More Richard Clarke–Did He Lie Under Oath

Fox News reports:

Former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke may have lied under oath when he faulted President Bush’s handling of the War on Terror, key Republicans in Congress contended Friday.

Republicans sought Friday to declassify two-year-old testimony by Clarke before the House and Senate intelligence committees.

“Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath,” Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in a speech on the Senate floor.

He also accused Clarke of “an appalling act of profiteering” by publishing a book that relied on access to insider information relating to the worst terrorist attacks in the nation’s history.

The State of Black America

Black America hasn’t fared well since Martin Luther King was assassinated. Read this columns (here, here, and here) by Courtland Milloy of the Washington Post. It’s good to see that even blacks who support state-sponsored racism (i.e. Affirmative Action) recognize that the most important change is for the black community to work to promote achievement and getting kids to believe that getting good grades and working hard isn’t selling out.

Linkage thanks to Ron Bailey at Reason.

Richard Clarke–Book Seller

The more I learn about Richard Clarke, the more I despise him. I don’t trust anything he says, such as that the Clinton Administration was more vigilant about terrorism than the Bush Administration. Why? Because in August 2002 Clarke himself told FoxNews that the Bush Administration was working harder to combat terrorism than the Clinton Administration. I don’t know what the truth is, but I know that Clarke is either lying now, or he lied in the interview. I’m more inclined to say that he is lying now so he can be more controversial and sell more copies of his precious new book. And make sure to read Time’s editorial on Clarke’s difficulty with telling the truth.

This story also stinks of media bias becuase the NYT and Washington Post are having a hard time sticking to their original story that Clinton was tougher on terrorism than Bush.

Pledge of Allegiance

I don’t like the Pledge of Allegiance, mostly because I don’t pledge my allegiance to the flag, but rather I owe my allegiance to my country to God. I don’t pledge allegiance to a symbol. Don’t get me wrong, I love the flag as a symbol. When I returned from Ecuador after living there for two years as a Mormon missionary I felt great to get off the plane, see the flag flying, and be reminded that I was back in the greatest country in the world. I loved Ecuador and the people there, but Ecuadorians don’t have the freedom we have here.

To me, the flag stands for freedom and liberty, while the Pledge of Allegiance, because of its origins, represents socialist indoctrination. I’m not making this up, read this, this, and a even less balance view here.

The Ridiculousness of Antitrust Law

I don’t quite understand. The EU is fining Microsoft because Microsoft hurts customers by placing too many features in Windows? What sense does that make? The EU argues that “Our decision is about protecting consumer choice and stimulating innovation.” How does it help customers to force Microsoft to sell two different versions of Windows–one with Media Player and one without? I don’t see how this helps anyone. Then again, the EU isn’t exactly a consumer friendly place, now is it?

Personally I hate Microsoft Media player and I use Winamp for all of my media needs (except for when I’m feeling in a audiophile mood and then I use Foobar2000).