The New Left's Economic Hypocrisy

Recently, I traveled down to Chapel Hill, North Carolina and got a pretty good tour of the college town. It is, like most other college towns that I have visited, made up of one street where everything is located. Shops that provide people the opportunity to purchase memorabila with the school's logo all over it, places to stop to get a bite to eat and, yes, the occasional pub to step in and have a pint all make up the strip that can be found on Franklin St., just a couple blocks from the UNC-Chapel Hill campus. The neighborhoods surrounding the area of the campus are just beautiful, with many of the houses for fraternities and sororities. But this college town has something that I have only seen in Austin: a large hippy community.

Now, hippies are supposed to be the ones among us who have no need for riches or material things because they are completely in touch with their spiritual side and therefore have transcended all earthly wants. Yet, in this town of Chapel Hill there are three organic grocery stores, and if you have never shopped at an organic grocery store, let me tell you that it is highly expensive when compared to your average grocery store. Don't get me wrong, organic groceries taste wonderful and do provide more nutrients than many of the foods that one can get at a regular grocery store, however; this good taste and clean living comes at a price, a high price. And beyond feeding your family, try buying a home to house them. The housing prices in Chapel Hill are comparable to the prices in Washington DC, except in Washington you get a much better pool of jobs and the nightlife is leaps and bounds better. Just take a look at this website and tell me if you think it is cost effective to live in Chapel Hill. http://www.newhomesource.com/search/home_results.aspx?refer=DMD181&fp=hr&pgn=3&seed=60&reqcnt=47&st=NC&mid=181&cty=Chapel+Hill&srchtype=qs

On this website, I did a search for homes that were priced between $150,000 and $300,000 with no results. Don't get me wrong, I am sure that there are some homes within this price range there, but they would hardly be considered large enough for a family, even a family with one child.

So what is the point I am trying to make with this? The point is this, much like in California, the hippies in Chapel Hill live a much different lifestyle than they wish to advertise with their unkempt hair and tattered, mis-matched clothing. They walk around in their hemp sandles and their tribal looking clothes as though they just stepped out of a Charleton Heston movie preaching how they are morally superior because they have, as I say, transcended all earthly wants, yet they live in one of the most expensive places to live in the country. How is it that a group of people who claim to have no love for Capitalism and money can afford the area in which they live? Simple: They have gone out and made their wealth. Not that I am against making wealth, quite the contrary. But I do find it rather hypocritcal to say that Capitalism is the root to the world's problems when you live in a home that averages no less than $300,000. Wouldn't you be more comfortabel--or at least more intellectually honest--to live in a commune or share a home with multiple like-minded families? No, you like your nice homes and fancy foods and privacy.

And, just to wrap this up. I went to a festival of sorts in a town that is practically inside Chapel Hill--this is where I saw the hippy-hypocrisy on display. And the place where I and my companion on this little trip parked was full of cars with "Kerry/Edwards '08" bumperstickers and other anti-Bush advertisements. Well, you know the average price for the cars that were in this parking lot? Let me just say, I saw Saabs, BMW's, and yes, some SUV's.

The Dems Say 'Bring 'Em On'

So I was over at The Hill newspaper and I saw this: http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/090606/security.html

Apparently the Democrats want to have the debate over national security, and, furthermore, they believe they can win it. In this piece on The Hill, the Dems go through all of thier usual complaints against the Bush Administration and the prosecution of the War on Terror, such as, invading Iraq. But as you read through this entire piece, you will notice that there is not one mention of what they would do. There is no "Iraq was a mistake, and this is how we would go about fighting terror," or "Though we think Iraq was a blunder, we are there and here is how to fix it." No, none of that; just a bunch of "Republicans suck!" So what is it that the Democrats would do? They may not come right out and unfold a plan that is cogent, but they have been telling us what they would do.

Let us start with Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del). Today FoxNews.com had a little retort to what President Bush has been saying for the past couple of weeks. In this retort, Biden says "The administration's most profound strategic mistake was not finishing the job in Afghanistan — which everyone agreed was the central front in the War on Terror — and rushing to war in Iraq, which was not." Okay, fair enough, but what was the Administration's list of things that could get a country in trouble with us? Was it not funding and supporting terror and terrorist organizations? Did Saddam Husseing not do this when he sent money to families of suicide bombers who killed hundreds of Israelis? Were there not Iraqi intelligence agents in Sudan during the time that Osama bin Laden was taking refuge there? Our intelligence community has done great work in re-evaluating the intelligence of the 90's which details the growth of al Qaeda as an international force. They have also gone through and determined that there was in fact a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Next on our list is Howard Dean. Today on Rush's show, a sound bite of Dean was played which details exactly how the Democrats would handle Iraq. "The Bush line is we can't leave Iraq because it will make us look weak. So essentially the president is proposing that we stay forever. Well, that is -- I hate to say, but that's just patently ridiculous. But I'm with George Aiken, the wonderful Vermont senator who once said about Vietnam, declare victory and get out." This was muttered on MSNBC after David Gregory asked what the Dems would do. Dean, in this statement, demonstrated that the Dems do not want to finish the job in Iraq. In effect, the Dems want to replay the desaster in Somolia. Of course, what they don't realize is that al Qaeda viewed Somolia as a huge victory and used that to set the tone for more devestating terror attacks, as they viewed the US as weak and not willing to face adversity. What would be their reaction to us leaving Iraq? And when did Bush or anyone in his Administration say that we would be in Iraq forever?

When you boil it all down, the Democrats' plan for fighting the War on Terror is to leave Iraq, concentrate purely on Afghanistan and go back to fighting al Qaeda in the US Justice system. Well, Iraq is essential to the War on Terror, if only for the purpose of keeping the terrorists in that region and not being able to fly under the radar to rebuild and come at us here in the future. Afghanistan is not the only place where al Qaeda operated and it won't stop them from future operations by focusing solely on that country. And the 90's proved that the legal system is not the place to fight terror. What good are indictments if the defendant is in another country that is not willing to apprehend the suspect, let alone extridite him?

We need to keep the pressure on in the Middle East. Now is not the time to let up and come home, or half-heartedly fight them in Afghanistan. As I have stated numerous times on this website, we need to press forward and begin preparations to hit the next target: Iran.