Becoming the Monster (Or, Has the Left Been Taken Over by Homophobia?)

There is a potentially serious scandal brewing in the these final days leading up to the election. It seems that a prominent Lefty blogger named Mike Rogers has "outed" Senator Larry Craig (R-ID). Craig denies the charges. Apparently, he has a long history of this, and he says he's not done. I don't know about you, but this whole thing, and the idea of using this as a campaign strategy in general is just unseemly, and frankly stomach-turning. For heaven's sake, you'd expect these tactics from the far-right. Why are so many on the Left using that playbook?

It seems that there is a twofold political strategy here: To paint gay Republicans as hypocrites, and undermine GOP support from social conservatives. The GOP's record on gay rights issues, and their consistent campaign of wedge politics notwithstanding, the idea that either opponents of gay marriage are bigots by default, or that if gays support conservative causes they somehow lose their legitimacy is hardly a liberal concept. The way this is being done, it really is McCarthyite (and Rovian). Does the Left really want to go down that road?

After all, is this really how we want to win? With all the obsession over the Foley affair, you'd think Mark Foley is the only reason to vote against the GOP? Are the Democratic idea men really planning this as the slam dunk? Do they really believe this ought to be the focus? The GOP has so many weaknesses right now. Is this all they've got? Come on, people, enough of this.

Besides, this really could backfire, in the short and long term. Glenn Reynolds points out:

Yes, "creepy, gleeful efforts" don't win you many friends or converts. Of course, they're really just meant to demoralize Republican voters and keep them home on election day.
I suspect they'll have the opposite effect. The GOP leadership has managed to alienate much of its base, but this kind of slimy and obviously organized political effort is more likely to encourage GOP voters to ignore the bad stuff and vote Republican as a way of demonstrating their disgust with the creepiness.

Are we prepared to blow the election (and our dignity) with this low-class sleaze? I'm optimistic, so I'm convinced this won't spread past the lunatic Lefty cutthroat fringe, or hurt our chances that much. Let it be known though: The more this stuff increases, the more the Democratic Party (and the country) loses.

Also, I think Captain Ed makes a good point:

People wonder why we don't attract a wider range of qualified candidates for public office. Michael Rogers sets himself up as Exhibit #1. The personal and degrading attacks convince many people to skip the trouble, and the people who do dare to run for office usually wind up experiencing the ruination of their reputations in one form or other. It comes from all sides to some degree, but this ghastly mudslinging really marks a new low.

Yeah. I agree. All this notwithstanding, I've still got a piece coming on why the Dems should win this election. It's gotten a little harder to write. Just a little.

Hat tips: Classical Values and Fern.

UPDATE: If Mike Silverman is right, it's all moot anyway.

UPDATE#2: Secondary reflection leaves me wondering if I might have overreacted as far this being a widespread campaign strategy for Democrats. The evidence does show that this is an isolated incident, and no high-profile Dems are involved with this, so it's not really fair to suggest that this have become policy. That being said, this thing with Rogers is sleazy, the policy in general is sleazy, and unfortunately has support from some Lefties. I'm totally anti-hysteria, though, and I don't want this degenerating into hysteria. At the end of the day, the GOP has truly earned its anti-gay rights rep, but Rovian sleaze tactics aren't the answer.

Eyes on the Campuses

I was just wondering what everyone thought about this. It seems to me that we really should consider this as a viable anti-terror tool in the U.S. Assuming that we're real careful (respecting civil liberties, etc), I think it would be a good policy. Considering the very real potential of terrorists using campuses as a breeding ground, it makes sense to at least focus attention there. I don't think this is talking about indiscriminate roundups, or simply hauling people in for controversial views.

The Elephant's Fall

Bull Moose comments on the moral collapse of the GOP:

The Moose witnessed the Republican Revolution of '94. He remembers the fervent calls for reform and renewal. Now, the House GOP is rightly staring into the abyss. The Foley revelation is the latest representation of the perversion of power.

It took the Republicans a little more than a decade to achieve what forty years of Democratic rule accomplished - the institutionalization of corruption. The major difference is that the elephant masqueraded as a reformist, moral revolutionary. Hypocrisy is truly the tribute vice pays to virtue. These guys give Elmer Gantry a bad name.

How can fiscal conservatives continue to endorse Republican rule? How can social conservatives embrace a House leadership that neglected to expel a child predator from their ranks? How can reformists applaud the Abramoff Congress?

Indeed. I for one, see this as the coda in a long series of Republican outrages. Not that the Dems are pure, but as far as the last ten years are concerned, the GOP has been worse. They've fashioned themselves as the party of small government, family values, ethics, and have failed on every point. Nobody likes a pile on, but I must say that the GOP has earned this harvest.

The Dems should use this as an opportunity, but not to gloat, or try to coast in on GOP screw-ups. I've said elsewhere that beating the GOP this year is like beating a one armed blind man at football. We need an alternative and coherent vision. The American people deserve it. They deserve better than the GOP. They deserve real leadership.

Maybe This Will Sound Harsh,

But I have little sympathy for deserters. In fact, I have none at all. Last I checked, we have an all-volunteer military. This man knew what he was getting into. It's one thing to disagree with the morality of the Iraq war. It's an entirely different thing to abandon your fellow soldiers in the battlefield. This guy gets a deal, and basically walks? Nope. He deserves to be in jail, at the very least. Paul Hackett was against Iraq, and he didn't desert his men. What's this man's excuse?

Initial Reflections on the Detainee Treatment Bills

I'm planning a more substantive post on this later, but I'm taking cue from others, and letting the partisan dust settle first. Initially, you really should at least skim the text of the Senate bill here, and read a great essay on the proper way to deal with rough interrogations, by Jonathan Rauch, here.

Thanks to the crew over at Stubborn Facts.

When Only Half The Story Gets Told...

From Winds of Change, on the tragically underreported stories of contractors, and the hard work they do in Iraq. You must read this. No need for excerpts. Read the whole thing.

Honestly, It's Not That Crazy

I'm not one to go out of my way to defend the Bush Administration, but I think a point needs to be made. I guess my support for the Iraq war has something to do with this, but I don't think the fact that Zarqawi was in Iraq, after fleeing from Afghanistan is a small matter. Bush and Cheney have used this in making the case for a Saddam-al-qaeda link, and while we all know that Saddam didn't have involvement in 9/11, or a real collaborative link with al-qaeda, it's hard to ignore the fact that Zarqawi would not have been able to enter Saddam's police state without his knowledge. Meaning, Saddam knew he was there, and allowed him to remain there. Considering Saddam's past as a state sponsor of terror, it wasn't that off the wall to at least consider that as part of a potential future threat. It doesn't excuse the littany of mistakes made in the planning and execution of the war. It doesn't excuse the overhyping and flawed intel. However, when one looks at the big picture, and considers the permanent threat Saddam's lawless regime posed, it wasn't exactly crazy to decide to remove him from power.

9/11, Five Years Later: We Will Never Forget

Five years ago today, terrorists launched an unprovoked attack on America, killing nearly 3,000 people, and declaring war on the United States. On that day, heroes gave their lives to save lives. On that day, America mourned. On that day, the reality of global terror engaged the world. In the days that followed, America rose to confront its enemies, and defend freedom. America was united. Politics didn't matter. Parties didn't matter. On this day five years later, let us continue to honor those heroes who gave their lives, and those who continue to fight for us. Let us vow to never lose sight of their sacrifice, nor the threat that we face from global terror. Let us strive to commit ourselves to that unity of purpose.

What Must It Always Be America's Fault?

A new book is coming out that basically argues that America's immoral, decadent lifestyle alienates moderates around the world, and thus fosters terrorism. American cultural liberals are to blame, this book argues, and the only way to turn the tide is to embrace more traditional religious values, similar to those affronted Muslim countries.

Why is it always America's fault? I don't know, somebody should ask Dinesh D'Souza.

Hat tip: Red Letter Day

Oh, and I guess this won't help matters.

Rest in Peace, Mate

Damn. This is really sad. Sure he was bizarre, but he always seemed like a fun-loving, decent guy who loved his work. You'll be missed, Steve Irwin. You'll be missed.

If You Use The Constitution, They Can't Complain

My views on the current illegality of the NSA warrantless survelliance program are well-established. I think the program needs to be squared with FISA and Congress. However, I've also gone on record as opposing the ruling by Judge Taylor that strikes the whole program down as unconstitutional. My main problems with the ruling are that it goes too far, not providing any legal remedy to square the program with the Constitution, and that the ruling is pure sloppy jurisprudence. Ann Althouse has written a brilliant op-ed in the New York Times (pause for irony), that makes a solid case against the ruling.

Her piece has gotten a lot of heat, from commenters at her own blog, and from commenters at The Volokh Conspiracy. Keep in mind, that she's not defending the DOJ's argument (I don't know her actual views on the program's legality-she never says), but rather criticizing the judge for not providing a clear constitutional response:

Immensely difficult matters of First and Fourth Amendment law, separation of powers, and the relationship between the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Authorization for Use of Military Force are disposed of in short sections that jump from assorted quotations of old cases to conclusory assertions of illegality. Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington, told The Times that the section on the Fourth Amendment is “just a few pages of general ruminations ... much of it incomplete and some of it simply incorrect.”

For those who approve of the outcome , the judge’s opinion is counterproductive. It will be harder to defend upon appeal than a more careful decision. It suggests that there are no good legal arguments against the program, just petulance and outrage and antipathy toward President Bush. It helps those who have been arguing for years about result-oriented, activist judges.

Laypeople consuming early news reports may well have thought, “What a courageous judge!” and “It’s a good thing someone finally said that the president is not above the law.” Look at that juicy quotation from Judge Taylor’s ruling: “There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution.”

But this is sheer sophistry. The potential for the president to abuse his power has nothing to do with kings and heredity. (How much power do hereditary kings have these days, anyway?) And, indeed, the president is not claiming he has powers outside of the Constitution. He isn’t arguing that he’s above the law. He’s making an aggressive argument about the scope of his power under the law.

The President isn't asserting that he's above the law, rather he's asserting that he has inherent authority in wartime to do these things. The argument is a serious one. It's totally wrong, and at war with the Constitution, but it deserves to be approached, and it must be correctly attacked. The problem is, the whole affair has the appearance of an unelected judge, who just happens to be a liberal, who just happens to have been appointed by a Democratic President, and confirmed by a Democratic Senate, overriding the decision of a popularly elected Republican President, in a time of war, based on her own opinion. It looks like she just hid the argument under the robe, and laid down the result she wanted. This is a parody of what right-wingers complain about with so-called "activist judges." It looks like she's a rogue judge trying to attack Bush.

These apppearances matter, because they undermine the trust that the Judiciary has. It only emboldens the partisans. It's not just about how it looks though. Judicial opinions need to be solid, in order to hold up on appeal, and establish good precedent. As critics of the program know, this is about more than just this program. The underlying argument needs to be struck down. This is about more than Bush. It seems like Taylor forgot that. Her point about "hereditary kings" is ironic, because judges themselves are just as suspectible to monarchical tendencies as the Executive, being that they're unelected.

The point to all this is the question of why we should defer to unelected judges in these matters, over the elected Executive. We do, because the Constitution says we do. We do because of judicial review, and airtight legal arguments, based on clear Constitutional support, and not what could be interpreted to be simple Bush-bashing. There is a clear case to be made that this program is illegal, and that Bush exceeded his authority. It needs to made clearly, to withstand scrutiny. That way, Bush supporters can't complain about activist judges, or anti-Bush Democrats, or East-Coast lawyers running the war, or election year stunts, or the usual pro-Bush blather over this. All that won't matter. If you use the Constitution, they can't complain.

The Race War Hits Primetime?

As the banner atop this blog attests, I have a big problem with unwarranted hysteria. I don't like to overreact on things. The thing is, this is beyond vulgar. I'm willing to cede that the producers weren't trying to be racist, but this is bad taste, and will only do harm to the culture. I've seen good, controversial shows that tackle the race issue. Black/White was one. I loved that show. This just seems tawdry, exploitative and dare I say, racist:

"Our original idea was simply to have the most ethnically diverse group of people on TV. It wasn't until we got to casting and started noticing this theme of ethnic pride that we started thinking, 'Wow, if culture is still playing such a big part in these people's lives, that's our idea. Let's divide them based on ethnicity,' " he said.

So, the answer is to exploit that ethnic pride, to promote diversity? I don't see that. I see things being made worse. It all seems like racial bloodsport, fueled by crude stereotypes. I mean, maybe I am overreacting. Maybe they'll set things up in such a way that when the tribes merge, it'll be an example of races coming to together. It's possible, but I doubt it, seeing as how the racial tension angle is the whole gimmick here. I'm telling you, this could get ugly real quick.

At the end of the day, it's just Hollywood tripe. I'll not watch it, and I really haven't watched since the fifth season. I prefer The Apprentice (Mark Burnett's other show) anyway. Ratings for Survivor are down to their lowest ever (which partially explains the need for controversial gimmicks), and I don't think this will help.

I wonder though, if this succeeds, what's next? Divide them up by religion? Christians vs. Jews vs. Muslims? Do I even need to elaborate on how that'll end up?

The Moose on the Iranian Threat

Bull Moose returns, with some sharp observations on the Iranian threat to Israel and the West:

Of course, Iran is not just a threat to Israel, but to all liberal democracies. However, Israel uniquely comprehends the immediacy of the Iranian threat. Time is not on our side. While the mullahs may be a few years from obtaining nukes, there is a point of no return in their efforts - and it is soon.

The world, unfortunately, would rather sleep. Sanctions are just so inconvenient. Money is to be made. And diplomacy, regardless of its effectiveness, is holy in the church of the left.

Even though Iran has been showered with generous offers of incentives, the left wants them to be given even more carrots without the serious threat of a stick. Lefties claim they are tough and they are only anti-war when it comes to Iraq, but appeasement is their instinctive impulse when confronted with a national security threat to America or her allies.

But, make no mistake - the recent war with Hizbollah has taught Israel a painful lesson. They cannot afford to slumber while their enemy prepares for a slaughter. In the next war, Hizbolla could be supplied with the ultimate weapon by their patrons in Teheran.

And the writing is on the wall...

Read the whole thing.

Spike Lee on Katrina

I saw the first part of Spike Lee's Katrina documentary, When the Levees Broke, last night. I was thoroughlly impressed, despite some concerns. I thought it captured all that should be captured, and gave a serious, emotional, and pretty unbiased account of the events. I'd have to say my only real complaint was the intellectually lazy idea once again put forth that somehow having troops in Iraq slowed the National Guard response and cleanup efforts. It was bogus then, and it's bogus now. It doesn't hurt the movie that much, but it was an annoyance.

UPDATE: As expected, the reviews are not all glowing. Many had real problems with the film. Honestly, many of the criticisms are legitimate. Brendan Loy, who basically became the blogger of choice for Katrina coverage, and is actually in the film, had some issues. You really ought to read his post.

Honestly, I still say this is a good film so far. At first, I expected a full-on conspiracy flick a la Fahrenheit 9/11, but I was pleasantly surprised. Sure, you had your conspiracies put out there, which should have been rebutted with alternative arguments. You had copious amounts of criticism of the Bush Administration and the Feds, most of which were legit and accurate. I say most, because some of it was over the top (Harry Belafonte, Sharpton). The point about Condi was problematic. Surely it was in Bad taste to buy shoes during the disaster, but it wasn't really her job to manage the federal response. The point made about other nations (namely Venezuela and Cuba) offering assistance was laughable. Does Harry Belafonte really think Hugo Chavez gives a damn about the people of New Orleans?

Oh, and Nagin's performance ought to have been scrutinized more clearly. He blew it big time, as did Blanco, and the Feds.

Like I Said, A Really Bad Bargain

Well it's pretty clear now that the "cease-fire" resolution is nothing more than a surrender. Apparently, this UN peacekeeping force is going to be harder to put together than many thought. The French, co-authored the resolution (this fact alone ought to raise a red flag), but are now having problems with the way it was written. They're still going to lead the way though-- they've committed about a couple hundred troops. Yep, that's it. You can always count on the French leadership to sell out the Jews, it seems. So, the French have decided to resurrect the Vichy glory days, and the UN has basically said that they're only there to help the Lebanese army disarm Hezbollah, and the Lebanese army isn't remotely ready to even begin disarming Hezbollah. So, another resolution unenforced. Hezbollah won't be disarmed, and Israel loses.

A handful of stand-up nations are doing their duty and sending troops, but will it be enough? The only force that could have really done damage was the Israeli military. but Olmert agrred to the "cease-fire," and there you have it.

A Really Bad Bargain

As I'm sure you all know, the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict has ended in what is being called a cease-fire. If you ask me, it smells more like a surrender. Per the mandate of the U.N. Israel has accepted a cease-fire that basically gives up everything that they asked for. This whole conflict started when Hezbollah captured Israeli soldiers. The cease-fire is in place, but the kidnapped soldiers are basically forgotten, and Hezbollah is still standing, claiming an "historic" victory. However, Israeli PM Olmert and President Bush call this a victory for Israel. The fact is, this is a loss, a big big one, for Israel, America, and the West.

I hate to think this way, but I can't see how Israel wins with this result. The original plan was to get the soldiers back, rout Hezbollah, and impede their ability to function as a state within a state. Hezbollah doesn't have to return the soldiers, Israel withdraws, and all that's left to disarm the terrorists is a U.N resolution and a peacekeeping force, that everyone knows won't be able to get the job done? It just looks bad. I'm not a pessimistic as Ralph Peters and others, but it looks bad. Remember, all Hezbollah (and other terror groups) need to do to win is to not lose completely. Anything short of a decisive victory becomes a Pyrrhic victory, easily turned into a defeat. Even if Hezbollah was reduced to half their strength, they could still rebuild, if not thoroughly routed. Indeed, they've lost fighters and resources, but how much was really done? Was it enough to justify the loss of Lebanese infrastructure and civilians? I'm not saying Israel shouldn't have fought this battle, or that they're somehow the villain here, but it seems like they didn't have the resolve to take it to the ground. You can't win wars like this with just air power.

The international community pushed this cease-fire. We all know that many international players aren't the biggest fans of Israel aggresively defending herself. Big Daddy Sheik Nasrallah has already said he won't disarm, and laughed off the U.N resolution. He's not impressed, and why should he be? It hasn't worked before.

I am totally pro-Israel, but I think the leadership bungled this. It appears that the leadership didn't have the stomach to do what really needed to be done. The Israeli people are pissed, and they should be. Politically, this is bad for Olmert, not that the politics really should matter. The legendary IDF has been embarrassed, Israel's name has been dragged through the mud, and Hezbollah survives, and is emboldened. The captured Israeli soldiers have yet to be returned. Hezbollah won't disarm, and the puppet masters Iran and Syria watch from the sidelines. I hope I'm just overreacting. Maybe Condi and the diplomats are right. Maybe the "birth pangs" are over. I fear though, that what has been born is a signal to the terrorists that the West doesn't have the stomach to do the heavy lifting, to endure the long twilight struggle. We've got to prove them wrong. We ought to do it now, because eventually, it will come down to our very survival.

OK. I hope I wasn't too hysterical.

If You Keep Telling People They're Not Wanted, Eventually They'll Leave

Consider the example of now ex-Democrat Brendan Loy:

Okay, I’m calling it. It’s over. Ned Lamont has won the primary. Democrats in my home state of Connecticut have seen fit to give their incumbent U.S. senator, the honorable Joseph Lieberman, the old heave-ho. Get out of our party, the Democratic voters have told Joe. You aren’t one of us anymore.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that Lieberman’s fine Senate career is over — he says he’ll run as an independent, and if he does, he may well win. Nor does it necessarily mean that the majority of national Democrats, or even the majority of Connecticut progressives and liberals, agree with the decision that today’s voters made. Connecticut’s largest “party” is unaffiliated voters, who were ineligible to vote in today’s primary, and they have long been big Lieberman supporters. Moreover, even among registered Democrats, it was always going to be more difficult for Lieberman to motivate his contented-but-not-fervent supporters to vote in the same numbers as his rabidly angry critics. Lamont was bound to have a natural advantage in this primary, and Lieberman a natural disadvantage, for the same reason that moderates are almost always at a disadvantage in primaries. (See, e.g., the 2002 GOP gubernatorial primary in California.)

But regardless of all that, the hard reality is that the voters have spoken, and their message was loud and clear: there’s no longer room for Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Party. And alas, tonight’s result will reverberate through the November elections and into the 2008 presidential campaign. It’s really much more than just a single primary in a single state; it’s a shot across the bow of moderate Democrats everywhere. And so, whatever further ramifications this result might have, there’s one thing it definitely means, one result that is officially cast in stone, as of today:

I am no longer a Democrat.

I'm with you, Brendan. I don't really plan on switiching parties yet, because I've never been that much of a party loyalist anyway, and I remain a Dem basically because I agree with them more than the Republicans, and I feel that Democratic policies are better for the country than Republican ones. The fact is, the elite Democrats have been sending the message that has now been set in stone: Moderates like Joe Lieberman are not welcome. You see, Lieberman didn't abandon the Party. The Democratic Party abandoned him, and all of us who have the clarity to place our national security interests above knee-jerk Bush-hatred and the antiquated idiocy of the hard-Left.

Despite all this, I'm still holding out hope. At the end of the day, I still believe in theose time-tested Democratic principles. I'm not leaving. I plan to stay and fight. I'll have to do it from the sort of wilderness I've been forced into, because alot of the Democratic elite has made it clear than there's no room in the tent for people like me. It's not just the war, either. My view that the abject killing of the unborn is not the best plan of action is verboten in the tent. Right now, I'm an independent Democrat. A lone-wolf Democrat. I've been that way for awhile now, as the Dems have increasingly lost their minds.
I must take issue with one point that Loy brought up. While the Dems have proven themselves to be intolerant of any ideological dissent from the Party line, I reject the idea that the Republicans are any better. The bold steps of Rudy, Arnold, and McCain notwithstanding, as far as the base is concerned, neither would make it through.

At the end of the day, neither Party has a big tent, and both have been hijacked by ideologues. Although the idea of the big tent was a uniquely Democratic staple, one that has been slowly undermined over the past ten years, and may have suffered the death blow Tuesday night.

Hat tip: Centerfield

UPDATE: Based on some the comments on this post over at Booker Rising, I think a clarification is needed. Moderates are still welcome in the Democratic Party, as long as they don't openly support the war in Iraq. Heck, the fact that Ned Lamont has a track record of supporting Republicans 80% percent of the time, while Lieberman supports Democrats 90% of the time is proof that even if you vote like a Republican, if you're anti-war, the anti-war Left will back you.

UPDATE #2: It looks like all hope might not be lost.

Well, Anti-War Left, You've Won This Round

Lieberman concedes. He must now run as an independent. The Kossacks must be turning over cars right now. Yet, I'm confident. I tell you, this is not over.

Deluded, and Devoid of Purpose

As I'm sure you all know, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, for the first time in 50 years, relinquished power a few days ago, in order to have surgery. Miami Cubans, and Cuban exiles everywhere cling to the hope that Castro may have finally met his end, despite reports from the government that Castro is stable. Castro's record of tyraany and despotism is undisputed, except in the minds of some. It has always been a talking point of the Right to suggest that the far-Left loves Castro. The sad fact is, for many on the extreme Left, it is true. I'm convinced that this support is isolated on the fringes of the far-Left, despite the right-wing assertions to the contrary. One must wonder though, why are so many self-professed progressives genuinely sad that Castro's reign may actually end?

I've always thought it uncontroversial that Castro is a villain, and the Cuban people were suffering under his boot. Apparently, Castro has a lot more support than I realized. Again I must ask, why do so many on the extreme Left (keep in mind, I'm not talking about mainstream liberals and Leftists here), even in America, sympathize with the cigar-chomping madman? Is it their predictable misguided belief in utopian state socialism? Is it pure anti-Americanism? Some have gone so far as to even deny that he's a dictator. One of the common excuses from this fringe is the fact that Cuba has universal health care, and good schools. Could it be, that these people are so devoid of purpose, that universal health care and litearcy programs are all that matter to them? Are they so devoid of purpose, that they would abandon all commitments to progressivism and liberal democratic principles, and embrace the full-on welfare state, with all the comforts, as long as they don't value their freedom? I suspect it's no different than those on the extreme right, who flirt, often openly with the idea of authoritarian fascism, past and present. Further proof that the extremes of both ends meet somewhere in a soulless void, that aims to swallow freedom whole.

OK, Now Let's Just Calm Down

I've made clear my support for Israel, and their campaign against Hezbollah, and terror in general. That being said, I cannot figure out this overreaction from Howard Dean, or the boycott of some Congressional Democrats of al-Maliki's speech earlier today. Yes, he criticized Israel, and failed to openly condemn Hezbollah. I understand that. This seems like a major overreaction, one that is gratuitous and kind of irresponsible. The only reason I can come up with as to why some Dems feel the need to lay into the duly-elected Iraqi PM is a general distrust of the Iraq campaign. It's the same overreaction that drove the needless outrage over the "amnesty for Iraqis" nonstory. Frankly, the whole thing reeks of trying too hard. Everyone knows the Democratic Party supports Israel, and condemns Hezbollah. We don't need to rip into our new ally, because of some unfortunate comments, to prove that. Again, I think it all goes back to a mistrust of the Iraq campaign, and a lack of faith in the new government. If Iraqi leaders say something inartful, Dean and crew can then stand up and say, "see, I told you he couldn't be trusted."

Somebody explain to me how this helps Iraq, or Israel for that matter.

From the "I Need A Break From Serious News" File

Consider this unscientific, highly interesting poll, birthed from a mind that stayed up past 4 am last night. Enjoy!

Which of these methods of settling hot-button political disputes is the least barbaric and undemocratic? Mortal Combat Tetris, Best of 7 Games Lottery Test of Strength/Prowess Test of Wisdom (The Smartest One Wins) Popularity Contest Coin Toss The system we have now. Free polls from Pollhost.com

Now This Is What I Call A Consensus

The Congress is split and partisan over Iraq, regardless of how you look at it. Fortunately, the Congress is united behind Israel, as this vote shows.

Israel vs. Lebanon (Hezbollah): The War Rages On

As I'm sure you all know, Israel has been engaged in a two-front war, fighting against Hamas in Gaza, and now against Hezbollah in Lebanon. It's pretty clear that Hezbollah is being fueled by jihadist Iran, and Baathist Syria. I'm totally supportive of Israel, and believe that they have a right and a moral duty to defend themselves. It does seem though, that Israel might be going in the wrong direction, in their all-out attack on Lebanon. I'm no expert on this, and I totally understand what Israel is trying to do (responding to unprovoked attacks), but they don't want to heap unnecessary havoc on innocent Lebanese, most of whom are anti-Hezbollah, and even pro-Israel. They've spent months rebuilding after the Syrian occupation. We don't want to lose them as an ally. Honestly, I still place the chief blame on Hezbollah. They started this.

There are great Mideast blogs that cover this a lot better than I can. Michael Totten, our man in the Middle East has been covering this. He has a personal stake in this, for obvious reasons. He is one of the leading voices for informed, unbiased, and insightful coverage of the Middle East. Also, the Lebanese Political Journal has been covering things straight from Lebanon. Get yourself a healthy dose of smart coverage from all sides. Also, let's keep the debate sensible and intelligent, please.

UPDATE: It looks like a cease-fire might be possible. PM Olmert has aid that if Hezbollah releases the captured Israeli troops, stops attacking Israel, and if the Lebanese government puts their troops on the border, this can end. Also, at the risk of appearing to contradict my earlier position, I want to reiterate the Israel is totally justified in their fight against Hezbollah. Hezbollah is the villain of this piece, fueled by the two-headed beast of Iran and Syria. I do think Israel really should focus their attacks on isolated Hezbollah targets, and try not to attack the whole country, but Hezbollah has forced them into this position.

Like President Bush said, they need to stop doing sh*t like this.

UPDATE #2: I thought I'd change the title a bit, to reflect the fact that this war isn't/shouldn't be against the people of Lebanon, but Hezbollah.

Tolerance and Intolerance

Filling in for Michael Totten, Callimachus has written a great piece on the Founding Fathers' views on freedom of religion, and how they apply, or should apply today. He does a great job of making the case for religious toleration, with the limit being that one cannot use religious freedom to subvert religious freedom. Read it. I posted a good comment over there, as did many others. As with all heated discussions, there's troll activity.

Anyway, here's what I said:

In my view, there isn't that big of a difference between what the Founders thought, and what Popper thought. It is clear, and the Founders are correct, that they wanted a nation in which people had freedom of conscience, and of religion. The state could not impose one religion or the other, neither could it oppose one's right to freely exercise that religion. The line is clear, though. You cannot use your religion to actually subvert freedom of religion, or any other rights. You can believe that you should, but you do not have the right to actually act on such a belief.

Radical Islamists, Communists, Nazis, etc. can express any ideas that they want under the First Amendment, as wicked as those ideas are. They cannot use those ideas to justify acts that take away others' rights.

Rape, murder, actual acts of treason, etc. are not protected speech, because they violate others' rights. The answer is to confront evil ideas with good ideas, not outlaw them (regardless of any justifications the much ballyhooed Venona Papers supposedly establish). When ideas turn to action, then it's another matter.

As a matter of principle, I think Popper was simply suggesting that it is philosophically impossible to have unlimited tolerance (a fact that the hardcore multiculturalists haven't understood yet). It becomes problematic ehrn you start using the state to fight intolerance (a possible risk with a lot of European hate crimes laws), because you're back to the same problem again.

At the end of the day, the Founders believed totally in religious toleration, up until the point when it is used to undermine religious toleration (through state power, terrorism, etc). That rule ought to still apply today.

Joe Biden's Big Snaffu

Sen. Joe Biden likes to talk a lot. We all know this. Apparently, his mouth has gotten him into some trouble. At a campaign event, while thanking a supporter of Indian-American descent for his support, he pointed out how the Indian-Anerican community supports him, by saying this:

"You CANNOT go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent ... I'm not joking."

Oh, crap. He's stepped in it this time. I needn't explain to you why this was offensive. It clearly plays on the stereotype of Indians working only in convenience stores. Raj Peter Bhakta isn't happy, and has called out Biden. If the name sounds familar, it's Raj from The Apprentice. He's a Republican running for Congress. His blog covers more of the details of this. In case you're wondering, this is true. Biden did say this. There's a video.

Raj was on Hugh Hewitt's show talking about the double-standard, and how some Dems have done this before. In 2004, Kerry compared Sikhs to terrorists, and Hillary made a comment about seeing Gandhi at a gas station.

There's no defending this one. Joe's definitely put his foot in his mouth this time, and may have alienated all the Indian-Americans he claims support him.

Sometimes, The Caption Says More Than We Realize

I just couldn't resist this. Beat this caption:














Note to Joe Lieberman: Don't even sweat this. Some of us still have your back.

An Excess of Zeal? (Or Why The New York Times Screwed Us All Over)

I'm sure you all know about the bruhaha over the NYT publishing a story on a classified Treasury Department plan to thwart terror funding, that was leaked to them by government officials. I've always believed that the press has the right, even the moral duty, the act as a check on government power, and keep the public informed, when they need to be informed, even in wartime. With this, on the other hand, I'm left wondering why they would release this. This isn't the NSA wiretapping story. This isn't Abu Ghraib. This is a terror-fighting tool that is unquestionably legal (they have warrants), and looks to have really worked. Now, it appears that the program may have been blown. The obvious question is, why publish it? What's the public interest?

Now I'm not one to in any way advocate prosecuting journalists for these sorts of things. Legally, the New York Times has done nothing wrong. The same cannot be said of those government employees who leaked classified info. I reject the idea that the press should be somehow suppressed, because as I've said, that undermines the rights of the free press. We don't want to go down that path. I'm left wondering what the Times' motivations are, besides the "public's right to know," and disdain for Bush.

For some, the answer is crudely simple. The NYT has sided with the enemy. I reject that in its entirety. The press generally believes in their role as a check on government abuse. If illegal or possibly illegal things are being done, let justice be done though the Heavens fall, they say. In most cases this is a good thing, but in wartime especially, we need a free and responsible press. Let me be clear:I don't think the NYT, or the press in general has somehow allied themselves with the terrorists. The problem is, they often see themselves as journalists above all else. The public's right to know, as they see it, trumps civic responsibility. If a plan to fight terrorists that works is undermined, so be it. Let's also not forget that Bush isn't really counted as an ally in that realm, and in many cases he's an outright foe. We all know how Bush Derangment Syndrome does a number on rational thought, like all ideological pathologies.

It seems to me that many journalists are so committed to the profession and the institution, that it becomes almost a religious commitment. The fact that a successful anti-terror tool has been compromised is not considered. The fact that this program is 100 percent legal is irrelevant to them. Their excess of zeal, often mixed with established biases, lead to these things happening. Honestly, I could defend a lot of the other stories on principle, particularly the wiretapping story, but this makes no sense. The public interest is undermined, because things that should be secret are now known, and thus compromised. All this being said, I still defend the press' right to inform. While I wish that many in the press would look beyond their zeal for being journalists, and anti-Bush zeal, and consider the effects their reporting might have on the country that buys their papers, any such cure for this problem would be worse than the disease.

While I don't think that it was necessarily the Times' intent to aid the terrorists, that doesn't change the fact that they may very well have.

UPDATE: I've changed my position slightly, regarding prosecution. It seems that they can be prosecuted for publishing this, and now that I think about it, probably should be.

The U.N. Is Coming to Get Your Guns!!

Well, no actually, they're probably not.

The Great Debate, Or A Partisan Ploy?

The House is debating the Iraq War as I write this, particularly a House resolution that essentially rejects a premature withdrawal from Iraq. As a supporter of the war (and therefore an opponent of premature withdrawal), the language of the resolution doesn't really bother me, but the underlying intent is manifestly partisan. This isn't as bad as when the Murtha resolution was "debated," but this whole thing, with such partisan photo-opping, is just unseemly. Let me say again that I firmly oppose a pullout, but I recognize that many people sincerely believe in that position, although they are flat out wrong on the issue. The fact that so many support a premature pullout is regrettable, but this just smells like a stunt.

Democracy Arsenal has a good piece on the politics of this thing, as well as the text of the Resolution.

Hollywood, Do Your Duty!

The word on the street is that Deadwood, one of the best shows on TV in a looong time, may not make it past a two-episode fourth season. This is unacceptable. I'm with Bob Cesca. Come on, Hollywood fat cats, do your duty!!

Why Zarqawi's Death Is A Big Deal

From Christopher Hitchens:

"For the defeatists and pacifists, these are easy questions to answer. Colin Powell was wrong to identify Zarqawi, in his now-notorious U.N. address, as a link between the Saddam regime and the Bin-Ladenists. The man's power was created only by the coalition's intervention, and his connection to al Qaida was principally opportunistic. On this logic, the original mistake of the United States would have been to invade Afghanistan, thereby forcing Zarqawi to flee his camp outside Herat and repositioning him for a new combat elsewhere. Thus, fighting against al-Qaida is a mistake to begin with: It only encourages them."

I think that (for once) Colin Powell was on to something. I know that Kurdish intelligence had been warning the coalition for some time before the invasion that former Afghanistan combatants were making their way into Iraq, which they saw as the next best chance to take advantage of a state that was both "failed" and "rogue." One might add that Iraq under Saddam was not an easy country to enter or to leave, and that no decision on who was allowed in would be taken by a junior officer.

And this one:

If we had withdrawn from Iraq already, as the "peace" movement has been demanding, then one of the most revolting criminals of all time would have been able to claim that he forced us to do it. That would have catapulted Iraq into Stone Age collapse and instated a psychopathic killer as the greatest Muslim soldier since Saladin. As it is, the man is ignominiously dead and his dirty connections a lot closer to being fully exposed. This seems like a good day's work to me.

Yeah, me too.

How To Deal With Ann Coulter (If You Must)

As I'm sure you all know by now, Ann Coulter's gotten herself into trouble again, over some comments she made in her latest book. I was hesitating to even write this piece (God knows I don't want to increase her book sales), but I had a couple of thoughts. The latest controversy is over some despicable comments about 9/11 widows in New Jersey. In fact, here's what the fuss is all about

Coulter's comment that has perhaps drawn the most attention is an attack on the widows of 9-11 victims, appearing on Page 103 of Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum), and read by Lauer: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

source: Media Matters

I don't know about you, but I'd say that's pretty darn despicable. She's drawn ire from liberals (including Hillary Clinton), and even conservatives. She goes on to call them "harpies," and the "Witches of East Brunswick." Apparently, this is all because they decided to actively support positions that she disagreed with. All in all, pretty vicious stuff. The thing is, this is hardly new. This is the latest in a career of over-the-top slanders, smears, and absurd invective. It's hard to be shocked by this, because it's become her raison d'etre.

The principal defense that her supporters (and they are many) offer up for this latest incident is that she was making a larger point about how liberals supposedly use victims of tragedies to prevent conservatives from attacking their arguments. She uses the term "human shields." She "argues" that these 9/11 widows were using their widow status to advance their argument, and manipulate people. Many who support her in other things but criticized this latest move argued that the point was valid, but it's lost by the poisonous rhetoric. David Horowitz calls her a national treasure. Some say she's a satirist, like a modern-day Mencken or Twain. (You think I'm making this up?) The Colbert Report is satire. Her catalog of attacks are not. After all, she admits that she believes everything she says. Her committed supporters say that she's edgy, tough, and she "tells it like it is." The only problem is, things aren't as she tells it.

The fact is, beneath all the poison and personal attacks, is an argument that really doesn't hold. The last thing her arguments need is to be undermined by her rhetoric. Let's deal with the argument at hand. Certainly, it's true that being a victim of tragedy gives your arguments no more weight in and of itself, but it certainly adds a measure of credibility. It certainly gives the person making the argument more weight as far as their motives are concerned. In the case of the 9/11 widows, one would think the fact that they lost their husbands on 9/11 might explain their commitment. If a woman is raped, couldn't the fact that she was raped explain her commitment to getting rapists off the street? Surely, it doesn't make her an expert, but it would explain her motives. As I've said, the fact that one has been victimized by tragedy, or fought in a brutal war doesn't support the argument by itself, but it ought to protect a person from being called a traitor, or a coward, from attacks like this.

Besides, it's not as if only liberals do it. Conservatives have done it too, and still do, even now. Conservatives have used 9/11 victims to justify their positions. They've used tragedy victims for their agendas. They've used veterans to prop up their arguments. The fact is, both sides do it. Both sides have gone too far. As far as Coulter's style in general, her supporters have defended that too. They say that the Left is worse, and someone has to stand up them. Of course, the truth is that both extremes can be equally vicious. A quick stop on the right side of the blogosphere, or talk radio, or Fox News proves that. For every Michael Moore or Al Franken, there's an Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity.

But at the end of the day, her arguments don't add up to much, except the usual right-wing fluff. Beneath all the venom, there's not much there. Liberals get incensed at her rhetoric, but that's what fuels her. The far-right loves her, and they love the fact that liberals can't stand her. She enjoys this. You see, that's the one thing liberals forget: She feeds off all of this. In fact, all of this controversy really has helped her book sales. It doesn't validate her points, but millions keep buying her books. People have a tendency sometimes to spend money on things they know, or should know aren't good for them. It's like fast food or porn.

There was an incident a while back in which Coulter got herself in trouble before. When her book Slander came out, she got herself in trouble. Many defended her, but as she went further and further, more people were turned off. The thing not to do, is to play her game. Don't shout her down at speeches, and for God's sake, don't throw things. Incivility cannot be overcome with equally uncivil behavior. Also, it makes her a martyr.

The biggest threat to Ann Coulter's credibility, is Ann Coulter. Her own words seal her fate. The best thing to do is ignore her. It might be hard for some, but oftentimes the best thing to do is to let her dig her own grave, and not give her any more attention. In fact, I've given her far too much in this blog post already.

It's Official: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is Dead

Coalition forces executed a strike last night, and the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq has been taken out. Hallelujah. A victory for the mission in Iraq, for Coalition and Iraqi forces. It's far from over, but this is a great victory. Keep knockin' em down, brave soldiers, keep knockin' em down.

Zarqawi is dead. May the rat bastard roast in Hell.

The full story is here.

On The Gay Marriage Ban

As you all know, the Senate rejected the Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. I'm not for gay marriage, but I support civil unions, and I oppose the Amendment, because I feel that these issues should be left to the states. Besides federalism, there's also the fact that this amendment is unnecessary. The argument from conservatives is that activist judges have made this amendment necessary. That's their best argument, but it doesn't hold. Under current law, no state has to recognize another state's marriage. These issues, even the issues with the courts, can be worked out locally. Traditional marriage is all-important issue, but the threat has been greatly overblown, at least with regards to gay marriage.

The issue of politics is also important. Don't get me wrong, there are many Americans who really believe this a big deal, on both sides, and in many ways it is. As I've said, the role of marriage and the family are not small issues. Many believe, on moral and religious grounds, that homosexuality is wrong, and marriage ought to be between a man and a woman. These people aren't bigots, and it demeans them and the debate to say that they are. I do feel that many people are being misled for political and ideological purposes, and are being led to believe that the threat to marriage is greater than it is. Also, there are many other issues that are of a graver and more immediate threat.

It's also telling that this issue is being brought up now, right before an election, and the last time this issue was brought up was 2004, right before an election. Both times, supporters knew it wouldn't pass. Are there sincere players in this game? I'm sure there are. It's possible that for some this is a principled fool's errand, but this makes me wonder:

It takes two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress to send a proposed amendment to the states for ratification. The House will take up the issue next month.

Despite the defeat, amendment backers insisted progress had been made because the debate over three days raised the issue's profile and will force candidates to answer for their votes on the campaign trail.

As I've said, these issues are all-important, which makes the politicking and pandering all the more sinister. 45 out of 50 states have statutes or amendments banning gay marriage. The majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. However, the Constitution protects all Americans, and we ought not trample those protections, federalize marriage, and thus undermine the very principles were trying to protect, certainly not for politics.

But let's be civil-- condescension never wins arguments, on either side.

Some Problems Can Be Solved With Just A Dictionary

amnesty

n 1: a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment 2: a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense [syn: pardon] 3: the formal act of liberating someone [syn: pardon, free pardon] v : grant a pardon to (a group of people)

This is what amnesty is. This is not amnesty. It's a bit complex, and it's not perfect (is any bill ever perfect?), but it's not amnesty.

Proof that Even Atheists Can Be Pro-Life, and for Bible Reading in the Classroom

Consider the words of one Christopher Hitchens:

Following his own standard on the civic minimum, however, aligns Mr. Hitchens with a president he says he doesn't particularly like. "He's not my type" says Mr. Hitchens, but he says that he "adores" first lady Laura Bush and does agree with Mr. Bush on key issues: He does not like abortion. "I'm a materialist and I'm a parent. I've looked at sonograms, and I don't know a lot of embryology but I know enough. The concept 'unborn child' seems to me to be a factual statement. . . . On that he [Bush] is not a fanatic, either." And while he describes himself as a Darwinist and an "orthodox Freudian," Mr. Hitchens thinks the president is right that "we should teach the argument" when it comes to intelligent design (a term he describes as "creationism, pure and simple").

And consider this:

HITCHENS: You are not educated if you don't know the Bible. You can't read Shakespeare or Milton without it, even if there was nothing else of it. And with the schools now, that's what I hate about secular relativism. They're afraid of insurance liability. They don't even teach it as a document. They stay out of the whole thing to avoid controversy. So kids can't quote the King James Bible. That's terrible. And I quite understand Christian parents who want to protect their children from a nihilistic solution where there's no way of knowing what's been discussed.

There's really nothing else I need to add. As a Christian, I certainly believe that its wrong to kill unborn babies in the womb, and the Bible ought to be allowed to voluntarily be taught in schools. You don't even have to be a Christian to agree with this.

Piggybacking Off The Enlightenment?

Another interesting one from Johann Hari, in which he goes off on the "anti-science" types who reap the benefits of the Enlightenment, yet deny its intellectual underpinnings.

For too long, people have been allowed to piggy-back on the Enlightenment, enjoying its incredible fruits but jeering at it as “soulless” or fundamentally flawed. But how many people would cling to these irrationalist anti-science theories if they actually had to feel the consequences in their own blood and bone? I am prepared to pay for my belief that testing on higher primates is deeply morally wrong. Are the opponents of science prepared to pay for theirs?

The piece is problematic, due to his aforementioned hostility towards God, religion and faith. He does a good job, however, of going after the animal-rights quacks, the New-Age alernative cure-voodoo quacks, and other fanatics.

On "Islamophobia"

I was planning to write an extensive piece on the current state of the fight against radical jihadism, but for now I wanted to share a few thoughts about a great piece by Johann Hari, on Islamophobia. He argues, successfully, in my view, that many people speaking out against Islamophobia, are themselves enabling the same bigotry they claim to oppose. He talks about how the folks at Islamophobia Watch engage in open homophobia and the like, and dismiss any criticism of Muslim extremism as racist, and "objectively pro-Nazi." In his view, many so-called liberals are willfully empowering the very Fascism the profess to oppose.

People who believe in opposing hatred of gay people everywhere – in Teheran as much as Tunbridge Wells, in Kingston, Jamaica as much as Kingston-Upon-Thames – are being subjected to a bizarre counter-campaign. As so often, Peter Tatchell is facing the most abusive backlash on our behalf. Tatchell believes all people are equal, regardless of their pigmentation. He does not see a difference between the white far-right preacher Jerry Falwell calling gay people diseased, and the Muslim leader Sir Iqbal Sacranie doing the same. He does not see the difference between gay teenagers being lynched to death in Jamaica and murderous gay-bashings on Clapham Common. He reacts to them in exactly the same way – by fighting to stop them.

For this, he is being accused of racism. Look, for example, at the popular website ‘Islamophobia Watch’, set up by a man called Bob Pitt. Unlike Tatchell, he lacks courage and, fearing reprisals, uses a fake name for his writings – Martin Sullivan. His website obsessively snipes at Tatchell, responding to every criticism he makes of the Islamic fundamentalists who incite and perform the murder of gay people by calling him a bigot and even “pro-Nazi”. How does he back up this slander against a man who has fought fascism all his life? The website complains Tatchell uses “the term ‘Islamism’… without distinguishing between its reformist and violent wings.” Yes, it’s true - Tatchell fails to draw a distinction between the people who will lash and stone gays after winning at the ballot box, and the people who will lash and stone gays after seizing power in a coup. This is bigotry?

You'd think that if radical Islam doesn't represent mainstream moderate Islam (a view that has legitimate support, and one I basically agree with), and that those supposedly warring against Islamophobia aren't for radical jihad, then wouldn't defense of radical Islam, and the attack on moderate Muslims who condemn jihad itself be Islamophobia? In other words, how can you profess to believe in religious toleration, by supporting ideas that reject religious toleration? Could it be that these folks aren't really liberal at all, and are no different than the Fascists they claim to oppose?

Read the whole essay. Caveat lector: Hari himself is basically an agnostic. I'm a Christian, but I'm willing to overlook his atheism in this instance, (all while praying for the salvation of his soul), as the rest of the piece is spot on. He has a valid point about the use of religion to justify evil. You don't have to be a person of faith to know that religion can be twisted to justify things contrary to the laws of God and man.

Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan

Christopher Hitchens on Galloway

Christopher Hitchens writes in his latest Slate piece on George Galloway's justification of Tony Blair's murder. He rightly eviscerates him, as he's done in the past. You must read the whole thing, but this is worth noting:

So, here is what it comes down to. George Galloway says that the murder of an elected prime minister would be "morally justifiable." He is not brave enough to call for it, but he does preapprove it. He finds room for criticism of the murder only because it might occasion a backlash. And he then tries to hide behind the skirts of a woman who he has just told us ought in all justice to be a widow! That he does this by deliberately misquoting her is a mere coda to an almost incredible catalog of indecency.

Galloway is a coward, an apologist for nihilistic murder, a liar, and a unprincipled scumbag. Much like Hitchens, I stand amazed at the fact that the so-called "anti-war" crowd continues to embrace a man whose deeds run counter to everything they supposedly stand for. This point has been mentioned before, but it bears repeating: It is esentially important that the Left (pro-war, anti-war or otherwise) stands up and rebukes this madman, and those like him. Many of us already have, but this must increase.

Thank You, Fleming Rose

Fleming Rose, the brave soul who published the controversial Muhammad cartoons in Denmark, has written a great piece published by the DLC. He reminds us of the truth that cannot be stressed enough-- that rampaging multiculturalism and political correctness in Europe are helping to foment radical Islam, and undermine liberal values. Many in the multiculturalist Left, in Europe (and in America) are unwittingly undercutting everything progressive they supposedly stand for. Two points, among the numerous gems particularly stand out. Rose lays out plainly the descent into relativism:

Europe today finds itself trapped in a posture of moral relativism that is undermining its liberal values. An unholy three-cornered alliance between Middle East dictators, radical imams who live in Europe, and Europe's traditional left wing is enabling a politics of victimology. This politics drives a culture that resists integration and adaptation, perpetuates national and religious differences, and aggravates such debilitating social ills as high immigrant crime rates and entrenched unemployment.

He also goes further, and indicts one of the chief culprits of this renegade philosophy:

Now, in Europe's failure to grapple realistically with its dramatically changing demographic picture, I see a new parallel to that Cold War journey. Europe's left is deceiving itself about immigration, integration, and Islamic radicalism today the same way we young hippies deceived ourselves about Marxism and communism 30 years ago. It is a narrative of confrontation and hierarchy that claims that the West exploits, abuses, and marginalizes the Islamic world. Left-wing intellectuals have insisted that the Danes were oppressing and marginalizing Muslim immigrants. This view comports precisely with the late Edward Said's model of Orientalism, which argues that experts on the Orient and the Muslim world have not depicted it as it is but as some dreaded "other," as exactly the opposite of ourselves -- and therefore to be rejected. The West, in this narrative, is democratic, the East is despotic. We are rational, they are irrational.

This kind of thinking gave birth to a distorted approach to immigration in countries like Denmark. Left-wing commentators decided that Denmark was both racist and Islamophobic. Therefore, the chief obstacle to integration was not the immigrants' unwillingness to adapt culturally to their adopted country (there are 200,000 Danish Muslims now); it was the country's inherent racism and anti-Muslim bias.



Read the whole thing, and be enlightened.

Hat tip: Centerfield

Fly Too Close to the Sun, And Get Burned

Michael Moore just learned that the hard way. See what happens when you use the military for your own base purposes? They fight back.

BTW, the fact that Sgt. Damon supports Bush is irrelevant. He's a patriot, and he doesn't deserve to be exploited. Our troops don't deserve to be exploited, by either side.

A Bit Much, No?

You know, I get that a lot of people really dislike, even loathe Jimmy Carter. I'll certainly cede that Carter's presidency wasn't really an example of competence, and that he's made some regrettable statements with regards to our foreign policy, but shouldn't the fact that he hasn't been President for 25 years spare him from this?

BTW, they've got a petition, so this is more than just a counter- response to criticism of the warrantless surveillance program. Let it be known, this group HATES Jimmy Carter.

Remembering The Mission

A while back I wrote a piece on the necessity of honest debate about the war, and how essential it was for us to grasp the big picture. I'm proud of that piece, but Owen West does an infinitely better job than I did. He really hits the right targets, with clarity and courage, like the brave soldier that he is:

Soldiers are sick of apologizing for a sliver of malcontents who are not at all representative of the new breed. But they are also sick of being pitied. Our warriors are the hunters, not the hunted, and we should celebrate them as we did in the past, for while our tastes have changed, warfare — and the need to cultivate national guardians — has not. As Kipling wrote, "The strength of the pack is the wolf."

Finally, today's debates are not high-spirited so much as mean-spirited. To allow polarizing forces to dominate the argument by insinuating false motives on one side or a lack of patriotism on the other is to obscure long-term security decisions that have to be made now.

We are clashing with an enemy who has been at war with us in one form or another for two decades. Our military response may take decades more. We have crossed several rivers and the nation is hoping that ahead lie streams. But if they are oceans, we should heed Lincoln's call: "With malice toward none, with charity for all ... let us strive on to finish the work we are in."

Read the whole thing. You won't regret it.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Hitchens on Memorial Day

"Always think of it: never speak of it." That was the stoic French injunction during the time when the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine had been lost. This resolution might serve us well at the present time, when we are in midconflict with a hideous foe, and when it is too soon to be thinking of memorials to a war not yet won. This Memorial Day, one might think particularly of those of our fallen who also guarded polling-places, opened schools and clinics, and excavated mass graves. They represent the highest form of the citizen, and every man and woman among them was a volunteer. This plain statement requires no further rhetoric.



Read the whole thing, and be enlightened.

Hat tip: Centerfield

Just Remember, It's More Than a Three-Day Weekend

"Be convinced that to be happy means to be free and that to be free means to be brave. Therefore do not take lightly the perils of war. "

--Thucydides


"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

--George Orwell


Just keep in mind, that millions gave their lives that we might enjoy this freedom we have. Show due reverence, have fun, and drink responsibly.

Calling George Galloway A Scumbag Is Beyond Understatement

He's basically saying that an assasination of Tony Blair is justified. What, you thought this guy couldn't possibly sink any lower? I tell you, there's a special pouch in Hell all decked out for this piece of filth.

The Necessity of Tony Blair

Bull Moose has a great piece on the moral leadership of Tony Blair. Moose points out how Blair has been steadfast in the fight against jihadism, even moreso than some of our own leaders. In many ways, the War on Terror is an example of muscular liberalism. Tony Blair is a true progressive, so he gets it, infinitely more than Bush does. Blair has risked his political future on this, and holds the line despite being highly unpopular, even in his own Party. Two things have always amazed me about Blair: The fact that he was willing to strike against the Taliban in Afghanistan even if we didn't, and the fact that in past speeches, he has a made a better case for American leadership in the world than many Americans. Here's an excerpt from the piece:

And courageous leaders like Blair are viciously slandered by Lilliputians who would rather see America and the West defeated than genuine progressives vindicated. Some of the the lefties who trumpet their own moral superiority increasingly find themselves objectively serving the interests of the Zarqawis who seek to drive us out of Iraq by weakening our will. They virtually celebrate every American setback while remaining mute in the face of the homicidal terror of the enemy. These are the same folks who lament the failure of America to intervene in Darfur, but would be just fine with leaving Iraq to become a ethnic cleansing mass killing field.

Read the whole thing.

Why I'm Not A Republican, Example One

Because lack-witted poltroonery like this is given safe harbor.

Hat tip: Booker Rising

A Few Thoughts..

On the controversy over Mary Cheney's new book, and the related controversy over the "antics" in the 2004 campaign, I found an old gem by Andrew Sullivan that hits the nail right on the head.

Oh, and during that search, I found a great piece from a while back by Johann Hari on a completely unrelated topic, the late Jacques Derrida. He says what I've been thinking for a while.

Just some random thoughts. It's late.

In Mubarak's Egypt, They Put Bloggers in Jail

There's a rising internet and blogging campaign to support the cause of Alaa Abd El-Fatah, a prominent Egyptian blogger who was arrested for his pro-democracy views at a peaceful protest in Cairo. The fight is for his freedom, of course. The Free Alaa blog has details on activism (Google bombs, etc).

Sandmonkey has even more details.

Hat tip: Marc Cooper

Vox Populi? I Think Not

For your edification, consider this definition of hysteria:

hys·ter·i·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-str-, -stîr-)n.
Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic.
A mental disorder characterized by emotional excitability and sometimes by amnesia or a physical deficit, such as paralysis, or a sensory deficit, without an organic cause.

And now, for your further education/horror, consider this example.

To those who support the so-called Minutemen, call me all the names you want. I'm not pro-amnesty. I'm for sense and rational debate.

To the counter-protesters, just remember to keep in peaceful as always.

Pandering

Well this was a greaaat idea. Governor, for God's sake, do you really think it wise to openly pander to people who will never vote Democratic?

Look, I get the idea the idea that the image of the Democratic Party as "godless" is utterly false. I get that that image must be countered and debunked. The thing is, pandering is not the answer.

Caitlin Flanagan's Cri de Coeur to the Democratic Party

Note to the Party elite: You really ought to read this. A lot of us Democrats really think you should.

Hat tip: Centerfield

Immigration Overreach?

Just as they said they would, millions of immigrants, illegal and legal, took to the streets, and implemented nationwide boycotts. They're calling it "A Day Without Immigrants." They're walking off their jobs, walking out of school, and refusing to buy American goods. Their intent was to show the economic impact that illegals and undocumented workers have on our economy. The marches are filled with a lot of American flags ( a lot more U.S. flags, and a lot less Mexican flags are being flown). They're trying to show their support for American ideals, and as far as thry're concerned, their desire to be a part of America.

The economic impact has been clear. The thing is, will this backfire? Was this an overreach? It's one thing to remind people how much economic influence illegals have. It's another thing to actually show them. The fact is, people are taking a hit, and it may cause a backlash. This may have been the thing the hardline opponents of illegal immigration were waiting for. Could this have played into their hands?

One has to wonder if these protests, despite the creeping radicalism (many protesters are calling for amnesty, and some evidence of real live anti-Americanism), haven't forced people to come to terms with their argument. How can you one hand begrudge them for walking off their jobs, while decrying them for even being here on the other? While I think this approach runs the risk of alienating the people who'd be otherwise supportive, many legal immigrants are a part of these rallies, and you have to admit-they've gotten our attention.

I must say though, while every movement has its extremists, it's extremely important that the radicals don't become too involved in this. The last thing you want to do is to go too far, and empower the critics.

Hollywood and 9/11

The new film United 93 was released on Friday. As I'm sure we all know, this is the movie that attempts to recapture the events of 9/11, from the destructions of the towers, and the hijacking of the plane itself. I've not seen it yet-I plan to see it this week, but I've heard that its beyond intense, and that viewers will relive those events as if they were there.

There's been talk that the early turnout's been somewhat lacking. In other words, a lot of people aren't going to see the film. Numerous theories are going around as to why. Many have suggested that blue staters aren't going to see it because of Bush, etc, and that many conservatives aren't going because they don't trust Hollywood to get it right, so to speak.

Frankly, I don't think politics really play a role on this. Call me naive, but I think most mainstream Americans understand what 9/11 meant. I think the problem is, some people have almost forgotten. I say some, because I suspect a whole lot of people, chiefly the 9/11 families and those living in New York and D.C. haven't forgotten. They live it everyday. It's reasonable then to assume that many people aren't ready to see it again onscreen. I'm not going to judge them. People have to make up their own minds.

As for me personally, I choose to see it to remember. I think a lot of us do need to remember. As for Hollywood's motives, I think conservatives are prejudging. Hollywood's liberalism notwithstanding, one ought to see the movie first. For all of Hollywood's uneasiness about war, I'd like to think they at least get the genereal idea that 9/11 was a horrible tragedy, and heroes gave their lives. Besides, the real driving force behind Hollywood isn't really liberalism, but lucre. Remember when everybody predicted that Fahrenheit 9/11 would sweep the Oscars, and Hollywood would try to sway the '04 election? What happened? Michael Moore overreached, and his vulgar propaganda piece received nothing. The Passion wasn't even hyped, and it got four Oscar nods (not that Hollywood was behind the Passion either. My point is that Hollywood knows the game.

People should make up their minds as always. I really don't think we should let politics and political motives overtake this movie. God knows, there's enough politicization of 9/11 as it is.

On Immigration, Part II

It seems that my previous post on illegal immigration has drawn a lot of criticism. I predicted as much. You know what though, maybe this was a misunderstanding. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I could've been. If I came off as self-righteous, that wasn't my intent. I do feel that many accusations were laid against my argument that have no basis in fact. I'm just going to tackle these all at once.

The intent of my first post was to make the point that the debate on illegal immigration, as with many other issues in America today, has been full of hysteria, demagoguery, and erroneous claims on both sides. No real reforms can happen if we're not honest about what's going on.

I think the approach the the House Republicans have chosen, and many support, of making illegals into felons, is the wrong approach. It is, and has always been a misdemeanor. I think it is unrealistic and unfeasible to try and deport 12 million illegals, especially without having a comprehensive plan to deal with the larger problem.

I'm against placing all the blame on the people coming here for a better life (albeit illegally), without placing due blame on the corporations who exploit these people for cheap labor. You won't stop illegal immigration unless you stop it at the source.

I'm for securing the borders. There are a lot of options here. A fence. More border agents. Maybe we do need some national guard troops.

I'm for paths to legalization for iillegals already here (Most of these people are hartdworking-and no contribute to the economy). I'm not for amnesty. Make them pay fines, and back taxes, and work out a compromise. I think the Senate bill had those here for five years become part of guest worker plan, and those here for less than that go back. The specifics can be worked out. My point is, a compromise is going to have to happen, because we're stuck between a lot of hard choices.

This is not, and I have never called it a civil rights issue, at least not in THAT sense.

Concerns about absorbing millions of new immigrants, and assimilation are valid, but those concerns are for later in the game. Besides, these are concerns we must tackle even with legal immigrants, so that shouldn't really play a part in the current debate.

To be honest with you, I'm no expert, nor do I claim to be. I'm just putting out my thoughts. For those who want to debate, I only ask that you stick to what I actually said, and not what others have said.

On Immigration, and Other Thoughts

OK. I get it. The immigration issue is a big deal for a lot of people. Frankly, I've been putting off posting on it because I'm trying to incorporate everything that's been happening over the last few months. I stand amazed at the lunacy that has taken over a lot of this debate. I'd love to tell you that both sides are equally extreme here, but honestly, the "anti-illegal immigration" crowd has earned a lot of the scorn here. As far as some people are concerned, if you're treating illegal immigrants like human beings, and not like felons, or if you recognize the unfeasibility of deporting 12 million illegals, you're for amnesty. If you think illegals ought to have a legal way of obtaining citizenship, you're a traitor to the laws. If you recognize that most of these people are hardworking, decent people who want a better life, you're for cheap labor. This debate has lost its balance. I know of no mainstream politician who has called for amnesty. I know of no mainstream politician saying that illegals shouldn't go to the back of the line. Yet all we hear about is how people who advocate a common sense approach want to reward criminals.

Let's be clear: The hardliners want to make these people into felons. They want troops on the border. They support uncouth vigilantes like the so-called Minutemen. They want to criminalize those who show compassion. Heck, there's even been a call for outright murder. THAT is what those protests were about. The Mexican flags bothered a lot of people. I get that, but I really think that was a cultural sign of solidarity, as if to say, "they're proud of the heritage."

Are there radicals amongst the protesters? Sure there are. Some do want amnesty. A radical few even want open borders. Many of the upcoming protests appear to be taking a more radical turn. I think that's the wrong approach. Let me say again, that is the wrong approach.

All I'm saying is that we need a common-sense approach to this problem. I don't think anyone's suggesting we do nothing. Most Americans regardless of Party recognize that there's a problem. We need secure borders. We need paths to legalization (not amnesty), and we need to punish those corporations who exploit undocumented workers and illegals. What we don't need is lunacy. What we don't need is self-righteous moralism. What we don't need is the unreconstructed paranoia of the likes of the John Birch Society.

Oh I can hear it now. I'll be called a left-wing smear artist, an open-borders advocate, a race-baiter, and an extremist by some. But I choose to take the position of that raving, America-hating moonbat named George W. Bush.

Oh, and in another related story, there's an uproar over a new Spanish version of the Star Spangled Banner. It's been done, according to the man behind this, to highlight America's immigrant heritage, and show support for the ideals of the anthem. The thing is, a lot of people aren't happy, and see this as a unpatriotic usurpation:

Some Internet bloggers and others are infuriated by the thought of "The Star-Spangled Banner" sung in a language other than English.

"Would the French accept people singing the La Marseillaise in English as a sign of French patriotism? Of course not," said Mark Krikorian, head of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that supports tighter immigration controls.

An interesting point, but the French handle their language a lot differently then we do, and we have a different policy concerning Spanish and English. I suspect THAT's the heart of the criticism here. I fail to see how a translation undermines a work, as long as the main themes and design are preserved. If the Declaration was translated into Spanish, is that a usurpation? I suspect that politics of immigration are the real issue here, and if this were any other language (except probably Arabic-which would unleash an even bigger firestorm), this story would have fallen off the radar.


UPDATE: You know, I was thinking the whole Spanish anthem thing over, and while I don't impugn the motives of those involved (despite the obvious politics behind it), tradition does matter. I tried to understand part of their argument by considering the anthem in the context of other literary works (books, etc), but it really doesn't fit. The Star Spangled Banner is the anthem, and it was written in English. Many of the words are changed, including the title itself. I'm having trouble with it being changed. To be honest, I'm kind of against it being changed. Again, I don't think they're trying to incur the wrath of the people here, but I fear it's coming.

Oh, and in an unrelated story, Rosie O'Donnell is replacing Meredith Vieira on The View. Uh-huh, that's EXACTLY what that show needs.

What? I really mean that! I'm sorry if it sounded sarcastic.

Ok, it was.

Well, So Much For Loyalty

Look, I've had my issues with Joe Lieberman, but on foreign policy matters, he's on the right track. The way I see it, even if you disagree with him on Iraq, it's shameful to just abandon him just because you disagree with his position on the war. It seems that the activist Lefty Dems in Connecticut disagree, and are running liberal challenger Ned Lamont against Lieberman. Lieberman's tried to cool things down, and he's still got a lot of support. He's even considered running as an independent.

You know what? I'll say it again: The Connecticut Dems ought to be ashamed of themselves. This is just more proof that the deal-breaker for a number of partisan Dems is the war in Iraq, while for Republicans, it's immigration. This is utter foolishness. Lieberman has my support, and I think it's a bad plan to abandon candidates just because they happen to support the war.

Yeah, I Think He's Right

My long-advertised post on illegal immigration will be done by Wednesday, but I just wanted to preview it by pointing out that President Bush has the right idea.

More to follow..

A Few Words On The Leak, and Other Things

As all of you ought to know by now, a top-ranking CIA officer has been fired for leaking information about CIA secret prisons. Her name is Mary O. McCarthy, and she is a seasoned officer, on the verge of retirement. It's also been reported that she was a donor to the Kerry campaign, and to the Democratic Party in general. She's close with Joe Wilson, Sandy Berger, and Richard Clarke.

Politically, you know how this looks. The right-wing blogosphere has gone into full assault mode as usual, entertaining all manner of conspiracies about collusion with the Democrats. To them, she's a politically-motivated traitor, who because of her hatred of Bush, has aided al-qaeda. To them, she's just another in a long line of politically motivated leaks designed to undermine the Administration, and the nation. Put her jail, they cry.

First off, I'm going to do my duty and reject the idea that this MUST be a partisan stunt. There isn't sufficient evidence to make such judgments. I'll seriously entertain the possibility that she honestly felt that these secret prisons were illegal or immoral, and took a moral stand.

Regardless, she still broke the rules, and was right to be fired. There are legal avenues for dealing with things like this legally. She could've gone to Congress. Maybe she did. Maybe she felt she had no other recourse, considering the political environment. Perhaps this will help her out if prosecuted, but she still broke the law. One does have to pay the penalties in these situations, no? They make you sign secrecy agreements. She surely must have known the rules.

The illegality of her actions notwithstanding, as I said before I'm not ready to dismiss her as a fifth-column partisan hack. Her motivations don't really get her off the hook, but it's entirely possible she was doing what she felt was her patriotic duty. Of course, pro-Bush types will scoff at this, pointing out her political contributions as supposedly slam-dunk proof of her malice. Honestly, I'm going to wait and see how this plays out.

I do want to return to a larger point that I touched on a few months ago. Before I go any further, I feel am I forced to preface the proceeding statements with the fact that I am a committed supporter of the Global War on Terror, and I feel that the President must have broad tools in dealing with the terror threat. That being said, these powers must be checked by Congress and the Constitution. I do not believe the President has virtually unlimited power during wartime. I have serious concerns about the legality of the NSA wiretapping/warrantless surveillance program. It seems to me, and a whole slew of legal experts, that the way this program was implemented might be illegal. It goes against FISA. The arguments for the legality of this program are at least debatable. As I've said, it's not really the spying that bothers me, rather the underlying argument of inter arma, enim silent leges.

I watched those hearings intently. No one has yet to explain why submitting the program to FISA is bad. I understand that speed and flexibility are essential post 9/11. I get that. The thing that makes this whole thing tougher is that this program appears to have actually thwarted attacks. I don't want this program to die. I want the legal issues settled. For the record, despite my concerns, I thought the Feingold censure was ill-advised. It presumes a deliberate attempt to subvert the law, and bad faith. The question was asked, whether Bush and his team honestly believed this program was legal. I've no doubt that they do. They really believe in the whole idea of inherent authority in wartime. In their view, not only is the program legal, but FISA is actually unconstitutional. In their minds, it's not the President that's abusing power, but Congress. Oh yes, they believe in their argument, but they reject even the slightest possibility that their view is wrong. To them, the idea of debating this is undermining the war. All those Democrats and concerned Republicans are just playing politics. Who gives a damn about the law?

Of course there are those who see any attempt to fight the GWOT as another attempt by Bush to rule over us. To them, Iraq is an illegal immoral war, and Bush is to blame for everything. You've heard those rants before too.

The thing is, the underlying premise of "anything goes in war" is really driving a lot of furor on the pro-Bush right. That's why the fury is unleashed on the leakers, and the critics in the press, and Congressional Democrats, but not the administration. Shoot the messenger, in other words.

So, this new leak story will develop further, and the Right will bombard us with conspiracies about Democrats and the CIA trying to turn us all into dhimmis. Many on the right have committed themselves to the idea that Democrats are colluding with the enemy already, so this is just more red meat for them.

Once again, everyday Americans are subjected to the same lame exercise. Thankfully, the brave patriots actually fighting the war manage to rise above this nonsense. They've got more important work to do.

The Euston Manifesto

There is a new liberal/progressive/Left-wing movement in the works, that involves a global commitment of discerning liberals committed to fight against terror. Most of them, like myself, are pro-war muscular liberals, but not all. There is diversity of opinion; not everyone was for Iraq, and there are obvious differences over other policy issues, but the overall mission is good. That is why I support it. I know it's a few days late, but here is their announcement:

Today, 13Apr06, we — bloggers, academics, campaigners, writers, scientists, journalists, citizens — launch the Euston Manifesto. With this document we hope to publicly assert our progressive, democratic, egalitarian, internationalist principles in the face of recent attacks upon them from the Right and, to our dismay, the Left.Many of us are of the Left, but we come from across the range of political positions. We are not founding a political party. There were differences amongst us over Western military intervention in Iraq. Our declaration is not definitive, final, or perfect; it is, we hope, the beginning of a renewed debate, grounded in a common set of progressive values. You can read and sign the document at our Website where donations towards our costs are also welcome.Comments are closed on this announcement alone because that is all this post is: an announcement. We simply want to launch this movement in a co-ordinated way and make sure there is time for people to understand exactly what we stand for before criticising it. We welcome discussion of the Euston Manifesto across blogs, in the media, and in the public world and intend that the Euston Manifesto Group, the organisation founded upon the manifesto's principles, will promote such debate by organising meetings, sponsoring seminars, and publishing ideas.

Think it over, and then stand up and be counted.

England Expects Every Man To Do His Duty

And when you don't, you might find yourself in jail. As with all deserters, I've no sympathy for this scoundrel.

It's Been An Interesting Couple Of Days

OK, so Tom DeLay has given up his bid for re-election and given up his seat. At last, the long nightmare is over. DeLay was the living embodiment of all that was ugly and foul in the GOP, and the country is bettered by his departure, although I suspect that while DeLay is gone, DeLayism still endures.

The country is abuzz with more pro-immigration/anti-anti-immigrant protests. I still plan to do an extensive post on my thoughts on this issue.

To the woman who foolishly let that young boy's mother die: You've done wrong. You ALWAYS assume that the emergency is real, even when it's not. Lives hang in the balance.

Oh yeah, and a mutant, killer death-rabbit is loose in London. No, I'm not kidding.

Where There Is No Vision, Democrats Keep Losing Elections

The Democrtaic leadership has released their plan for national security. That's right, another one. The ideas aren't bad, they're just boring and unoriginal. You don't combat flawed leadership with uninspired leadership.

There's a great post on this over at Democracy Arsenal.

If You'll Scroll To The Bottom...

I've added something new. It's the great web comic, Rockwood. I hope you'll enjoy as much as I do.

BTW, I like the Boondocks a great deal. I've got no beef with the Boondocks, in case anyone was wondering.

Also, I'm planning on posting my thoughts on the immigration bruhaha in a day or two, in case any of the millions I delude myself into thinking read this blog daily are interested. Moving up, one stone at a time.