"The useless and meaningless term Islamophobia, now widely used as a bludgeon of moral blackmail, is testimony to its success."

Hitch gives us the word on yet another insidious plan to stifle free expression, in the name of "not offending Islam":

Yes, I think we can see where we are going with that. (And I truly wish I had been able to attend that gathering and report more directly on its rich and varied and culturally diverse flavors, but I couldn't get a visa.) The stipulations that follow this turgid preamble are even more tendentious and become more so as the resolution unfolds. For example, Paragraph 5 "expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," while Paragraph 6 "[n]otes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001."

No decent person wants to defend actual bigotry against Muslims, or ethnic profiling, but there is something subtle and wholly sinister at work here. He continues:

You see how the trick is pulled? In the same weeks that this resolution comes up for its annual renewal at the United Nations, its chief sponsor-government (Pakistan) makes an agreement with the local Taliban to close girls' schools in the Swat Valley region (a mere 100 miles or so from the capital in Islamabad) and subject the inhabitants to Sharia law. This capitulation comes in direct response to a campaign of horrific violence and intimidation, including public beheadings. Yet the religion of those who carry out this campaign is not to be mentioned, lest it "associate" the faith with human rights violations or terrorism. In Paragraph 6, an obvious attempt is being made to confuse ethnicity with confessional allegiance. Indeed this insinuation (incidentally dismissing the faith-based criminality of 9/11 as merely "tragic") is in fact essential to the entire scheme. If religion and race can be run together, then the condemnations that racism axiomatically attracts can be surreptitiously extended to religion, too. This is clumsy, but it works: The useless and meaningless term Islamophobia, now widely used as a bludgeon of moral blackmail, is testimony to its success.

First off, I find it morally absurd to be lectured, via the agency of the U.N, by theocrats who commit unspeakable acts such as these, on the virtues of tolerance. Secondly, 9/11 wasn't just tragic. When someone drowns in a lake, that's tragic. 9/11 was an abomination, and an act of war. A lot of decent, freedom-loving, non-terrorist-loving people have decsribed it as a tragedy, but in this context (tragic events), it comes off as an insult, much like the whole of the document.

Read the whole thing.

Bernie, Let It Go

Bush's Presidency ends in less than seven days, and his official potrait has been prepared. Apparently, there's an issue with the inscription on the bottom. Sen. Bernie Sanders has cried foul:

"When President Bush and Vice President Cheney misled our country into the war in Iraq, they certainly cited the attacks on September 11, along with the equally specious claim that Iraq possessed vast arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. The notion, however, that 9/11 and Iraq were linked, or that one "led to" the other, has been widely and authoritatively debunked. ... Might I suggest that a reconsideration of the explanatory text next to the portrait of President Bush is in order."

It appears that people may be taking Sanders seriously on this. Look, I'm not exactly a fan of Bush, and I didn't vote for him in either election. I've commented elsewhere and often, on the final verdict of his legacy. The thing is, it's his potrait, and his vision. He's the outgoing President, and he deserves his portrait, with his vision on it. You may not agree with it, but it's his vision, and Sanders ought to let this go.

Maybe my bias is showing, in that I do believe, as a supporter of the Iraq war, that the threat Saddam posed was unacceptable in a post-9/11 world, but I'm just not sure what this accomplishes. It's like picking at the man's bones. Besides, I'm also a bit concerned about the fact that one Senator can object, and the Nation Museum basically caves. Better men than Sanders have spoken out on bigger things, and have been thwarted. Maybe I answered my own question in here somewhere, as this whole issue is so small, and so is Sanders apparently, for bringing this up.

Sen. Sanders, let it go. Let it go.

HT: Althouse

ADDED: As for people with personal agendas and their intruding on the proper processes of the Presidency, some hit you on the way out, and some hit you on the way in.

Seven Years Later, We Still Haven't Forgotten

Seven years ago today, America suffered the worst attack on her soil in history. Nearly 3,000 people were murdered by evil forces bent on our destruction. They declared war on us, and we ought to do every just and right thing we can to prevail over those who would seek to kill us, and threaten our way of life. We must challenge the ideology that drives them, and contend for the idea of human freedom. WE need to win the war, is all I'm saying.

BTW, think what you want, but this goes beyond the elction, whoever you're voting for.

God Bless America.

About That Saddleback Forum Saturday Night...

OK, I'm pretty sure most watched, or at least heard about the Saddleback Forum at Rick Warren's church Saturday night, and the continuing controversies. I watched it, and just had some quick thoughts:

I thought Rick Warren did a good job. He was trying to create a civil discourse with both candidates, and I thought he did that to the best of his ability. As to the debate itself, I thought both did a good job, although as far as getting done politically what needed to get done, McCain did better than Obama. Despite the growing consensus in many quarters, I don't think Obama did that bad, although he did make some missteps. First off, let me say that McCain had some implicit advantages in some of the questions.

I don't mean that there was cheating or foul play afoot (I'll deal with that in a moment), but I think certain questions intrinsically favored McCain. The "gut wrenching decision" question is an example. I've no doubt that Obama wrestled with the decision to support the Iraq war, but that doesn't really compare with the decision to turn down early release from that Vietnamese prison camp. It just doesn't. There's really nothing Obama could've done to counter that, although I find myself wishing he had a better answer. In fact, Obama had no real legislative authority to effect the decision to go to war (Not that settling the moral question in one's heart and mind isn't a serious one), so the effect is diminished slightly. Some may balk at this, but I think he should've mentioned his decision to break with his former church. Surely it would've opened him up to more scrutiny by his opponents, but I take Obama at his word on his explanation of why he left Trinity.

The gay marriage answer was pretty good, although he did stumble through the last part. McCain does get a benefit on the gay marriage, abortion, and the question of judges, because his views on those issues are more in line with those of the audience. McCain is pro-life, and has a 20-plus year pro-life record. It's easier for him to explain that.

Staying on the abortion question, I think Obama's biggest gaffe was the obvious one, the "above my pay grade" answer, to Rick Warren's question. That was a sloppy mistake. I know what he was trying to say (it's up to God), but it came off as evasive, cold, and stupid. I think Ann Althouse hits the nail with her explanation:

Now, let's also look at Rick Warren's rhetoric. He asked, after a preface about abortion, "when does a baby get human rights in your view?" And, most obviously, his use of "baby" instead of "fetus" or at least "unborn baby" conveys a lot of opinion. But look at what else Warren is doing. He is not asking when does life begin?, a question that is much more susceptible to Obama's answer that only God knows. Warren is asking when do rights begin? That makes it a legal question. And Warren even appends the phrase "in your view."

So Obama's answer — that it's not for him to say — is inapt. Obama answered the question he expected to hear. But Warren had the wit to frame the question in terms of a legal opinion that Obama was fully equipped to give. When does the baby have legal rights?

Exactly. Warren was prepared, and asked a question Obama apparently wasn't ready for. Obama answered the question he either thought was asked, or thought should be asked, and missed it on this one. Warren himself expounds on Obama's answer(link via Althouse):

No. I think he needed to be more specific on that. I happen to disagree with Barack on that. Like I said, he's a friend. But to me, I would not want to die and get before God one day and go, 'Oh, sorry, I didn't take the time to figure out' because if I was wrong then it had severe implications to my leadership if I had the ability to do something about it. He should either say, 'No scientifically, I do not believe it's a human being until X' or whatever it is or to say, 'Yes, I believe it is a human being at X point,' whether it's conception or anything else. But to just say 'I don't know' on the most divisive issue in America is not a clear enough answer for me.

Nope, not clear enough at all.

However, as I saw it, those were his only major gaffes. I do think he had a different attitude about the debate than McCain did, that may count as a mistake. I do think some of his answers, particularly his foreign policy answers, were a but too abstract and philosophic, while McCain went directly to policy and specifics. When asked about evil, McCain went directly to 9/11 and al-qaeda. McCain mentioned Russia and Georgia. McCain sounded forceful on those answers. Obama's answers weren't bad, it's just that McCain seemed to keep the focus on the issues at hand. I still hesitate somewhat to call this a mistake on Obama's part, as both candidates have different approaches, and had different tasks during the debate. McCain saw this as his opportunity to shore up his evangelical base, and the talk from many righties is that they like what they saw. Obama had to make a good impression with evangelical voters, ans he may have hurt himself somewhat with the abortion answer, and the dis to Clarence Thomas.

Not that most conservatives were going to vote for Obama, anyway.


A quick point about the cheating controversy. I don't believe it. While it's apparently true that McCain wasn't in the "cone of silence," Rick Warren says he took real steps to keep McCain from hearing Obama, and I believe him. McCain says he didn't hear the questions, and I believe him as well. Also, I wonder what difference it would have made. I think those amongst the Obama circles who advance this story aren't helping, as it makes Obama look whiny and weak.

All in all, mistakes included, they both did a decent job. Besides, I think Ann is right when she points this out:

There were many other differences on display at the forum. Compare their answers on abortion and their efforts to put a number on "rich." It's this displaying of differences that matters far more than any conclusions about who won.

Yeah.


ADDED: Sully also misses the point, but Ross Douthat gets it right.

AND: This from Glenn Loury and John McWhorter, on why the dis to Clarence Thomas could be a major disaster.

9/11, Six Years Later: Never Forget

Let Me Say This...

Ron Silver has endorsed Rudy for Prez. I like Ron Silver, and I'm certainly not bothered by him backing a Republican, as others might be, but I feel the need to point out something.

Considering this related quote:

[H]e is still a registered Democrat, and Mr. Silver told his convention audience that he has not disavowed the left's social agenda. But at the moment he represents a particular slice of the American political spectrum: voters who put national security before ideology and want to keep President Bush's hand on the nation's rudder.

I certainly believe that national security is basically the primary issue (I'd like to think I've established that rep on this blog), but I have problems with the idea that believing that requires one to want to keep President Bush's (or in the case of the current election, a Republican's hand on the nation's rudder.

An Interesting Parody of the 9/11 Conspiracy Types....

Oh, hold on a sec, it's real. Not a parody at all. Hunh. Ooookay, then.

HT: Stubborn Facts

This Does Give One Pause

You know, I don't exactly buy into the "left-wing cabal versus America" meme that the righty partisans advance, at least not in the way they do. Don't get me wrong, the far-left is in full assault mode, and indeed has far too much influence in the Democratic Party, and the country. The catalog of attacks on Joe Lieberman and others who would dare to support him are proof of this. This notwithstanding, I do think George Soros' influence is somewhat overstated in the grand scheme, and he serves as a convenient boogeyman for the right. That being said, as it pertains to the effect of his propaganda machinery and influence on the Party, this poll really does concern me.

Let me be clear that is pure insanity to suggerst that Bush knew about the attacks in advance, and allowed them to happen, or any other politician for that matter. There is no evidence to support such poisonous absurdity. Such baseless conspiracy theories have far too much credence in our discourse on 9/11, and while it's easy to dismiss this as more O'Reilly-fueled hysteria, again, this numbers give me pause. Whatever one thinks of the poll, this is a substantial number.

This does sort of reflect somewhat the divisions within the Democratic Party. While the majority doesn't hold this view, you've got a third of Dems who are totally sold out to far-Left insanity, and this group has too much influence as it is. It's hurting the Party, and more importantly, the country.