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.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Thursday, June 15, 2006
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.
Democracy Arsenal has a good piece on the politics of this thing, as well as the text of the Resolution.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
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!!
Saturday, June 10, 2006
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.
"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.
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.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
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.
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
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
Sunday, June 04, 2006
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.
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.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
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
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
Thursday, June 01, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
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.
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
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
Read the whole thing, and be enlightened.
Hat tip: Centerfield
Saturday, May 27, 2006
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.
--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.
Friday, May 26, 2006
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.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Monday, May 15, 2006
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.
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.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
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
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.
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.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
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.
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.
Friday, May 05, 2006
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
Hat tip: Centerfield
Monday, May 01, 2006
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
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.
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.
Friday, April 28, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, April 24, 2006
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..
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
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.
Monday, April 10, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
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.
There's a great post on this over at Democracy Arsenal.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
The "Undisputed" Facts (Or, What I Think Reasonable People Should Agree On)
Let it be known first off that I am, for all intents and purposes a supporter of the war in Iraq. I supported the war in the beginning (with some reservations about timing), and my support really has not wavered. That being said, I recognize that a lot of mistakes have been made in Iraq, and a lot of things went down in a way they shouldn't have. Regardless, it is clear to me that we were justified in removing Saddam, and while he was not directly involved in 9/11, he was a long-term threat that needed to be dealt with. The debate over this war, and the justifications will rage on for years to come. There is plenty of room for debate on the war, pro or con, but I submit that in order to have an honest and serious debate of this war (and the larger War on Terror), reasonable people must recognize these seven facts to be undisputed:
1. America was hit with an unprovoked attack on 9/11, by radical Islamists who want to destroy us. Nearly 3,000 Americans were killed. America did NOTHING to deserve this attack.
2. America has an obligation to confront all clear terrorist threats. This does not always mean open war, but if military force is required, we must be ready.
3. Saddam Hussein was a brutal, murderous dictator, who committed genocidal acts against his own people. He invaded his neighbors, and at one point had WMDs. He used them against his own people, and had clear designs to use them against us at one point.
4. Saddam's removal is a good thing for the free world, and for the Iraqi people.
This is a value judgment, but one I think all of us should agree on.
5. The war was not illegal, as it was backed by U.N resolution, and the Iraq War Resolution in Congress.
6. Our troops, all of them, are heroes, who are fighting for a noble cause.
Again, another value judgment, but also one I think reasonable people can agree upon.
7. Criticism of the war is not treason, and support for the war is not apology for war crimes. Iraq is not a war crime.
These are things the all of us ought to agree upon, regardless of ideology, if we are really serious about fighting terror. Just so you know, I'm not the biggest fan of this Administration, and one could say that I support the war in spite of Bush. Many on the Left in this country really can't seem to move beyond Bush, and many on the right can't seem to suffer any criticism of him. This war on terror isn't about Bush. This war doesn't end when his term is up. We're in this for the long haul.
Considering Iraq, it's my view that a premature withdrawal is bad for everybody. I respect those who sincerely believe the contrary, but I fail to see how pulling out now helps. Perhaps gradual drawdowns can happen in the future, but many people are calling for immediate pullouts or artificial timetables. This is a flawed approach. Especially when this is real progress being made.
Before you accuse me of carrying the water for the GOP, I recognize that there are real problems. Civil war may very well come. However, real work has been done by Allied and Iraqi troops. It seems that many in the press can't resist the "if it bleeds, it leads" impulse, and only seem to focus on the negative. Some take this further, imposing their own antiwar biases on their reporting. This really does happen. Of course, the Bush-friendly press seems to only focus on the favorable coverage, and is less inclined to report the negative. Often these stories are less focused on Iraq, than trying to make Democrats look like the enemy. Their coverage is tainted with pro-war (and pro-Bush) bias, and is just as bad.
The fact is, a lot of great journalists of all stripes are doing good reporting in Iraq, that's balanced. This needs to increase.
The point of all this that all of us need to deal in sense when dealing with these issues. I've had enough of both the "Liberals are traitors" mantras, and the "Bush lied, millions died" mantras. Enough of this talk of impeachment. Enough of this talk about prosecuting journalists. This has been said to death but it bears repeating: This war is the central front on the war on terror. It doesn't matter how we got there, we're here now, and we must focus on the here and now.
Bush and the Republicans will take a hit of the prosecution of the war, and the numerous other GOP screw-ups. Most of this the GOP brought on themselves, but no political outcome should lead to a pullout of troops too early. Bush has said that he's leaving the troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future. I support him on that. Not for his sake, but for the sake of the mission, and our brave troops fighting it.
1. America was hit with an unprovoked attack on 9/11, by radical Islamists who want to destroy us. Nearly 3,000 Americans were killed. America did NOTHING to deserve this attack.
2. America has an obligation to confront all clear terrorist threats. This does not always mean open war, but if military force is required, we must be ready.
3. Saddam Hussein was a brutal, murderous dictator, who committed genocidal acts against his own people. He invaded his neighbors, and at one point had WMDs. He used them against his own people, and had clear designs to use them against us at one point.
4. Saddam's removal is a good thing for the free world, and for the Iraqi people.
This is a value judgment, but one I think all of us should agree on.
5. The war was not illegal, as it was backed by U.N resolution, and the Iraq War Resolution in Congress.
6. Our troops, all of them, are heroes, who are fighting for a noble cause.
Again, another value judgment, but also one I think reasonable people can agree upon.
7. Criticism of the war is not treason, and support for the war is not apology for war crimes. Iraq is not a war crime.
These are things the all of us ought to agree upon, regardless of ideology, if we are really serious about fighting terror. Just so you know, I'm not the biggest fan of this Administration, and one could say that I support the war in spite of Bush. Many on the Left in this country really can't seem to move beyond Bush, and many on the right can't seem to suffer any criticism of him. This war on terror isn't about Bush. This war doesn't end when his term is up. We're in this for the long haul.
Considering Iraq, it's my view that a premature withdrawal is bad for everybody. I respect those who sincerely believe the contrary, but I fail to see how pulling out now helps. Perhaps gradual drawdowns can happen in the future, but many people are calling for immediate pullouts or artificial timetables. This is a flawed approach. Especially when this is real progress being made.
Before you accuse me of carrying the water for the GOP, I recognize that there are real problems. Civil war may very well come. However, real work has been done by Allied and Iraqi troops. It seems that many in the press can't resist the "if it bleeds, it leads" impulse, and only seem to focus on the negative. Some take this further, imposing their own antiwar biases on their reporting. This really does happen. Of course, the Bush-friendly press seems to only focus on the favorable coverage, and is less inclined to report the negative. Often these stories are less focused on Iraq, than trying to make Democrats look like the enemy. Their coverage is tainted with pro-war (and pro-Bush) bias, and is just as bad.
The fact is, a lot of great journalists of all stripes are doing good reporting in Iraq, that's balanced. This needs to increase.
The point of all this that all of us need to deal in sense when dealing with these issues. I've had enough of both the "Liberals are traitors" mantras, and the "Bush lied, millions died" mantras. Enough of this talk of impeachment. Enough of this talk about prosecuting journalists. This has been said to death but it bears repeating: This war is the central front on the war on terror. It doesn't matter how we got there, we're here now, and we must focus on the here and now.
Bush and the Republicans will take a hit of the prosecution of the war, and the numerous other GOP screw-ups. Most of this the GOP brought on themselves, but no political outcome should lead to a pullout of troops too early. Bush has said that he's leaving the troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future. I support him on that. Not for his sake, but for the sake of the mission, and our brave troops fighting it.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Triumph and Tragedy
You know, it's stories like this that force us to realize how small and miniscule many of the problems many of us complain about are.
Some of us have it a lot worse, yet they endure.
Some of us have it a lot worse, yet they endure.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Clooney's a Liberal, But He's No Blogger
He says so himself. I'm not even sure what to make of this.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
This Woman Is A Hero Indeed
Dr. Wafa Sultan lays out the specifics of the struggle the West faces clearly and plainly, better than few others can. It's not a really clash of civilizations. It's a clash between human rights and barbarism. Free people of all religions, versus the madmen.
Thanks to Exit Zero
Thanks to Exit Zero
Less War Talk Is Good?
Despite our current problems in Iraq, and the various mistakes by Bush, I'm stil a cautiously optimistic supporter, and still believe it was right to take out Saddam, for numerous reasons. We can debate the supposed links between Saddam and al-qaeda (certainly debatable) and WMDs, etc. on and on. The fact is, we're there, and we need to aim for the best possible victory.
Glenn Reynolds has an interesting idea. He has a quote by Neal Boortz, pointing out that he and other conservatives are still behind Bush on the war, but have aught with Bush on other issues. However, in their view, the Dems are worse. Reynolds argues that Dems should consider this, and spend less going after Bush on the war, and focus on other issues, if they want to capitalize on Republican dissatisfaction with Bush.
An interesting idea, but I think the Dems would do better if we just came up with a clear, consistent, and coherent alternative to Bush's war approach, as opposed to just criricism. A lot of the criticism is legitimate, but if the Democrats don't have a clear alternative that they can clearly put forth, we still end up looking wishy-washy.
Many conservatives are dissatisfied with the war, and only 34 percent of the country really backs Bush right now. Dems will never win the rank and file, but moderates and swing votes are up for grabs as always. The approach has to be clear though. In fact, the problem is less that the message we put out is anti-Bush, than the fact that it's not coherent.
On a sort-of side note, while I don't think the Dems should take the advice of the Michael Moore types and move to the Left, or the advice of the Zell Millers and move to the right, the problem with this whole movement thing isn't about the direction moved, but the frequency of movement.
Glenn Reynolds has an interesting idea. He has a quote by Neal Boortz, pointing out that he and other conservatives are still behind Bush on the war, but have aught with Bush on other issues. However, in their view, the Dems are worse. Reynolds argues that Dems should consider this, and spend less going after Bush on the war, and focus on other issues, if they want to capitalize on Republican dissatisfaction with Bush.
An interesting idea, but I think the Dems would do better if we just came up with a clear, consistent, and coherent alternative to Bush's war approach, as opposed to just criricism. A lot of the criticism is legitimate, but if the Democrats don't have a clear alternative that they can clearly put forth, we still end up looking wishy-washy.
Many conservatives are dissatisfied with the war, and only 34 percent of the country really backs Bush right now. Dems will never win the rank and file, but moderates and swing votes are up for grabs as always. The approach has to be clear though. In fact, the problem is less that the message we put out is anti-Bush, than the fact that it's not coherent.
On a sort-of side note, while I don't think the Dems should take the advice of the Michael Moore types and move to the Left, or the advice of the Zell Millers and move to the right, the problem with this whole movement thing isn't about the direction moved, but the frequency of movement.
Oh, NOW He's Had Enough?
Isaac Hayes has had enough. He's decided to quit South Park, on the grounds that the show has gone too far in their attacks on religion.
"There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins," the 63-year-old soul singer and outspoken Scientologist said.
Religious beliefs are sacred to people, and at all times should be respected and honored," he continued. "As a civil rights activist of the past 40 years, I cannot support a show that disrespects those beliefs and practices."
You know, I like Isaac Hayes, but I have to wonder what exactly they've done now to cross the line, considering all the stuff they've done in previous years.
Are you telling me that you were perfectly fine with Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo, the infamous anti-Catholic episode, The Passion of the Jew, Jesus vs. Satan (where Satan wins!!), and a lot of others, but now they've croosed the line? What was so horrible that finally exhausted your patience? Creator of the show Matt Stone gives us the answer:
"South Park" co-creator Matt Stone responded sharply in an interview with The Associated Press Monday, saying, "This is 100 percent having to do with his faith of Scientology... He has no problem — and he's cashed plenty of checks — with our show making fun of Christians."
It certainly seems that way.
Look, South Park has been going after religion since episode one, and many times they've gone too far in my view. But at least they've been consistent. Apparently Isaac Hayes is only concerned when they go after his religion. Christianity and Judaism are fair game, but quasi-cultic religion Scientology is off limits. Nope, that doesn't wash.
Stone told The AP he and co-creator Trey Parker "never heard a peep out of Isaac in any way until we did Scientology. He wants a different standard for religions other than his own, and to me, that is where intolerance and bigotry begin."
The story via AP is here.
"There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins," the 63-year-old soul singer and outspoken Scientologist said.
Religious beliefs are sacred to people, and at all times should be respected and honored," he continued. "As a civil rights activist of the past 40 years, I cannot support a show that disrespects those beliefs and practices."
You know, I like Isaac Hayes, but I have to wonder what exactly they've done now to cross the line, considering all the stuff they've done in previous years.
Are you telling me that you were perfectly fine with Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo, the infamous anti-Catholic episode, The Passion of the Jew, Jesus vs. Satan (where Satan wins!!), and a lot of others, but now they've croosed the line? What was so horrible that finally exhausted your patience? Creator of the show Matt Stone gives us the answer:
"South Park" co-creator Matt Stone responded sharply in an interview with The Associated Press Monday, saying, "This is 100 percent having to do with his faith of Scientology... He has no problem — and he's cashed plenty of checks — with our show making fun of Christians."
It certainly seems that way.
Look, South Park has been going after religion since episode one, and many times they've gone too far in my view. But at least they've been consistent. Apparently Isaac Hayes is only concerned when they go after his religion. Christianity and Judaism are fair game, but quasi-cultic religion Scientology is off limits. Nope, that doesn't wash.
Stone told The AP he and co-creator Trey Parker "never heard a peep out of Isaac in any way until we did Scientology. He wants a different standard for religions other than his own, and to me, that is where intolerance and bigotry begin."
The story via AP is here.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
An Absurd Proposal
I watch Bill Maher every Friday night that he's on, and on a whole host of issues, he has insightful commentary. Yes, he's views on religion in general are quite bothersome, but I can look past that. It's no secret that he has no love for the Bush Administration, and I've certainly got no beef with that. One thing that has bothered me about him in recent weeks though, is his quasi-humorous/not-so-humorous flirtation with the idea of putting Saddam back in charge of Iraq.
He pointed out that he was joking the first few times he's said this, but now he's kind of serious. Whether he was serious or not, it appeared to me that Robert Baer (the former CIA-agent on which Syriana was based) basically agreed.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think Maher is really thoughtfully considering this. I think it is a quasi-comedic, short-sighted call for stability in Iraq. Stability at any cost. There is a lot of chaos in Iraq, and many feel the only way this war can end is if we pull out our troops, or put in place a strong man like Saddam. This is really a rebirth of the containment approach to dealing with Saddam. Like I said, I don't think Maher wants to throw the Iraqis back under the boot, but of course we all know that would happen. The very idea of putting that monster back on the throne is an affront. We shouldn't punish the Iraqis because of our mistakes. Besides, I've always felt, that even among the most ardent war critics, the one thing we all could agree on was the Saddam being gone was a good thing.
This approach is so absurd I needn't dwell on it further. The idea that all our brave troops will have died in vain, the Iraqi soldiers fighting beside us will have died in vain, that after all that blood and treasure, that we'd just give up, throw up our hands and tell Saddam "never mind, you can have it back," it's too absurd to even consider.
Especially considering the progress we've made, and we have made real progress.
In truth, I suspect that Maher, if he's not joking, hasn't even begun to really think any of this through. Maybe he's just being controversial for its own sake. Either way, for every inch this idea moves closer to legitimacy is an inch towards defeat and the triumph of really f-ed up ideas.
But you know what, I'm worrying for nothing. No one in their right mind can really be considering this.
He pointed out that he was joking the first few times he's said this, but now he's kind of serious. Whether he was serious or not, it appeared to me that Robert Baer (the former CIA-agent on which Syriana was based) basically agreed.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think Maher is really thoughtfully considering this. I think it is a quasi-comedic, short-sighted call for stability in Iraq. Stability at any cost. There is a lot of chaos in Iraq, and many feel the only way this war can end is if we pull out our troops, or put in place a strong man like Saddam. This is really a rebirth of the containment approach to dealing with Saddam. Like I said, I don't think Maher wants to throw the Iraqis back under the boot, but of course we all know that would happen. The very idea of putting that monster back on the throne is an affront. We shouldn't punish the Iraqis because of our mistakes. Besides, I've always felt, that even among the most ardent war critics, the one thing we all could agree on was the Saddam being gone was a good thing.
This approach is so absurd I needn't dwell on it further. The idea that all our brave troops will have died in vain, the Iraqi soldiers fighting beside us will have died in vain, that after all that blood and treasure, that we'd just give up, throw up our hands and tell Saddam "never mind, you can have it back," it's too absurd to even consider.
Especially considering the progress we've made, and we have made real progress.
In truth, I suspect that Maher, if he's not joking, hasn't even begun to really think any of this through. Maybe he's just being controversial for its own sake. Either way, for every inch this idea moves closer to legitimacy is an inch towards defeat and the triumph of really f-ed up ideas.
But you know what, I'm worrying for nothing. No one in their right mind can really be considering this.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Worst Best Picture Choice Ever?
As you know, Crash won the Best Picture Oscar last night, upsetting Brokeback Mountain. Personally, I think the better movie won, but apparently some aren't convinced. Marc Cooper is one of those who thinks Crash was the worst choice Hollywood could have made. He's spot-on in his criticism of the over-the-top race-baiting rant by Tom Hayden, but his review of Crash is a slander against a great film.
To each his own, I guess.
To each his own, I guess.
"Crash" Wins Best Picture!
To that, I give a big huzzah. I am delightfully surprised. The best movie won tonight, hands down. Period. I am quite happy.
Not quite as happy as the Three-6 Mafia, but you get my drift.
Most of the other awards went as expected. Clooney. Reese. Hoffman. Weisz.
Bravo to March of the Penguins, BTW.
Not quite as happy as the Three-6 Mafia, but you get my drift.
Most of the other awards went as expected. Clooney. Reese. Hoffman. Weisz.
Bravo to March of the Penguins, BTW.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
The UAE Port Deal, Politics, and Moderate Islam
I've been really thinking over this port deal with the UAE, and at the end of the day, I can find no compelling reason to oppose this. At worst, it's not a big deal, and at best, it's a win-win for the War on Terror, and our image around the world. I still think a thorough investigation needs to happen, to calm any honest fear, but I fear, as with a lot of issues, this story has been given over to hysteria and politics.
It has always been my belief that in order to achieve a long-term victory in the War on Terror, we must embrace moderate Islam, and moderate forces for change in th region. Democracy in Iraq will be impossible without this.
There are those among us who reject this idea, and assert that there is no such thing as moderate Islam. They don't want Arabs guarding our ports. They want profiling, and other programs in place. Some are so extreme as to engage in outright xenophobia, as seen with the latest antics of Ann Coulter, and blogs such as LGF. For some people, the very suggestion of a moderate Islam is nothing more than a closet appeal for dhimmitude. "There goes the moonbat Left again," they say. Keep in mind that most Americans don't think this way-at least not to that degree.
Back to the UAE port deal, and the politics involved-for those on the far-right who oppose this, it seems to be an appeal to their aforementioned sensibilities. For the Democrats, it looks like politics. In trying to look tough on terror, they've played right into Republican hands. Of course Dems have been bringing up the legit concerns about our ports being unguarded, but it still looks political. It looks like another way to slam Bush. Bush hasn't guarded ports. Arab country with possible ties gets port deal. Bush blows it. Instant scandal.
Nver mind the fact that Dubai and the UAE is an ally in the GWoT, and that these ports are still under American control. There's a lot to get Bush and the Republicans on, but this isn't it.
At least I'm pretty darn sure it isn't.
On a side note, Bush is committed to sticking up for the UAE. I only wish they'd be as committed to sticking up for Denmark.
It has always been my belief that in order to achieve a long-term victory in the War on Terror, we must embrace moderate Islam, and moderate forces for change in th region. Democracy in Iraq will be impossible without this.
There are those among us who reject this idea, and assert that there is no such thing as moderate Islam. They don't want Arabs guarding our ports. They want profiling, and other programs in place. Some are so extreme as to engage in outright xenophobia, as seen with the latest antics of Ann Coulter, and blogs such as LGF. For some people, the very suggestion of a moderate Islam is nothing more than a closet appeal for dhimmitude. "There goes the moonbat Left again," they say. Keep in mind that most Americans don't think this way-at least not to that degree.
Back to the UAE port deal, and the politics involved-for those on the far-right who oppose this, it seems to be an appeal to their aforementioned sensibilities. For the Democrats, it looks like politics. In trying to look tough on terror, they've played right into Republican hands. Of course Dems have been bringing up the legit concerns about our ports being unguarded, but it still looks political. It looks like another way to slam Bush. Bush hasn't guarded ports. Arab country with possible ties gets port deal. Bush blows it. Instant scandal.
Nver mind the fact that Dubai and the UAE is an ally in the GWoT, and that these ports are still under American control. There's a lot to get Bush and the Republicans on, but this isn't it.
At least I'm pretty darn sure it isn't.
On a side note, Bush is committed to sticking up for the UAE. I only wish they'd be as committed to sticking up for Denmark.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
The Last Word on the Cartoon Chaos
OK, maybe not the last word, but Christopher Hitchens lays it all out here.
A Rally for Civilization
On Friday, bloggers, activists, and ordinary people took to the streets of D.C. to take a stand for free speech, civil society, and moral clarity. Word on the street is that was a great event. People of all political stripes stood with Denmark in solidarity, and gave a resounding "not this time," to those who would put forth the idea that it's okay to silence free speech with violence and terror, lest we offend, and those too foolish or cowardly to call that idea what it is. Chris Hitchens was there, and gave a speech.
Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan
Oh, and there was a rally in New York just yesterday.
Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan
Oh, and there was a rally in New York just yesterday.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Modern Conservatism and the Bush Loyalty Cult
Glenn Greenwald has one of the most well-reasoned and elegant essays on what can only be described as the cultish nature of absolute Bush loyalty. He deals with Coulter's latest infamy, as the inability of many on the right to fully and completely condemn it. This has started quite the firestorm in the blogosphere.
No need for excerpts. You have to check it out.
More on this later.
No need for excerpts. You have to check it out.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
What Do Al Gore, Gary Busey, and Billy Zane Have in Common?
If you guessed that they've engaged in inflaming anti-Americanism, you'd be right. I've always respected Al Gore, but his comments in Saudi Arabia were, for the lack of a wittier expression, over the line. For the purposes of context and accuracy, here's what he said, courtesy of the Calgary Sun-Times:
JIDDA, Saudi Arabia -- Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore told an audience yesterday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.
Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. He said the administration of President George W. Bush was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.
"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jidda Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."
Here's the thing. Even if one submits the idea that some Arabs were mistreated post-9/11, it is utterly false to accuse the U.S of indiscriminate roundups. Were mistakes made? Sure. Was there a lot of anti-Arab sentiment in certain quarters? Sure. But Gore made it seem like we just rounded up all the brown people we could find. The fact is, it didn't happen. I'm sure many on the far-right probably hoped it would happen, but at the end of the day, our response was pretty restrained.
Let's not forget that Muslims and Arabs in America are the freest on the Earth. I'm left wondering how many people realize that Muslims have more religious freedom to be Muslims here, than in Saudi Arabia. Not only is Saudi Arabia a sweeping theocracy, one cannot question the government. In fact, if the Islam you happen to practice is the wrong one, three guesses as to what happens. If Gore wanted to open a dialogue on U.S-Saudi relations, then he should rebuke the Saudis for their theocratic ways, and openly show how the U.S is not only better, but the best, in terms of human rights and religious liberty.
Never mind the fact that he said this in Saudi frickin Arabia!
Of course Gore's behavior seems like small stuff compared to what certain American actors have gotten themselves into, with a Turkish film that is nakedly anti-American, and anti-Semitic.
In a new Turkish movie, called Valley of the Wolves Iraq, is the most expensive Turkish movie ever. In the film, American soldiers are brutal murderers, and B-list actor Gary Busry plays a Jewish doctor, who steals the organs of Iraqis, and sells them to wealthy buyers in New York and Tel Aviv. This of course gives credence to the damnable blood libel against Jews, that Jews steal the organs of Arabs. Billy Zane stars in the film as well.
Aside from trying to make some cash to salvage their washed up careers, what would possess these two idiots to do such a thing? Even if it was for the money, how desperate do you have to be to engage in such filth? Busey's supposed to be a Christian, for God's sake! AS far the larger impact on Hollywood goes, the one saving grace is that these are two B-List actors, and no major Hollywood actors or producers have touched this steaming pile of anti-Semitic dung. I thought Busey was cool.
I'd say a boycott's on the way, but I suspect that the majority of Americans' commitment to good cinema will take care of that.
Story is here.
JIDDA, Saudi Arabia -- Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore told an audience yesterday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.
Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. He said the administration of President George W. Bush was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.
"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jidda Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."
Here's the thing. Even if one submits the idea that some Arabs were mistreated post-9/11, it is utterly false to accuse the U.S of indiscriminate roundups. Were mistakes made? Sure. Was there a lot of anti-Arab sentiment in certain quarters? Sure. But Gore made it seem like we just rounded up all the brown people we could find. The fact is, it didn't happen. I'm sure many on the far-right probably hoped it would happen, but at the end of the day, our response was pretty restrained.
Let's not forget that Muslims and Arabs in America are the freest on the Earth. I'm left wondering how many people realize that Muslims have more religious freedom to be Muslims here, than in Saudi Arabia. Not only is Saudi Arabia a sweeping theocracy, one cannot question the government. In fact, if the Islam you happen to practice is the wrong one, three guesses as to what happens. If Gore wanted to open a dialogue on U.S-Saudi relations, then he should rebuke the Saudis for their theocratic ways, and openly show how the U.S is not only better, but the best, in terms of human rights and religious liberty.
Never mind the fact that he said this in Saudi frickin Arabia!
Of course Gore's behavior seems like small stuff compared to what certain American actors have gotten themselves into, with a Turkish film that is nakedly anti-American, and anti-Semitic.
In a new Turkish movie, called Valley of the Wolves Iraq, is the most expensive Turkish movie ever. In the film, American soldiers are brutal murderers, and B-list actor Gary Busry plays a Jewish doctor, who steals the organs of Iraqis, and sells them to wealthy buyers in New York and Tel Aviv. This of course gives credence to the damnable blood libel against Jews, that Jews steal the organs of Arabs. Billy Zane stars in the film as well.
Aside from trying to make some cash to salvage their washed up careers, what would possess these two idiots to do such a thing? Even if it was for the money, how desperate do you have to be to engage in such filth? Busey's supposed to be a Christian, for God's sake! AS far the larger impact on Hollywood goes, the one saving grace is that these are two B-List actors, and no major Hollywood actors or producers have touched this steaming pile of anti-Semitic dung. I thought Busey was cool.
I'd say a boycott's on the way, but I suspect that the majority of Americans' commitment to good cinema will take care of that.
Story is here.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
One Year Anniversary!
This blog was birthed into existence a year ago today. Huzzah. It's been an interesting year in the blogosphere, interesting and fun.
Oh, and there's that whole Valentine's Day thing.
Oh, and there's that whole Valentine's Day thing.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Passion, Poise, Politics, and Phony Outrage
The funeral for the late, great Coretta Scott King was today. Let me first start by saying that she was truly an American hero, and a woman of strength, dignity and character. Not only did she help strengthen her husband's legacy, she forged her own, and that of the whole King family. The funeral was great and majestic event, even including the supposedly awkward political moments. I'll not dwell on this for too long, because the phony outrage has already worn me out.
Conservatives and Republicans are up in arms over many of the political remarks that were made, many of them interpreted as direct personal attacks on Bush. The Rev. Joseph Lowery made mention of Coretta King's opposition to war in general, and the Iraq war in particular, and made a remark about the lack of WMDs over there, and "weapons of misdirection over here," referring to poverty and other issues. Jimmy Carter also spoke, and made references to Katrina, and the fact that the King's were illegally wiretapped (a reference to the current NSA spy program). He also didn't shake Bush's hand. Ted Kennedy made a great, pretty nonpolitical speech (one of the best ones), and Bill Clinton was at his usual best.
Speaking of Clinton's speech, many felt that he was trying to prop up his wife politically. It must be pointed out that the audience fueled that whole moment. The fact is, the Republicans here are full of phony outrage. With Carter being the possible exception, no one was trying to make this a Bush-bashing event. Coretta King was committed to very real issues, many of them controversial, and in honoring her, many speakers simply spoke to that. It was political, but it was kinda supposed to be. I do have to admit though, that it must have been a bit awkward for Bush, hearing criticisms of his policies (or at least indirect ones), with him sitting right there. In my view, he was a good sport, and I really think it was all about the spirit of the occasion.
Keep in mind also, that nobody ever mentioned Bush by name, except in praise and in a welcoming fashion. There were no calls for troop withdrawal from Iraq (thank God), and let's not forget, nothing that was said was really false-there were no WMDs, and the Kings were wiretapped. I think all in all, it was a moving and respectful day, and the Republicans are trying being overly sensitive here. After all, in the minds of some, if you criticize the President's tie, you're a traitor.
Conservatives seem to want to make a political issue out of this. Some suggest this marred the whole event, comparing it to the legitimately over-political Wellstone memorial. Tucker Carlson says the focus was too much on the politics of the moment. It might seem that way, if you only focus on those couple of speakers. Some accuse the Democrats of trying to use this for political points, as if the King family conspired with the DNC in some shadowy back room, and worked out some sinister plan. This is of course, absurd.
Many suggest that some remarks were out of line, and maybe some were, but the idea that Republican Bush-coddlers are going to try to stain this funeral, because Bush got zinged about wiretaps is disgusting. I have to wonder, are they really THAT passionate about the NSA spying program? Maybe that explains why Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who doesn't back the plan.
Talk about your weapons of misdirection.
Conservatives and Republicans are up in arms over many of the political remarks that were made, many of them interpreted as direct personal attacks on Bush. The Rev. Joseph Lowery made mention of Coretta King's opposition to war in general, and the Iraq war in particular, and made a remark about the lack of WMDs over there, and "weapons of misdirection over here," referring to poverty and other issues. Jimmy Carter also spoke, and made references to Katrina, and the fact that the King's were illegally wiretapped (a reference to the current NSA spy program). He also didn't shake Bush's hand. Ted Kennedy made a great, pretty nonpolitical speech (one of the best ones), and Bill Clinton was at his usual best.
Speaking of Clinton's speech, many felt that he was trying to prop up his wife politically. It must be pointed out that the audience fueled that whole moment. The fact is, the Republicans here are full of phony outrage. With Carter being the possible exception, no one was trying to make this a Bush-bashing event. Coretta King was committed to very real issues, many of them controversial, and in honoring her, many speakers simply spoke to that. It was political, but it was kinda supposed to be. I do have to admit though, that it must have been a bit awkward for Bush, hearing criticisms of his policies (or at least indirect ones), with him sitting right there. In my view, he was a good sport, and I really think it was all about the spirit of the occasion.
Keep in mind also, that nobody ever mentioned Bush by name, except in praise and in a welcoming fashion. There were no calls for troop withdrawal from Iraq (thank God), and let's not forget, nothing that was said was really false-there were no WMDs, and the Kings were wiretapped. I think all in all, it was a moving and respectful day, and the Republicans are trying being overly sensitive here. After all, in the minds of some, if you criticize the President's tie, you're a traitor.
Conservatives seem to want to make a political issue out of this. Some suggest this marred the whole event, comparing it to the legitimately over-political Wellstone memorial. Tucker Carlson says the focus was too much on the politics of the moment. It might seem that way, if you only focus on those couple of speakers. Some accuse the Democrats of trying to use this for political points, as if the King family conspired with the DNC in some shadowy back room, and worked out some sinister plan. This is of course, absurd.
Many suggest that some remarks were out of line, and maybe some were, but the idea that Republican Bush-coddlers are going to try to stain this funeral, because Bush got zinged about wiretaps is disgusting. I have to wonder, are they really THAT passionate about the NSA spying program? Maybe that explains why Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who doesn't back the plan.
Talk about your weapons of misdirection.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Thoughts on the Decay of Civilization
You know, I recognize that the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, that started in Denmark, and have outraged Muslims worldwide are crude, indecent, and offensive. One has to wonder though, when does it stop? There is no excuse for extremist violence. It is wholly unacceptable to attempt to silence free expression through death threats and real violence. Keep in mind that I'm not defending these cartoons, but if their intent was to make a statement against the intolerance of radical Islam, then it seems that the radicals have only proved them right. What really bothers me about this is that a lot of leaders, particularly European ones, seem more concerned with apologizing for the cartoons, than comdemning the violence. Muslims leaders plead for their fellow Muslims to be reasonable, but it seems that their calls for peace are not as full of energy as their outrage over these cartoons.
Last I checked, free speech still counts for something, and that includes offensive speech. The West should not apologize for free expression. Again, I'm not defending these images, but violence cannot be the acceptable response here. While I'm sure the caricature of Muhammad is offensive to all Muslims, you'd think Muslims would be equally offended by the extremists that have corrupted their faith. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have never seen a reaction approaching anything like this, over the numerous anti-Semitic stuff spread worldwide.
I hate to rant, but it bothers me when people begin to sanction the subjugation of free speech and thought under fear and violence. If sense is to have any dominion at all in our society, we must forcibly condemn, and compel all civilized people of all religions to condemn this violent mania.
OK, I'll dismount from my high horse, now.
The story is here, BTW.
Last I checked, free speech still counts for something, and that includes offensive speech. The West should not apologize for free expression. Again, I'm not defending these images, but violence cannot be the acceptable response here. While I'm sure the caricature of Muhammad is offensive to all Muslims, you'd think Muslims would be equally offended by the extremists that have corrupted their faith. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have never seen a reaction approaching anything like this, over the numerous anti-Semitic stuff spread worldwide.
I hate to rant, but it bothers me when people begin to sanction the subjugation of free speech and thought under fear and violence. If sense is to have any dominion at all in our society, we must forcibly condemn, and compel all civilized people of all religions to condemn this violent mania.
OK, I'll dismount from my high horse, now.
The story is here, BTW.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Alito Confirmed: Final Vote 58-42.
It's official. Samuel Alito has become our 11oth Associate Justice. 4 Dems (Byrd, Conrad, Johnson, Ben Nelson) crossed party lines to vote yes, and Lincoln Chafee voted no, as well as Jim Jeffords.
And that's that.
SOTU speech tonight, BTW.
And that's that.
SOTU speech tonight, BTW.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Cloture Passes 72-25, Filibuster Is Defeated
Not that I'm surprised. Frankly, I thought the filibuster was bad form, IMO, and seemed to only delay the inevitable. Alito's confirmation is a foregone conclusion at this point. Honestly, I'm worn out with the whole mess. All the grandstanding, vitriol, phony outrage, and nonsense from the right and the left wore me out. I'm talking about the whole judicial circus, including previous judges (Roberts, etc).
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm just glad it's over.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm just glad it's over.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Some Dictionary Words for Your Edification
Consider the definition of the word hyperbole:
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
And now this one, for the word demagoguery:
n : impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace [syn: demagogy]
Now, consider this story:
Speaking at an event in Harlem honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., the senator said the GOP-controlled House of Representatives "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about. It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."
Source: Newsday
OK. First off, as I hope the above definitions will help to illustrate, Clinton's remarks above were at best hyperbole, and at worst, crude and brutal demagoguery. I'll not defend the use of the word plantation. She clearly used the wrong word. Keep in mind that the plantation's infamy had less to do with inhibiting debate and free speech, than with subjugating a people under the brutality of slavery. Essentially, one could argue that she compared House Republicans to slaveowners. There is a legitimate point of debate about the stifling of debate by the GOP in the House, but using the word plantation smacks of hyperbole. Or race-baiting.
We must not forget however, that Republicans (contrary to their assertions) have engaged in equal amounts of the same demagoguery. I didn't hear that much outrage when high-profile Republicans accuse Dems of "keeping blacks on the plantation," or "in bondage." Not much outrage when Republicans accused Dems and black leaders of racism for opposing conservative black nominees (Condi Rice, Janice Rogers-Brown, Clarence Thomas), as if we're supposed to support them just because they're black. No outrage over the eminations of The Rev. Jesse Lee Petersen, who once declared that blacks had no moral character, and could not think for themselves. Of course, the very idea that blacks are somehow brainwashed or misled for voting for any party is absurd. Black America is not stupid. Most know that the modern GOP has had a lousy track record on civil rights, and the Democratic Party also has some problems with regards to black issues. The fact is, the reason why Dems get 98 percent of the black vote is no real mystery. The Dems may take us for granted, but the GOP takes us for fools, at least it seems that way.
The fact is, this whole mess about Clinton's remarks is yet another predictable exercise.
And then there's Ray Nagin's remarks....
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
And now this one, for the word demagoguery:
n : impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace [syn: demagogy]
Now, consider this story:
Speaking at an event in Harlem honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., the senator said the GOP-controlled House of Representatives "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about. It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."
Source: Newsday
OK. First off, as I hope the above definitions will help to illustrate, Clinton's remarks above were at best hyperbole, and at worst, crude and brutal demagoguery. I'll not defend the use of the word plantation. She clearly used the wrong word. Keep in mind that the plantation's infamy had less to do with inhibiting debate and free speech, than with subjugating a people under the brutality of slavery. Essentially, one could argue that she compared House Republicans to slaveowners. There is a legitimate point of debate about the stifling of debate by the GOP in the House, but using the word plantation smacks of hyperbole. Or race-baiting.
We must not forget however, that Republicans (contrary to their assertions) have engaged in equal amounts of the same demagoguery. I didn't hear that much outrage when high-profile Republicans accuse Dems of "keeping blacks on the plantation," or "in bondage." Not much outrage when Republicans accused Dems and black leaders of racism for opposing conservative black nominees (Condi Rice, Janice Rogers-Brown, Clarence Thomas), as if we're supposed to support them just because they're black. No outrage over the eminations of The Rev. Jesse Lee Petersen, who once declared that blacks had no moral character, and could not think for themselves. Of course, the very idea that blacks are somehow brainwashed or misled for voting for any party is absurd. Black America is not stupid. Most know that the modern GOP has had a lousy track record on civil rights, and the Democratic Party also has some problems with regards to black issues. The fact is, the reason why Dems get 98 percent of the black vote is no real mystery. The Dems may take us for granted, but the GOP takes us for fools, at least it seems that way.
The fact is, this whole mess about Clinton's remarks is yet another predictable exercise.
And then there's Ray Nagin's remarks....
A Fishing Expedition?
I've been thinking about this lawsuit that the ACLU and other groups are filing, in order to bring a halt to the NSA wiretap program. The fact that they're trying to end this program is clear-- they've basically come out and said it. This lawsuit does have plaintiffs, but it seems that the entire thrust of the case is based on potential abuses. Rather, they're suing because they might have been spied on, or could be spied on. This doesn't seem to wash that well with me, and this case seems doomed for failure.
There are legit arguments for the halting of this program, and I'm not just talking about Gore's speech. However, can a person sue the government based on potential abuses? I suspect these broad matters are better left to Congress.
There are legit arguments for the halting of this program, and I'm not just talking about Gore's speech. However, can a person sue the government based on potential abuses? I suspect these broad matters are better left to Congress.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Inter Arma, Enim Silent Leges
Inter arma, enim silent leges.
For those who don't know their Latin, Cicero's phrase translates as "in times of war, the law falls silent." In Shakespeare, Cicero uses the phrase to describe a Rome that believed that Caesar could do no wrong. In other words, in wartime, we ought to support our government, no matter what.
Before certain people get their panties in a wad, this is not going to be some post calling for Bush's impeachment. I am dealing with the spying controversy (in the larger context of approaches to the War on Terror), but I'm merely asking some questions. First off, let it be known that I believe the President, as commander-in-chief, should have broad powers in matters of foreign intelligence, during wartime. Of course, this must always be clearly checked by Congressional, judicial, and democratic oversight, and be done within the rules. One of the problems with this current controversy is that as far the warrantless searches and wiretaps go, it appears that Bush may not have done everything on the up and up. I'm not sure if what he did was legal or not. The debate is raging as I write this--you have people like Charles Krauthammer suggesting Bush has the power, and groups like the ACLU saying that he doesn't. As I've said before, we don't even know all the details on this yet, so I think it's unfair to start even hinting about impeachment. The Republicans made a mockery of the Constitution during the 90's impeachment circus--certain anti-Bush Democrats ought not do the same.
The fact is, only a couple of high-profile Democrats have actually used the I-word, but as I said, we ought not even go there. We ought to have independent hearings on this, to decide whether Bush has the legal powers in this matter, and if not-see that he gets them-with clear limits of course. The limits are important, I must emphasize this. To be honest with you, it's not so much the spying that bothers me. Rather, it's the attitude that has risen up around this controversy. What bothers me is the idea that many have that the President has limitless power in times of war.
This didn't start with the NSA spying controversy. This goes much deeper. Secret prisons. Extraordinary rendition. Certain provisions in the Patriot Act. Criticism of the war (or any of his policies, for that matter). Most sensible people recognize that in wartime, we must find a way to balance civil liberties and security. This requires open and honest debate, and even dissent in many cases. The debate it seems, has been taken over by extremists. People on the right dismiss any talk of protecting civil liberties as aiding the terrorists. To them, dissent is disloyalty. O'Reilly calls the ACLU "the most dangerous group in the country." The press is seen as a fifth-column, deliberately undermining the war effort. Not that the incessant negativity from a lot of the press these days, especially regarding Iraq, hasn't become a nuisance, and in certain cases a hinderance. Many suggest that we should back the President no matter what, and those that don't are nothing short of traitors. Reports of possible torture are dismissed as either fantasy, or neccessary. "Who gives a damn about terrorists?" they say. Of course, we must remember that its not about being as bad as the terrorists. We'd have to go a long way to come even close to the brutality that our enemies represent. The problem is, we don't have to go nearly as far to abandon our own compass. These things are all well-established, so there's no need to dwell on them. There's no need to be high-handed.
On one extreme, we have the far-right, which thinks that basically anything goes, and liberals are at best a pathetic nuisance, and at worst, a fifth column. You need only listen to the screeds to hear this. On the other extreme is the far-Left, which thinks the greatest threat is not al-qaeda but Bush, and that the war on terror is really an excuse to take away our liberties. Keep in mind that I'm not talking about mainstream liberals here. I'm talking about the Michael Moores, the Ward Churchills, the Noam Chomskys, and the ANSWER-types. The hardcore antiwar types. The moonbats, as it were. These are the types who think the Iraq war is a war crime, an illegal and unjust war. They dismiss the millions of Iraqis who voted in the elections. While the right seems committed to ignoring the bad news, the far-Left only seems to focus on the bad news. These types will see any attempt to fight an effective terror war as unjust, so they can't be reasoned with either.
Also, it doesn't help that you have a press that only seems to feed this division, that divides us with labels and sloppy political constructs, like the Red State-Blue State nonsense.
As with many other issues, the debate on civil liberties in wartime has ceased to be a debate. The political pendulum has shifted rightward, so the right controls a lot more of the debate (contrary to their assertions).
We need to debate these issues openly and honestly, always from the standpoint of winning the terror war. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact, but it's more than "a damn piece of paper." We need to remember who the real enemy is. Enough of this "Bush is a terrorist," or "Liberals want us to lose the war" nonsense.
And getting back to the original point, the President's warmaking powers are not unlimited. Bush can, and has made mistakes. As for the press, while I too wondered why the New York Times felt the need to print umpteen Abu Ghraib stories, and while I'm troubled that the press was complicit in an illegal leak of classified info, I have to ask: What is the role of the press with regards to this matters? Can we really shoot the messenger?
Again, all these are questions I'm trying to answer. The pundits and politicians are playing their familar roles, with all the high talk and phony outrage, on both sides. All the famous quotes by Ben Franklin and others are bandied about ad nauseum. We've all spent time on our high horses, except of course for our brave troops, who fight for us every day in the trenches, asking only that we not piss on their sacrifice, or exploit them for political gain.
And that we not pull them out until the mission's done.
-Cicero
For those who don't know their Latin, Cicero's phrase translates as "in times of war, the law falls silent." In Shakespeare, Cicero uses the phrase to describe a Rome that believed that Caesar could do no wrong. In other words, in wartime, we ought to support our government, no matter what.
Before certain people get their panties in a wad, this is not going to be some post calling for Bush's impeachment. I am dealing with the spying controversy (in the larger context of approaches to the War on Terror), but I'm merely asking some questions. First off, let it be known that I believe the President, as commander-in-chief, should have broad powers in matters of foreign intelligence, during wartime. Of course, this must always be clearly checked by Congressional, judicial, and democratic oversight, and be done within the rules. One of the problems with this current controversy is that as far the warrantless searches and wiretaps go, it appears that Bush may not have done everything on the up and up. I'm not sure if what he did was legal or not. The debate is raging as I write this--you have people like Charles Krauthammer suggesting Bush has the power, and groups like the ACLU saying that he doesn't. As I've said before, we don't even know all the details on this yet, so I think it's unfair to start even hinting about impeachment. The Republicans made a mockery of the Constitution during the 90's impeachment circus--certain anti-Bush Democrats ought not do the same.
The fact is, only a couple of high-profile Democrats have actually used the I-word, but as I said, we ought not even go there. We ought to have independent hearings on this, to decide whether Bush has the legal powers in this matter, and if not-see that he gets them-with clear limits of course. The limits are important, I must emphasize this. To be honest with you, it's not so much the spying that bothers me. Rather, it's the attitude that has risen up around this controversy. What bothers me is the idea that many have that the President has limitless power in times of war.
This didn't start with the NSA spying controversy. This goes much deeper. Secret prisons. Extraordinary rendition. Certain provisions in the Patriot Act. Criticism of the war (or any of his policies, for that matter). Most sensible people recognize that in wartime, we must find a way to balance civil liberties and security. This requires open and honest debate, and even dissent in many cases. The debate it seems, has been taken over by extremists. People on the right dismiss any talk of protecting civil liberties as aiding the terrorists. To them, dissent is disloyalty. O'Reilly calls the ACLU "the most dangerous group in the country." The press is seen as a fifth-column, deliberately undermining the war effort. Not that the incessant negativity from a lot of the press these days, especially regarding Iraq, hasn't become a nuisance, and in certain cases a hinderance. Many suggest that we should back the President no matter what, and those that don't are nothing short of traitors. Reports of possible torture are dismissed as either fantasy, or neccessary. "Who gives a damn about terrorists?" they say. Of course, we must remember that its not about being as bad as the terrorists. We'd have to go a long way to come even close to the brutality that our enemies represent. The problem is, we don't have to go nearly as far to abandon our own compass. These things are all well-established, so there's no need to dwell on them. There's no need to be high-handed.
On one extreme, we have the far-right, which thinks that basically anything goes, and liberals are at best a pathetic nuisance, and at worst, a fifth column. You need only listen to the screeds to hear this. On the other extreme is the far-Left, which thinks the greatest threat is not al-qaeda but Bush, and that the war on terror is really an excuse to take away our liberties. Keep in mind that I'm not talking about mainstream liberals here. I'm talking about the Michael Moores, the Ward Churchills, the Noam Chomskys, and the ANSWER-types. The hardcore antiwar types. The moonbats, as it were. These are the types who think the Iraq war is a war crime, an illegal and unjust war. They dismiss the millions of Iraqis who voted in the elections. While the right seems committed to ignoring the bad news, the far-Left only seems to focus on the bad news. These types will see any attempt to fight an effective terror war as unjust, so they can't be reasoned with either.
Also, it doesn't help that you have a press that only seems to feed this division, that divides us with labels and sloppy political constructs, like the Red State-Blue State nonsense.
As with many other issues, the debate on civil liberties in wartime has ceased to be a debate. The political pendulum has shifted rightward, so the right controls a lot more of the debate (contrary to their assertions).
We need to debate these issues openly and honestly, always from the standpoint of winning the terror war. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact, but it's more than "a damn piece of paper." We need to remember who the real enemy is. Enough of this "Bush is a terrorist," or "Liberals want us to lose the war" nonsense.
And getting back to the original point, the President's warmaking powers are not unlimited. Bush can, and has made mistakes. As for the press, while I too wondered why the New York Times felt the need to print umpteen Abu Ghraib stories, and while I'm troubled that the press was complicit in an illegal leak of classified info, I have to ask: What is the role of the press with regards to this matters? Can we really shoot the messenger?
Again, all these are questions I'm trying to answer. The pundits and politicians are playing their familar roles, with all the high talk and phony outrage, on both sides. All the famous quotes by Ben Franklin and others are bandied about ad nauseum. We've all spent time on our high horses, except of course for our brave troops, who fight for us every day in the trenches, asking only that we not piss on their sacrifice, or exploit them for political gain.
And that we not pull them out until the mission's done.
Saturday, December 31, 2005
The Last Post of the Year
Well, the tumultous year that was 2005 has come to a close. This post won't be long, but I just wanted to share some quick thoughts.
This was a rough year for President Bush. Whether it was the Katrina mess, the Terri Schiavo mess, Plamegate, the Harriet Miers mess, the domestic spying mess, torture, and troubles in Iraq--he's taken some hits. His supporters will blame the "liberal media," but he really has to take the heat for this. Undoubtedly, there have been those in the press drunk on anti-Bush zeal, but Bush has control of three branches of government, and an electorate that in many cases seemed to overlook even the most blatant lapses in judgment. Heck, the Dems are out of power. This was his accountability moment.
It's been lousy for Republicans this year. I almost feel sorry for them. I had predicted that the Republican victory in 2004 would be followed by an overreach that would cost them. I had no idea it was happen so quickly, and so brazenly. The naked hubris displayed was astounding. There was the aforementioned Schiavo disgrace, the Nuclear option mess, the increases in spending, Tom DeLay...it goes on and on.
That being said, the Dems have a lot of opportunities to lead, but there is still the problem of the fact that the Democratic Party is basically fractured. We seem unable to offer up a sustained alternative to Bush's policies, without going off the deep end (a la Howard Dean). Jack Murtha thinks we ought to withdraw our troops. He's no coward, but he's wrong on the issue. Dean doesn't think we can win in Iraq. The only high-ranking Dem consistently for staying the course is Joe Lieberman, and I guess, Hillary.
It was a rough year for New Orleans, who suffered the wrath of nature, politics, and incompetence.
It was a good year of TV. We had some damn good TV this year. Rome. Deadwood. Battlestar Galactica. 24. The Office. Lost. Everybody Hates Chris. It was good year.
It was a good year for comics. A good year for video games.
And despite the daily casualties, and all the mess here at home, it was a good year for the Iraqis, who managed to vote in three successful elections, and give a purple thumbs up to democracy.
And, at the end of the day, it was good overall, all things considered.
This was a rough year for President Bush. Whether it was the Katrina mess, the Terri Schiavo mess, Plamegate, the Harriet Miers mess, the domestic spying mess, torture, and troubles in Iraq--he's taken some hits. His supporters will blame the "liberal media," but he really has to take the heat for this. Undoubtedly, there have been those in the press drunk on anti-Bush zeal, but Bush has control of three branches of government, and an electorate that in many cases seemed to overlook even the most blatant lapses in judgment. Heck, the Dems are out of power. This was his accountability moment.
It's been lousy for Republicans this year. I almost feel sorry for them. I had predicted that the Republican victory in 2004 would be followed by an overreach that would cost them. I had no idea it was happen so quickly, and so brazenly. The naked hubris displayed was astounding. There was the aforementioned Schiavo disgrace, the Nuclear option mess, the increases in spending, Tom DeLay...it goes on and on.
That being said, the Dems have a lot of opportunities to lead, but there is still the problem of the fact that the Democratic Party is basically fractured. We seem unable to offer up a sustained alternative to Bush's policies, without going off the deep end (a la Howard Dean). Jack Murtha thinks we ought to withdraw our troops. He's no coward, but he's wrong on the issue. Dean doesn't think we can win in Iraq. The only high-ranking Dem consistently for staying the course is Joe Lieberman, and I guess, Hillary.
It was a rough year for New Orleans, who suffered the wrath of nature, politics, and incompetence.
It was a good year of TV. We had some damn good TV this year. Rome. Deadwood. Battlestar Galactica. 24. The Office. Lost. Everybody Hates Chris. It was good year.
It was a good year for comics. A good year for video games.
And despite the daily casualties, and all the mess here at home, it was a good year for the Iraqis, who managed to vote in three successful elections, and give a purple thumbs up to democracy.
And, at the end of the day, it was good overall, all things considered.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Friday, December 02, 2005
Quotes of Wisdom
"The ballot is stronger than the bullet."
-Abraham Lincoln
In the context of our current struggle, we can also say that the ballot is stronger than the bullet, the car bomb, the beheader, the missile, the madrassah...
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
-Orwell
"Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, political parties, nations, and eras it's the rule."
-Nietzsche
I think that one sums up the problem with ideologues perfectly.
-Abraham Lincoln
In the context of our current struggle, we can also say that the ballot is stronger than the bullet, the car bomb, the beheader, the missile, the madrassah...
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
-Orwell
"Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, political parties, nations, and eras it's the rule."
-Nietzsche
I think that one sums up the problem with ideologues perfectly.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Blog Recommendation: Booker Rising
I'm always on the lookout for great blogs, covering the whole of the political spectrum. Do check out Booker Rising. It's a great site run by black moderates and conservatives, discussing issues important to the black community at large (as well as America in general), all while paying homage to the great Booker T. Washington.
At the risk of tooting my own horn, a lot of my articles at Centerfield are carried on their blog. I'm moving up in the world, baby!
At the risk of tooting my own horn, a lot of my articles at Centerfield are carried on their blog. I'm moving up in the world, baby!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)