Former Congresswoman and first-ever female Vice Presidential Candidate Geraldine Ferraro resigned from Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign today after committing the equivalent of a mortal sin in the Democratic Party: she told the truth.
Ferraro caused this furor du jour when she said these immortal words, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Barack Obama being a smart politician saw the opening and made the most of it saying that Ferraro's comments were " ... ridiculous. ... I think they were wrong-headed. I think they are not borne out by our history or by the facts."..."The notion that it is a great advantage to me, an African-American named Barack Obama, in pursuit of the presidency I think is not a view that has been commonly shared by the general public ... Divisions of race, gender, of region are precisely what has inhibited us from moving effectively forward to solve big problems like health care, energy, the war on terror."
There it was. Ferraro had obviously played the race card, thereby cutting off all further discussion. She lost. Obama won. And the game that liberals have been playing for years to trap conservatives was now being used to collect other liberal scalps instead. They have begun to eat their own. Conservatives, usually the object of this dishonest nonsense can't be blamed for looking on in bemusement.
The Democratic Party and identity politics, the politics of appealing to self-identified aggrieved groups, have been synonymous since the early sixties. Numerous groups, Blacks, Gays, Women, etc. point to a variety of areas in which they have been oppressed and Democratic politicians agree, flatter them, and then attempt to legislate or adjudicate, or regulate the inequities away. This partnership has, in many ways, been highly successful for both the Party and the groups. Democrats have had a ready made campaign weapon and tool and a rationale for expanding government power, "I'm here to fix the unfairness to which you have been subjected. Vote for me against the powerful forces putting you down. I'll give you money and programs." And the groups have received policies, laws, programs etc. that address their "special needs". Affirmative Action and quotas, various monetary set-asides, the edifice of multiculturalism: sensitivity trainings, bilingualism, various speech codes, etc. are all the result of the partnership. The effectiveness of all this largess in improving people's lives frequently seems besides the point.
The incipient problem lurking within the union of the Democratic Party and its constituent groups has always been that in breaking people into such distinct factions, all with their own unique power centers, the day would come when the interests of some would diverge significantly enough from the others or the Party that war would break out. Geraldine Ferraro seems, much to her chagrin no doubt, to have gotten caught in the crossfire.
This election doesn't just pit the first woman with a real chance of getting the nomination against the first African American, it pits the entrenched power structure of the Party, as represented by Hillary Clinton against against a newcomer, Senator Obama. The Party, which has become so certain of Black loyalty that it frequently gives Blacks little more than lip service is now at a crossroads. African-Americans are saying to the party that has promised them so much and to which they have been utterly loyal, "We have toed the line for decades. We now have a great candidate with a great message and a real chance to win. Our time has come." In response the Clinton campaign has done its level best to remind the country that Barack Obama is, you know ... a NEGRO. Bill Clinton, who had once been touted as the first Black President, did his level best before the South Carolina primary to link Obama's campaign to the earlier very ethno-centric Jesse Jackson presidential run. There isn't much talk about him being the first Black President any more.
The problem with identity politics isn't that it precludes obvious, noxious winks to racism like Clinton's but that it removes honest discussion about race, sexuality, gender issues, as well. Everybody becomes scared to death to touch the issue for fear of being called a racist or a sexist or a homophobe. Without identity politics Geraldine Ferraro would have been able to make her comment about Obama. Others could have quite rightly pointed out that while true, her assertion was too narrow. Obama wouldn't be where he is if he weren't Black. But he also wouldn't be there if he were bright, a good campaigner, a good debater etc. But in the current atmosphere, created and fostered by the Democratic Party as well as the "aggrieved" groups, Ferraro's comment was enough to result in her leaving Hillary's campaign.
This Democratic Party war, between its regnant structure and one of its most important constituent groups is unlikely to end anytime before the Democratic convention in August. In fact it is very likely to last well beyond that. Wounds have been opened. Minds are changing. Perhaps the end result of this whole battle will be the end of identity politics. If the Democratic Party finds it no longer works for it, this type of politics may finally die a well deserved death.
Having played this game for a long time it looks like the Democratic Party is finally learning the truth of that old saying: what goes around comes around. It couldn't happen to a more deserving party.
Kidnapped by Japan - How A Mother's Dying Wish Led To A Father's Unimaginable Loss
Read the story hereFriday, March 14, 2008
What Goes Around...
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The Real World - A Continuing Series
Ex-Liberian President Was Hungry For Power
Studies have shown that we here in the United States tend to be uninformed about what is actually going on in the rest of the world. Our TVs, newspapers, the Internet, all the major sources from which we get our information are filled with such riveting stories as how the governor of New York State is dallying with some lady of the evening but generally miss other, larger stories that put our own problems in perspective.
Reuter's today reports on the trial of former Liberian President, Charles Taylor. According to the report, Taylor, once one of Africa's most feared warlords, faces
charges of rape, murder, mutilation and recruitment of child soldiers during a 1991-2002 conflict. He has pleaded not guilty.
"He (Taylor) said we should eat them. Even the U.N. white
people -- he said we could use them as pork to eat," Joseph "ZigZag" Marzah, who described himself as Taylor's former death squad commander, told the U.N.-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone.
Taylor's troubles arose from his desire to enrich himself by destabilizing neighboring Sierra Leone in order to steal its diamonds. In furtherance of this goal he armed rebel forces in that nation, the resulting violence eventually leaving upwards of 250,000 people dead. The cannibalism angle seems unbelievable until you realize the level of violence in that conflict. As Reuters states, Thousands of civilians had their limbs hacked off by drug-crazed
rebels, many of them children.
In 2003, after being overthrown Taylor took up residence in Nigeria (which apparently must not exactly set very high standards on who they allow to immigrate). He was only handed over to the International Court in the Hague after international pressure was applied.
Taylor's and Liberia/Sierra Leone's story here should be instructive to us in the US about the differences between the kind of troubles we have and the kind of trouble that exists in much of the rest of the world. Eliot Spitzer is without a doubt a truly loathsome individual who violated both his state's and his family's trust and his story is worth recounting. But American's should have some degree of perspective. It is no accident that the worst kind of "leaders" the US has are the Eliot Spitzer variety. We haven't had a Charles Taylor and as long as we continue to respect our Constitution and our traditions we won't. We are lucky to be Americans.
Too bad for Eliot Spitzer it takes a Charles Taylor to make him look good.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Death Outlawed - Why Didn't We Think Of That?
The Press Association ran the following story today under the headline, The wages of dying:
The mayor of a French village has threatened to punish locals if
they die, because there is no room in the overcrowded
cemetery.Gerard Lalanne issued an edict telling the 260 residents of Sarpourenx that "all persons not having a plot in the cemetery and wishing to be
buried in Sarpourenx are forbidden from dying in the parish". It added: "Offenders will be severely punished.""It may be a laughing matter for some, but not for me," he
said
Print this post and carry it with you. Whenever you hear some dolt say they only wish the rest of the world thought better of the US, take it out and give it to the putz while reminding him (or her. I'm no sexist!) that much of the rest of the world is a lot like Monsieur Gerard Lalanne.
The Next Big Liberal Cause
"The government is not providing any assistance and society is apathetic."
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Couldn't They Tell?
After hearing about New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's admission yesterday of his involvement with a prostitution ring my first reaction was: Oh, so that's what its going to be. By that I mean I was somewhat surprised about the particulars of the revelation but I can't say that I was surprised that Spitzer, well known as arrogant, heavy-handed, mean, vindictive, egotistical and just plain unpleasant, had managed to shoot himself in the foot.
When I heard that he'd been elected, and in a landslide yet, I thought that it was just a matter of time before he would do something stupid, really stupid. Not that Spitzer himself is stupid. Far from it. Scoring a very impressive 1590 on his SATs Spitzer went on to Princeton U. undergrad before going to Harvard Law where he edited the Harvard Law Review. And his ambition has been the equal of his brains. Eliot Spitzer has never missed an opportunity to make an impression, always going after the high profile, big pr cases; going after pregnancy crisis centers to please New York's pro-abortion Left, payola in the music industry, big shot businessmen. He was a legal Master of the Universe. So taken with his own gifts and position was he that he thought anything he did was acceptable merely by virtue of the fact that he did it. He'd make calls threatening people, inappropriately used the State Police to investigate his chief nemesis, Republican State Minority Leader, Joseph L. Bruno, arrogantly issued an unpopular executive order allowing driver's licenses to be issued to illegal aliens.
He was also widely despised by almost everybody who ever had the bad fortune to have dealt with him, which explains why so few people are willing to come to his defense now. So when news came yesterday that he had finally imploded, it was not exactly the year's biggest shock.
What does surprise me however is the way the American people continue to elect catastrophes waiting to happen like Spitzer. Here's a confession: I'm not a genius; just a fairly regular guy (despite being "Right" so dang often) but I knew this guy was, what's the word I'm looking for? Oh, yeah...a freak. Couldn't the 69% of voters who put Spitzer in office see this, too? Apparently not.
But Americans have a long and impressive history of voting for dysfunctional politicians. The last fifty years alone have produced such giants of history as Louisiana Governor Earl Long, who was committed to a mental hospital while in office; Cincinnati city council member and then Mayor Jerry Springer (yes, that Jerry Springer) who resigned after a revelation of his patronizing (surprise!) a prostitute; Washington DC Mayor and crack addict Marion Barry; President Richard Nixon, whose paranoia and generally warped psyche have been fodder for books for decades and Bill Clinton, a self involved narcissist whose entire Presidency was about one thing and one thing only: him. All that is missing from each of these distinguished gents is a day glow etching of the words HELP ME on their foreheads.
Now it is a truism that bright, talented people who seek office often have gargantuan egos. Ronald Reagan was that rarity among rarities who was both an actor and a politician, both lines of work which attract egomaniacs, who was actually well adjusted.
The public can be forgiven for not spotting some political rotten apples. In the ordinary course of life everybody gets surprised by the behavior of some of the people they thought they knew, so politics, too can be expected to provide the unexpected now and then. But how do you explain an Eliot Spitzer? I wish I could provide an answer here but the subject of the election of stone cold losers doesn't come with any. It just comes with one big question for those who put them in office: What were you thinking?
Monday, March 10, 2008
Hillary's Habit - Having A Hard Time With Her Man-Hoes
Today's revelation that New York Governor and close ally of Hillary Clinton, Elliot Spitzer is under investigation for paying for sex (which will in all probability lead to his resignation and possible indictment) could not have come at a worse time for the Senator from New York/presidential candidate.
After last Tuesday's primary wins and her pounding of Barack Obama for his lack of experience and unpreparedness for the presidency, her campaign which had seemed on the verge of folding up its tent mere weeks ago was just beginning to start to get some traction again. The last thing she needs right now is a reminder of some of her own weaknesses; and a reminder of her cluelessness about the dirty dealings of the men around her is one of her most glaring failings. Hillary has, up until now been able to make two mutually incompatible "facts" work for her. On the one hand she is the wonk, the smartest, most experienced woman in the world. On the other hand she is the trusting, loving woman who stupidly trusted a rat. No normal candidate could make such inconsistency work, but Hillary is, of course no ordinary candidate.
But that inconsistency is not something she wants to remind people of, especially now when she is hitting the wet-behind-the-ears Senator from Illinois on the matter of who is ready to serve and who isn't. While it is probably unfair to expect that Hillary could have had any idea of Spitzer's sexual dalliances, it is the Democrats who have always made an issue not just of wrongdoing but even the appearance of wrongdoing and while not knowing that Spitzer was catting around may be understandable and may not mean Hillary is an idiot, it sure does make it appear that she is one. Is this naive' woman really ready to take that 3 AM crisis call in the White House that she claims she can?
It may be too impolite for Obama to come out directly and say that there is something wrong with Hillary because so many men are able to pull the wool over her eyes but behind the scenes, in off the record talks with the media, it is hard to believe that isn't exactly the message he's sending. At some point the media is likely to take that particular ball and start to run with it.
Hillary - world's smartest woman - except around scummy men who lie. That doesn't exactly make for the world's best campaign slogan. Elliot Spitzer didn't just create a problem for himself today. At a very bad point in time Hillary finds herself contending with yet another man who done her wrong.
Why The UN's Latest Report Is A "Bust"
The United Nations, that inspiring institution that has among its member, Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe and Sudan has issued a report criticizing the US for its treatment of illegal aliens. Jorge Bustamante, who authored the report expressed his concerns about the, "rising anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States" and took testimony about worker abuse, government raids, family separations and other issues. In his report, he wrote that xenophobia and racism toward migrants had worsened since the Sept. 11 attacks, with a particularly devastating effect on children, Afro-Caribbean migrants, and those perceived to be Muslim or ethnic South Asians and Middle Easterners."
Mr. Bustamante, whose official title is U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants is an interesting choice to write such a report. A Mexican national, he is a professor of Sociology at the University of Notre Dame and founder of El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, a left of center Mexican institute for the study of border issues. His ideological tilt is unsurprising. In a story in the Mexico City Reforma he recently wrote of the Republican candidates for President that they “lack even the most minimum recognition of the demand for the Mexican migrant labor.” He then advocated that Mexicans who employ “the real power we have as consumers” boycot companies that support Republican candidates.
In May of last year, while conducting research for his report, a reception was held for him by the American Civil Liberties Union, CASA of Maryland, National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Rights Working Group, and the US Human Rights Network, left-wing organizations, all. The ACLU has now issued a press release applauding Mr. Bustamante’s report.
He also has close ties to the Mexican government, in 1988 having received the Premio Nacional de Ciencias from the President of Mexico, the highest award granted to scientists by the Mexican government.
The United Nations, living down to the expectations of those who suspect its fairness, competence and its very usefulness in promoting democracy and peace stacked the deck from the start in mandating this report, the results of which were a given before any “research” was conducted. In securing the services of a leftist ideologue with a history of connections to the corrupt Mexican government and a history of advocating against US interests on behalf of illegals, the UN is responsible for yet another sham that is, as always largely sponsored by US tax dollars.
The question remains, as it always does when the actions of the UN are raised; Why does the US government continue to fund an organization whose interests are not the same as our own?
Sunday, March 9, 2008
A Funny Bit From Saturday Night Live Or A Frightening Look At The Future? You Decide
SNL, which has had more than its share of bad seasons has, of late, been getting itself some good buzz with its bits on the Clinton/Obama race. Their recent jabs at the media's fawning over Obama led to an appearance by Hillary that has generally acknowledged to have been helpul to her and helped her improve her image just in time for last week's Super Tuesday II wins.
Knowing when they're on to a good thing, they've kept it up with the skit, above. While humourously giving Hillary more credit than she deserves they hit Obama in a way that he won't see as being quite so funny as they latch onto a real and growing concern about him; his shallowness and lack of experience.
Nobody is laughing with Barack here, they're laughing at him...the very last thing a politician wants.
Friday, March 7, 2008
We're All Monsters Now
_01.jpg)
They are words that strike fear in the hearts of voters: the Republican Hate Machine, the Republican Smear Machine, Swift Boating, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. The tactics these words represent are used to play on our fears, to divide us and polarize us. They could only be the tools of the corrupt, right-wing fear mongers, war mongers who rely on the politics of fear and hate. Such people do America a disservice. They are cynical, cold. They are, in short, monsters. So it is so sad that in looking at the recent race for the Democratic presidential nomination one thing has become very clear: We are all monsters, now.
For years now Democratic politicians have been running on the bugaboo of a massive, evil, institutionalized Republican smear campaign that distorts the record of decent, selfless Democrats, spreading lies, using code words and debasing every race they're in. Democrats would never do things like that. Enter the Clinton/Obama race.
It is hard to imagine a race more pointedly personal, filled with uglier tactics than this Democrat vs. Democrat campaign. And, make no mistake, this is not some grand battle of ideologies gone off the tracks. In everything but the most minor points Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree. They are the Chang and Eng of American politics. Give them a Rorschach test and they'd see the same butterflies and naughty bits. This is a grand battle of two giant egos. It isn't a battle for the heart of America; it is a battle of ambitions of the highest order.
The recent "off the record" ("off the record" in the middle of an on-the-record interview, by the way!) remark by high-ranking Obama campaign foreign policy advisor Samantha Power that opponent Hillary Clinton is a "monster" is just the latest personal attack in this getting-dirtier-by-the-day fight. After lecturing Republicans about the nasty races they run every election cycle, it will be hard for whichever one of these two actually gets their party's nod, to run the usual off the rack Dem campaign of railing about nasty Republicans.
The usual taunt that Republicans are trying to divide people by race is going to be especially hard to float if Hillary winds up as the nominee. Hubby Bill's playing the now notorious "race card" before the South Carolina primary damaged both himself and Hillary with Blacks in ways that are already coming back to haunt them both. His heavy handed attempt to highlight Obama's blackness lost him his coveted label as "America's first Black President" (a label so phony it is surprising someone hasn't sued for false advertising) and allowed Blacks to start to see the race as just another example of us vs. them and start to move into Obama's camp in ever larger numbers.
And despite that tactic resulting in a self inflicted wound Hillary has managed to draw blood from Obama that could well prove very damaging to him should he win the nomination. It is widely acknowledged that her now famous "3AM commercial" in which she called into question Barack's ability to handle a crisis that might arise out of nowhere in the middle of the night was very effective; so effective that should he win the nomination Republican's could practically lift it word for word and run it against him themselves. The ferocity of the campaign is at such a level that even the foot-shot of playing the race card wasn't enough to make the Clinton campaign cautious. Hillary has begun to raise Obama's connections with indicted political fundraiser, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a risky move considering the long and lurid history of questionable connections both financial and otherwise that she and her husband have had through the years. She has also been questioning Obama's honesty, yet another example of her accusing her opponent of things for which she is more well known .
And the "monster" comment isn't the only example of the Obama camp's taking the low road, either. He recently accused her of "swift boating" him, an accusation that falls on Democrat ears the way an accusation of child abuse sounds to the rest of us. He's also accused her of scare tactic, the very same kind of tactics Dems accuse Republicans of employing in every election. For all the talk of hope and change that this campaign started off trumpeting, it has rapidly been devolving into a pay per view style wrestling smack-down.
As it stands right now this race could still go either way. Obama is currently ahead in delegates 1,567 to 1,462 and in total votes he leads by about 600,000. But there are five months to go before the Democratic convention and it is very likely neither of them will get there with the requisite number of delegates to secure the nomination.
And that raises the question of what other dirt is left to be thrown? Obama taking shots at Hillary's looks? Hints of lesbianism? New stories about her well-known habit of dropping the f-bomb on any and all who annoy her? Hillary is known for her use of private investigators to dig up dirt. What has she or will she find about Obama that she's just waiting for the right time to unleash? Affairs? Considering Bill's track record this doesn't sound like the smartest idea but we've already established logic has gone by the boards in this race.
John McCain is a candidate with a large set of problems of his own; a discontented base, running in a year when Republicans are very unpopular, a habit of beating up his allies with far more vigor than he does his enemies, a temper issue of his own, but if Clinton/Obama keeps looking like the political version of Ali/Frazier he might not have to turn on the Republican Hate Machine, call upon the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy and he may not even have to Swift Boat anybody. Those monsters may not be needed as the Democrats' own monsters may just wind up scaring away enough voters that he winds up as President thanks to them.
One thing is certain here; this is one scary election season.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Flipping The Pages
The Strange Charm Of The Obama Campaign
I have to admit something odd: I find something charming about Barack Obama's campaign. No, really. I mean all this talk about "hope" and "change" coupled with Obama's utter lack anything even resembling any real qualifications reminds me of a kid playing make-believe. He manages to strike the right stances and does a pretty good impersonation of the real thing but then, all of a sudden you realize it is time to call in the adults. His talk about invading Pakistan a while back was one instance. Senior foreign policy advisor, Susan Rice's admission on Tucker Carlson's show the other day that neither Barack nor Hillary are ready for the 3AM crisis that Hillary says she's prepared for was another such moment. Rice was, of course telling the truth while Hillary was not but the fact that she thought that she could do so and not have anybody with a brain counter with, "Well maybe he shouldn't be running for President, then" is just another example why Obama and team are not ready for prime-time.
There's A New Clinton In Town
Something very strange and troubling is happening lately. I take a backseat to no one in my distrust and dislike of Hillary Clinton. Her cackle, her shrill perorations, her lies. I. Can't. Stand. Them. But....some of her recent appearances have almost been palatable. I actually think she was kinda funny on Saturday Night Live last week. I think her appearance there, in conjunction with Obama's problems, was one of the reasons Super Tuesday II turned out so well for her. She's had a few other moments, too; the debate performance where she kiddingly said she was "hurt" comes most readily to mind. Hillary has spent the better part of two decades trying not to be incredibly, monstrously, creepily unpleasant with no luck. All of a sudden, however there seem to be flashes of almost-convincing humanity. If it keeps up some people (I mean beyond those who've already sipped the Cool Aid) might begin to believe it. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Killers And The Millionaires Who Love Them
The current, growing crisis in South America between Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and his neighbors has come as no surprise to those of us who know that if you swagger like a dictator, scream your hatred of the US from the UN General Assembly, nationalize major industries, chum it up with such swell guys as Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad etc. you're probably not a nice guy. The fact that just-found documents show that, despite denials, he has been supporting the FARC, Colombian terrorist guerrillas is just par for the course for this sort of thug. Depending on how far he is willing to push the current situation, he may yet launch a war in the region.As we watch the crisis unfold we shouldn't forget the useful idiots who have befriended Chavez, frequently standing by and extolling his many "virtues" while badmouthing the US and George W. Bush to the dictator's enormous enjoyment. In the future when we see celebrities lining up to praise some politician or other let us remember the good judgment celebrities frequently display; celebrities such as Danny Glover, above and others who have made the pilgrimage to the great man, including; supermodel Naomi Campbell, Academy Award winning actor Kevin Spacey and incoherent Academy Award winning actor and "serious" man, Sean Penn.
The press has reported the Venezuelan visits of these know-nothings with regularity. Now that the real nature of Chavez has been revealed I guess we're all just waiting for the press to ask them some pretty tough questions about their South American buddy. Well, maybe not.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Politics Of Unpopularity
On the morning after the latest series of presidential primaries I was watching one of the cable news networks and saw a bunch of students at an Ohio university being interviewed about the results of the previous evening's voting; what they liked about the candidates, what they were hoping they'd do in office, etc. In amongst the by-now expected "I want change " and "He gives me hope" banalities and concerns about the war, the economy, etc., another concern was voiced a number of times: the students were upset about how the rest of the world now views the US. This distress about America not being respected or liked abroad is frequently voiced when Americans talk about what they think is wrong with the country's direction. And it got me thinking.
Being liked is something we all want I guess, but the more I thought about it the more I realized I really don't want to be liked by everybody. I mean I don't want to be liked by bad people, by people I don't respect. I don't care if cruel people, loud, uncaring people don't like me. Well exactly who is it that so many Americans are worried about not liking us? Who is it that they feel should be more favorably disposed towards us?
There is much in the press about Europe's dissatisfaction with the US. It would make sense if Americans would like them to like us, right? According to a 2007 World Public Opinion poll 57% of Britons view US world influence negatively. In France, 69% feel the same. In Russia, 59%. Hmm. I have a question, though before I'm going to get all flustered about these results. What exactly is going on in these countries, what are their policies like that their judgment of us should be so troubling to us? Are the run in such an way admirable that maybe we should be following their lead? In a word: hardly.
Although very displeased with our influence, over the last few decades Britain has allowed itself to become one of the largest staging grounds for terrorism in the world. Many of the most infamous acts of terrorism in recent years were at least partially planned in London, literally under the noses of British Intelligence. Demographically it is now in a death spiral, its marriage and birth rate pointing towards a not too distant future where there will be a Britain without Britons. Culturally it is becoming weaker and less confident with each passing year. Anti-semitism is surging. Its many immigrants are largely angry and hostile.
France, still unhappy with us although recently electing the pro-US Nikolas Sarkozy to the presidency remains a socialist mess, with a faltering economy and its own immigration nightmare where Middle Eastern immigrant youths have taken over large areas where they periodically riot and ignore French national authority. Here, too anti-semitism is flourishing.
Russia is known more for its corruption, lack of freedoms and periodically poisoning dissenters than for any moral purity.
All three of these countries and more have been implicated in the notorious UN Oil-For-Food scandal.
How about countries in the rest of the world? 71% of Indonesians think US influence in the world is negative. It is a corruption-ridden hotbed of instability. The UN had actually called the recently deceased dictator, General Suharto the most corrupt dictator in the world. North Korea? Cuba? China? Mexico? Poverty. Oppression. Corruption. Somalia. Sudan. Genocide. Civil wars. Disease. Starvation. Pakistan? Syria? Iran? Terrorist shelter. Terrorist sponsors. Human rights abusers all. In Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to be out in public with a man who is not their husband. It is actually a crime to do so. The punishment can be quite severe.
Well, what about the UN itself? It represents the hopes and aspirations of the world, doesn't it? We want everyone there to like us right? Sadly it is nothing more than a collection of the previously named states and more of the same. It is generally helpless to prevent or stop wars it impotently and not very convincingly decries. Deeply involved in the aforementioned Oil-For-Food scandal, Paul A. Volcker, the head of the Independent Inquiry Committee said of it, "Our assignment has been to look for mis- or mal-administration in the oil-for-food program, and for evidence of corruption within the U.N. organization and by contractors. Unhappily, we found both."
It would be great if we lived in a world of decent nations, with fair democratic laws and traditions. We don't. Much of the world is ugly and brutal and that part which isn't is often at best misguided and incompetent. It is not surprising that they should look to us with our high standard of living, rule of law and all the "advantages" we enjoy and envy us and look at their own sad conditions and blame us. It is easier to blame someone else than to shoulder responsibility yourself. The tyrants and dictators who make up much of the world's "leadership" are always in the market for a scapegoat.
Which is not to say that America is above criticism and that we should ignore it when it comes. Constructive self analysis is one of our strengths. But such criticism should be evaluated on the merits, in the full light of all the facts and in context. When we've made mistakes, we should correct them. But the fact that we're "unpopular" is no guarantee that we're wrong.
The US need allies. It needs partners in a thousand different ventures and it would be easier to deal with those potential partners if they "liked" us. But the fact that they may not does not, by itself mean that we are doing something wrong. We can and do still get things done based on our reliability and our strength. Being liked isn't everything. It may not even be a terribly important thing. So maybe those college students could find something else to worry about. The world is surely filled with better reasons to worry than that.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Brief Thoughts On Another Long Night
From The Center for Media and Public Affairs via Fox News (as was predicted here and other places), as soon as John McCain became the presumptive Republican nominee he ceased to be a media darling. As reported by Brit Hume this evening... "the percentage of McCain coverage it deemed positive was 46 percent from mid-December through mid-February. But look at the contrast between his 97 percent positive number before the New Hampshire primary on January eighth — and just 30 percent positive since." After tonight's results which are likely to give McCain enough delegates to make the nomination a lock, don't expect the press to ever fall back in love with the Senator again, any time soon.
- At this hour 8:40 PM EST Obama has already taken Vermont (no big surprise) and the initial numbers are looking good for him in Texas with Ohio looking good for Hillary (way too early to call either) there don't seem to be any surprises yet. If, as appears likely Hillary was able to firm up her support over the last few days, due in large part to Obama's numerous stumbles it is very likely the Dem contest could go all the way to the convention; Obama having more delegates going in but Hillary having evil on her side. LOL This one could remain a mystery for quite some time to come.
Update: 9:10 PM EST
- Those aforementioned Obama gaffes highlight how media bias can sometimes blow up in the media's face and in the face of their infatuation; you treat a normal person like the Second Coming and, fawning coverage or not, reality is eventually going to come knocking. Obama, bright fellow that he is, just isn't very experienced and suave will only carry you so far. When things go wrong no amount of charm can cover the fact that the suit remains empty.
- Apparently John McCain has now surpassed the 1,191 delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination. Where are the cheers? I'm not hearing cheers.
Update: 9:20 PM EST
- It took Harold Stassen a number of elections to become that-ridiculous-guy-who-doesn't-know-when-to-quit but Mike Huckabee's in-the-nick-of-time decision to call it quits tonight has saved him from becoming the new Harold Stassen, in just this one election cycle. Congratulations to The Huck for not quite becoming Harold Stassen. Impressive.
Update: 9:50 PM EST
- Hillary won Rhode Island. Anybody have anything interesting or clever to say about this? Yeah. Me neither.
- Rush Limbaugh's call for Republican's to go out and vote for Hillary probably contributed to Hillary's probably having a ok night tonight. Not really having any dog in this fight his reasoning is that the longer Obama and Clinton remain at each other's throats the better. But Rush is in the same predicament many of us are in here: sure its great that the two Dems are damaging each other but considering that it will probably benefit John McCain, it is hard to get all that excited. Whatever else politics is and can be it is often fun. Not so much this year.
Update: 9:15 PM EST
- For all the huffing and puffing about the possible results of this evening's voting it looks like the night will end with things looking pretty much the same as yesterday. Hill and Barack are still nipping away at each other and McCain is still going to be the Republican nominee. And so it goes...
- Good night!
Monday, March 3, 2008
Actual Junk: Bush's Virtual Fence is a Real Fraud
There is a famous scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the first Indiana Jones film in which Indy is confronted by a giant, black-clad swordsman, holding an enormous scimitar that he twirls and and spins, with which he obviously means to fillet Indy in short order. The audience sits in anticipation, wondering what sort of cleverness Indiana will use to extricate himself from this particular problem. Will he use his whip to snap the sword out of mid air? What kind of trickery will he employ? Instead of doing anything fancy, Indiana, looking bored merely pulls out his gun and shoots the giant, then goes about his business. The lesson here: sometimes the easiest and most obvious answer is the best one. Which brings me to the Department of Homeland Security's virtual fence.
According to Congressional testimony last week the so-far only 28 miles of virtual fencing constructed by Homeland Security on the Mexican border meant to keep illegal aliens form slipping into the US is a bust. Despite Secretary Michael Chertoff's effusive huckstering, the $20 million fence, built by Boeing flopped because necessary software was inadequate to process data, the resolution of the needed cameras was inadequate to the task and the radar was glitchy among other problems. But instead of mothballing this modern Edsel the Administration is postponing it for another three years at a currently unknown cost. So much for fancy.
You don't have to be keenly cynical to wonder if Homeland Security (with the President's approval) just isn't very serious about border security. If they were they just might have spared us all the fancy whiz-bang stuff which many familiar with it said from the start would not work and just gone ahead and employed much simpler methods with proven track records of effectiveness. Congressman Duncan Hunter, who has been one of the realists on this issue today reports in Human Events on the very real functionality of an actual physical fence. He points out that the 14 mile San Diego Border Fence has done just what you would want it to do: "Since its construction more than 10 years ago, the smuggling of people and narcotics has dropped drastically; crime rates -- according to FBI statistics -- have been reduced by half, vehicle drug drive-throughs have been eliminated; and apprehensions have decreased due to fewer crossing attempts." In the light of such a proven track record, the Administration's dabbling in this virtual fence dead-end looks far more like playing for time, maybe time for the public to move on to other issues, than it looks like a serious effort to secure our borders.
Those, like the President, Democrats and (sadly) Senator John McCain who are (to be kind) somewhat less than concerned about illegal immigration try to block the efforts of those who think illegal immigration is a real problem for the nation, always try to complicate solutions. Therefore you see "virtual" fences and hear how deportation is "impossible" and you see all other forms of obfuscation.
The truth is that deportation is far from impossible and far from ineffective. When faced with a growing problem of illegal immigration in the '50s, President Dwight Eisenhower instituted a policy of rounding up and deporting illegals, taking them back to Mexico (and deep into Mexico, not just dumping them across the border) in buses and ships. Tens of thousands were apprehended and sent back and hundreds of thousands followed voluntarily.
There are other serious, straightforward ways to deal with the problem, too. Vigorously going after and fining companies who hire illegals is an obvious way. Eliminating the law that allows "anchor babies", babies born in the US of illegals who are automatically US citizens if they are born within our borders. Oh yeah, and get real about building the real physical fence that had been mandated by the Secure Fence Act, that law that the people forced their legislature to pass against their will. The Act called for 700 miles of double-layered fence to be built, separating the US from Mexico. Well over a year has passed since the Act passed and only 80 miles of fence has been built. This is the speed of a government dragging its feet.
While it is amusing to see what new excuses those who are opposed to enforcing the immigration laws come up with next for those of us who actually respect the rule of law, we know that Indiana Jones had it right: do it fast, do it simple and for God's sake just get it done.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Why We Cry: A Lament For What Could Have Been
The next few days may well make certain what now seems likely, that the Democratic nominee for President this year will be Senator Barack Obama. Should such turn to out to be the case the Democrats will be running the most far-Left candidate in their very checkered history.
According the the respected National Journal's rankings which use 99 US Senate votes to detect the left-ward tilt of each US Senator, the most liberal Senator in that august body in 2007 was that self-same Barack Obama. Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator John Kerry, Senator Hillary Clinton all need to take a step to their right to make way for the new kid on the block.
This is and should be good news for the Republican Party and the conservative movement and yet there is little joy to be found in Red-State America these days. Under different circumstances this year's presidential election could have been a contest of radically different ideologies, a contest in which big-government statism, its assumptions and its record could have been matched up against the assumptions and record of small-government, constitutionalist, free market conservatism . But alas, such will not be the case. As John McCain is now the presumptive Republican nominee any battle of the world-views will have to wait for another election and another time.
The story of McCain's apostasy from conservative principles is long and well known enough that the litany of issues in which he has wandered into the wilderness need not be reiterated here. But the fact remains that McCain who likes to tout his lifetime 82.3% conservative rating from the American Conservative Union when he is trying to gain Conservative support, doesn't really fair quite so well when you take into account how he's voted in more recent years, in other words when you see which way his ideological boat is drifting. According to American Thinker from 1998 to 2006 McCain's average conservative score has been 74. And in 2006 it was only 65. The good Senator is listing badly to port.
With a record like that it is obvious that McCain's decisions are not based in a consistent and certainly not a consistently conservative belief system. This is not the man who has the bona fides to wage ideological battle. And this doesn't even take into account his unpleasant penchant for gleefully attacking conservatives while seeming perfectly pacific in dealing with liberals.
It seems likely that this year's campaign is more likely to revolve around issues of competence and judgment, without any real conversation taking place about what principles form the basis of good judgment.
We will not see the kind of races that Ronald Reagan ran (yes, I know the Reagan example has become tiresome of late, but it remains compelling enough that not using is the equivalent of ignoring the 500 lb gorilla in the room) in which he explained the principles upon which his policies were based. We will not hear John McCain take apart the intellectual basis of the idea of universal health care paid for by the government. We will not hear John McCain argue that the attacks on tax cuts as "tax cuts for the rich" is a sham. And we certainly won't hear John McCain argue the principled case for putting up a fence to secure our sovereignty.
Instead we will hear the Republican nominee argue, not against the very idea of this most left wing Democratic nominee's proposals, just the way they're implemented. This is a very different kind of argument than the one for which movement conservatives are spoiling. This is not the kind of election, these are not the kind of debates that are going to move the ball down the field. The best that can be hoped for is that we don't lose ground.
We'd like to hear about the importance of capital formation for the economy's continued well being, to hear set forth a conservative approach to handling the environment that doesn't include greater government mandates and intervention. We'd like to show how conservative principles will improve peoples lives, not concede the major points and appear as nothing more than a party whose principles can best be expressed as "Me too, only a little less." This is not exactly a stirring rallying cry.
And so our job this year isn't to put our guy over the top but to put that guy over the top, all the while pushing him to be a little less like he wants to be. This is not the way we wanted it but it is the way it is. We just can't help feeling a bit wistful for the way it could have been.
Conservatives, of course are optimistic by nature so we'll use these next few years to turn this year's "could have been" to the future's promise fulfilled. Count on it.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Boomtown Bush - Geldof on GWB
Geldoff, not maintaining what is the usually de rigueur Bush-is-Hitler mantra, is actually quite complimentary of the President, at least on the subject of Africa. Geldoff finds him "curious and quick" and has high praise for his African policies which he says, with no sign of squeamishness, have "saved millions of lives." Geldof paints a picture that we've seen before of Bush from most of those who've had contact with him; very much the Texan, loose in conversation but disciplined and smart, "an emotional man" possessed of a great capacity for compassion for his fellow man. This is not the image of heartless rube warmonger who launches massive military campaigns to line the already overstuffed pockets of his buddies that most on the Left imagines and try to popularize.
Aside from the interesting character observations, Geldoff does elicit some comments from the President that are worthy of deeper analysis. At one point Bush says, "See, I believe we're in an ideological struggle with extremism,"..."These people prey on the hopeless. Hopelessness breeds terrorism. That's why this trip is a mission undertaken with the deepest sense of humanity, because those other folks will just use vulnerable people for evil. Like in Iraq." Now while this particular trope has some validity, as most cliches do, there is still something troubling about it. The idea that Islamic terrorists must troll through the ranks of the poor and disaffected to find followers creates an impression that is not just wrong, but is actually helpful to those same terrorists.
The fact is many terrorists have little, if any, experience of poverty and deprivation at all. Osama Bin Laden is the scion of famously wealthy family. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were middle class or better, college educated and familiar with the West. The attack on the Glasgow. Scotland Airport in 8/07 was carried out by a PhD Engineer and a physician. The four 7/07 London suicide bombers were homegrown, middle-class Brits. What drew them all into terrorism wasn't poverty and therefore you won't won't eradicate terrorism by eradicating poverty. Modern-day terrorism is motivated by Islam. Period. To blame anything but Islam as the animating force behind it is to cut Islam a break that is counterproductive. In order to defeat terrorism we have to confront (and terrorism is just a tactic after all) it where it is born; in the teachings of Islam. Islam won't confront its own failings if we let it off the hook. We have to point out with vigor and in detail the ways that Islam is failing the world. Islam is in need of a major reformation and we do it and ourselves no favor by being bashful about pointing out that fact.
Now Bush must certainly realize this and it has to be admitted that he is confronted with a real problem in figuring out how to deal with Islam. As President, if Bush were to come out and say, "Islam is the cause of terrorism. Islam as it currently exists must be stopped" he would in effect be turning the very hostile eyes of most Americans on the Muslims living here, most quite peacefully, those who although they are Muslim don't have the violent inclinations of the more strictly devout. During WWII Roosevelt put thousands of Japanese into internment camps. It was not America's finest moment and not one most of us would like to relive.
Geldof's piece paints a generally positive picture of the President but it also reveals a man who, after all this time, is still having a difficult time getting a handle on this particular enemy.
Toward the end of his essay Geldof, apparently in an attempt to maintain at least some of his rock-buddies' respect, rips Bush for Iraq, Guantanomo, Abu-Ghraib and the usual litany of left-wing complaints. He does it without subtly or any new or particularly insightful thinking. No surprises here. The article is still worth reading however for giving a vivid picture of George Bush and, unintentionally no doubt, for highlighting how Bush is still struggling, unsuccessfully here, with the enemy we now face and will be facing for some time to come.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
William F. Buckley Died Today at 82.
William Buckley, the father of the modern conservative movement was a man of intellect, grace and humor. Here he is hosting the Charlie Rose show on 7/5/02, displaying all the above mentioned qualities and more. He is missed already.
William F. Buckley - Farewell, Father
His was a grand life of import and meaning. When William F. Buckley passed away today he left a legacy of ideas that don't just resonate in the mind but which have played out in the lives of millions. The Conservative movement of the last fifty years was set in motion by a single-minded Buckley using all the many tools he had at his command (and they were many); his intellect, his humor, his sense of decency and his devout commitment to God. Ronald Reagan is often looked to as the central figure of modern conservatism and no one did more than he to popularize that philosophy and put it to work in people's lives. But before Reagan acted, he read and thought and what he read and the ideas he thought were pure Buckley.
The appearance of the small circulation (15,000!) magazine that Buckley started in 1955, National Review, though appearing with no particular fanfare to the world at large has, in many ways changed that world. Buckley's achievement was to crystallize conservatism, to wipe away the fringes that tried to adhere to it and prove it to be a powerful movement, the strength and rightness of its ideas making it impossible to dismiss. He presented a thoughtful conservatism whose ideas attracted not just Reagan but generations of young people who saw the need to do what Buckley said in that first editorial in National Review, "...to stand athwart history yelling Stop". And while history is a dynamic thing, its drift to the Left always to be fought, no one fought it more stolidly and succeeded as well as Buckley, whose forceful anti-communism was so historically brought to life by Reagan's pushing the Soviet Union into oblivion.
But Buckley was not a humorless bulldog. Quite the contrary, he won his points and converts with not just intellectual fervor but with humor and enjoyment of the life God had given him. He was a man possessed of a breathtaking number of talents; a polemicist with an unerring command of the language, a novelist, an editor, a seaman, television host, conversationalist par excellence. And by all reports he was that rare man gifted beyond the norm but whose generosity of spirit was the equal of his talents. His friendships were many and he didn't let political differences get in the way, being close to people across the political spectrum. In today’s toxic political atmosphere it is almost shocking to see how many Men of the Left admired and liked this ultimate Man of the Right. And he was also a good and loving husband and father and, in what may be the secret of his personal kindness, he was a loyal and devout Catholic.
Those of us who feel compelled to argue and assert and write and publish and post know that we are merely following, however imperfectly, his lead. Whenever we sit down before our keyboards and try to conjure our arguments for freedom and personal liberty we know that he is the model we are all emulating. We wish we had his erudition and his sly wit. We don't but the fact that we try is an act of appreciation of him and the active inner life he unleashed in us.
His life was well lived and not short and we can take satisfaction in that as he leaves us. We will look for more like him but we are unlikely to find one to match him. Conservatism today, can legitimately said to be in something of a crisis of confidence. It will pass. Its ideas are too good not to rally and prevail. Now there are more of us than just one young man standing athwart history. We’re that young man’s children, there are millions of us and we haven’t forgotten. We’re still yelling Stop.
Good night, father and thank you.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Consequences Of Vacuous Hope
I have just spent an hour reading Senator Barak Obama's campaign speech transcripts.
Watching Obama on TV delivering these same speeches is a very different experience from reading them. Listening to his voice rise and fall and watching him react to the crowds reacting to him, his words take on a heft and weight that they totally lack when reading them on the page. Watching him deliver such lines as, "Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can seize our future. ... as we leave this great state with a new wind at our backs and we take this journey across this great country, a country we love, with the message we carry from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire, from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast, the same message we had when we were up and when we were down, that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we will hope", one feels the excitement of the moment, of something waiting to happen. But in reading the speeches the lines take on shallowness, a lightness as they almost seem to effervesce off the page, forgotten the second your eyes move on.
The speeches, meant as they are to be performed, dramatically repeat themes, two themes really: change and hope. But while they provoke our emotions, they do not provoke our thinking, quite the opposite; they require our suspension of thought. Barak Obama already has the answers. He'll carry the load. There are people and forces standing in the way of these answers. He just wants us to stand with him as he shoves those forces out of the way and then he can pass on his received wisdom: more money from the government, more government regulations, and more money taken from those who greedily have taken what they do not deserve. And this is the kernel of the problem of Barak Obama's call for hope.
Obama is asking us to hope that someone else (Obama himself!) will take the reigns of our lives. Ask people you know who support him why they do. In most cases they'll tell you what has now become a cliché: they're for hope; they're ready for a change. Generally specifics will be in very short supply. Ronald Reagan was known for his optimism too, but Reagan's speeches were always about returning responsibility for people's lives back to the people themselves. He wanted to be the agent to give the government back to the people. Obama wants to be the agent of the government which will take responsibility for the people. Now this is typical of liberalism, it is part and parcel of its appeal but what sets Obama apart from most liberal politicians is his ability to make the man and the message one and the same. He is the answer. He is the hope.
He is a most peculiar character to have so successfully convinced so many people to unquestiongly drop their skepticism. He is the least accomplished man to offer himself up as a presidential candidate in generations. A US Senator since only 2005, he's spent much of that time running for President, having little time to accrue much in the way of a legislative record, should he have the ability to do so. Although his speeches are rife with references to bringing people together, his record indicates no special ability in doing this. And although he seems to believe he possesses the answers to almost all our problems, new answers, he is in fact a perfectly traditional far-left politician. All those "new" answers are not new at all, of course. They have been ruining economies and nations for decades. The dying husk that is modern day Europe appears to be Obama's idea factory. If you like modern-day France, you'll love Barak's America.
Obama's ability to change the subject from the consequences of his ideas to his emotional state and then his ability to transfer that state to the public is nothing short of masterful. His audacity has been in thinking that he could make what he would actually do as President less important to the electorate than the fact that he is the one doing it. So far that audacity has paid off for him. I hope it no longer will come this November.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
The Church Of Nothing
One of the great appeals that religion has had for people throughout history is that, through its particular doctrine a religion makes sense of existence for them. It gives purpose, it sets forth rules to live by and a corresponding moral code. And then there is the Church of England...
"Secret plan to avoid church gay split", a story from Britain's Telegraph website chronicles The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams' latest contortions in trying to hold together the Anglican Church which, largely under his leadership has so chipped away at its own core beliefs that as the saying goes, the center can no longer hold.
As one of the leading forces behind the Church's attempt to mainstream homosexuality and change the Church's longstanding doctrinal opposition to its practice even before his elevation to Archbishop of Canterbury in 2002 Rowan is now in the position of having to try hold the Church together as numerous dioceses and conservative factions threaten to leave the fold. His solution seems as ill considered as are most of his decisions. He plans to create a "parallel" church wherein these conservative factions operate under the guidance of foreign bishops, a sort of religious ghetto for those not fit to consort with decent folk. More liberal bishops are angered that Williams should consider letting these errant forces get their way in even this distorted manner and are threatening trouble of their own.
Williams' problem here and with the difficulty he has found himself in of late, dealing with the growing Muslim population in Britain is that he has placed the liberal mantra of "inclusion"and "diversity" above what should be the eternal doctrine of his church. Religious doctrine cannot by its nature be inclusionary. Christianity is not all things to all people. It makes demands of the faithful, demands cannot be made upon it. It is not fashion, changing with the whims of a given age. For it to have any real value a religion must stand outside of time and fashion. It may try to make itself understood in terms that a particular age may understand but its basic nature must be unchanging if it is to have any real meaning at all.
The Church of England is trying to be all things to all people and is instead becoming the church of nothing, shepherding a flock that is dwindling as quickly as its principles. It is at the vanguard of the forces of nihilism which now are ruling Europe into oblivion. Well, at least that is something it is doing well.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Skip This Post - First In A Series
The New York Times' story about John McCain's "Affair", Ron Paul, Conspiracy theories, Saving the Earth, Outraged people, Political moderates, Those who want to impeach George W. Bush, Oprah and all of her "friends", Every member of the Kennedy family living and dead, Militant Atheists.
All of those things in the foregoing eclectic list have one thing in common and if you can't figure out what that is immediately then this post, in all likelihood, will irritate you at some point. You see everything listed above is boring. By that I mean tiresome, dull, uninteresting and tedious. Yes, I know that when you read through that little inventory you probably found a couple of things that you think are just fascinating, that you spend much time admiring, talking about or otherwise find involving. That is why you may be irritated. Too bad. It is my list and you are perfectly free to make your own, portions of which I will probably disagree.
And it is not as if I'm just throwing insults around thoughtlessly. There are reasons that I find each person or persons and every thing on the list to be a drag. And (no surprise here) I'm not afraid to say why.
- The New York Times' story about John McCain's "Affair": RI Fitzhenry once said, “Uncertainty and mystery are energies of life. Don't let them scare you unduly, for they keep boredom at bay and spark creativity.” That is why I find this little non-scandal so tedious; there was nothing even slightly uncertain about or any mystery in the fact that the Times or The Washington Post or some other organ of the msm would run some slander against McCain as soon as he became the presumptive Republican nominee. I said as much in a previous post. I would be every bit as fascinated if someone were to tell me, with a look of surprise on their face that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Really? ZZZZZZZZZZ
- Ron Paul: I agree with much of what Ron Paul says. I can sit there and listen to him, nodding in agreement and then, all of a sudden he'll go off on some tangent that makes you wonder how he slipped out of the clutches of the men in white jackets. I have never met or read the writings of a single supporter of his who didn't sound equally mad. I'm probably going to regret writing this as the fanatical zombies who still believe he's going to be President seem to know when someone somewhere has said something untoward about him and then try to absorb them into The Collective. They and he are the very definition of tiresome.
- Conspiracy theories: Well, these are somewhat related to Ron Paul and his minions as many of them are big believers in a host of conspiracy theories, the more outré the better. The problem with conspiracy theories is that they don't take into account the fact that if more than two people are in on a secret, it is a metaphysical certainty that within a few hours one of those two is going to tell a third. People can't keep secrets. Period. Therefore the idea that there are these super-secret, world-spanning conspiracy theories that only the evil-doers behind them and the nut telling you about them are aware of is a sign of someone needing to take their meds as prescribed and not that any such theory is actually real. Stupidity and lunacy bore me. Conspiracy theories rely on both. I'm getting sleepy just writing about them.
- Saving the Earth: Anybody who tells you that you need to do your part in "saving the Earth" or uses the word Gaia in anything but a mocking manner takes their own importance far too seriously. Little old me can't "save" the Earth and neither can they. The Earth doesn't need saving in the first place. Get a sense of proportion, folks. I'd rather spend a month in a Super-Max prison than ten minutes with a self important "Save the Earth" evangelist. Booooooooooring.
- Outraged people: People who are constantly outraged suffer to a large degree from the same sort of self importance as the Save the Earthers, above. They add a bit of self congratulations into the mix, to boot. Usually they are outraged that someone has done something that they would never do. They also like the attention their outrages brings to them. Attention-grabbers: T-e-d-i-o-u-s.
- Political Moderates: These folks have self importance, enjoy a good bit of self congratulations and oh, yes aren't really sharp enough or have enough character to actually stand for anything. There is no political philosophy called "Moderate". It is a catch-all phrase for those who haven't worked out a real philosophy. "I'll take one position from column A and another from column B". Have some gumption, dammit! Pick a consistent philosophy and stick to it. Excuse me. I have to grab a strongly caffeinated cup of coffee before I can go on.
- Oprah and all of her "friends": Saint Oprah has overstayed her welcome as America's premier secular saint by a number of years. Instead of doing the polite thing of course and going away, she is stepping up her game and running around giving Barak Obama her blessing. She also has a whole radio channel on XM Radio where she and her friends peddle such twaddle as her Soul Series which she claims is "the most exciting thing" she can think of in the whole wide world. Somewhere in America her acolytes are squealing in anticipation. Here at my computer I am falling asleep.
- Those who want to impeach George W. Bush: It ain't gonna happen folks. Hate-filled, deluded sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome make me sad. They also are sleeping pills in human form.
- Every member of the Kennedy family living and dead: This speaks for itself, doesn't it? Turn out the light.
- Militant Atheists: They're smug, self satisfied, condescending and in fact they don't know there is no God any more than those who do believe in Him know that he does exist. But religious people have the humility to acknowledge that they rely on faith; militant atheists don't so they're just relying on their own brilliance. Think Bill Maher. No, don't and stay awake instead.
Well, that's the tip of the iceberg. There are plenty of other things that send me into a swoon of boredom and in future installments I'll be getting to them. Of course that idea may bore you to death as this little rant might have. If that's the case, face it, you were warned. Read the title of this post. Personally I feel kind of energized!
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Bush And Africa: Where Did Everybody Go?
The Bush Administration's Africa policy, its ambitiousness, its comprehensiveness and its extraordinary success in saving lives is one of the great, neglected stories of our time and the degree and quality of the coverage of his current visit to that most troubled continent shows that this media disinterest is unlikely to end anytime soon.
Bush's attention to Africa has been complex and multilayered and its most remarkable accomplishment has been the saving of millions of African lives. In 2003 the administration introduced the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a five-year plan with a $15 billion price tag, concentrated primarily on Africa. It is the largest, costliest program ever targeted at a single disease and its beneficiaries are the millions currently afflicted with HIV as well as those who, but for the program would be its next victims. Since its inception PEPFAR has been responsible for 1.4 million Africans receiving treatment for the disease. Not satisfied with this accomplishment President Bush has proposed the doubling of the program's budget over the next five years.
But AIDS is not the only disease that the President has put in his sights. The President's Malaria Initiative, whose objective is to cut the mortality rate of that disease in half in five years, has also been a great success, benefiting an estimated 25 million people via the distribution of 6 million bed-nets treated with insecticide.
But the administration has not concentrated on disease while ignoring Africa's other large and complicated problems. Realizing merely distributing money and care-packages is not likely to address the larger issues causing misery to millions the administration created the Millennium Challenge Corporation which ties assistance to adoption of free-market principles, thereby promoting fiscally sound policies in an effort to improve standards of living.
Africa has been a breeding ground for Muslim extremism and the disaster that is Darfur is an ongoing human tragedy and the president is attempting to address that situation (which is proving even more intractable than AIDS or malaria) with an increase of sanctions against the Sudanese government responsible for Darfur and the creation of AFRICOM, a security command that the President is attempting to launch.
These and other efforts are realistic, conservative (the Heritage Foundation has written glowingly about them), humane and have proven to be largely effective. Sadly their success is inversely proportional to the attention they have drawn in America and the world outside of Africa.
No president in American history has ever lavished such concern and largesse on Africa, certainly not President Bill Clinton, who until this presidential season was often touted as being America's first "Black President'. (After his recent race-baiting tactics however Clinton seems to be turning whiter with each passing day.) One might think that the man who had been accused in the 2000 campaign of being responsible for a Black man being dragged to his death by a group of racists and accused by the Left and their friends in the media as neglecting the victims of Hurricane Katrina because of the color of their skin might get a little recognition for the success of his African humanitarian efforts. But one would be wrong. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Julian Bond are not to be found grabbing media face-time touting these great accomplishments. And the msm coverage has been perfunctory at best.
No so in Africa itself where Bush has largely been hailed as a hero. Tanzanian President Jakay Kikwete says that, "Of course, people talk with excitement of Obama....The US is going to get a new president, whoever that is. For us, the most important thing is, let him be as good a friend of Africa as President Bush has been." And "We feel proud because it's recognition of our contribution towards bringing security and stability not only to Darfur but also our region. The U.S government has been our strong partner in this," army spokeswoman Jill Rutaremara told Reuters. Traveling with Bush has been former Live Aid promoter and Boomtown Rat,
It may not be surprising that the msm hasn't paid much attention to Mr. Bush's superlative record here. What is surprising that the conservative press and blogosphere has reacted with not much more than a shrug, as well. The msm undoubtedly finds that the President's efforts in Africa don't match their template for him on one level (he's an uncaring fascist) and where it does (the President's humanitarianism is inseparable from his deep Christian faith) it turns out that the template itself works against them. Conservatism's neglect may be due to the President's poor pr on the issue or the fact that Africa has appeared to be such a basket case for so long it is hard to recognize true progress when it occurs.
This is all quite unfortunate but the lack of accolades the President has received makes his actions that much more notable. While the President's African policies may not make large headlines today when the history books are written on the Bush years it is likely they may finally get the attention they deserve.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Why I Am A Nazi - A Surprising Confession
I have dreaded this moment for a long time, knowing that someday it would certainly come. But I am worn down, tired of the denials, tired of being defensive, trying to hide. The evidence has been mounting for a long time and I must face the facts and state the truth boldly and admit it to the world: I am a Nazi!
How do I know? Well many powerful and influential sources have been saying it for a long time. I've heard it from virtually any movie that even touched on a political topic or deals with social issues in any way. The liberal blogs tell me daily. I hear it from magazines, college professors and Democrats. I hear it from TV. For a long time I'd see people like me, who believe that the government's role should be far more limited than it is today but who believe that national defense is one of the those things government should be doing and that that defense should be muscular and effective, portrayed as goose-stepping Jew, Black, Gay killers. I've seen those of us who believe that the US has a right to defend its sovereignty, make and enforce laws respecting who gets to come and go, live and work in the US shown as being swastika-tattooed, zeig-heiling murderers. I resisted what the media has been saying about me for so long now but I've grown weary and after watching an episode of CBS's series, Cold Case last night I finally broke down and have accepted the fact that yes, I am a Nazi.
The episode in question, Spiders, revolves around Tamyra Border, an abused seventeen year old girl who we see in flashback because we find out that ten years ago she was murdered and the case has gone cold. She had run away from her abusive father who burned her with cigarettes and beat her. Desperate she falls into the arms of "Spider" Leland who befriends her and takes her home to stay with him, his mother and loner, Elliot Leopold, another apparently lost and sympathetic soul. Once having settled in and starting to feel comfortable with Spider he reveals the reason for his extending Tamyra his and his mother's sympathies: Spider wants to her to join his group which believes that laws should be enforced, the government should be smaller and illegal immigration is bad...just like I do. Oh yeah, he also doesn't believe the Holocaust ever happened and all manner of bad things should happen to Blacks, Gays, Jews, etc. none of which I agree with for even a nano-second but I've learned from years of being told by the media, if you believe in the first group of things, you also believe in the second. By the time Spider took off his top shirt revealing the swastika on the T-shirt underneath I knew what CBS was telling me: I'm a Nazi!
Well as it happens Spider was lucky enough to find an Hispanic woman whose car had broken down. She was, of course a lovely, sweet (we're made to assume) illegal immigrant whose son was hiding in the car, watching as Spider got out of his car and beat her unconscious. He gave Tamyra a gun and told her to shoot the Hispanic woman but Tamyra refused so Spider did it instead. Tamyra was brought back to Spider and Spider's Mom's where she tried to escape and go to the police. As it happens Mom, who is some sort of combination of Nurse Ratchett and the Wicked Witch of the West tells Tamyra that "You're either with us or against us" in killing those danged Hispanics. Well those are the exact same words that Republican President George W. Bush has so famously used. So it is obvious that George W. Bush and the Nazi mom think exactly alike!! And I voted for him! So, I'm a Nazi, too!
Well, I have to admit that I was a little confused here as no president has been more welcoming to illegal aliens than GWB has been. I mean I think that he's been far too lax in enforcing immigration laws, which I guess means I'm an even bigger Nazi than George W. Bush. Also, GWB has done more to prevent AIDS in Africa than any other president and is actually very popular in much of Africa, but still CBS said it so it must be so: he just wants to kill all those Hispanics and Blacks etc.
Nazi-mom also quoted Republican President Teddy Roosevelt, who said, "We can have no "50-50" allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all." Well, there you have it: Nazis just love Republicans and that's because Republicans are just like them. See? I'm a Nazi.
Well, ok it may be true that, as Jonah Goldberg points out in minute detail, in Liberal Fascism, Nazism is really a Left-Wing phenomenon, which was much admired by many people in FDR's administration and that anti-semitism is spreading like wildfire in all the strongholds of socialism in Europe and that it was Democrat, Jimmy Carter who, according to his own Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, was going to "sell Israel down the river" if he'd been reelected, but still: I'm a Nazi.
Oh yeah, as it turned out it was Elliot who turned out to have been Tamyra's murderer; had to kill her to shut her up. It turns out he wasn't so nice after all. In the present it seems he is one of those right-wing college economics professors. They're everywhere, you know.
So there you have it. It is irrefutable and I'm through protesting. I'm a Nazi. I must be. CBS told me so. But you want to know the only solace I have? I think you might just be a Nazi, too.
