"In the 1980s and early 1990s, when concern about global warming was in its infancy, little was known about the mechanics of how it could occur, or the consequences that could befall us. Since then, governments throughout the western world and bodies such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have commissioned billions of dollars worth of research by thousands of scientists. With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.
His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l' Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."" [ Looks like we're about to have one of the most eminent possible French scientists sent down the Memory Hole. This ought to be grounds for popcorn. Allegre who? -ed. ]
Monday, March 05, 2007
Reverse Is Stripped Scotty!
"If private companies had mismanaged outpatient care for veterans the way the V.A. system has, there would be strong calls from all the usual quarters for a government takeover, and proclamations of how we can't trust "greedy" for-profit companies to take care of veterans. Funny how this thought process doesn't seem to work in reverse, except among "free market ideologues," who have been criticizing the V.A. for years." [ Why it's because all of us "free market idealogues" are always filled with evil and bad intentions of course. I know I am. Why the very devil himself invented the idea of a "hand up" instead of knee jerk "hand outs". -ed. ]
Sunday, March 04, 2007
There You Have It
"In my most recent visit, there was the pervasive, open acknowledgement by the police, IA and the residents that they trusted the Americans, but not each other."
On Enemies And Their Our Victims
"An enemy, as opposed to an opponent, is a very different creature.
An enemy is someone with whom we, as individuals and as a community, have fundamental differences. An enemy has values and beliefs, that are very different than out own. An enemy wants to deprive us of our beliefs and values, because that enemy finds our beliefs repulsive or threatening to their own. Enemies will fight to the death, should they choose to engage us or we choose to engage them.
That is a bitter lesson.
Had we bombed Berlin and rid the Germans of Adolph Hitler and the Nazi political leadership, 50 million lives would have been spared.
Had we assassinated the likes of Josef Mengele and other Nazi ’scientists’ and ‘doctors,’ untold horror and tragedy would have been averted and tens of thousands of ‘medical experiments’- many thousands of which the German ‘doctors’ meticulously noted were done without anesthesia, would never have taken place. The wholesale slaughter of Jews, Gypsies, gays, and ‘mental defects’ would never have occurred. [ Of course, many of our own "best and brightest" were aiding and abetting the madness under the rubric of "eugenics". -ed. ]
There are people who believe that enemies are opponents- that is, they can reasoned with and rationalized with and common ground can be had. Believing that an enemy can be an opponent is what led much of Europe to appease Hitler, in the beginning. Herr Hitler, it was believed, was after all a European. Surely he could be reasoned with. Surely he would respond to the rational idea that war was catastrophic.
The world watched and listened as Germany stated her objectives and prepared for war- and remained in denial about the obvious German intentions. The Germans could never be enemies, they believed. They might be opponents- but never enemies.
They were wrong.
Reynolds is absolutely right. If we do not deal with the mullahs and other racist, bigoted and dysfunctional leaders in Tehran and the Arab world, we and our allies will pay dearly. The conflict will not be limited to Africa or other far away places that the media can ignore. We are facing a confrontation in our own back yard.
This kind of denial and moral bankruptcy from the left is not surprising. They have not stood up against any slaughters or tragedies. Stalin, Pol Pot, post war Vietnam, Che, Darfur, Rwanda, Sierra Leonne, Mauritania and Algeria are only a few places of the the left saw fit not care about. The truth is, the only victims the left have consistently proved to care about are themselves."
An enemy is someone with whom we, as individuals and as a community, have fundamental differences. An enemy has values and beliefs, that are very different than out own. An enemy wants to deprive us of our beliefs and values, because that enemy finds our beliefs repulsive or threatening to their own. Enemies will fight to the death, should they choose to engage us or we choose to engage them.
That is a bitter lesson.
Had we bombed Berlin and rid the Germans of Adolph Hitler and the Nazi political leadership, 50 million lives would have been spared.
Had we assassinated the likes of Josef Mengele and other Nazi ’scientists’ and ‘doctors,’ untold horror and tragedy would have been averted and tens of thousands of ‘medical experiments’- many thousands of which the German ‘doctors’ meticulously noted were done without anesthesia, would never have taken place. The wholesale slaughter of Jews, Gypsies, gays, and ‘mental defects’ would never have occurred. [ Of course, many of our own "best and brightest" were aiding and abetting the madness under the rubric of "eugenics". -ed. ]
There are people who believe that enemies are opponents- that is, they can reasoned with and rationalized with and common ground can be had. Believing that an enemy can be an opponent is what led much of Europe to appease Hitler, in the beginning. Herr Hitler, it was believed, was after all a European. Surely he could be reasoned with. Surely he would respond to the rational idea that war was catastrophic.
The world watched and listened as Germany stated her objectives and prepared for war- and remained in denial about the obvious German intentions. The Germans could never be enemies, they believed. They might be opponents- but never enemies.
They were wrong.
Reynolds is absolutely right. If we do not deal with the mullahs and other racist, bigoted and dysfunctional leaders in Tehran and the Arab world, we and our allies will pay dearly. The conflict will not be limited to Africa or other far away places that the media can ignore. We are facing a confrontation in our own back yard.
This kind of denial and moral bankruptcy from the left is not surprising. They have not stood up against any slaughters or tragedies. Stalin, Pol Pot, post war Vietnam, Che, Darfur, Rwanda, Sierra Leonne, Mauritania and Algeria are only a few places of the the left saw fit not care about. The truth is, the only victims the left have consistently proved to care about are themselves."
Labels:
appeasement,
genocide,
history,
middle east,
PC,
politics,
psychology,
terrorism,
war
And The "Coincidental" Putin Hits Go On...
"The shooting of Paul Joyal, 53, came days after he accused the Russian government of involvement in the poisoning of former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko. The FBI was assisting in the investigation.
Joyal was shot Thursday by two men in his driveway, police said.
The shooting appeared to be a random robbery and street shooting, a law enforcement official with knowledge of the case told The Associated Press. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person did not have authority to comment on the case. [ There are those anonymous sources again... -ed. ]
In an interview broadcast last Sunday on "Dateline NBC," Joyal also accused the Russian government of trying to silence its critics.
"A message has been communicated to anyone who wants to speak out against the Kremlin: If you do, no matter who you are, where you are, we will find you, and we will silence you _ in the most horrible way possible," Joyal said." [ And of course, it couldn't possibly be a hit made to look like a street crime. -ed. ]
Joyal was shot Thursday by two men in his driveway, police said.
The shooting appeared to be a random robbery and street shooting, a law enforcement official with knowledge of the case told The Associated Press. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person did not have authority to comment on the case. [ There are those anonymous sources again... -ed. ]
In an interview broadcast last Sunday on "Dateline NBC," Joyal also accused the Russian government of trying to silence its critics.
"A message has been communicated to anyone who wants to speak out against the Kremlin: If you do, no matter who you are, where you are, we will find you, and we will silence you _ in the most horrible way possible," Joyal said." [ And of course, it couldn't possibly be a hit made to look like a street crime. -ed. ]
Another Putin Shocka
"Finally, Russia is a high-cost oil producer, the largest oil producer in the world, the largest oil exporter outside of OPEC, and the largest gas producer. As such, it is interested in maintaining a high energy price environment, which is usually generated by tensions and conflicts in the Middle East. Russia is perfectly willing to sell weapons to both sides of the growing Sunni-Shia divide. This was evidenced when the same nuclear reactors – peaceful, of course, and the same anti-aircraft systems, were offered both to Iran and to the Arab Gulf states, which are increasingly nervous about the growing Iranian military power and nuclear ambitions. As one Russian observer put it, weapons sales create allies. Russia is using weapons and nuclear reactor sales the way imperial Germany used railroads – to bolster influence and to undermine the dominant power in the Middle East."
Labels:
middle east,
politics,
russia,
terrorism
Saturday, March 03, 2007
A Confusion of Whats And Hows
"The California legislature may want to revisit the wording of their proposed ban on incandescents (AB 722). How about mandating a level of efficiency rather than assuming that innovation can't happen?" " [ A classic example of why putting almost anything related to science and technology in the hands of politicians is generally a dumb idea. -ed. ]
Labels:
environmentalism,
politics,
science
Forget It -- Liquid Explosives Edition
"Just imagine if the 'Palestinians' spent as much time and effort and resources trying to improve their lot in life as they spend trying to kill people. Forget it. It will never happen."
Labels:
palestinians,
terrorism
Eugenics Holocaust Update
"The thrust of the article, which was based on interviews with administration sources, was that while North Korea's commitment to acquire nuclear weapons has never been in doubt, at no time has the US had certain knowledge of its actual capabilities. In light of the uncertainty relating to Pyongyang's capabilities, the Bush administration was wrong - the Times's sources clucked - to have confronted it over its intentions.
By the same token, those who applaud the administration's decision to engage the nuclear weapons-seeking mullahs in Teheran argue that the administration would be wrong to confront Iran for its stated intention to "wipe Israel off the map," and to bring about "a world without America," since US intelligence services are incapable of bringing unequivocal information regarding the state of Iran's nuclear weapons program.
Clearly there is something wrong with this analysis. If what is not in doubt is Iran's commitment to acquiring nuclear weapons, rather than base its policies on a best-case-scenario regarding Teheran's unknown capabilities, the US and its allies should be basing their policies on a calculation of the risks a nuclear armed Iran would constitute for global security. ***
IN LIGHT of this analysis it seems that in spite of the praise it is reaping from the policy jet-set, the Bush administration would do well to reexamine its new policy toward Iran. It should accept their criticism and revert to basing its policy toward the nuclear-proliferating, terror-supporting rogue state on what is known rather than on what is unknown.
Since Iran not only wants nuclear weapons, but has an active nuclear weapons program, the question that should be guiding policymakers is not whether Iran should be negotiated with, but rather, whether the US is willing to accept any of the likely scenarios of what will transpire if Iran does in fact acquire nuclear weapons. If the US is not willing to accept any of those scenarios, then it should be asking itself what must be done to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
While Europe may be willing to sit on the sidelines of this fight, just as it sat on the sidelines of the Cold War, and did little to prevent the Nazi conquest of the continent in World War II, Israel has no such luxury." [ The holocaust survivor has now been officially flushed down the Memory Hole. You know, the one who when asked what he had learned from the Holocaust replied: "When a man says he wants to kill you ... you should believe him." Luckily for pomo man, intentions never matter. Or was that always matter? Ah, I forgot -- only MY (obviously bad no matter what I say) intentions matter... -ed. ]
By the same token, those who applaud the administration's decision to engage the nuclear weapons-seeking mullahs in Teheran argue that the administration would be wrong to confront Iran for its stated intention to "wipe Israel off the map," and to bring about "a world without America," since US intelligence services are incapable of bringing unequivocal information regarding the state of Iran's nuclear weapons program.
Clearly there is something wrong with this analysis. If what is not in doubt is Iran's commitment to acquiring nuclear weapons, rather than base its policies on a best-case-scenario regarding Teheran's unknown capabilities, the US and its allies should be basing their policies on a calculation of the risks a nuclear armed Iran would constitute for global security. ***
IN LIGHT of this analysis it seems that in spite of the praise it is reaping from the policy jet-set, the Bush administration would do well to reexamine its new policy toward Iran. It should accept their criticism and revert to basing its policy toward the nuclear-proliferating, terror-supporting rogue state on what is known rather than on what is unknown.
Since Iran not only wants nuclear weapons, but has an active nuclear weapons program, the question that should be guiding policymakers is not whether Iran should be negotiated with, but rather, whether the US is willing to accept any of the likely scenarios of what will transpire if Iran does in fact acquire nuclear weapons. If the US is not willing to accept any of those scenarios, then it should be asking itself what must be done to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
While Europe may be willing to sit on the sidelines of this fight, just as it sat on the sidelines of the Cold War, and did little to prevent the Nazi conquest of the continent in World War II, Israel has no such luxury." [ The holocaust survivor has now been officially flushed down the Memory Hole. You know, the one who when asked what he had learned from the Holocaust replied: "When a man says he wants to kill you ... you should believe him." Luckily for pomo man, intentions never matter. Or was that always matter? Ah, I forgot -- only MY (obviously bad no matter what I say) intentions matter... -ed. ]
Labels:
apocalypse,
appeasement,
Eurabia,
holocaust,
Iran,
Israel,
MSM,
PC,
terrorism,
WMD
Sink Or Swim Only Works With Swimmers
""How the Americans can infuse into the Iraqi army and police in Baghdad a sense of mission and even-handedness such that the Americans can withdraw from neighborhoods in eight to twelve months without backsliding. "
I don't have the answer to this one, it is a great question, but I know what many will say the answer is. "Just leave and they will be forced to take on the responsibilities themselves. Sink or Swim." I know many are advocating this course of action, but I can tell you from experience, this is not a winning strategy. We tried this in 2005 in Eastern Baghdad, turning over much of the East side to Iraqis who were not ready. Because they were not ready, they did what they had to in order to survive, they cut deals, turned blind eyes and stayed out of the way. They did what they could, but they were not ready to do what they had to do." [ The Golden Hour clock ticks relentlessly. And we have a 5 minute attention span... -ed. ]
I don't have the answer to this one, it is a great question, but I know what many will say the answer is. "Just leave and they will be forced to take on the responsibilities themselves. Sink or Swim." I know many are advocating this course of action, but I can tell you from experience, this is not a winning strategy. We tried this in 2005 in Eastern Baghdad, turning over much of the East side to Iraqis who were not ready. Because they were not ready, they did what they had to in order to survive, they cut deals, turned blind eyes and stayed out of the way. They did what they could, but they were not ready to do what they had to do." [ The Golden Hour clock ticks relentlessly. And we have a 5 minute attention span... -ed. ]
Labels:
apocalypse,
appeasement,
corruption,
democrats,
history,
iraq,
islam,
politics,
religion,
terrorism,
war,
WMD
On Fighting
"Unless memory fails, Pickens once said that it is not enough for your adversary to know you will fight; he has to believe you love to fight. That always struck me as pretty good advice for war as well as business."
NYeT To The Killing Fields -- Past And Future
""In the beginning, middle, and end of this episode, Kissinger shows to telling effect, the barbaric nature of the Communist Khmer Rouge was painted over in soothing tones by much of the American press. The New York Times was the most flagrant offender. In one dispatch, its correspondent Sydney Schanberg described a ranking Khmer Rouge leader as a "French-educated intellectual" who wanted nothing more than "to fight against feudal privileges and social inequities." A bloodbath was unlikely, Schanberg reported: "since all are Cambodians, an accommodation will be found." As the last Americans were withdrawn, another upbeat article by Schanberg appeared under the headline, "Indochina Without Americans: For Most, a Better Life." In short order, the Khmer Rouge proceeded to march nearly two million of their fellow Cambodians to their deaths in the killing fields. Also in short order, Schanberg went on to greater glory and a Pulitzer prize. [ I was nearly unable to post this due to a tremendous nausea and urge to retch. -ed. ]
Friday, March 02, 2007
What Al Qaeda?
"The enemy we face in the war on terror has made Iraq the primary front in that war. To use a popular phrase, this is an inconvenient truth."
Labels:
al qaeda,
appeasement,
fundamentalism,
iraq,
MSM,
terrorism,
war
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Eugenics Past ... And Present
"The eugenicists and the immigrationists joined forces to put a stop to this. The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded --- Jews were agreed to be largely feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks --- and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.
As Margaret Sanger said, "Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty … there is not greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles." She spoke of the burden of caring for "this dead weight of human waste." [ Did I forget to mention that Magaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood? Did that make you sit up in your chair? -ed. ]
Such views were widely shared. H.G. Wells spoke against "ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens." Theodore Roosevelt said that "Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind." Luther Burbank" "Stop permitting criminals and weaklings to reproduce." George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.
There was overt racism in this movement, exemplified by texts such as "The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy" by American author Lothrop Stoddard. But, at the time, racism was considered an unremarkable aspect of the effort to attain a marvelous goal --- the improvement of humankind in the future. It was this avant-garde notion that attracted the most liberal and progressive minds of a generation. California was one of twenty-nine American states to pass laws allowing sterilization, but it proved the most-forward-looking and enthusiastic --- more sterilizations were carried out in California than anywhere else in America.
Eugenics research was funded by the Carnegie Foundation, and later by the Rockefeller Foundation. The latter was so enthusiastic that even after the center of the eugenics effort moved to Germany, and involved the gassing of individuals from mental institutions, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was quiet about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before the onset of World War II.)
Since the 1920s, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where "mental defectives" were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led into a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property.
Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and of killing ten million undesirables.
After World War II, nobody was a eugenicist, and nobody had ever been a eugenicist. Biographers of the celebrated and the powerful did not dwell on the attractions of this philosophy to their subjects, and sometimes did not mention it at all. Eugenics ceased to be a subject for college classrooms, although some argue that its ideas continue to have currency in disguised form." [ Michael Crichton is unstinting on the global warming hysteria, no? Wow -- a real excavation of the Memory Hole on display here. -ed. ]
But now we have someone new working hard to bring eugenics back:
"Ahmadinejad has made a habit of making virulently anti-Israel comments, calling for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map," among other verbal attacks.
He also has called the Holocaust a myth and held a conference of revisionist historians on the credibility that six million Jews were killed by Nazis during World War II."
As Margaret Sanger said, "Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty … there is not greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles." She spoke of the burden of caring for "this dead weight of human waste." [ Did I forget to mention that Magaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood? Did that make you sit up in your chair? -ed. ]
Such views were widely shared. H.G. Wells spoke against "ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens." Theodore Roosevelt said that "Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind." Luther Burbank" "Stop permitting criminals and weaklings to reproduce." George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.
There was overt racism in this movement, exemplified by texts such as "The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy" by American author Lothrop Stoddard. But, at the time, racism was considered an unremarkable aspect of the effort to attain a marvelous goal --- the improvement of humankind in the future. It was this avant-garde notion that attracted the most liberal and progressive minds of a generation. California was one of twenty-nine American states to pass laws allowing sterilization, but it proved the most-forward-looking and enthusiastic --- more sterilizations were carried out in California than anywhere else in America.
Eugenics research was funded by the Carnegie Foundation, and later by the Rockefeller Foundation. The latter was so enthusiastic that even after the center of the eugenics effort moved to Germany, and involved the gassing of individuals from mental institutions, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was quiet about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before the onset of World War II.)
Since the 1920s, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where "mental defectives" were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led into a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property.
Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and of killing ten million undesirables.
After World War II, nobody was a eugenicist, and nobody had ever been a eugenicist. Biographers of the celebrated and the powerful did not dwell on the attractions of this philosophy to their subjects, and sometimes did not mention it at all. Eugenics ceased to be a subject for college classrooms, although some argue that its ideas continue to have currency in disguised form." [ Michael Crichton is unstinting on the global warming hysteria, no? Wow -- a real excavation of the Memory Hole on display here. -ed. ]
But now we have someone new working hard to bring eugenics back:
"Ahmadinejad has made a habit of making virulently anti-Israel comments, calling for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map," among other verbal attacks.
He also has called the Holocaust a myth and held a conference of revisionist historians on the credibility that six million Jews were killed by Nazis during World War II."
Labels:
apocalypse,
environmentalism,
holocaust,
Iran,
Israel,
science
Focus
"My advice to investors and entrepreneurs is not to dive into a hot Web 2.0 start-up. Instead, invest in building up your attention span. Take a walk. Read a book. Shut down your computer and your cell phone for 24 hours. Focus." [ Turn off the TV too. -ed. ]
Labels:
education,
internet,
psychology
The Middle ... Is Missing
"The CCES survey asked about 14 national issues: the war in Iraq (the invasion and the troops), abortion (and partial birth abortion), stem cell research, global warming, health insurance, immigration, the minimum wage, liberalism and conservatism, same-sex marriage, privatizing Social Security, affirmative action, and capital gains taxes. Not surprisingly, some of the largest differences between Democrats and Republicans were over the Iraq war. Fully 85 percent of those who voted for Democratic House candidates felt that it had been a mistake to invade Iraq, compared with only 18 percent of voters who cast ballots for Republicans.
But the divisions between the parties weren't limited to Iraq. They extended to every issue in the survey. For example, 69 percent of Democratic voters chose the most strongly pro-choice position on the issue of abortion, compared with 20 percent of Republican voters; only 16 percent of Democratic voters supported a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, while 80 percent of Republican voters did; and 91 percent of Democratic voters favored governmental action to reduce global warming, compared with 27 percent of Republican voters.
When we combined voters' answers to the 14 issue questions to form a liberal-conservative scale (answers were divided into five equivalent categories based on overall liberalism vs. conservatism), 86 percent of Democratic voters were on the liberal side of the scale while 80 percent of Republican voters were on the conservative side. Only 10 percent of all voters were in the center. The visual representation of the nation's voters isn't a nicely shaped bell, with most voters in the moderate middle. It's a sharp V.
The evidence from this survey isn't surprising; nor are the findings new. For the past three decades, the major parties and the electorate have grown more divided -- in what they think, where they live and how they vote. It may be comforting to believe our problems could be solved if only those vile politicians in Washington would learn to get along. The source of the country's division, however, is nestled much closer to home." [ Now that's truly sobering. -ed. ]
But the divisions between the parties weren't limited to Iraq. They extended to every issue in the survey. For example, 69 percent of Democratic voters chose the most strongly pro-choice position on the issue of abortion, compared with 20 percent of Republican voters; only 16 percent of Democratic voters supported a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, while 80 percent of Republican voters did; and 91 percent of Democratic voters favored governmental action to reduce global warming, compared with 27 percent of Republican voters.
When we combined voters' answers to the 14 issue questions to form a liberal-conservative scale (answers were divided into five equivalent categories based on overall liberalism vs. conservatism), 86 percent of Democratic voters were on the liberal side of the scale while 80 percent of Republican voters were on the conservative side. Only 10 percent of all voters were in the center. The visual representation of the nation's voters isn't a nicely shaped bell, with most voters in the moderate middle. It's a sharp V.
The evidence from this survey isn't surprising; nor are the findings new. For the past three decades, the major parties and the electorate have grown more divided -- in what they think, where they live and how they vote. It may be comforting to believe our problems could be solved if only those vile politicians in Washington would learn to get along. The source of the country's division, however, is nestled much closer to home." [ Now that's truly sobering. -ed. ]
Methane Credits
"me: “So let me get this straight: I pay you five dollars, and in return, you promise not to eat an ounce of roughage for, say, three days. Meanwhile, I can eat as much in the way of beans and cabbage as I want—and in the end, we’re both absolved from any responsibility for personal methane production...?”
poor Mexican migrant worker: ”Si.”
me: “Interesting.
me: “—So. Does this mean you have to follow me around and take the blame if I let one rip in a crowded elevator? Or is that, like, extra...?” "
poor Mexican migrant worker: ”Si.”
me: “Interesting.
me: “—So. Does this mean you have to follow me around and take the blame if I let one rip in a crowded elevator? Or is that, like, extra...?” "
Labels:
environmentalism,
humor
VDH Reaches Into The Memory Hole Once More
"Imagine if the House of Representatives had debated a resolution to authorize the president’s use of force in Iraq only after the bombs were already falling. And what if after the debate, in the middle of the war, with our troops already in combat, Congress had suddenly denied such approval?
That is precisely what happened to President Clinton during the Serbian war of 1999. Neither the Senate nor the House agreed to sanction the administration’s ongoing preemptive bombing campaign against Serbia. That congressional rebuke prompted liberal commentator Mark Shields to scoff on PBS Newshour that American troops were “putting their life on the line, and (the Congress) are saying, we’re not with you.” ***
Since World War II, our intelligence agencies failed to foresee the Chinese invasion of Korea, the Yom Kippur War, the fall of the Shah of Iran, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the sudden spread of Islamic fundamentalism, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Cambodian and Rwandan holocausts, and the acquisition of the bomb by Pakistan and North Korea." [ And let's not forget that the Manhattan project's inception based on the assumption (supported by Einstein no less) that Hitler was headed toward the bomb himself was probably THE greatest intelligence failure in history. The ALSOS project investigating Hitler's nuclear program after the war concluded that they may have spent more money trying to find the program than Hitler spent on his program! -ed. ]
That is precisely what happened to President Clinton during the Serbian war of 1999. Neither the Senate nor the House agreed to sanction the administration’s ongoing preemptive bombing campaign against Serbia. That congressional rebuke prompted liberal commentator Mark Shields to scoff on PBS Newshour that American troops were “putting their life on the line, and (the Congress) are saying, we’re not with you.” ***
Since World War II, our intelligence agencies failed to foresee the Chinese invasion of Korea, the Yom Kippur War, the fall of the Shah of Iran, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the sudden spread of Islamic fundamentalism, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Cambodian and Rwandan holocausts, and the acquisition of the bomb by Pakistan and North Korea." [ And let's not forget that the Manhattan project's inception based on the assumption (supported by Einstein no less) that Hitler was headed toward the bomb himself was probably THE greatest intelligence failure in history. The ALSOS project investigating Hitler's nuclear program after the war concluded that they may have spent more money trying to find the program than Hitler spent on his program! -ed. ]
I Did Mention Worms, Didn't I?
"Those who still dream of the grand bargain—including those in the G.W. Bush administration who have pursued it avidly, and have gotten kicked in the same place as the Clinton pursuers—must explain to us simple souls why there is anything different today that might make a bargain with the Iranians more likely than it has been for the last 28 years. Certainly the Iranians have shown no desire for reconciliation; quite the contrary, unless you think killing Americans at a rate considerably faster than the tempo of murder in the Clinton years represents some odd form of mating dance. The Supreme Leader is the same fanatic as he was then, in terrible health to be sure, but no friendlier towards satanic negotiators. The only big change in Tehran personnel is the president. Instead of Khatami-the-Reformer we’ve got Ahmadinejad, Hitler’s great admirer. I don’t think that is an improvement.
If they were forced to answer these questions, the advocates of negotiations would resort to the hoax—we haven’t tried negotiations, and it’s worth a try. But the real history of U.S.-Iranian relations suggests very strongly that the only possible winners in such talks will be the mullahs. They will gain more time to organize their war against us, and to build atomic bombs."
If they were forced to answer these questions, the advocates of negotiations would resort to the hoax—we haven’t tried negotiations, and it’s worth a try. But the real history of U.S.-Iranian relations suggests very strongly that the only possible winners in such talks will be the mullahs. They will gain more time to organize their war against us, and to build atomic bombs."
Labels:
appeasement,
Iran,
terrorism,
WMD
Blogger Down The Memory Hole...
"The pseudonymous Egyptian blogger Sandmonkey of Rantings of a Sandmonkey has an extremely moving article in Pajamas today about the sentencing of his fellow Egyptian blogger Abdel Kareem Soliman. Abdel Kareem (also spelled Karim) was given four years for "contempt for religion" and "insulting the president". He could easily be killed in jail by a religious fanatic, according to the Sandmonkey, if he doesn't go crazy in solitary first.
It's frustrating to read stories like this. You want to do something, but you don't know how. I quickly clicked onto the websites of Human Rights Watch and PEN (of which I was once the West Coast president), hoping they could do something, but found no references to Abdel Kareem under either spelling. Maybe I missed something. I checked Atrios and the Daily Kos as well, but nothing there either about their fellow blogger. Perhaps they are unaware of what is happening. You would think this was a situation that would transcend domestic politics - the guy's going to the slammer - but so far apparently not. Lots of stuff on Kos though about how Giuliani's numbers can't last and how he's going to implode."
It's frustrating to read stories like this. You want to do something, but you don't know how. I quickly clicked onto the websites of Human Rights Watch and PEN (of which I was once the West Coast president), hoping they could do something, but found no references to Abdel Kareem under either spelling. Maybe I missed something. I checked Atrios and the Daily Kos as well, but nothing there either about their fellow blogger. Perhaps they are unaware of what is happening. You would think this was a situation that would transcend domestic politics - the guy's going to the slammer - but so far apparently not. Lots of stuff on Kos though about how Giuliani's numbers can't last and how he's going to implode."
Labels:
blogs,
democrats,
human rights,
islam
That Old Marxist Envy
"Envy hasn’t yet been beaten in China. Yes, markets in China have been opening up, but traditional Confucianist disdain towards merchants goes back millennia. It won’t go away in a decade or two.
Over the past year, Marxist rhetoric has been heating up in the Chinese media. The Communist party’s official paper, the People’s Daily, has been talking a lot about income inequality (perhaps taking its cue from the New York Times). Powerful Communist party officials have been complaining about “black hearted” business tycoons and prattling on about social responsibility."
Over the past year, Marxist rhetoric has been heating up in the Chinese media. The Communist party’s official paper, the People’s Daily, has been talking a lot about income inequality (perhaps taking its cue from the New York Times). Powerful Communist party officials have been complaining about “black hearted” business tycoons and prattling on about social responsibility."
Keeping It From Happening Again
"The Sunni terrorists, faced with getting shut down, have shifted their aim to targets more likely to get noticed by foreign journalists. The terrorists know that the journalists are pretty dumb when it comes to terrorism. The journalists don't do much counting or analysis, but simply rush from one large explosion to another and try and make it sound like the sky is falling and the end of the world-as-we-know-it is neigh. That's not dumb as much as it recognizes how the news business works. It's all about events, the "news", not trends and analysis. The historians can come along in a decade or so and do that boring stuff. But for right now, the reporters want hot headlines, and the terrorists are glad to oblige.
A few months of stomping on Sunni terrorists will be followed, for most of the Summer, by an even more difficult battle with the Shia terrorist organizations. The problem with the Shia gangs is that they have more support (60 percent of the population is Shia), and the worst ones have the backing of Iran (in the form of cash, weapons and technical advice). Most of the Shia terrorist gangs also have connections to Shia political parties. Shia politicians are nervous about taking down the Shia gangs because of the risk of a civil war between Shia factions. But either you take that risk, or you leave the Shia terrorists to go on driving the Sunni Arabs out of Iraq. That would get ugly, and widely condemned. For example, a European war crimes court recently condemned Serbia, and all Serbians, for their support of Bosnian Serbs in the ethnic cleansing massacres of the 1990s. Same thing is shaping up in Iraq, and the Shia terrorists are very encouraged. Over half the Sunni Arabs have already been driven from the homes, and most of them have fled the country. Kurds and Shia in Iraq don't care what European war crimes commissions think, they can only remember their dead, and an urge to prevent it from happening again. That means the Sunni Arabs have to go."
A few months of stomping on Sunni terrorists will be followed, for most of the Summer, by an even more difficult battle with the Shia terrorist organizations. The problem with the Shia gangs is that they have more support (60 percent of the population is Shia), and the worst ones have the backing of Iran (in the form of cash, weapons and technical advice). Most of the Shia terrorist gangs also have connections to Shia political parties. Shia politicians are nervous about taking down the Shia gangs because of the risk of a civil war between Shia factions. But either you take that risk, or you leave the Shia terrorists to go on driving the Sunni Arabs out of Iraq. That would get ugly, and widely condemned. For example, a European war crimes court recently condemned Serbia, and all Serbians, for their support of Bosnian Serbs in the ethnic cleansing massacres of the 1990s. Same thing is shaping up in Iraq, and the Shia terrorists are very encouraged. Over half the Sunni Arabs have already been driven from the homes, and most of them have fled the country. Kurds and Shia in Iraq don't care what European war crimes commissions think, they can only remember their dead, and an urge to prevent it from happening again. That means the Sunni Arabs have to go."
Oops, Another Bad Example...
"U.S.: Er ... Well, uh ... this has been very helpful, don'tcha think? I mean, we're talking, right? Talking is progress, no? Didn't Chamberlain talk to Hitler — oh, sorry, bad example. Didn't Carter send Brzezinski to talk to you guys — oops, another bad example. But you get my drift, right?"
Labels:
appeasement,
Iran
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
The Apocalypse Will Be Only Grapefruit Sized?
"For want of a less loaded term, let us just say that the hail of shakti or "universal k" is coming down the size of grapefruits, pelting everyone below: "the sun shines on both the wicked and righteous," and all that. Some people strap on a suicide bomb while others hallucinate about a "Christo-fascist takeover," but everyone gets hit and tries to figure out why we have hail on earth.
A great many primordial conflicts are rising to the surface and being worked out in the field of time. Mankind's future evolution hinges on their outcome, no less than it hinged on the earlier preparation of a human group and a human body. For now, the only viable human future will have to involve all of mankind, not in some twisted left-hand exterior version enforced by elites from on high, but in a truly interior-vertical sense. One way or another, all men must become Coons, even if they don't yet have a public school diploma or can't come up with the $1.50 initiation fee." [ Gagdad has another fine post worth savoring today. What he forgets is something that he already has pointed out before tangentially: "It's pretty odd when you can be less than five years away from the nuclear bomb but more than five centuries away from the nuclear age." I really like the imagery of the "Arc Of Salvation". The problem is that the Arc's entire trail remains fossilized in the present with the continued existence of progressively more primitive peoples leading back in a geographical Arc from the New World back throughEurope Eurabia, the Middle East/ Islam and even some few remaining pre-modern rain forest primitives. The folks in the rain forest are not the problem -- not yet any way. (See "Understanding The Concept Of Button") But there is a fault line in the Middle East with Islam where we have violated the Prime Directive in a very big way. The power of Shiva's fire is barrelling precipitously toward people that really don't understand the awesome power of Oppenheimer's child (and its relatives) having their fingers on the button. They know what a button is. But they really don't understand what it will mean to push it... (Welcome to the 3 Conjectures) So in my view we have two choices leading to survival: 1) an all-out effort to educate them and extinguish their primitive beliefs and ignorance before they inevitably have their finger on the button or 2) an all-out effort to re-impose the cloak of the Prime Directive and remove Shiva's power from their hands. I don't see either one happening -- instead we have a pitifully weak and bumbling hybrid of the two. We are squandering the "Golden Hour". -ed. ]
A great many primordial conflicts are rising to the surface and being worked out in the field of time. Mankind's future evolution hinges on their outcome, no less than it hinged on the earlier preparation of a human group and a human body. For now, the only viable human future will have to involve all of mankind, not in some twisted left-hand exterior version enforced by elites from on high, but in a truly interior-vertical sense. One way or another, all men must become Coons, even if they don't yet have a public school diploma or can't come up with the $1.50 initiation fee." [ Gagdad has another fine post worth savoring today. What he forgets is something that he already has pointed out before tangentially: "It's pretty odd when you can be less than five years away from the nuclear bomb but more than five centuries away from the nuclear age." I really like the imagery of the "Arc Of Salvation". The problem is that the Arc's entire trail remains fossilized in the present with the continued existence of progressively more primitive peoples leading back in a geographical Arc from the New World back through
Labels:
apocalypse,
Eurabia,
individualism,
Iran,
islam,
religion,
terrorism,
tribalism
Eurabia Update
"MvdG: In WGM you argue that Europe will face big problems due to the aging and decreasing population. Can something be done about that or do you advise me to leave this hellhole migrate?
HdB: Can something be done? Absolutely, mostly in the bedroom but Igather that Europeans are pretty good at this elsewhere too. Unfortunately the attractions of large families are not what they used to be, as anyone sitting in row 18 in an airplane will agree. So Europeans are still having fun but less, shall we say, outcome. The results are daunting, and I do not see Europe’s future very optimistically. At least Europe’s population is not declining for the same reasons Russia’s is (Russia,of course, is not Europe); dysfunction goes a lot deeper in Russia. Nor does Europe face the cultural obstacles as also-declining Japan with its racial-purity obsessions. But Europe’s geography — that is, its relative location — creates special problems in the sourcing of the immigration stream that has and will replace its demographic losses. Accommodating the ex-colonial and neo-Muslim immigrations has not gone well and various models, including the Dutch, have essentially failed. Regarding your question about emigrating — take a look at the statistics… You’re in good — and much — company. The number of Dutch leaving the Netherlands annually is steadily rising."
HdB: Can something be done? Absolutely, mostly in the bedroom but Igather that Europeans are pretty good at this elsewhere too. Unfortunately the attractions of large families are not what they used to be, as anyone sitting in row 18 in an airplane will agree. So Europeans are still having fun but less, shall we say, outcome. The results are daunting, and I do not see Europe’s future very optimistically. At least Europe’s population is not declining for the same reasons Russia’s is (Russia,of course, is not Europe); dysfunction goes a lot deeper in Russia. Nor does Europe face the cultural obstacles as also-declining Japan with its racial-purity obsessions. But Europe’s geography — that is, its relative location — creates special problems in the sourcing of the immigration stream that has and will replace its demographic losses. Accommodating the ex-colonial and neo-Muslim immigrations has not gone well and various models, including the Dutch, have essentially failed. Regarding your question about emigrating — take a look at the statistics… You’re in good — and much — company. The number of Dutch leaving the Netherlands annually is steadily rising."
Labels:
Eurabia
Peters On The Real Mistakes
"Historically, the common denominator of successful counterinsurgency operations is that only an uncompromising military approach works — not winning hearts and minds nor a negotiated compromise. This runs counter to our politically correct worldview, but the historical evidence is incontestable.
Simply because the truth is hateful to us doesn't mean that we can declare it false.
We have entered a grim new age in which we must cope simultaneously with a return to old-fashioned wars of blood and belief, with the fatally flawed borders left behind by European imperialism, with the destabilizing effects of the information age on traditional societies, and with the explosion of our cherished myths about the pacific nature of humankind.
There were many things we failed to understand about Iraq, but our comprehensive mistake has been failing to understand our place in history."
Simply because the truth is hateful to us doesn't mean that we can declare it false.
We have entered a grim new age in which we must cope simultaneously with a return to old-fashioned wars of blood and belief, with the fatally flawed borders left behind by European imperialism, with the destabilizing effects of the information age on traditional societies, and with the explosion of our cherished myths about the pacific nature of humankind.
There were many things we failed to understand about Iraq, but our comprehensive mistake has been failing to understand our place in history."
Inside The MSMemory Hole
"The Vietnam-era journalists began a tradition that today's press consistently upholds. We hear very little from most large press outlets about American heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan, men like James Coffman Jr., Danny Dietz, and Christopher Adlesperger, or about our military successes there. Instead of associating such names with these wars, Americans associate the words they hear most often from the press, like Abu Ghraib and Haditha. As in Vietnam, too, the shunning of heroes does not extend to the press's coverage of itself. Awards to journalists, both those who have spent time in Iraq and Afghanistan and those who have not, are considered worthy of lengthy news stories.
Publicizing American heroism and success is essential today for two reasons. First, it permits a nuanced view of Iraq and Afghanistan, one which cannot be discerned from the daily stories of sectarian murders and the photos of American troops who have just been killed. Second, American troops and the American people become more courageous and resolute when they hear of their countrymen's military heroism and success, past and present. In earlier times, Americans ingrained their traditions of heroism and victory into the country's youth through historical instruction. Today's history textbooks largely ignore America's military past, a reflection of the anti-military prejudices, lack of military experience, and cosmopolitanism that pervade the intelligentsia."
Publicizing American heroism and success is essential today for two reasons. First, it permits a nuanced view of Iraq and Afghanistan, one which cannot be discerned from the daily stories of sectarian murders and the photos of American troops who have just been killed. Second, American troops and the American people become more courageous and resolute when they hear of their countrymen's military heroism and success, past and present. In earlier times, Americans ingrained their traditions of heroism and victory into the country's youth through historical instruction. Today's history textbooks largely ignore America's military past, a reflection of the anti-military prejudices, lack of military experience, and cosmopolitanism that pervade the intelligentsia."
Labels:
Afghanistan,
iraq,
MSM,
PC,
war
Christian Worms As Far As The Eye Can See...
"Washington, DC—A coalition of liberal religious leaders just returned on Sunday from a week long “bridge-building” trip to Iran. [ a bridge to Hades - Atlas] They met with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the hopes of averting U.S. military action against Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The Iranian president, who has denied the Holocaust and threatened to incinerate Israel, assured the trusting church officials that he is against nuclear weapons. Organizers of the trip were the Mennonite Central Committee and American Friends Service Committee. Ahmadinejad invited the religious officials to Iran after having met with many of them in New York last September. The delegation included representatives of the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, and the National Council of Churches, among others.
IRD UMAction Director Mark Tooley commented:
“The ecumenical delegation’s acceptance of President Ahmadinejad’s soothing assurances about peace and good will was absurd. The Iranian dictator, who presides over a vicious Shiite theocracy, has publicly prophesied for an apocalypse that concludes with the destruction of non-believers. Presumably he did not discuss his genocidal plans with the church officials, and presumably they did not bother to ask.
“Supposedly Ahmadinejad told the 13-member delegation his government ‘Iran has no intention to acquire or use nuclear weapons’ yet his foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki has reiterated that his country would never suspend uranium enrichment. (AP)
“The ecumenical statement released included, ‘We believe it is possible for further dialogue and that there can be a new day in U.S. – Iranian relations.’ Perhaps the ecumenical delegation should have sung Kumbaya with the Iranian president. For over 30 years, officials from these church groups have never failed to meet an anti-American dictator they could not trust and even admire. If they made any impression on Ahmadinejad at all, these church officials must have only confirmed his stereotypes about naïve and gullible Americans." [ I have never used the really bad word on this blog other than a small number of quotes of it. I'm sorely temped to use it in the first person right now though... -ed. ]
IRD UMAction Director Mark Tooley commented:
“The ecumenical delegation’s acceptance of President Ahmadinejad’s soothing assurances about peace and good will was absurd. The Iranian dictator, who presides over a vicious Shiite theocracy, has publicly prophesied for an apocalypse that concludes with the destruction of non-believers. Presumably he did not discuss his genocidal plans with the church officials, and presumably they did not bother to ask.
“Supposedly Ahmadinejad told the 13-member delegation his government ‘Iran has no intention to acquire or use nuclear weapons’ yet his foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki has reiterated that his country would never suspend uranium enrichment. (AP)
“The ecumenical statement released included, ‘We believe it is possible for further dialogue and that there can be a new day in U.S. – Iranian relations.’ Perhaps the ecumenical delegation should have sung Kumbaya with the Iranian president. For over 30 years, officials from these church groups have never failed to meet an anti-American dictator they could not trust and even admire. If they made any impression on Ahmadinejad at all, these church officials must have only confirmed his stereotypes about naïve and gullible Americans." [ I have never used the really bad word on this blog other than a small number of quotes of it. I'm sorely temped to use it in the first person right now though... -ed. ]
Labels:
apocalypse,
Christianity,
Iran,
islam,
terrorism
The Secret 51st State -- Do You Know Where It Is?
"“I read the Iraq Study Group report that criticized your region for not flying the Iraq flag,” I said.
Adnan responded, “Yes, they did. This was the same flag planted in over 5000 villages that were gassed. We have a constitution, and our region is democratic. Why must we fly the Iraqi flag? Would the U.S. ask the Jews that suffered in the Holocaust to fly the Nazi flag? We refuse to honor the ‘Hitler’ who gassed our people; we want the new flag approved by our Constitution.” Adnan also rejected the Iraq Study Group’s proposal that two terror states, Iran and Syria, “meddle in our affairs.”
“Why,” he asked, “did no one from the Iraq Study Group come here? They ask where the proof is that the Bush policy is succeeding in Iraq. We are the proof. Your nations saved us from extermination. We are a stable region that is a model of everything the U.S. wants for Iraq. Why is it being kept hidden?” I am reminded as I look into his eyes that he was the target of a bomb attack by fanatic Muslims because of his strong support for America, and was poisoned by Saddam Hussein, and almost died.
Adnan placed a letter in my hands to deliver to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. He said, “I sent it through diplomatic channels via the U.S. Ambassador, but did not hear back.” I promised I would do my best to get it into the hands of the President." ***
"The U.S. National Intelligence Agency declassified a report suggesting that President Bush’s new strategy for controlling violence must show progress within twelve to eighteen months or risk further deterioration. Show progress? What a sick joke. You have one-fourth of Iraq living in stability; not one U.S. soldier has been killed there…ever. There has not been a terror attack in 18 months. If that is not progress, what is?" [ Have you figured out where this is yet? If you can't name it yet what does that say about your opinions on the rest of the Middle East? And if you can, did you know this? Why not? -ed. ]
Adnan responded, “Yes, they did. This was the same flag planted in over 5000 villages that were gassed. We have a constitution, and our region is democratic. Why must we fly the Iraqi flag? Would the U.S. ask the Jews that suffered in the Holocaust to fly the Nazi flag? We refuse to honor the ‘Hitler’ who gassed our people; we want the new flag approved by our Constitution.” Adnan also rejected the Iraq Study Group’s proposal that two terror states, Iran and Syria, “meddle in our affairs.”
“Why,” he asked, “did no one from the Iraq Study Group come here? They ask where the proof is that the Bush policy is succeeding in Iraq. We are the proof. Your nations saved us from extermination. We are a stable region that is a model of everything the U.S. wants for Iraq. Why is it being kept hidden?” I am reminded as I look into his eyes that he was the target of a bomb attack by fanatic Muslims because of his strong support for America, and was poisoned by Saddam Hussein, and almost died.
Adnan placed a letter in my hands to deliver to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. He said, “I sent it through diplomatic channels via the U.S. Ambassador, but did not hear back.” I promised I would do my best to get it into the hands of the President." ***
"The U.S. National Intelligence Agency declassified a report suggesting that President Bush’s new strategy for controlling violence must show progress within twelve to eighteen months or risk further deterioration. Show progress? What a sick joke. You have one-fourth of Iraq living in stability; not one U.S. soldier has been killed there…ever. There has not been a terror attack in 18 months. If that is not progress, what is?" [ Have you figured out where this is yet? If you can't name it yet what does that say about your opinions on the rest of the Middle East? And if you can, did you know this? Why not? -ed. ]
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Did I Mention Worms?
"I hope General Shirazi is explaining all the details of his job to our interviewers. He undoubtedly knows a lot about Iran’s international reign of terror, from Iraq to Yemen, from Europe to South America. He might even help us track down Imadh Mughniyah, the operational chief of Hezbollah, who was last noted at a confab in Tehran with Ramadan Shalah (head of Islamic Jihad) and Moqtada al Sadr, the boy wonder of Iraqi radical Shi’ism.
Perhaps Secretary Rice can explain to us, slowly and clearly, why we should be negotiating with these bastards instead of supporting regime change in Tehran? Those lucky enough to escape their clutches—such as Ardeshir Dolat—understand that you can only lose by negotiating with terrorists.
Have a look at these excellent thoughts from Ardeshir Dolat. He knows. Condi should have him over for tea."
Perhaps Secretary Rice can explain to us, slowly and clearly, why we should be negotiating with these bastards instead of supporting regime change in Tehran? Those lucky enough to escape their clutches—such as Ardeshir Dolat—understand that you can only lose by negotiating with terrorists.
Have a look at these excellent thoughts from Ardeshir Dolat. He knows. Condi should have him over for tea."
Labels:
appeasement,
Iran,
iraq,
islam,
terrorism
Even Angels Long?
"If in Christian terms this is truly the era of the Paraclete, it means that the history of the world since the redemption must itself contain a message, a message that cannot be less than equal to the Gospel of Christ -- if the Holy Ghost is indeed equal to the other two persons of God. If we look at that history from the vantage point of today, we notice one huge development: the astonishing progress of science, technology, and the human arts in general. That progress occurred chiefly in the parts of the world devoted to the Book and influenced by the life of Christ, while other civilizations lagged, or caught up only when exposed to the Gospel. The implication is that in Christian terms we might see progress in human art and science as the direct sign, the gospel, the very metabolism, of the Paraclete, the Helper."
AND:
"Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things." (I Peter 1:10-12 TNIV)"
AND I WAS SOMEHOW -- SOMEWHAT O.T. -- REMINDED OF THIS JARRING PASSAGE OF GENESIS 6:
"1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose."
AND:
"Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things." (I Peter 1:10-12 TNIV)"
AND I WAS SOMEHOW -- SOMEWHAT O.T. -- REMINDED OF THIS JARRING PASSAGE OF GENESIS 6:
"1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose."
Labels:
Christianity,
religion
Oh, THAT Place Again
"The international community . . . having invested so much . . . must continue to stay deeply involved. It would not be surprising if, after seven years, interest has flagged. But without more outside help, there is little hope for building a peaceful democracy in . . .
You guessed it, the next word isn't "Iraq." The Times doesn't want to cut and run from Kosovo." [ You know, where Clinton tried to help the Muslims against the Serbs and mysteriously the West only got 9/11 for doing so? And that the libs keep trying to bury because it doesn't fit the BDS story line? ]
You guessed it, the next word isn't "Iraq." The Times doesn't want to cut and run from Kosovo." [ You know, where Clinton tried to help the Muslims against the Serbs and mysteriously the West only got 9/11 for doing so? And that the libs keep trying to bury because it doesn't fit the BDS story line? ]
Labels:
human rights,
iraq,
politics,
war
What Would Al Gore Be Like If He Were Real?
"[It] has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling. "By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small," says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home. "Clients of similar ilk are building 16-to-20,000-square-foot houses." [ Like Al Gore and John Edwards? ] Furthermore for thermal mass the walls are clad in "discards of a local stone called Leuders limestone, which is quarried in the area. The 12-to-18-inch-thick stone has a mix of colors on the top and bottom, with a cream- colored center that most people want. "They cut the top and bottom of it off because nobody really wants it," Heymann says. "So we bought all this throwaway stone. It's fabulous. It's got great color and it is relatively inexpensive.""
Labels:
democrats,
environmentalism,
PC,
science
Memory Hole Update
"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
Labels:
environmentalism,
PC,
science
Mecca Is As Mecca Does
"There is not one ME majority Muslim nation that doesn't have an Islamic based radical violent minority which is openly tolerated or by a large portion of the remaining population. Sometimes the radicals are dominant as Iran is.
When I first got into Iraq and saw what was going on I gave Islam the benefit of the doubt and attributed what I saw as "just" tribalism and factioning. After some distance and perspective I find that the overriding factor in all of this is Islam as it is practised by the dominant cultures of Islam.
Saudi Arabia is where it starts, where the radical Sunni Wahabbi sect runs the religious show. Where Mecca is. Where Muslims go on Hajj for Eid, a religious holiday. Where no infidels are allowed."
When I first got into Iraq and saw what was going on I gave Islam the benefit of the doubt and attributed what I saw as "just" tribalism and factioning. After some distance and perspective I find that the overriding factor in all of this is Islam as it is practised by the dominant cultures of Islam.
Saudi Arabia is where it starts, where the radical Sunni Wahabbi sect runs the religious show. Where Mecca is. Where Muslims go on Hajj for Eid, a religious holiday. Where no infidels are allowed."
Today's Memory Hole Moment
"I'd like to congratulate Carl Levin for undercutting several of the major Democrat talking points and I'd like to thank Senator Levin for calling for mililtary action against Syria as well as Iraq."
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Old Fogies: Same As They Ever Were...
"Students, be warned: the college of your choice may be watching you, and will more than likely be keeping an eye on you once you enter the hallowed campus gates. America’s institutions of higher education are increasingly monitoring students’ activity online and scrutinizing profiles, not only for illegal behavior, but also for what they deem to be inappropriate speech."
On French Comprehension
"For some reason, people see the union of Hamas and Fatah as some sort of breakthrough in the peace process, but a unity government for the Palestinians only addresses their internal tensions, not their relationship to Israel. Actually, that's not quite true -- it makes the relationship to Israel worse than before. Why some nations want to leap to their checkbooks to reward the Islamist integration into the PA is a question only Douste-Blazy could answer, if he could even comprehend the question."
Labels:
appeasement,
Israel,
palestinians,
terrorism
Saturday, February 24, 2007
The Islamic Democracy Conundrum And Nightmare's Handmaiden
"I'll discuss this more when I get some time tonight...but the conundrum presented here is a serious one. If we believe we can avoid conflict by doing the right thing, and doing the right thing means handing power to people who are determined to have a conflict with us...there's a good chance we've got issues with the way we're formulating the problem." [ You betcha. Reading assignment: Kurtz here and here. Gagdad here and here and here. There are prerequisites for democracy; some pretty whopping ones in fact that we take so completely for granted that we can't even see them any more. The problem is that we have violated the Prime Directive and have stumbled into the Golden Hour whether we like it or not. Given this situation, the only responsible thing to do is to suck it up and attempt a democracy transplant even given the low odds we have of success. And it's made all the more maddening given that Kurdistan right next door from the hellish nightmare we struggle with today could nearly be the 51st state. All the more amazing given the level of British intervention it took to get India anywhere close to 51st state stature next door to the hellish nightmare of Pakistan. You can run -- but the hellish nightmare will kill you where you live. If we learned anything from 9/11 that should have been it. But denial is nightmare's handmaiden... -ed. ]
Labels:
apocalypse,
Christianity,
iraq,
islam,
Israel,
pakistan,
parenting,
psychology,
religion,
sacrifice,
science,
terrorism,
tribalism,
WMD
Eurabia: Dependency And Hypocrisy
"Britain and the US have received years of criticism for the foray into Iraq to resolve the 12-year standoff there rather than commit more troops to fight the terrorists of the Taliban. However, when the subject of that fight comes up, the defense ministers of the NATO alliance suddenly find a lot of excuses as to why they cannot contribute troops for the mission. Liam Fox, the shadow Defence Secretary, puts it rather bluntly: “Too many of our European partners are now pocketing the Nato security guarantee but leaving UK taxpayers and the UK military to carry the cost."
NATO currently has 35,000 troops in Afghanistan. The US provides 27,000 of them, followed by the existing British contingent of 5,500. That leaves around 2,500 troops contributed by the rest of our partners in the war on terror, many of which have placed restrictions on their deployment in combat areas. That's less participation than we had during the invasion of Iraq.
Perhaps we should end our NATO alliance and look for more suitable partners for security. The Eastern European nations appear more rational about the threat to freedom coming from Southwest Asia these days. The traditional NATO nations, save the UK, appear to have decided that the doctrine of unity among members has little to do with them. The US should pull itself out of Western Europe altogether and let them provide for their own security, paying their own bills and organizing their own policies rather than continue subsidizing ennui." [ More proof that dependency is a very bad thing. Look up at the F. Scott Fitzgerald quote topping this blog about the ability to hold two opposed ideas simultaneously in mind. If we didn't "save" what has now become Eurabia during WWII and the Cold War, there is no doubt that we would be in a world of hurt. On the other hand, we clearly let them become far too dependent on us during the Cold War -- they basically eliminated their militaries and used the funds to prop up their welfare nanny states. I have supported getting our troops out of Europe for a long time. But we may be wrapping around now that they will be needed to evacuate the "natives" from the Islamic colonization invasion of Europe. In any case, as I have said before we will need to raise U.S. immigration quotas substantially to accomodate those who want to flee for their lives as Sharia gains hold. -ed. ]
NATO currently has 35,000 troops in Afghanistan. The US provides 27,000 of them, followed by the existing British contingent of 5,500. That leaves around 2,500 troops contributed by the rest of our partners in the war on terror, many of which have placed restrictions on their deployment in combat areas. That's less participation than we had during the invasion of Iraq.
Perhaps we should end our NATO alliance and look for more suitable partners for security. The Eastern European nations appear more rational about the threat to freedom coming from Southwest Asia these days. The traditional NATO nations, save the UK, appear to have decided that the doctrine of unity among members has little to do with them. The US should pull itself out of Western Europe altogether and let them provide for their own security, paying their own bills and organizing their own policies rather than continue subsidizing ennui." [ More proof that dependency is a very bad thing. Look up at the F. Scott Fitzgerald quote topping this blog about the ability to hold two opposed ideas simultaneously in mind. If we didn't "save" what has now become Eurabia during WWII and the Cold War, there is no doubt that we would be in a world of hurt. On the other hand, we clearly let them become far too dependent on us during the Cold War -- they basically eliminated their militaries and used the funds to prop up their welfare nanny states. I have supported getting our troops out of Europe for a long time. But we may be wrapping around now that they will be needed to evacuate the "natives" from the Islamic colonization invasion of Europe. In any case, as I have said before we will need to raise U.S. immigration quotas substantially to accomodate those who want to flee for their lives as Sharia gains hold. -ed. ]
Labels:
Afghanistan,
appeasement,
Eurabia,
islam
Welcome To Pakistan Waziristan
"This failure comes at the expense of security in Afghanistan, to the West, as al-Qaeda is plotting strikes and training terrorists from the tribal areas, and within Pakistan itself. The Taliban are openly pushing their agenda in the Northwest Frontier Territory, and are conducting a nationwide terror campaign to cower the government. The peace deals in North and south Waziristan, the upcoming deal in Bajaur and others soon to follow, and the inability to take action against the terrorists inside their own borders poses a direct threat to the existence of the Pakistani state." [ The question is now evolving toward whether we get to face off with one nuclear power or two. You'd never know it watching the MSM of course... -ed. ]
Labels:
Afghanistan,
al qaeda,
appeasement,
fundamentalism,
Iran,
pakistan,
tribalism
Digg Deeper
"It’s a leftist totalitarian dreamworld. They simply exclude any and all points of view that violate the groupthink—and call it “democracy.”
The most ridiculous example is in the first LGF post that broke through the Digg hivemind, in which the first two dozen comments are hidden: Digg - Iran Uses Photoshop: Fake Pic ‘Reveals’ US Terror Arms.
Here’s a Digg post by someone else who sees how bad the problem has become: Digg - Dear Kevin Rose, Please Create a ‘Who Buried This’ Tab.
And that post was immediately buried."
The most ridiculous example is in the first LGF post that broke through the Digg hivemind, in which the first two dozen comments are hidden: Digg - Iran Uses Photoshop: Fake Pic ‘Reveals’ US Terror Arms.
Here’s a Digg post by someone else who sees how bad the problem has become: Digg - Dear Kevin Rose, Please Create a ‘Who Buried This’ Tab.
And that post was immediately buried."
Labels:
corruption,
democrats,
fauxtography,
marxism,
tribalism
Facilitating Jihadists? Really?
"If I thought, as Pat does, that there was a useful analogy in the Cold War experience, I might nevertheless agree with the “let’s negotiate” partisans. I don’t agree, for the reasons that Ken has so effectively marshalled. But I’d like to get beyond that for a second and bring this back to some of the points stressed by Steve and Michael – the points about the problem being the regime, not the nukes. If I agreed, for argument’s sake, that negotiations were the way to go, the next problem I would confront is that “negotiations” is a hopelessly promiscuous term. Who knows what’s on the table when we’re told: not to worry, we’ll be tough.
Let’s get down to cases. Americans were told very little this past summer about the State Department’s gambit of negotiating directly with the Iranians (in the context for the multi-party talks) over the nuclear program. Nonetheless, when the fine-print emerged (in the foreign press), it became clear that this was a shameful offer. We did not stay tough and play hardball over the nukes. We offered them everything including the kitchen sink if they would just please, please agree to look like they were suspending activity – not actually stopping, but making a verbal commitment to stop which would be “verified” by the IAEA, in whose demonstrated ineffectiveness and slavish deference to the regime lies much of the current problem.
For this nigh-useless commitment, we offered, among other things, security assurances; economic aid; high-technology; and aviation, energy, telecommunications and agriculture assistance. When they, predictably, laughed at us, we unilaterally pressed ahead with the aviation assistance anyway. More to the point, we were dealing with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism – the nation that has targeted Hezbollah against us for three decades, kills Americans in Iraq, harbors al Qaeda, and gave safe passage to the 9/11 hijackers – and yet our offer in connection with nukes made no demands about facilitating jihadists."
Let’s get down to cases. Americans were told very little this past summer about the State Department’s gambit of negotiating directly with the Iranians (in the context for the multi-party talks) over the nuclear program. Nonetheless, when the fine-print emerged (in the foreign press), it became clear that this was a shameful offer. We did not stay tough and play hardball over the nukes. We offered them everything including the kitchen sink if they would just please, please agree to look like they were suspending activity – not actually stopping, but making a verbal commitment to stop which would be “verified” by the IAEA, in whose demonstrated ineffectiveness and slavish deference to the regime lies much of the current problem.
For this nigh-useless commitment, we offered, among other things, security assurances; economic aid; high-technology; and aviation, energy, telecommunications and agriculture assistance. When they, predictably, laughed at us, we unilaterally pressed ahead with the aviation assistance anyway. More to the point, we were dealing with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism – the nation that has targeted Hezbollah against us for three decades, kills Americans in Iraq, harbors al Qaeda, and gave safe passage to the 9/11 hijackers – and yet our offer in connection with nukes made no demands about facilitating jihadists."
Intelligent Leadership
Israel can be safely said not to have it right now. And needless to say, this is not a very good time for that to be the case. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this is one leftist who makes W look like Albert Einstein... (HT The Corner)
Labels:
Israel,
leadership,
politics
Crichton Finale: The End Of The World?
"Is this really the end of the world? Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods?
No, we simply live on an active planet. Earthquakes are continuous, a million and a half of them every year, or three every minute. A Richter 5 quake every six hours, a major quake every 3 weeks. A quake as destructive as the one in Pakistan every 8 months. It’s nothing new, it’s right on schedule.
At any moment there are 1,500 electrical storms on the planet. A tornado touches down every six hours. We have ninety hurricanes a year, or one every four days. Again, right on schedule. Violent, disruptive, chaotic activity is a constant feature of our globe.
Is this the end of the world? No: this is the world.
It’s time we knew it.
Thank you very much."
No, we simply live on an active planet. Earthquakes are continuous, a million and a half of them every year, or three every minute. A Richter 5 quake every six hours, a major quake every 3 weeks. A quake as destructive as the one in Pakistan every 8 months. It’s nothing new, it’s right on schedule.
At any moment there are 1,500 electrical storms on the planet. A tornado touches down every six hours. We have ninety hurricanes a year, or one every four days. Again, right on schedule. Violent, disruptive, chaotic activity is a constant feature of our globe.
Is this the end of the world? No: this is the world.
It’s time we knew it.
Thank you very much."
Labels:
economics,
environmentalism,
science
Bacillus Today
"Adolf Hitler said in 1939:"Only when this Jewish bacillus infecting the life of peoples has been removed can one hope to establish a co-operation amongst the nations which shall be built up on a lasting understanding."
Or, was it the UN's Duggard saying it today? Hard to tell.
Only those who would dearly love to erase all Jewish history (and the associated Christian history) of that part of the world would accuse Israel of "Judaizing" Jerusalem."
Or, was it the UN's Duggard saying it today? Hard to tell.
Only those who would dearly love to erase all Jewish history (and the associated Christian history) of that part of the world would accuse Israel of "Judaizing" Jerusalem."
Labels:
Christianity,
holocaust,
Israel,
religion
Plus Ca Change
"Can you guess which President the London Examiner was referring to when it wrote that the man had “murdered the Constitution of the United States” and “overthrown all for which Washington fought and Patrick Henry spoke?""
Friday, February 23, 2007
You Do Understand ...
... that music is banned under Sharia law ... Don't you? ... Is everything really relative? You really wouldn't lift a finger to defend Kazuhito Yamashita from brutalization much less spritual suffocation by 7th century primitives? Really? Has it truly come to that? (HT Hucbald)
Crichton On "Information Casualties"
"But thousands of Ukrainians who didn’t die were made invalids out of fear. They were told to be afraid. They were told they were going to die when they weren’t. They were told their children would be deformed when they weren’t. They were told they couldn’t have children when they could. They were authoritatively promised a future of cancer, deformities, pain and decay. It’s no wonder they responded as they did.
In fact, we need to recognize that this kind of human response is well-documented. Authoritatively telling people they are going to die can in itself be fatal.
You may know that Australian aborigines fear a curse called “pointing the bone.” A shaman shakes a bone at a person, and sings a song, and soon after, the person dies. This is a specific example of a phenomenon generally referred to as “hex death”—a person is cursed by an authority figure, and then dies. According to medical studies, the person generally dies of dehydration, implying they just give up. But the progression is very erratic, and shock symptoms may play a part, suggesting adrenal effects of fright and hopelessness.
Yet this deadly curse is nothing but information. And it can be undone with information.
A friend of mine was an intern at Bellvue Hospital in New York. A 28-year old man from Aruba said he was going to die, because he had been cursed. He was admitted for psychiatric evaluation and found to be normal, but his health steadily declined. My friend was able to rehydrate him, balance his electrolytes, and give him nutrients, but nevertheless the man worsened, insisting that he was cursed and there was nothing that could prevent his death. My friend realized that the patient would, in fact, soon die. The situation was desperate. Finally he told the patient that he, the doctor, was going to invoke his own powerful medicine to undo the curse, and his medicine was more powerful than any other. He got together with the house staff, bought some headdresses and rattles, and danced around the patient in the middle of the night, chanting what they hoped would be effective-sounding phrases. The patient showed no reaction, but next day he began to improve. The man went home a few days later. My friend literally saved his life.
This suggests that the Ukranian invalids are not unique in their response, but by the large numbers of what we might call “information casualties” they represent a particularly egregious example of what can happen from false fears."
In fact, we need to recognize that this kind of human response is well-documented. Authoritatively telling people they are going to die can in itself be fatal.
You may know that Australian aborigines fear a curse called “pointing the bone.” A shaman shakes a bone at a person, and sings a song, and soon after, the person dies. This is a specific example of a phenomenon generally referred to as “hex death”—a person is cursed by an authority figure, and then dies. According to medical studies, the person generally dies of dehydration, implying they just give up. But the progression is very erratic, and shock symptoms may play a part, suggesting adrenal effects of fright and hopelessness.
Yet this deadly curse is nothing but information. And it can be undone with information.
A friend of mine was an intern at Bellvue Hospital in New York. A 28-year old man from Aruba said he was going to die, because he had been cursed. He was admitted for psychiatric evaluation and found to be normal, but his health steadily declined. My friend was able to rehydrate him, balance his electrolytes, and give him nutrients, but nevertheless the man worsened, insisting that he was cursed and there was nothing that could prevent his death. My friend realized that the patient would, in fact, soon die. The situation was desperate. Finally he told the patient that he, the doctor, was going to invoke his own powerful medicine to undo the curse, and his medicine was more powerful than any other. He got together with the house staff, bought some headdresses and rattles, and danced around the patient in the middle of the night, chanting what they hoped would be effective-sounding phrases. The patient showed no reaction, but next day he began to improve. The man went home a few days later. My friend literally saved his life.
This suggests that the Ukranian invalids are not unique in their response, but by the large numbers of what we might call “information casualties” they represent a particularly egregious example of what can happen from false fears."
Labels:
psychology
At Home
"As Diana puts it, "the Muslim council isn't asking the the British to create the perfect Shiriah state exactly, but rather the perfect shariah state school system," one in which the fanatics seeking to reimpose rigid Islamic law in Afghanistan, for example, would feel very much at home."
Bringing Them Home
"Under increased pressure to announce an exit strategy from Iraq, President George W. Bush revealed plans today to bring U.S. troops home on the budget airlines JetBlue.
Mr. Bush received praise for his decision to withdraw American troops, but his choice of JetBlue to transport them raised more than a few eyebrows.
According to most official estimates, with its recent spate of scheduling problems and flight delays, JetBlue could take up to seven years to bring U.S. troops home, and possibly ten years in the event of inclement weather."
Mr. Bush received praise for his decision to withdraw American troops, but his choice of JetBlue to transport them raised more than a few eyebrows.
According to most official estimates, with its recent spate of scheduling problems and flight delays, JetBlue could take up to seven years to bring U.S. troops home, and possibly ten years in the event of inclement weather."
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Phase 1 Sacrifice
"There are many good books on mankind's practice of human sacrifice -- again, it is our "default" religion -- but perhaps the best one is Violence Unveiled by Gil Bailie, because he places it in the context of the overall arc of salvation. I cannot possibly do justice to his full argument here, but in his view, human beings were actually in desperate need of a cure for religion, and Christianity turned out to be this cure. "Ironically," Jesus was a victim -- and as a result, a permanent reminder -- of that which he came to cure -- the ritual scapegoating of victims in order to create social solidarity. For nothing creates social solidarity and temporarily eases the war of each against all so much as when everyone's aggression is hypnotically focussed on a sacrificial victim.
Once you understand the sacrificial mechanism, you only see it everywhere. It is a sort of "master key" that explains the inexplicable, especially in regions outside Judeo-Christendom untouched by the "arc of salvation." To cite one obvious example, what do you think it is that maintains any semblance of solidarity in the entire Muslim world (or the U.N., come to think of it) -- including, sad to say, the majority of Muslims blessed to be living in the Judeo-Christian world? What unifies this disparate group that would otherwise mindlessly be killing each other, as they are doing in Iraq?
Obviously, it is ritual scapegoating of the Jews. I have no opinion as to whether there may actually be some obscure light of vertical revelation contained somewhere in Islam -- the existence of certain Sufi sects argues that there might be, but they represent far, far less than 1% of all Muslims, and nowhere are they considered remotely normative. No, sorry to say that what unifes the Islamic world -- including wretched Muslim spokesholes such as CAIR -- is human sacrifice. But this irrational obsession with hatred of scapegoats is not an "aberration" if we consider the entire arc of salvation, including the period of time before the old covenant, i.e., Phase I."
Once you understand the sacrificial mechanism, you only see it everywhere. It is a sort of "master key" that explains the inexplicable, especially in regions outside Judeo-Christendom untouched by the "arc of salvation." To cite one obvious example, what do you think it is that maintains any semblance of solidarity in the entire Muslim world (or the U.N., come to think of it) -- including, sad to say, the majority of Muslims blessed to be living in the Judeo-Christian world? What unifies this disparate group that would otherwise mindlessly be killing each other, as they are doing in Iraq?
Obviously, it is ritual scapegoating of the Jews. I have no opinion as to whether there may actually be some obscure light of vertical revelation contained somewhere in Islam -- the existence of certain Sufi sects argues that there might be, but they represent far, far less than 1% of all Muslims, and nowhere are they considered remotely normative. No, sorry to say that what unifes the Islamic world -- including wretched Muslim spokesholes such as CAIR -- is human sacrifice. But this irrational obsession with hatred of scapegoats is not an "aberration" if we consider the entire arc of salvation, including the period of time before the old covenant, i.e., Phase I."
Kumbaya
"Great stuff. It was like catching a glimpse behind the curtain at a Kumbaya concert and finding the entire cast not only out of character, but making fun of their lines. Here's Geffen on the subject of the Clinton Royal Family from Arkansas. "Obama is inspirational, and he’s not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. Americans are dying every day in Iraq. And I’m tired of hearing James Carville on television. ... It’s not a very big thing to say, ‘I made a mistake’ on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can’t." There in fact was the key problem in the whole Geffen-Obama-Hillary mess. It raised the question of which was the play and which was reality on the liberal political platform. Just as churchgoers who, after reading in the papers that their pastor was a involved in some sordid drug and sex scandal might wonder whether every Sunday service was a lie, Geffen's outtakes raise doubts about whether politicians (not just Democrats) believing in anything at all."
Labels:
corruption,
democrats,
politics
Mask Slippage In Italy
"This exposed the hypocrisy of the European Left when it insisted its anti-war activism only applied to Iraq, and that the Afghanistan effort had its support. The basis for this breakdown came from an American request to expand its facilities in Vicenza, which conducts support operations for the Afghanistan mission. This would normally have received a fairly straightforward approval, but in this case the Left wanted to use it as a wedge to end Italy's deployment with the NATO forces in Afghanistan."
Labels:
Afghanistan,
Eurabia,
iraq,
politics,
war
Vietnam The Paragon?
"Now, "If you talk to these sheiks, they’ll tell you that they’re in no hurry to see the Americans leave al-Anbar," he said.
"One thing Sheikh Sattar keeps saying is he wants al-Anbar to be like Germany and Japan and South Korea were after their respective wars, with a long-term American presence helping ... put them back together," MacFarland said. "The negative example he cites is Vietnam. He says, yeah, so, Vietnam beat the Americans, and what did it get them? You know, 30 years later, they’re still living in poverty.""
"One thing Sheikh Sattar keeps saying is he wants al-Anbar to be like Germany and Japan and South Korea were after their respective wars, with a long-term American presence helping ... put them back together," MacFarland said. "The negative example he cites is Vietnam. He says, yeah, so, Vietnam beat the Americans, and what did it get them? You know, 30 years later, they’re still living in poverty.""
Why Indeed?
"Why would you make war on Americans, a people with whom you had no previous contact? Jefferson asked the pirate-king’s ambassador in London. When the ambassador replied that the koran justified the attacks, Jefferson’s curiosity was naturally aroused."
Nice Pigs, Sir
"A joke has spiraling around in military circles for the past few weeks that makes you wonder just how much congressional action against the troop surge is affecting the military’s (or the country’s) approval of the Democrats.
Okay, here’s the joke:
Last Tuesday, as President Bush got off the Marine One helicopter on the White House’s south lawn, he was carrying a piglet under each arm.
The squared-away Marine guard snaps to attention, salutes, and says: “Nice pigs, sir.”
The President replies “These are not pigs. These are authentic Arkansas Razorback Hogs. I got one for Senator Hillary Clinton and I got one for Speaker Nancy Pelosi.”
The squared-away Marine again snaps to attention, salutes, and says,
“Excellent trade, sir.”"
Okay, here’s the joke:
Last Tuesday, as President Bush got off the Marine One helicopter on the White House’s south lawn, he was carrying a piglet under each arm.
The squared-away Marine guard snaps to attention, salutes, and says: “Nice pigs, sir.”
The President replies “These are not pigs. These are authentic Arkansas Razorback Hogs. I got one for Senator Hillary Clinton and I got one for Speaker Nancy Pelosi.”
The squared-away Marine again snaps to attention, salutes, and says,
“Excellent trade, sir.”"
Facilitating The Non-Worms
"Hey, maybe he just changed his mind. Two possibilities are more likely, however. One is that some anonymous Iranian functionary bamboozled Amanpour as part of a disinformation campaign designed to weaken support for the Bush administration's effort to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. The other is that events since 2003 have convinced Khamenei that his policy of confrontation with the U.S. is unwise, and he would be better advised to seek an accommodation.
In either event, CNN seems to have missed the real story by serving as a conduit for Iranian propaganda."
In either event, CNN seems to have missed the real story by serving as a conduit for Iranian propaganda."
What WMD?
"Not even the use of banned chemical weapons against civilians is enough to get al-Reuters to use the word “terrorist:” Second chlorine bomb may show new militant tactic. ***
Notice: Reuters doesn’t even mention that these weapons have been banned under numerous international treaties for nearly a century."
Notice: Reuters doesn’t even mention that these weapons have been banned under numerous international treaties for nearly a century."
Today's "If Only..."
"The national disgrace of gerrymandering has created a system in which the vast majority of House seats are safe for one of the two parties. As a result, the real action is in the primaries, which tend to be dominated by activists. As a result, we see the polarization of Congress, as GOP candidates tend hard right to win their primaries and vice-versa for the Democrats. Now the netroots plan to exacerbate the problem.
The solution seems obvious. A national system of nonpartisan redistricting designed to maximize the number of truly competitive seats. In such a system, candidates would succeed by appealing to the center rather than the extremes, which in turn would reduce the destructive influence of the rabid partisans on both sides of the net." [ I have pointed the need for this out for a long time also. I seriously doubt it has a chance until it becomes an option for recovering from catastrophe for two reasons: 1) The very congressional plutarchs it would target fully understand its danger and won't let it happen until their dying breaths. 2) The media culture has so mentally pulverized and cynicized the population that they not only don't appreciate the value (cynicism) but don't have the attention span to pay attention to the concept. Back to the Britney rehab news now... -ed. ]
The solution seems obvious. A national system of nonpartisan redistricting designed to maximize the number of truly competitive seats. In such a system, candidates would succeed by appealing to the center rather than the extremes, which in turn would reduce the destructive influence of the rabid partisans on both sides of the net." [ I have pointed the need for this out for a long time also. I seriously doubt it has a chance until it becomes an option for recovering from catastrophe for two reasons: 1) The very congressional plutarchs it would target fully understand its danger and won't let it happen until their dying breaths. 2) The media culture has so mentally pulverized and cynicized the population that they not only don't appreciate the value (cynicism) but don't have the attention span to pay attention to the concept. Back to the Britney rehab news now... -ed. ]
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Shiva Rising
"Passive acceptance of Iran's program would lead to a highly unstable three-sided arms race in the region. Unlike the Cold War, this arms race would lead to a real war. Internationally-supervised sanctions could in theory be effective (especially in light of the recent experience with North Korea) but won't happen due to cheating. Ironically, an American air strike on Iran's nuclear industry would be the most humane treatment for the problem." [ Oppenheimer understood the level of danger that he created and his recollection of the Bagavad Gita and Shiva at Trinity was entirely appropriate ("I am become death, destroyer of worlds"). But he and his fellow scientist's "solution" of spreading A-Bomb technology didn't forsee the consequences of eventual arrival at second and third tier powers with short missile throws and no boomers for insurance. That alone will almost certainly lead to real war just based on "mistakes" even if they were "sane". Never mind in the hands of the Islamists who were insane enough to invade Israel in 73 even knowing that they likely had nukes at the time ... and who now are making that lunacy into the very epitome of rationality by comparison. -ed. ]
Labels:
apocalypse,
appeasement,
fundamentalism,
holocaust,
Iran,
islam,
Israel,
pakistan,
terrorism,
WMD
VDH Has A Worms Reprise
"The most famous example was the 1974 Foreign Relations Act. Passed in the wake of Watergate scandal, the congressional resolution cut off all military assistance to the South Vietnamese government. But that pubic stand-down only encouraged the North Vietnamese communists to violate the Paris peace accords and renew the war—without any more worries of U.S arms shipments or air strikes.
The Neutrality Acts of the 1930s, passed by an isolationist Congress, forbade U.S. military assistance to, or trade in war material with, any belligerent, regardless of whether they were aggressors or victims. Such actions of “conscious” only emboldened Nazi Germany, Italy, and Japan to attack democracies and other neutral states. Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo were convinced that whatever their provocations, the United States had no stomach to stand up to any of them, or even to join Britain and France in a united front of resistance. World War II with its 50 million dead followed.
Often even mere assurances of restraint by American officials, that suggest either inaction or weariness, have had the same effect as congressional resolutions in assuring interested observers that the United States would either not act in the face of aggression—or tire more quickly of ongoing fighting than their our enemies.
In a routine policy address Cold War warrior and Secretary of States Dean Acheson once warned the communist bloc that the American defensive perimeter in the Pacific went from Aleutians to Japan to the Ryukyus and onto the Philippine Islands. But Acheson, perhaps inadvertently, left out the Korean Peninsula. Many argued at the time that this omission gave the green light for the communists to invade South Korea in 1950 on their erroneous assumption that the United States would not intervene in an area outside its sphere of influence. Three years and hundreds of thousands of war dead followed.
Jimmy Carter had a far worse habit of telegraphing his intention to enemies. In 1977 he declared that America had outgrown its “inordinate fear of communism”. But by that time, global communism from Stalin to Mao had killed nearly 100 million of its own and invaded dozens of natural countries. Nothing “inordinate” about that.
So next when Carter made it clear that he would not retaliate immediately against Iran for storming of the US embassy in November 1979, it was not much of a surprise that the Soviet Union quickly invaded Afghanistan—unafraid of an America that wouldn’t use force to free its own diplomats or punish those who took them.
In a July 1990 in a meeting with Saddam Hussein, then American ambassador Arpil Glaspie purportedly assured the Iraqi government that “ we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.” Saddam attacked Kuwait a little more than a week later."
The Neutrality Acts of the 1930s, passed by an isolationist Congress, forbade U.S. military assistance to, or trade in war material with, any belligerent, regardless of whether they were aggressors or victims. Such actions of “conscious” only emboldened Nazi Germany, Italy, and Japan to attack democracies and other neutral states. Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo were convinced that whatever their provocations, the United States had no stomach to stand up to any of them, or even to join Britain and France in a united front of resistance. World War II with its 50 million dead followed.
Often even mere assurances of restraint by American officials, that suggest either inaction or weariness, have had the same effect as congressional resolutions in assuring interested observers that the United States would either not act in the face of aggression—or tire more quickly of ongoing fighting than their our enemies.
In a routine policy address Cold War warrior and Secretary of States Dean Acheson once warned the communist bloc that the American defensive perimeter in the Pacific went from Aleutians to Japan to the Ryukyus and onto the Philippine Islands. But Acheson, perhaps inadvertently, left out the Korean Peninsula. Many argued at the time that this omission gave the green light for the communists to invade South Korea in 1950 on their erroneous assumption that the United States would not intervene in an area outside its sphere of influence. Three years and hundreds of thousands of war dead followed.
Jimmy Carter had a far worse habit of telegraphing his intention to enemies. In 1977 he declared that America had outgrown its “inordinate fear of communism”. But by that time, global communism from Stalin to Mao had killed nearly 100 million of its own and invaded dozens of natural countries. Nothing “inordinate” about that.
So next when Carter made it clear that he would not retaliate immediately against Iran for storming of the US embassy in November 1979, it was not much of a surprise that the Soviet Union quickly invaded Afghanistan—unafraid of an America that wouldn’t use force to free its own diplomats or punish those who took them.
In a July 1990 in a meeting with Saddam Hussein, then American ambassador Arpil Glaspie purportedly assured the Iraqi government that “ we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.” Saddam attacked Kuwait a little more than a week later."
Labels:
appeasement,
iraq,
politics,
vietnam,
war
The Real Warren's Ash Wednesday Sermon
"Sometimes it seems even our own bishops have forgotten, that “the catholic truth” is entirely incompatible with the “happyface” of pop doctrines. Even what we mean by the words “life” and “death” is incomprehensible, without heaven and hell. Baudelaire once said, “Everyone believes in God, but nobody loves Him; nobody believes in the devil, and yet his smell is everywhere.” Except that belief in God has declined, this strikes me as a fair description of Western man in late modernity.
Lent, in its penitential spirit, can make no sense except in terms wherein the reality of evil has been acknowledged -- not as some ancient myth, but as a present force working to our destruction. This was what was faced down in the garden of Gethsemane, where Christ began to lift upon himself the full weight of the sins of this world, the full horror not only of the evil that was done, in times past, but would be done, in times future. For the last time in his earthly ministry, he was tempted by the devil, and offered the “happyface” of a life without suffering, of a mission that might not involve the Cross; offered the intensely attractive lie of an easy way out -- the lie that every human being is offered. It is the side of the devil we find hardest to type-cast: the side that is offering that happyface grin.
For it is an offer that we, collectively, have bought -- hook, line, and sinker. It is an offer that we could only accept, on the assumption that someone else will take care of it, that someone else can pay, since the yoke is thus lifted off our shoulders."
Lent, in its penitential spirit, can make no sense except in terms wherein the reality of evil has been acknowledged -- not as some ancient myth, but as a present force working to our destruction. This was what was faced down in the garden of Gethsemane, where Christ began to lift upon himself the full weight of the sins of this world, the full horror not only of the evil that was done, in times past, but would be done, in times future. For the last time in his earthly ministry, he was tempted by the devil, and offered the “happyface” of a life without suffering, of a mission that might not involve the Cross; offered the intensely attractive lie of an easy way out -- the lie that every human being is offered. It is the side of the devil we find hardest to type-cast: the side that is offering that happyface grin.
For it is an offer that we, collectively, have bought -- hook, line, and sinker. It is an offer that we could only accept, on the assumption that someone else will take care of it, that someone else can pay, since the yoke is thus lifted off our shoulders."
Labels:
religion
Hillary The Racist?
"So: Barack Obama is playing the race card against Hillary Clinton!
***
It's interesting how quickly the two campaigns came to blows, figuratively speaking. After all, it was David Geffen, not Obama, who attacked Hillary. Her campaign didn't have to respond by pinning the attack on Obama, but it did. Likewise, Obama didn't have to ratchet up the hostility by playing the race card. But he did.
2008 is a long way off, of course, and there's plenty of time for the candidates to make up. Still, it's striking how little it took for the first fur to fly; much worse aggravations will occur before the primary season is over. Whether the candidates are ultimately able to unite on a ticket may ultimately depend on whether the Clintons are forgiving people or vindictive people.
Hmm." [ Of course they'll be able to unite if they think it's advantageous. Vindictive will only happen if she feels she doesn't need Barack on the ticket. In the mean time I predict Barack will be painted as aserial murdering racist who moonlights as a child molester Uncle Tom who was raised on the lap of Clarence Thomas. The MSM will simply flush this little incident along with Barack's "Uncle Tom"ness down the memory hole when it's required to do so with 24/7 coverage of adoring minorities fawning over her every word and Barack calling her "Mom". Why she's married to our first "black president" after all. How could she possibly be racist? She's going to be our second black president! You racist! -ed. ]
***
It's interesting how quickly the two campaigns came to blows, figuratively speaking. After all, it was David Geffen, not Obama, who attacked Hillary. Her campaign didn't have to respond by pinning the attack on Obama, but it did. Likewise, Obama didn't have to ratchet up the hostility by playing the race card. But he did.
2008 is a long way off, of course, and there's plenty of time for the candidates to make up. Still, it's striking how little it took for the first fur to fly; much worse aggravations will occur before the primary season is over. Whether the candidates are ultimately able to unite on a ticket may ultimately depend on whether the Clintons are forgiving people or vindictive people.
Hmm." [ Of course they'll be able to unite if they think it's advantageous. Vindictive will only happen if she feels she doesn't need Barack on the ticket. In the mean time I predict Barack will be painted as a
Labels:
corruption,
democrats,
MSM,
politics
The Righteous View From The Comfy Couch
"Viewing the violence from a comfy couch, it is easy to conclude that "these people are animals. We can't help them." But imagine what would have happened in Los Angeles if the 1992 riots had gone on for weeks, with no police or military intervention. L.A. could have come to resemble Baghdad or Sarajevo, with Anglo, African American, Latino and Asian gangs rampaging out of control.
To extend the analogy, violence could have spread throughout Southern California. That's what happened in the Balkans when fighting spread from Slovenia, the first province to secede, to Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. A wider spillover was averted thanks to American-led intervention."
To extend the analogy, violence could have spread throughout Southern California. That's what happened in the Balkans when fighting spread from Slovenia, the first province to secede, to Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. A wider spillover was averted thanks to American-led intervention."
Labels:
Afghanistan,
al qaeda,
iraq,
terrorism,
tribalism
Murtha's Howling Pixies
"Arguably, his maneuver will be the most blatant congressional intrusion on the president’s war-making powers in the nation’s history. Congress choked off the Vietnam War in the 1970s, but only after U.S. ground troops were mostly already out of the country and chiefly as a matter of cutting off aid to South Vietnam.
Just as disturbing is Murtha’s cynical reliance on failure in Iraq as a political strategy. The plan aptly has been described by Politico.com as a “slow-bleed” antiwar strategy. The surge is the best chance of turning the war around. By hampering it, Democrats will ensure that the war continues to fail, and thus that domestic political support for it plummets to the point where Democrats feel safe in defunding it.
The subconscious logic of their position on the war has thus taken a subtle turn. It used to be that the war had to end because it was a failure; now it must fail so that it can end.
Democrats don’t see this distinction, since they simply believe the war is irretrievably lost. But they still pay laughably unserious lip service to the notion of success. Murtha says there’s no military solution in Iraq, that we can win in Iraq only through the political process — as if it has no effect on the political process whether Shia militias are murdering Sunnis unchecked or laying low to avoid the surge. In a howler, he maintains that if we leave, “al Qaeda’s going to disappear.” Maybe if we spread pixie dust and close our eyes?
President Bush will have no choice but to reject the Murtha restrictions should they reach his desk. But a veto is problematic. As Murtha points out, a veto means that Bush doesn’t get the continued funding for the war. He might have to sign the bill, take the funding and ignore the restrictions as an unconstitutional trespass on his powers. In that event, a cry to impeach him will go up from the increasingly powerful antiwar Left.
The result of the Democrats’ clever gambit could be a constitutional implosion from which no one — certainly not the country — will emerge a winner."
UPDATED WITH A REPRISE: "As I recall, Marshal Petain managed to prostrate himself right quickly before the Nazis despite his status as a WWI hero, too. Besides, where exactly will Murtha draw that line -- New York City? Logan Airport?"
Just as disturbing is Murtha’s cynical reliance on failure in Iraq as a political strategy. The plan aptly has been described by Politico.com as a “slow-bleed” antiwar strategy. The surge is the best chance of turning the war around. By hampering it, Democrats will ensure that the war continues to fail, and thus that domestic political support for it plummets to the point where Democrats feel safe in defunding it.
The subconscious logic of their position on the war has thus taken a subtle turn. It used to be that the war had to end because it was a failure; now it must fail so that it can end.
Democrats don’t see this distinction, since they simply believe the war is irretrievably lost. But they still pay laughably unserious lip service to the notion of success. Murtha says there’s no military solution in Iraq, that we can win in Iraq only through the political process — as if it has no effect on the political process whether Shia militias are murdering Sunnis unchecked or laying low to avoid the surge. In a howler, he maintains that if we leave, “al Qaeda’s going to disappear.” Maybe if we spread pixie dust and close our eyes?
President Bush will have no choice but to reject the Murtha restrictions should they reach his desk. But a veto is problematic. As Murtha points out, a veto means that Bush doesn’t get the continued funding for the war. He might have to sign the bill, take the funding and ignore the restrictions as an unconstitutional trespass on his powers. In that event, a cry to impeach him will go up from the increasingly powerful antiwar Left.
The result of the Democrats’ clever gambit could be a constitutional implosion from which no one — certainly not the country — will emerge a winner."
UPDATED WITH A REPRISE: "As I recall, Marshal Petain managed to prostrate himself right quickly before the Nazis despite his status as a WWI hero, too. Besides, where exactly will Murtha draw that line -- New York City? Logan Airport?"
The State Of State
"I recently de-mobilized after spending a total of three years at CENTCOM HQ beginning in Feb 2003. I didn't work on the OIF plan but I do know something about it. Phase IV was the least planned (by CENTCOM) part of OIF since nobody knew what would happen after the end of major combat activities and the Organization for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) was supposed to do the planning and carry out many of the activities. In the end, there was little humanitarian assistance to be carried out and little reconstruction due to combat. Declaration of Phase IV has many legal implications in regard to the Geneva Conventions, the Law of Land Warfare, etc... I also believe that it is the demarcation of when the Department of State takes the lead. In any case, the slides, if they show anything, show that the enemy has a vote in how things turn out.
As I see it, things are turning out better than we expected from a GWOT point of view. Al Qaeda's decision to make a stand in Iraq has provided us with an opportunity to deal them a significant blow. They have invested many resources - there aren't that many suicide bombers out there - and much of their reputation counts on defeating us in Iraq. All we have to do is stay and we win. Iran is over-playing its hand and will see just as much trouble on their side of the border as they instigate in Iraq. All we have to do is stay and we win.
On the down side, of course, is our inability to play in the information war. I think this is part of the reason that the terrorists and the Democrats are natural allies - they are willing to say the most outrageous things and no one holds them to account. The truth may be on our side but it is not enough - it needs to be marketed. Unfortunately that is easier said than done and we, as a government, are not set up to do it. In fact, we are not set up to win wars efficiently. The very structure of our government prevents us from prosecuting wars efficiently and I doubt a change would be politically feasible. Aside from DoD, no one prepares for their part of the war fight and they don't train for or fund any activities that contribute to war time success. For now we will have to settle for less efficient war fighting.
When the history of the Iraq conflict is finally written, I think it will be interesting to see what role the State Department played, and how that department's performance is assessed."
As I see it, things are turning out better than we expected from a GWOT point of view. Al Qaeda's decision to make a stand in Iraq has provided us with an opportunity to deal them a significant blow. They have invested many resources - there aren't that many suicide bombers out there - and much of their reputation counts on defeating us in Iraq. All we have to do is stay and we win. Iran is over-playing its hand and will see just as much trouble on their side of the border as they instigate in Iraq. All we have to do is stay and we win.
On the down side, of course, is our inability to play in the information war. I think this is part of the reason that the terrorists and the Democrats are natural allies - they are willing to say the most outrageous things and no one holds them to account. The truth may be on our side but it is not enough - it needs to be marketed. Unfortunately that is easier said than done and we, as a government, are not set up to do it. In fact, we are not set up to win wars efficiently. The very structure of our government prevents us from prosecuting wars efficiently and I doubt a change would be politically feasible. Aside from DoD, no one prepares for their part of the war fight and they don't train for or fund any activities that contribute to war time success. For now we will have to settle for less efficient war fighting.
When the history of the Iraq conflict is finally written, I think it will be interesting to see what role the State Department played, and how that department's performance is assessed."
Raymond Redux: Suicidalism
"These ideas travel under many labels: postmodernism, nihilism, multiculturalism, Third-World-ism, pacifism, “political correctness” to name just a few. It is time to recognize them for what they are, and call them by their right name: suicidalism.
Trace any of these back far enough (e.g. to the period between 1930 and 1950 when Department V was at its most effective) and you’ll find a Stalinist at the bottom. Among the more notorious examples ware: Paul de Man — racist and Nazi propagandist turned Stalinist, and fonder of postmodernism; Jean-Paul Sarte, who described the effects of Stalinism as “humane terror” and helped invent existentialism; and Paul Baran, who developed the thesis that capitalism depended on the immiseration of the Third World after Marx’s immiseration of the proletariat failed to materialize.
Al-Qaeda didn’t launch any of these memes into the noosphere, but it relies on them for political cover. They have another effect as well: when Islamists characterize the West as “decadent”, and aver that it is waiting to collapse in on itself at the touch of jihad, they are describing quite correctly and accurately the effects of Western suicidalism."
Trace any of these back far enough (e.g. to the period between 1930 and 1950 when Department V was at its most effective) and you’ll find a Stalinist at the bottom. Among the more notorious examples ware: Paul de Man — racist and Nazi propagandist turned Stalinist, and fonder of postmodernism; Jean-Paul Sarte, who described the effects of Stalinism as “humane terror” and helped invent existentialism; and Paul Baran, who developed the thesis that capitalism depended on the immiseration of the Third World after Marx’s immiseration of the proletariat failed to materialize.
Al-Qaeda didn’t launch any of these memes into the noosphere, but it relies on them for political cover. They have another effect as well: when Islamists characterize the West as “decadent”, and aver that it is waiting to collapse in on itself at the touch of jihad, they are describing quite correctly and accurately the effects of Western suicidalism."
Hitch Redux: Against Rationalization
"Now is as good a time as ever to revisit the history of the Crusades, or the sorry history of partition in Kashmir, or the woes of the Chechens and Kosovars. But the bombers of Manhattan represent fascism with an Islamic face, and there's no point in any euphemism about it. What they abominate about "the West," to put it in a phrase, is not what Western liberals don't like and can't defend about their own system, but what they do like about it and must defend: its emancipated women, its scientific inquiry, its separation of religion from the state. Loose talk about chickens coming home to roost is the moral equivalent of the hateful garbage emitted by Falwell and Robertson, and exhibits about the same intellectual content. Indiscriminate murder is not a judgment, even obliquely, on the victims or their way of life, or ours. Any decent and concerned reader of this magazine could have been on one of those planes, or in one of those buildings--yes, even in the Pentagon."
Labels:
Afghanistan,
al qaeda,
fundamentalism,
terrorism
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Why U.S. Immigration Quotas Will Need To Be Massively Raised...
"Daniel Johnson, writing in the Weekly Standard from London, notes with sadness and alarm that the European elite have now admitted their failure to negotiate an end to the Iranian nuclear program. Not only that, but they let out of the diplomatic bag the dirty little secret that it’s always been about nuclear weapons.
So the Europeans know—in all likelihood they’ve always known—that the Iranians are building atomic bombs, and intend to use them against Israel. Against the Jews. Johnson says that if that happens, he’ll pack up and leave Europe, as well he might. I’m tempted to ask him why he needs to wait. British Jews now constitute the largest single group of immigrants to Israel, having seen the graffiti on the walls and in the newspapers of their finlandized country." [ There are a lot of good folks in Europe that will finally snap to their senses when horror like this can no longer be denied. And they'll be screaming for us to take them in. And we'll need to take them in for our sake as well as theirs. North America will need all the help we can get in the (currently to most) unimaginable battle for survival that will ensue... -ed. ]
So the Europeans know—in all likelihood they’ve always known—that the Iranians are building atomic bombs, and intend to use them against Israel. Against the Jews. Johnson says that if that happens, he’ll pack up and leave Europe, as well he might. I’m tempted to ask him why he needs to wait. British Jews now constitute the largest single group of immigrants to Israel, having seen the graffiti on the walls and in the newspapers of their finlandized country." [ There are a lot of good folks in Europe that will finally snap to their senses when horror like this can no longer be denied. And they'll be screaming for us to take them in. And we'll need to take them in for our sake as well as theirs. North America will need all the help we can get in the (currently to most) unimaginable battle for survival that will ensue... -ed. ]
What East Timor?
"First there was East Timor
Then there was the Bali bombing
And then there was the war in Iraq
Why do the blowback believers keep ignoring East Timor? It's as though the liberation of that country never happened."
Then there was the Bali bombing
And then there was the war in Iraq
Why do the blowback believers keep ignoring East Timor? It's as though the liberation of that country never happened."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
