reason why you should care.

Smokers are popular targets for those who want to regulate and mandate lifestyle changes for others. Smoking is unpopular, and a habit primarily for the lower socio-economic strata. A smaller percentage of the population smokes now than at any time in at least the last 50 years, and perhaps longer. Those with an agenda to fulfill have, over the last decade, successfully demonized tobacco companies as evil entities. Smokers have had a sequentially smaller political voice over time, and have become one of the few minorities it’s okay to persecute.

We have also seen science subverted to the cause of partisan and/or paternalistic politics. Truth has become a victim to the sanctimony of beneficent end results. Good ends justify bad means.

Regulation of smoking has been justified using many rationales, primarily “societal costs”. Health care costs of smoking-related diseases is the big one, yet those who use it ignore studies that report that the shorter life expectancies of smokers may actually LESSEN the true societal costs of smoking-related diseases. Those studies don’t fit their political agenda. Further, most group health insurance plans hit smokers with an increased premium/penalty, thereby defraying the financial impact in that arena.

The county of Los Angeles recently banned smoking on public beaches, citing the cost of cleaning up cigarette butts. Why haven’t snacks, beverages, newspapers, and other items also been banned? Is there no cost to cleaning up any of the other trash, such as Styrofoam cups, cans, bottles, paper refuse, etc., that litters the beaches? Or are we headed toward a regulation that only permits somebody with a bathing suit and no other possessions on their person to be on the beach?

The most current foray into idiocy is Proposition 86, headed toward the ballot this November. To take a look at the proposition on the Secretary of State’s official website, go to this link:

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_vig_publicdisplay.htm

Currently, in Kalifornia, the tax on a pack of cigarettes is 87 cents. Prop 86 would raise that tax an additional $2.60, to $3.47 per pack, an increase of 299%. Those pushing the tax use all kinds of rationales to justify their proposition, some sounding very high-minded.

But the reality is that they’re operating with Chief Justice John Marshall’s warning in mind, that “The power to tax is the power to destroy”. Make no mistake, the Health Nazis’ true goal is to make smoking a thing of the past, and they know they can’t win by directly trying to outlaw this behavior.

Further, this is a regressive tax, meaning it’s targeted at those least likely to be able to afford it. Remember, most smokers are in the lower economic classes.

On top of all of this, this kind of tax is going to inevitably lead to an increase in crime, as cigarettes bought in adjoining states like Nevada, which don’t have such a repressive tax, are smuggled into Kalifornia to meet a huge demand. Of course, the supporters of the tax will be able to point to the inevitably decreased sales in Kalifornia as proof that their program is working, as the in-state sales are replaced by sales of outsourced cigarettes, but don’t forget what Mark Twain said about “lies, damned lies, and statistics”.

So, you ask yourself why you should care about any of this? You don’t smoke, right? You may even think this is a good thing.

Well, do you own guns? Are you a few pounds overweight? Like a good cheeseburger now and then? Enjoy the occasional drink? Think a good, juicy steak is one of life’s real pleasures? Do you work out as often as you know you should? Make car trips that aren’t absolutely necessary to earning a living? Drive an SUV? Put all your recyclables in the green bin? Use sun block every time you catch some rays? Use butter instead of margarine? Salt your food?

You are a potential target of the next big fad of the Health Nazis. Don’t think you can’t be. After all, twenty years ago who could have predicted such a concerted and rabid attack on a behavior that was so widely accepted as normal.

That’s the whole goal of the Health Nazis: to transform society by forcing its members to conform to behavior that they, the self-appointed elitists, find acceptable.

And your freedom of choice be damned.

 

On Thursday, 20 July, President Bush finally remembered where he’d stashed his veto pen and killed a bill that would have granted billions of taxpayer dollars to fund research into medical applications for embryonic stem cells (ESC).

He did the right thing.

First of all, I can’t for the life of me find the part of the Constitution that authorizes government expenditures of this type. Granted, we’ve certainly wandered far from true constitutionality in government expenditures over the last century (a problem that needs to be addressed in general), but this type of expenditure is an especially egregious violation.

Which brings us to the second problem with this legislation: it’s based on bad science.

Adult stem cell (ASC) research has shown some real promise in being a cure for certain medical conditions, and some derivative treatments are even now undergoing the certification process. Though the actual number of existing ASC-derived treatments is under debate, at least there are SOME.

ESC research, on the other hand, has led exactly nowhere. Embryonic cells are harvested too early in their developmental process, and have not yet differentiated (developed characteristics). Culturing of these cells, and medical testing on lab animals, has led to uncontrolled cell development, undifferentiated bio-mass, and tumors.

The proof of the pudding is to take a look at where private industry has spent its own hard-earned capital: ASC research. If ESC had any promise of yielding meaningful results in a reasonable time frame, don’t you think that’s where the private investment capital would go? After all, the financial rewards for success in the bio-med industry are immense. Look at what Viagra and Rogaine did for Pfizer. Imagine the rewards that will accrue to the corporation that finds the cure for cancer, or epilepsy, or diabetes.

But no, the ONLY way that ESC outfits can get any funding is to foist onto the public the idea that government has some responsibility to take up the financial slack that venture capitalists won’t; in other words, to put lipstick on the pig.

This doesn’t even go into the moral aspect of sourcing for embryonic cells: primarily, aborted fetuses.

Of course, here in California, our over-rated governor has just earmarked funding of $150 million to ESC, the result of a bond measure that was passed by voters a year or two ago. Naturally, that red-lipped pig won the beauty contest out here on the Left Coast.

19^th Century snake-oil salesmen must have made a killing in California.

 

Over the last week or so, Israel finds itself once again in battle with elements of radical Islam intent on its destruction. I won’t rehash the whole conflict, as that’s currently grabbing headlines on all the media. Currently, it’s Israel versus Hamas (the elected ruling party of the Palestinians) and Hezbollah (a terrorist group that functions as Iran’s surrogate).

As is usual whenever this happens – and it’s become all too common in recent times – the din of condemnation of Israel is deafening compared to the whisper of support.

The Los Angeles Times, also known as Al Jezheera West, published an editorial today (15 July 2006) that clearly illustrates the moral vacuity of the Left on this issue, as well as their comrades in the UN and Europe.

Interestingly enough, as you’ll see, the piece was written by a professor of Jewish history at UCLA named Myers. Never having been the kind of person who pays attention to such things, I can’t say for sure, but I think Prof Myers may himself be Jewish. If so, he is very illustrative of a point to which I’ll return later.

Let me be perfectly clear on my own thoughts. I strongly support: the existence of Israel; its right to defend itself; its membership in the UN; US alignment with and support of Israel.

I base this on the following rationale: Israel is our only true ally in the Middle East, and – as trite as it may sound – it’s the right thing to do. Again, more on that later.

First let’s take a look at the editorial, which I have expurgated for brevity. I haven’t deleted anything that affects the tone, tenor, thrust, philosophy, etc., of the piece. I’ve simply deleted redundant or irrelevant sentences.

LAT (the editorial)

Me (my comment)

LAT:
 The Middle East's Symbolic Slugfest

Arabs strike, and Israelis hit back harder. Where's the creativity and courage in that?

By David N. Myers, DAVID N. MYERS teaches Jewish history at UCLA.
July 14, 2006 “

Me:
Notice the phrasing: placing the onus on Israel, the victim of the attack (was the rape victim wearing a mini-skirt? Weeeelllll……).

Perhaps the correct response, when someone shoots missiles at you, is to throw back roses? “Can’t we all just get along?” (in a whiny Rodney King voice). Let’s just hold hands and sing “Kumbaya”.

LAT: And so the power of symbols brings Israel and its Arab foes together again in a deadly dance. Driven by the need to protect these symbols, the competing sides have entered into yet another cycle of violence that threatens to plunge the region into a new abyss.

Me: Trying to draw a moral equivalence between the attacker and the victim.

LAT: Israel, in particular, must weigh these questions before acting further. It was goaded into action by the two sets of kidnappings and accompanying rocket attacks.

Me: A pretty strong goad!

LAT: Instead of adopting a "more restrained and level-headed policy," as the Israeli newspaper Haaretz counseled, Israel swallowed the bait of the terrorist groups that wanted nothing more than for it to react with massive force and propel the region into chaos.

Me: Yeah. Back to holding hands and “Kumbaya”.

LAT: Israel has the right to protect its citizens from attack. No self-respecting state would stand idly by while rockets fall on its cities. But a measured, targeted and finite response — and not necessarily an immediate one borne of wrath — would seem a far more prudent course.

Me: Well, I was taught that the best strategy for defeating your enemy is to destroy him. Pound him until he has either surrendered, or doesn’t exist anymore (that way he can’t come back at you later). I think Israel is showing commendable restraint.

I can’t figure out what Myers has in mind. Tit for tat? “You shoot ten rockets, then it’s our turn”? Is that how any war is won? (For the mentally challenged, the answer on that pop quiz is: “no”).

LAT: Of course, Israel is not solely to blame for the escalating violence.

Me: Wow, big of you, there, bud.

LAT: But as a sovereign state with a major army, it has to be the most responsible party.

Me: Why? Just because you hate Israel?

LAT: What, after all, can we expect from Hamas or Hezbollah?

Me: Being smart enough not to pick a fight with someone who’s going to clean your clock? Take that leap from 15^th Century lunacy to 21^st Century rationality (and bring the rest of your Islamo-fascist buddies with you)?

LAT: Before plunging even further into the darkness of war, Israel must weigh carefully the consequences of its actions, lest the force of symbols overtake sound reason.

Me: H+H (Hamas and Hezbollah), of course, please feel free to kidnap, attack, launch missiles, whatever. Hey, it’s all goooood!

That’s the attitude of the Left, the UN , and Europe. To illustrate how absurd their position is, let’s posit two scenarios:

1. H+H lay down their arms, cease all military action.

or

2. Israel lays down all its arms and ceases all military action.

Under which scenario does the violence in the region stop? Answer (for the mentally challenged – and liberals – once again): Both, but under #2, Israel is wiped off the face of the planet.

The other two issues I mentioned earlier. I am constantly amazed at the liberal and anti-Israel attitude of the Jewish community in this country. Not all individuals, of course, but a large percentage don’t support Israel’s actions, and the majority are liberal/Left. That, to me, is inexplicable.

Supporting Israel – aside from our treaty commitments, political considerations, etcetera – is the morally right thing to do. They are the only true democracy in the Middle East. Their nation was founded under UN mandate (one of the few things the UN got right). They are besieged by enemies who are also philosophically committed to our own destruction (a pragmatic aspect, also, to that one). THEY ARE THE VICTIMS, not the instigators.

 

The Senate Republicans and Bush, in pushing their “No Illegal Alien Left Behind” version of immigration reform – which includes amnesty, even though they won’t admit it – are committing political suicide in the long run.

Part of their justification for their approach, which some are at least honest enough to admit, is that they are, in essence, pandering for the future Hispanic vote.

But according to today’s LA Daily News they are badly misjudging what, to any rational person, will be the real and predictable outcome of this strategy:

"Article Launched: 7/14/2006 12:00 AM

Survey: Latinos more unified on immigration

BY RACHEL URANGA, Staff Writer
LA Daily News

In the wake of mass pro-immigration rallies and harsh public debate, a survey released Thursday shows Latinos feel more discrimination but also more politically united.

"Clearly both the marches and the immigration debate have made deep impressions on Latino public opinion," said Robert Suro, director of the Pew Hispanic Center and co-author of the study on Latino attitudes toward immigration.

The national survey of 2,000 Latinos - taken by phone between June 5 and July 3 in both English and Spanish - provided a peek into the varied feelings Latinos have about immigration.

While splits remained among different ethnic groups' generations and natives versus non-natives, nearly two-thirds believed the marches ushered in a new social movement. And about three-quarters - regardless of birthplace - said it would inspire political participation in the November elections.

A quarter of respondents said neither Republicans nor Democrats had the best position on immigration.

But the survey shows though political affiliation has changed little, those who believed the Republican Party had the best position on immigration dropped from 25 percent to 16 percent."

The main problem, of course, is that illegal aliens are for the most part exactly the demographic most likely to vote Democrat – if they ever become eligible to vote, such as being granted a fast-track to citizenship – as they are typically under-educated and unskilled. This is also the demographic most likely to be dependant on government-supplied social services.

Republicans will never be able to out-Democrat the Democrats. When are they going to learn that lesson?

 

I'm going to make a couple of ugly remarks here, and before I do I'll preface by saying that I spent five years in Iran; that's where I went to high school, in the school for dependants of Americans.

Further, I have a lot of relatives who are natives of that region (most now living in the US).

Additionally, I'm a native-born American, veteran of the Vietnam War, with a background in Military Intelligence and Special Ops.

Okay.

All that having been said, though I'm a strong supporter of the War on Terror, and think we absolutely should have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan, and think we should soldier on vigorously, there’s a significant problem that I think hasn’t been addressed if we’re to succeed:

I have said right from the get-go that until we take a truly aggressive and realistic approach -- which in my mind means taking every one of those mullahs and standing them up against a wall and putting a bullet in their heads -- there's no way we'll achieve the dreamed-of Western goal of some kind of true democracy. The clerics have too much influence, are erratic and unpredictable, and don’t share with us the goal of representative democracy as we in the West understand it. Are we willing to take that radical step? Probably not, in which case we may have to throw our weight behind a benign dictator. Someone like the former Shah of Iran: a pro-west, enlightened, non-despotic strongman.

My case on point: the Palestinians hold their first free elections, and whom do they put in power?

Hamas!

The Middle Eastern/Arab culture isn't based on the Mediterranean concept of civilization as we know it, i.e. Greco-Roman. Fortunately, that's where the roots of Western culture lie, within the concepts of Plato, Aristotle, taken forward through the Magna Carta, etc. The Middle Eastern, i.e. Arab culture is based on the nomadic desert tribal conflicts between rival clans scratching out a meager existence from the desert, with Mohammed (a psychotic megalomaniac) trying to impose order on chaos while envisioning himself as a messiah. That's why any vision of a truly democratic Middle East -- in the Western sense of the ideal and with the exception of Israel -- is a delusion.

That's simply the way it is, just like the sun rises in the east.

 

From what I’ve heard in the news, Rudy Giuliani has announced that he’ll seek the presidency as a Republican.

Let’s examine his credentials:

“Mayor Giuliani, when he was mayor of New York, basically said I'm not a Reagan Republican anymore, I'm a moderate Republican; I'm pro-choice, I'm for the Brady Bill, I'm for the assault weapons ban"
CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/04/06/national/main181115.shtml)

"But the contrast is not as sharp in Mrs. Clinton's expected contest with Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. The mayor and the first lady hold almost identical views on gun control, which could complicate any effort by Mrs. Clinton to draw a contrast. Mr. Giuliani's campaign manager, Bruce J. Teitelbaum, said, "As a senator, New Yorkers will know exactly what Mayor Giuliani will do because he doesn't just talk about gun control, he actually has a record of taking an historic number of guns off the streets."
NY Times on the Web, 10 May 2000

“Abortion Fits GOP Philosophy, Says Giuliani
By Jeff McKay
CNS Correspondent
April 09, 2001”

“Giuliani Touts Senate's 'Comprehensive' Approach to Immigration Policy

By IRA STOLL - Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 27, 2006

Mayor Giuliani is wading into the debate over America's immigration policy with the argument that the comprehensive approach being pursued by the Senate is better for American security than what he called the "punitive" approach being pressed by the House of Representatives.”

If Giuliani, McCain, or anyone like them somehow manages to get the Rep nomination, they'll have to eke out a victory without my help.

For those of you "moderates" who say the only way for the Rep party to win is to put up a RINO (Republican In Name Only), I say to you that you're all wet. The Rep candidate with the largest margins of victory was Reagan, and he stood unapologetically for strong conservative values.

The reason the last era of presidential races has been so close is that there's hardly a dime's worth of difference between the candidates. There's been NO Reagan Republican running since Ron himself. Nothing but a bunch of "moderate", "compassionate conservative", or whatever else they want to call themselves. Bottom line, they're Rockefeller Republicans, the "Country Clubbers" of the Republican party. These guys are about as exciting wet paint.

The American electorate is primed to respond to a candidate who can step forward and boldly articulate strong American values, and who has the guts to risk loss to promote his vision clearly, strongly, and unequivocally. Someone in step with the values, morals, and character of the average middle class American.

Does any of what I just wrote in the last paragraph sound at all like RUDY GIULIANI?????

 

For a couple of years or so, since the Abu Ghraib scandal, the Left has been trying everything they can to secure for terrorist captives the same rights enjoyed by US citizens under the Constitution. They try to equate terrorist behavior with criminal behavior, and treat it as a criminal offense, rather than an act of war.

A few days ago the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the Lefties herald as their vindication. Of course, it’s no such thing. As wrong-headed as the Hamdan decision is, it doesn’t release one single prisoner from Gitmo. All it does is throw the ball back into the legislative arena to determine the method for adjudicating the cases of the terrorist captives, essentially telling the President that the current method – tribunals – are not acceptable.

The problem with the Supreme’s decision, as written by Kennedy, is that it tends to confer rights to which the terrs aren’t entitled, and uses the Geneva Conventions as one of the justifications. That’s the fatal flaw in the decision.

The Geneva Conventions are only binding on signatory nations, and only apply to uniformed combat personnel. The terrs don’t represent a nation or state, don’t wear uniforms, don’t themselves honor any of the codes of the Convention, and therefore are not entitled to any considerations under the Convention. We’re talking here about people who torture and behead their captives, and mutilate the bodies.

There’s even historical precedent: during the Battle of the Bulge, German troops disguised themselves in American uniforms to misdirect and ambush American units. Any of those German troops who were captured were summarily executed in the field.

So my proposal to address the concerns of the Left, and conform to the Supreme Court’s decision: One 12 cent bullet, to the brainpan of any terrs captured alive. That’s my 12 cent solution.

No captives. No problems.

End of story.

 

When I came to LA in 1974, there were two daily newspapers with major circulation: the LA Times and the Daily News and Greensheet (which later became the LA Daily News).

At the time they had distinct and opposing editorial positions. The Times was (and remains) liberal. This was the era when the Soviet Union still existed, and a lot of people referred to it as Pravda West. The Daily News was a distinctly conservative voice.

I used to subscribe to the Sunday edition of the Times because I was young and still hadn’t developed the kind of resume that appealed to headhunters. I was always looking for a better job, and the Sunday Times’ classifieds were simply without peer.

However, I subscribed to the Daily News for my daily news. I did so for over twenty years.

Then a funny thing happened, right around the time of the 2000 elections. The Daily News started to change. I noticed it first in the Letters to the Editor section. More and more of the letters were from liberals. Then the paper started taking stances that at best could be called fence-straddling. Then they endorsed gun control proposals (a huge hot button for me), and finally endorsed Kerry for President in 2004.

I went ballistic and cancelled my subscription.

Now they’re endorsing the Senate version of immigration reform – the No Illegal Alien Left Behind Act.

They have, essentially, turned into the LA Times Lite.

Why this has happened one can only guess. Scrambling for market share in a medium that’s losing ground in general to alternatives such as talk radio and the Internet? The desire to be “taken seriously” by their peers in the press and the intelligentsia?

All I know is that they’ve turned into just another liberal fish-wrap. Too bad.

Well we're up and running, and this is my new blog.

There are those who will ask: "What does that mean, The View from the Island?" Well, I live in beautiful Southern California, in the Santa Clarita Valley (SCV) in Los Angeles County, a bastion of conservatism surrounded by a sea of liberalism, hence the "Island" metaphor.

I'm hoping to comment on a range of topics which interest me, with an emphasis on the macro (national and international), seasoned with the micro (local) viewpoint; a uniquely SoCal slant.

I'm hoping to visit at least daily, update, comment, and respond to input from others who may comment on this blog.

However, I DO have a job, family, and a life; if I anticipate an absence, I'll make it known ahead of time. Also, realistically speaking, there simply may not be something to say every single day. We'll see.

This is an experiment, the outcome of which is still unknown. Hopefully, it'll be fun -- for you and for me -- but only time will tell.

In the meantime, welcome.

Brian