Sunday, August 31, 2003
The Observer | West must allow Iraqis the chance to manage our own country:
Consider the fevered pitch of the rhetoric surrounding the 'Palestinian cause.' Cries of "Zionism=racism, Israel is committing genocide, using brutal force, destroying the Arab culture, and livelihood..." a mixture of exaggerated distortions, persecution complex, and spinning security procedures (undeniably necessary in the face of weekly terror attack attempts) as oppression. Besides the PA, is there any other equally well-armed, well-funded group claiming human rights violations?
The suffering of the Kurdish people has been far worse than anything happening in the West Bank or Gaza, and only recently ended with the removal of the Ba'ath Nazis. Have you heard much about it? Was it front page?
The chemical genocide in Halabja, a nightmarish pogrom with mass murder weapons, casts into sharp relief how the suffering of the Palestinian/Jordanians is magnified beyond proportion due to the ethnic identities of the parties involved.
The intifadeh is a proxy religious war, a pan-Arabist jihad against Jews (to reclaim honor after the Naqba of 1948), masquerading as a territorial war.
The Kurds were allowed to suffer without much attention from the Middle East because their antagonists were Arab Muslims. And try as it might (not!), the Middle East can't get as angry when brutality is perpetrated by one of their own.
"The Kurds were dispossessed - emasculated in the new international system based on nation-states and marginalised politically and geographically. We were forced to fight successive Iraqi regimes to preserve our culture, livelihood and honour. Last week we saw the capture of one of the most evil men ranged against us - Hassan ali Majjid, known to everyone as Chemical Ali for his brutal use of chemical weapons against my people."
------
"As Kurds and Iraqis, we are profoundly grateful to the allies for getting rid of Saddam and for capturing men like Chemical Ali. They now have to make sure that malevolent and reactionary forces are no longer able to gain power and to use such power in the pursuit of racist and genocidal policies."
Consider the fevered pitch of the rhetoric surrounding the 'Palestinian cause.' Cries of "Zionism=racism, Israel is committing genocide, using brutal force, destroying the Arab culture, and livelihood..." a mixture of exaggerated distortions, persecution complex, and spinning security procedures (undeniably necessary in the face of weekly terror attack attempts) as oppression. Besides the PA, is there any other equally well-armed, well-funded group claiming human rights violations?
The suffering of the Kurdish people has been far worse than anything happening in the West Bank or Gaza, and only recently ended with the removal of the Ba'ath Nazis. Have you heard much about it? Was it front page?
The chemical genocide in Halabja, a nightmarish pogrom with mass murder weapons, casts into sharp relief how the suffering of the Palestinian/Jordanians is magnified beyond proportion due to the ethnic identities of the parties involved.
The intifadeh is a proxy religious war, a pan-Arabist jihad against Jews (to reclaim honor after the Naqba of 1948), masquerading as a territorial war.
The Kurds were allowed to suffer without much attention from the Middle East because their antagonists were Arab Muslims. And try as it might (not!), the Middle East can't get as angry when brutality is perpetrated by one of their own.
Saturday, August 30, 2003
CHARITY OF THE DAY
Mercy Ships has three vessels full of volunteers helping out in war-torn and impoverished areas.
If you've considered giving up a few months of time to contribute some of your blessings to others in the world, consider Mercy Ships. If you want to make a direct impact on hurting people in the world, donate. A boat full o' saints.
Mercy Ships has three vessels full of volunteers helping out in war-torn and impoverished areas.
If you've considered giving up a few months of time to contribute some of your blessings to others in the world, consider Mercy Ships. If you want to make a direct impact on hurting people in the world, donate. A boat full o' saints.
Islamic law
You may have read that jihad merely means internal struggle. It should not be presented to mean "holy war," as it often is in Western media, according to CAIR.
How does one explain this:
The objectives of jihad:
Compare with "In your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. Do this with gentleness and respect." I Peter 3:15
You may have read that jihad merely means internal struggle. It should not be presented to mean "holy war," as it often is in Western media, according to CAIR.
How does one explain this:
o9.0 Jihad means to war against non-Muslims and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad....
The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as: (1) Fighting is prescribed for you (Koran 2:216); (2) Slay them wherever you find them (Koran 4:89); (3) Fight the idolators utterly (Koran (9:36) and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace ) said, "I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah"; and the hadith reported by Muslim, "To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it."
The objectives of jihad:
o9.8The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians (provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)--which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself--while remaining in their ancestral religions), (and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (in accordance with the word of Allah Most High.
o9.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax).
Compare with "In your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. Do this with gentleness and respect." I Peter 3:15
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
Of Bleeding Hearts and misunderstandings
Webster's Dictionary defines bleeding heart as "one who shows extravagant sympathy esp. for an object of alleged persecution."
I would like that better if the definition said something about taking action to end persecution. Sympathy is mere emotion, can be patronizing and paralyzing. If it leads to viewing the object of sympathy with an unrealistic exaltation, it can swell into self-righteousness.
"Compassionate conservative," as a label, draws scoffs and sneers from cynics who deem Republicans to be hard-hearted and callous (even if the cynic has done nothing for the poor himself). I've met thousands of kind-hearted, giving, generous, unselfish people vote GOP. There are millions more: note the affinities between conservative groups and charitable organizations. Republican people who would willingly sacrifice years of their life, or large chunks of their resources, to volunteer far from home or to contribute to help out the destitute, infirm, orphaned, sufferers in abject poverty.
But these same people believe in limited government and lower taxes. So they are considered uncompassionate.
Thus I've begun using the term "bleeding heart": not only because I want to represent a life of compassion and caring, but because the other label was weighted with political baggage, as though conservatives suddenly decided to slap on the label 'compassionate' because it looks good to the voters.
I strongly feel the same as a lot of liberals: the rich should help the less fortunate and downtrodden, the strong aid the weak. I think it is a sign of mental illness to buy a $3,000 watch (or a $200,000 car). I think it is hideous that 3rd-world laborers get pennies per day while a CEO, of the same company, who performs poorly, might get an 8-figure severance after he or she is fired.
I think companies should seek to have a diverse employee base at all levels, not have monochromatic upper management. We should all be open to the stranger or foreigner, live simply that others might simply live.
"To whom much has been given much shall be required." But where liberals and many of us in the Republican party agree on the ends, we disagree on the means.
I am a conservative because of my belief that government can't change these things via restrictive legislation and confiscatory taxes, without causing worse problems. The abridgement of freedom is just as deleterious to an open and fair society. The poor are suffer more in a bad economy than the rich, and capital-draining taxes do not strengthen economic growth.
Affirmative action is another great example: employers are taking steps to create a diverse work-force without needing a law: it's good business as well as a moral choice. They are taking initiative and hiring the best people for the job. Pres. Bush hired Condoleezza Rice since she was the most qualified. We don't need a law forcing a corporation to make a decision based solely upon a person's race: the better candidates will win-- there's every reason to believe, I should hope, they could be black or Hispanic!
And finally, can I really even fault the Rolex buyer? His puerile, ostentatious and over-priced status symbol put bread in the mouths of several dozen people, from the maker to the salesman to the shopkeeper.
On a personal level, extravagance is never healthy, creating silly indulgences and prodigality. In the final analysis, however, it's a private, spiritual decision: I'd rather have a free society with those excesses, than the alternative. And as long as there are "rich idiots looking to impress other rich idiots," the average citizen will have something to sell them.
Liberty is more important than equality.
Webster's Dictionary defines bleeding heart as "one who shows extravagant sympathy esp. for an object of alleged persecution."
I would like that better if the definition said something about taking action to end persecution. Sympathy is mere emotion, can be patronizing and paralyzing. If it leads to viewing the object of sympathy with an unrealistic exaltation, it can swell into self-righteousness.
"Compassionate conservative," as a label, draws scoffs and sneers from cynics who deem Republicans to be hard-hearted and callous (even if the cynic has done nothing for the poor himself). I've met thousands of kind-hearted, giving, generous, unselfish people vote GOP. There are millions more: note the affinities between conservative groups and charitable organizations. Republican people who would willingly sacrifice years of their life, or large chunks of their resources, to volunteer far from home or to contribute to help out the destitute, infirm, orphaned, sufferers in abject poverty.
But these same people believe in limited government and lower taxes. So they are considered uncompassionate.
Thus I've begun using the term "bleeding heart": not only because I want to represent a life of compassion and caring, but because the other label was weighted with political baggage, as though conservatives suddenly decided to slap on the label 'compassionate' because it looks good to the voters.
I strongly feel the same as a lot of liberals: the rich should help the less fortunate and downtrodden, the strong aid the weak. I think it is a sign of mental illness to buy a $3,000 watch (or a $200,000 car). I think it is hideous that 3rd-world laborers get pennies per day while a CEO, of the same company, who performs poorly, might get an 8-figure severance after he or she is fired.
I think companies should seek to have a diverse employee base at all levels, not have monochromatic upper management. We should all be open to the stranger or foreigner, live simply that others might simply live.
"To whom much has been given much shall be required." But where liberals and many of us in the Republican party agree on the ends, we disagree on the means.
I am a conservative because of my belief that government can't change these things via restrictive legislation and confiscatory taxes, without causing worse problems. The abridgement of freedom is just as deleterious to an open and fair society. The poor are suffer more in a bad economy than the rich, and capital-draining taxes do not strengthen economic growth.
Affirmative action is another great example: employers are taking steps to create a diverse work-force without needing a law: it's good business as well as a moral choice. They are taking initiative and hiring the best people for the job. Pres. Bush hired Condoleezza Rice since she was the most qualified. We don't need a law forcing a corporation to make a decision based solely upon a person's race: the better candidates will win-- there's every reason to believe, I should hope, they could be black or Hispanic!
And finally, can I really even fault the Rolex buyer? His puerile, ostentatious and over-priced status symbol put bread in the mouths of several dozen people, from the maker to the salesman to the shopkeeper.
On a personal level, extravagance is never healthy, creating silly indulgences and prodigality. In the final analysis, however, it's a private, spiritual decision: I'd rather have a free society with those excesses, than the alternative. And as long as there are "rich idiots looking to impress other rich idiots," the average citizen will have something to sell them.
Liberty is more important than equality.
Sunday, August 24, 2003
DON'T CALL US, WE'LL CALL YOU
How many times have you heard, "under President Bush, America has lost 2 million jobs"?
Hold the phone: are the ones screaming that every employment loss is directly attributable to Pres. Bush adamantly refusing to enter their phone numbers in the national Do Not Call registry? But what about those jobs?
Democrats support the 'Do Not Call' list. Not just by registering, but also by pushing for the legislation.
Will future speeches decrying the unemployment of millions "under this administration" note how many were telemarketing jobs ended through bipartisan and popular collaboration? Or will the fault always be Pres. Bush's?
How many times have you heard, "under President Bush, America has lost 2 million jobs"?
Hold the phone: are the ones screaming that every employment loss is directly attributable to Pres. Bush adamantly refusing to enter their phone numbers in the national Do Not Call registry? But what about those jobs?
The American Teleservices Association has petitioned the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver to review new Federal Communications Commission rules regarding the list. The group says the FCC rules are unconstitutional and could cost the nation 2 million jobs.Interesting number.
Democrats support the 'Do Not Call' list. Not just by registering, but also by pushing for the legislation.
Will future speeches decrying the unemployment of millions "under this administration" note how many were telemarketing jobs ended through bipartisan and popular collaboration? Or will the fault always be Pres. Bush's?
Saturday, August 23, 2003
Saddam's al Qaeda Connection
The worst argument offered by the anti-liberation crowd as to why the world should allow the rapacious, murderous status quo in Iraq (in the name of peace and justice) was a riposte to allegations of terrorist ties to Baghdad: "Osama would never accept anything from Saddam, money or weapons."
Silly and counter-intuitive, I know, but these armchair analysts presumed to negate the very idea that a religious fundamentalist could ever work with a secular Ba'athist against a common enemy.
The profundity of such ignorance of recent Middle East history is breathtaking-- another example of a maniacally eager, desperate effort to invalidate the case against a fascist tyrant. Desite their belief in Al Qaeda's aversion to Iraq, recall that they somehow simultaneously expected a massive increase in terrorist recruitment, and huge sympathy from the Arab street.
They forget several things. First, the butcher of Baghdad "found religion," as he became an international pariah. He made a great show of religious observance. He may have even believed he was pious, for all we know.
Second, they forget ethnocentrism. It's not hard to find quotes such as this from Arab media:
Third: They had common goals: to elevate Arabs and Dar al Islam, to attack Israel, to attack America, to attack the West. This is a stronger by far than their differences, especially considering Saddam's representatives may have shown sincere religious fervor, winning over the fundamentalists.
Yeah, I know. It doesn’t prove the connections between Saddam Hussein and 9-11 yet; but he didn't mind if people thought he had one. Remember, UN inspectors were able to have seen this.
UPDATE: Remember old Moammar Qaddafi/Ghadafy (he of many spellings)? He was also a 'secular' despot, one which fundamentalists, if we apply the same logic as the anti-Bush cabal, would reject. Well, in the early 80's, Islamic terrorist groups set up 50 camps in Southern Libya.
THE ADMINISTRATION'S CRITICS, including several of the Democratic presidential candidates, have alluded to new "evidence" they say confirms Iraq and al Qaeda had no relationship before the war. They have not shared it.
Even as the critics withhold the basis for their allegations, evidence on the other side is piling up. Ansar al-Islam--the al Qaeda cell that operated out of northern Iraq before the war, attacking Kurdish enemies of Saddam--has stepped up its activities elsewhere in the country. Ansar is joining with remnants of Saddam's regime to attack Americans and nongovernmental organizations working in Iraq.
Farouk Hijazi, former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey and Saddam's longtime outreach agent to Islamic fundamentalists, has been captured. In his initial interrogations, Hijazi admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994. According to administration officials familiar with his questioning, he has subsequently admitted additional contacts, including a meeting in late 1997.
The worst argument offered by the anti-liberation crowd as to why the world should allow the rapacious, murderous status quo in Iraq (in the name of peace and justice) was a riposte to allegations of terrorist ties to Baghdad: "Osama would never accept anything from Saddam, money or weapons."
Silly and counter-intuitive, I know, but these armchair analysts presumed to negate the very idea that a religious fundamentalist could ever work with a secular Ba'athist against a common enemy.
The profundity of such ignorance of recent Middle East history is breathtaking-- another example of a maniacally eager, desperate effort to invalidate the case against a fascist tyrant. Desite their belief in Al Qaeda's aversion to Iraq, recall that they somehow simultaneously expected a massive increase in terrorist recruitment, and huge sympathy from the Arab street.
They forget several things. First, the butcher of Baghdad "found religion," as he became an international pariah. He made a great show of religious observance. He may have even believed he was pious, for all we know.
Second, they forget ethnocentrism. It's not hard to find quotes such as this from Arab media:
Jordanian: Of course I support Saddam. He's Arab.
Interviewer: Well, there are good Arabs, and bad Arabs...
Jordanian: (scoffing) The worst Arab is better than the best American! Or Zionist. Or British.
Third: They had common goals: to elevate Arabs and Dar al Islam, to attack Israel, to attack America, to attack the West. This is a stronger by far than their differences, especially considering Saddam's representatives may have shown sincere religious fervor, winning over the fundamentalists.
Yeah, I know. It doesn’t prove the connections between Saddam Hussein and 9-11 yet; but he didn't mind if people thought he had one. Remember, UN inspectors were able to have seen this.
UPDATE: Remember old Moammar Qaddafi/Ghadafy (he of many spellings)? He was also a 'secular' despot, one which fundamentalists, if we apply the same logic as the anti-Bush cabal, would reject. Well, in the early 80's, Islamic terrorist groups set up 50 camps in Southern Libya.
Palestinian Child Abuse
You hear a lot about how America's strong-armed tactics have squandered the good will of the world. That after the surge of sympathy post-terror attacks, we could have held onto it if we weren't so "arrogant."
Does that same logic apply to the Palestinians? Has their militarism squandered the world's sympathy?
It's hard to have hope.
I feel pity for these kids, and angry. If their parents would lay down the weapons, and deal with the Israelis in civilized negotiations, their lives would instantly improve. How can the Israelis deal with a commmunity calling for blood, whipping up jihad frenzy?
Consider that the Jerusalem bus bombing last week killed several infants. Consider that the Palestinians handed out sweets to each other in celebration.
You hear a lot about how America's strong-armed tactics have squandered the good will of the world. That after the surge of sympathy post-terror attacks, we could have held onto it if we weren't so "arrogant."
Does that same logic apply to the Palestinians? Has their militarism squandered the world's sympathy?
It's hard to have hope.
I feel pity for these kids, and angry. If their parents would lay down the weapons, and deal with the Israelis in civilized negotiations, their lives would instantly improve. How can the Israelis deal with a commmunity calling for blood, whipping up jihad frenzy?
Consider that the Jerusalem bus bombing last week killed several infants. Consider that the Palestinians handed out sweets to each other in celebration.
Old news, missed it before. Dearborn, MI Iraqis celebrated the deaths of Uday and Qusay --ptui!-- while the dems, press, and Al Jazeera gnashed their teeth and seethed.
But where are the WMD's? blahblahblah
"The Arab media still portray them as heroes, not the murderous criminals they really are," said Al-Hashimi, showing deep scars around his wrists, which he said were the result of torture when he was imprisoned for opposing Saddam's regime.
But where are the WMD's? blahblahblah
"Once a man has been given the reputation of an early riser, he can sleep until noon." --Mark Twain
As I look at our main political parties, and their respective reputations (stereotypes?), it occurs to me that a democrat can get away with things that a Republican cannot.
Rockefeller and Kennedy come to mind: rich, greedy, indolent party boys, one of whom got kicked out of college. But give them the reputation of a "friend of the downtrodden," and they can be as self-indulgent as they like.
(Thank you to Jay Currie.)
Just in case you think this is a tasteless photo-shop joke or a "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"-type forgery, follow this link: Al Muhajiroun. Be sure to bring a barf bag.
Don't be afraid. Be angry. And then get busy. Pray for God to reform their twisted souls. Let your community know. This is not something to ignore.
Friday, August 22, 2003
Another Question on Iraq
If you opposed the war, but would have supported it with UN approval, why do you not fault the UN for its unconscionable abandonment of the Iraqi people?
"Iraq is a sovereign nation."
Yes, with an unelected autocratic despot, who seized power in an illegal coup, bankrupting the populace and destroying lives and security in the region. No need to revisit his human rights abuses, I should hope.
So we did the morally right thing, but had no legal right to do it, eh?
If you opposed the war, but would have supported it with UN approval, why do you not fault the UN for its unconscionable abandonment of the Iraqi people?
"Iraq is a sovereign nation."
Yes, with an unelected autocratic despot, who seized power in an illegal coup, bankrupting the populace and destroying lives and security in the region. No need to revisit his human rights abuses, I should hope.
So we did the morally right thing, but had no legal right to do it, eh?
Thursday, August 21, 2003
On willful misinterpretation of the 1st amendment
The Anti-Christian Leftist Union (ACLU) has struck again:
Fisking:
"I can't understand why someone would be in favor of this guy keeping his monument."
Well, some people believe in freedom of speech. Some people dislike hypocrisy.
What's on that "monument"?
Ideas. Words. Ancient law. The decalogue. Tradition.
I can't understand why this bothers anyone.
(And is it HIS monument?)
"when Federal Court, Federal Appeals Court, the Supreme Court and his own Court have all told him he can't"
When did they get the right to be so unfair? The Supreme Court has these same words on one of its walls. And the Supreme Court has not ruled on this issue at all-- they didn't hear the case.
" (and when the Constitution pretty clearly denies him the right to)."
I defy anyone to find the place in the Constitution that says judges have no freedom of speech. That says carvings with ideas are not allowed in a public place. That says the court has a right to remove another person's statue...
A curious concept of rights and freedom.
In the end, the reason the ACLU is dead wrong is this: many government facilities harbor statuary and monuments which are inscribed with text, some of which comes from >>horrors<< religious sources. Unless we apply a fair (or equally unfair) standard and remove ALL such horrific and frightening (to certain types) words, then it is grossly unfair to tell one judge that he must comply with an unconstitutional abridgement of his freedoms. It seems arbitrary.
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's it. Nowhere is there a prohibition against words, however derived, present in public places.
If Moore was a Hammurabic scholar and wanted to post Rosetta laws, you know what? Nobody WOULD CARE. Nobody would have sued to have them removed...
Which is, in the end, the entire point. The establishment clause does not mean that all religious ideas, words, and contexts are anathema on public property.
UPDATE: Several of you have pointed out that he is in breach of the law, and you're right. My statement here is the context of the case. I agree that he should comply with the law, and fight it in court on appeal. He should not defy the court order.
The Anti-Christian Leftist Union (ACLU) has struck again:
Fisking:
"I can't understand why someone would be in favor of this guy keeping his monument."
Well, some people believe in freedom of speech. Some people dislike hypocrisy.
What's on that "monument"?
Ideas. Words. Ancient law. The decalogue. Tradition.
I can't understand why this bothers anyone.
(And is it HIS monument?)
"when Federal Court, Federal Appeals Court, the Supreme Court and his own Court have all told him he can't"
When did they get the right to be so unfair? The Supreme Court has these same words on one of its walls. And the Supreme Court has not ruled on this issue at all-- they didn't hear the case.
" (and when the Constitution pretty clearly denies him the right to)."
I defy anyone to find the place in the Constitution that says judges have no freedom of speech. That says carvings with ideas are not allowed in a public place. That says the court has a right to remove another person's statue...
A curious concept of rights and freedom.
In the end, the reason the ACLU is dead wrong is this: many government facilities harbor statuary and monuments which are inscribed with text, some of which comes from >>horrors<< religious sources. Unless we apply a fair (or equally unfair) standard and remove ALL such horrific and frightening (to certain types) words, then it is grossly unfair to tell one judge that he must comply with an unconstitutional abridgement of his freedoms. It seems arbitrary.
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's it. Nowhere is there a prohibition against words, however derived, present in public places.
If Moore was a Hammurabic scholar and wanted to post Rosetta laws, you know what? Nobody WOULD CARE. Nobody would have sued to have them removed...
Which is, in the end, the entire point. The establishment clause does not mean that all religious ideas, words, and contexts are anathema on public property.
UPDATE: Several of you have pointed out that he is in breach of the law, and you're right. My statement here is the context of the case. I agree that he should comply with the law, and fight it in court on appeal. He should not defy the court order.
The ultimate bleeding heart conservative case study
First, this is horrible. My condolences to the families that have lost loved ones.
Socialism is emotionally appealing but just doesn't work. It hurts the poor more than it helps. Here's proof, from Hawken:
Chirac Admits Health Care System was Flawed
So. Temps of 104 degrees. A regularity in the Southern USA.
Does anyone want to tell me this would have happened here, in our capitalist "medical system"? The one the Dems condemn? (condemnocrats?)
Uh uh. Doesn't happen. Wouldn't happen.
This crisis of failure, this crisis of indolence and poor work ethics in France, is echoed to some degree by the USA education system. Too many teachers don't genuinely care about the students. But when they're slack, the students don't die of heat stroke.
Socialism just doesn't work.
First, this is horrible. My condolences to the families that have lost loved ones.
Socialism is emotionally appealing but just doesn't work. It hurts the poor more than it helps. Here's proof, from Hawken:
Chirac Admits Health Care System was Flawed
''Everything will be done to correct the insufficiencies that we noted in our health system,'' the president said in an address after a Cabinet meeting on the heat that baked France in the first two weeks of August.
The minister for the elderly, Hubert Falco, said after the meeting that ''most probably'' 10,000 people died. That matched an estimate released a day earlier by France's largest chain of undertakers.
The heat wave, which saw temperatures go as high as 104, caused morgues and funeral homes to overflow with bodies, overwhelmed hospitals and prompted painful soul-searching about France's attitudes about the elderly.
-----
Some critics blamed families for abandoning elderly relatives alone at home while they took August vacations. Health workers blamed understaffing and underfunding at hospitals and retirement homes.
-------
He called the heat wave ''exceptional,'' echoing some government health officials who said little more could have been done to save lives in such extreme weather.
----
Chirac was vacationing in Canada during the heat wave -- his decision not to break off his vacation irked some of Chirac's opponents.
----
He also said emergency services would be given means to better deal with temporary crises. He stopped short, however, of saying whether the government — would give emergency services more funding.
France's medical system is widely regarded as one of the best in the world. But some health workers said it fell short in August because of a law which has restricted France's working week to 35 hours, which has led to staff shortages, and because hospital and retirement home workers were on holiday.
So. Temps of 104 degrees. A regularity in the Southern USA.
Does anyone want to tell me this would have happened here, in our capitalist "medical system"? The one the Dems condemn? (condemnocrats?)
Uh uh. Doesn't happen. Wouldn't happen.
This crisis of failure, this crisis of indolence and poor work ethics in France, is echoed to some degree by the USA education system. Too many teachers don't genuinely care about the students. But when they're slack, the students don't die of heat stroke.
Socialism just doesn't work.
Wednesday, August 20, 2003
George Orwell: Pacifism and the War:This truth can never be repeated often enough.
I just created an updated, bowdlerized, modified version of Orwell's famous essay (original at above link), with apologies to Simon Blair:
Pacifism is objectively pro-terrorist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’.
The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from, and superior to the struggle is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Noam Chomsky remarks that ‘according to this type of reasoning, an Iraqi or Palestinian pacifist would be “objectively pro-Western”.’ But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while the Islamists, Palestinians and the Wahhabists do all they can to encourage the spread of leftist pacifism in European and American territories, such as through "Middle-Eastern Studies" at major universities. They would stimulate pacifism in Israel as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with.
In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
I am not interested in pacifism as a ‘moral phenomenon’. If Noam Chomsky and others imagine that one can somehow ‘overcome’ the Al Qaeda/HAMAS army by lying on one’s back, let them go on imagining it, but let them also wonder occasionally whether this is not an illusion due to security, too much money and a simple ignorance of the way in which things actually happen. It always makes me shout with laughter to hear, for instance, Gandhi named as an example of the success of non-violence. [why?] As long as twenty years ago it was cynically admitted in Anglo-Indian circles that Gandhi was very useful to the British government. [ooooh!] Despotic governments and terrorists can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home, believing there's is always the superior; what they fear is physical force.
But though not much interested in the ‘theory’ of pacifism, I am interested in the psychological processes by which pacifists who have started out with an alleged horror of violence end up with a marked tendency to be fascinated by the success and power of Islamic jihads. Even pacifists who wouldn’t own to any such fascination are beginning to claim that a Muslim victory is desirable in itself.
I object to the intellectual cowardice of people who are objectively and to some extent emotionally pro-terrorist, but who don’t care to say so and take refuge behind the formula ‘I am just as anti-Saddam or anti-terrorist as anyone, but—’. The result of this is that so-called peace propaganda is just as dishonest and intellectually disgusting as war propaganda. Like war propaganda, it concentrates on putting forward a ‘case’, obscuring the opponent’s point of view and avoiding awkward questions. The line normally followed is ‘Those who fight against terrorism go terrorist themselves.’ War is terrorism, after all, to them.
In order to evade the quite obvious objections that can be raised to this, the following propaganda-tricks are used:
1. The "terrorizing" processes occurring in America as a result of war are systematically exaggerated.
2. The actual record of terrorism, especially its pre-9/11 history, is ignored or pooh-poohed as ‘propaganda’. Discussion of what the world would actually be like if Islam dominated it is evaded.
3. Those who want to struggle against terrorist Islamics are accused of being wholehearted defenders of capitalist ‘democracy’. The fact that the rich everywhere tend to be pro-Fascist and the working class are nearly always anti-Fascist is hushed up.
4. It is tacitly pretended that the war is only between America and the rest of the world. Mention of Europe and Africa, and their fate if Islamic fascism is permitted to win, is avoided.
-----------
UPDATE: Remember, Orwell was anti-communist but a socialist. I only changed a few names and labels, hardly any text. He says socialist things, with which I don't agree, in places.
I just created an updated, bowdlerized, modified version of Orwell's famous essay (original at above link), with apologies to Simon Blair:
Pacifism is objectively pro-terrorist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’.
The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from, and superior to the struggle is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Noam Chomsky remarks that ‘according to this type of reasoning, an Iraqi or Palestinian pacifist would be “objectively pro-Western”.’ But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while the Islamists, Palestinians and the Wahhabists do all they can to encourage the spread of leftist pacifism in European and American territories, such as through "Middle-Eastern Studies" at major universities. They would stimulate pacifism in Israel as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with.
In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
I am not interested in pacifism as a ‘moral phenomenon’. If Noam Chomsky and others imagine that one can somehow ‘overcome’ the Al Qaeda/HAMAS army by lying on one’s back, let them go on imagining it, but let them also wonder occasionally whether this is not an illusion due to security, too much money and a simple ignorance of the way in which things actually happen. It always makes me shout with laughter to hear, for instance, Gandhi named as an example of the success of non-violence. [why?] As long as twenty years ago it was cynically admitted in Anglo-Indian circles that Gandhi was very useful to the British government. [ooooh!] Despotic governments and terrorists can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home, believing there's is always the superior; what they fear is physical force.
But though not much interested in the ‘theory’ of pacifism, I am interested in the psychological processes by which pacifists who have started out with an alleged horror of violence end up with a marked tendency to be fascinated by the success and power of Islamic jihads. Even pacifists who wouldn’t own to any such fascination are beginning to claim that a Muslim victory is desirable in itself.
I object to the intellectual cowardice of people who are objectively and to some extent emotionally pro-terrorist, but who don’t care to say so and take refuge behind the formula ‘I am just as anti-Saddam or anti-terrorist as anyone, but—’. The result of this is that so-called peace propaganda is just as dishonest and intellectually disgusting as war propaganda. Like war propaganda, it concentrates on putting forward a ‘case’, obscuring the opponent’s point of view and avoiding awkward questions. The line normally followed is ‘Those who fight against terrorism go terrorist themselves.’ War is terrorism, after all, to them.
In order to evade the quite obvious objections that can be raised to this, the following propaganda-tricks are used:
1. The "terrorizing" processes occurring in America as a result of war are systematically exaggerated.
2. The actual record of terrorism, especially its pre-9/11 history, is ignored or pooh-poohed as ‘propaganda’. Discussion of what the world would actually be like if Islam dominated it is evaded.
3. Those who want to struggle against terrorist Islamics are accused of being wholehearted defenders of capitalist ‘democracy’. The fact that the rich everywhere tend to be pro-Fascist and the working class are nearly always anti-Fascist is hushed up.
4. It is tacitly pretended that the war is only between America and the rest of the world. Mention of Europe and Africa, and their fate if Islamic fascism is permitted to win, is avoided.
-----------
UPDATE: Remember, Orwell was anti-communist but a socialist. I only changed a few names and labels, hardly any text. He says socialist things, with which I don't agree, in places.
MEMRI: Latest News of Hope in Iraq
The Arab Regimes are Shocked by the Prospect of a Successful Democracy in Iraq
Was Iraq Independent? Did It Constitute a State?
And in the same vein:
Sweeeet.
The Arab Regimes are Shocked by the Prospect of a Successful Democracy in Iraq
In a scathing criticism of the Arab League, an editorial in the daily affiliated with the Kurdish Democratic Party says
"… since the fall of the Ba'athist regime, and the liberation of the Iraqi people from it, the Arab countries have not paid any attention to the economic, political, and security problems that the Iraqis face… But under international public opinion pressure, the Arab League established a committee to look into the horrific crimes and mass-graves in Iraq. But aside from the report about its establishment, we have not heard anything from the committee… Suddenly, the official Arab interest has escalated following the establishment of the Governing Council… and its statement about the preparations for a constitution, free general elections, and a legitimate government based on a democratic federal regime. [And] suddenly, the Committee started to check what is happening in Iraq as if it was surprised by the prospect that democracy could succeed in Iraq …"
Since the Arab regimes were incapable of dealing with the Coalition occupation in Iraq, they reverted to attacking the Governing Council and accusing it of treason.
"…This style is not alien to the local culture… the Arab countries (and the official policies of the Arab League) want any possible substitute in Iraq except democracy and free pluralism, meaning that the Iraqis should give up their aspirations for democracy… The Iraqis will not agree to this."
Was Iraq Independent? Did It Constitute a State?
Al-'Adala asks whether Iraq, prior to the war, was actually independent, or even constituted a state. The paper answers by saying:
"We don't believe that there is anyone in Iraq or the region, or even the world, who does not realize that the country was ruled by a gang, and not by a government. And this gang broke all religious and civic laws. It usurped power and did not come to it through elections. Since day one, and for three decades, Saddam's gang lacked legitimacy… Most countries used the slogan of 'non-interference in [other Arab] domestic issues' in order to deal with it. They ignored the fact that this terrorist regime used chemical and other WMD against the Iraqi people…"
The article continued with a list of crimes committed by the former regime and concluded
"Regretfully, there are countries that have been shedding crocodile tears about Iraq's freedom and independence, although Iraq – for more than thirty years – was neither free nor independent."
And in the same vein:
Al-Ittihad (the main Kurdish newspaper) deals with the crimes committed by the former regime, and says
"it seems that the cronies of the former despotic regime, and their deposed president at their head, are still deluding themselves… The Iraqis scorn his audio messages, broadcasted by dubious TV channels, which are still circling in his orbit. It seems that delusion accompanies him like a shadow, and he still believe in his evil soul that he has authority and prestige…"
The article describes a host of thefts committed by Saddam Hussein at the expense of the Iraqi people and says that the reason for these crimes is simple:
"The deposed dictator has proven that he was the leader of large bunch of hooligans whose task was to steal the country's money…" [11]
Sweeeet.
"U.S. HAS HIGHEST ADULT IMPRISONMENT RATE in the world,” screamed the headline of a story in Monday’s Chicago Sun-Times.
This article buries the fact that the numbers include recidivism.
Inside the Leftist mind plays the 1938 movie “Angels with Dirty Faces.” Two juvenile delinquent kids are chased by the cops, and both try to escape by jumping a fence. One makes it, escapes punishment, and becomes a Roman Catholic priest played by Pat O’Brien. The other gets grabbed before he clears the fence, gets sent to learn crime from other delinquents in reform school, and becomes a gangster played by James Cagney.
The only difference between them, liberals believe, is that one got caught and was sent spiraling downward – as so many African-Americans are by prison experience and its blot on their job resume – while the other equally-criminal youngster outran police and became a veritable saint. The politically-correct subtext is that we are beneficiaries or victims of fate or luck or other forces beyond our control.
The delinquent that became a priest made a choice, one that he might have made after going into the justice system. The delinquent that was caught may well have committed more crimes even if he'd never been prosecuted.
That said, everyone has hope. For any crime other than murder, rape or molestation, the convict should be given a second chance.
This article buries the fact that the numbers include recidivism.
Inside the Leftist mind plays the 1938 movie “Angels with Dirty Faces.” Two juvenile delinquent kids are chased by the cops, and both try to escape by jumping a fence. One makes it, escapes punishment, and becomes a Roman Catholic priest played by Pat O’Brien. The other gets grabbed before he clears the fence, gets sent to learn crime from other delinquents in reform school, and becomes a gangster played by James Cagney.
The only difference between them, liberals believe, is that one got caught and was sent spiraling downward – as so many African-Americans are by prison experience and its blot on their job resume – while the other equally-criminal youngster outran police and became a veritable saint. The politically-correct subtext is that we are beneficiaries or victims of fate or luck or other forces beyond our control.
The delinquent that became a priest made a choice, one that he might have made after going into the justice system. The delinquent that was caught may well have committed more crimes even if he'd never been prosecuted.
That said, everyone has hope. For any crime other than murder, rape or molestation, the convict should be given a second chance.
Marduk reminds us of how hypocritical and unprincipled the "intifadeh" is.
To think that a group called the "Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade" got its start when Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount. The horror! A Jew walked on a piece of ground and looked inside a building!
The Middle East conflict: It's not about land. It's not about "oppression." It's certainly not about apartheid.
It's about religion. It is about a proxy war by defeated nations looking to salvage their honor and alleviate cognitive dissonance after a tiny nation overcame 5 Arab states that attacked it on the day of its birth.
To think that a group called the "Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade" got its start when Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount. The horror! A Jew walked on a piece of ground and looked inside a building!
The Middle East conflict: It's not about land. It's not about "oppression." It's certainly not about apartheid.
It's about religion. It is about a proxy war by defeated nations looking to salvage their honor and alleviate cognitive dissonance after a tiny nation overcame 5 Arab states that attacked it on the day of its birth.
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
CHARITY OF THE DAY
Then again, it's hardly charity when you give back to someone to whom you owe so much...
Then again, it's hardly charity when you give back to someone to whom you owe so much...
A joke that is more sad than funny
From a recent Jerusalem Post editorial
"Cannibals capture three hunters an American, a Briton, and an Israeli," begins a classic Israeli joke. The first two hunters make last requests typical to their nationalities, then it is the Israeli's turn. He asks that he be punched in the face.
The surprised cannibal grants the wish, at which point the Israeli pulls out a gun, shoots the chief, and frees himself and his friends. The American and Briton, furious, demand to know why he prolonged their terrifying experience when he had the power to free them all. The Israeli replies: "What? Are you mad? The UN would have condemned me as the aggressor."
From Shark Blog
From a recent Jerusalem Post editorial
"Cannibals capture three hunters an American, a Briton, and an Israeli," begins a classic Israeli joke. The first two hunters make last requests typical to their nationalities, then it is the Israeli's turn. He asks that he be punched in the face.
The surprised cannibal grants the wish, at which point the Israeli pulls out a gun, shoots the chief, and frees himself and his friends. The American and Briton, furious, demand to know why he prolonged their terrifying experience when he had the power to free them all. The Israeli replies: "What? Are you mad? The UN would have condemned me as the aggressor."
From Shark Blog
Growing Leftist and Middle Eastern Hatred
The new version of anti-Semitism, that of the Muslims and leftists, integrate these images into a new paradigm, depicting Jews not as outcasts within Western society but new world-class oppressors of the poor and downtrodden. This is an appeal far more likely to disarm liberals and leftists and even win their sympathy than the older forms of anti-Semitism that presumed a Jewish community of marginalized victims. As a result, the new anti-Semitism is much harder to counter by traditional methods that rely on exposure, education and shame.
Amen.
The new version of anti-Semitism, that of the Muslims and leftists, integrate these images into a new paradigm, depicting Jews not as outcasts within Western society but new world-class oppressors of the poor and downtrodden. This is an appeal far more likely to disarm liberals and leftists and even win their sympathy than the older forms of anti-Semitism that presumed a Jewish community of marginalized victims. As a result, the new anti-Semitism is much harder to counter by traditional methods that rely on exposure, education and shame.
Amen.
Public Education
Private-school teachers earn less in benefits and wages in most states, but often prefer it: the parents are often more involved.
The highest per-student public spending in the nation is in DC, yet they have the worst on-average testing rates.
At $9,300 per pupil, D.C. spends 75 percent more than Virginia. However, in reality, SAT scores in Virginia are five percent higher than in D.C. Furthermore, the four highest-spending states—Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and the District of Columbia—spend two-and-a-half times more than the four lowest spending states—Utah, Mississippi, Idaho, and Alabama. Nevertheless, average SAT scores in the more frugal states are 16 percent higher than in the big-spending states.
That's why the parents that care in DC's system are demanding freedom to send their kids to better schools.
It seems fairer than the present racist system of forcing poorer kids into highly subsidized, budget-bloated substandard schools. Free them to attend the lower-budget, unsubsidized higher quality schools.
A system of redistribution of wealth from the rich bad schools to the underfunded good schools is the kind of "socialism" I can admire.
Private-school teachers earn less in benefits and wages in most states, but often prefer it: the parents are often more involved.
The highest per-student public spending in the nation is in DC, yet they have the worst on-average testing rates.
At $9,300 per pupil, D.C. spends 75 percent more than Virginia. However, in reality, SAT scores in Virginia are five percent higher than in D.C. Furthermore, the four highest-spending states—Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and the District of Columbia—spend two-and-a-half times more than the four lowest spending states—Utah, Mississippi, Idaho, and Alabama. Nevertheless, average SAT scores in the more frugal states are 16 percent higher than in the big-spending states.
That's why the parents that care in DC's system are demanding freedom to send their kids to better schools.
It seems fairer than the present racist system of forcing poorer kids into highly subsidized, budget-bloated substandard schools. Free them to attend the lower-budget, unsubsidized higher quality schools.
A system of redistribution of wealth from the rich bad schools to the underfunded good schools is the kind of "socialism" I can admire.
Thursday, August 14, 2003
CURE AUTISM NOW has a fascinating java presentation about a young poet named Tito... with autism. Apparently he won't speak, and can't function independently. But his poetry (published!) is wonderful.
Check it out.
Check it out.
Don't ask a fish for a description of water
Some leftists scoff when I say that Iraq has the only truly free press in the Middle East. They say Bremer is ruling with an iron hand.
Well, tell me someone, where else can editorial writers castigate the ruling authorities in an Arabic nation and not get a taste of "the most merciful, the most beneficent" correction?
I asked one of the scoffers: do you think we have a free press? He said he thinks we're becoming a dictatorship. Look at the Dixie Chicks. Look at the embedded reporters in Iraq, the way the media is toeing the party line.
Now that's just plain moronic.
You can argue with ignorance, but it's hard to argue with STUPID.
Some leftists scoff when I say that Iraq has the only truly free press in the Middle East. They say Bremer is ruling with an iron hand.
Well, tell me someone, where else can editorial writers castigate the ruling authorities in an Arabic nation and not get a taste of "the most merciful, the most beneficent" correction?
I asked one of the scoffers: do you think we have a free press? He said he thinks we're becoming a dictatorship. Look at the Dixie Chicks. Look at the embedded reporters in Iraq, the way the media is toeing the party line.
Now that's just plain moronic.
You can argue with ignorance, but it's hard to argue with STUPID.
All the news that's fit to ignore
Isn't this worthy of a NYT headline? Isn't Al Qaeda still a direct national security threat?
Al-Qaeda chief told us Iraq supplied WMD material: US
One would think.
Isn't this worthy of a NYT headline? Isn't Al Qaeda still a direct national security threat?
Al-Qaeda chief told us Iraq supplied WMD material: US
One would think.
Ralph Peters:
Socialism, a doctrine born in Europe, struck very deep roots. The collective takes priority over the individual. The European social contract amounts to this: We will not let the talented rise too high, and we will not let the lazy fall too low. "Equality" doesn't mean equal opportunities, but equal limitations.
I get the feeling he's an objectivist.
Life isn't fair, of course. But too much enforced "fairness" robs life of its vitality. We Americans live in the one country where each of us, regardless of race or religion, has the chance to realize our potential. Reaching that potential is up to us. But our laws and our culture don't stand in our way.
Well said.
The only thing he gets wrong in the article is this:
Strategically, Europe is in danger of becoming the greatest impediment to positive change in the world. Europe clings to the international status quo, no matter how dreadful, simply because risk has been bred out of its culture. This leaves the United States (and Britain) with the choice of doing that which is necessary and just without Europe's support, or accepting the rules that made the 20th century history's bloodiest.
Consider that Iraqi Freedom came about through a (broadly) new European coalition, and the former Soviet nations are eagerly trying it our way. I think that "the greatest impediment to positive change in the world" are the extreme Left and jihadists (as curious an axis of hatred as there ever was). The Left represents a subset of Europe, although a hefty one. The jihadists represent a huge subset of Islam. But Europe in toto is not as Peters describes.
"You're thinking of Europe as France and Germany. That's Old Europe. The center of gravity is shifting to the newly independent states." -- Sec Def Don Rumsfeld
The USA and UK certainly lead the way, but are not the sole vanguard for all moral and just action in Europe. Keep an eye on Poland, the Baltics, the hardy Czechs, Romanians, Bulgarians, and the Ukrainians. They're going to surprise a lot of people this century.
Socialism, a doctrine born in Europe, struck very deep roots. The collective takes priority over the individual. The European social contract amounts to this: We will not let the talented rise too high, and we will not let the lazy fall too low. "Equality" doesn't mean equal opportunities, but equal limitations.
I get the feeling he's an objectivist.
Life isn't fair, of course. But too much enforced "fairness" robs life of its vitality. We Americans live in the one country where each of us, regardless of race or religion, has the chance to realize our potential. Reaching that potential is up to us. But our laws and our culture don't stand in our way.
Well said.
The only thing he gets wrong in the article is this:
Strategically, Europe is in danger of becoming the greatest impediment to positive change in the world. Europe clings to the international status quo, no matter how dreadful, simply because risk has been bred out of its culture. This leaves the United States (and Britain) with the choice of doing that which is necessary and just without Europe's support, or accepting the rules that made the 20th century history's bloodiest.
Consider that Iraqi Freedom came about through a (broadly) new European coalition, and the former Soviet nations are eagerly trying it our way. I think that "the greatest impediment to positive change in the world" are the extreme Left and jihadists (as curious an axis of hatred as there ever was). The Left represents a subset of Europe, although a hefty one. The jihadists represent a huge subset of Islam. But Europe in toto is not as Peters describes.
"You're thinking of Europe as France and Germany. That's Old Europe. The center of gravity is shifting to the newly independent states." -- Sec Def Don Rumsfeld
The USA and UK certainly lead the way, but are not the sole vanguard for all moral and just action in Europe. Keep an eye on Poland, the Baltics, the hardy Czechs, Romanians, Bulgarians, and the Ukrainians. They're going to surprise a lot of people this century.
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Weather Balloons? Who are they kidding?
How many balloons does a desert nation need? You want to see where all the sand is coming from? Want to confirm that, yep, it sure is hot and dry out here?
Isn't it possible those mobile labs in Iraq, painted in camoflage, had nefarious purposes?
If the DIA says they were for hydrogen production, I have to bow to greater knowledge. But how can they be so sure that pure-"H" was for weather ballons?
Since the moonbat tinfoil-hat crowd fondly ponders the most egregious and cynical motives for everything Bush does, let me now indulge in irresponsible conjecture and wild speculation.
The hydrogen was:
1. For deployment of chemical weapons balloons
2. To make a great big Saddam balloon for the Macy's parade
3. To float surveillance gear into the no-fly zones over Kurds
4. To smuggle anthrax to Syria
5. To hoist Uday and Qusay's victims for a long plummet to earth
Or maybe they were dual-use labs, and filled up balloons when not making chemical and biological weapons?
How many balloons does a desert nation need? You want to see where all the sand is coming from? Want to confirm that, yep, it sure is hot and dry out here?
Isn't it possible those mobile labs in Iraq, painted in camoflage, had nefarious purposes?
If the DIA says they were for hydrogen production, I have to bow to greater knowledge. But how can they be so sure that pure-"H" was for weather ballons?
Since the moonbat tinfoil-hat crowd fondly ponders the most egregious and cynical motives for everything Bush does, let me now indulge in irresponsible conjecture and wild speculation.
The hydrogen was:
1. For deployment of chemical weapons balloons
2. To make a great big Saddam balloon for the Macy's parade
3. To float surveillance gear into the no-fly zones over Kurds
4. To smuggle anthrax to Syria
5. To hoist Uday and Qusay's victims for a long plummet to earth
Or maybe they were dual-use labs, and filled up balloons when not making chemical and biological weapons?
I had a long talk with William Rivers Pitt, co-author with former weapons inspector Scott Ritter of the anti-Bush, anti-war novel, "War on Iraq." I was prompted to call him by his August 8th appearance in San Francisco along with Jim McDermott (D-WA) broadcast on C-SPAN.
I asked him if he could wave a magic wand, would he put Saddam back in power? He gave me an effective answer, "If I could remove him without all those boys dying or all those civilians dying I would." Since it was an unfair question, I guess I deserved that kind of answer: an impossible hypothetical gets another one.
As we talked it became clear that his number one issue is his belief that we went to war over a "lie," namely WMDs in Iraq. His main contentions are: 1. The WMDs are no longer viable if they are there. 2. Desert Fox destroyed most of his capabilities. 3. The "nefarious" OSP created the cabal that called for the war.
We discussed the improving lives of the Iraqis, and he surprised me by saying it wasn't about oil, it was about the Euro. Tony Blair didn't want the Euro to dominate the EU economy. He also was convinced that Bush did not make the decision, Rove and Cheney and Rumsfeld did.
I had called intending to win a few points, or get him to at least see another perspective. When I mentioned the Salman Pak airliner training facility, he said it might have been for legitimate purposes. This made it clear that while I was ready to believe the worst of Saddam, and the best of our government, he was ready to believe the best of Saddam, eager to believe the worst of our government.
I doubt if even the discovery of WMDs will change his mind.
I felt something new. I'm sick of defending the Bush administration. Not that Pitt changed my mind, but I am tired of apologia eternia, I am tired of having to rebuild the same case over and over.
These questions could be so easily settled with a better communication strategy, but what is the White House doing?
Ari Fleischer and his replacement McClellan failed, in my opinion, to contend the truth with passion. And those of us that believe in the reasons for liberating Iraq--and yes, I call it that-- are having to hear a constant stream of lies go unanswered in the public forums.
Do they not have answers to these questions? Do they not care that so many are calling the war "Slaughtergate"? Do they not realize that the far Left and the Jihadists form an axis of hatred?
I just wish there was more effort to deal effectively with these accusations. Open the floodgates, flood the zone with information. De-classify and allow investigations. Shut these people up.
-------------------------------------------
I asked him if he could wave a magic wand, would he put Saddam back in power? He gave me an effective answer, "If I could remove him without all those boys dying or all those civilians dying I would." Since it was an unfair question, I guess I deserved that kind of answer: an impossible hypothetical gets another one.
As we talked it became clear that his number one issue is his belief that we went to war over a "lie," namely WMDs in Iraq. His main contentions are: 1. The WMDs are no longer viable if they are there. 2. Desert Fox destroyed most of his capabilities. 3. The "nefarious" OSP created the cabal that called for the war.
We discussed the improving lives of the Iraqis, and he surprised me by saying it wasn't about oil, it was about the Euro. Tony Blair didn't want the Euro to dominate the EU economy. He also was convinced that Bush did not make the decision, Rove and Cheney and Rumsfeld did.
I had called intending to win a few points, or get him to at least see another perspective. When I mentioned the Salman Pak airliner training facility, he said it might have been for legitimate purposes. This made it clear that while I was ready to believe the worst of Saddam, and the best of our government, he was ready to believe the best of Saddam, eager to believe the worst of our government.
I doubt if even the discovery of WMDs will change his mind.
I felt something new. I'm sick of defending the Bush administration. Not that Pitt changed my mind, but I am tired of apologia eternia, I am tired of having to rebuild the same case over and over.
These questions could be so easily settled with a better communication strategy, but what is the White House doing?
Ari Fleischer and his replacement McClellan failed, in my opinion, to contend the truth with passion. And those of us that believe in the reasons for liberating Iraq--and yes, I call it that-- are having to hear a constant stream of lies go unanswered in the public forums.
Do they not have answers to these questions? Do they not care that so many are calling the war "Slaughtergate"? Do they not realize that the far Left and the Jihadists form an axis of hatred?
I just wish there was more effort to deal effectively with these accusations. Open the floodgates, flood the zone with information. De-classify and allow investigations. Shut these people up.
-------------------------------------------
Sgt . Stryker showed me this. He's Wesley Crusher, much to his dismay.
Note: I AM NOT A STAR TREK FAN.
I DO NOT GO TO CONVENTIONS OR WATCH MARATHONS.
But this is a fun survey. Click the photo:
Note: I AM NOT A STAR TREK FAN.
I DO NOT GO TO CONVENTIONS OR WATCH MARATHONS.
But this is a fun survey. Click the photo:
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
Q: How many leftists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: "We don't do corporate light!"
But they do corporate arson.
A: "We don't do corporate light!"
But they do corporate arson.
Saturday, August 09, 2003
Went to the King County GOP picnic today in Carnation, WA... a few observations:
It's great to learn about the candidates, but who wants to get a bunch of stickers shoved in his face the second he shows up? Let us get our bearings, get some popcorn, listen to the speeches, then walk over to your booth. If we want a sticker, we'll ask.
Almost all of the marketing for this event was through GOP newsletters and KTTH 770 AM... I have a feeling a lot more people would have come, but didn't know.
There seemed to be a bit of division going on. At the booth for Dr Reed Davis, grassroots candidate for Senate, I overheard a Nethercutt supporter getting rather rude. The GOP has got to unite to survive in this left-wing state.
Many booths seemed to have no purpose other than handing out literature-- but I found little passion or zeal, ardency or alacrity. One that stuck out was a Support Our Troops table, selling yellow-ribbon & heart pins. The lady there had a son in Iraq: she was clearly very proud of him, and wanted all of us to remember their sacrifice. On her cards was written: "Have you forgotten? They think you have!" Now, I wasn't aware of that: I thought they knew we cared. That got me thinking, that in this time in history, the local GOP should have this on its collective mind in an intense way. The Left has its "Not in Our Name" crowd. Well, fine, then-- freedom for the Middle East is in OUR name, thank you very much.
Supporting the troops should have loomed large over the whole event... but the keynote speakers didn't mention it.
The celebrities in attendance were Michael Medved, Ward Connerly, Jennifer Dunn, and Kirby Wilbur.
It's great to learn about the candidates, but who wants to get a bunch of stickers shoved in his face the second he shows up? Let us get our bearings, get some popcorn, listen to the speeches, then walk over to your booth. If we want a sticker, we'll ask.
Almost all of the marketing for this event was through GOP newsletters and KTTH 770 AM... I have a feeling a lot more people would have come, but didn't know.
There seemed to be a bit of division going on. At the booth for Dr Reed Davis, grassroots candidate for Senate, I overheard a Nethercutt supporter getting rather rude. The GOP has got to unite to survive in this left-wing state.
Many booths seemed to have no purpose other than handing out literature-- but I found little passion or zeal, ardency or alacrity. One that stuck out was a Support Our Troops table, selling yellow-ribbon & heart pins. The lady there had a son in Iraq: she was clearly very proud of him, and wanted all of us to remember their sacrifice. On her cards was written: "Have you forgotten? They think you have!" Now, I wasn't aware of that: I thought they knew we cared. That got me thinking, that in this time in history, the local GOP should have this on its collective mind in an intense way. The Left has its "Not in Our Name" crowd. Well, fine, then-- freedom for the Middle East is in OUR name, thank you very much.
Supporting the troops should have loomed large over the whole event... but the keynote speakers didn't mention it.
The celebrities in attendance were Michael Medved, Ward Connerly, Jennifer Dunn, and Kirby Wilbur.
Wednesday, August 06, 2003
Idea for a new cartoon series:
Continuing "Ed"-- The life of a young man surviving the dotcombobulated Nouveau Pauvre
Continuing "Ed"-- The life of a young man surviving the dotcombobulated Nouveau Pauvre
The following is an email exchange with my favorite liberal, Michael Totten:
Dear Mr. Totten,
You write:
His detractors accuse him of veering sharply to the right, but he's actually swung hard to the left.
yet
He has become too complicated to fit any reductionist label.
Let's just say that some truths necessarily supersede the easy application of political definitions. It's beyond those paradigms.
I have asked this of staunchly anti-war folks: "Would you oppose an internal revolution to overthrow the Baath in Iraq?"
Usually the answer was no, to which I replied, "So, what's the problem?"
The answers were usually tempestuous, stemming from distrust of Bush's motives (no mention of Blair's, the coalition's, or Congress's). Most said we have no right to decide who should be in power in a sovereign nation, have no right to break international law, etc. You've heard it all before.
My response: if they supported revolution, didn't they think Iraqis deeply longed for it, Shia and Kurds especially? Most would accede. "So then, wouldn't an internal rebellion have meant more killing and suffering, certainly? They attempted revolt, and were thoroughly crushed. Over 100,000 were slaughtered. So didn't we prevent more death than we caused?"
One might think this would at least inspire a pause to reflect, yet the usual response was to blame Bush senior for allowing that to happen, then to revisit suspicion of Bush junior and the "war for oil" without a breath. Around the time they got to the unilateral meme, I would mention they'd already agreed the Iraqi Kurds and Shia desired a revolution: "And thus we have another ally in the coalition, namely the Iraqi people themselves. How can this be unilateral?"
Of course, as Dale Carnegie said in "How to Win Friends," the only way to win an argument is not to have one.
BHC
___________________________________________________
Mr. C,
I really believe a huge amount of the opposition is purely partisan. American liberals are not anti-war or anti-unilateralist, as Bosnia and Kosovo demonstrated. (European opposition is another animal entirely.)
I wrote today's piece to make that point in a way that some of them might be able to understand.
Michael J. Totten
Bleeding Heart Liberal Realist
______________________________________________
Mr. Totten,
I really believe a huge amount of the opposition is purely partisan
Wouldn't that mean that a huge amount of the opposition is purely unprincipled?
I think it is a disgrace that some Republicans accused Clinton of "wag the dog" military action (in Europe and in Iraq).
Prior to Iraqi Freedom, I would ask opponents whether Desert Fox had also been pre-emptive and unilateral, whether WMD discovery was necessary to justify it, and whether Sec. Cohen's Dec. 19, 1998 assertion that Saddam could rebuild struck WMD facilities "within a year" should be considered-- only to be told "well, the GOP condemned it, though it was a lot less expensive in money and lives."
True. And utterly beside the point.
___________________________________________
True and beside the point, indeed.
Hopefully our next president will be less polarizing than Clinton and Bush are and were.
_________________________________________
There's a balance to that: I can't blame Clinton for the GOP reaction to him, and I can't blame Bush for the demoncrat reaction either, anymore than I feel the US is to blame for anti-Americanism.
I've heard it said, liberals are the gas, and the GOP the brakes. There's a kernel of truth there: if I was of age in the 60's, I would have been a liberal. I'm 100% for everything MLK said, and I think I would have opposed Vietnam war (without burning a flag). The progressive engine drove America to a better place in history throughout the 60's.
But like the moderate "muddle," I feel we were beginning to barrel too fast down an uncertain road in the 70's. "Whoa there, do we really need to have universal health care?" And macro economically, isn't a government surplus a bad thing for the economy? (Said Keynes!)
It was after I began my own business that I saw how the poor were being affected by well-meaning but short-sighted economic policies: hurting the "top" hurts the "bottom."
So as for polarization via the two presidents, it is a symptom of a larger national schism. I never expected to be considered "evil" by people I like or am related to (ain't easy being green) just because my economic outlook derives from laissez-faire principles, rather than Marx or Malthus.
Also, the positive changes in society in the last 20 years leave a lot of room for optimism, as our culture is eager to integrate and provide opportunity for minorities: there's now no insult worse than "bigot." White kids all over the US wish they were black, and have black heroes.
But what I hear from liberals on diversity issues sounds reflexive and pessimistic, as though things haven't changed a bit... Being against reparations does not make one a David Duke, nor does teaching American history with due respect to the framers and founders.
Dear Mr. Totten,
You write:
His detractors accuse him of veering sharply to the right, but he's actually swung hard to the left.
yet
He has become too complicated to fit any reductionist label.
Let's just say that some truths necessarily supersede the easy application of political definitions. It's beyond those paradigms.
I have asked this of staunchly anti-war folks: "Would you oppose an internal revolution to overthrow the Baath in Iraq?"
Usually the answer was no, to which I replied, "So, what's the problem?"
The answers were usually tempestuous, stemming from distrust of Bush's motives (no mention of Blair's, the coalition's, or Congress's). Most said we have no right to decide who should be in power in a sovereign nation, have no right to break international law, etc. You've heard it all before.
My response: if they supported revolution, didn't they think Iraqis deeply longed for it, Shia and Kurds especially? Most would accede. "So then, wouldn't an internal rebellion have meant more killing and suffering, certainly? They attempted revolt, and were thoroughly crushed. Over 100,000 were slaughtered. So didn't we prevent more death than we caused?"
One might think this would at least inspire a pause to reflect, yet the usual response was to blame Bush senior for allowing that to happen, then to revisit suspicion of Bush junior and the "war for oil" without a breath. Around the time they got to the unilateral meme, I would mention they'd already agreed the Iraqi Kurds and Shia desired a revolution: "And thus we have another ally in the coalition, namely the Iraqi people themselves. How can this be unilateral?"
Of course, as Dale Carnegie said in "How to Win Friends," the only way to win an argument is not to have one.
BHC
___________________________________________________
Mr. C,
I really believe a huge amount of the opposition is purely partisan. American liberals are not anti-war or anti-unilateralist, as Bosnia and Kosovo demonstrated. (European opposition is another animal entirely.)
I wrote today's piece to make that point in a way that some of them might be able to understand.
Michael J. Totten
Bleeding Heart Liberal Realist
______________________________________________
Mr. Totten,
I really believe a huge amount of the opposition is purely partisan
Wouldn't that mean that a huge amount of the opposition is purely unprincipled?
I think it is a disgrace that some Republicans accused Clinton of "wag the dog" military action (in Europe and in Iraq).
Prior to Iraqi Freedom, I would ask opponents whether Desert Fox had also been pre-emptive and unilateral, whether WMD discovery was necessary to justify it, and whether Sec. Cohen's Dec. 19, 1998 assertion that Saddam could rebuild struck WMD facilities "within a year" should be considered-- only to be told "well, the GOP condemned it, though it was a lot less expensive in money and lives."
True. And utterly beside the point.
___________________________________________
True and beside the point, indeed.
Hopefully our next president will be less polarizing than Clinton and Bush are and were.
_________________________________________
There's a balance to that: I can't blame Clinton for the GOP reaction to him, and I can't blame Bush for the demoncrat reaction either, anymore than I feel the US is to blame for anti-Americanism.
I've heard it said, liberals are the gas, and the GOP the brakes. There's a kernel of truth there: if I was of age in the 60's, I would have been a liberal. I'm 100% for everything MLK said, and I think I would have opposed Vietnam war (without burning a flag). The progressive engine drove America to a better place in history throughout the 60's.
But like the moderate "muddle," I feel we were beginning to barrel too fast down an uncertain road in the 70's. "Whoa there, do we really need to have universal health care?" And macro economically, isn't a government surplus a bad thing for the economy? (Said Keynes!)
It was after I began my own business that I saw how the poor were being affected by well-meaning but short-sighted economic policies: hurting the "top" hurts the "bottom."
So as for polarization via the two presidents, it is a symptom of a larger national schism. I never expected to be considered "evil" by people I like or am related to (ain't easy being green) just because my economic outlook derives from laissez-faire principles, rather than Marx or Malthus.
Also, the positive changes in society in the last 20 years leave a lot of room for optimism, as our culture is eager to integrate and provide opportunity for minorities: there's now no insult worse than "bigot." White kids all over the US wish they were black, and have black heroes.
But what I hear from liberals on diversity issues sounds reflexive and pessimistic, as though things haven't changed a bit... Being against reparations does not make one a David Duke, nor does teaching American history with due respect to the framers and founders.
Quick trivia question: name the one Arabic-speaking country with a free press.
Click here for the answer.
Click here for the answer.
"16-year-old Graham Pittman was asked to leave a mall in Charlotte, North Carolina, for wearing a t-shirt that at least one shopper found very offensive and so, complained to security."
Recall the huge controversy and protests and coverage back in March when a mall security guard asked two men wearing anti-war shirts to remove them or leave?: as a matter of fact, that security guard lost his job over the incident, although he was acting on orders.
Now another mall has curtailed free speech, but it must not be the type of speech the media likes to defend. A rather snide Alex Witt (MSNBC) in the following interview does not discuss the violation of the boy's civil rights or his treatment (as interviewers did after the March incident), but rather how offensive the shirt was, and how easily he could have given up his rights to avoid confrontation: (copy of show transcript)
As much right as the Episcopal Church has to choose to respect the homosexuality of one of its clergy, it has caused controversy: and so has our next guest's to revile it. 16-year-old Graham Pittman was asked to leave a mall in Charlotte, North Carolina, for wearing a t-shirt that at least one shopper found very offensive and so, complained to security. What did the t-shirt say? "Homosexually is sin, Islam is a lie, and abortion is murder." Join me now is Graham Pittman along with his mother, Tammy.
WITT: Graham, let me begin with you. Can you see how what your t-shirt says might be offensive to people?
GRAHAM PITTMAN: Yes, ma'am. But, I feel that it’s important to express my beliefs because I am suppose to witness to other people, and one thing this shirt does is it opens a dialogue with somebody else. Actually, while I was at the mall I had quite a few people come up and start talking with me. So...
WITT: And, so, most people spoke with you, except one person complained, apparently the security guard originally approached you. He asked you to turn the shirt inside out. Isn't that right? So why not just do that?
GRAHAM PITTMAN: Actually, he asked me to leave, then he said if I wanted to come back inside the mall, I would have to turn it back out-inside out. I decided that it would just be-you know, I might as well stay outside because either way-you know. The end result was the same.
WITT: Tammy, if the shoe was on the other foot, if someone was wearing a pro-choice t-shirt or perhaps a gay couple exchanged a kiss in this very same mall, would you be offended? And if so, how would you react?
TAMMY PITTMAN: Oh, most definitely I would be offended. But, I feel like there's a freedom of speech and I feel like that in America we are supposed to be allowed to have that freedom of speech. So, I would just keep it to myself. It would grieve me in my heart, but I would keep it to myself.
WITT: All right, so Graham, bottom line, why did you wear the shirt? Because you wanted to get a reaction or make a statement or just because it is so comfortable?
GRAHAM PITTMAN: Well, actually, I wasn't even thinking about it when I first put it on. But I didn't-I had been to a Operation Save America rally, that morning, and I just wore it there and then didn’t think I would have any need to change it or anything and...
WITT: So, fair to...
GRAHAM PITTMAN: ...before I went to the mall.
WITT: Fair to say you were trying to make a statement with it, Graham?
GRAHAM PITTMAN: Yes, ma'am.
WITT: All right, Tammy and Graham Pittman, thank you both for talking with us tonight and good night to both you. So, the COUNTDOWN two-fifths complete, now. A controversial t-shirt worn by a 16-year-old boy gets him booted from a shopping mall.
(end of transcript)
Yup, fair to say he was making a constitutionally-protected statement... and fair to say this interviewer was too. Conspicuous by its absence is any mention of his right to make that statement, or concern that right was taken away.
On the shirt, no call to violence, no profanity, no pejoratives... abstract opinions, ideas-- and one complainer can get him kicked out of a mall?
And once more, the ACLU and the media don't seem to mind.
UPDATE: And neither does anyone else, apparently. I've emailed this to many people. No interest.
In March, close to fifty different articles about how the mall shouldn't have harassed two men wearing peacenik shirts.
And now, the only media attention: one interview centering on how insensitive the boy's shirt was.
I just don't get it.
Recall the huge controversy and protests and coverage back in March when a mall security guard asked two men wearing anti-war shirts to remove them or leave?: as a matter of fact, that security guard lost his job over the incident, although he was acting on orders.
Now another mall has curtailed free speech, but it must not be the type of speech the media likes to defend. A rather snide Alex Witt (MSNBC) in the following interview does not discuss the violation of the boy's civil rights or his treatment (as interviewers did after the March incident), but rather how offensive the shirt was, and how easily he could have given up his rights to avoid confrontation: (copy of show transcript)
As much right as the Episcopal Church has to choose to respect the homosexuality of one of its clergy, it has caused controversy: and so has our next guest's to revile it. 16-year-old Graham Pittman was asked to leave a mall in Charlotte, North Carolina, for wearing a t-shirt that at least one shopper found very offensive and so, complained to security. What did the t-shirt say? "Homosexually is sin, Islam is a lie, and abortion is murder." Join me now is Graham Pittman along with his mother, Tammy.
WITT: Graham, let me begin with you. Can you see how what your t-shirt says might be offensive to people?
GRAHAM PITTMAN: Yes, ma'am. But, I feel that it’s important to express my beliefs because I am suppose to witness to other people, and one thing this shirt does is it opens a dialogue with somebody else. Actually, while I was at the mall I had quite a few people come up and start talking with me. So...
WITT: And, so, most people spoke with you, except one person complained, apparently the security guard originally approached you. He asked you to turn the shirt inside out. Isn't that right? So why not just do that?
GRAHAM PITTMAN: Actually, he asked me to leave, then he said if I wanted to come back inside the mall, I would have to turn it back out-inside out. I decided that it would just be-you know, I might as well stay outside because either way-you know. The end result was the same.
WITT: Tammy, if the shoe was on the other foot, if someone was wearing a pro-choice t-shirt or perhaps a gay couple exchanged a kiss in this very same mall, would you be offended? And if so, how would you react?
TAMMY PITTMAN: Oh, most definitely I would be offended. But, I feel like there's a freedom of speech and I feel like that in America we are supposed to be allowed to have that freedom of speech. So, I would just keep it to myself. It would grieve me in my heart, but I would keep it to myself.
WITT: All right, so Graham, bottom line, why did you wear the shirt? Because you wanted to get a reaction or make a statement or just because it is so comfortable?
GRAHAM PITTMAN: Well, actually, I wasn't even thinking about it when I first put it on. But I didn't-I had been to a Operation Save America rally, that morning, and I just wore it there and then didn’t think I would have any need to change it or anything and...
WITT: So, fair to...
GRAHAM PITTMAN: ...before I went to the mall.
WITT: Fair to say you were trying to make a statement with it, Graham?
GRAHAM PITTMAN: Yes, ma'am.
WITT: All right, Tammy and Graham Pittman, thank you both for talking with us tonight and good night to both you. So, the COUNTDOWN two-fifths complete, now. A controversial t-shirt worn by a 16-year-old boy gets him booted from a shopping mall.
(end of transcript)
Yup, fair to say he was making a constitutionally-protected statement... and fair to say this interviewer was too. Conspicuous by its absence is any mention of his right to make that statement, or concern that right was taken away.
On the shirt, no call to violence, no profanity, no pejoratives... abstract opinions, ideas-- and one complainer can get him kicked out of a mall?
And once more, the ACLU and the media don't seem to mind.
UPDATE: And neither does anyone else, apparently. I've emailed this to many people. No interest.
In March, close to fifty different articles about how the mall shouldn't have harassed two men wearing peacenik shirts.
And now, the only media attention: one interview centering on how insensitive the boy's shirt was.
I just don't get it.
