The ISG report suggests that we involve Iran and Syria diplomatically as a major part of our effort to appear not to lose too badly in Iraq and that Israel is a major part of the equation. I think the report may be on to something: Yes, we should involve Iran and Syria; Yes, Israel is a critical element in the equation and the status quo must be altered.
Much has been said and written about the "fact" that our armed forces are stretched thin and we have no more troops to send to Iraq. Many are of the opinion, for differing reasons, that more troops in Iraq are not the answer.
I am no military expert. It does appear though that any overuse of our assets, if that is what it is, is limited to the Army and Marines. Our Navy and Air Force do not appear to be heavily committed in Iraq or in support of the troops that are there.
Here are a series of actions designed to capitalize on the ISG's recommendations with respect to involving Iran, Syria and Israel in resolving the problems plaguing the Middle East:
1) We park a carrier group in the Mediterranean off Israel;
2) We park a second carrier group in the Persian Gulf off Iran;
3) We inform Iran and Syria that their support of sectarian warfare and terrorism in Iraq and Lebanon will no longer be tolerated;
4) We inform Iran and Syria that we will begin strategic bombing of their countries immediately in retaliation for their activities in Iraq and Lebanon;
5) We inform Iran and Syria that the bombing will end when:
A) We can verify that they have withdrawn their aid and support for insurgents and terrorists in Iraq and Lebanon;
B) We can verify that they have closed their borders with Iraq and stopped the shipping of arms to Lebanon;
C) They turn over to the USA all Iraqi Baathists and Al-Quada members in their countries as well as the assets of those people;
D) They issue unambiguous declarations in English, Arabic and Farsi that they recognize Israel's right to exist as a free and sovereign state and forswear any intention to attack her;
E) Iran issues a declaration in English, Arabic and Farsi that it will not now, or in the future, attempt to create nuclear weapons or attempt to acquire the materials to make them;
F) Iran invites US inspection teams into the country in order to facilitate the verification of E above and gives the teams complete freedom of movement.
What we are seeing now in Iraq and Lebanon are the fruits of our reliance on organizations like the UN and over-reliance on institutions like "International Law".
The UN is a failed concept. It is now clear to all but the most blindered of internationalists that elevating to the level of legitimacy any regime in the world just because it exists invites the barbarians into the dining room where they will, quite naturally, feast on the truly legitimate since the truly legitimate are constrained by the rules of decency.
You do not promote Human Rights in Libya by making Libya the chair of the Human Rights Commission. You promote Human Rights in Libya by denying membership in august organizations to Libya until Libya has demonstrated that its government will protect the Human Rights of its inhabitants.
The internationalists have somehow persuaded otherwise intelligent people that exposure to right minded people and invitations to high councils will cause the transformation of brutes into intellectuals while our human experience is exactly the opposite. You don't award a Harvard degree to a High School student in the hope that he will study hard and earn the degree. You have removed any incentive for him to study hard and earn the degree.
Similarly, we don't invite rogue regimes like Syria and Iran to sit down and discuss things with us. We drive them to the table begging for us to talk with them instead of shoot at them.
International law, like domestic law, only serves to inhibit those who are law abiding. Criminals really don't care about criminal law. Rogue regimes which, by definition, have spent their existence defying international law are obviously not constrained by it. Why should they be? There are no meaningful penalties for breaking it.
The road to victory in Iraq will be paved with stones made of courage and resolve. Not the courage and resolve of our forces already there, who have already proven just how courageous and resolute they are. The stones of courage and resolve needed can only come from an American public supportive of the truly liberal cause of spreading freedom and dedicated to the imperative cause of refusing to bow down to tyrants. Those stones are missing. They must be found.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Thursday, December 07, 2006
ISG - Iraq Surrender Group
A colleague asked me on Tuesday whether I had seen anything definitive on the "Report" yet. I replied that I hadn't but that it really didn't much matter. From all accounts I have read it appeared likely to contain a prescription for abandoning the Iraqis who believed in us, the troops who sacrificed and died for the cause and those in the region who had cast their lot with us.
Now it's out.
I missed one essential element: Give Israel back to the Arabs. It never occurred to me that even someone as reputedly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel as James "F--k the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway" Baker would go so far as to recommend a "regional meeting without Israel so as to avoid pressure from the Jews" as has been reported. Sure, if we give the Golan Heights back to Syria Islamonuts will stop setting off bombs in Bali.
The report says that we should engage the Syrians and Iranians in talks to get their co-operation in stabilizing Iraq.
I heard a clip of Baker defending his view to Lieberman. Turns out his brilliant idea is to invite Syria and Iran to the table. If they say "no" then they will be exposed to all the world as obstructionists who are encouraging the de-stabilization of Iraq. Apparently there is someone in the world that Baker thinks needs convincing of this most obvious fact. Whoever that someone is, he must be living in a cave somewhere without access to any information at all. That being the case, how does Baker plan to inform him of Iran's newly confirmed intransigence?
Then, thanks to Rush, we get to hear Madeline Albright's sage advice on the subject. (I always have a problem with her name. Seems to me Aldumb would be more appropriate.) I will quote from memory as nearly as possible: "Of course we have to talk to our enemies, not only to our friends". Brilliant. As Rush said, "No, we don't have to talk to our enemies, we have to defeat our enemies". He went on to say that our talks with the Soviets became a lot more productive when we had Pershings in England pointed at their heads.
Happily, as W pays lip service to the report he spares no effort to make perfectly clear in a press conference today that, if anything, we will become more aggressive in Iraq.
The war isn't lost yet. Hundreds, if not thousands of American service personnel along with thousands of Iraqis have died needlessly. Sacrificed on the alter of the American left's hatred of America and W. It is impossible to look back at the progress of events in Iraq and not reach the conclusion that the bad guys were emboldened by the constant drum beat of the left and the main stream press for the defeat of America in Iraq. They knew, as OBL had pointed out shortly after Mogadishu, that as long as they could keep killing Americans for a couple of years the useful idiots of the American left would cheer them on and revel in the defeat of the country they so despise, a muscular and confident America.
The lefties have never felt so good about themselves as they did in the late sixties and early seventies when they last caused the defeat of America and the needless loss of thousands of American lives. Their actions (mine included at the time) ensured the murder and slavery of millions in Indo-China. In the eighties (I had been cured by then) they fawned over the Soviets and protested the placing of nukes in England and Europe. That the Soviets were running the world's largest and most brutal prison, enslaving hundreds of millions of people mattered not at all to them. Liberals? Not by any sane definition.
Now it's out.
I missed one essential element: Give Israel back to the Arabs. It never occurred to me that even someone as reputedly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel as James "F--k the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway" Baker would go so far as to recommend a "regional meeting without Israel so as to avoid pressure from the Jews" as has been reported. Sure, if we give the Golan Heights back to Syria Islamonuts will stop setting off bombs in Bali.
The report says that we should engage the Syrians and Iranians in talks to get their co-operation in stabilizing Iraq.
I heard a clip of Baker defending his view to Lieberman. Turns out his brilliant idea is to invite Syria and Iran to the table. If they say "no" then they will be exposed to all the world as obstructionists who are encouraging the de-stabilization of Iraq. Apparently there is someone in the world that Baker thinks needs convincing of this most obvious fact. Whoever that someone is, he must be living in a cave somewhere without access to any information at all. That being the case, how does Baker plan to inform him of Iran's newly confirmed intransigence?
Then, thanks to Rush, we get to hear Madeline Albright's sage advice on the subject. (I always have a problem with her name. Seems to me Aldumb would be more appropriate.) I will quote from memory as nearly as possible: "Of course we have to talk to our enemies, not only to our friends". Brilliant. As Rush said, "No, we don't have to talk to our enemies, we have to defeat our enemies". He went on to say that our talks with the Soviets became a lot more productive when we had Pershings in England pointed at their heads.
Happily, as W pays lip service to the report he spares no effort to make perfectly clear in a press conference today that, if anything, we will become more aggressive in Iraq.
The war isn't lost yet. Hundreds, if not thousands of American service personnel along with thousands of Iraqis have died needlessly. Sacrificed on the alter of the American left's hatred of America and W. It is impossible to look back at the progress of events in Iraq and not reach the conclusion that the bad guys were emboldened by the constant drum beat of the left and the main stream press for the defeat of America in Iraq. They knew, as OBL had pointed out shortly after Mogadishu, that as long as they could keep killing Americans for a couple of years the useful idiots of the American left would cheer them on and revel in the defeat of the country they so despise, a muscular and confident America.
The lefties have never felt so good about themselves as they did in the late sixties and early seventies when they last caused the defeat of America and the needless loss of thousands of American lives. Their actions (mine included at the time) ensured the murder and slavery of millions in Indo-China. In the eighties (I had been cured by then) they fawned over the Soviets and protested the placing of nukes in England and Europe. That the Soviets were running the world's largest and most brutal prison, enslaving hundreds of millions of people mattered not at all to them. Liberals? Not by any sane definition.
Monday, December 04, 2006
The Religion of Perpetual Outrage - Again
You have all read by now of the "Flying Imams" and the hurtful treatment they received at the hands of those dastardly Islamophobes, the Flying Public and US Airways.
The facts are fairly clear:
1) 6 Arab looking men were praying in or near the boarding lounge for the Minneapolis - Phoenix flight happily invoking the name of Allah;
2) All boarded together;
3) They sat apart; 2 in 1st class, 2 mid-cabin and 2 in the rear of the plane;
4) The 2 who sat in 1st class didn't have boarding passes for 1st class and had been told by the gate agent that 1st class seats were not available;
5) 3 of the 6 asked for "seat belt extenders". Most of us have never heard of these before. They are used to make it possible for the obese to strap themselves in comfortably. (I had the misfortune of sitting beside someone who actually needed one of these devices once on SW Airlines);
6) None of those who asked for the extenders needed them and they placed them on the floor beneath their seats;
7) The seat belt extenders can be used effectively as weapons to disable others.
Well, nothing suspicious about any of that is there? The "Imams" claim they sat apart so as not to alarm the other passengers. This explanation is a beautiful example of just how stupid they think we are. They are so sensitive to our perceptions that they split up after getting on the plane ( as did the 9-11 terrorists) but so insensitive to our perceptions that they hold a prayer meeting invoking the name of Allah in the boarding lounge. Makes perfect sense to me.
Now its a week or so later. CAIR has dutifully accused all of us of Islamophobia. "Imams" are holding protests at airports in Washington and at US Airways HQ in Tempe.
This is another test of our policy of "Tolerance". Do we tolerate obviously provocative behavior from third world nuts with a 7th century philosophy whose stated goal is to wipe from the earth any form of tolerance? Is it possible that the non-Islamists who are promoting our multi-culti nonsense policies do not understand that these people actually intend to accomplish what they so loudly proclaim as their goal? The "Tolerant" society these activists are so proud of will be extinguished if we extend our tolerance to those who loudly and constantly proclaim their intent to destroy Western Liberal Society? What idiocy.
On a more practical note: I have flown a lot over the last 25 years. A whole lot. I have never, ever, ever ,ever seen ANYONE praying before a flight. Not Muslims, not Jews, not Christians. That some of you may have would not surprise me but if it has been observed it is certainly an extremely rare event.
The leading "Imam" ( I have forgotten his name) gave an interview in which he says he "loves" US Airways. The implication is that he has flown often. The interviewer didn't ask the obvious question:
Q: Mr. Imam, sir, your holiness, since you are so fond of US Airways can you tell us what has happened when you and your colleagues have said your prayers in the boarding lounge before other of the many flights you appear to have taken? And a follow up- What has been the reaction of the passengers when you have to say your prayers during a flight? Unless you only take short flights and given the schedule of Muslim prayer, an observant person like yourself must surely have found himself in flight at prayer time on one occasion or another.
A: (Please note this is my answer, not that of his holiness): Allah is great and the infidels will all perish, it is the will of Allah. Why are you asking me all these questions. You hate Islam and the followers of the Prophet. Obviously the wrong-headed executives of US Airways are discriminating against all Islamic people because they have an irrational fear of Islam..........
The facts are fairly clear:
1) 6 Arab looking men were praying in or near the boarding lounge for the Minneapolis - Phoenix flight happily invoking the name of Allah;
2) All boarded together;
3) They sat apart; 2 in 1st class, 2 mid-cabin and 2 in the rear of the plane;
4) The 2 who sat in 1st class didn't have boarding passes for 1st class and had been told by the gate agent that 1st class seats were not available;
5) 3 of the 6 asked for "seat belt extenders". Most of us have never heard of these before. They are used to make it possible for the obese to strap themselves in comfortably. (I had the misfortune of sitting beside someone who actually needed one of these devices once on SW Airlines);
6) None of those who asked for the extenders needed them and they placed them on the floor beneath their seats;
7) The seat belt extenders can be used effectively as weapons to disable others.
Well, nothing suspicious about any of that is there? The "Imams" claim they sat apart so as not to alarm the other passengers. This explanation is a beautiful example of just how stupid they think we are. They are so sensitive to our perceptions that they split up after getting on the plane ( as did the 9-11 terrorists) but so insensitive to our perceptions that they hold a prayer meeting invoking the name of Allah in the boarding lounge. Makes perfect sense to me.
Now its a week or so later. CAIR has dutifully accused all of us of Islamophobia. "Imams" are holding protests at airports in Washington and at US Airways HQ in Tempe.
This is another test of our policy of "Tolerance". Do we tolerate obviously provocative behavior from third world nuts with a 7th century philosophy whose stated goal is to wipe from the earth any form of tolerance? Is it possible that the non-Islamists who are promoting our multi-culti nonsense policies do not understand that these people actually intend to accomplish what they so loudly proclaim as their goal? The "Tolerant" society these activists are so proud of will be extinguished if we extend our tolerance to those who loudly and constantly proclaim their intent to destroy Western Liberal Society? What idiocy.
On a more practical note: I have flown a lot over the last 25 years. A whole lot. I have never, ever, ever ,ever seen ANYONE praying before a flight. Not Muslims, not Jews, not Christians. That some of you may have would not surprise me but if it has been observed it is certainly an extremely rare event.
The leading "Imam" ( I have forgotten his name) gave an interview in which he says he "loves" US Airways. The implication is that he has flown often. The interviewer didn't ask the obvious question:
Q: Mr. Imam, sir, your holiness, since you are so fond of US Airways can you tell us what has happened when you and your colleagues have said your prayers in the boarding lounge before other of the many flights you appear to have taken? And a follow up- What has been the reaction of the passengers when you have to say your prayers during a flight? Unless you only take short flights and given the schedule of Muslim prayer, an observant person like yourself must surely have found himself in flight at prayer time on one occasion or another.
A: (Please note this is my answer, not that of his holiness): Allah is great and the infidels will all perish, it is the will of Allah. Why are you asking me all these questions. You hate Islam and the followers of the Prophet. Obviously the wrong-headed executives of US Airways are discriminating against all Islamic people because they have an irrational fear of Islam..........
Friday, November 10, 2006
When you vote with the enemy
Osama and various other real bad guys and less (Eurocowards)bad guys are thrilled with the outcome of the US election this past Tuesday.
I wonder what it feels like to have voted the way Osama hoped you would. Hopefully the dems won't have too much to regret during the next two years.
I think they are crazily, steadfastly and myopically wrong headed but I still wouldn't want them to be responsible for a catastrophe. Hopefully the Republican Administration will be able to keep the Congress from completely exposing the nation to the real bad guys' worst designs.
I wonder what it feels like to have voted the way Osama hoped you would. Hopefully the dems won't have too much to regret during the next two years.
I think they are crazily, steadfastly and myopically wrong headed but I still wouldn't want them to be responsible for a catastrophe. Hopefully the Republican Administration will be able to keep the Congress from completely exposing the nation to the real bad guys' worst designs.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Rumsfeld Resignation
President Bush has just announced that Rumsfeld is leaving. I suppose I understand the strategy, removing a lightening rod and hoping to defuse some of the more time wasting activities that the Dem Congress would immediately undertake.
I predict that if the Senate goes Dem they will not confirm Gates in their zeal to keep Rummy where they can get at him. (Wrong again!) The Dems don't want to win the war, they want to bury Bush.
I have been embarrassed by W a few times. A few minutes ago he was forced to admit he lied to reporters in his office last week. A very poor performance indeed.
I predict that if the Senate goes Dem they will not confirm Gates in their zeal to keep Rummy where they can get at him. (Wrong again!) The Dems don't want to win the war, they want to bury Bush.
I have been embarrassed by W a few times. A few minutes ago he was forced to admit he lied to reporters in his office last week. A very poor performance indeed.
Post Election Post
I had predicted that we would hold both the House and the Senate. At the moment, I was at least half wrong (UPDATE: 100% wrong). We have definitely lost the House and may yet lose the Senate. Congratulations to the Dems. They win.
While I would have preferred a different outcome I think that there are many benefits that will flow from the outcome we have. In no particular order they are:
1) Lincoln Chaffe is gone and won't be heard from again;
2) Mike Dewine is gone and won't be heard from again;
3) Dems will be forced to show their true colors on National Security issues and my guess is that the electorate won't be amused;
4) Dems will be forced to come up with policy initiatives and my guess is that the electorate won't take kindly to higher taxes and more rights for criminals and terrorists.
5) Our 2008 nominee will not have to overcome the negative coattail effect that might have been produced had the congressional housecleaning not taken place yesterday.
While I would have preferred a different outcome I think that there are many benefits that will flow from the outcome we have. In no particular order they are:
1) Lincoln Chaffe is gone and won't be heard from again;
2) Mike Dewine is gone and won't be heard from again;
3) Dems will be forced to show their true colors on National Security issues and my guess is that the electorate won't be amused;
4) Dems will be forced to come up with policy initiatives and my guess is that the electorate won't take kindly to higher taxes and more rights for criminals and terrorists.
5) Our 2008 nominee will not have to overcome the negative coattail effect that might have been produced had the congressional housecleaning not taken place yesterday.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
John Kerry, Military Strategist
Below is a partial transcript of Kerry's appearance on Imus this morning. The transcript is copied from WSJ, OnlineJournal, Best of the Web.
It is absolutely astonishing that a man this stupid would continue to speak aloud. But thank goodness he does. We couldn't possibly make this stuff up.
"Centipede MouthHow many feet can John Kerry fit in that mouth of his? Here he is on "Imus in the Morning" today:
Kerry: These guys have failed America. The people who owe an apology are people like Donald Rumsfeld, who didn't send enough troops, who didn't listen to the generals, who has made every mistake in the book. . . .who didn't send
Imus: . . . Senator John McCain, he seems to think--he seems to agree with the Bush administration about your comments. And you know him, obviously, better than I do, but I know him pretty well. And he probably knows what you meant, too.
Kerry: I'm sorry that John McCain has said what he said. John McCain's been a friend for a long time. But I have to tell you, I think John McCain is wrong about this.
John McCain has been a cheerleader for a policy that is incorrect. John McCain says we ought to send another 100,000 troops over there. First of all, we don't have another 100,000 troops. Secondly, if you send them over there, it's going to do exactly what's already happened, which is attract more terrorists and more jihadists. Our own generals are telling us that it's the numbers of troops that are the problem.
So the administration didn't send enough troops and it sent too many troops? If only we had such a decisive, principled leader as president!"
What else can one say.
It is absolutely astonishing that a man this stupid would continue to speak aloud. But thank goodness he does. We couldn't possibly make this stuff up.
"Centipede MouthHow many feet can John Kerry fit in that mouth of his? Here he is on "Imus in the Morning" today:
Kerry: These guys have failed America. The people who owe an apology are people like Donald Rumsfeld, who didn't send enough troops, who didn't listen to the generals, who has made every mistake in the book. . . .who didn't send
Imus: . . . Senator John McCain, he seems to think--he seems to agree with the Bush administration about your comments. And you know him, obviously, better than I do, but I know him pretty well. And he probably knows what you meant, too.
Kerry: I'm sorry that John McCain has said what he said. John McCain's been a friend for a long time. But I have to tell you, I think John McCain is wrong about this.
John McCain has been a cheerleader for a policy that is incorrect. John McCain says we ought to send another 100,000 troops over there. First of all, we don't have another 100,000 troops. Secondly, if you send them over there, it's going to do exactly what's already happened, which is attract more terrorists and more jihadists. Our own generals are telling us that it's the numbers of troops that are the problem.
So the administration didn't send enough troops and it sent too many troops? If only we had such a decisive, principled leader as president!"
What else can one say.
Contradictions on the Left
This morning my local paper ran an AP "news" story by Michael Rubinkam about the flight of "Latinos" from Hazelton, PA in anticipation of the implementation today of "...a tough, first of its kind law targeting illegal immigrants...". (Curiously the headline used the word "Latinos" to describe the victims of this latest white outrage but the "story" describes them as "Hispanic" and never uses the word "Latino".)
The story tells the tales of apparently "Latino/Hispanic" shop owners in Hazelton whose businesses have been adversely affected by the flight of the "Latinos/Hispanics ". The "evidence suggests", Mr. Rubinkam says, "many Hispanics, legal and otherwise, have already left". Not surprisingly, Mr. Rubinkam does not actually cite any evidence. Par for the course in the "Lame Stream Media".
There is an amusing contradiction raised by the anecdotal evidence he does cite; the business owners. Given that we all know that illegal immigrants are paid nothing by their slavish white masters, how could entire businesses be built on their purchases? In fact, according to the author, there is an "Hispanic business district" in Hazelton. Wow, all those business built on wages that no one can even live on. Imagine.
The story tells the tales of apparently "Latino/Hispanic" shop owners in Hazelton whose businesses have been adversely affected by the flight of the "Latinos/Hispanics ". The "evidence suggests", Mr. Rubinkam says, "many Hispanics, legal and otherwise, have already left". Not surprisingly, Mr. Rubinkam does not actually cite any evidence. Par for the course in the "Lame Stream Media".
There is an amusing contradiction raised by the anecdotal evidence he does cite; the business owners. Given that we all know that illegal immigrants are paid nothing by their slavish white masters, how could entire businesses be built on their purchases? In fact, according to the author, there is an "Hispanic business district" in Hazelton. Wow, all those business built on wages that no one can even live on. Imagine.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Elections: 2006
I have been paying close attention to our national elections since 1988 when I naturalized.
Like many other idiots I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and thereby elected Bill Clinton, to my everlasting shame.
I watched, horrified, as we nominated Mr. Viagra, Bob Dole, as our candidate in 1996 and voted for him anyway. I was re-horrified when Mr. Viagra graduated to doing Pepsi commercials drooling over Brittany Spears. I guess some people will do anything for money.
In 2000 I happily cast my vote for W and was thrilled when the election was rightly decided in his favor. About the only thing more distasteful than having AlGore in the White House would be having to watch another Bob Dole commercial.
In the aftermath of the 2000 election it was instructive to listen to the libs whining about not winning and ascribing their loss to all manner of right-wing conspiracies; butterfly ballots (approved by a dem election commission in Palm Beach); voter suppression in black areas of Florida; SCOTUS rigging and on and on and on. Coincidently I recently heard that lib genius, Barbara Boxer, state in relation to Roe v Wade that "when the Supreme Court speaks it is as if God has spoken". I wonder why she was so critical of Bush v Gore?
In the run-up to the 2002 mid-term election the conventional wisdom was that dems would win everything up for grabs. Finally the right wing nutjobs hold on national power would be ended and the world would be a better place for it.
I went jogging on election night and listened with glee as the results poured in through my Walkman. All was right with the world. That big dummy W had done it again and Republicans had managed an historically unprecedented win.
In the run-up to the 2004 election the pundits were at it again. W would lose big to John Kerry and the dems would take back the House and Senate and the world would once again love America.
I wasn't able to go jogging that night but was able to listen to the radio and later, watch televised coverage. For the first time in living memory I watched CBS. I wanted to see Rather forced to call another W win. I hope you all saw his face as he realized that the inevitable was about to happen again. Of course, the official call wasn't made until the next day but he looked as though someone was giving him a rectal exam as I signed off about midnight knowing, as everyone else did, what the outcome would be.
Now its 2006. All the same pundits are saying all the same things. The jig is up for Republicans. I am saying that they are wrong, again.
We will win in 2006 the same way we won in 2004 and 2002; Republicans will turn out to vote in huge numbers and dems won't. The party of whiners and self-loathing will do what they always do; fill themselves with conspiracy theories, read the NYTimes for their self-justification and figure they don't have to go to the polls, everyone else will and everything will turn out just dandy for them.
There will come a time when the dems will be right and they will win. After all, even a broken watch is right twice a day, just not this day.
Like many other idiots I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and thereby elected Bill Clinton, to my everlasting shame.
I watched, horrified, as we nominated Mr. Viagra, Bob Dole, as our candidate in 1996 and voted for him anyway. I was re-horrified when Mr. Viagra graduated to doing Pepsi commercials drooling over Brittany Spears. I guess some people will do anything for money.
In 2000 I happily cast my vote for W and was thrilled when the election was rightly decided in his favor. About the only thing more distasteful than having AlGore in the White House would be having to watch another Bob Dole commercial.
In the aftermath of the 2000 election it was instructive to listen to the libs whining about not winning and ascribing their loss to all manner of right-wing conspiracies; butterfly ballots (approved by a dem election commission in Palm Beach); voter suppression in black areas of Florida; SCOTUS rigging and on and on and on. Coincidently I recently heard that lib genius, Barbara Boxer, state in relation to Roe v Wade that "when the Supreme Court speaks it is as if God has spoken". I wonder why she was so critical of Bush v Gore?
In the run-up to the 2002 mid-term election the conventional wisdom was that dems would win everything up for grabs. Finally the right wing nutjobs hold on national power would be ended and the world would be a better place for it.
I went jogging on election night and listened with glee as the results poured in through my Walkman. All was right with the world. That big dummy W had done it again and Republicans had managed an historically unprecedented win.
In the run-up to the 2004 election the pundits were at it again. W would lose big to John Kerry and the dems would take back the House and Senate and the world would once again love America.
I wasn't able to go jogging that night but was able to listen to the radio and later, watch televised coverage. For the first time in living memory I watched CBS. I wanted to see Rather forced to call another W win. I hope you all saw his face as he realized that the inevitable was about to happen again. Of course, the official call wasn't made until the next day but he looked as though someone was giving him a rectal exam as I signed off about midnight knowing, as everyone else did, what the outcome would be.
Now its 2006. All the same pundits are saying all the same things. The jig is up for Republicans. I am saying that they are wrong, again.
We will win in 2006 the same way we won in 2004 and 2002; Republicans will turn out to vote in huge numbers and dems won't. The party of whiners and self-loathing will do what they always do; fill themselves with conspiracy theories, read the NYTimes for their self-justification and figure they don't have to go to the polls, everyone else will and everything will turn out just dandy for them.
There will come a time when the dems will be right and they will win. After all, even a broken watch is right twice a day, just not this day.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Torture
One of my favorite writers, Mark Steyn, had occasion to use the following phrase in an online debate with a correspondent who equated Mark's description of Gitmo after a US government sponsored trip there to the disgraced 1930's NYTimes foreign correspondent Walter Duranty's description of Stalinist Russia:
"That is a corruption of language and meaning that makes communication impossible".
I have long been looking for a phrase to describe my feeling of frustration when engaging dems in debate on a number of subjects, notable among them, that we are "torturing" prisoners at Gitmo and elsewhere. We seem to be speaking different languages. They seem to change the definition of any word they choose to as it becomes convenient to do so; it makes communication impossible.
Immediately below are the Merriam-Webster definitions of "Torture":
Main Entry: 1tor·ture Pronunciation: 'tor-ch&rFunction: nounEtymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle1
a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY
b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument :
It is apparent that none of our described treatment of the bad guys conforms to (a),(b1) or (b2) unless you wish to describe the infliction on them of loud and cacophonous music as causing "agony". If that is your preference I refer you again to the Steyn quote above. Pain? Hardly.
For me, and I think for most honest people "the infliction of intense pain" is what we think of as torture in the context we are discussing. We are obviously not doing that to the prisoners we hold. If we were the IRC, the detainees' lawyers and their handlers, being Americans, would not tolerate it.
I do find it very amusing that the dems arguments on the torture issue in particular and many issues in general actually fit the description of (b3). Remember "it depends on what the meaning of is is"?. What a wonderful irony. Its them doing the torturing!
"That is a corruption of language and meaning that makes communication impossible".
I have long been looking for a phrase to describe my feeling of frustration when engaging dems in debate on a number of subjects, notable among them, that we are "torturing" prisoners at Gitmo and elsewhere. We seem to be speaking different languages. They seem to change the definition of any word they choose to as it becomes convenient to do so; it makes communication impossible.
Immediately below are the Merriam-Webster definitions of "Torture":
Main Entry: 1tor·ture Pronunciation: 'tor-ch&rFunction: nounEtymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle1
a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY
b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument :
It is apparent that none of our described treatment of the bad guys conforms to (a),(b1) or (b2) unless you wish to describe the infliction on them of loud and cacophonous music as causing "agony". If that is your preference I refer you again to the Steyn quote above. Pain? Hardly.
For me, and I think for most honest people "the infliction of intense pain" is what we think of as torture in the context we are discussing. We are obviously not doing that to the prisoners we hold. If we were the IRC, the detainees' lawyers and their handlers, being Americans, would not tolerate it.
I do find it very amusing that the dems arguments on the torture issue in particular and many issues in general actually fit the description of (b3). Remember "it depends on what the meaning of is is"?. What a wonderful irony. Its them doing the torturing!
You're either with us or against us...
These famous words were uttered by President Bush in a speech delivered shortly after 9/11. His obvious intention was to inform the rest of the world of our position with respect to what would become the war on terror.
The well known liberal intellectual, Ted Turner, (formerly known as the Mouth of the South), shined a bright light on the thinking of the anti-American left in a speech earlier this week. He mentioned that he was troubled by the words, saying that "he still hadn't made up his mind" when W spoke them.
What Turner and the thousands of other anti-American leftists didn't understand, it is now clear, is that W wasn't speaking to Americans. He was speaking to the rest of the world, assuming, as would not be unreasonable for a real American, that Americans understood that we are the "us" referred to in the phrase.
This is an outstanding example of the penchant among libs and dems for a kind of world citizenship in a post-nationalist era. All countries are equal, all cultures are equal, all religions are equal and we are all citizens of the world.
Even a cursory examination of such a position reveals it to be, like most other lib and dem positions, entirely self-defeating.
If all countries are equal why are visas to emigrate to Somalia so easy to come by? Brazil? Mexico? Cuba? Russia? Libya? Egypt? China? Yep, waves of immigrants on the way to these shining examples of countries in all ways equal to that dismal failure, the USA.
If all cultures are equal why are all advances in arts and science produced by the Anglo-American culture. You can substitute Judeo - Christian if you prefer. Anyone care to point me to the accomplishments of any non Judeo-Christian culture? Any notable Buddhist accomplishments? Hindu? Muslim? Taoist? Communist? Socialist? No, none. Not one. Oh, wait, the ancient Egyptians gave us mathematics (oops, that pre-dates islam), the Communists gave us mass murder and slavery on a previously unimagined scale and the Socialists gave us socialized medicine. Wow.
The well known liberal intellectual, Ted Turner, (formerly known as the Mouth of the South), shined a bright light on the thinking of the anti-American left in a speech earlier this week. He mentioned that he was troubled by the words, saying that "he still hadn't made up his mind" when W spoke them.
What Turner and the thousands of other anti-American leftists didn't understand, it is now clear, is that W wasn't speaking to Americans. He was speaking to the rest of the world, assuming, as would not be unreasonable for a real American, that Americans understood that we are the "us" referred to in the phrase.
This is an outstanding example of the penchant among libs and dems for a kind of world citizenship in a post-nationalist era. All countries are equal, all cultures are equal, all religions are equal and we are all citizens of the world.
Even a cursory examination of such a position reveals it to be, like most other lib and dem positions, entirely self-defeating.
If all countries are equal why are visas to emigrate to Somalia so easy to come by? Brazil? Mexico? Cuba? Russia? Libya? Egypt? China? Yep, waves of immigrants on the way to these shining examples of countries in all ways equal to that dismal failure, the USA.
If all cultures are equal why are all advances in arts and science produced by the Anglo-American culture. You can substitute Judeo - Christian if you prefer. Anyone care to point me to the accomplishments of any non Judeo-Christian culture? Any notable Buddhist accomplishments? Hindu? Muslim? Taoist? Communist? Socialist? No, none. Not one. Oh, wait, the ancient Egyptians gave us mathematics (oops, that pre-dates islam), the Communists gave us mass murder and slavery on a previously unimagined scale and the Socialists gave us socialized medicine. Wow.
Arizona anti-Smoking Ballot Propositions
Here in Arizona, Ballot Propositions are very popular. The most popular from the 2004 election was Prop. 200 which required reasonable ID for would- be voters. It passed with a 56% vote. It has just been put on hold by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Heaven forbid that someone should have to identify himself in order to vote. (UPDATE: SCOTUS reinstated the law so ID will be required in the 2006 election)
This year's bevy of Props includes two that address Smoking Bans. One would ban smoking in all public places. The other would allow bars to permit smoking as long as they had air evacuation systems to ensure that the atmosphere in the place doesn't get too smoky.
It is astonishing to me that otherwise normal Americans could possibly conceive any advantage in essentially appropriating the property of others so as to have it used in a manner they consider correct. Of all the "slippery slopes" long warned of this is, in my view, the most dangerous.
The market place should take care of issues like this, not the legislature and not the smoking police. If you don't want to come to my bar or restaurant because I allow smoking in it then go somewhere else. This is so uncomplicated and efficient that it causes me to wonder what the real agenda of the smoke banners is. But I don't wonder for long. No point in it.
This year's bevy of Props includes two that address Smoking Bans. One would ban smoking in all public places. The other would allow bars to permit smoking as long as they had air evacuation systems to ensure that the atmosphere in the place doesn't get too smoky.
It is astonishing to me that otherwise normal Americans could possibly conceive any advantage in essentially appropriating the property of others so as to have it used in a manner they consider correct. Of all the "slippery slopes" long warned of this is, in my view, the most dangerous.
The market place should take care of issues like this, not the legislature and not the smoking police. If you don't want to come to my bar or restaurant because I allow smoking in it then go somewhere else. This is so uncomplicated and efficient that it causes me to wonder what the real agenda of the smoke banners is. But I don't wonder for long. No point in it.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Middle East Forecast
With the Israel-Hezbo war on hold for the moment a great deal is being said and written about the impact of the war and of the cease-fire.
I agree with David Frum that the biggest single lesson learned or issue made clear from this war is that neither the Palestinians nor any other Arab group or country considers a Palestinian state in the "Two State Solution" mode to be their goal. They consider Israel proper to be "occupied" territory and they are going to destroy it or die trying.
Israel "unoccupied" Southern Lebanon six years ago. At that time there was a lot of commentary on whether that would be interpreted as Israeli weakness or as Israeli generosity. The jury is now in: weakness. The opponents of that withdrawal pointed out that giving up territory for no concessions in the hope of being recognized as the good guys was a fool's mission.
Israel "unoccupied" Gaza last year. The same debate took place as did regarding the Lebanon pull out six years ago. The result was the same. A fool's mission.
Israel is, and will continue to come under attack until it eventually succumbs. I am hopeful that the battle to kill it will last 1000's of years, but the battle will never stop.
It is a bizarre world indeed wherein the fiction of a country of Jews being plopped down in the Middle East due to the guilty conscience of Europeans actually gains traction.
It is a bizarre world indeed wherein the only country ever created by UN Resolution (as far as I know) finds the UN unwilling to defend its existence and actively engaged in making it as difficult as possible for Israel to defend itself.
In January 2006 an official UN meeting on the subject of Palestinian relief took place in the UN building. A map of the Middle East was displayed. There was no Israel on the map.
Jews have been hunted down and killed like animals all over Europe and the Middle East for 1000's of years. We are long past asking what we have done to make everyone hate us. It doesn't seem to matter. They do. The arabs most stridently, at the moment.
For most of the 1000's of years of our being slaughtered by various arabs and europeans and slavs we did not defend ourselves. Happily those days are long over and killing off the rest of us is going to be a long, expensive and bloody task.
I agree with David Frum that the biggest single lesson learned or issue made clear from this war is that neither the Palestinians nor any other Arab group or country considers a Palestinian state in the "Two State Solution" mode to be their goal. They consider Israel proper to be "occupied" territory and they are going to destroy it or die trying.
Israel "unoccupied" Southern Lebanon six years ago. At that time there was a lot of commentary on whether that would be interpreted as Israeli weakness or as Israeli generosity. The jury is now in: weakness. The opponents of that withdrawal pointed out that giving up territory for no concessions in the hope of being recognized as the good guys was a fool's mission.
Israel "unoccupied" Gaza last year. The same debate took place as did regarding the Lebanon pull out six years ago. The result was the same. A fool's mission.
Israel is, and will continue to come under attack until it eventually succumbs. I am hopeful that the battle to kill it will last 1000's of years, but the battle will never stop.
It is a bizarre world indeed wherein the fiction of a country of Jews being plopped down in the Middle East due to the guilty conscience of Europeans actually gains traction.
It is a bizarre world indeed wherein the only country ever created by UN Resolution (as far as I know) finds the UN unwilling to defend its existence and actively engaged in making it as difficult as possible for Israel to defend itself.
In January 2006 an official UN meeting on the subject of Palestinian relief took place in the UN building. A map of the Middle East was displayed. There was no Israel on the map.
Jews have been hunted down and killed like animals all over Europe and the Middle East for 1000's of years. We are long past asking what we have done to make everyone hate us. It doesn't seem to matter. They do. The arabs most stridently, at the moment.
For most of the 1000's of years of our being slaughtered by various arabs and europeans and slavs we did not defend ourselves. Happily those days are long over and killing off the rest of us is going to be a long, expensive and bloody task.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
What I mean by "Anti-American"
I use the term "anti-American" quite frequently in my writing. It occurred to me that its definition is not universal and that I should make an effort to define it as I understand it.
My definition begins with the Merriam-Webster definition:
"opposed or hostile to the people or the government
policies of the United States"
It seems to me that the dictionary definition of the term can apply only to non-Americans. The UN is, for example, an anti-American organization as defined above. It routinely opposes US government policy. Iraq was an anti-American country under Saddam's reign. It routinely opposed US Government policy and threatened the safety and security of the people of the United States.
It would be difficult to assert in any meaningful way that domestic political opposition to US Government policy is anti-American. Dems have long been trying to convince the voting public that they are being labeled as anti-American for simply opposing government policy. They have not been persuasive because the voting public knows a convenient fig leaf when they see one.
In my lexicon an American becomes anti-American when he steps beyond the boundaries of ordinary political discourse and advocates positions that threaten America's sovereignty and/or security.
Madeline Albright, former Secretary of State, lamented the fact that the USA is a hyperpower and suggested that our overwhelming strategic advantage over the rest of the world was destabilizing and unwelcome. The solution to this "problem" in her view was the reduction of our advantage over the rest of the world. That, in the view from down here, is an anti-American position. Any position advocating the reduction of America's various economic, strategic or tactical advantages necessarily diminishes our sovereignty and security.
The position described above also has another unfortunate component; it necessarily implies that America is not deserving of its preeminence and that it will abuse its advantage to the detriment of other countries. That is manifestly untrue and and has been proven so for decades.
But for the determination, strength and generosity of this country most of the "free" world would be speaking German, Russian or Japanese today.
The countries of Scandinavia and Europe would not have been free to develop their welfare states if the USA had not taken on the burden of their defense for the past 60 years. Canada would be bankrupt if it had to defend itself. I am not suggesting that the USA has undertaken the defense of the west at its own expense for all these years out of charity. As we have all seen countless times, self-interest often has very charitable results.
That huge coterie of US politicians anxious to gain or re-gain the "respect" of the world community by begging their indulgence and ceding our prerogatives to international organizations are, in my view, anti-American. They have no confidence or belief in the goodness of America and seem to see almost anything we do as bad. This view is only possible if one chooses to ignore all the great things America has done and continues to do and focus only on our warts. For the most part, this view also requires one to ignore or be ignorant of history.
The French have been anti-American since immediately after WWll. Idiots like John Kerry seem to think that their disaffection for us is some new phenomenon. Any American who has traveled to Paris in the last 50 years knows better.
Debating foreign and domestic policy is an essential element of the American experience. Advocating the reduction of US sovereignty through the ceding of national prerogatives to organizations like the UN or allowing foreign governments to dictate the foreign policy of the US is anti-American.
It is also anti-American and completely counterintuitive to suggest, as Stephen Bryer is fond of doing, that foreign law should inform the interpretation of the US Constitution. The Constitution is a uniquely American document and trends, legal or social, in Africa (or anywhere else for that matter) must, by definition, be irrelevant to it. Whether or not abortion on demand is available in Liberia or England makes no difference to the interpretation of the US constitution. Whether the execution of juveniles convicted of murder offends the US Constitution as cruel and unusual punishment does not depend on what the laws of Holland and Sweden say.
Looking to sources like those listed above for guidance in interpreting our Constitution belies a lack of faith in the institutions and people of this country that can only be interpreted as anti-American.
My definition begins with the Merriam-Webster definition:
"opposed or hostile to the people or the government
policies of the United States"
It seems to me that the dictionary definition of the term can apply only to non-Americans. The UN is, for example, an anti-American organization as defined above. It routinely opposes US government policy. Iraq was an anti-American country under Saddam's reign. It routinely opposed US Government policy and threatened the safety and security of the people of the United States.
It would be difficult to assert in any meaningful way that domestic political opposition to US Government policy is anti-American. Dems have long been trying to convince the voting public that they are being labeled as anti-American for simply opposing government policy. They have not been persuasive because the voting public knows a convenient fig leaf when they see one.
In my lexicon an American becomes anti-American when he steps beyond the boundaries of ordinary political discourse and advocates positions that threaten America's sovereignty and/or security.
Madeline Albright, former Secretary of State, lamented the fact that the USA is a hyperpower and suggested that our overwhelming strategic advantage over the rest of the world was destabilizing and unwelcome. The solution to this "problem" in her view was the reduction of our advantage over the rest of the world. That, in the view from down here, is an anti-American position. Any position advocating the reduction of America's various economic, strategic or tactical advantages necessarily diminishes our sovereignty and security.
The position described above also has another unfortunate component; it necessarily implies that America is not deserving of its preeminence and that it will abuse its advantage to the detriment of other countries. That is manifestly untrue and and has been proven so for decades.
But for the determination, strength and generosity of this country most of the "free" world would be speaking German, Russian or Japanese today.
The countries of Scandinavia and Europe would not have been free to develop their welfare states if the USA had not taken on the burden of their defense for the past 60 years. Canada would be bankrupt if it had to defend itself. I am not suggesting that the USA has undertaken the defense of the west at its own expense for all these years out of charity. As we have all seen countless times, self-interest often has very charitable results.
That huge coterie of US politicians anxious to gain or re-gain the "respect" of the world community by begging their indulgence and ceding our prerogatives to international organizations are, in my view, anti-American. They have no confidence or belief in the goodness of America and seem to see almost anything we do as bad. This view is only possible if one chooses to ignore all the great things America has done and continues to do and focus only on our warts. For the most part, this view also requires one to ignore or be ignorant of history.
The French have been anti-American since immediately after WWll. Idiots like John Kerry seem to think that their disaffection for us is some new phenomenon. Any American who has traveled to Paris in the last 50 years knows better.
Debating foreign and domestic policy is an essential element of the American experience. Advocating the reduction of US sovereignty through the ceding of national prerogatives to organizations like the UN or allowing foreign governments to dictate the foreign policy of the US is anti-American.
It is also anti-American and completely counterintuitive to suggest, as Stephen Bryer is fond of doing, that foreign law should inform the interpretation of the US Constitution. The Constitution is a uniquely American document and trends, legal or social, in Africa (or anywhere else for that matter) must, by definition, be irrelevant to it. Whether or not abortion on demand is available in Liberia or England makes no difference to the interpretation of the US constitution. Whether the execution of juveniles convicted of murder offends the US Constitution as cruel and unusual punishment does not depend on what the laws of Holland and Sweden say.
Looking to sources like those listed above for guidance in interpreting our Constitution belies a lack of faith in the institutions and people of this country that can only be interpreted as anti-American.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
If a Picture is Worth 1000 Words...
If a picture is worth 1000 words how much is a phonied up picture worth?
The developing controversy over faked Reuters photos and staged Reuters and AP photos begs the question.
The old saying regarding a picture's worth was coined to describe the phenomenal effect of presumably accurate photos on the human mind. Few of us have the gifts to enable us to compellingly describe even the most mundane of events.
Try describing the beauty of your child, the smile of your wife, the horrendous aftermath of a car accident or the horrendous aftermath of a wartime bombing. Most of us are simply unable to bring these scenes to life in a reader's mind no matter how many words we use.
Iraqi bad guys, Palestinians and Hezbollah have managed to geometrically expand the value added of a photo. Staging scenes of bombings and attacks that may or may not have taken place, doctoring photos to make the carnage of war appear a) to have happened at all and/or b) to be much worse than the actual events have become a common tactic. http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014951.php
The tactic would be considerably less effective if the Western Media was not so guilt ridden that it has rendered itself credulous. It appears that any photo showing carnage perpetrated by Israel and/or the USA is fit to print regardless of its provenance and with no consideration whatsoever of its technical integrity.
It appears that when the photo editors of Reuters, AP and the NY Times et al see a photo that conforms to their anti-Israel and anti-US bias it is automatically fit to print.
On Sunday and Monday Reuters had to "Kill" two photos demonstrated to have been altered and then removed the entire body of work of the photographer from their catalog. The NYTimes, having published another of this photographer's works on its front page on Saturday, reported Wednesday on the Reuters scandal in their business section. The photo published by The NYTimes has created some controversy but the Times apparently didn't think that most of its readers ought to be informed.
The Western Mainstream Media appears to have been completely compromised in their determination to support their anti-Israel and anti-American views with whatever lies, distortions and half-truths come across their wires. Their work product more and more resembles the government controlled media of the Arab world. In this case it is not the government controlling the output. It is the insidious and pervasive anti-Israel and anti-American publishers, editors and journalists who have surrendered their outlets as propoganda outlets for the enemies of freedom.
The developing controversy over faked Reuters photos and staged Reuters and AP photos begs the question.
The old saying regarding a picture's worth was coined to describe the phenomenal effect of presumably accurate photos on the human mind. Few of us have the gifts to enable us to compellingly describe even the most mundane of events.
Try describing the beauty of your child, the smile of your wife, the horrendous aftermath of a car accident or the horrendous aftermath of a wartime bombing. Most of us are simply unable to bring these scenes to life in a reader's mind no matter how many words we use.
Iraqi bad guys, Palestinians and Hezbollah have managed to geometrically expand the value added of a photo. Staging scenes of bombings and attacks that may or may not have taken place, doctoring photos to make the carnage of war appear a) to have happened at all and/or b) to be much worse than the actual events have become a common tactic. http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014951.php
The tactic would be considerably less effective if the Western Media was not so guilt ridden that it has rendered itself credulous. It appears that any photo showing carnage perpetrated by Israel and/or the USA is fit to print regardless of its provenance and with no consideration whatsoever of its technical integrity.
It appears that when the photo editors of Reuters, AP and the NY Times et al see a photo that conforms to their anti-Israel and anti-US bias it is automatically fit to print.
On Sunday and Monday Reuters had to "Kill" two photos demonstrated to have been altered and then removed the entire body of work of the photographer from their catalog. The NYTimes, having published another of this photographer's works on its front page on Saturday, reported Wednesday on the Reuters scandal in their business section. The photo published by The NYTimes has created some controversy but the Times apparently didn't think that most of its readers ought to be informed.
The Western Mainstream Media appears to have been completely compromised in their determination to support their anti-Israel and anti-American views with whatever lies, distortions and half-truths come across their wires. Their work product more and more resembles the government controlled media of the Arab world. In this case it is not the government controlling the output. It is the insidious and pervasive anti-Israel and anti-American publishers, editors and journalists who have surrendered their outlets as propoganda outlets for the enemies of freedom.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Israel and Hezbollah
Like most of the rest of the world I have been watching, listening and reading as the fight has progressed over these last few weeks. Like most of the rest of us I have not had access to any secret source of information that gives me any special knowledge on the subject.
A few things have become obvious, even to those of us with only a view from down here;
1) The UN continues to be an anti-American, anti-Israeli and largely anti-Semitic organization. Mr. Annan wasted little time in condemning the "apparently"(his word) deliberate Israeli bombing of a UN observer post in south Lebanon. In his never-ending myopia he "apparently" didn't bother to consider how unlikely it would be that a civilized nation, a UN member in fact, would deliberately bomb a well known UN observer post.
I haven't heard anything on the subject from Mr. Annan since it was disclosed that emails from a Canadian soldier killed in the bombing informed higher-ups that Hezbollah was maintaining a presence so close to the post that it was endangering the UN observers. As usual, the blame for the incident lies at the feet of those brave and courageous Islamonuts who get as close as possible to unarmed non-combatants to protect themselves from us. Given their craven nature, the Islamonuts actually can't lose, thanks to the hapless western media. If the use of human shields works, the Islamonuts win and live to fight another day. If the human shields die the western media is only too pleased to show the graphic photos of yet another Zionist massacre.
2) During the run-up to the Iraq war we were encouraged to view the French as reliable allies with a different tactical view of the situation, not the cheese-eating surrender monkeys that they so obviously are. Today the French Foreign Minister is touting Iran as a great and good country that can help stabilize the neighborhood. How much more do you need to hear? Please tell me that this will finally convince you to stop buying anything French.
3) The million stories about the "new" Hezbollah that is giving the Israeli's fits is laughable. I can think of no better cover story for the Israeli's to put out. It serves their every purpose.
a) Makes Iran and Syria look even worse than they are by asserting that they have given the bad guys even more weapons and other equipment than we had thought;
b) Makes the inevitable complete destruction of Hezbollah an even greater triumph than it would otherwise have been;
c) Exposes the UN for the fraud that it is. Sooner or later, probably later, someone is going to ask what, exactly, UN observers are for. I don't think any of us assumed that their purpose was to watch Hezbollah import rockets by the 1000's and train fighters by the 1000's and build bunkers and tunnels by the 1000's all in contravention of UN Security Council Resolution #1559 which demands the DISARMING of the people the UN Observers watched arm themselves to the teeth. Did they tell anyone? If they did why are the Israelis so "shocked" at the amount of infrastructure and weaponry they are encountering? If they did relay that information to UN authorities did those authorities share the info with anyone? If so, who, and what did those they shared it with do with the information?
4) The great Qana Massacre will prove to be much like the great Jenin Massacre. Unfortunately, it appears people really did die in Qana. See Human Shields above. The Islamonuts win whether the shields live or die. That win, however is shortlived. The Israelis appear not to care anylonger what the silly western media thinks and I applaud them for choosing to largely ignore the editors and talking heads who refuse to see what is immediately before them: Good guys are fighting bad guys. Good guys are doing everything within their power to get the innocents out of harm's way. The bad guys insist on keeping the innocents in front of them. Some of the innocents get killed. This is hardly the fault of the Good guys. We are the Good guys.
5) Democrat politicians are so stupid that it is unlikely that they will return to power in the near future.
Howard Dean, in a speech calling for an end to divisivness, calls Iraqi Prime Minister Malaki an anti-Semite (also called Katherine Harris a crook and compared her to Stalin, but that is another story)for refusing to condemn the Hezbollah attacks on Israel. I guess he didn't know that 5 Dem Congressmen voted against the House Resolution condemning Hezbollah. He didn't call them anti-Semites.
On the otherhand, maybe this was just Dem pander politics as usual: the speech was in Palm Beach. I wonder what percentage of the audience was jewish?
Mr. Moron, John Kerry made one of his incredibly stupid comments. I quote, as nearly as possible from memory, "This would never have happend under a Kerry Administration". What an idiot.
A few things have become obvious, even to those of us with only a view from down here;
1) The UN continues to be an anti-American, anti-Israeli and largely anti-Semitic organization. Mr. Annan wasted little time in condemning the "apparently"(his word) deliberate Israeli bombing of a UN observer post in south Lebanon. In his never-ending myopia he "apparently" didn't bother to consider how unlikely it would be that a civilized nation, a UN member in fact, would deliberately bomb a well known UN observer post.
I haven't heard anything on the subject from Mr. Annan since it was disclosed that emails from a Canadian soldier killed in the bombing informed higher-ups that Hezbollah was maintaining a presence so close to the post that it was endangering the UN observers. As usual, the blame for the incident lies at the feet of those brave and courageous Islamonuts who get as close as possible to unarmed non-combatants to protect themselves from us. Given their craven nature, the Islamonuts actually can't lose, thanks to the hapless western media. If the use of human shields works, the Islamonuts win and live to fight another day. If the human shields die the western media is only too pleased to show the graphic photos of yet another Zionist massacre.
2) During the run-up to the Iraq war we were encouraged to view the French as reliable allies with a different tactical view of the situation, not the cheese-eating surrender monkeys that they so obviously are. Today the French Foreign Minister is touting Iran as a great and good country that can help stabilize the neighborhood. How much more do you need to hear? Please tell me that this will finally convince you to stop buying anything French.
3) The million stories about the "new" Hezbollah that is giving the Israeli's fits is laughable. I can think of no better cover story for the Israeli's to put out. It serves their every purpose.
a) Makes Iran and Syria look even worse than they are by asserting that they have given the bad guys even more weapons and other equipment than we had thought;
b) Makes the inevitable complete destruction of Hezbollah an even greater triumph than it would otherwise have been;
c) Exposes the UN for the fraud that it is. Sooner or later, probably later, someone is going to ask what, exactly, UN observers are for. I don't think any of us assumed that their purpose was to watch Hezbollah import rockets by the 1000's and train fighters by the 1000's and build bunkers and tunnels by the 1000's all in contravention of UN Security Council Resolution #1559 which demands the DISARMING of the people the UN Observers watched arm themselves to the teeth. Did they tell anyone? If they did why are the Israelis so "shocked" at the amount of infrastructure and weaponry they are encountering? If they did relay that information to UN authorities did those authorities share the info with anyone? If so, who, and what did those they shared it with do with the information?
4) The great Qana Massacre will prove to be much like the great Jenin Massacre. Unfortunately, it appears people really did die in Qana. See Human Shields above. The Islamonuts win whether the shields live or die. That win, however is shortlived. The Israelis appear not to care anylonger what the silly western media thinks and I applaud them for choosing to largely ignore the editors and talking heads who refuse to see what is immediately before them: Good guys are fighting bad guys. Good guys are doing everything within their power to get the innocents out of harm's way. The bad guys insist on keeping the innocents in front of them. Some of the innocents get killed. This is hardly the fault of the Good guys. We are the Good guys.
5) Democrat politicians are so stupid that it is unlikely that they will return to power in the near future.
Howard Dean, in a speech calling for an end to divisivness, calls Iraqi Prime Minister Malaki an anti-Semite (also called Katherine Harris a crook and compared her to Stalin, but that is another story)for refusing to condemn the Hezbollah attacks on Israel. I guess he didn't know that 5 Dem Congressmen voted against the House Resolution condemning Hezbollah. He didn't call them anti-Semites.
On the otherhand, maybe this was just Dem pander politics as usual: the speech was in Palm Beach. I wonder what percentage of the audience was jewish?
Mr. Moron, John Kerry made one of his incredibly stupid comments. I quote, as nearly as possible from memory, "This would never have happend under a Kerry Administration". What an idiot.
Monday, July 03, 2006
NY Times Treason Cont'd
It has now been 10 days since the infamous publication of National Security Secrets by the NY Times and the LA Times. In that time the furor over the exposure of our secret funds tracking program has, thankfully, not died down.
The editors of the NY Times, LA Times and the reporters who wrote the story have been forced to defend themselves several times over. Although they have declined to appear on any critics' shows, they have appeared on friendly ones and the editors have issued serial written justifications of their traitorous decision to publish the story.
There are two possible explanations of the clumsiness of their collective defenses:
1) They are so unaccustomed to being challenged that they don't know how to respond;
and/or
2) They can't possible admit that they published the story because they hate this country and our committment to the GWOT so much that they knew exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it.
All the parties involved are asserting the same justifications;
1) Everyone knew what the USA was doing and
2) That the press has an obligation to expose government programs that might be illegal.
They appear not to have noticed that their story insists that the program was secret ( the headlines screamed it) and was effective. Obviously if the bad guys knew what we were doing they wouldn't have been caught through this program.
They appear not to have noticed that their story reported that the program was legal and subject to appropriate congressional disclosure.
How, you ask, is it possible for them not to have noticed these obvious points that discredit their defense? Its not, of course. Therein lies the reason they won't face critics directly. They wouldn't be able to continuously assert positions refuted by their own story if the interviewers were persistent in their questioning.
They seem very fond of comparing this case to the Pentagon Papers case although they know(or should know) full well that the cases are completely different. In the Pentagon Papers case SCOTUS decided that the government couldn't restrain in advance the publication of classified material. SCOTUS also said that the ruling on the injunction to prevent publication in no way constrained the government from prosecuting the leakers and the publishers for publishing classified material.
In this case, as the parties know, prior restraint is not the issue. The issue is responsibility for publishing classified material from a legal and effective program. Hopefully, prosecutions will ensue.
The editors of the NY Times, LA Times and the reporters who wrote the story have been forced to defend themselves several times over. Although they have declined to appear on any critics' shows, they have appeared on friendly ones and the editors have issued serial written justifications of their traitorous decision to publish the story.
There are two possible explanations of the clumsiness of their collective defenses:
1) They are so unaccustomed to being challenged that they don't know how to respond;
and/or
2) They can't possible admit that they published the story because they hate this country and our committment to the GWOT so much that they knew exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it.
All the parties involved are asserting the same justifications;
1) Everyone knew what the USA was doing and
2) That the press has an obligation to expose government programs that might be illegal.
They appear not to have noticed that their story insists that the program was secret ( the headlines screamed it) and was effective. Obviously if the bad guys knew what we were doing they wouldn't have been caught through this program.
They appear not to have noticed that their story reported that the program was legal and subject to appropriate congressional disclosure.
How, you ask, is it possible for them not to have noticed these obvious points that discredit their defense? Its not, of course. Therein lies the reason they won't face critics directly. They wouldn't be able to continuously assert positions refuted by their own story if the interviewers were persistent in their questioning.
They seem very fond of comparing this case to the Pentagon Papers case although they know(or should know) full well that the cases are completely different. In the Pentagon Papers case SCOTUS decided that the government couldn't restrain in advance the publication of classified material. SCOTUS also said that the ruling on the injunction to prevent publication in no way constrained the government from prosecuting the leakers and the publishers for publishing classified material.
In this case, as the parties know, prior restraint is not the issue. The issue is responsibility for publishing classified material from a legal and effective program. Hopefully, prosecutions will ensue.
Friday, June 23, 2006
NY Times Treason
Today the NY Times has seen fit to publish details of another classified US Intelligence operation. That they can do so with impunity is not really surprising.
We have been having a big debate over the past few months about illegal immigration and the status of illegal immigrants in this country. We have all noticed that these illegal immigrants hide in plain view and, in fact, march in the streets protesting the existence of the laws they are breaking. They do so with impunity.
It seems that we have reached the point at which our tolerance of dissent is threatening the existence of the USA. The New York Times commits serial treasonous offenses and faces no challenge from our government; illegal immigrants flout the laws of this country and face no consequences from our government.
The one slim hope I have is that the NT Times has actually published a planted story designed to deceive the bad guys.
The scenario below is borrowed from hughhewitt.com. Enjoy
"Achmed?"
"Yes Khalid?"
"Did you see the New York Times report on how the infidels are tracking our money?"
"Yes Khalid. I sent a courier with a note to the financier, and he wrote back and assured me that he will route the transfers through a firm in the Bahamas and have the money laundered."
"That is good Achmed."
"It is easy. The infidel newspapers do all the hard work. All I have to do is sit here and write out notes."
"Achmed?"
"Yes Khalid?"
"How come you just don't call the financier?"
"Oh - that! Because the New York Times revealed that the infidels were monitoring our phone calls."
"Damn those infidels!"
"Thank Allah for the New York Times Khalid. Without them we'd have no secrets that weren't known to the infidels."
"Praise Allah for the New York Times."
"Indeed, praise Allah for the New York Times."
We have been having a big debate over the past few months about illegal immigration and the status of illegal immigrants in this country. We have all noticed that these illegal immigrants hide in plain view and, in fact, march in the streets protesting the existence of the laws they are breaking. They do so with impunity.
It seems that we have reached the point at which our tolerance of dissent is threatening the existence of the USA. The New York Times commits serial treasonous offenses and faces no challenge from our government; illegal immigrants flout the laws of this country and face no consequences from our government.
The one slim hope I have is that the NT Times has actually published a planted story designed to deceive the bad guys.
The scenario below is borrowed from hughhewitt.com. Enjoy
"Achmed?"
"Yes Khalid?"
"Did you see the New York Times report on how the infidels are tracking our money?"
"Yes Khalid. I sent a courier with a note to the financier, and he wrote back and assured me that he will route the transfers through a firm in the Bahamas and have the money laundered."
"That is good Achmed."
"It is easy. The infidel newspapers do all the hard work. All I have to do is sit here and write out notes."
"Achmed?"
"Yes Khalid?"
"How come you just don't call the financier?"
"Oh - that! Because the New York Times revealed that the infidels were monitoring our phone calls."
"Damn those infidels!"
"Thank Allah for the New York Times Khalid. Without them we'd have no secrets that weren't known to the infidels."
"Praise Allah for the New York Times."
"Indeed, praise Allah for the New York Times."
Monday, June 05, 2006
May 25, 2006
Dear President Bush,
The purpose of this letter is to try to persuade you that the policies you are pursuing in several areas, but particulalrly immigration reform, are mistaken and may very well lead to a change of stewardship in one or both houses of Congress and, perhaps, the Presidency. Placing the security of this nation back in hands of Democrat politicians will be a disaster. It is avoidable. It is difficult for those of us outside the corridors of power to understand the various pressures to which you must respond. Nevertheless, I feel duty bound to warn you of disaster on the horizon.
I have been a supporter of yours since you were governor of Texas. I had the good fortune to live in Houston from 1984 - 2000. Having “known” you so long it is not a surprise to me that you would have a very compassionate position with respect to the illegal immigrant issue. You have long made your views known and anyone who has been paying attention has no reason to assert that your current position is a surprise.
The fact that you have a consistent position for a long time does not, however, confirm that position as a good one. In this case your position has the twin liabilities of assuming the nation of Mexico, and its government, will respect any immigration laws put in place in this country and so angering Republicans that we are coming to believe that we have no voice at all.
As has been pointed out by intellects much greater than my own, the fact that the Mexicans coming here are “good people” and are just “coming here to work and make better lives for themselves and their families” differentiates them in no way from about 6 billion other people on the planet. Shall we open our doors to all of them?
For most of us the illegal immigration issue has little to do with immigration and everything to do with sovereignty, the rule of law and pride of ownership.
We cannot understand how we can address the issue of future illegal immigration without ensuring that our southern border is secure. In 1965 and 1986 we undertook large scale immigration reforms that were massive failures because they failed to address a
fundamental problem; We cannot count on the Mexican Government to provide a decent economic environment for its citizens. Since they, unlike Canada for instance, are delighted to see their citizens leave and send back billions each year the situation cannot be addressed by conventional American methods.
We prefer to resolve issues by reaching agreements. In this case there is no one to reach an agreement with. Either our border becomes practically impregnable or we will have no more control over illegal immigration after passing reforms than we did before.
For many of us it is impossible to simply dismiss the multiple breakings of our laws by the illegals. They knowingly cross the border illegally; they obtain identity documents illegally; they consume civic services illegally. In short, they show absolutely no respect for our laws and by pursuing the policies dictated by your position on the issue you endorse their view. To suggest that they will pay a fine is silly. We have neither the means nor the will to collect it.
Imagine the front page stories we will be treated to:“Hector and Maria Gonzales have been living here illegally for 10 years. Both are model citizens. They have three sons and a daughter in elementary school and both work hard to support them. In fact, Hector has 2 jobs. They can’t feed their children and pay the fines that would be imposed if they are to take advantage of the Immigration Reform Bill”.
There are two possible results for Hector and Maria: Countless “special” circumstances in which the fees will be waived or a push by moderates and liberals to reduce the fees so these fine people can afford them. Both these outcomes belittle the value of our laws and make a mockery of any attempt at reform. The Mexicans of the future know, just as the 1986 to 2006 version did, that they have no reason to worry about us enforcing our laws. We are too nice to do it. They are happy to take advantage of our generosity.
For many of us it is difficult to understand how well intentioned politicians like yourself can place so little value on American citizenship and sovereignty that you are not offended by people who ignore our sovereignty and you appear happy to give away citizenship to those same people.
We are sorely offended and our national fabric is damaged by the wholesale amnesty that results from policies like those you are pursuing. I am aware that you don’t call it amnesty. Here we run into the old saw that a pig is still a pig no matter how much lipstick you put on it. It is amnesty.
Mr. President, with respect. Secure the Border and enforce our laws first. Reform the immigration laws later.
Yours truly,
__________________________
Michael Markowitz
Cc John McCain
Bill Frist
Dear President Bush,
The purpose of this letter is to try to persuade you that the policies you are pursuing in several areas, but particulalrly immigration reform, are mistaken and may very well lead to a change of stewardship in one or both houses of Congress and, perhaps, the Presidency. Placing the security of this nation back in hands of Democrat politicians will be a disaster. It is avoidable. It is difficult for those of us outside the corridors of power to understand the various pressures to which you must respond. Nevertheless, I feel duty bound to warn you of disaster on the horizon.
I have been a supporter of yours since you were governor of Texas. I had the good fortune to live in Houston from 1984 - 2000. Having “known” you so long it is not a surprise to me that you would have a very compassionate position with respect to the illegal immigrant issue. You have long made your views known and anyone who has been paying attention has no reason to assert that your current position is a surprise.
The fact that you have a consistent position for a long time does not, however, confirm that position as a good one. In this case your position has the twin liabilities of assuming the nation of Mexico, and its government, will respect any immigration laws put in place in this country and so angering Republicans that we are coming to believe that we have no voice at all.
As has been pointed out by intellects much greater than my own, the fact that the Mexicans coming here are “good people” and are just “coming here to work and make better lives for themselves and their families” differentiates them in no way from about 6 billion other people on the planet. Shall we open our doors to all of them?
For most of us the illegal immigration issue has little to do with immigration and everything to do with sovereignty, the rule of law and pride of ownership.
We cannot understand how we can address the issue of future illegal immigration without ensuring that our southern border is secure. In 1965 and 1986 we undertook large scale immigration reforms that were massive failures because they failed to address a
fundamental problem; We cannot count on the Mexican Government to provide a decent economic environment for its citizens. Since they, unlike Canada for instance, are delighted to see their citizens leave and send back billions each year the situation cannot be addressed by conventional American methods.
We prefer to resolve issues by reaching agreements. In this case there is no one to reach an agreement with. Either our border becomes practically impregnable or we will have no more control over illegal immigration after passing reforms than we did before.
For many of us it is impossible to simply dismiss the multiple breakings of our laws by the illegals. They knowingly cross the border illegally; they obtain identity documents illegally; they consume civic services illegally. In short, they show absolutely no respect for our laws and by pursuing the policies dictated by your position on the issue you endorse their view. To suggest that they will pay a fine is silly. We have neither the means nor the will to collect it.
Imagine the front page stories we will be treated to:“Hector and Maria Gonzales have been living here illegally for 10 years. Both are model citizens. They have three sons and a daughter in elementary school and both work hard to support them. In fact, Hector has 2 jobs. They can’t feed their children and pay the fines that would be imposed if they are to take advantage of the Immigration Reform Bill”.
There are two possible results for Hector and Maria: Countless “special” circumstances in which the fees will be waived or a push by moderates and liberals to reduce the fees so these fine people can afford them. Both these outcomes belittle the value of our laws and make a mockery of any attempt at reform. The Mexicans of the future know, just as the 1986 to 2006 version did, that they have no reason to worry about us enforcing our laws. We are too nice to do it. They are happy to take advantage of our generosity.
For many of us it is difficult to understand how well intentioned politicians like yourself can place so little value on American citizenship and sovereignty that you are not offended by people who ignore our sovereignty and you appear happy to give away citizenship to those same people.
We are sorely offended and our national fabric is damaged by the wholesale amnesty that results from policies like those you are pursuing. I am aware that you don’t call it amnesty. Here we run into the old saw that a pig is still a pig no matter how much lipstick you put on it. It is amnesty.
Mr. President, with respect. Secure the Border and enforce our laws first. Reform the immigration laws later.
Yours truly,
__________________________
Michael Markowitz
Cc John McCain
Bill Frist
Friday, May 19, 2006
Islam
Like most of us I knew nothing about Islam before 9/11 and although I have absorbed a lot of information about it since, I am not sure I know much more now than I did then.
Is it necessary to understand the basics of a religion in order to be able to comment on it? Maybe. Then again, maybe not.
In my experience Islam and its spokespeople make having a meaningful understanding of the religious doctrine that motivates them before commenting on it about as necessary as undertsanding the philosophy of your average mass murderer before commenting on his crime.
Like you, I have heard about the "Religion of Peace" ad nauseum; heard that only a small minority are extremists; heard that the moderates are ordinary people like you and me.
Like you I am still waiting for any meaningful condemnation of Islamonuttiness from the moderates.
The President of Iran wants nukes and plainly states his intention to use them.
Hamas plainly states its determination to destroy Israel.
Islamonuts in Iraq routinely blow up other Muslims ( I know, they are only Shia and the bloweruppers are a much better brand of Muslim) and Mosques.
Islamonuts all over the world threaten to kill anyone who dares to publish anything they don't like, and follow through on their threats. Theo Van Gogh and the Danish cartoons aftermath come immediately to mind. At least in Canada the Islamonuts have the decency to file silly law suits rather than killing the messenger.
(Update: I guess I was wrong about the Canadian Islamonuts after all)
In Britain, Muslims are overwhelmingly in favor of imposing Sharia law and, according to surveys I have read do not consider themselves British at all. Muslims in Canada are trying to make their Sharia official amongst themselves. If there was any indication that they intended to keep it among themselves and voluntary I wouldn't see it as anything more destructive than the Jewish legal system that exists wherever there are Jews. Jews who wish to use it do, those who don't, don't and there is never any assertion by anyone that whatever country the Jews happen to inhabit should come to its senses and substitute Halacha for their national legal system. This doesn't even happen in Israel.
Islam, in its current incarnation is not a religion. It is a politico- religious movement, the leaders of which have made clear countless times that it is their intention to rule the world and impose Islam on everyone. Do we really have to know the intricacies of the Koran (Qu'ran or however else it has come to be called) to recognize and reject coercion when we see it? Do we really have to know the intricacies of the Koran to know that we don't want to live like the people in the Middle East, Iran and the various 'stans? No we don't.
Is it necessary to understand the basics of a religion in order to be able to comment on it? Maybe. Then again, maybe not.
In my experience Islam and its spokespeople make having a meaningful understanding of the religious doctrine that motivates them before commenting on it about as necessary as undertsanding the philosophy of your average mass murderer before commenting on his crime.
Like you, I have heard about the "Religion of Peace" ad nauseum; heard that only a small minority are extremists; heard that the moderates are ordinary people like you and me.
Like you I am still waiting for any meaningful condemnation of Islamonuttiness from the moderates.
The President of Iran wants nukes and plainly states his intention to use them.
Hamas plainly states its determination to destroy Israel.
Islamonuts in Iraq routinely blow up other Muslims ( I know, they are only Shia and the bloweruppers are a much better brand of Muslim) and Mosques.
Islamonuts all over the world threaten to kill anyone who dares to publish anything they don't like, and follow through on their threats. Theo Van Gogh and the Danish cartoons aftermath come immediately to mind. At least in Canada the Islamonuts have the decency to file silly law suits rather than killing the messenger.
(Update: I guess I was wrong about the Canadian Islamonuts after all)
In Britain, Muslims are overwhelmingly in favor of imposing Sharia law and, according to surveys I have read do not consider themselves British at all. Muslims in Canada are trying to make their Sharia official amongst themselves. If there was any indication that they intended to keep it among themselves and voluntary I wouldn't see it as anything more destructive than the Jewish legal system that exists wherever there are Jews. Jews who wish to use it do, those who don't, don't and there is never any assertion by anyone that whatever country the Jews happen to inhabit should come to its senses and substitute Halacha for their national legal system. This doesn't even happen in Israel.
Islam, in its current incarnation is not a religion. It is a politico- religious movement, the leaders of which have made clear countless times that it is their intention to rule the world and impose Islam on everyone. Do we really have to know the intricacies of the Koran (Qu'ran or however else it has come to be called) to recognize and reject coercion when we see it? Do we really have to know the intricacies of the Koran to know that we don't want to live like the people in the Middle East, Iran and the various 'stans? No we don't.
The Immigration Wall
Other than those between our respective properties, Americans don't like fences. They just seem wrong. From somewhere I remember "Don't Fence Me In". Range wars were fought over fences in the 1800's. We demanded that "Mr. Gorbachov, tear down that wall!"
Now we appear to be at the edge of an existential crisis. Illegal immigrants, by the millions, crossing our southern border. The most obvious, efficient solution includes a fence; a really big fence. For many of us who realize just how ugly that is, it appears also to be an essential element of the solution.
Threats that "walls won't stop us" are silly and completely counterintuitive. As Charles Krauthammer points out, at the very least a wall will create "choke points" and will seriously slow the progress of the illegals.
It still doesn't feel right, does it? Just the way declaring war on another country doesn't feel right. But when you are left no choice you have to do it. That is where we are with illegal immigration. The governments of Central America and Mexico are so fraudulent and unrepentant that they are forcing us to abandon our liberal philosophies in favor of practicality in defending ourselves against an existential threat.
The illegals themselves are, in the view from down here, blameless. Just like the civilian, non-combatant populations and conscripted solidiers that are devastated in every war. They are being starved to death in their own countries and apparently encouraged (at least by the Mexican Government) by their governments to head North. Who wouldn't try it.
We seem to treat Mexico as though it is somehow entitled to special privileges. Maybe it is our collective guilt for having "stolen" part of their country. Perhaps it is our very American propensity to take pity on the impoverished. What we should be doing is sanctioning Mexico until it stops exporting its poorest citizens North.
Now we appear to be at the edge of an existential crisis. Illegal immigrants, by the millions, crossing our southern border. The most obvious, efficient solution includes a fence; a really big fence. For many of us who realize just how ugly that is, it appears also to be an essential element of the solution.
Threats that "walls won't stop us" are silly and completely counterintuitive. As Charles Krauthammer points out, at the very least a wall will create "choke points" and will seriously slow the progress of the illegals.
It still doesn't feel right, does it? Just the way declaring war on another country doesn't feel right. But when you are left no choice you have to do it. That is where we are with illegal immigration. The governments of Central America and Mexico are so fraudulent and unrepentant that they are forcing us to abandon our liberal philosophies in favor of practicality in defending ourselves against an existential threat.
The illegals themselves are, in the view from down here, blameless. Just like the civilian, non-combatant populations and conscripted solidiers that are devastated in every war. They are being starved to death in their own countries and apparently encouraged (at least by the Mexican Government) by their governments to head North. Who wouldn't try it.
We seem to treat Mexico as though it is somehow entitled to special privileges. Maybe it is our collective guilt for having "stolen" part of their country. Perhaps it is our very American propensity to take pity on the impoverished. What we should be doing is sanctioning Mexico until it stops exporting its poorest citizens North.
Start-up
Like millions of others I have been fascinated and informed by the blogosphere. I have finally summoned up the courage to expose some of my thinking on various political and philosophical issues to the scrutiny of the rest of you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)