So claims Victor Davis Hanson, in a soundly researched and conclusive essay (of the type so rarely found to be written by those favored left-wing intellectuals like Dowd, Krugman, et al..). Some of the highlights:
Americans tend to wish for less government and more personal freedom. They are more religious, aggressive, and acquisitive. Europeans instead prefer statism and an enforced equality of result. Far more of them are irreligious, pacifist, and more interested in leisure than in national progress and personal wealth. Now that they have no fear of the Soviet army, they have little need for us — or so they think.
The shaky European Union is as much driven by anti-Americanism as by pro-Europeanism. Only with unity comes the hope to rebuff the United States effectively. In response, it is far more likely that Americans will envision Germany and France less as friends than as rivals. Since our own European ancestors tamed the frontier in order to craft a nation that would in many ways be an antithesis to their home continent, this is not a big stretch...our past shows frequent antipathy, punctuated several times by violent hostilities: most recently in 1898, 1914, and 1941
Now that the shared purpose of holding back the Russian bear has faded, perhaps these endemic rifts between our relationship/cultures are simply resurfacing, now that it is "safe" for them to come back out. That's OK, obvious demographic trends are strongly in America's favor:
The United States is rapidly becoming a universal nation. Continuing immigration, our democratic society, our ethnic and racial assimilation, our common popular culture, our meritocracy, and shared material dreams have created equal and unified Americans out of nearly all the tribes and races of the globe. Europe, for all its socialist pretenses, is a much more stratified and narrow society, plagued with unassimilated minorities. It is hard to imagine a Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzales, or Condoleezza Rice running the key ministries of France, Italy, or Belgium....For four out of ten Americans today, their physical and spiritual origins have nothing to do with Europe — they are offspring of Asia, Latin America, or Africa. Demographic and immigration realities mean that our ostensible blood link with Europe will continue to thin.
But how about that great European quality of life? Well ,the Europeans themselves put paid to that illusion:
The differences between American and European material wealth are now marked and growing — Americans increasingly enjoy larger homes, more cars, more appliances, cheaper food and energy, more advanced health care, and more disposable income. A recent European visitor to my farm, a member of the professional and affluent class, was stunned when I showed him the new suburban houses and multiple cars of first generation immigrants from Mexico living nearby — in the poorest section of one of the poorest inland counties of rural California. “They seem wealthier than I am!” he exclaimed. In a global sense they really are, even without the subsidized train tickets, day care payments, and a government-guaranteed six-week vacation.
Hanson has a number of steps he believes are prudent to take at this time given the status of American/European relations; some samples would be -
...Withdraw as many American troops from the Continent as is not injurious to the global responsibilities of the United States. That will remind the Europeans that anti- American rhetoric has consequences...
...Allow dissident Europeans to enjoy fast-track immigration to the United States. Welcoming folks from Europe who wish to join the American experience will send a powerful reminder to European elites that there were reasons their own people left their shores in the first place...
...Quietly cultivate friendships with eastern European countries, and encourage stronger relations with countries that have signaled shared interests with the U.S., like Britain, Denmark, Holland, and Italy, all of which have reason to be wary of the French- German axis.
Simply one of the best essays on transcontinental relations I have ever read; please read it all here at The American Enterprise: http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson092705.html
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Control of the Internet, Part II...or, "Where's YOUR Science, Dude?"
It is with much disbelief that some people (primarily international, or "Internationalists") seem to actually think that America should willfully hand over control of the internet simply because the rest of the world says we should do so. I barked about it here http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/10/eu-to-usa-all-your-internet-belong-to.html ; I wanted to add the thoughts of the unnamed ladyblogger posting as Atlas Shrugs:
This is a distinctly American invention. It is ours. We chose to share it with the world. And frankly, it's the last vestige of free speech left. The Fifth Column doesn't like what we are doing? Clearly!...
I think we have tolerated and absorbed enough of the evil that the United Nations and the world community at large has perpetrated on America and free peoples everywhere.
It was one thing when we all believed their ineptitude and ill effects of their action(s) were a result of a naivety and "good will" - as in the road to hell is paved with good intentions ...
The UN on the other [hand] is evil, not "enlightened". We know this. We have empirical evidence.
[here: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2005/10/un_world_body_t.html ]
It is ours. I suggested that if the brilliant "international community" could equal our innovation, or even competently mimic it, by all means they should. But what happens when the international community tries that science thingy? Well, let's look at just today's headlines:
Euro Satellite Said to Break Up in Flight
MOSCOW - A European Space Agency satellite that was to have collected data on polar ice broke up in flight after being launched on a converted ballistic missile, a Russian space agency official said Saturday.
Remnants of the satellite crashed into the ocean, Vyacheslav Davidenko, a spokesman for the Russian Federal Space Agency, told The Associated Press.
The loss of the CryoSat satellite is a major blow to the agency, which had hoped to conduct a three-year mapping of polar sea ice and provide more reliable data for the study of global warming.
[here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051008/ap_on_sc/russia_polar_satellite ]
And to think this is where your "global warming" data is coming from, friends...anyway, agian from today's front pages:
Experimental Russian Spacecraft Missing
MOSCOW - Russian and European teams searched for an experimental mini-spacecraft on the eastern peninsula of Kamchatka on Saturday, a day after the prototype was test-launched from a nuclear submarine thousands of miles away, news reports said
The Demonstrator spacecraft — designed to carry cargo and passengers from the international space station to Earth — was launched from the submarine Borisoglebsk in the Barents Sea on Friday and was reported to have descended toward its target on time.
Russian news agencies and television, however, later reported that engineers had no communication with the craft and had to call off the search at nightfall.
[here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051008/ap_on_sc/russia_spacecraft]
Now, in contrast:
Four Robotic Vehicles Finish Desert Race
PRIMM, Nev. - Four robotic vehicles finished a
Pentagon sponsored race across the Mojave desert Saturday and achieved a technological milestone by conquering steep drop-offs, obstacles and tunnels over a rugged 132-mile course without a single human command
The impossible has been achieved," cried Stanford University's Sebastian Thrun, after the university's customized Volkswagen crossed first. Students cheered, hoisting Thrun atop their shoulders.
Also finishing was a converted red Hummer named H1ghlander and a Humvee called Sandstorm from Carnegie Mellon University. The Stanford robot dubbed Stanley overtook the top-seeded H1ghlander at the 102-mile mark.
"I'm on top of the world," said Carnegie Mellon robotics professor William "Red" Whittaker, who said a mechanical glitch allowed Stanley to pass H1ghlander.
The sentimental favorite, a Ford Escape Hybrid by students in Metarie, La., was the fourth vehicle to finish Saturday. The team lost about a week of practice and some lost their homes when Hurricane Katrina blew into the Gulf Coast.
[here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051009/ap_on_hi_te/robot_race ]
How about that - all done by American amateurs, no less. I understand why the Louisiana team was the sentimental favorite - imagine, rather then claim victim status and whine for government assistance, they simply went ahead and did what they had to do. That's American pluck, boys and girls. In the meantime, remind me again why we must comply with the international community's claims upon our internet technology?
Any Rand claimed (in Atlas Shrugged http://www.atlasshrugged.tv/, ironically) that the desire to appropriate the work of another intelligent mind and bestow it as a "gift to the peoples of the world" was the mentality of an intellectual looter - a type who could not equal the achievements of others, so simply stole their work instead, under the guise of "equality", "global rights" , or the like. In Rand's novels, this intellectual thievery was usually followed by economic disruption and social chaos, as the corrupt wielders of new technologies did not understand the forces they were bringing to bear.
Kinda sound like what the EU/UN are trying to pull off now, right? Rand saw the base evil of it, way back when, and that's why her books and theories still carry so much intellectual heft today. Hands off our internet, you second-raters, and don't come back until you can accomplish something on your own...
UPDATE: An applicable excerpt from Atlas Shrugged - Francisco D'anconia explains how our morality is being corrupted by the rule of "the looter" (substitute the UN, EU, etc...):
...the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide— as, I think, he will.
This is a distinctly American invention. It is ours. We chose to share it with the world. And frankly, it's the last vestige of free speech left. The Fifth Column doesn't like what we are doing? Clearly!...
I think we have tolerated and absorbed enough of the evil that the United Nations and the world community at large has perpetrated on America and free peoples everywhere.
It was one thing when we all believed their ineptitude and ill effects of their action(s) were a result of a naivety and "good will" - as in the road to hell is paved with good intentions ...
The UN on the other [hand] is evil, not "enlightened". We know this. We have empirical evidence.
[here: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2005/10/un_world_body_t.html ]
It is ours. I suggested that if the brilliant "international community" could equal our innovation, or even competently mimic it, by all means they should. But what happens when the international community tries that science thingy? Well, let's look at just today's headlines:
Euro Satellite Said to Break Up in Flight
MOSCOW - A European Space Agency satellite that was to have collected data on polar ice broke up in flight after being launched on a converted ballistic missile, a Russian space agency official said Saturday.
Remnants of the satellite crashed into the ocean, Vyacheslav Davidenko, a spokesman for the Russian Federal Space Agency, told The Associated Press.
The loss of the CryoSat satellite is a major blow to the agency, which had hoped to conduct a three-year mapping of polar sea ice and provide more reliable data for the study of global warming.
[here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051008/ap_on_sc/russia_polar_satellite ]
And to think this is where your "global warming" data is coming from, friends...anyway, agian from today's front pages:
Experimental Russian Spacecraft Missing
MOSCOW - Russian and European teams searched for an experimental mini-spacecraft on the eastern peninsula of Kamchatka on Saturday, a day after the prototype was test-launched from a nuclear submarine thousands of miles away, news reports said
The Demonstrator spacecraft — designed to carry cargo and passengers from the international space station to Earth — was launched from the submarine Borisoglebsk in the Barents Sea on Friday and was reported to have descended toward its target on time.
Russian news agencies and television, however, later reported that engineers had no communication with the craft and had to call off the search at nightfall.
[here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051008/ap_on_sc/russia_spacecraft]
Now, in contrast:
Four Robotic Vehicles Finish Desert Race
PRIMM, Nev. - Four robotic vehicles finished a
Pentagon sponsored race across the Mojave desert Saturday and achieved a technological milestone by conquering steep drop-offs, obstacles and tunnels over a rugged 132-mile course without a single human command
The impossible has been achieved," cried Stanford University's Sebastian Thrun, after the university's customized Volkswagen crossed first. Students cheered, hoisting Thrun atop their shoulders.
Also finishing was a converted red Hummer named H1ghlander and a Humvee called Sandstorm from Carnegie Mellon University. The Stanford robot dubbed Stanley overtook the top-seeded H1ghlander at the 102-mile mark.
"I'm on top of the world," said Carnegie Mellon robotics professor William "Red" Whittaker, who said a mechanical glitch allowed Stanley to pass H1ghlander.
The sentimental favorite, a Ford Escape Hybrid by students in Metarie, La., was the fourth vehicle to finish Saturday. The team lost about a week of practice and some lost their homes when Hurricane Katrina blew into the Gulf Coast.
[here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051009/ap_on_hi_te/robot_race ]
How about that - all done by American amateurs, no less. I understand why the Louisiana team was the sentimental favorite - imagine, rather then claim victim status and whine for government assistance, they simply went ahead and did what they had to do. That's American pluck, boys and girls. In the meantime, remind me again why we must comply with the international community's claims upon our internet technology?
Any Rand claimed (in Atlas Shrugged http://www.atlasshrugged.tv/, ironically) that the desire to appropriate the work of another intelligent mind and bestow it as a "gift to the peoples of the world" was the mentality of an intellectual looter - a type who could not equal the achievements of others, so simply stole their work instead, under the guise of "equality", "global rights" , or the like. In Rand's novels, this intellectual thievery was usually followed by economic disruption and social chaos, as the corrupt wielders of new technologies did not understand the forces they were bringing to bear.
Kinda sound like what the EU/UN are trying to pull off now, right? Rand saw the base evil of it, way back when, and that's why her books and theories still carry so much intellectual heft today. Hands off our internet, you second-raters, and don't come back until you can accomplish something on your own...
UPDATE: An applicable excerpt from Atlas Shrugged - Francisco D'anconia explains how our morality is being corrupted by the rule of "the looter" (substitute the UN, EU, etc...):
...the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide— as, I think, he will.
The Harriet Miers Nomination
OK, even the most casual peruser of this blog knows of my fondness for W. But for the life of me I cannot fathom his selection of Harriet Miers, whom is essentially his personal lawyer, as his nominee for the next Supreme Court justice. It reeks of cronyism at a time when many of Bush's appointees are seeing their credentials for their posts coming under increased scrutiny as a result of the Michael Brown/FEMA mishaps. Even if she was a truly outstanding candidate, this would be the wrong time to pick a loyal associate for such a critical position.
But she is not an outstanding candidate. Bush's choice of Justice Roberts was astute - he was obviously a brilliant legal mind, albiet a conservative one (in the truest sense of the word); and as the American center has tilted towards the right, Roberts was viewed by most Americans as a logical fit on the court. Democrats, for the most part, looked foolish in bashing him.
Miers is but a shadow of the most recent nominee; and will present a much easier target for lefties out to drag Bush down. There is no doubt that many Republicans, sensing this is a weak candidate, will jump on the anti-Miers bandwagon, leading to an overwhelming repudiation of Bush and weakening him while fighting a war (and finally doing it right - see here: http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/10/bush-gets-it-right-finally.html). And the media, of course, will have a field day. How ironic that W. will bring about his long-promised bipartisanship by uniting both parties against him...
While I have always admired Bush's ability to ignore the drone of ill-informed criticism of his policies from the media and the Left, I fear that he may be developing a type of tone-deafness that doomed his father's presidency. Remember the first President Bush's famous vacation snaps, fishing gleefully from his cigarette boat, while the country was mired in recession? It suggested a type of aloofness from the average man - their President did not understand them, was not one of them. Could the blatant loyalty pick of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court be George II's "Cigarette Boat" moment?
Let's hope he wises up and allows this nomination to go to quick defeat (he would never withdraw the nomination, it's not a Bush thing to do, although if things get hot, he might ask her to "fall on the grenade"). There is too much at stake in the world right now to allow this folly to continue on for long...
UPDATE: Dan Drezner links to many more on both sides of the political spectrum with thoughts on the Meirs nomination here http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002351.html ...here's a taste, from Ann Althouse:
I have yet to see a single piece of writing by Harriet Miers dealing with an issue of constitutional law or even anything purporting to demonstrate the analytical, interpretive skills required to serve on the Supreme Court... Can we have something in writing that shows her mind in action, that inspires confidence that this is a person whose judgment we should all trust for the next two decades?
But she is not an outstanding candidate. Bush's choice of Justice Roberts was astute - he was obviously a brilliant legal mind, albiet a conservative one (in the truest sense of the word); and as the American center has tilted towards the right, Roberts was viewed by most Americans as a logical fit on the court. Democrats, for the most part, looked foolish in bashing him.
Miers is but a shadow of the most recent nominee; and will present a much easier target for lefties out to drag Bush down. There is no doubt that many Republicans, sensing this is a weak candidate, will jump on the anti-Miers bandwagon, leading to an overwhelming repudiation of Bush and weakening him while fighting a war (and finally doing it right - see here: http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/10/bush-gets-it-right-finally.html). And the media, of course, will have a field day. How ironic that W. will bring about his long-promised bipartisanship by uniting both parties against him...
While I have always admired Bush's ability to ignore the drone of ill-informed criticism of his policies from the media and the Left, I fear that he may be developing a type of tone-deafness that doomed his father's presidency. Remember the first President Bush's famous vacation snaps, fishing gleefully from his cigarette boat, while the country was mired in recession? It suggested a type of aloofness from the average man - their President did not understand them, was not one of them. Could the blatant loyalty pick of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court be George II's "Cigarette Boat" moment?
Let's hope he wises up and allows this nomination to go to quick defeat (he would never withdraw the nomination, it's not a Bush thing to do, although if things get hot, he might ask her to "fall on the grenade"). There is too much at stake in the world right now to allow this folly to continue on for long...
UPDATE: Dan Drezner links to many more on both sides of the political spectrum with thoughts on the Meirs nomination here http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002351.html ...here's a taste, from Ann Althouse:
I have yet to see a single piece of writing by Harriet Miers dealing with an issue of constitutional law or even anything purporting to demonstrate the analytical, interpretive skills required to serve on the Supreme Court... Can we have something in writing that shows her mind in action, that inspires confidence that this is a person whose judgment we should all trust for the next two decades?
Saturday, October 08, 2005
These colors, they do run...
Courtesy No Parasan! - link here http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2005/10/we-joke-but-perhaps-shouldnt-laugh-too.html
Friday, October 07, 2005
Lies and Racism in the Media
Now that the truth is coming out regarding the media's distortion of the "facts on the ground" in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it begs the question: How many deaths are the media responsible for? How many people changed their course of action after hearing reports of rape, murder, and mayhem in the Superdome, none of which apparently happened? Via Daimnation, we quote the Washington Post:
Five weeks after Hurricane Katrina laid waste to New Orleans, some local, state and federal officials have come to believe that exaggerations of mayhem by officials and rumors repeated uncritically in the news media helped slow the response to the disaster and tarnish the image of many of its victims.
Claims of widespread looting, gunfire directed at helicopters and rescuers, homicides, and rapes, including those of "babies" at the Louisiana Superdome, frequently turned out to be overblown, if not completely untrue, officials now say.
The sensational accounts delayed rescue and evacuation efforts already hampered by poor planning and a lack of coordination among local, state and federal agencies.
Daimian Penny adds the following:
Once again, the parallels to the Jenin "massacre" - in which the media reported the most outrageous rumours and lies, in no small part because they wanted them to be true - are striking.
Good analogy, but I'll go one further - the parallels to the war in Iraq - in which the media potrays all events through the prism of Vietnam, in no small part because they wanted them to be true - are striking.
Will the media be able to "Katrina" Iraq? By reporting only the violent acts staged for them in front of their hotel windows, can reporters create an impression of terror, fear and desperation, resulting in a public backlash against what is in actuality a winning battle?
Additionally, why the racism in the media? Did the idea of looting and mayhen by black Americans seems so plausible to these guys that they reported it uncritically? And why are all disagreements between parties in Iraq expected to lead towards "civil war" - are these Arabs simply unable to control themselves? Or govern themselves? Seems like most reporters are starting out with a base of racial/ethnic preconceptions that belie any notion of fair reporting to begin with...
In my eyes, the more the media's credibility suffers at this point, the better...they need to get their act together - and soon.
Link to Daimnation! here: http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/004975.html
Five weeks after Hurricane Katrina laid waste to New Orleans, some local, state and federal officials have come to believe that exaggerations of mayhem by officials and rumors repeated uncritically in the news media helped slow the response to the disaster and tarnish the image of many of its victims.
Claims of widespread looting, gunfire directed at helicopters and rescuers, homicides, and rapes, including those of "babies" at the Louisiana Superdome, frequently turned out to be overblown, if not completely untrue, officials now say.
The sensational accounts delayed rescue and evacuation efforts already hampered by poor planning and a lack of coordination among local, state and federal agencies.
Daimian Penny adds the following:
Once again, the parallels to the Jenin "massacre" - in which the media reported the most outrageous rumours and lies, in no small part because they wanted them to be true - are striking.
Good analogy, but I'll go one further - the parallels to the war in Iraq - in which the media potrays all events through the prism of Vietnam, in no small part because they wanted them to be true - are striking.
Will the media be able to "Katrina" Iraq? By reporting only the violent acts staged for them in front of their hotel windows, can reporters create an impression of terror, fear and desperation, resulting in a public backlash against what is in actuality a winning battle?
Additionally, why the racism in the media? Did the idea of looting and mayhen by black Americans seems so plausible to these guys that they reported it uncritically? And why are all disagreements between parties in Iraq expected to lead towards "civil war" - are these Arabs simply unable to control themselves? Or govern themselves? Seems like most reporters are starting out with a base of racial/ethnic preconceptions that belie any notion of fair reporting to begin with...
In my eyes, the more the media's credibility suffers at this point, the better...they need to get their act together - and soon.
Link to Daimnation! here: http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/004975.html
Bush Gets it Right - Finally...
"We will never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory," he said in a speech on Washington's war on terrorism...
He better mean it - sometimes I wonder if W. is always cognizant of the responsibilities of fighting a war. Responsibility one is Fight To Win. Hopefully, we'll continue to stay on the offensive in Iraq and act, rather than react.
And, FINALLY, Bush speaks clearly on the aims of our enemy:
Citing recent attacks in London, Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt and Bali, Indonesia, Bush said while the bombings appeared random, they served a clear ideology: "a set of beliefs that are evil but not insane."
He gave a name to the ideology: Islamo-fascism.
Bush used new and more-specific language in characterizing Islamic militants as part of a radical movement much like Soviet-style communism. Rather than dismissing them as terrorist "evildoers" as he once did, he said they have a "clear and coherent ideology" and territorial ambitions.
Bush outlined what he considers a militants' goal as he tried a new approach to convincing Americans of the necessity of the war on terrorism.
"The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region and establish a radical Islamic empire that expands from Spain to Indonesia," he said.
He is right, down to every last word. Had he spoken thusly from the beginning, maybe there would be more support, both locally and globally, for a war in which the very culture of the West is at stake.
He need to continue speaking clearly, truthfully, and loudly to be heard over the rabble of the media, which so dearly wants America to lose this war, so that they may have their own Vietnam to crow about, so they may be able to look down on us and say, "I told you so..."
(al-)Reuters via Yahoo! here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051006/pl_nm/iraq_bush_dc
He better mean it - sometimes I wonder if W. is always cognizant of the responsibilities of fighting a war. Responsibility one is Fight To Win. Hopefully, we'll continue to stay on the offensive in Iraq and act, rather than react.
And, FINALLY, Bush speaks clearly on the aims of our enemy:
Citing recent attacks in London, Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt and Bali, Indonesia, Bush said while the bombings appeared random, they served a clear ideology: "a set of beliefs that are evil but not insane."
He gave a name to the ideology: Islamo-fascism.
Bush used new and more-specific language in characterizing Islamic militants as part of a radical movement much like Soviet-style communism. Rather than dismissing them as terrorist "evildoers" as he once did, he said they have a "clear and coherent ideology" and territorial ambitions.
Bush outlined what he considers a militants' goal as he tried a new approach to convincing Americans of the necessity of the war on terrorism.
"The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region and establish a radical Islamic empire that expands from Spain to Indonesia," he said.
He is right, down to every last word. Had he spoken thusly from the beginning, maybe there would be more support, both locally and globally, for a war in which the very culture of the West is at stake.
He need to continue speaking clearly, truthfully, and loudly to be heard over the rabble of the media, which so dearly wants America to lose this war, so that they may have their own Vietnam to crow about, so they may be able to look down on us and say, "I told you so..."
(al-)Reuters via Yahoo! here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051006/pl_nm/iraq_bush_dc
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Britian Bows Down to their Muslim Masters!
The once "Great" Britian is now willingly subserving themselves to Islam...Mark Steyn talks about how the Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (a liberal bastion), has banned Winnie the Pooh's pal Piglet because his mere existence may offend Muslims:
...as we know, Muslims regard pigs as "unclean", even an anthropomorphised cartoon pig wearing a scarf and a bright, colourful singlet.
Cllr Mahbubur Rahman is in favour of the blanket pig crackdown. "It is a good thing, it is a tolerance and acceptance of their beliefs and understanding," he said. That's all, folks, as Porky Pig used to stammer at the end of Looney Tunes. Just a little helpful proscription in the interests of tolerance and acceptance.
How about a little tolerance of someone else's belief, my Muslim friend? Or are yours the only feelings that matter? Would you deny the whole world the adventures of Christopher Robin because the existence of a pig may offend you? I guess you would...
...these little news items that pop up every week now are significant mostly as a gauge of the progressive liberal's urge to self-abase and Western Muslims' ever greater boldness in flexing their political muscle.
Well put. That's why we must avoid like the plauge any politicians whom proudly flaunt the title of "progressive", for this is the world they wish to lead us towards...
Is it really a victory for "tolerance" to say that a council worker cannot have a Piglet coffee mug on her desk? And isn't an ability to turn a blind eye to animated piglets the very least the West is entitled to expect from its Muslim citizens? If Islam cannot "co-exist" even with Pooh or the abstract swirl on a Burger King ice-cream, how likely is it that it can co-exist with the more basic principles of a pluralist society?
Tha's the point - Islamists do not believe in a pluralistic society, and those whom believe there is a compromise position with them are sadly deluded...
But at some point Britons have to ask themselves - while they're still permitted to discuss the question more or less freely - how much of their country they're willing to lose.
Don't worry, aren't they passing a law to prevent this very type of discussion right now in England under a "hate-crimes" statute? With this type of thinking, the last days of the West really may be upon us...
Need more proof? Now the question is, should Britian change their national flag because it may remind some of the Crusaders of the 12th century? I kid you not; after all, some Muslim prisoners took offense at their guards sporting the Union Jack:
Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, said Tuesday the red cross was an insensitive reminder of the Crusades.
"A lot of Muslims and Arabs view the Crusades as a bloody episode in our history," he told CNN. "They see those campaigns as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.
"Muslim or Arab prisoners could take umbrage if staff wore a red cross badge. It's also got associations with the far-right. Prison officers should be seen to be neutral."
Doyle added that it was now time for England to find a new flag and a patron saint who is "not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with."
How fast will Britian cave? And is the government's policy of dhimmitude in line with the thoughts of the average Brit? Could they have changed so much in the last half-century?
Link to Steyn via LGF: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17757_Steyn-_In_a_Pigs_Ear&only
Link to flag story here at CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/04/britain.redcross/index.html
...as we know, Muslims regard pigs as "unclean", even an anthropomorphised cartoon pig wearing a scarf and a bright, colourful singlet.
Cllr Mahbubur Rahman is in favour of the blanket pig crackdown. "It is a good thing, it is a tolerance and acceptance of their beliefs and understanding," he said. That's all, folks, as Porky Pig used to stammer at the end of Looney Tunes. Just a little helpful proscription in the interests of tolerance and acceptance.
How about a little tolerance of someone else's belief, my Muslim friend? Or are yours the only feelings that matter? Would you deny the whole world the adventures of Christopher Robin because the existence of a pig may offend you? I guess you would...
...these little news items that pop up every week now are significant mostly as a gauge of the progressive liberal's urge to self-abase and Western Muslims' ever greater boldness in flexing their political muscle.
Well put. That's why we must avoid like the plauge any politicians whom proudly flaunt the title of "progressive", for this is the world they wish to lead us towards...
Is it really a victory for "tolerance" to say that a council worker cannot have a Piglet coffee mug on her desk? And isn't an ability to turn a blind eye to animated piglets the very least the West is entitled to expect from its Muslim citizens? If Islam cannot "co-exist" even with Pooh or the abstract swirl on a Burger King ice-cream, how likely is it that it can co-exist with the more basic principles of a pluralist society?
Tha's the point - Islamists do not believe in a pluralistic society, and those whom believe there is a compromise position with them are sadly deluded...
But at some point Britons have to ask themselves - while they're still permitted to discuss the question more or less freely - how much of their country they're willing to lose.
Don't worry, aren't they passing a law to prevent this very type of discussion right now in England under a "hate-crimes" statute? With this type of thinking, the last days of the West really may be upon us...
Need more proof? Now the question is, should Britian change their national flag because it may remind some of the Crusaders of the 12th century? I kid you not; after all, some Muslim prisoners took offense at their guards sporting the Union Jack:
Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, said Tuesday the red cross was an insensitive reminder of the Crusades.
"A lot of Muslims and Arabs view the Crusades as a bloody episode in our history," he told CNN. "They see those campaigns as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.
"Muslim or Arab prisoners could take umbrage if staff wore a red cross badge. It's also got associations with the far-right. Prison officers should be seen to be neutral."
Doyle added that it was now time for England to find a new flag and a patron saint who is "not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with."
How fast will Britian cave? And is the government's policy of dhimmitude in line with the thoughts of the average Brit? Could they have changed so much in the last half-century?
Link to Steyn via LGF: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17757_Steyn-_In_a_Pigs_Ear&only
Link to flag story here at CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/04/britain.redcross/index.html
EU to USA: All your Internet belong to us!
From Reuters (sigh, again...):
UN agency says would be ready to run Internet
The United Nations' International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is ready to take over governance of the Internet from the United States, ITU head Yoshio Utsumi said on Friday.
The United States has clashed with the European Union and much of the rest of the world over the future of the Internet. It currently manages the global information system through a partnership with California-based company ICANN
OK, let's pause here for a second...The United States has clashed with the European Union and much of the rest of the world over the future of the Internet ???? Since when? In all that has been written about American policy clashes with the EU, and the rest of the world, very little ink has been spilled on the "clash" over the Internet. Clash? Says who? What are the details of the clash? None are forthcoming from the hardworking reporters at Reuters...
"We could do it if we were asked to," Utsumi told a news conference. The U.N. agency's experience in communications, its structure and its cooperation with private and public bodies made it best-placed to take on the role, he said.
Now let me be clear on this...there is NO U.N. agency that is best-placed to take on ANY role - that includes peacekeeping (see Darfur), emergency relief (see tsunami), refugees (see the Palestinian camps), or human rights (see UN Human Rights council, chaired by Sudan!). Give them control of the internet? Yeah, in their wet dreams...
Washington has made clear it would oppose any such move despite widespread demands for changes in the current system.
WIDESPREAD DEMANDS FROM WHOM??? Again, no references are drawn upon in this article from Bizarro World (aka Reuters). Question - would the average world citizen rather have the US control the internet, or the EU? Trust me, they would take Uncle Sam over Jacque "Le Grande Pulet" Chirac any time...
The issue could sour the Tunis meeting from November 16-18.
(Typical UN/EU genius at work - hold an internet convention in a country with no access...)
The EU says it is proposing a new "cooperative model" to run the Internet and the way addresses - or domain names -- are assigned that everyone could support.
But (State Department official David) Gross, speaking to reporters on Thursday, described the plan as a "shocking and profound change" of the EU's earlier stance that opened the way for control by governments -- some of whom already censor what their citizens can read on the Net.
EU spokesman David Hendon described this as "misrepresentation."
A "cooperative model" is translated here as full government control of internet content; "misrepresentation" here is defined as the truth, just put into terms too clear for the EU's comfort (they prefer the phrase "cooperative mode", you see).
Now, finally, some honesty:
Although many EU nations were happy with what ICANN is doing, many countries "just cannot accept that the Americans have control of the Internet in their countries," he (Hendon) told Reuters, and this had to be recognized.
The EU proposal would bring the Internet and ICANN under international law rather than U.S. law.
Sure, why not? Americans invented the internet, developed it into a worldwide tool of communication and commerce, yet we should turn it over to "international law" (the EU and the UN, in other words) because obviously we cannot be trusted to control it. Kinda like what they have been trying to do to the United States military for the last decade or so...
Well, the EU had better accept that the Americans control the internet. But if they don't, options are available:
- develop your own improved sytem, and implement it (bwahahahahaha!!!!!)
- don't use the internet at all, as a protest against American intellectual imperialism!
But don't even dream (and that includes you, al-Reuters!) that we are just going to hand it over on your say-so. Gosh, these international intellectaul elites really don't have a clue about Americans, do they?
Link to this nonsense here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050930/wr_nm/internet_dc
UN agency says would be ready to run Internet
The United Nations' International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is ready to take over governance of the Internet from the United States, ITU head Yoshio Utsumi said on Friday.
The United States has clashed with the European Union and much of the rest of the world over the future of the Internet. It currently manages the global information system through a partnership with California-based company ICANN
OK, let's pause here for a second...The United States has clashed with the European Union and much of the rest of the world over the future of the Internet ???? Since when? In all that has been written about American policy clashes with the EU, and the rest of the world, very little ink has been spilled on the "clash" over the Internet. Clash? Says who? What are the details of the clash? None are forthcoming from the hardworking reporters at Reuters...
"We could do it if we were asked to," Utsumi told a news conference. The U.N. agency's experience in communications, its structure and its cooperation with private and public bodies made it best-placed to take on the role, he said.
Now let me be clear on this...there is NO U.N. agency that is best-placed to take on ANY role - that includes peacekeeping (see Darfur), emergency relief (see tsunami), refugees (see the Palestinian camps), or human rights (see UN Human Rights council, chaired by Sudan!). Give them control of the internet? Yeah, in their wet dreams...
Washington has made clear it would oppose any such move despite widespread demands for changes in the current system.
WIDESPREAD DEMANDS FROM WHOM??? Again, no references are drawn upon in this article from Bizarro World (aka Reuters). Question - would the average world citizen rather have the US control the internet, or the EU? Trust me, they would take Uncle Sam over Jacque "Le Grande Pulet" Chirac any time...
The issue could sour the Tunis meeting from November 16-18.
(Typical UN/EU genius at work - hold an internet convention in a country with no access...)
The EU says it is proposing a new "cooperative model" to run the Internet and the way addresses - or domain names -- are assigned that everyone could support.
But (State Department official David) Gross, speaking to reporters on Thursday, described the plan as a "shocking and profound change" of the EU's earlier stance that opened the way for control by governments -- some of whom already censor what their citizens can read on the Net.
EU spokesman David Hendon described this as "misrepresentation."
A "cooperative model" is translated here as full government control of internet content; "misrepresentation" here is defined as the truth, just put into terms too clear for the EU's comfort (they prefer the phrase "cooperative mode", you see).
Now, finally, some honesty:
Although many EU nations were happy with what ICANN is doing, many countries "just cannot accept that the Americans have control of the Internet in their countries," he (Hendon) told Reuters, and this had to be recognized.
The EU proposal would bring the Internet and ICANN under international law rather than U.S. law.
Sure, why not? Americans invented the internet, developed it into a worldwide tool of communication and commerce, yet we should turn it over to "international law" (the EU and the UN, in other words) because obviously we cannot be trusted to control it. Kinda like what they have been trying to do to the United States military for the last decade or so...
Well, the EU had better accept that the Americans control the internet. But if they don't, options are available:
- develop your own improved sytem, and implement it (bwahahahahaha!!!!!)
- don't use the internet at all, as a protest against American intellectual imperialism!
But don't even dream (and that includes you, al-Reuters!) that we are just going to hand it over on your say-so. Gosh, these international intellectaul elites really don't have a clue about Americans, do they?
Link to this nonsense here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050930/wr_nm/internet_dc
Monday, October 03, 2005
Germans Fire up the Ovens, again...
Rosh Hashanah eve in America; the eve of a new Kristallnacht in Germany? David Medienkritik reports on the new cinematic fave in his homeland, "Paradise Now":
Said is a suicide bomber in Nablus. Long trained for this job, he and his friend Khaled don't hesitate a moment when their organization's leader announces they've drawn the winning straw and will be allowed to stage a double mass murder the next day in TelAviv...although Khled gets cold feet at the last moment, Said goes through with it and blows himself up with a bus load of jews. Mission accomplished. So much for the plot of the German-Dutch-French co-produciton "Paradise Now".
Hany Abu-Assad's film is the first fruit of the "World Cinema Fund", the mutual film sponsorship of the Berlinale and Federal Cultural Foundation.
The evangelical film jury names "Paradise Now" as the film of the month because it invites the viewer to "think about the assasin's motives".
Amnesty International distinguishes it with its peace prize because it's neither "lecturing nor moralizing".
That's true: No one in the film says that it might morally wrong, to mass murder the innocent.
Most German critics praise the "sophisticated" presentation.
Mmmm, the deep thought processes that go into slaughtering Jews - hey, it's just art, man! The Europeans still speak the same anti-semetic language they always did, just in a different code...whether it's using the phrase "Filthy Zionists", or depicting the mass murder of Jews as an avant-garde theatrical event...it is all done with the EU's blessing, and cash. And showing to rave reviews in Germany, natch.
Thankfully, I have the media to remind me that as an American, I am the truly evil one...
Link to Medienkritik here: http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2005/10/no_to_paradise_.html
Said is a suicide bomber in Nablus. Long trained for this job, he and his friend Khaled don't hesitate a moment when their organization's leader announces they've drawn the winning straw and will be allowed to stage a double mass murder the next day in TelAviv...although Khled gets cold feet at the last moment, Said goes through with it and blows himself up with a bus load of jews. Mission accomplished. So much for the plot of the German-Dutch-French co-produciton "Paradise Now".
Hany Abu-Assad's film is the first fruit of the "World Cinema Fund", the mutual film sponsorship of the Berlinale and Federal Cultural Foundation.
The evangelical film jury names "Paradise Now" as the film of the month because it invites the viewer to "think about the assasin's motives".
Amnesty International distinguishes it with its peace prize because it's neither "lecturing nor moralizing".
That's true: No one in the film says that it might morally wrong, to mass murder the innocent.
Most German critics praise the "sophisticated" presentation.
Mmmm, the deep thought processes that go into slaughtering Jews - hey, it's just art, man! The Europeans still speak the same anti-semetic language they always did, just in a different code...whether it's using the phrase "Filthy Zionists", or depicting the mass murder of Jews as an avant-garde theatrical event...it is all done with the EU's blessing, and cash. And showing to rave reviews in Germany, natch.
Thankfully, I have the media to remind me that as an American, I am the truly evil one...
Link to Medienkritik here: http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2005/10/no_to_paradise_.html
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Brought to you by the Religion of Peace!
Reuters-
Suicide bombers were behind the three attacks in Bali which killed as many as 26 people and wounded 122, the island's police chief said on Sunday...Three separate bombs tore through restaurants packed with Saturday evening diners, many of them foreign tourists. Two were at outdoor seafood eateries on Jimbaran Beach and one at a steak bar at Kuta Beach, an area surrounded by popular shops.
Now Cliff May, writing on NRO's blog The Corner:
The al-Qaeda affiliate, Jemaah Islamiyah, is suspected. You’ll recall that JI also attacked predominately Hindu Bali (part of predominately Muslim Indonesia) three years ago.
Since the 2002 attacks, Jemaah Islamiyah has been tied to at least two other bombings in Indonesia, both in Jakarta. Those blasts, one outside the Australian Embassy in 2004 and the other at the J.W. Marriott hotel in 2003, killed at least 23. …The group wants to establish an Islamic state across Southeast Asia.
But maybe Indonesians should ask themselves: “Why do they hate us?”
Maybe they should change their foreign policies.
Maybe they need better public diplomacy to win hearts and minds.
Or maybe those on the post-humanitarian Left and the neo-isolationist right need to think about what attacks such as this one tell us about the goals of Militant Islamism.
Where are the humanity-loving peace protesters now? What does their silence in the face of these attacks tell us about the true goals of the so-called "antiwar movement" , and of America's radical left?
The Corner link: http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_09_25_corner-archive.asp#078197
Before anyone uses the phrase "the religion of peace" again, I would click here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Suicide bombers were behind the three attacks in Bali which killed as many as 26 people and wounded 122, the island's police chief said on Sunday...Three separate bombs tore through restaurants packed with Saturday evening diners, many of them foreign tourists. Two were at outdoor seafood eateries on Jimbaran Beach and one at a steak bar at Kuta Beach, an area surrounded by popular shops.
Now Cliff May, writing on NRO's blog The Corner:
The al-Qaeda affiliate, Jemaah Islamiyah, is suspected. You’ll recall that JI also attacked predominately Hindu Bali (part of predominately Muslim Indonesia) three years ago.
Since the 2002 attacks, Jemaah Islamiyah has been tied to at least two other bombings in Indonesia, both in Jakarta. Those blasts, one outside the Australian Embassy in 2004 and the other at the J.W. Marriott hotel in 2003, killed at least 23. …The group wants to establish an Islamic state across Southeast Asia.
But maybe Indonesians should ask themselves: “Why do they hate us?”
Maybe they should change their foreign policies.
Maybe they need better public diplomacy to win hearts and minds.
Or maybe those on the post-humanitarian Left and the neo-isolationist right need to think about what attacks such as this one tell us about the goals of Militant Islamism.
Where are the humanity-loving peace protesters now? What does their silence in the face of these attacks tell us about the true goals of the so-called "antiwar movement" , and of America's radical left?
The Corner link: http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_09_25_corner-archive.asp#078197
Before anyone uses the phrase "the religion of peace" again, I would click here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
"Anatomy of a Photograph"
Can one photograph, and the story behind it, display beyond a shadow of a doubt the truth of a hard left-wing bias in the American media?
Better believe it.
Please, follow the link here to ZombieTime http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/anatomy_of_a_photograph/
This is scary. Leads one to believe how much of anything we see/read is real...and perhaps a picture is no longer worth 1,000 words. You can thank our mainstream media for the devaluation...
Better believe it.
Please, follow the link here to ZombieTime http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/anatomy_of_a_photograph/
This is scary. Leads one to believe how much of anything we see/read is real...and perhaps a picture is no longer worth 1,000 words. You can thank our mainstream media for the devaluation...
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Air America goes buh-bye in Philadelphia!
Via The Radio Equalizer:
Al Franken and Randi Rhodes are getting the boot from Philadelphia airwaves, as WHAT-AM (1340) is pulling off programming from Air America, the liberal talk-radio network. Friday will be the last day, and a new WHAT lineup will begin Monday, said general manager Kernie Anderson, adding that "things were not working out" with Air America after about a year.
WHAT aired Air America's programming from noon to 7 p.m. weekdays, sandwiched between the rest of its lineup. The juxtaposition of liberal talk and WHAT's African America-targeted talk programming seemed an odd fit from the start.
Ratings were abysmal.
And yet they tell me that Philadelphia is a liberal city; or maybe it just appears to be so because the ballot boxes already come pre-stuffed. This sleazy network, which fraudulantly heisted funds from a freakin' charity group to stay afloat, is going down, fast. It's all part of a conservative plot, I'm sure...
Link here: http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2005/09/more-thursday-updates.html
Al Franken and Randi Rhodes are getting the boot from Philadelphia airwaves, as WHAT-AM (1340) is pulling off programming from Air America, the liberal talk-radio network. Friday will be the last day, and a new WHAT lineup will begin Monday, said general manager Kernie Anderson, adding that "things were not working out" with Air America after about a year.
WHAT aired Air America's programming from noon to 7 p.m. weekdays, sandwiched between the rest of its lineup. The juxtaposition of liberal talk and WHAT's African America-targeted talk programming seemed an odd fit from the start.
Ratings were abysmal.
And yet they tell me that Philadelphia is a liberal city; or maybe it just appears to be so because the ballot boxes already come pre-stuffed. This sleazy network, which fraudulantly heisted funds from a freakin' charity group to stay afloat, is going down, fast. It's all part of a conservative plot, I'm sure...
Link here: http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2005/09/more-thursday-updates.html
I'll indulge myself with one more potshot at Mother Sheehan, thank you. Actually, I'll let Charles Krauthammer do it (and it's not a potshot):
The antiwar movement has found itself ill-served by endowing absolute moral authority on a political radical who demanded that American troops leave not just Iraq but "occupied New Orleans." Who blames Israel for her son's death. Who complained that the news media went "100% Rita" - "a little wind and a little rain" - rather than covering other things in the world, meaning her.
Most tellingly, Sheehan demands withdrawal not just from Iraq, but from Afghanistan, a war not only just by every possible measure, but also remarkably successful.
Is this a case of the anti-war movement being fooled by the media into embracing her as a leader? After all, the papers gave Sheehan "absolute moral authority" (and absolute adoring coverage), and then the various left wing factions coalesced around her. Ah, it doesn't matter, the "movement" would have found one of her ilk to lead them even if the media didn't create her for them.
Krauthammer concludes with a point made here often before:
... The only choices are to succeed in establishing a self-sufficient, democratic Iraq or to call an abject retreat that not only gives Iraq over to the tender mercies of people who specialize in blowing up innocents, but makes it a base of operations for worldwide jihad.
The very fact that Cindy Sheehan and her WWP comrades are so enthusiastic for the latter outcome tells you how difficult it will be to turn widespread discontent about the war into a mainstream antiwar movement.
It'll fizzle like all those other liberal/media fantasies; the left will wake up again, groggily, in post-election 2006, and wonder how they could be even futher in the minority. Wanna start guessing what election-stealing conspiracy theories they'll come up with then?
Krauthammer column here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/350940p-299318c.html
The antiwar movement has found itself ill-served by endowing absolute moral authority on a political radical who demanded that American troops leave not just Iraq but "occupied New Orleans." Who blames Israel for her son's death. Who complained that the news media went "100% Rita" - "a little wind and a little rain" - rather than covering other things in the world, meaning her.
Most tellingly, Sheehan demands withdrawal not just from Iraq, but from Afghanistan, a war not only just by every possible measure, but also remarkably successful.
Is this a case of the anti-war movement being fooled by the media into embracing her as a leader? After all, the papers gave Sheehan "absolute moral authority" (and absolute adoring coverage), and then the various left wing factions coalesced around her. Ah, it doesn't matter, the "movement" would have found one of her ilk to lead them even if the media didn't create her for them.
Krauthammer concludes with a point made here often before:
... The only choices are to succeed in establishing a self-sufficient, democratic Iraq or to call an abject retreat that not only gives Iraq over to the tender mercies of people who specialize in blowing up innocents, but makes it a base of operations for worldwide jihad.
The very fact that Cindy Sheehan and her WWP comrades are so enthusiastic for the latter outcome tells you how difficult it will be to turn widespread discontent about the war into a mainstream antiwar movement.
It'll fizzle like all those other liberal/media fantasies; the left will wake up again, groggily, in post-election 2006, and wonder how they could be even futher in the minority. Wanna start guessing what election-stealing conspiracy theories they'll come up with then?
Krauthammer column here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/350940p-299318c.html
Thursday, September 29, 2005
A Times-bashing, fun-filled, free-for-all !
Liberal spitrag. Remember how they claimed that vile bilgerat Mother Sheehan had "the absolute moral standing" to define the war on terror and America's place in it? She's a saint, because she's a Bush-bashing anti-American liberal. However, if you lost a loved one on 9/11, and you oppose a "Freedom Center" that trivializes their deaths, the Times describes you thusly:
Yesterday, the Freedom Center submitted a report that specified in greater detail how it would be run and what it hoped to present in the way of programming. This became necessary when Gov. George Pataki capitulated to a misguided outcry from critics who fear that the center's main task will be to present anti-American views of 9/11.
But since late June the Freedom Center has been caught up in a vitriolic protest called the Take Back the Memorial movement, whose leaders claim for themselves the right of deciding for the rest of us what we should know and think about 9/11.
No, because the Times has decided that only Cindy Sheehan has the right of deciding for the rest of us what we should know and think about 9/11. All others are misguided, vitriolic, and full of fear. But this editorial is dated 9/23; and today we read that:
Plans to build a freedom museum at the World Trade Center site were effectively scrapped on Wednesday as Gov. George Pataki gave in to pressure from vocal families of September 11 victims, saying the project had aroused "too much opposition, too much controversy."
Thanks for the nasty "gave in to pressure" editorial bias, Reuters. Who cares - you and you America-hating ilk at the New York Times have lost; common sense and human decency have won.
Not that the Times doesn't keep trying. Look at this doozy of a correction today:
Libel Memorandum Attributed Falsely to Court Nominee
Judge John G. Roberts Jr., nominated to be chief justice of the United States, was not the author of an unsigned memorandum on libel law that was the focus of an article published in The New York Times yesterday. The Times erroneously attributed it to him.
So they wrote a whole Roberts-bashing article, based on a memo that he didn't even write? How the heck do heads not roll for this malfeasance? Maybe because the Slimes is a left-wing propaganda organ, and the author was simply doing his master's bidding? Or, like the Bush National Guard Memos, if the Times really, desperately, want something to be true, they ignore basics like, oh, the facts????
Link here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/28/politics/politicsspecial/28libel.html?ex=1285560000&en=4b5a04215d231458&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
And why does the Times hate poor people so much? From Instapundit:
...Mickey Kaus wonders why the New York Times hates poor people: "TimeSelect--and with it Web access to columnists such as Paul Krugman--is unavailable to those too poor to have credit cards. . . . News of the NYT policy comes at a time when Hurricane Katrina has raised profound issues of race, class, and gender." Heh.
TimesSelect will backfire; by taking their ultra-liberal columnist out of public discourse; they will have no effect on the debates of the day; they will simply be barking in an echo chamber. Works for me...
And that's today's Times slapdown. A dirty job, but...
Link to Kaus via Instapundit here: http://instapundit.com/archives/025856.php
Times editorial link from 9/23 here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/23/opinion/23fri3.html?ex=1128571200&en=9dc3ed994e8a3359&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Yesterday, the Freedom Center submitted a report that specified in greater detail how it would be run and what it hoped to present in the way of programming. This became necessary when Gov. George Pataki capitulated to a misguided outcry from critics who fear that the center's main task will be to present anti-American views of 9/11.
But since late June the Freedom Center has been caught up in a vitriolic protest called the Take Back the Memorial movement, whose leaders claim for themselves the right of deciding for the rest of us what we should know and think about 9/11.
No, because the Times has decided that only Cindy Sheehan has the right of deciding for the rest of us what we should know and think about 9/11. All others are misguided, vitriolic, and full of fear. But this editorial is dated 9/23; and today we read that:
Plans to build a freedom museum at the World Trade Center site were effectively scrapped on Wednesday as Gov. George Pataki gave in to pressure from vocal families of September 11 victims, saying the project had aroused "too much opposition, too much controversy."
Thanks for the nasty "gave in to pressure" editorial bias, Reuters. Who cares - you and you America-hating ilk at the New York Times have lost; common sense and human decency have won.
Not that the Times doesn't keep trying. Look at this doozy of a correction today:
Libel Memorandum Attributed Falsely to Court Nominee
Judge John G. Roberts Jr., nominated to be chief justice of the United States, was not the author of an unsigned memorandum on libel law that was the focus of an article published in The New York Times yesterday. The Times erroneously attributed it to him.
So they wrote a whole Roberts-bashing article, based on a memo that he didn't even write? How the heck do heads not roll for this malfeasance? Maybe because the Slimes is a left-wing propaganda organ, and the author was simply doing his master's bidding? Or, like the Bush National Guard Memos, if the Times really, desperately, want something to be true, they ignore basics like, oh, the facts????
Link here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/28/politics/politicsspecial/28libel.html?ex=1285560000&en=4b5a04215d231458&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
And why does the Times hate poor people so much? From Instapundit:
...Mickey Kaus wonders why the New York Times hates poor people: "TimeSelect--and with it Web access to columnists such as Paul Krugman--is unavailable to those too poor to have credit cards. . . . News of the NYT policy comes at a time when Hurricane Katrina has raised profound issues of race, class, and gender." Heh.
TimesSelect will backfire; by taking their ultra-liberal columnist out of public discourse; they will have no effect on the debates of the day; they will simply be barking in an echo chamber. Works for me...
And that's today's Times slapdown. A dirty job, but...
Link to Kaus via Instapundit here: http://instapundit.com/archives/025856.php
Times editorial link from 9/23 here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/23/opinion/23fri3.html?ex=1128571200&en=9dc3ed994e8a3359&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Here, according to the mainstream media, is the quintessential anti-war protester, the one whom would finally put some legs into the movemen, the lass with irrefutable moral credentials...ladies and gentleman, Miss Cindy Sheehan!
Charming, isn't she?
Ed Koch call it as we see it:
Many Americans, myself included, now see her as a person who has come to enjoy the celebratory status accorded to her by the radicals on the extreme left who see America as the outlaw of the world. These radicals are not content to be constructive critics. They are bent on destroying this country.
Some of them want to turn America into a radical socialist state. Others hope to create a utopia. But regardless of their agendas, how can Cindy Sheehan's supporters defend her shameful statement, “This country is not worth dying for.” ?
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Link here: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/front2453641.234027778.html
Those Brave Anti-War Protesters
100,000 protestors, out of a country exceeding 270 million, show up in DC to protest...everything. Charles Krauthammer, as always, pounds this nail:
Were we able to psychologically profile the demonstrators, we'd find that most of them have a great deal in common: Disappointing lives, failed relationships and the desperate need for a cause of any kind. If we weren't at war, they'd be marching to save pinworms from drug-company aggression.
Of course, opposing a war involving American troops is the best cause of all. Our country has disappointed the protesters intimately — failing to hand them, free and clear, the lives to which they feel themselves entitled. So forget that our troops are re-enlisting at record rates and willingly risking their lives in a war they believe in. The self-satisfying cry of the demonstrators is "Bring Our Troops Home Now!"
It would be far easier to be sympathetic if a single spokesperson for the media-amplified anti-war movement laid out a convincing model of what would happen in Iraq or Afghanistan if our troops just came home.
There's a good reason for that; it would expose their fellow-man-loving hypocracy:
The protesters get their wish, our troops leave and a bloodbath erupts, drawing in Turkey, Syria and Iran? Just reach for a glass of sauvignon blanc and speed-dial a like-minded pal for reassurance. Genocide isn't your fault, girlfriend. You did what you felt was right, don't be so hard on yourself.
No consequences. At least not for us.
That's the moral shallowness of the anti-war left; they ape their Vietnam-era forefathers but do not have the excuse of not knowing the consequences of their actions. These are the people they are asking the United States to lead Iraq to:
BAGHDAD - Insurgents disguised as police dragged five Shiite Muslim schoolteachers and their driver into a classroom, lined them against a wall and gunned them down yesterday - the latest escalation of sectarian killings ahead of Iraq's crucial constitutional referendum
These are your heroic insurgents the left champions as the holders of the moral high ground in Iraq. These are the freedom fighters lionized by the anti-war movement; Michael Moore's latter-day Minuteman.
The next time you see an anti-war rally, think not of what they are protesting against, but whom they are actually supporting - and why.
"An 'appeaser' is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
Winston Churchill
Krauthammer here: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/54105.htm
Insurgents here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/350155p-298722c.html
Were we able to psychologically profile the demonstrators, we'd find that most of them have a great deal in common: Disappointing lives, failed relationships and the desperate need for a cause of any kind. If we weren't at war, they'd be marching to save pinworms from drug-company aggression.
Of course, opposing a war involving American troops is the best cause of all. Our country has disappointed the protesters intimately — failing to hand them, free and clear, the lives to which they feel themselves entitled. So forget that our troops are re-enlisting at record rates and willingly risking their lives in a war they believe in. The self-satisfying cry of the demonstrators is "Bring Our Troops Home Now!"
It would be far easier to be sympathetic if a single spokesperson for the media-amplified anti-war movement laid out a convincing model of what would happen in Iraq or Afghanistan if our troops just came home.
There's a good reason for that; it would expose their fellow-man-loving hypocracy:
The protesters get their wish, our troops leave and a bloodbath erupts, drawing in Turkey, Syria and Iran? Just reach for a glass of sauvignon blanc and speed-dial a like-minded pal for reassurance. Genocide isn't your fault, girlfriend. You did what you felt was right, don't be so hard on yourself.
No consequences. At least not for us.
That's the moral shallowness of the anti-war left; they ape their Vietnam-era forefathers but do not have the excuse of not knowing the consequences of their actions. These are the people they are asking the United States to lead Iraq to:
BAGHDAD - Insurgents disguised as police dragged five Shiite Muslim schoolteachers and their driver into a classroom, lined them against a wall and gunned them down yesterday - the latest escalation of sectarian killings ahead of Iraq's crucial constitutional referendum
These are your heroic insurgents the left champions as the holders of the moral high ground in Iraq. These are the freedom fighters lionized by the anti-war movement; Michael Moore's latter-day Minuteman.
The next time you see an anti-war rally, think not of what they are protesting against, but whom they are actually supporting - and why.
"An 'appeaser' is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
Winston Churchill
Krauthammer here: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/54105.htm
Insurgents here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/350155p-298722c.html
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
"Gun Nuts", every last one!
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
Sigmund Freud
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which has proven to be always possible."
Senator Hubert H. Humphrey
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, 1941
"........he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
-and-
"When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace."
Jesus Christ, Luke 22:36 and Luke 11:21, respectively.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of it's arms as the blackest."
Mahatma Ghandi, 1927
Wait! Found a guy who is pro-gun-control:
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
Adolph Hitler, 1935
From a Montana gunsmith; it's pure Americana...link here: http://www.ycsi.net/users/gunsmith/quotes.htm
Sigmund Freud
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which has proven to be always possible."
Senator Hubert H. Humphrey
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, 1941
"........he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
-and-
"When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace."
Jesus Christ, Luke 22:36 and Luke 11:21, respectively.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of it's arms as the blackest."
Mahatma Ghandi, 1927
Wait! Found a guy who is pro-gun-control:
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
Adolph Hitler, 1935
From a Montana gunsmith; it's pure Americana...link here: http://www.ycsi.net/users/gunsmith/quotes.htm
Sunday, September 25, 2005
A Manhattan Wedding Story!
So, I attend a wedding in Manhattan on Saturday night, held in a beautiful 14th story restaurant, virtually encased in glass, overseeing the 59th Street Bridge and the East River. The bride is a dear friend of mine; a woman whom I have known for many years, and whose career path put her in the same company as mine, with the same job as mine, sitting right next to me for almost three years. “LeftyBride”, as we’ll call her, held diametrically opposed political viewpoints to mine, and we sparred daily, with facts, suppositions, and emailed articles. But our discussions usually ended with a concession on one side or the other, or more usually, uproarious laughter (because Leftybride is so damn funny!).
When she moved on to a new job, LeftyBride spoke of me often, and as I was to learn, also spoke of our animated political discussions. Sitting next to me at the affair was her new boss, also a Jersey guy, and a man whom I have great respect for. He launched the first salvo:
“So, JerseyNut, how can a smart, intelligent, nice guy like yourself really be a Republican?”
Speaking as I was with a management person at a high-powered communication company, I assumed we were to have a reasonable conversation, and I began to politely explain where I stood and why.
Boy, was I off. After I spoke but a sentence, I was cut off, only to be told that Bush was going to go down in history as the worst president ever. He was stupid, vile, and evil; a warmonger who was only interested in making money for himself. Every time I tried to discuss a point, I was cut off within moments and subject to more of this invective. I was shocked, not so much at the bile I was hearing, but at the fact this gentlemann was complete unable to discuss any issues, or even offer an alternative to any of his so-called “Bush Disasters”. Every word out of my mouth was simply met with more invective. I did get an interesting admission from him; that he had a deep visceral hatred for W.; that he couldn’t look at him or think about him without being ill. I thought this was true of most of the Democratic Party, I informed him, and I said that if their candidates could not overcome this hate, they would never win any significant national elections. He was momentarily speechless; I changed the subject, and hoped nobody else would start a conversation with me about politics again this evening, as a wedding is not the place for partisan bickering.
Alas, it was not to be. I got an introduction to LeftyBride’s sister, an airline pilot. She was truly nuts; this woman whom flies jets carrying hundreds of people believes the government caused 9/11 to grab oil (she used the “Pear Harbor was allowed to happen” “fact” as historical precedent), that Bush intentionally let the people of New Orleans drown, and that the Iraq war was an oil shakedown (when I asked here how that was possible, since we haven’t taken any oil, she shook her head at me in sad disbelief). She sneered at my disdain for the foreign press, saying that was where the truth was, and mocked me when I quoted a fact (“Oh, well obviously you CAN read a newspaper article”). As this was the bride’s sister, I was trying to be polite, but in short order I had enough and tried to excuse myself. But the LeftyPilot physically grabbed my arm (truthfully; I didn’t mind that much, she was in terrific shape even if her breastwork was too obvious) so that she could continue to barrage me with anti-American hatred. Even when LeftyPilot’s young daughter came up to her, crying that she wanted to go home, her mom pushed her away so she could continue her diatribe against me and my ilk.
When I finally pulled myself away from her, I offered her my hand, and told her it was a pleasure to meet her. She did not take my hand, only stated that she disagreed with me about everything, and she always would. Nice.
Nevertheless, I left this otherwise-pleasant soiree with positive vibes! Because:
- If this is Democratic thinking, not from the “uninformed masses” but from the professional elite of the party rank-and-file, then the Democratic Party is lost. The anger is irrational and apparently insurmountable; conspiracy theories and insults take the place of reasoned arguments. That’s fine for an internal debate; but the average American will not buy it. Maybe that’s why the Dems have lost control of the Presidency, House, Senate, and the majority of state governments. I sincerely hope the “discussions” I partook in resemble the debate in the 2006 mid-term elections; if so, it will be a Republican romp.
- I learned that Republicans have much better manners than Democrats. Imagine, such behavior, screeching political hate at a guest of the bride! I understand why sometimes Bush just lets his opponents rant; by remaining silent and letting your opponents make fools of themselves, your stature grows in comparison.
Have a great honeymoon, LeftyBride!
When she moved on to a new job, LeftyBride spoke of me often, and as I was to learn, also spoke of our animated political discussions. Sitting next to me at the affair was her new boss, also a Jersey guy, and a man whom I have great respect for. He launched the first salvo:
“So, JerseyNut, how can a smart, intelligent, nice guy like yourself really be a Republican?”
Speaking as I was with a management person at a high-powered communication company, I assumed we were to have a reasonable conversation, and I began to politely explain where I stood and why.
Boy, was I off. After I spoke but a sentence, I was cut off, only to be told that Bush was going to go down in history as the worst president ever. He was stupid, vile, and evil; a warmonger who was only interested in making money for himself. Every time I tried to discuss a point, I was cut off within moments and subject to more of this invective. I was shocked, not so much at the bile I was hearing, but at the fact this gentlemann was complete unable to discuss any issues, or even offer an alternative to any of his so-called “Bush Disasters”. Every word out of my mouth was simply met with more invective. I did get an interesting admission from him; that he had a deep visceral hatred for W.; that he couldn’t look at him or think about him without being ill. I thought this was true of most of the Democratic Party, I informed him, and I said that if their candidates could not overcome this hate, they would never win any significant national elections. He was momentarily speechless; I changed the subject, and hoped nobody else would start a conversation with me about politics again this evening, as a wedding is not the place for partisan bickering.
Alas, it was not to be. I got an introduction to LeftyBride’s sister, an airline pilot. She was truly nuts; this woman whom flies jets carrying hundreds of people believes the government caused 9/11 to grab oil (she used the “Pear Harbor was allowed to happen” “fact” as historical precedent), that Bush intentionally let the people of New Orleans drown, and that the Iraq war was an oil shakedown (when I asked here how that was possible, since we haven’t taken any oil, she shook her head at me in sad disbelief). She sneered at my disdain for the foreign press, saying that was where the truth was, and mocked me when I quoted a fact (“Oh, well obviously you CAN read a newspaper article”). As this was the bride’s sister, I was trying to be polite, but in short order I had enough and tried to excuse myself. But the LeftyPilot physically grabbed my arm (truthfully; I didn’t mind that much, she was in terrific shape even if her breastwork was too obvious) so that she could continue to barrage me with anti-American hatred. Even when LeftyPilot’s young daughter came up to her, crying that she wanted to go home, her mom pushed her away so she could continue her diatribe against me and my ilk.
When I finally pulled myself away from her, I offered her my hand, and told her it was a pleasure to meet her. She did not take my hand, only stated that she disagreed with me about everything, and she always would. Nice.
Nevertheless, I left this otherwise-pleasant soiree with positive vibes! Because:
- If this is Democratic thinking, not from the “uninformed masses” but from the professional elite of the party rank-and-file, then the Democratic Party is lost. The anger is irrational and apparently insurmountable; conspiracy theories and insults take the place of reasoned arguments. That’s fine for an internal debate; but the average American will not buy it. Maybe that’s why the Dems have lost control of the Presidency, House, Senate, and the majority of state governments. I sincerely hope the “discussions” I partook in resemble the debate in the 2006 mid-term elections; if so, it will be a Republican romp.
- I learned that Republicans have much better manners than Democrats. Imagine, such behavior, screeching political hate at a guest of the bride! I understand why sometimes Bush just lets his opponents rant; by remaining silent and letting your opponents make fools of themselves, your stature grows in comparison.
Have a great honeymoon, LeftyBride!
Saturday, September 24, 2005
The NRA Comes Through!
Back in the late August madness of the post-Katrina devastation, this blog fretted over the illegal confiscation of legally-held firearms in New Orleans (here http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/09/authorities-confiscating-legal.html and here http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/09/ghoulish-media-second-amendment.html) and wondered why the NRA did not rise up to defend Americans' Second Amendment rights. Well, they did, and we "gun-nuts" were found to be in the right:
The United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana today sided with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and issued a restraining order to bar further gun confiscations from peaceable and law-abiding victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans...
Joining LaPierre in hailing the U.S. District Court decision was NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox. “This is an important victory. But the battle is not over. The NRA will remedy state emergency statutes in all 50 states, if needed, to ensure that this injustice does not happen again."
The NRA also pledged that it will continue its work to ensure that every single firearm arbitrarily and unlawfully seized under this directive is returned to the rightful law-abiding owner.
Now, if this was a ruling favoring abortion rights, or gay marriage, or the right of a terrorist to a lawyer (all so clearly deliniated in the Constitution), this would be front page news in the mainstream media. Haven't heard a peep out of them; I guess their favored "implied" rights trump those actually written into our Constitution.
Doesn't matter whether or not they report it; this is still a win for freedom that they cannot overturn with a swarmy op-ed piece...
Link to NRA press release here: http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6539
The United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana today sided with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and issued a restraining order to bar further gun confiscations from peaceable and law-abiding victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans...
Joining LaPierre in hailing the U.S. District Court decision was NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox. “This is an important victory. But the battle is not over. The NRA will remedy state emergency statutes in all 50 states, if needed, to ensure that this injustice does not happen again."
The NRA also pledged that it will continue its work to ensure that every single firearm arbitrarily and unlawfully seized under this directive is returned to the rightful law-abiding owner.
Now, if this was a ruling favoring abortion rights, or gay marriage, or the right of a terrorist to a lawyer (all so clearly deliniated in the Constitution), this would be front page news in the mainstream media. Haven't heard a peep out of them; I guess their favored "implied" rights trump those actually written into our Constitution.
Doesn't matter whether or not they report it; this is still a win for freedom that they cannot overturn with a swarmy op-ed piece...
Link to NRA press release here: http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6539
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)