The Redhunter

March 20, 2012

Palin Power and the Hypocrisy of Barack Obama and the Liberals

Bristol Palin, second child and oldest daughter of former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, wrote this open letter to President Obama.

Mr. President, When Should I Expect Your Call?
Posted on March 18, 2012
by Bristol Palin

Dear President Obama,

You don't know my telephone number, but I hope your staff is busy trying to find it. Ever since you called Sandra Fluke after Rush Limbaugh called her a slut, I figured I might be next. You explained to reporters you called her because you were thinking of your two daughters, Malia and Sasha. After all, you didn't want them to think it was okay for men to treat them that way:

"One of the things I want them to do as they get older is engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on," you said. "I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don't want them attacked or called horrible names because they're being good citizens."

And I totally agree your kids should be able to speak their minds and engage the culture. I look forward to seeing what good things Malia and Sasha end up doing with their lives.

But here's why I'm a little surprised my phone hasn't rung. Your $1,000,000 donor Bill Maher has said reprehensible things about my family. He's made fun of my brother because of his Down's Syndrome. He's said I was "f---d so hard a baby fell out." (In a classy move, he did this while his producers put up the cover of my book, which tells about the forgiveness and redemption I've found in God after my past - very public -- mistakes.)

If Maher talked about Malia and Sasha that way, you'd return his dirty money and the Secret Service would probably have to restrain you. After all, I've always felt you understood my plight more than most because your mom was a teenager. That's why you stood up for me when you were campaigning against Sen. McCain and my mom -- you said vicious attacks on me should be off limits.

Yet I wonder if the Presidency has changed you. Now that you're in office, it seems you're only willing to defend certain women. You're only willing to take a moral stand when you know your liberal supporters will stand behind you.

But...

What if you did something radical and wildly unpopular with your base and took a stand against the denigration of all women... even if they're just single moms? Even if they're Republicans?

I'm not expecting your SuperPAC to return the money. You're going to need every dime to hang on to your presidency. I'm not even really expecting a call. But would it be too much to expect a little consistency? After all, you're President of all Americans, not just the liberals.

Ms Palin won't get a call from Obama because she's a conservative and it would hurt him politically. And the liberals would go nuts because they are not about protecting women but advancing their radical agenda.

Posted by Tom at 8:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 12, 2012

Liberals and Democrats, Especially President Obama, Have No business Lecturing Anyone about Civility

I haven't weighed in on the Sandra Fluke - Rush Limbaugh thing yet for several reasons. One, I learned long ago that doing "outrage of the day" posts is dangerous because you usually don't know all of the facts at first and mitigating factors usually emerge. Two, I've just been incredibility busy with, you know, life; it's amazing I find time to do this at all. Third, since I knew I wouldn't have time to write much I'd have to find good things that others wrote to do it for me.

I've never listened to Rush Limbaugh's rant about Fluke but am willing to accept that he was way out of line and that it was indefensible not only that he said it but that it took him so long to apologize. What I'm not willing to accept though are calls from liberals to take him off the air. That's what's insane and unacceptable.

What to say? Let's start here with President Obama's latest lecture on civility. Here's the best response to that bit of nonsense(via NRO):

This from Powerline makes an excellent folllowup:

The Party of Hate
by John Hinderacker
March 7, 2012

Millions of Americans voted for Barack Obama in the hope that he would be a trailblazer who would conduct the presidency in a new way. Well, he has: Obama has been the most divisive president in our modern history, unabashedly stirring up hate against not only his political enemies, but against private citizens who exercise their right to participate in our democracy. The most recent hatefest has been directed against Rush Limbaugh, and Obama has personally stirred the pot.

Of course, Obama has had nothing to say about the far worse invective that his own supporters have directed against Republican women. As I noted yesterday, he was asked a question about the double standard in his press conference yesterday, and ducked it. Bill Maher, who has contributed $1 million to re-elect Obama, called Sarah Palin a "c***" and a "dumb t***." (Hey, when Rush rips a Democratic Party activist, at least you can print what he said on a family web site.) Obama has never criticized Maher or any of his many other supporters and minions who have kept up a steady drumbeat of hate for years.

In this video, two Democratic Congresswomen who have joined in the condemnation of Limbaugh are asked whether they will condemn Maher's calling Palin a "c***" and a "t***." They refuse to do so, which tells you all you need to know about the "pro-woman" Democratic Party:

Barack Obama has been a terrible president in many ways, but perhaps his most poisonous legacy is his cynical fomenting of partisan hate to advance his own political interests. After three years, we have learned that "hope" is not the word that we should associate with the Obama presidency.

The title of John's piece is a bit over-the-top, as I'm not prepared to say that the entire Democrat Party is the Party of Hate. But given their over-the-top reaction to what Rush Limbaugh said, they deserve it.

Finally, we have this excellent post by Sister Toldjah over at her blog (which you should bookmark and make part of your regular reading)

My open declaration of #WAR against the #WarOnWomen hysterics
by Sister Toldjah
March 8, 2012

I have had it.

On this day, March 8, 2012 - also known as "International Women's Day" - I am officially declaring war on the fascistic "War On Women" movement currently being played out by perpetual left wing feminist "victims of a patriarchal society" in response to the GOP "wanting to ban birth control!!!!!!!!" and Rush's unfortunate remarks about Democrat activist Sandra Fluke.

Each day as I've watched and read about the Alinsky-esque tactics of this "movement", I have simmered - and have grown angrier by the minute as these women dare to suggest or imply on social media sites, at rallies, and on the talking head shows that they speak on behalf of ALL women nationwide, and around the world. My blood has boiled as some of these so-called "tolerant" women have even suggested in not so New Tone-y language that any woman who disagrees with their agenda/platform has been brainwashed into being "subservient" to our "male-dominated" society and therefore "doesn't know any better." Further still, I am OUTRAGED that these women almost never open their mouths in defense of conservative women when they're treated worse than they feel Sandra Fluke was. The "misogyny" didn't matter then, was easy to "overlook" - just as these shameless sell-outs for "the cause" overlooked serial liar and adulterer Bill Clinton's fondness for fondling (sometimes against their will) the help at the WH behind his wife's back, simply because he was a strong proponent of abortion on demand. In fact, we women were supposed to "get on our knees" and perform oral sex on the President as a "thank you" of sorts, according to one noted high-profile "feminist" - proving that we indeed have "come a long way, baby" ... a long way from the type of real female empowerment the original feminists in America envisioned (hint: it wasn't about man-hating, and it certainly wasn't about subservience to a man in power because of "what he could do for you"!).

These "womyn" do NOT speak for me. Nor do they speak for any other self-respecting female who can think for herself - and especially not for those of us who have the sheer audacity to think outside of the box when it comes to "feminist" pet issues like abortion, "equal pay", male-bashing, and the destruction of the traditional family unit.

Unlike these "womyn", I do not want to be known and celebrated for my female parts. That is NOT what real feminism is about. I want to be known for who I am as an individual, my contributions to my family, to society, for my devotion to God and country- and if you so happen to notice I'm a woman, too, great - thank you very much. In other words, as MLK, Jr so famously said - we should be judged by the content of our character, not our skin color (or in my case, my sex).

I AM NOT A VICTIM. I CAN STAND ON MY OWN TWO FEET. I DON'T WANT SPECIAL RIGHTS. I DON'T NEED ANY SO-CALLED "HEALER" IN GOVERNMENT TO TAKE CARE OF ME. I CAN THINK FOR MYSELF. I AM OPINIONATED. AND MY OPINION COUNTS, WHETHER OR NOT THE OPPOSITION WANTS TO HEAR IT!

This, my dear readers, will be a big focus of mine in the coming months as the phony victimhood rhetoric escalates in continued desperate attempts by liberal Democrats to woo women voters under the guise of being their "hero." For the sake of future generations of American women, the lies told by these hysterical fanatics simply cannot stand. I hope you'll come along with me on this ride. It'll be bumpy in the short term.

But in the long term, it will be worth it.

Well?

You go, girl!

Previous posts on "civility" and Democrat hypocrisy:

Spare Us the Sermons, Mr. President
The Civility Charade
The Definitive Column on the Liberal/Media Reaction to the Rep Gabrielle Giffords Shooting
President Obama Calls for Civility
Bush in Israel and the Democrat Melt Down

Posted by Tom at 10:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 28, 2012

An Apology Too Far

From the article below, here are the facts about what happened in Afghanistan:

The facts are that the Korans were seized at a jail because jihadists imprisoned there were using them not for prayer but to communicate incendiary messages. The soldiers dispatched to burn refuse from the jail were not the officials who had seized the books, had no idea they were burning Korans, and tried desperately to retrieve the books when the situation was brought to their attention.

The local commander apologized. Then the Secretary of Defense apologized. Now President Obama has apologized. And what did we get for it? More of this:

As Andy McCarthy says, this is insane:

Why Apologize to Afghanistan?
The reaction to an accidental Koran-burning was inexcusable
By Andrew C. McCarthy
February 25, 2012

We have officially lost our minds.

The New York Times reports that President Obama has sent a formal letter of apology to Afghanistan's ingrate president, Hamid Karzai, for the burning of Korans at a U.S. military base. The only upside of the apology is that it appears (based on the Times account) to be couched as coming personally from our blindly Islamophilic president -- "I wish to express my deep regret for the reported incident. . . . I extend to you and the Afghani people my sincere apologies." It is not couched as an apology from the American people, whose frame of mind will be outrage, not contrition, as the facts become more widely known.

The facts are that the Korans were seized at a jail because jihadists imprisoned there were using them not for prayer but to communicate incendiary messages. The soldiers dispatched to burn refuse from the jail were not the officials who had seized the books, had no idea they were burning Korans, and tried desperately to retrieve the books when the situation was brought to their attention.

Of course, these facts may not become widely known, because no one is supposed to mention the main significance of what has happened here. First, as usual, Muslims -- not al-Qaeda terrorists, but ordinary, mainstream Muslims -- are rioting and murdering over the burning (indeed, the inadvertent burning) of a book. Yes, it's the Koran, but it's a book all the same -- and one that, moderate Muslims never tire of telling us, doesn't really mean everything it says anyhow.

Muslim leaders and their leftist apologists are also forever lecturing the United States about "proportionality" in our war-fighting. Yet when it comes to Muslim proportionality, Americans are supposed to shrug meekly and accept the "you burn books, we kill people" law of the jungle. Disgustingly, the Times would inure us to this moral equivalence by rationalizing that "Afghans are fiercely protective of their Islamic faith." Well then, I guess that makes it all right, huh?

Then there's the second not-to-be-uttered truth: Defiling the Koran becomes an issue for Muslims only when it has been done by non-Muslims. Observe that the unintentional burning would not have occurred if these "fiercely protective of their Islamic faith" Afghans had not defiled the Korans in the first place. They were Muslim prisoners who annotated the "holy" pages with what a U.S. military official described as "extremist inscriptions" in covert messages sent back and forth, just as the jihadists held at Gitmo have been known to do (notwithstanding that Muslim prisoners get their Korans courtesy of the American taxpayers they construe the book to justify killing).

Do you know why you are supposed to stay mum about the intentional Muslim sacrilege but plead to be forgiven for the accidental American offense? Because you would otherwise have to observe that the Koran and other Islamic scriptures instruct Muslims that they are in a civilizational jihad against non-Muslims, and that it is therefore permissible for them to do whatever is necessary -- including scrawl militant graffiti on their holy book -- if it advances the cause. Abdul Sattar Khawasi -- not a member of al-Qaeda but a member in good standing of the Afghan government for which our troops are inexplicably fighting and dying -- put it this way: "Americans are invaders, and jihad against the Americans is an obligation."

Because exploiting America's hyper-sensitivity to things Islamic advances the jihad, the ostensible abuse of the Koran by using it for secret communiqués is to be overlooked. Actionable abuse occurs only when the book is touched by the bare hands of, or otherwise maltreated by, an infidel.
...

Understand this: Muslims are killing Muslims all the time. Sunnis attack Shiites, Shiites attack Sunnis. Ahmadi Muslims are attacked in sundry Islamic countries. Often, these Muslim-on-Muslim atrocities involve not only murder but also the torching of the other sect's homes and mosques -- necessarily meaning Muslims are burning Korans, and with far more mens rea than the American personnel had in Afghanistan. None of these atrocities incite global Islamic rioting -- it is just Muslim-on-Muslim violence, the numbing familiarity of which calls for no comment, except perhaps to mumble that it must have something to do with how "fiercely protective of their Islamic faith" Muslims are. (Actually, it has to do with Muslims' deeming the perceived heresies of other Muslims to be apostasy, for which sharia prescribes the death penalty.)

Also understand this: In sharia societies, non-Muslim religious articles are confiscated and destroyed every single day as a matter of policy. In Saudi Arabia, where sharia is the law of the land, where Mecca and Medina are closed to non-Muslims, government guidelines prohibit Jews and Christians from bringing Bibles, crucifixes, Stars of David, and similar artifacts emblematic of their faith into the country. When that prohibition is violated, the offending items are seized and burned or otherwise destroyed.
...

In spite of this shameful, conscious, systematic abuse of non-Muslims and their religious articles, King Abdullah has yet to send a letter of apology to Obama.
...

That, however, cannot be the end of it. If, according to the president, we need to apologize to Muslims because we must accept that they have such an innate, extraordinary ardor for their religion that barbaric reactions to trivial slights are inevitable, then they should not be invited to enter a civilized country. At the very least, our immigration laws should exclude entry from Muslim-majority countries unless and until those countries expressly repeal repressive sharia laws (e.g., the death penalty for apostates) and adopt American standards of non-discrimination against, tolerance of, and protection for religious minorities.

If you really want to promote freedom in Islamic countries, an immigration policy based on civil-rights reciprocity would be a lot more effective, and a lot less expensive, than dispatching tens of thousands of troops to build sharia "democracies." It would also protect Americans from people whose countries and cultures have not prepared them for the obligations of citizenship in a free society.

I disagree with McCarthy's recommendation as regards our immigration policy, but his analysis of the monumental hypocrisy is spot-on.

Posted by Tom at 8:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 26, 2012

State of the Union 2012: What is Tax Fairness?

Consider this from Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday night:

We don't begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it's not because they envy the rich. It's because they understand that when I get a tax break I don't need and the country can't afford, it either adds to the deficit or somebody else has to make up the difference, like a senior on a fixed income, or a student trying to get through school, or a family trying to make ends meet.

That's not right. Americans know that's not right. They know that this generation's success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to the future of their country, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That's how we'll reduce our deficit. That's an America built to last.

What is "fair share?" What does that even mean? Obama seems to assume that we all share his vision of a steeply "progressive" tax whereby those who have money over a certain amount are obligated to pay whatever amount he deems necessary to fund the government programs that he thinks necessary.

But there's no reason that should be so.

What is "Wealthy?"

First, how do we even define "the wealthy?" Is it someone who makes over a million dollars a year? Half a million? One hundred thousand? Is it measured in total income or in total net worth? Does it matter whether you get your income from salary, investments, playing the stock market or the horses at the track?

I'm not saying that there's no such thing as "wealthy," just that we all have our own concept of what that is, and my observation is that it's nearly always somewhere greater than our own personal situation. However much money or holdings anyone has, that person will almost all of the time point to someone else as truly "wealthy."

Further, what constitutes paying your "fair share?" Once again, Obama talks as if it's obvious. But there are no stone tables carved in the sky outlining any of this. It's all subjective.

Half Pay No Federal Income Taxes

Worse, almost half (46.4) of all Americans pay no federal income tax. This is terribly unfair, and for a number of reasons.

One, if you're going to consume services you need to pay something somewhere for them. When you have to pay for something, no matter how little, you develop the mentality of having a stake making sure it works well. When you get something for nothing, you don't care, and want more and more and more and more... and demand that someone else keep paying more and more and more for it.

Finally, if Obama's going to talk about us all being in it together and benefiting from our history, previous generations, and government a then fine. But if according to him we all share in the benefits, we all must share in the costs.

So I don't care how little someone makes, everyone should pay something in federal income taxes every year, even if it's only $10. A symbolic payment of something, just to inculcate the attitude of responsibility.

You want tax fairness? Fine; then fair is when everyone pays something.

Speaking of Fairness...

John Hood explains why "those who defend Buffett's false claim about the undertaxed wealthy are either ignorant or dishonest."

The wealthy pay a significant higher share of their income in taxes than the middle class or the poor do. If you combine federal, state, and local taxes together and divide by income, the top quintile of U.S. households pay about twice as much in taxes as a share of their incomes as the bottom quintile does. Because government spending disproportionately benefits lower-income households, the progressivity of government's fiscal structure is even more steep than the tax data alone would show.

If you want to defend this level of progressivity, fine. If you want to argue that the system ought to be even more punitive at higher income levels, go for it. But denying that the wealthy already pay a disproportionate share of taxes is an act of gross irresponsibility.

Why Do Democrats Want Higher Taxes on the Wealthy?

So why do Democrats and liberals like higher taxes those they consider to be wealthy?

Punishment is a large part of it. Liberals believe that people who they see as wealthy got that way because they cheated, stole, exploited the poor, or got lucky.

Political intimidation is a large part of it too. "Get on board and support our policies or we'll tax you more" is the clear message. You can bet that if Mitt Romney was pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and supported Obamacare there wouldn't be any talk about where he got his money or whether he was paying the right amount of taxes.

So when I hear politicians rail at "the wealthy," who don't pay their "fair share of taxes," you can be sure that they're simply demagogues using all the threatening power of the state to extort money for government programs that they deem are worthy.

Posted by Tom at 7:00 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

June 14, 2011

Book Review - The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth, and Power

We all know the madness of our age: People who enjoy the comforts of the West and would live nowhere else yet vilify their own societies. Widespread belief in the most crazy of conspiracy theories. Militant atheist scientists who insist that religion is at odds with reason yet whose own theories are anything but reasonable. A widespread campaign to delegitimize Israel, while excusing or ignoring every Islamic/Arab tyranny and atrocity. The new religion of Global Warming, which by definition cannot be proved wrong and all deniers castigated rather than debated.

Truth is presented as a lie, and lies are presented as the truth. Right and wrong are inverted, those who preach the gospel of tolerance are themselves intolerant, victim and aggressor switch places.

The result is a West unable to defend itself against things like the "creeping sharia" of Islam because it does not believe it itself is worth defending. We have abandoned the successful uniting of religion and reason and traded it for atheism and irrationality.

British journalist Melanie Phillips writes about all this in her must-read book The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth, and Power.

Book Summary

Unlike some books, The World Turned Upside Down is not just a list of leftist outrages sprinkled with commentary. Phillips examines the historical ideas that have led us to where we are today, and grapples seriously with the problem of how we have gone astray by betraying the promise of the Enlightenment.

Cults and Conspiracies

Oddly, the more "advanced" we become the more likely people are to believe the most outlandish things. Cults and conspiracy theories are more popular than ever before. "Wicca," which would have been laughed out of existence a few generations ago, is now the fastest growing religion in America. UFO and Area 51 fanatics, "chemtrails," Truthers and Birthers are prevalent.

The Myth of Environmental Armageddon

Liberals (and most on the right) right laughed when Harold Camping predicted the Rapture would occur on May 21, 2011. When of course it didn't happen, he was rightly ridiculed and/or deemed a false prophet.

Yet leaders in the environmental movement have been predicting the end of the world (or close to it) for decades, their predictions have not come true, and yet they are let completely off the hook. Perhaps the most notorious is Paul Erlich, whose 1968 book The Population Bomb warned of mass starvation in the West in the 1979s and '80s due to overpopulation. But others, too, continually make similar predictions. What is interesting is that no matter how wrong Erlich and others like him are, they are still taken seriously.

In the 1970s we were told that surely an Ice Age was just around the corner, now those same publications insist that global warming will kill us all. This time they've added a new twist; it's our fault, specifically, that of the West. At least the climate scare-mongers of old thought it was good old mother nature.

The evidence for Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is sketchy, contradictory, and disputed by many. The theory is full of holes, and the University of East Anglia email scandal has shown that at least some prominent scientists are willing to lie to promote their cause. There is no scientific consensus, yet the proponents of AGW insist that governments take drastic action that would have significant effects on the world economy and liberties of people.

Worst of all is the vilification of anyone who disagrees with AGW. Intelligent debate was not to be allowed, skeptics were branded as heretics and dealt with in harsh fashion. Although the tide is perhaps starting to turn, for years any environmental scientist who wanted to publish, or even keep his or her job, had to buy into AGW dogma.

The Iraq War

We know the chant: "Bush Lied, People Died." If only cranks believed this line, we need not pay it any attention. But sad fact is that otherwise intelligent people actually believe that President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair knew that Saddam Hussein's Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction yet told the world he did.

Phillips does not attempt to argue that the invasion of Iraq was the right call, or that it wasn't. Her focus is solely on the charge that "Bush lied."

The amazing thing is that the charge is easily proven wrong. Every study commissioned by the US and British governments, every congressional and parliamentary inquiry, has found that while serious misjudgments were made (of course), no one deliberately deceived anyone.

The fact is that Saddam Hussein had a history of deceit about his WMD program, and there was good reason to think he had not been forthcoming about all of his programs and stockpiles. Time and again the UN teams in Iraq in the years immediately following the Gulf War found the Iraqis lying about their programs, and Saddam completely ceased cooperation in 1998. If he didn't have WMD, he certainly did everything he could to give the appearance of having them.

The Misrepresentation of Israel

Of all the instances where reason, facts, and logic are stood on their head, the worst is directed at Israel. Phillips says that "Israel sits at the epicenter of the West's repudiation of reason," and further, that

There is no other world conflict that is so obsessively falsified. Where Israel is involved, truth and reason and totally suspended. Irrationality and hysteria rule instead.

One's view of the Middle East is a sure guide to their view of the world. If someone believes that Israel, despite her faults, is generally on the side of what is right, good, and true, and that the Palestinians and Arabs are mostly at fault, that person can be counted on to have a rational view of the world. If, on the other hand, they see Israel as the oppressor, equate it's policies with apartheid, and see the Palestinians as victims, they are almost always "moral and cultural and relativists who invert truth and lies, right and wrong over a wide range of issues, and are incapable of seeing that their beliefs do not accord with reality."

Contrary to what so many think, Israel was not created by the West as a way of redeeming their guilt over the Holocaust. Europeans Jews were not transplanted there as foreign invaders, and did not drive out the Arabs. And no, giving the Palestinians their own completely independent state on the West Bank and Gaza would not make them happy.

Phillips goes through each of these and shows why they are false. The Jews have an historic claim to the land of Israel, including of course the ancient ancient kingdom. More, from then until modern times Jews have maintained an unbroken presence there, and this claim was recognized in things such as the Balfour Declaration by Great Britain in 1917 and the Palestine Mandate by the League of Nations in 1922.

If anything, it is the "Palestinian" claim that rests on shaky ground. Until the modern nation of Israel was established, the Arabs in Palestine did not consider themselves "a people" distinct from other Arabs. Before that time local leaders insisted they did not want a separate state.

Israel is not engaged in any "illegal occupation" of the West Bank, nor does it engage in apartheid. The area in question is not and has never been land assigned to any one nation, it is rather an unallocated part of the British Mandate, and, perhaps alone among states, Israel does not have any official borders anywhere. The false allegations go on and on.

Scientific Triumphalism and the Secular Inquisition

Not too long ago I saw a story in The Huffington Post which illustrates almost perfectly the attitude the scientific elite have towards anyone who does not buy into their version of Darwinian evolution. "Deniers" must not simply be shown to be wrong, they must be written out of society.

In the Middle Ages the church stamped out heresy through the death penalty or forced conversion. Liberals achieve the same goal of controlling though by ostracizing dissenters to the point where they cannot publish or get or hold jobs in their profession. Questioning AWG is made to be equal to questioning the Holocaust.

Militant atheist scientists and thinkers such as Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick, Carl Sagan and Peter Atkins are not merely nonbelievers in God, they see religion (especially Christianity, of course) as a positive danger to be stamped out. To make their case, however, they fall back on a series of dogmatic assertions, the proof of which is in the dogma itself. What we end up with is a sort of "scientific triumphalism" of circular reasoning in which "science is what science says it is."

To the militant atheist scientist, reason and religion are incompatible. Phillips shows that not only is this not true, but reason and science are dependent on religion. Indeed, if one wants to argue that several popular scientists such as Hawking, and Sagan say that science led them to atheism, one can counter by pointing to any number of scientists who say that it was precisely their discipline that led them to faith. The more this latter group learn, the more they conclude that there must be a master or guiding intelligence behind existence.

More, there is a reason why the West was the first to pursue and accepted science and other cultures did not, and that reason is our Judeo-Christian heritage. While ancient Greek thinking played a strong role, it would have died had medieval Christian and Jewish thinkers not reconciled it with their faiths. Science is founded on a concept of order and understanding that is found in Judaism and Christianity but not other faiths.

The Islamic Threat

In Phillips' 2006 book Londonistan she wrote about how Muslim immigrant radicals were changing Britain for the worst. "Londonistan" is the name given to the British capital by French security officials outraged at the British refusal to extradite Algerian terrorist Rachid Ramda, claiming he could not get a fair trial in France(!) It took the French 3 requests and 10 years before they finally got their man. During the 80s and 90s, it became well-known among the security forces of Europe that the UK was becoming a terrorist haven. Time and again they warned the British, who did nothing. The inevitable came about in July of 2005 whem Muslim terrorists bombed the London Underground.

There is currently a jihad against Western freedom, and the paradox is that many in the West are going along with it, all in the name of multiculturalism. While of course not all Muslims are radicals or want anything to do with any of this, the fact the ones calling the shots in their community in Britain are the radicals.

There should be a give-and-take between a host people and immigrants. The host nation gains new words, some culture, and cuisine, and the immigrants agree to accept the legal and social mores of the host country. This is not happening with Muslim immigrants, who are trying to bring their sharia into Britain and other European countries and are not accepting Western legal and social mores.

Islamic, Western, and Christian Jew-hatred

Sadly, we still live in a world in which antisemitism is gaining strength. Phillips disputes the notion that it is due to or a by-product of anti-Israeli feelings.

Muslim extremists don't attack Israel in their writings so much as they attack "Jews." Islam has had a problem with Jews from the beginnings of their religion, and it has not let up. They don't want to live side-by-side with Israel, they want to kill all the Jews period.

It is unsurprising that Islam and most Muslims are antisemitic. What is more disturbing is the resurgence of these attitudes among Christians and secularists on the West. Part of this is the result of Muslim immigration to the West, but much of it is also inherent.

Of all countries in the West, Great Britain has the dubious distinction of leading the way in the antisemitic attitudes of it's citizens. Majorities or large pluralities believe the old tripe about Jews being more loyal to Israel than their home country, having inordinate control over the banking and media sectors, and control U.S. foreign policy. Worst of all while it used to be that Israelis were only equated with Nazis in the Arab press, this has now spread to the West as well.

Much of the Antisemitism is defended as simple criticism of Israel. But attacks on Israel go far beyond attacks on any other country, and her actions are scrutinized like that of no other nation on earth. Israel is held to higher standards, and her every action is assigned the worst possible motivation. On the other hand, the terrorists who attack her are held to no standards, and their every claim reported as if it was true.

Perhaps the oddest result of all this is a new "Red-Black-Green-Islamic Axis" in the West. Leftists, fascists, environmental extremists, and Muslims have found common cause against the West in general and the Jews in particular.

That the far right is allied with Islamists is perhaps not surprising. But given that the left presents itself as the home of "tolerance," "multiculturalism," and "secular humanism" it is strange that they would ally with a religion that is opposed to all three of those values. Yet this is just the case. I myself witnessed an instance where I live where a noted gay activist used his sympathy for Islam to attack Christianity.

Finally is the resurgence of Christian antisemitism. It has become de rigueur for "progressive" Christian churches to spill much ink criticizing Israel while ignoring the very Islamic terror and extremism which threaten it. Worse, they engage in a disgusting moral equivalency. Several churches have divested themselves of companies who do business with Israel; again while happily investing in companies who business with the world's dictators and rogues. Other churches have attempted divestiture (Presbyterian Church USA, for example) and only walked back from actually doing it because of outrage from their members.

The Quest for Redemption

"Millenarianism" is the quasi-religious belief that mankind and society can be perfected on earth. Part of this is a secular version of Christian salvation, whereby we can redeem ourselves from past sins if only we do x and such.

The religious version of millenarianism is found today in Islam, which actively seeks to establish itself as the ruler of the earth. While one can say that Christians want all people to follow their religion too, the difference of course is that each uses dramatically different means towards their ends.

Communism and fascism were and are Western secular millenarianist ideologies. Although both are still around, they have mostly been replaced with an earth-worshiping environmentalism, a valueless multiculturalism, an anti-Western post-nationalism, and other similar ideas.

Interestingly, most of these movements are cultural rather than political in nature. To be sure, they do contain concrete policy objectives, but they're quasi-religious in that they incorporate the evangelical, dogmatism, fanaticism, and desire to crush dissent that any medieval religion would be proud of.

They also all share the same concept of secular sin; mankind (personkind?), especially the West, has been criminally wrong and we must return to the true faith. If we would only follow their prescriptions, we can create a world with no war, no racial or ethnic strife, no persecution, tyranny, etc.

The Enlightenment Unraveled, Reason and the Bible

Phillips spends a lot of time discussing the concept of reason and how it relates to religion. She walks the reader through the Enlightenment (A 17th and 18th-century philosophical movement) and shows us what really happened.

The fairly tale version goes like this; during the Dark Ages we were a bunch of ignorant superstitious hillbillies who where kept that way by the Catholic church. Along time a bunch of smart guys who used reason to "enlighten" us and release us from the grip of religion so that we could live happily ever after.

The reality was more complicated. The Enlightenment was not opposed to religion, indeed it could not have taken place without a Judo-Christian foundation. Most enlightenment thinkers were Christian, and more wanted to release the church's grip on government and society than replace it.

Further, although in some countries the Enlightenment produced liberal thinking and institutions, in places like France it took a decidedly authoritarian turn. French philosophers elevated "reason" to the same status as religion, quite in contrast to their colleagues in other countries.

The immediate effect of these new French ideas was the Revolution and Terror, the long term is the rejection of religion by the "enlightened" today.

The cause is that "reason" cannot exist by itself. Religion and reason go hand in hand: Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together," is more than just a verse. "Reason" as an abstraction leads to authoritarian or totalitarianism.

The Great War (World War I) and the Holocaust shook European confidence to it's core. Sure, Europe had seen big wars before and had experienced massacres, but nothing on these scales, and never before for seemingly no purpose. These shocks had two effects; the first was that the people lost their traditional values and beliefs, and second they started to believe in all manner of crazy things (see above).

The result is a postmodermism that rejects reason. Truth is not all about perspective, not absolutes. Values became relative to where the "noble savage" is is not primitive or backward but every bit as good if not better than us in the West. Facts are made to serve ideology, not vice versa. Traditional concepts of "tolerance" have been replaced with an intolerant "rights" agenda. "Nature" is pure and holy, and humans are the enemy of the planet.

If individuals wish to be atheists, all fine and good, but when it becomes a mass movement, it's promoters need to face up to the consequences of their philosophy. They want religion to disappear, but want to continue enjoying Western liberties as if the two are not related. They seem not to realize that it is precisely those Judeo-Christian values that have brought us our concepts of morality and liberty. Nietzshe at least understood the risk.

Why Britain is in the Forefront of the Madness

The madness is most concentrated in Great Britain. While continental Europe as a whole has rejected religion, family structures remain strong and social pathologies low.

Unfortunately, the US and UK* share many negative trend rates as compared to continental Europe. Both have the highest rates of single parenthood and the highest crime rates.

The differences between the US and UK are in the culture. Political correctness reigns supreme in the UK. In the US most of us at least acknowledge we have problems, in the UK they seem determined to continue the slide downhill.

But why is this so? Both the continent and the UK suffered the horrors of the Great Was and Holocaust, and the resulting destruction of what seemed a stable 19th century world order. But the UK also lost it's empire, and as such it's sense of self and purpose in the world. Add to this the replacement of traditional religion with all sorts of wild ideologies and belief systems, unassimilated Muslim immigrants, the general unraveling of the culture, and a free-for-all spirituality and you have a recipe for disaster.

* yes I know the UK and Britain are not quite the same thing, but I've used the terms somewhat interchangeably.

My Take

Perhaps it is because Phillips is British that she is so attuned to the madness going on around us. And madness it is. Don't hold me to each and every phrase or idea put forth in the book, but I do find myself in agreement with her almost all of the time.

My liberal readers should note that Phillips has no problem with any specific policy that the left offers. The book is not an attack on ObamaCare, Keynesian economics, Roe v Wade, stem-cell research, or any of the rest of it. It's also not an attack on atheism per se. Nor does she celebrate any particular policy of George W Bush or Tony Blair.

Instead examining micro-policy, the book is about the way a certain type of person, increasing in number, looks at the world. It's not about whether you are religious, agnostic, or atheist, so much as where that leads you in the rest of it. Nor again is it about whether you are politically conservative, or, for the most part, liberal. There are many agnostics and atheists who are quite reasonable. There are many liberals (I know many) who, while I disagree with them on this or that policy, do not hold whacky views. And sadly, there are religious conservatives who do (Birthers, for example).

But it is accurate to say, as she does, that most of the craziness comes from the militant atheist left.

Phillips strength is her ability to dismantle the conventional wisdom of the elites and the fads that pass as serious movements. The quasi-religion of things like global warming, multiculturalism, and Darwinian evolution deserve to be skewered.

Yes the problems Phillips describes in her book are real, and not something we can ignore. But that does not mean all is lost, or that there is not another side to the story. The West is still the strongest fore on the planet, and sets the tone politically, economically, morally, and, of course, militarily.

It was, after all, easy to conclude after reading books such as Witness (1952) by Whittaker Chambers, Suicide of the West (1964) by James Burnham, or How Democracies Perish (1983) by Jean-Francois Revel and conclude that we should not have lasted as long as we have.

But sooner or later all great civilizations decline and fall. The boy who cried wolf may have been wrong or joking a few times, but eventually the wolves did show up. Further, we may yet recover our senses and save ourselves. If we do, Melanie Phillips will be one of those our descendants will thank for sounding a timely warning.

Melanie Phillips blogs at The Spectator

Posted by Tom at 8:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 6, 2011

Resign, Weiner, Resign

I'd say "unbelievable," but I guess these days nothing is

Rep. Weiner admits tweeting lewd photo of himself
The Washington Post
By Jason Horowitz
Monday, June 6, 9:16 PM

In an extraordinary reversal at an extraordinary news conference, Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York admitted Monday afternoon that he had repeatedly lied to his constituents and the country in denying that he had sent a lewd picture of himself to a college-age woman on Twitter. In a tearful admission, he said that he had in fact sent multiple inappropriate messages to multiple women but that he had done nothing illegal and would not resign.

"The picture was of me, and I sent it," said Weiner (D), who called it "a very dumb thing to do," "a hugely regrettable mistake" and "destructive."

"I am deeply ashamed," said Weiner, his jaw clenched.

Soon after Weiner finished speaking, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who he said had urged him to tell the whole truth, called on the House ethics committee to conduct an investigation into his case.

For Weiner, a seven-term congressman who was seen as a leading candidate to become the next mayor of New York, the collapse is all the more stunning in light of the heights he had reached in his party and as a spokesman for its liberal wing. In the aftermath of his mea culpa, Republican leaders mostly stood back and watched the public self-immolation of one of their sharpest antagonists.

The much- attacked (by the left, anyway) AndrewBreitbart has been vindicated:

and

Update

Just so we're all clear, what happened was this; Rep Weiner has a Twitter account, and sent several of his young lady followers explicit photos himself. He has admitted to "six inappropriate relationships over the past three years" using Twitter and "other media," probably Facebook. Who knows what the real total is.

Now, this used to be called "sexual harassment," and it used to be feminist liberals who prided themselves in leading the charge against this sort of behavior.

Yesterday I had a conversation with two liberal colleagues at work about the matter. They were both of the opinion that this scandal is not a reason for him to resign, nor a reason to cease their support of him (and presumably their vote if they lived in his district). The reason, they said, was that there was "a line" between private and public life, and that as long as he didn't lie about a governmental matter or steal money it was all ok. "Are their no limits to personal behavior?" I asked. I got what I expected, the classic reduction to the absurd: "Well, if he killed someone...."

Ah yes, let's bring it out to a level that's completely unrealistic so that we can avoid the hard moral issues.

What's also interesting is that both readily admitted that if it had been a Republican he would have been forced to resign long ago.

At this point work interrupted and we were not able to continue our conversation. Too bad, because I had more questions for them along the lines of "Weiner didn't lie about one indiscretion, or one instance of consensual sex. He lied repeatedly and boldly, and made false accusations about others. If he will do this, even if it's "only about sex," can you really trust him on governmental matters? What does this say about his overall trustworthyness?" and, getting back to my other point, "Isn't this sexual harassment, and aren't liberals supposed to be against that?"

No, I'm not saying all liberals are like my friends at work, so don't anyone get their panties in a wad and say that I'm engaging in the fallacy of generalization. Most liberals I know in my county are good folks and I'm sure are appalled at Weiner and want him to go immediately. What I am saying, though, is the attitude by my co-workers is much more prevalent among liberals than conservatives.

Liberals can hate Michelle Malkin all they want, but she gets it right in her post titled

Feckless feminists wimp out on Weinergate; Plus: Weiner's lingering underage girl problem; Updated: 17-year-old gets cop visit; Pelosi doesn't seem to care

Yup. The old double standard that my friends at work acknowledged is in fill swing. One of the few liberal women who is outraged and not afraid to show it is Fox News contributors One outlier Kirsten Powers:

What I find distinctive about what happened with Anthony is that it wasn't an affair, it wasn't, you know, a one-time event, it was predatory behavior. And it was behavior that was done in his official capacity. He wasn't doing this as an anonymous person. He was doing this where you have people who saw him on TV or thought he was a good Congressman or whatever going to him and saying, "Oh, you're such a great fighter for Democrats, Congressman Weiner." And then he was using that position to, sort of, being predatory on the internet and I can't remember which woman said it. She said, "I just want to talk politics," and then it started getting creepy. So he's using his official division, he's not doing this, as much as he wants to say it's in a private capacity, I highly doubt these women would have been talking to him if he wasn't a Congressman.

The sending the picture to the girl, to me it's like sexual harassment. He's a Congressman, she's a student. He has tons of power. She looks up to him.

I can tell you as a woman who has received very inappropriate things from people who have more power than me, it's very intimidating. And you often don't even tell anybody because you're so frightened of what this person could potentially do to you. And so, there's a kind of harassment predatory aspect to this.

"Predatory behavior"

"done in his official capacity"

"sexual harassment'

"intimidating"

"harassment"

Yes, I'd say Kirsten has it just about right.

Posted by Tom at 9:45 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 25, 2011

Benjamin Netanyahu Takes Washington by Storm

On Tuesday, May 24, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed joint session of Congress, which gave him several standing ovations. via Powerline:

We're proud in Israel that over 1 million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades.

Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel's Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights.

Now, I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of 1 percent are truly free and they're all citizens of Israel.

This startling fact reveals a basic truth: Israel is not what is wrong with about the Middle East; Israel is what is right about the Middle East

You got that right, Mr Prime Minister

Full text here.

More key excerpts:

In an unstable Middle East, Israel is the one anchor of stability. In a region of shifting alliances, Israel is America's unwavering ally. Israel has always been pro-American. Israel will always be pro-American.

My friends, you don't have to -- you don't need to do nation- building in Israel. We're already built.

You don't need to export democracy to Israel. We've already got it.

And you don't need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves.
...

This path of liberty is not paved by elections alone. It's paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not men, and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule.

Israel has always embraced this path in a Middle East that has long rejected it. In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different.
...

Now, we've achieved historic peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, and these have held up for decades.

I remember what it was like before we had peace. I was nearly killed in a firefight inside the Suez Canal -- I mean that literally -- inside the Suez Canal. I was going down to the bottom with a 40- pound pack -- ammunition pack on my back, and somebody reached out to grab me. And they're still looking for the guy who did such a stupid thing.

I was nearly killed there.

And I remember battling terrorists along both banks of the Jordan.

Too many Israelis have lost loved ones, and I know their grief.

I lost my brother. So no one in Israel wants to return to those terrible days.
...

I recognize that in a genuine peace, we'll be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland. And you have to understand this: In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers.

We're not the British in India. We're not the Belgians in the Congo. This is the land of our forefathers, the land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one God, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace.

No distortion of history -- and boy, am I reading a lot of distortions of history lately, old and new -- no distortion of history could deny the 4,000-year-old bond between the Jewish people and the Jewish land.
...

You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It's always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about.

In 1947 the U.N. voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews said "Yes." The Palestinians said "No."

In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli prime ministers to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six-Day War.

They were simply unwilling to end the conflict.

And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And, worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy the Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.

My friends, this must come to an end.
...

I say to President Abbas, "Tear up your pact with Hamas, sit down and negotiate, make peace with the Jewish state. And if you do, I promise you this: Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as the new member of the United Nations. It will be the first to do so."

My friends, the momentous trials of the last century and the unfolding events of this century attest to the decisive role of the United States in defending peace and advancing freedom. Providence entrusted the United States to be the guardian of liberty. All people who cherish freedom owe a profound debt of gratitude to your great nation.

Among the most grateful nations is my nation, the people of Israel, who have fought for their liberty and survival against impossible odds in ancient and modern times alike.

I speak on behalf of the Jewish people and the Jewish state when I say to you, representatives of America, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your unwavering support for Israel. Thank you for ensuring that the flame of freedom burns bright throughout the world.

May God bless all of you, and may God forever bless the United States of America.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

He speaks words of wisdom that we should all take to heart.

Posted by Tom at 12:45 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

March 20, 2011

The Fragility of Complexity

What would happen if all electricity and communications went out in a sizable area? No power, no Internet, no radio, no home or cell phone, and your car won't start. There are many things that might cause this, electromagnetic pulse being one. But forget the cause and play along with the scenario.

You have have no way of knowing how widespread the problem was. Was it just your town? You can't travel far on foot so you have no way of knowing. You'd search the sky for airplanes, and worry would increase if none appeared.

For the first few days everyone would stay near their homes, visit with their neighbors, nervously assure each other that things would be set right before long. But what if nothing changed? How long before people would raid the food stores?

Ok, that's an extreme scenario. More likely is something like what happened in Japan; a powerful earthquake coupled with a tsunami. The crisis at the nuclear plant is only one of many things that could have gone wrong.

What type of societies are the most resilient in the face of disaster? Complex ones like in the West, or more simple ones like those in Third World countries? And among those in the West, which of those would fare best?

You might think I'm strange for pondering such things, but there are larger issues than the "news of the day." It's all very fine to write about Libya, health care, the Federal budget and all that, but sometimes it's good to examine more fundamental issues.

This is one reason why Richard Fernandez' blog The Belmont Club is one of my favorites (Neo-neocon is another in this genre, please check her out too). Introspective and educated, he talks about the issues of the day, but at a level beyond what most bloggers achieve (including this one). This most recent piece of his is typical, and I'm posting it here in it's entirety:

What Could Go Wrong?
by Richard Fernandez

When some fragile item may be damaged by a fall the best place to put it is on the ground. There it can fall no more. Since the "spontaneous evolution of an isolated system" tends to disorder and things fall apart, the most stable place to be is where things must come to a stop. Because "once the system eventually reaches equilibrium and stops evolving, its entropy becomes constant." That's to say things can't get any worse. Something on the ground or at the center of a gravitational mass has nowhere left to go and stays there.

The enormous effort required to keep complex systems full of useful energy is at the heart of Victor Davis Hanson's observation that Japan is an example what happens when a complex system experiences a disruption.

Japan is a place where thing must happen just in time. Miss a connection and the consequences ripple on. It is like a watch; exquisite but dependent on a windup or battery charge to keep going. Let it run down and it stops. Dr. Hanson argues this is precisely the kind of society which planners -- the smart controllers of all stripes -- want to construct: complex, ordered, surveilled and refined. For Japan, complex systems were required for survival. For America, complex systems were required, not by need but the imperative to power; ambitious men who hankered after ant-heaps because they were born bureaucrats.

Japan's high density, central planning, mass transit, demographic uniformity, and a culture of mutual dependence allow millions to live humanely and successfully in quite crowded conditions (in areas of Tokyo at 6,000 persons and more per square kilometer). And compared to other Asian and African cities (Mumbai or Lagos) even Tokyo is relatively not so dense, though far more successful. Yet such urban societies are extremely vulnerable to the effects of earthquakes, tsunamis, "man-caused disasters" and other assorted catastrophes, analogous in nature perhaps to tightly knit bee colonies that have lost their queens.

I don't know quite why many of our environmentalists and urban planners wish to emulate such patterns of settlement (OK, I do know), since for us in America it would be a matter of choice, rather than, as in a highly congested Japan, one of necessity. Putting us in apartments and high rises, reliant on buses and trains, and dependent on huge centralized power, water, and sewage grids are recipes not for ecological utopia, but for a level of dependence and vulnerability that could only lead to disaster. Again, I understand that in terms of efficiency of resource utilization, such densities make sense and I grant that culture sparks where people are, but in times of calamity these regimens prove enormously fragile and a fool's bargain.

But catastrophe has a way of killing ants in ant-heaps more easily than when they are spread out over the ground. Then all the supposed disadvantages of unsophisticated America vis a vis "planned systems" become reversed for two reasons. The first is that subsidiarity -- the ability to addresses some needs at an individual or local level -- is more survivable than centralized systems. Dispersed housing, individual transportation, armed citizens and a tradition of community stop becoming "urban sprawl", "wasteful driving", "gun-toting" and "bigotry" and become objects of envy to helpless people cowering in their high rise, foodless apartments. Subsidiary forms of social organization are sustainable at greater levels of national disconnection. They can work, if need be, by themselves. It is an argument which Leo Linbeck III has been making about governance and health-care, but that is another story.

The second reason is that subsidiary systems are more adaptable. Complex societies are often locked into their adaptation. They can function only when enabled by a larger system. An Ipod is just a paperweight without a network and a power source. In a crisis world you would trade a Bugatti Veyron for a pickup truck. The Veyron is a specialized babe-magnet. The pickup truck does lots of other things. But even pickup trucks have become more complex over the years. In the old Willys Jeep a lot of things could be fixed with a screwdriver, Vise-grip, a few socket wrenches and a file. Today very little can be fixed without the help of "they". "They" is a term coined by Victor Davis Hanson to represent that faceless, anonymous source of help without which we are powerless to go on.

This fragility of complexity has especially bothered me the last 80 days, well before the tragedy in Japan. Some random experiences: I am teaching one morning a week at Pepperdine for the spring 15-week semester, each week alternating between flying and driving. One week in January, the power at terminal one in LAX just went out -- no explanation, no rhyme or reason, no notice when or if it would return. Thousands of travelers were rendered helpless -- no running water, bathrooms, overhead lights. All flights delayed or cancelled, as mobs packed flight counters or simply walked out of the darkened halls to the curb. Then abruptly later it went back on -- again, no explanation. The attendants at the counter simply shrugged and said "they" must have fixed it. To paraphrase those in the Wild Bunch, who are "they"?

"They" is who we are going to call if we break a leg or an intruder is at the door. "They" are who we ask to help us when we are lost. "They" are the ones who are going to enforce the "nuclear free zone" in Berkeley and the no-fly-zone in Libya. "They" are the guys who provide the physical basics, the hard power who the kings of "soft power" are destined to command. There was a time, not so long ago when "they" for the most part meant "us"; because we knew how to supply at least some of these things for ourselves. Knew how to punch out those who bullied us without having to carry the scars of trauma into the Oval Office. But no longer.

The complexity of modern pickup trucks is emblematic of our complex, interelated world. We need each other far more than is safe. Already Chinese factories are slowing down because of disruptions of deliveries from Japan. What do you do in a just-in-time production system when the shipment from Yokohama doesn't turn up? Only hope "they" will fix it. And what do you do when the oil disruptions threaten in the Gulf, the bond markets look scary and unemployment looks like it will never ever go down. You hope "they" will fix it.

At the highest political level of our complex world "they" means people like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. These were the final "fixers" of the system when something went wrong. Of late they seemed to be capable of very little. Why? Because their power to fix depended on the systems they were supposed to control. Their "smarts" were judged by their ability to manipulate the system through which they rose. Once the system itself began fraying at the edges their true quality became evident. They were not very smart and not very adaptable.

There are signs that our complex world is running out the enough "useful energy" to keep its welfare, entitlement and physical systems together. Perhaps as important, the ability of people like Obama and Clinton to understand what is happening may be decreasing correspondingly. This happen ironically because they think they are smart. Their blinkered minds will tend to draw the wrong boundaries around the emerging system in order for it to be comprehensible to their mental models. In the process they thereby increase entropy. When they "smooth" the system to conform to their ideological biases it creates a loss of knowledge which eventually adds to the problem.

People who know all the answers are the worst offenders of all. Their ideological solutions and "investments" make things worse. One way to minimize the effects of imperfect understanding is to shorten the feedback loop. By frequently updating our understanding of a changing system the amount of "error" introduced is smallest when they are drawn at the most subsidiary level. The greatest and most catastrophic errors are created when an monolithic regime clings for too long to an old paradigm. When forced to change, it draws the new paradigm around a bigger volume of enclosed space thus maximizing the error. Here again the simpler system has its advantages. As observed earlier, highly complex systems are less adaptable, less subsidiary. Ideologically driven complex systems, like Europe and the proposed Hope and Change are least adaptable of all.

In history the cumulative process of failing to adapt is called a Revolution. Writers have usually ascribed such upheavals to the personal failings of wicked kings. But at least part of it may be due to the system trying to reach a new equilibrium while the ancien regime stands in its way while they wait in vain for "they" to come and fix things. But things are never fixed; and something else always comes instead, something only dimly glimpsed in the present and fully visible only when it finally arrives. As Forrest Gump once put it, "My momma always said, 'Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.'"

Try telling that to those who know what we should get and what we should think.

In retrospect the desire for one world, a master energy plan and single health care system will be recognized not as imperatives of the human system, but the requirement of bureaucratic ambition. It may also be seen as one of the key blunders of the current political system. It emerged at a time when elites believed history had ended and all that remained was to freeze the 20th century welfare systems in place and etch their faces on Mount Rushmore. But reality proved too hard for them to handle. They would do well to recognize their limits.

Do you agree that complex societies are less adaptable, and that ideologically-driven bureaucratically centralized societies the least adaptable of all? Hopefully, of course, we'll never find out.

Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

January 22, 2011

The South Koreans Respond to Pirates the Right Way

The South Koreans respond to piracy the right way; by killing the pirates. The Somali pirates, at least, will have second thoughts before seizing any more ROK (Republic of Korea) flagged ships, or in seizing any ships at all when the South Korean military is in the area.

SKorea storms Somali pirates to rescue ship crew
January 21, 2011
Fox News/Associated Press

South Korean special forces stormed a hijacked freighter in the Arabian Sea on Friday, rescuing all 21 crew members and killing eight assailants in a rare and bold raid on Somali pirates, South Korea said.

The military operation in waters between Oman and Africa, which also captured five pirates and left one crew member wounded, came a week after the Somali attackers seized the South Korean freighter and held hostage eight South Koreans, two Indonesians and 11 citizens from Myanmar.

"We will not tolerate any behavior that threatens the lives and safety of our people in the future," South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said in a brief televised statement, adding that the rescue was a "perfect operation."

The successful raid is a triumph for Lee, whose government suffered harsh criticism at home in the weeks following a North Korean attack in November on a South Korean island near disputed waters. Critics said Lee's military was too slow and weak in its response to the attack, which killed two marines and two civilians.

With a South Korean destroyer and a Lynx helicopter providing covering fire, South Korea's special navy forces stormed the hijacked vessel in a pre-dawn rescue operation that left eight of the pirates dead and five captured, Lt. Gen. Lee Sung-ho told reporters.

The captain of the ship was shot by a pirate and taken by a U.S. helicopter to a nearby country for treatment, but the wound is not life-threatening, Lt. Gen. Lee said. The 20 other crew members were rescued unharmed, he said.

"This operation demonstrated our government's strong will to never negotiate with pirates," the general said.

Storming a ship held by pirates is rare and navies tend to avoid it because of the risk of harming hostages, who are usually kept below decks out of sight. So rescues are not normally attempted once the pirates are onboard the ship unless the crew is locked in a safe room -- often called a "citadel" -- with two way communications.

Authorities did not immediately give details on the location of crew members during the rescue.

The 11,500-ton chemical carrier Samho Jewelry was sailing from the United Arab Emirates to Sri Lanka when it was hijacked. It was the second vessel from South Korea-based Samho Shipping to be hijacked in the past several months.

In November, Somali pirates freed the supertanker Samho Dream and its 24 crew -- five South Koreans and 19 Filipinos -- after seven months of captivity.

It's tempting to say that they only responded with force this time because South Korean President Lee Myung-bak felt he needed to look tough to his constituents after the North Korean artillery attack on Yeonpyong Island last November. And that was probably part of it. They may also have been embarrassed over the seizure of the other South Korean ship alluded to above.

More, as the article relates, the South Koreans did not just up and respond in knee-jerk fashion to the seizure of the Samho Jewelry, risking the killing of the hostages, but apparently made sure that the situation on the ship was favorable before proceeding with the rescue.

The Israel Analogy

Just recently, Malaysian naval commandos also freed a ship seized by Somali pirates. As Richard Fenandez quips that the Malaysians and Koreans had a secret "wonder weapon" that led to their success was that "they were neither European nor American."

Its the same mentality that leads the international left to want George W Bush in the dock at the International Criminal Court than Fidel Castro or Robert Mugabe.

Sad but true. If we'd carried out such an attack our press would have fretted for months over whether we'd given negotiations long enough to succeed, and if a Republican was in the White House you can guess that the more leftist members of Congress would talk of possible war crimes. On our part, that is.

People who live in tough neighborhoods tend to become tough themselves. It's a matter of sheer survival. Likewise, when an otherwise peaceful country has militarily aggressive or terrorist neighbors, it tends to take far tougher actions than do countries what are far away from the danger.

South Korea has been the victim of dozens of attacks by the communist North Koreans for over 60 years. The list of border incidents precipitated by the North is staggering.

It's therefore easy for Americans or Europeans to say that the Koreans or Israelis are "overreacting." Other than 9/11, our homeland has never really been attacked. Western Europe hasn't seen serious military action since World War II. While these are very good things, they do seem to breed a softness in dealing with threats.

The Somali Piracy Situation

The map on Somali Piracy from the Wikipedia:

Googling around, it's hard to say exactly if the situation is getting worse or at a plateau. The Wikipedia article is extensive but doesn't directly answer the question.

Certainly the long-term solution is a single, stable, government in Somalia that is perceived as legitimate by the majority of the people there. But the Somalians don't seem to have the desire or wherewithal to come to their senses, and the "international community" isn't about to take any serious action to install one either.

Using naval ships is for the most part like using a sledgehammer to swat flies. Most modern ships were built to deal with more sophisticated threats, and so most of their weapons are not even applicable. More, since the end of the Cold War the combined navies of the world are a lot smaller. What is needed off Somalia is a lot of low-tech ships that can provide something as simple as gunfire and a floating base for a small team of commandos, not a handful high-tech ships capable of sinking nuclear subs or shooting down supersonic anti-ship missiles.

In Piracy - The Simple Yet Impossible Solution and Piracy - The Simple Yet Impossible Solution Part II I wrote that Steve Shippert's idea of arming the merchant ships themselves with .50 cal machine guns would solve the problem in short order. And indeed I believe it would. But it'll never happen because right now it's cheaper for the shipping companies to pay the ransom, the sailors would for some reason I don't get rather run the risk of being taken hostage or killed rather than train for their own self-defense (the anti-gun mentality, as near I can tell), and everyone knows that the so-called human rights groups would much rather have Western capitalists and politicians in the dock than the pirates themselves.

So we'll stumble along as we are now, with everyone acknowledging that piracy, from Somalia and elsewhere, is a problem, but with no one doing much of anything about it. In the meantime, hats off to the Malaysians and South Koreans for showing us the way, even if we do not follow.

Posted by Tom at 12:45 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 13, 2011

One More Post on The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting and the Question of Blame

Unless there are major new developments this is going to be it about this incident and then we're moving on.

No, I did not watch President Obama's speech last night, nor do I plan on watching it or reading the text. Most conservative commentators that I trust said 1) His speech was very good,he said the right things and hit the right notes, and 2) the festival-campaign atmosphere with all the whooping and hollering and cheering was entirely inappropriate.

Assuming these commentators have it right, it speaks well of our president but poorly of his supporters. Given liberal behavior this week, I am not surprised.

I first heard of the shooting while at the gym. I saw it on the TV and thought to myself, what a terrible tragedy. We'll have to put up with some calls for more gun control, but that's standard operating procedure for the Sarah Brady bunch and we'll get through it. I had no idea that the left would unleash such a torrent of hate.

Let's start with this amazing video of Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik:

Now, I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but even I know that it's evidence first, conclusion second.

The tragic shooting of Rep Giffords taught us a lot about our political scene, it just isn't the "heated and threatening rhetoric" that the media is now talking about. The left unleashed a torrent of hate against Sarah Palin, the Tea Party movement, Fox News, and conservatives in general almost immediately after the shooting, and well before any of the facts about the motives of the shooter were known. And by "left," we're not just talking about obscure bloggers, but media people in print and on TV, and politicians.

The shooting taught us about the monumental level of raw hate that the left has for Sarah Palin and the lengths they will go in attacking her. The idea that she is to blame because of some ad that used crosshairs is insane. Reaction is summarized around the Internet, but two good pieces are at Powerline: A Disgrace to Nuts Everywhere and A Disgrace to Nuts Everywhere Part 2.

Before the motives or political affiliation of the shooter were known, a full scale assault was mounted on Palin, the Tea Party movement, conservative talk radio, and Fox News.

Throughout the first eight years of this decade conservatives listed to the left issue the most vile statements about George W Bush; "selected, not elected," "Bush lied, people died," a billion references to Bush as Hitler, usually in the form of something like "BusHitler" or "ChimpyMcHitler." Assassination chic, films about his assassination, and all manner of over-the-top statements were all the rage.

And let's be clear; the hateful, overheated, and sometimes even violent imagery in the rhetoric didn't just come from obscure bloggers. Democrats in Congress and media commentators were guilty as well.

Would you like evidence? Two quickies: Michelle Malkin has put together a progressive "climate of hate:" An illustrated primer, 2000-2010. The Washington Times editorial Taking advantage of tragedy: Hate crimes are down, but liberals use violence to target conservatism provides examples of some pretty big-name Democrats and liberals using rhetoric with some awfully violent rhetoric in it.

Last August James Jay Lee took three people hostage at the Discovery Channel building in Montgomery County, just outside of Washington DC. After a four hour standoff, a tactical squad shot and killed Lee after he pointed his pistol at a hostage. Lee specifically said that he had been inspired by former Vice President Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." Fortunately in this case no one else was killed, but they could easily have been.

Did we see a media campaign to urge environmentalists to "tone down the rhetoric?" Stop their hysterical claims that "the earth has a fever" and that there was "a planetary emergency?" Anyone tell Al Gore to apologize? Of course not. In fact, the reaction of the right was to NOT exploit this, but rather to say "if this had been the other way around the left would exploit it." Sure enough, they have.

Conclusion

What happened in Tucson was that a lone nutcase went on a terrible rampage and killed a wounded many people. Maybe we need to ban the extra large magazines, I'm actually sympathetic to that, although that's a knee jerk reaction that won't prevent diddly.

We've got to find a way to identify and isolate mentally ill people, and keep them from buying guns, but that's a complex issue. Besides what's mentioned in this article on the subject, the other issue is that if someone doesn't want to go to treatment you can't make them. I'm no lawyer, but even basic research shows that you can't incarcerate people against their will most of the time. And anyway, what constitutes mental illness, and who makes the determination? It all seems to obvious after one of these incidents, but there are genuine civil rights concerns.

My heart goes out to the victims of this tragedy. I do hope they knew God so that they are in a better place. You never know when your time will end. Have you said all the things you need to say to your loved ones? Have you gotten in good with your maker?

Finally; what is going on here is clear: The left is mad that they lost the Nov 2010 elections and is trying to get even. They want to shut down conservative talk radio and Fox News, and marginalize the Tea Party movement.

It won't work.

Posted by Tom at 8:30 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 9, 2011

The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting and the Question of Blame

This is going to be a very short post because I don't have much time and for reasons I'll explain below the fold I'm more interested in reader comments than anything else.

As we all know three-term Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ-8) and several othe3rs were shot in a Safeway in Tucson, AZ yesterday. She was holding her first "town hall," when Jared Lee Loughner, age 22, shot Giffords in the head. He shot 20 people total in his rampage before he was stopped. Six have died and 14 were wounded, including the congresswoman.

Now, who is to blame for this?

From what I've seen in the past day or so, the left has decided that Fox News and right-wing radio talk show hosts are at fault. The Washington Post even links on their front page to a Financial Times story titled Can a gun-crazed society lead? I guess we don't have to guess what their agenda is.

And of course the left is using this incident to go after Sarah Palin. How boringly predictable, yet also how revealing.

To me it's all pretty obvious; the guy who did it is to blame and that's the end of it. People who drag in Fox News, talk radio, the Tea Party, and others on the right are exploiting the murders for their political agenda.

Further, people who are now saying "we should all tone it down" are also just playing politics. They're basically just using the incident to silence the opposition. After all, most of the same folks who are saying this now were riding the "Bush Lied! People Died!" bandwagon not too many years ago. More, whenever someone on the left says something outrageous, the right objects, they issue dark warnings about a "chill on the First Amendment."

Last September James Jay Lee took two hostages at the Discovery Channel building just outside of Washington DC. He said that former Vice President Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" was one of the things that inspired him to commit his crime.

None of the conservatives I listen to on the radio or read in print blamed the enviros for this incident (not saying there wasn't one somewhere...). All, in fact, made a point of saying how absurd it would be to do so, but that if the situation was reversed the liberals would not hesitate to exploit the incident. Predictably they were right.

I'm done. Google around if you're not sure what I'm talking about here and need examples of how some on the left are exploiting this (see this great piece in Slate, for example).

This type of story really isn't my thing, as I'm far more happy talking about Iran, Chinese v American military power, or for that matter even something like national health care policy. In fact, I'm keeping most of this story below the fold for the very reason that I'd rather have you read my story about the new Chinese fighter aircraft.

But for now we've got to get past this silly debate.

Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

November 29, 2010

The Latest Wikileaks Release and What We Should Do About It

The emotional reaction to all of the "document dumps" by Wikileaks is to send a group of specially trained people over there to kill Julian Assange and his cohorts. Or hire someone or some group of whatever reputation. Maybe we should just tell Sweden, where I think he he is now, to hand him over, shoot him themselves, or we'll make life in their pipsqueak country miserable.

But of course we can't do that. Assange has a special spot in hell reserved for him anyway, though I can't figure out exactly where that will be. Dante famously divided hell into nine circles, some of which are divided further.

The ninth circle, the lowest before getting to Satan himself, would seem appropriate, as this is for those who have committed acts of treachery. Dante seemed to have in mind personal acts of one person to another, so I don't know if that's quite right.

But it does satisfy to think of Assange trapped in the ice for all eternity.

Perhaps better is the 6th Bolgia of the 8th circle. The 8th circle is reserved for "the fraudulent--those guilty of deliberate, knowing evil."

The 6th Bolgia of the 8th circle is for the hypocrites, who walk along listlessly "wearing gilded lead cloaks, which represent the falsity behind the surface appearance of their actions - falsity that weighs them down and makes spiritual progress impossible for them."

Assange is a hypocrite because he would not want his private correspondence made public, nor that of anyone at Wikileaks. After all, as Victor Davis Hanson points out, would we not need to see the internal communications of the board of directors at Wikileaks in order to assess the "context" in which they released the documents? "Context" is one reason they give for releasing our secret documents.

OK, Let's Get Serious

The Obama Administration is suitably alarmed:

Moving full bore to contain the damage from the latest WikiLeaks document dump, the Obama White House on Monday ordered a top-down review on safeguarding classified data while Attorney General Eric Holder announced a criminal investigation into the website and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton moved to soothe ruffled feathers abroad.

Describing it as no laughing matter, Clinton suggested any hurt feelings or embarrassment from the release may blow over. Saying "nothing laudable" came from WikiLeaks' action, she recalled that one counterpart told her, "Well don't worry about it. You should see what we say about you."
...

"This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community -- the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity," Clinton said.

Well no, it's an attack on the United States, but never mind. We expect our public officials to say these types of things because it's what the wine, cheese and PBS crowd want to hear. And if that's what it takes to move us to action then so be it.

More seriously, the Administration knows how much harder diplomacy is going to be going forward.

The Media, or at least the New York Times

Long gone, apparently, are the days when liberals snickered when the New York Times revealed something classified about what the Bush Administration was doing. Hey, that's our guy in the White House now! You can't do this to him!

But of course the liberal press, or at least the Times, is in fact undermining the Obama Administration by publishing the purloined documents. This is a matter of high principle, you see. Undermining the government of the United States is always a matter of principle of the highest degree.

We know this because when the Times refused to publish the Climagegate emails the excuse was that "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here."

So what is the excuse then, for publishing the illegally acquired Wikileaks documents? The Times explains that they "serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match."

Huh? So publishing illegally obtained documents is ok in one instance but not in another, because only in the latter the served "an important public interest?" Anything that might make the global-warming crowd look bad is apparently not an important public interest, but embarrassing the United States is.

Got it.

Max Boot adds this important observation

One can understand if the editors of the New York Times, Guardian, and Der Spiegel have no respect for the secrecy needed to wage war successfully -- especially unpopular wars like those in Afghanistan and Iraq. These are, after all, the sorts of people who, over a few drinks, would no doubt tell you that diplomacy is far preferable to war-making. But it seems that they have no respect for the secrecy that must accompany successful diplomacy either. That, at least, is the only conclusion I can draw from their decision to once again collaborate with an accused rapist to publicize a giant batch of stolen State Department cables gathered by his disreputable organization, WikiLeaks.

So What Should We Do?

Bill Krystol has some of the best advice for what to say - nothing:

From now on, a policy of no comment about anything in any of these documents should be the absolute rule. No apologies, no complaints, no explanations, no excuses. No present or former government official should deign to discuss anything in these documents. No one in the executive branch should confirm or deny the accuracy of any document. No one should hasten to reassure any foreign leader of anything, or seek to put any cable in context. No one in Congress should cite anything in these documents to make a point about any issue. The entire American government and political class should simply go about its important foreign policy business, and treat these leaks as beneath contempt, and beneath comment.

Krystol goes on to recommend "criminal prosecution or covert action or cyber-warfare against WikiLeaks." But as for a public position, I'd say he's just on target.

James Carafano has two good and in my mind common-sense suggestions:

First, it can embrace a foreign policy that our adversaries fear and our friends respect. Nobody gets more cooperation than a winner. For starters, the president should dump the New START treaty -- its one-sidedness makes the U.S. look like a lousy negotiator in the eyes of the world... and a patsy in the eyes of the Russians. He should also reject out of hand calls to gut the defense budget and just flat out declare that America will stick it out in Iraq and Afghanistan until the job is done. And while he's at it, he could stand up to China and stop extending the hand of friendship to regimes interested in a world without freedom or America.

Second, the administration can hunt down any American connected with these leaks, try them for treason, and seek the death penalty. They deserve nothing less. Ordered liberty rejects the notion that any one citizen can jeopardize lives and give away America's secrets -- just because they feel like it.

Good ideas all and let's pursue them.

Posted by Tom at 10:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 9, 2010

Why Government Handout Programs and Affirmative Action Must be Scaled Back or Ended

Writing in the Washington Post, Anne Applebaum makes an argument that you often hear from the left:

In Alaska, a preview of the GOP's future By Anne Applebaum Tuesday, November 9, 2010

...For whatever the reason, the hypocrisy at the heart of the (Republican)party - and at the heart of American politics - is at its starkest in Alaska. For decades, Alaskans have lived off federal welfare. Taxpayers' money subsidizes everything from Alaska's roads and bridges to its myriad programs for Native Americans. Federal funding accounts for one-third of Alaskan jobs. Nevertheless, Alaskans love to think of themselves as the last frontiersmen, the inhabitants of a land "beyond the horizon of urban clutter," a state with no use for Washington and its wicked ways.
...

Poor Boehner must feel pulled in two directions, particularly because so many Republicans - and so many Americans - don't practice what they preach. They want lower taxes, higher defense spending, more Social Security and, yes, balanced budgets. They want the government to leave them alone, but at the same time they aren't averse to the odd federal subsidy.

Harde har har! Those hypocritical Republicans! They criticize government programs yet they take money from them!

And it 's just this sort of attitude from liberals that is the very reason we must end these programs now.

We see a similar argument used against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; he was the beneficiary of affirmative action at Yale, yet now he opposes said benefit, ergo he is a hypocrite.

A Liberal Plot?

If I didn't believe in conspiracy theories then I would say that the entire purpose behind extensive government handout, welfare er, "benefits" programs and quota, racial preference, I mean "affirmative action" is to ensnare people so that they are not allowed to protest.

Let's run through how liberals think:

• Massive government benefits and affirmative action programs are good
  
• The best way to win an argument is to disallow your opponent from making theirs
  
• If you receive a benefit you are not allowed to protest it
  

The solution, eureka!, is to make sure that

1. The benefits are so widespread and part of the fabric of the economy that unless people are willing to live as recluses they must participate in them
   
2. Structure the programs so that no one can really be sure if they are a direct beneficiary or not, and thus cannot really opt out
   

Applebaum is a hack liberal making a shallow argument, but there are a lot of those in the pages of the Washington Post (Richard Cohen and Eugene Robinson come to mind). That every-day liberals take their cues from these people is what's truly disturbing.

If liberals wish to debate the merits of this or that "benefit" or "affirmative action" program then fine, state your case. But this insanity of creating huge programs that everyone is more or less forced to participate in (think Social Security) and then attacking anyone who dares speak a word against them has got to stop.

Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

October 14, 2010

The Dependency Culture

For a thoroughly depressing experience, go to your local county board of supervisors/aldermen/city council when they have the annual public input session before they vote on next year's budget. You'll be treated to a parade of government workers and contractors who plead that not only if their particular program is cut the world will come to a screeching halt, but they need additional monies.

If you choose to speak and object that in the current economic downturn the government simply cannot afford programs it could in the past, you'll be told that au contraire, spending more on government programs boosts the economy. This is the case, you see, because businesses don't care about taxes but services, and more money for everything from education to gardening means more business which equals prosperity. And yes, where I live we spend money to teach rich suburbanites how to garden. Really.

Never mind that your local government body may be running a large deficit, or that unemployment or foreclosures are rising. Once a government program is started, it must never be cut, only increased. This is enforced through a built-in constituency; those who are dependent on the program for their incomes can be counted on to demand higher taxes no matter what the economic climate.

And if you sit there and listen most programs do sound important in and of themselves. But then you add them up and they total more than your revenues.

I was reminded of our annual budget hearings where I live when I saw this editorial in today's paper. Although it's about Federal programs and not local ones, it's really the same problem, just at a different level. Following are enough excerpts to make the point:

The political danger of a rising dependent population
The Washington Times
By William W. Beach
Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Every passing year sees significant growth in the mass of Americans dependent on the federal government for life's necessities, from basic nutrition to shelter and health care.

This implacable trend -- long a concern of economists and political scientists -- is beginning to alarm ordinary citizens as well. They rightly sense that growing dependency drives the explosion of federal spending and public debt. They are connecting the dots between out-of-control spending and the public debt crisis here and abroad. They are guessing, again rightly, that every passing day makes controlling dependency more and more difficult, perhaps even more dangerous.

Signs of growing reliance on government -- the antithesis of the traditional American value of self-reliance and self-determinism -- emerge with alarming frequency.
...

Why the increase? Well, for one thing, dependency-creating programs keep offering Americans more and more benefits. Government support for dependent persons has grown from $7,293 per person in 1962, to $31,950 last year (both figures expressed in 2005 dollars). That's a more than fourfold increase in the richness of the benefits, making dependence on government an ever-sweeter deal -- one that gets harder and harder to walk away from.

Another reason is that fewer and fewer people pay for the richer benefits. All adult Americans can vote, but not all voters pay taxes. In 2008, more than 132 million Americans paid no income taxes. That's nearly half -- 43.6 percent -- of all Americans, more than three times the percentage that prevailed just 25 years earlier.

Spending on dependency-creating programs has increased by 49 percent since 2000. But last year alone it jumped a whopping 13.6 percent. Programs experiencing the greatest increase were: Health and welfare, 22 percent; food support, 20 percent; and housing support, 15 percent.
...

Unsustainable growth in dependency programs is at the root of every public debt crisis around the world. While the global recession was the trigger that pushed Greece, Spain and other countries into bankruptcy, the underlying financial problem was unsustainable spending on dependency-creating programs.

Politically involved Americans sense that the pension riots in Greece or the retirement street actions in Paris could come home to the U.S., when the federal government is forced to reduce dependency-related spending. That day could come soon, and the growing connection between financial crisis and political instability has many worried.

Rather than toy with this prospect, Congress needs to address the deep reasons for its excessive spending. That means examining the drivers of dependency and reducing the magnifying utilization of dependency programs. The longer policymakers delay acting on this fundamental challenge, the greater -- and graver -- both the political and economic stakes will become.

It's a problem when only half of the people pay taxes. Their incentive is to take even more money out of the pockets of the "wealthy" to put in their own.

Note please that I'm not really talking about poverty programs here. True poverty programs are necessary. This is as much about "middle-class welfare" as anything.

Yes, Congress needs to address the issue. But this simply begs the question as to what is their incentive? Up until recently, their incentive was to expand dependency programs because it created more dependency and thus the built-in voting constituency that I discussed above.

But the situation has come to a head, so there may well be a way out. George W. Bush and Republican leaders like Denny Haskert and Trent Lott lost conservatives, who had only voted for them in 2004/06 because the Democrats were so much worse. Bush spent a lot, but Obama is Bush on steroids when it comes to spending. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have disgusted not just ordinary Americans but many in their own party as well.

The Tea Party movement is not by itself the answer, but perhaps it represents the answer. First we'll see how well the GOP does in November, and then whether they do as they say once elected. The Tea Party folks say they'll hold them accountable, and I believe they will.

We're not going to overturn the dependency culture in an election or two, but with any luck we can make some dents in it. The alternative is national decline of a sort that will result in a much worse world. The planet needs a strong United States to stand against the dictators. We must not fail.

Posted by Tom at 9:15 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

September 10, 2010

Don't Upset the Religion of Peace!

Because I've been so crazy busy with various projects, I haven't had the time to post I've wanted to. I was going to post about Rev Terry Jones' plan to burn Korans on Sept 11; and now that I've got time he's decided to reconsider or suspend the burning. It doesn't change anything I was going to say, though.

Don't upset the Religion of Peace, or they may become, you know, violent.

Even though Jones hasn't burned any Korans so far, and may not end up burning any at all, that certainly didn't stop a British Muslim activist has called for an international "Burn the Stars and Stripes Day."

Of course I think that Terry Jones is an idiot and that it's wrong to burn Korans. It is also right and good for us to denounce him.

This said, what interests me much more than Jones is the reaction to him, especially from Muslims, and the insane double standard that is applied to these things.

We're all required to say by the politically correct crowd that Islam is a religion of peace. Just don't offend Muslims because they'll become violent. Just ask Imam Rauf, the man promoting the Cordoba House-Ground Zero mosque. He told MSNBC's Soledad O'Brien that moving the facility would cause Muslims to become violent.

Is that analysis or a threat?

A stupid preacher in Florida says he'll burn Korans, and egged on by the media Muslims around the world go nuts. Michelle Malkin calls Islam the Religion of Perpetual Outrage, and I swear she has a point. If it wasn't outrage and rioting over Terry Jones it'd be something else. When you've got a chip on your shoulder and are looking for an insult they're not hard to find.

On Wednesday CNN's Soledad O'Brien interviewed Imam Rauf, the front man for the Cordoba House-Ground Zero mosque. Of course, the issue of Rev. Terry Jones came up.

O'BRIEN: You've heard about this pastor in Florida, Terry Jones, who is proposing burning Korans on 9/11. What do you think of that?

RAUF: I would plead with him to seriously what he is doing.

O'BRIEN: Why?

RAUF: It's going to feed into the radicals of the Muslim world. It's dangerous. General Petraeus has said that. It is something that is not the right thing to do on that ground.

O'BRIEN: Do you think he has a right to do it?

RAUF: And more importantly -- and more importantly -- well, we have freedom in this country, freedom of speech. But with freedom comes responsibility. And a famous saying to shot fire in a crowded theater. This is dangerous for our national security, but also it's the un-Christian thing to do. Jesus Christ didn't teach us to do that. We Muslims have a -- we look to the example of our prophet. Many Christians say what would Jesus do? Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek. Jesus taught us to love your enemy.

We are not your enemies. But this is what Jesus taught us to do. And I would like to suggest that, you know, we all have to live by the highest principles of our faith traditions. As I mentioned, it's important -- I want Christians to live -- to be perfected Christians and I want Muslims to be perfected Muslims and Jews to be perfected Jews. If we don't do that, if we judge each other by the worst of the other's behavior and by the best of our own, where are we going?

Of course the good imam doesn't suggest that maybe, just maybe, he and other Muslim leaders could speak to their fellow believers and tell them "don't react violently to this provocation."

But then, this is the way most of these Muslim leaders are.

Imam Rauf is blackmailing us. Let us build the mosque or there will be violence.

If we give in to his sort of implied threat, then we only encourage more of them.

Americans are required now to fall all over themselves denouncing the Koran burning. You hear this time and again on all media outlets, even ones that don't normally even talk about this sort of thing.

Muslims are rioting Gen Petraeus says that the Koran burning will put our troops at risk. He's right, but the proper response is not to be on the watch for moreTerry Jones', but to demand that Muslims grow up and stop being violent when they're insulted.

Where are the Muslim leaders urging their people to stay calm? Where are the Muslim leaders denouncing the rioting, or decrying the fact that some Muslims may attack American troops over the incident? That's right; they're the same ones demanding democracy, women's rights, and secular governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. They're the ones denouncing the attempt by the Organization of the Islamic Conference in the UN to push through something called the "Combating the Defamation of Religion," a resolution which would have Western nations, including the United States, curtail freedom of speech.

While we're at it, where are the Muslim leaders explaining how much better it is to live in the West, where they are not persecuted for their brand or sect of Islam? I'll tell you; they're the ones doing most of the complaining.

And tell me this; where are the rioting Christians when they burn Bibles in Saudi Arabia or Iran? Every now and then some eager Christian missionary will try and sneak into a Muslim country. Those who are caught have their Bibles confiscated and I am certain destroyed. You have to go onto evangelical websites to even know about these things, or be a member of an evangelical church.

For that matter, where are the rioting Jews and/or Israelis when newspapers in Muslim countries publish some of the most vile antisemitic cartoons? Or show the most insane antisemitic on their TV?

Did Christian extremists riot when Bill Maher's movie Religulous came out? Or when Christopher Hitchens' book God is Not Great? Or Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion? Although most of these do take shots at Islam, they are mostly anti-Christian works. We protested when martin scorsese's movie The Last Temptation of Christ was released (before, even), but riots? No.

Oh, and can we please stop bringing up the Crusades and Inquisition as something we're supposed to feel guilty about?

The Spanish Inquisition (there were four, the Spanish being the "big" one) took place from 1478 to 1834. In the 350 years of this Inquisition 3-5,000 people were killed. Tragic, yes. Pardon me if I can't get excited though over less than one person per month being killed. And no, the Inquisition was not all torture and execution of innocents. Indeed there are many examples of people petitioning to have their cases moved from civil to ecclesiastical (i.e. Inquisition) courts because the latter were perceived to be more fair.

I've dealt with the Crusades before, and suffice it to say that the idea that the poor innocent Muslims were sitting around minding their own business when the Christians attacked them is laughable.

Then there's this absurdity; we as a nation denounce Terry Jones for threatening to burn Korans, yet our own government burned Bibles sent to Afghanistan.

Tell you what; I'll apologize for the Crusades when Muslims apologize for conquering Christian north Africa, ruling all or parts of Spain for over 750 years, invading France, invading India, Invading Italy and Sicily, destroying the Byzantine Empire, invading Austria....

Perhaps most importantly, are we now to restrict our First Amendment rights because Muslims may become violent? As Bruce Bawer relates in While Europe Slept, the native Europeans themselves called for self-censorship in the wake of the "cartoon jihad" of early 2006.

And what is it with the term "moderate Muslim" anyway? Do we feel the need to apply it to members of any other religion?

When someone defends a Muslim as being moderate, they are saying "don't worry, he won't blow you up."

Anyone ever hear of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddists, or Sikhs described this way? Of course not.

Insane double standards like what I have described contribute to civilizational collapse. It is fashionable and tempting to think that "we've been through worse before, we'll get through this one," but that's false logic. Running through speeding traffic 5 times without getting hit does not guarantee success the sixth time. We nearly lost the country in 1860, 1941, or at times during the Cold War. History is littered with once-strong civilizations that collapsed, often quite suddenly. We are not immune.

Not to worry, critics, because yes I do understand that there are true reformers within Islam. I've profiled them here before, just click on "Islam" under "Categories" at right.

Update

Here we go, all it took was a report by Press TV, the Iranian-run satellite news channel that a Koran had been burned in Florida, and there has been massive violence in Kashmir. The police shot 18 protesters dead and a policeman was killed too.

Posted by Tom at 7:45 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

June 23, 2010

Afghanistan: McChrystal Out, Petraeus In

We've got a new top dog in Afghanistan:

President Obama said Wednesday he feels no "personal insult" from Gen. Stanley McChrystal but accepted his resignation as the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan because he couldn't abide scathing comments by McChrystal and his aides that appeared in an article out this week in Rolling Stone magazine.

"The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general. It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that's necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan," Obama said.

In Rose Garden remarks, Obama nominated Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command and the former commanding general in Iraq, to replace McChrystal. Petraeus' confirmation hearing in the Senate could come as early as Thursday.

The president said he had no disagreements with McChrystal's policy or conduct in the war in Afghanistan, and the change in personnel does not mean a change in policy. He said the two were on the same page in terms of war strategy, but no "diversion" to the mission was acceptable.

President Obama absolutely did the right thing. We simply cannot have the military publicly criticizing their civilian bosses.

Yesterday, in Yes, Gen. Stanley McChrystal Should be Fired, I wrote that Obama should fire him but probably wouldn't. This is one instance in which I am glad I was wrong.

The most famous incident in which a president fired a general was, of course, when Truman dismissed Douglas MacArthur. The general had criticized the president's limited war strategy, particularly his desire to avoid involving China.

Forty years ago, in another incident that caused much controversy at the time, President Carter fired General john Singlaub over comments the latter publicly criticized the President's decision to withdraw troops from Korea.

More recently, in 2008 President Bush essentially fired Admiral William Fallon, commander of CENTCOM. Fallon had made comments to a reporter from Esquire in which he indicated that if it wasn't for him Bush would be at war with Iran. The story that came out was that Fallon retired, but there is no doubt that it was a case of "retire or be fired."

In all three cases the president did the right thing. Whether the general or admiral was right in some existential sense is irrelevant.

In the case of Afghanistan, the war effort will be in good hands with Petraeus. If anyone can put us on the path to victory, it is him.

To be sure, most liberals and liberal media outlets are being completely hypocritical about generals who criticize their president. But of course.

All in all, I'm in agreement with Rich Lowry that Obama hit a home run:

I'm not sure how Obama could have handled this any better. He was genuinely graceful about McChrystal and his explanation of why he had to go made perfect sense. He called for unity within his adminstration in pursuing the war and sounded quite stalwart about both the war and about the strategy. More importantly, his choice of Petraeus as a replacement for McChrystal is a brilliant move: He gets a heavy-weight, an unassailable expert in this kind of warfare, and someone who presumably can step in pretty seamlessly. He also picked someone who has expressed (very diplomatic) misgivings about the July 2011 deadline and who will have the clout and credibility to tell the president that he can't afford to go down in troops when July comes, should circumstances warrant. (It should also be noted that this is a step down for Petraeus and he can't relish directly managing another war -- that he will do so speaks to his selfless patriotism.) In short, Obama has made the most of a rotten situation.

There, can't say I never said anything good about our president.

Posted by Tom at 9:30 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 22, 2010

Yes, Gen. Stanley McChrystal Should be Fired

An excerpt from excerpts from the Rolling Stone article

Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his [expletive] war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed." ...

One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a "clown" who remains "stuck in 1985." Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, "turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it's not very helpful." Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal's inner circle. "Hillary had Stan's back during the strategic review," says an adviser. "She said, 'If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.'

McChrystal reserves special skepticism for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating the Taliban. "The Boss says he's like a wounded animal," says a member of the general's team. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous."

Certainly inappropriate and impolitic, but not as big a deal as some of the stories would suggest. That said, ifPresident Obama fired McChrystal I'd support the decision

The President will meet with the general tomorrow, and has said that he won't make any decision until after they talk: "I think it's clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed a poor -- showed poor judgment, but I also want to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make any final decisions."

The most famous incident in which a president fired a general was, of course, when Truman dismissed Douglas MacArthur. The general had criticized the president's limited war strategy, particularly his desire to avoid involving China.

Forty years ago, in another incident that caused much controversy at the time, President Carter fired General john Singlaub over comments the latter publicly criticized the President's decision to withdraw troops from Korea.

MacArthur and Singlaub deserved to be fired. McChrystal's offense is different, but he deserves to be fired nonetheless. However, my guess is he'll probably survive with a reprimand. Most likely the story we'll hear is that McChrystal offered his resignation and the President refused it. Obama will calculate that he simply cannot afford for things to go any more wrong in Afghanistan.

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit said that:

McChrystal's greatest crime is speaking the truth -- that the White House is unserious about this war, and that its foreign policy team isn't up to the job. And if he were saying this about a Republican administration, the press would be hailing him as a great hero, speaking truth to power.

Nonetheless, serving generals aren't supposed to speak this way about their civilian masters, and so if the Rolling Stone reports are true, he should probably be sacked.

Exactly correct. Singlaub was right and he still deserved to be fired. Truman was right with regards to China. Whether McChrystal is right or not is irrelevant because we simply cannot have generals criticizing their civilian bosses in public. The editors of National Review make the point that firing McChrystal will not advance us towards victory in Afghanistan. Undoubtedly true, and also irrelevant.

That said, Reynolds makes another point that is dead on correct:

Under a Republican President, it's listen to the generals. Under a Democratic President, it's all about civilian control of the military.

As always, Victor Davis Hanson has wise things to say, so I'll close with him:

Many have commented on the unfairness of it all, and made good points:

a) Obama, having demagogued the Iraq war, and campaigned on a "let me at 'em" in the "good" war in Afghanistan, has done his best to renege on his 2008 chest-thumping (e.g., not meeting with McChrystal for months; setting arbitrary withdrawal dates that turn the war into a "wait them out" process; publicly rebuking in embarrassing fashion the Karzai government; insulting the British enough so that they and other European countries will soon be leaving -- not wishing to stay on when they also know we're going to pack it up soon, and so on).

b) McChrystal has not said anything more defamatory than what Obama himself, as a U.S. senator, said about the surge or Predators, and nothing that approaches the slanders of a Sen. Durban, Kerry, or Reid.

c) We don't always fire generals who mouth off -- especially those so closely identified with the current efforts at the front. Patton was given several chances; Arleigh Burke was saved by Truman despite his campaign against the Pentagon's civilian head.

d) Obama is in a terrible dilemma. If he doesn't fire McChrystal after a second indiscretion, he perhaps looks weak. If he does, it endangers the current effort in Afghanistan and looks like he's silencing an officer for having legitimate worries.

e) The howling media is hypocritical. Yesterday's officers who took on Bush in the "revolt of the generals" were deemed courageous. Today's critics are slandered as near-treasonous when they dare reproach Him.

f) It would be very frustrating for a gifted and devoted general like McChrystal to work for Obama, given the latter's indifference, contradictions, and clear anti-war stance as a senator.

No matter, nonetheless. The issue is not whether McChrystal is a great officer (he is), but one of judgment. One does not openly criticize civilian overseers to the press, however justified (and there are plenty of justifications). Nor does one allow a climate in which subordinate officers feel emboldened enough that they loosely trash an administration to the press. If one really wishes to warn the public about a growing crisis in Afghanistan brought on by ignorance, egos, and duplicity in the administration, one surely does not talk to the likes of Rolling Stone. The proper way is to send warnings in private channels up the chain of command to the Pentagon and then to the White House. And when one feels the level of ignorance is overwhelming the chances of success, then one resigns and goes public to warn the nation. One cannot otherwise have it both ways.

No one wants to see McChrystal go, but senior officers and their staffers simply cannot ridicule civilian overseers, even if casually and in jest. We don't know all the details or the veracity of the journalists involved, so it would be foolish to rush to judgment, but something will have to be resolved within the next 48 hours or so.

Posted by Tom at 10:00 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

June 4, 2010

Let There Be No Doubt...

... as to where I stand

This shouldn't surprise any of my neighbors, who from yard signs know I'm a conservative Republican. And generally I'm not "in your face" about things, and I don't bring up politics at work or when around people when I'm not familiar with their sympathies. I take candidate bumper stickers off my car when the election is over. But there come certain issues where the situation is so out of hand that you have to take a stand and let everyone know what you see as right and wrong. Now is one of those times

Posted by Tom at 7:45 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 2, 2010

Israel and the Big Lie of the "Peace Flotilla"

This was predictable:

U.S. urged Israel to use caution and restraint with aid boats heading to Gaza
The Washington Post
By Scott Wilson and Glenn Kessler
Thursday, June 3, 2010; A01

The Obama administration said Wednesday that it had warned Israel's government repeatedly to use "caution and restraint" with half a dozen aid boats bound for the Gaza Strip before Israeli commandos raided the flotilla this week in an operation that killed nine people.

"We communicated with Israel through multiple channels many times regarding the flotilla," P.J. Crowley, a State Department spokesman, said in a statement issued in response to a question from The Washington Post. "We emphasized caution and restraint given the anticipated presence of civilians, including American citizens."

Yes yes, Israel must "exercise restraint." You could have written this before anything had ever happened. Israel must always "exercise restraint." No one ever asks the terrorists Palestinians or their terrorist enabling supporters to "exercise restraint."

Richard Fernandez' post at the Belmont Club seemed to sum up the moral confusion of the anti-Israel crowd nicely:

Never mind what the press or the diplomats say happened, the above is what happened. The Times Online reports that "Security Council members, who had broken off from their spring holiday to hold an emergency session prepared a draft document calling on Israel to lift its blockade and immediately release the ships and hundreds of international activists arrested on board them. " That some of the "peace activists" were members of the Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi, itself an organization of ill-repute, is irrelevant. Nothing must get in the way of the narrative, the facts least of all. But the reason anyone should care about the gap between reality and conventional wisdom has nothing to do with what one may think of Israel. The main reason to worry is that it illustrates the Western addiction to fiction, an addiction which sooner or later will have practical consequences. That addiction was also being pandered to on the other side of the world. ...

As a result, any moderately well informed individual knows that there is no Islamic extremism, nor even terrorism. There are only man made disasters. Everybody knows that we can borrow our way out of debt, that the welfare state is the sustainable wave of the future; that Egypt has no border with Gaza through which it can provide supplies if it wanted; that the UN has kept Hezbollah from importing hundreds of missiles into Lebanon; that the thought of a handful of Jews has kept hundreds of millions of oil-rich Muslims from attaining prosperity; and that Global Warming is the main danger facing the planet Earth. That these assertions are untrue hardly matters; that they are indisputable is what seems to count. For who shall dispute them?

Reality might. And therein lies the problem.

Here's what is going to happen with one hundred percent certainty. All of these lies will explode with considerable force in the faces of political establishment. Nothing can prevent it. Just as reality eventually exposed the hollowness of the financial bubble and showed that nothing was "too big to fail," eventually it will demonstrate to our extreme cost, that no lie can be maintained forever. That is the real reason anyone should really care about what happened on the "peace flotilla." We are as corrupt as a preacher in a whorehouse. It ain't what we don't know that will hurt us, it's what we know that ain't so that will drive the dagger into our hearts.

Indeed they will all be exposed as lies sooner or later. I just hope not too much damage is done before they are.

Call me biased if you will, but I'm going to take the rest of this post with videos and commentary from the website of the Israeli Defense Forces. Just as I would take commentary from the Allies over the Nazis during World War II.

Video Footage: Flotilla Activists Getting Ready to Attack IDF Soldiers

02 June 2010 , 22:17

The Mavi Marmara's security camera recorded a video displaying the "peace activists" getting prepared to welcome IDF soldiers.

While the soldiers of the Shayetet Naval Special Forces are approaching the Mavi Marmara ship, the "peace activists" are getting prepared to welcome them. In this special video recorded by the ship's security camera, we can see the way they equip themselves: clubs, pipes, glass and metal bottles. This was recorded a few minutes before they started attacking the IDF soldiers in a violent and uncontrolled way.

Breaking Footage from Mavi Marmara interception

02 June 2010 , 14:53

Video shows what took place as IDF soldiers intercepted the Mavi Marmara ship and were attacked by its passengers

Video footage shows Shayetet Naval Special Forces attempting to intercept the Mavi Marmara ship which is part of the Gaza flotilla. Passengers on board are seen throwing chains, metal pipes and a stun grenade at the soldiers while attacking them with water hoses. The passengers later use the same metal pipes to beat the soldiers who boarded the Marmara. The soldiers can be seen armed with paintball guns, to be used as a means of riot dispersal.

Five other ships arrived to the area with the flotilla, however IDF interception took place with no incident. The passengers on board these other ships cooperated nonviolently with IDF soldiers and there were no injuries

Hamas Refuses to Allow Flotilla Aid into Gaza Strip

02 June 2010 , 20:42

CoGAT reports that Hamas did not allow today the transfer of the cargo brought on the flotilla to Gaza's residents

As of right now, the State of Israel has loaded 25 trucks with various types of aid found onboard the flotilla. Expired medication, clothing, blankets, some medical equipment and toys were among the aid found on the ships. Some humanitarian aid is still waiting at the port of Ashdod. The CoGAT is acting in coordination with international aid organizations operating in the Gaza Strip which are waiting for the transfer of the cargo on the other side of the border.

Unfortunately, the Hamas terror organization is unwilling to accept the cargo and the trucks filled with humanitarian aid have not been allowed to enter the Gaza Strip. It appears that Hamas is in fact stopping the transfer of the humanitarian aid. Hamas did not explain his opposition to the transfer of the aid.

The Ministry of Defense and the IDF allow the crossing of goods and equipment in a routine and frequent manner, and enable the transfer of people for medical, religious, welfare, business or diplomatic reasons. About a hundred of trucks containing aid are delivered everyday by the IDF. In the first quarter of the year 2010, 95,000 tons of supplies and 1068 tons of medicines and medical equipment were transferred in about 4,000 trucks. Also, at the time of swine flu epidemic fear, three Israelis hospitals were designated to treat patients from Gaza and 44,500 vaccinations were delivered into the Gaza Strip.

The State of Israel seeks to achieve regional stability and protection of her citizens. It is not in the interest of Israel to harm the people of Gaza and the state does its utmost to assist aid efforts, so as not to harm the quality of life for the residents of Gaza. Hamas, in its continued efforts to smuggle weapons into the Gaza Strip, harms the people of Gaza and undermines further development. Despite these ever-present security threats, the IDF continues to allow the transfer of commercial goods, building materials, and medical equipment into Gaza.

Supply of weapons discovered on board Mavi Marmara ship

01 June 2010 , 01:15

After passengers on board the Mavi Marmara departed the ship at the Ashdod port, security forces began checking the boat and found a cache of weapons on board.

Arnon Ben-Dror

After IDF soldiers succeeded in stopping the attack against them by passengers on board the Mavi Marmara ship, the ship was brought to the Ashdod port and arrived in the late hours of Monday evening (May 31). Flotilla participants were brought off the ship and taken for questioning.

Once the activists left the ship, security forces began a thorough search and found a supply of weapons, including knives, Molotov cocktails, detonators, wood and metal clubs, slingshots and rocks, large hammers and sharp metal objects. In addition, gas masks were found, pointing to the prior intention of the ship's passengers to use violence against IDF soldiers who would then be forced to use riot dispersal methods.

The IDF has gotten a lot better over the past few years with it's information campaign. They did lousy in the war against Hizbollah in 2006, but much better in 2008-9 against Hamas in Gaza. This time they've added much more video, and to anyone interested in the truth the effect is devastating. Sadly, much of the world prefers a lie.

Posted by Tom at 10:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

"Humanitarian" Relief Flotilla My Foot

The "international condemnation" of Israel's stopping the "humanitarian relief flotilla" is driving me nuts. There is nothing that so illustrates the moral bankruptcy of so many people as just about any confrontation between democratic Israel and terrorist-jihadist Muslims.

I've been so busy I haven't had time to blog much, but a few quick notes are in order because this situation is so insane.

This situation, like so many others, was a no-win for Israel. If they had not stopped the ships, it would have been portrayed as a victory for Hamas by all those who hate Israel. Even if these first six ships weren't carrying weapons, the next ones would be. But since they did stop the ships, there is an "international outcry" against Israel's use of "disproportionate force" blah blah blah.

One of the primary organizers behind the "relief ships" is the Turkish organization Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH, must be Turkish initials). Among other things, the IHH was identified by the CIA in 1996 as being tied to terrorism through linkis to Iran. French magistrate Jean-Louis Brugiere determined that the IHH played an "important role" in the 1999 Los Angeles "millennium plot" organized by al Qaeda that thankfully failed. But you've read all this elsewhere by now so none of that is a big surprise.

You've also read that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which is quite true. Israel allows anyone who wants to send humanitarian supplies to Gaza if they simply dock their ship in Israel, allow the goods to be inspected, and then sends them to Gaza by truck.

But of course these six ships weren't about relief. They were about the destruction of Israel. The goal was to delegitimize the state of Israel by creating the no-win situation described above.

Thankfully, most Democrats as well as Republicans in the United States see this for what it is, a shameful attempt by Islamists so destroy Israel. In January 2009 both houses of Congress issued strong bipartisan statements of support for Israel in their current war with Hamas. I'm sure President Obama will support Israel. A few on the far left and far right will say otherwise, but they're in the minority.

Unfortunately we cannot say the same for many in the rest of the world. They seem to be afflicted with either outright anti-Semitism, moral blindness, or both.

A few quick excerpts from various articles and then I've got to run off to work. First up is a post over at Powerline that's got some great links:

Those manning the Turkish Hamas flotilla seeking to run the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza were no fools. They knew exactly what they were doing -- see Jonathan Schanzer's "The terror finance flotilla" -- and they accomplished their mission in part.

The fools weren't on the ship. The fools are on dry land, as can be deduced from the ship-of-fools quality to the response to Israel's encounter with the flotilla. See Wesley Pruden's "A shocking story of Israeli survival" and Caroline Glick's "Ending Israel's losing streak." See also Mona Charen's "Flotillas and falsehoods" (query: "Don't members of the press ever resent being so used?") and David Hornik's "World regrets death of jihadists, vilifies Israel." For a footnote involving the New York Times, see Seth Lipsky's "Mavi Marmara and the Exodus."

Claudia Rosette has more on the Turkish IHH:

For details on what led a French magistrate in the 1990s to explore IHH connections to terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda, a piece of required reading is a working paper released in 2006 by the Danish Institute for International Studies: "The Role of Islamic Charities in International Terrorist Recruitment and Financing." The entire report is illuminating, but for the section on the IHH, scroll to pages 10-14. When this report was written, the IHH was active in providing "charitable donations" to what were then "rebel-dominated areas of restive Sunni central Iraq."

Not too long ago I naively thought that Turkey could lead the way, or at least play a role, in the reform of Islam that is so desperately needed. But the Turkey of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is going, going..... It is dying a death of demographics (his secular supporters in the cities are being out-babied by those more inclined towards radicalism) and the general rise of Islamism around the Muslim world.

Victor Davis Hanson has more:

The virulent worldwide reaction to Israeli's handling of the Gaza flotilla has been quite instructive. The bankrupt Greeks, for example, are taking a holiday from railing at the Germans to demonstrate in solidarity with the Turkish-organized Gaza effort, which puts them on the same side as those whose government supports the occupation of much of Greek-speaking Cyprus and its divided capital.

No one in Europe worried much about the constant shower of missiles from Gaza in the past. No one in Europe said a word when North Korea torpedoed and slaughtered South Koreans on the high seas. No one objected when the Iranians hijacked a British ship and humiliated the hostages.

We ourselves seem to be getting a sort of novel pass for executing scores of suspected terrorists -- and anyone in their vicinity -- in our new, stepped-up Predator drone assassinations.

But the Western and Islamic worlds have a preexisting furor at the Jewish state that can be tapped at will by almost any pro-radical-Palestinian group clever enough to do proper P.R. after a desired asymmetrical confrontation. The fallout from Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, the distortions around the 2002 terrorist storming of the Church of Nativity, the 2006 Lebanon war -- over time, these incidents do their part, in weird fashion, to incur hatred for a liberal democracy while creating sympathy for a theocratic thugocracy like Hamas.

What explains this preexisting hatred, which ensures denunciation of Israel in the most rabid -- or, to use the politically correct parlance, "disproportionate" -- terms? It is not about "occupied land," given the millions of square miles worldwide that are presently occupied, from Georgia to Cyprus to Tibet. It is not a divided capital -- Nicosia is walled off. It is not an overreaction in the use of force per se -- the Russians flattened Grozny and killed tens of thousands while the world snoozed. And it cannot be the scale of violence, given what we see hourly in Pakistan, Darfur, and the Congo. And, given the Armenian, Greek, and Kurdish histories (and reactions to them), the currently outraged Turkish government is surely not a credible referent on the topic of disproportionate violence.

Perhaps the outrage reflects simple realpolitik -- 350 million Arab Muslims versus 7 million Israelis. Perhaps it is oil: half the world's reserves versus Israel's nada. Perhaps it is the fear of terror: Draw a cartoon or write a novel offending Islam, and you must go into hiding; defame Jews and earn accolades. Perhaps it is anti-Semitism, which is as fashionable on the academic Left as it used to be among the neanderthal Right.

Perhaps there is also a new sense that the United States at last has fallen into line with the Western consensus, and so is hardly likely to play the old lone-wolf supporter of Israel in the press or at the U.N.

At this point, it doesn't much matter -- as this latest hysterical reaction reminds us, much of the world not only sides with Israel's enemies but sides with them to such a degree as to suggest that, in any existential moment to come, the world either will be indifferent or will be on the side of Israeli's enemies.

Quite frightening, when you think of it.

Indeed. I feel a big war coming on in the Middle East, one that will make the recent ones against Hizbollah and Hamas look like small potatoes. No matter how it starts or proceeds, the "international community" will be against Israel. Any U.S. president will support Israel, but whether he does so strongly or tepidly remains to be seen. Even Reagan criticized Israel for it's 1981 attack on the French-built nuclear power plant in Osirak, Iraq, even though it should have been clear at the time that Saddam Hussein was going to use it to build nuclear weapons.

I have relatives of Greek extraction, and they are very worried about Turkey, a worry that wasn't quite as intense not too many years ago. The forces of evil are aligning in a very malign way. The growing influence of radical Islam in Europe, Ahmadinejad's bogus reelection and the coming Iranian bomb, Hugo Chavez' consolidation of power in Venezuela, the Turkish-Brazilian-Iranian nuclear agreement, even the incessant Chinese military buildup seem part of an aligning of forces against the United States and Israel. Is it 1939 again?

Posted by Tom at 7:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 13, 2010

The Manhattan Declaration: A Christian Call to Arms

A Facebook post the other day on The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience by a friend of mine reminded me that I'd wanted to blog about it for several months but just never got around to it.

An explanation, from the website:

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family. It was in this tradition that a group of prominent Christian clergy, ministry leaders, and scholars released the Manhattan Declaration on November 20, 2009 at a press conference in Washington, DC. The 4,700-word declaration speaks in defense of the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty. It issues a clarion call to Christians to adhere firmly to their convictions in these three areas.

It will be easy for some to dismiss this out of hand as a propaganda piece of the far right, aimed at denying the civil liberties of gays, atheists, agnostics, and others. To those who would, bear with me for awhile.

The progressive view of history is that we are always moving forward, or at least should be, and are always improving our lot. All or most programs enacted in the past hundred and fifty years have improved society and everything is thus getting better. Jeff Bergner, writing in The Weekly Standard, calls this "The Narrative:"

The Narrative is the official story about America. It is a story composed by the political left, which entered American public life with the progressive movement in the early 20th century and was elaborated in the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s and '40s.

The story runs like this. America was founded on the ideal of equality, though that ideal at first was barely put into practice. The story of America is one of progress toward the fulfillment of the ideal of equality. The end of slavery and the achievement of women's suffrage are landmarks in this story. All fair enough. So is--less plausibly--the federal income tax, originally established to fund the government but later used to redistribute wealth and tax advantages among Americans. Then came the many programs of direct payments to individuals, the so-called entitlements, beginning with Social Security and extending to Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, aid to dependent children, farm subsidies, and myriad others. And today the health care reform bill before Congress takes its place in America's advance toward equality. Each and every policy that aims to level distinctions between Americans has found its place within The Narrative.

As Bergner says, surely many things labeled as reforms have improved out lot. The end of slavery, universal suffrage, and the civil rights revolution stand out. I've have had conversations with many older conservative women who have no hesitation in telling stories of how they could not get jobs despite having advanced degrees in areas like law and business. Again, all fair enough.

But we're not getting better as a society everywhere, and in some areas are moving backwards. I'm not going to run through the numbers, but I think we should be pretty clear that things like the divorce rate and single parenthood are at all time highs. We're forever hearing that political discussion is meaner and worse than ever. The Playboy culture is upon us, and what you see in the Victoria's Secret window is unimaginable even a generation ago. Who can say that the Bratz series of dolls are really good role-models for girls? The sexualization of our children accelerates in a whole series of areas, from dress to books to what you see on TV shows and in the movies.

I am not arguing for a return to some "golden era" for there never was one. Go back fifty years and all you are doing is trading one sin for another, lack of civil rights for more modesty in dress, for example. No, what I am doing is rejecting the progressive view of The Narrative and the idea that such things as LBJ's Great Society programs were an unmitigated good. So that yes, I am happy that some of the social restrictions of the bad old days are gone, but am unhappy that it has led to the "hook up culture."

The Authors of The Declaration

Robert George Professor, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University

Timothy George
Professor, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University

Chuck Colson
Founder, the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview (Lansdowne, VA)

A quick look at list of religious leaders who have signed makes me think it's pretty ecumenical, though I'm no expert.

What is The Declaration All About?

From the summary page

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are

(1) the sanctity of human life,
(2) the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and
(3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from
powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their
defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are
brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this
commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the
crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Sanctity of Life

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27

I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10:10

The authors here are not only concerned with abortion, but with euthanasia, research using human embryos, so-called "therapeutic cloning," as well as international issues such as "ethnic cleansing," neglect of children, the exploitation of workers, the sexual trafficking of girls, and other issues.

Pope John Paul II described abortion as "the culture of death," but the term also applies to those who casually dismiss those who are concerned about human embryo research and "therapeutic cloning" as religious nuts. It is the casual acceptance of these trends, or the rationalization of them, that disturbs the authors.

The chief objection to this "culture of death is that it promotes "the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature or inconvenient are discardable." It all started with abortion, and now continues into other areas. How long before we leganize euthanasia as they have done in The Netherlands? How can this possibly be good?

Critics often call conservatives hypocrites for failing to oppose the death penalty, to which I say "I'll trade you abortion for the death penalty." Given that there are 1.37 million abortions a year and approximately 52 executions, this is a trade I'll gladly make.

Dignity of Marriage

The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:23-24

This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:32-33

If a man can marry another man, and a woman another woman, why can't a man marry 600 other men?

Once you remove traditional and/or religious guidelines, then marriage and all other social institutions become subject to the whims of politicians and judges, who will respond to whatever pressure group screams the loudest.

The problem goes well beyond "gay marriage." As the authors point out, "perhaps the most telling--and alarming--indicator is the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Less than fifty years ago, it was under 5 percent. Today it is over 40 percent." Most social pathologies, among them poverty, delinquency, drug abuse, crime, and incarceration, can be directly tied to single parenthood.

Just because the straight population, Christian or not, can't keep it's act together is no reason to compound the problem. The authors point out that "the impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture." Too many today are morally confused, lacking clear guidelines, and do not understand the reasons and societal benefits of traditional marriage.

The idea that we could allow same-sex marriage and everyone else would continue on their merry way is not tenable. The proponents of same-sex marriage want nothing less than to force its acceptance in society. They want it taught as perfectly normal in our schools and to eliminate discussion of the subject in the marketplace of ideas, and indeed to end the tax-exempt status of any church who dares object to the new regime.

Religious Liberty

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners. Isaiah 61:1

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. Matthew 22:21

At first glance this may not seem to be a problem, as there is no Roe v Church seeking to overturn the First Amendment. But we see a weakening of religious liberty in other, less obvious, ways taking place.

There is a movement afoot to end conscience clauses for medical personnel in hospitals where abortions are performed. Some even want to force pro-life hospitals to perform abortions or lose their funding and/or licenses. Ditto for same-sex marriage; institutions and businesses will be forced to accept such "marriages" or face punitive legal action.

The Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority can be found in Hebrews 13:17, among other places:

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

So indeed we are generally prohibited from subverting our government (assuming it is not Nazi or communist or some such, then it gets more complicated).

But you don't have to go far to find stories justifying civil disobedience in the Bible either. There are many, but the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in Daniel 3 comes to mind. They refused to pray to the golden image built by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, and were thrown into the fiery furnace as a result. They, of course, were saved by God, but the point is that one may refuse to obey wrong laws as long as one is willing to pay the price.

Did I Sign It?

Of course I signed it. No the document does not discuss every injustice in the United States. The wider one casts that net, however, the more disagreement you'll generate. Best to keep it short and simple.

So I agree with the principles of the document, and think it a worthy basis for action and belief.

Posted by Tom at 8:00 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 11, 2010

Book Review - Whose Ethics? Whose Morals?

I listen to a lot of Christian radio, mostly music during the day and talk at night. Of course, I also listen to Laura, Rush, Dennis Miller, and others too. But I can't go a whole day without some time with God, and radio is part of His ministry.

Like any other genre, some Christian talk radio is good and some is bad. Spare me the fire and brimstone. Bring on insightful, intellectual, and intelligent commentary. Of the latter, Christian Research Institute Chairman Hank Hanegraaff is one of the best. I've listened to him long enough to know that he didn't earn the moniker "the bible answer man" by accident. Check your local radio listings for availability.

Hanegraaff has published a number of works, and one day I'll buy more of them. My time for reading being somewhat small, I decided to start with one of his smaller ones, Whose Ethics? Whose Morals? The Best of the Christian Research Journal. At 95 pages, it's not a long read.

The book is a collection of short essays; one by Hanegraaff, and 5 by other authors. My conclusion; there are a few good sections, but in general it was a letdown. Partially this is just me, because any reader of this blog knows that while I am pro-life, I don't spend much time on the subject. Ditto with other hot-button social issues such as cloning and stem cell research. If the details of these subjects interest you, you'll probably find the book more useful than I did.

In the first part of the book Hanegraaff poses a series of everyday moral questions, and addresses them from a Christian perspective. "What's the problem with pornography" and "What should Christians think about global warming" are two typical ones. You can guess his answer to the first, the second is a bit more complicated. Global warming, climate change, or whatever you want to call it, is a scientific issue which is on the surface removed from Christian thinking. However, there is more to it than that. God has called us to be good stewards of the earth, so we must pay attention to environmental matters. On the other, the environmental movement has a strong quasi-religious aspect to it, and we must avoid falling into this trap.

The best essay is "Dispelling False Notions of the First Amendment: The Falsity, Futility, and Folly of Separating Morality from the Law" by Michael Bauman. There are those who argue that "you can't legislate morality," which is usually a prelude to "keep religion out of government/the/law etc." Bauman presents a convincing case that all law is ultimately based on moral and ethical judgments.

For example, one can justify environmental laws on pragmatic grounds by saying that clean air or water benefits us all. But the simple idea that more people leading healthy lives is itself a moral judgment. Speed limits can be justified on pragmatic grounds by saying that they save lives and we benefit economically and that "cleaning up" wrecks is expensive. Again, the idea that saving lives is good and that cost is a factor is itself a moral judgment. It is therefore foolish to think that law can be made on a strictly pragmatic basis.

Right now we are in a stage whereby vice-type laws are being removed, and more and more moral prohibitions relaxed. A quick look at the supermarket magazines and the cover of Cosmopolitan, or the window of you local Victoria's Secret, makes the point. And that's before turning on the TV for the evening sitcoms. Even the most cursory look at all of the social indicators; divorce rate, single parenthood, etc show a downward trend in the past 40 years, and every serious study out there shows these conditions lead to poverty. The cause-and-effect / chicken-and-egg is complicated, but if "pragmatism" was the basis for our law we'd make divorce and single-parenthood illegal. Neither I nor Bauman are saying these things should be illegal, just pointing out that pragmatism isn't the basis for our legal system.

More, vice-laws have more effect than many people want to admit. Prohibition didn't stop drinking but even after it ended, alcohol consumption was considerably less than before it was enacted. Before prohibition the average American drank 3 gallons of alcohol per year. After it was lifted it was at 1 gallon for the next 10 years, and took 40 years to return to pre-prohibition levels.

Obviously not all sins can or should be legislated, and Bauman makes this explicitly clear.

I don't want to say there is a "worst" essay, but unless you're interested in reading about the ethics of abortion in excruciating detail, you'll find the two essays on abortion tedious. The authors take on seemingly every imaginable "pro-choice" argument, including many I'd never heard of before. They not only take you through the biology of conception and pregnancy step-by-step, but address the very issue of "what does it mean to be human?" I'll admit that in a way it is interesting and indeed important, but it's just not my personal hot-button topic.

Before too long, though, we as a society are going to have to face all the hard questions about "what it means to be human" that we can now see but are just over the horizon. The debate over embryonic v adult cell research is all the rage now, but other issues will be at the forefront soon. Before too many years human cloning will not only be possible but cheaper and easier. Even the Brave New World scenario whereby babies are "grown" test-tubesin baby-factories is not too far off as our technology advances. We'll have to answer the question; just because something is technically possible, do we want to do it? Should these things be legal, illegal, or regulated? These questions are not my cup of tea, but in the end I'll be affected by them as much as anyone.

Posted by Tom at 7:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 4, 2010

President Obama Calls for Civility

No joke. From the Washington Post:

Obama pleads for civility, cooperation in politics

By BEN FELLER
The Associated Press
Thursday, January 28, 2010; 11:57 PM

TAMPA, Fla. -- Trying to bury a year of polarization, President Barack Obama on Thursday escalated his appeal for politicians and voters alike to settle differences without tearing each other apart. His plea: "Let's start thinking of each other as Americans first."
...

Coming one day after his State of the Union address, and one day before meeting with House Republican leaders with whom he continues to battle, Obama's emphasis on civility was a nod to political reality. He needs Republicans more than ever to get his agenda passed, and he is getting saddled with more public blame for the partisanship he promised to change.

Even the AP reporter couldn't report this one with a straight face.

It's a typical Democrat/liberal ploy. Attack, vilify, and slander, then as soon as you suffer a setback demand "civility" from the other side.

The level of hypocrisy is stunning, even for Obama

A call for civility from the party that spent 6 or more years saying "Bush Lied!" at every opportunity, and otherwise savaging him in all manner of ways. This from the party whose senators (John Kerry and Chuck Schumer) have started to use the vulgar term "teabagger" to describe the Tea Party movement. Of course anyone who criticizes Obama too effectively risks being labeled a racist, something we saw quite often during the campaign. And this from the movement of a zillion "Bushitler" and "ChimpyMcHitler" references.

Barack Obama himself is hardly civil, treating anyone who doesn't agree with him as worthy of contempt.

Finally, there was the insane level of attacks on Sarah Palin and her family.

It just like the schoolyard bully; tough and mean when he's on top, but the first to cry foul when he's received a good knock on the head.

But don't Republicans attack and vilify their opponents, you ask? Yes we do. But with rare exceptions we don't then demand civility when the tables are turned.

Also, don't suddenly call for civility when you've been out of power and then win the White House, as Democrats did after Obama won. After years and years of "Bush Lied!" and all the rest of it, I'm in no mood to listen to such hypocrisy.

Look, political discourse is what it is. Yes each side does bad things. But don't be a hypocrite about it and suddenly demand civility from the other side when you suddenly the tables are turned.

Posted by Tom at 9:36 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 3, 2010

Tiger Woods, O.J. Simpson, and Michael Vick

It struck me recently that the Tiger Woods saga reminded me of one of the most famous and loved black Americans of the previous generation; O.J. Simpson. Before their troubles started, both were not merely admired or loved but absolutely adored and held up as idols and role models.

O.J. was the guy everyone loved. He combined what seemed to be a winning personality with sports performance in a way that few could match. Who can forget him vaulting over barriers in airports in those Hertz commercials? His charm and wit seemed transcended race. Unlike a Jesse Jackson, who made his blackness the essence of his being, O.J. was a star first, and only incidentally black. For awhile he had a relatively successful film career, and to this day I remember him in Capricorn One and The Towering Inferno.

Then, of course, there was his arrest on murder charges, and it became immediately clear to everyone that he was guilty. That the jury found him not so was more farce than justice. That he was found guilty in the civil trial somewhat satisfied the vindication many people wanted.

Suddenly the public realized that O.J. was not the man we thought he was. Far from being the warm, charming, good guy that we saw on TV, he was mentally disturbed in some way, even if we couldn't quite put our finger on the diagnosis.

The saga of Tiger Woods follows this same general path, even if we're not quite at the point of writing him off entirely.

As with O.J., Tiger wasn't just a star athlete, he broke records and made it look easy. They were "in another league" as the cliche goes.

And as with O.J., Tiger seemed to have a winning personality. Finally, he, too, transcended race. He was a black man (or "Cabalasian," with a diverse ethnicity) in what was traditionally a white person's sport. But no one cared, because he was good and he was cool. Tiger made golf popular again.

When we first heard the news of his weird car accident outside his house, most people figured that odd as it sounded some rational explanation would emerge. Over the next few days, as as we learned the truth about his numerous extramarital affairs, it became clear that Tiger was not the man we thought he was. Tiger has taken a break from golf, and many sponsors have dropped him.

Tiger did not have just one or two extramarital affairs, but with at least 14, probably many more, and he did this to a wife whom most people would regard as strikingly attractive.

Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick has resumed his football career partially because he seemed truly repentant for his crimes, and also because before them his personality was not known, and wasn't a household name. He fell from mid-level, whereas O.J. and Tiger fell from Mount Olympus. Vick is therefore somewhat of the odd man out in this trio, both because prior to his troubles he was nowhere near as famous as the other two, and because he has somewhat rehabilitated himself.

It was clear from the beginning that O.J. never would, regardless of the outcome of his criminal trial. O.J. denied his guilt, internalized, and became the dark psychopath the brutal murders would suggest. He only added to the bizarreness with the release of If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer, with the "If" reduced in size. Tiger may as yet rebound, but I think the key is whether he is truly repentant and tries to make up for the harm he did through charitable works, funding marriage-counseling programs, or the like. On the other hand, if he internalizes what he did and only makes pro-forma statments of apology, his days as an American hero are over.

Posted by Tom at 5:00 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

November 7, 2009

"Undermining Sri Lanka"

One of the most infuriating things about the modern left is that they spend almost all of their time criticizing democratic governments on their conduct of military action, while letting the most blood-thirsty murderous terrorists and insurgents off scot-free. We've seen it with the recent Israeli wars against Hezbollah and Hamas. The Goldstone Inquiry on Israel's Operation Cast Lead, for example, is an absolute travesty.

Some months ago the forces of the Sri Lankan government finally defeated the Tamil Tigers insurgency. It was difficult and bloody, but they did it. In the end the people of Sri Lanka are much better off. Leave it to idiot leftists in the U.S. Congress to engage in their usual moral equivalence:

Undermining Sri Lanka

America takes the wrong side in anti-terror fight

Sri Lanka is joining Israel as a country facing a war crimes investigation for effectively fighting back against terrorism. America should support the Sri Lankan government or keep its nose out of Colombo's business.

Last week, Stephen Rapp, U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, filed a report to Congress on incidents during the recent conflict in Sri Lanka that "may constitute violations of international humanitarian law or crimes against humanity." The report focuses in particular on January to May 2009 when, after 12 years of conflict, the Sri Lankan military surrounded and destroyed the major armed formations of the Tamil Tigers and killed the terrorist group's leaders.

The report chronicles allegations of war crimes by both Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat whose subcommittee on the State Department and foreign operations requested the report, is calling for "a full and independent investigation" so those responsible can be "held accountable."

The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights joined in the call for an investigation of Sri Lanka's war, saying there are "too many questions" left unanswered. U.N. Human Rights Spokesman Rupert Colville drew a direct comparison to the Gaza Fact-Finding Mission overseen by South African Judge Richard Goldstone. Sri Lanka and Israel are both pursuing internal investigations and have rejected the idea of international involvement in the process.

The Rapp report is not comprehensive, more a list of allegations than a fully documented indictment. Most of the offenses listed are either directly attributable to the Tamil Tigers, such as forcibly recruiting children to fight for them, or the consequence of terrorist activities, such as Sri Lanka shelling hospitals being used by the Tigers as command posts.

The tone of moral equivalence in the Rapp and Goldstone reports is most objectionable. War is by its nature violent, complex and tragic. Rules exist to mitigate war's suffering but can never eliminate it. Terrorist groups like the Tamil Tigers, Hamas and al Qaeda do not consider themselves bound by the rules of war and violate them as a matter of doctrine by targeting noncombatants, using civilians as human shields, torturing and executing prisoners, and by using hospitals and religious sites as headquarters and sniper platforms.

Any war against such an enemy will impose a degree of tragedy on people who under other circumstances would be spared war's horrors. But this is part of the terrorist tool kit, and reports such as these play into their hands. By placing the terrorists' systematic offenses against human dignity on par with the unintentional or otherwise regrettable actions of the regime trying to defeat them, such reports level a moral playing field that by rights the terrorists have no right even to set foot on.

Mr. Leahy should control his zeal to pursue what he views as justice in Sri Lanka. Any objective comparison of Sri Lanka's war against the Tamil Tigers or Israel's offensive against Hamas to America's struggle against al Qaeda would cast the United States in the same light, and elevate our enemies to a status they do not deserve. It hands the enemies of freedom unearned victories even as they are being defeated.

Posted by Tom at 10:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 9, 2009

Obama's Ridiculous Nobel Peace Prize

So President Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. We're supposed to be happy for him and for our country. Sorry, but I'm not.

If you can stand to watch it, here are his remarks this morning upon learning of the award

From his remarks

I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build -- a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action -- a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

He's actually right on some of these: The award is not about his accomplishments because he has none, he does not deserve to be in the company of most of the recipients, and

Where he's wrong is that he does deserve to be in the company of some of the more recent recipients, and the current Nobel prize does most certainly not reflect the promise of our founding documents.

Given that Obama has done absolutely nothing to advance peace, and in fact has made the war far more likely, you may be wondering why he got the prize. The Norwegian Nobel Committee clears that up:

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

It's all bullcrap, of course, but the meaning is clear: we hate a strong United States that takes firm action against the dictators and troublemakers of the world and want one that give up it's sovereignty to international institutions and prefers endless meaningless talk to action.

More, they admit that Obama has done nothing of substance. They base their entire decision on the idea that he has "created a new climate" and "given its people hope."

If there was once any doubt, it should be clear by now that the Nobel Peace Prize is a complete and utter farce. It is nothing but a political statement by a bunch of leftists.

Once upon a time, the winners were at least deserving. Consider these examples:

1906 - Theodore Roosevelt

1919 - Woodrow Wilson

1944 - The International Committee of the Red Cross

195 - George Marshall

1962 - Linus Pauling

1978 - Anwar Al-Sadat and Menachem Begin

1979 - Mother Teresa

1983 - Lech Walesa

1986 - Elie Wiesel

All of these are men, and one woman and organization, of solid achievements. They and most of the others are deserving.

However, more recently the award has gone off the rails with these winners:

1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev

1992 - Rigoberta Menchú Tum

1994 - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin

2001 - The United Nations ( U.N.) and Kofi Annan

2002 - Jimmy Carter

2004 - Wangari Maathai

2005 - International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Mohamed ElBaradei

2007 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr.

Gorbachev is an unrepentant communist who would have kept the Soviet Union around if he had his way, Menchu invented most of her biography, Arafat was a terrorist, the UN is a harbor for human rights abusers, Annan refused to take action that would have prevented the Rwanda massacres and presided over the Oil-for-Food scam, Carter is an anti-Semite, Maathai thinks that AIDS was created in the West to kill black people, the IAEA useless and ElBaradei a moral idiot who thinks Israel the greatest threat to peace, the IPCC is a political outfit and Al Gore a nut who rants that "the earth has a fever."

No one in their right mind would want to be in the company of these losers.

If you look at the timeline on the Nobel Committee's website, you'll see that the deadline for submission of candidates is February, 1 (12 days after he took office), in that month and in March the committee shortens the list, in March and August advisers review it, and in October the winner is selected.

So if you think nine months in office is a rather short time to garner such an award, know that someone thought him worthy a week or two after his inauguration. This alone boggles the mind.

But in the intervening months the committee was no doubt impressed with Obama's world "apology tour." They must have salivated over how he bashed his own country, and George W Bush in particular (if only by implication).

They gave him the awared because they see him as standing above America, not as part of it. He is "post-American." Obama doesn't see himself so much as an American as a "citizen of the world," something he called himself last July in a speech he gave while in Germany.

The whole thing was meant as a repudiation of GWB, and to a lesser extent I think Reagan. After all, this is the org who gave the prize to Jimmy Carter but not RR.

It is an encouragement for him to continue his polices of appeasement : cutting our military, not using our military except in the most multilateral fashion and then only tepidly, signing all manner of international treaties and agreements, ignoring problems such as Islamic extremism

It was also meant as, or will certainly have the effect of, dissuading him from sending a significant number of troops to Afghanistan. Anti-war types in the Democrat party and media will no doubt use this to persuade him to scale back our effort there.

But what if he does send a significant number of troops, a "surge" along the lines recommended by General McChrystal? How will the Nobel committee view that?

Finally, as if to sum up the current administration's attitude, in a display of utter classlessness State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said today that

From our standpoint, you know, we think that this gives us a sense of momentum ... when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes

Ha ha.

Better get your laughs in now, because where we're going with Obama in charge there won't be much to laugh about.

Update

In case there was any doubt, the Democrats have officially gone nuts.

We are all now required to sing the praises of Obama, says DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse

The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists--the Taliban and Hamas this morning--in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize--an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride--unless of course you are the Republican Party.

That "dissent is the highest form or patriotism" went out the window fast.

Posted by Tom at 9:40 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 8, 2009

The Moral Bankruptcy of the United Nations - Part 12,874,372

Watch this, if you can.

Warning: Put all throwable objects out of reach first.

Eye on the UN via TWS

Posted by Tom at 8:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 6, 2009

The Moral Bankruptcy of the International Atomic Energy Agency

Victor Davis Hanson over at NRO

Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei is a living metaphor for all that is wrong with post-Western society. He now proclaims that Israel -- democratic and constitutional -- is the "number one threat" to the Middle East. That he made this comment from Tehran -- after his hosts have serially promised to wipe Israel off the map, and after his own agency missed an entire weapons facility run by an autocratic theocracy -- says it all.

ElBaradei, who was educated in the West, and much of whose family lives in the safety and prosperity of the West, has made a career of appeasing Iran, lecturing Westerners about their assorted sins, and saying nothing about the dictatorship in Egypt (for which he once worked). Indeed, beyond Egypt, he has said nothing about the Middle East's self-induced pathologies -- from tribalism, gender apartheid, and statism to dictatorship and religious intolerance -- which are a far more significant cause of the region's economic stagnation than is Western colonialism.

That ElBaradei has been showered with awards from Western governments and universities -- among them the Nobel Prize -- reveals how well he understands the West's timidity and lack of principle. He knows that he and his family are safer and freer outside Egypt than they are inside Egypt, and he knows that Israel is not going to nuke its neighbors or announce that it would like to wipe Syria or Egypt off the map. He also knows that elites in the West like to be chided by Westernized non-Westernizers about their assorted sins -- it allows those Western elites to alleviate their guilt at very little cost.

In short, if ElBaradei didn't exist, he would have to be invented.

Posted by Tom at 10:05 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 25, 2009

Obama v Netanyahu at the United Nations

United States President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu each gave major speeches at the United Nations this week. One was a profile in moral cowardice, the other in courage.

Profile in Cowardice

Obama's speech was, or should be, a national embarrassment. The man is stunningly naive, with a child-like view of the world that is breathtaking. He insults his own country again and again. He is more narcissistic than any politician I've known. And he is a moral coward because he hides behind politically correct pieties and refuses to address, let alone acknowledge the villains and evil nations in the world.

A few excerpts

I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others.

I'm disgusted with him already. Lucky I didn't see him on TV or I'd have thrown my shoe through it.

Now, like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interest of my nation and my people, and I will never apologize for defending those interests. But it is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 -- more than at any point in human history -- the interests of nations and peoples are shared.

"more than at any point in human history" any point? More than at any time in thousands of years of recorded history? The ignorance is staggering.

On my first day in office, I prohibited -- without exception or equivocation -- the use of torture by the United States of America.

We never tortured, you pathetic excuse for a president. And thank you for giving our enemies a propaganda point that they will use against us again and again.

We've also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have joined the Human Rights Council. (Applause.)

Of course they're applauding, you idiot. The UN Human Rights Council serves to protect dictators and human rights abusers. Sitting on it now are among other human-rights -abusing countries China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Bahrain, and the Russian Federation. They're on the council so they can prevent it from condemning and taking action against abusers such as themselves. The council spends most of it's time bashing Israel. Who in their right mind thinks that this council is capable of anything good?

The cooperative effort of the whole world. Those words ring even more true today, when it is not simply peace, but our very health and prosperity that we hold in common. Yet we also know that this body is made up of sovereign states. And sadly, but not surprisingly, this body has often become a forum for sowing discord instead of forging common ground; a venue for playing politics and exploiting grievances rather than solving problems. After all, it is easy to walk up to this podium and point figures -- point fingers and stoke divisions. Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles, and absolving ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions. Anybody can do that. Responsibility and leadership in the 21st century demand more.

What meaningless drivel.

In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.

The time has come to realize that the old habits, the old arguments, are irrelevant to the challenges faced by our people. They lead nations to act in opposition to the very goals that they claim to pursue -- and to vote, often in this body, against the interests of their own people. They build up walls between us and the future that our people seek, and the time has come for those walls to come down. Together, we must build new coalitions that bridge old divides -- coalitions of different faiths and creeds; of north and south, east, west, black, white, and brown.

Unreal. As I said, a staggering level of naivete.

But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East -- then they must be held accountable. The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced. We must insist that the future does not belong to fear

Really? And what exactly will you do when they ignore your words and forge ahead with their nuclear programs? The most you're going to get Russia and China to agree to is to ban the export of number two lead pencils to Iran. The truth, Obama, is that you don't do a blasted thing. You'll give more fine speeches but "the world" isn't interested in stopping Iran or North Korea.

These principles cannot be afterthoughts -- democracy and human rights are essential to achieving each of the goals that I've discussed today

Oh but it most certainly is an afterthought, coming at nearly the end of the speech.

I've had enough. On to a man of courage.

Profile in Courage

It took the leader of one of the smallest nations in the world, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, to speak the truth. His was the speech Obama should have given Excerpts:

Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.

Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments.

Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler's deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie? And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie?

One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife's grandparents, her father's two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?

No they are not lies, Mr. Prime Minister. But I'm sure that many in the room listening to you think that they are. Anti-Semitism has a home at the United Nation.

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency? A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!

Truth. The emperor has no clothes.

Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong. History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries.

Indeed those who think that it's a small terrorist problem of al Qaeda that we can solve through police type actions and "international cooperation" are dead wrong. Radical Islam will consume us all unless we recognize it for what it is and take action to stop it.

That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction, and the most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

A real challenge, unlike the PC nonsense Obama spouted.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

Yes, and the real problem with the UN is not that it won't address "climate change," as Obama said, but because it will not call evil for what it is and take firm concrete action. Instead of taking action against Iran and North Korea for their nuclear programs, they spend their time condemning Israel.

But it gets better

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks.

We heard nothing - absolutely nothing - from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one. In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare.

You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent. Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II.

During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians - Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.

That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances. Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas. We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave.

Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way. Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth! What a perversion of justice!

Delegates of the United Nations, will you accept this farce? Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

A devastating indictment of the UN.

I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order. The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.

For all Obama's strong words today about Iran's secret enrichment facility the way things are going now it's going to be accommodation.

In an normal world Netanyahu would have received the applause and Obama the silence. Of course it was just the opposite.

Netanyahu has moral courage for speaking the truth. Obama is a moral coward for refusing to do so.

Posted by Tom at 11:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 9, 2009

President Obama's Big Health Care Speech

Ok, so President Obama flattered himself by giving a big speech to a joint session of Congress tonight on one of his signature pieces of legislation. Since no one is going to read a post about Iran or the cost of energy anyway I may as well do the obligatory post.

Text of speech here.

Text of Republican response here.

The short version is that Obama told one whopper after another. He told so many that I simply don't have the time to set up links swatting all of them down. Let's go through some of them.

I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.

Please. If Obamacare passes every president and congress from now until eternity will fiddle with health care. But he's probably arrogant enough to think that if his bill passes it will take care of us from here on out.

We are the only advanced democracy on Earth the only wealthy nation that allows such hardships for millions of its people

Who cares what they do in other democracies? Every other democracy on the planet denies their citizens their natural law rights to own firearms mostly unencumbered by government regulation. I don't' want to emulate Europe or anyplace else for that matter.

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canadas, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesnt, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months.

No, you have tried to completely revamp our system. And as I pointed out a few weeks ago, you do indeed want a single-payer system. You just lie about it now.

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan:

First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

Lie. His plan creates incentives designed to move people off of their work plan onto his government option.

And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies - because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.

Preventative care might be a good idea, but the idea that it saves money has been disproven.

Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most.

Presto, free ice cream for everyone! Hope he doesn't hurt his elbow patting himself on the back.

The power of government to regulate is a fearful thing. Amazing how the same people who freaked out over the Patriot act see no problem with the president issuing such regulations. All for your own good, of course.

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those - particularly the young and healthy - who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek - especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions - just can't be achieved.

That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance - just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers.

You either believe in freedom and liberty or you don't. Obama and the liberals don't. It is flat out wrong to force people to take part in such a program. I don't even think people should be forced to take part in Social Security. There should almost always be an opt out.

He has no business telling people that they must buy health insurance. This line about "otherwise we all pay for it" is a crock because it's not their real argument. The motivation is not cost accounting, it's the arrogant "we know what's best for you so listen to your betters you dumb little people!"

People must be free to make dumb decisions. Not wearing a seatbelt is dumb, but you must be free to take that decision. If you get in an accident and are hurt where in a situation where you'd otherwise be fine then it's your problem. Am I a meanie? No, I'm in favor or personal responsibility.

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable.

Breathtaking.

Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

Actually, the charge is true. Universal coverage always means care gets rationed. And what they'll do is start denying treatments to old people with stage four cancer, and stop allowing the most expensive treatments in situations when they figure you're going to die in a few months anyway.

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

Lie. There are no provisions to verify citizenship. Democrats voted down amendments offered by Republicans that would have incorporated verifications. If there is nothing to verify whether you're a citizen or not, of course illegals are going to sign up. I would if I was an illegal, and so would you.

And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up - under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

Sigh. Obama just repeats the same old falsehoods again and again. Even Factcheck concludes that the house bill "would allow both a "public plan" and newly subsidized private plans to cover all abortions."

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies dont like this idea. They argue that these private companies cant fairly compete with the government. And theyd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they wont be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects

Lie. If you believe that the government won't subsidize the "public option" so as to drive private insurance companies out of business I've got a bridge to sell you.

But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers.

Profit is what is left over after overhead expenses are met, you idiot. But I guess this is what happens when you spend your entire life living off of the taxpayer dole and not being involved in making a real living.

First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future.

My g_d he really does think we're stupid if he expects anyone to believe this. YOU CANNOT INCREASE DEMAND AND HOLD PRICES DOWN... unless you plan on withholding care. I.E. rationing. It's that supply and demand thing we're supposed to have learned in high school.

Second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system a system that is currently full of waste and abuse.

I don't believe any politician who says they'll save money through introducing efficiencies, because they never comes to pass. This applies to Republicans as well as Democrats.

In fact, I want to speak directly to Americas seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.

Demagugue? Stop talking about yourself so much.

he only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care.

There's a name for bashing the profits of companies that don't do the government's bidding.

Finally, many in this chamber particularly on the Republican side of the aisle have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine.

In other words, no tort reform.

I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that its better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent whats in the plan, we will call you out.

Gee that sounds like a call for bipartisanship. Guess what? We'll call you out too.

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing.

Another lie to insinuate that conservatives want to do nothing. Google around for "Republican health care plans" or some such if you're some lib who actually believes Obama. If you don't like Republican or conservatives plans fine, but don't lie and say that the other side isn't proposing anything.

Conclusion

A very partisan speech. it was full of threats and attacks on conservatives for allegedly misrepresenting Obamacare. If he thought he was going to bring in any Republicans he's going to be sorely disappointed. Sure, he'll get an Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, but I hardly count them as Republicans anyway.

So the battle lines are drawn. His main problem is holding his own party together. With a 60 - 40 lead in the Senate and 256 - 178 advantage in the House, they should be able to pass whatever they want. That they can't shows how incompetent Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are.

We now come off of August recess, after all the rucus over the town halls, demonstrations and such. It's clear that at least Obama doesn't think they were representative of the majority of the American people. I think otherwise, and hope I right. Obama may get his proposals through Congress mostly unscathed, and it may well doom his party.

Posted by Tom at 10:45 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 24, 2009

The Glenn Beck Boycott and Whole Foods

So in addition to boycotting Fox News in general the left has taken after radio talk show host and Fox News host Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck returns to Fox News Channel on Monday after a vacation with fewer companies willing to advertise on his show than when he left, part of the fallout from calling President Barack Obama a racist.

A total of 33 Fox advertisers, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc., CVS Caremark, Clorox and Sprint, directed that their commercials not air on Beck's show, according to the companies and ColorofChange.org, a group that promotes political action among blacks and launched a campaign to get advertisers to abandon him. That's more than a dozen more than were identified a week ago....

e was actually on another Fox show July 28 when he referred to Obama as a racist with "a deep-seated hatred for white people." The network immediately distanced itself from Beck's statement, but Beck didn't. He used his radio show the next day to explain why he believed that. He would not comment for this article, spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said.

ColorofChange.org quickly targeted companies whose ads had appeared during Beck's show, telling them what he had said and seeking a commitment to drop him. The goal is to make Beck a liability, said James Rucker, the organization's executive director.

"They have a toxic asset," Rucker said. "They can either clean it up or get rid of it."

The insane hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

Whether Beck's comment was over the top of not is not the issue. I disagree and I don't think Obama is a racist, but he certainly has no problem associating with anti-white and anti-Semitic racists. He did, after all attend Trinity United for 20 years, all the while admiring Jeremiah Wright, and only left when it became politically expedient to do so.

After almost decade of listening to "Selected, not Elected, "Bush lied, people died, "impeach Bush," "Bushitler," "Chimpy McHitler," and about a zillion other comparisons of George W Bush to Hitler and Republicans to Nazis, I am in no mood to sit back and listen to liberals whine about something a radio and TV talk show host said.

Here we have Keith Olbermann call Bush and Republicans Fascists, and the anti-religious hatemonger Bill Maher spewing his venom, all the while egged on by the left, and I'm supposed to be upset about Glenn Beck? Please. Given all that we on the right have had to put up with everyone from Olbermann and Maher to Roseanne Barr and Janeane Garofalo, Beck's comment was about as unremarkable as it gets.

And we all know that the same leftist idiots who want to throw Beck off the air and shut down Fox News would be the first to scream that their First Amendment rights were being violated if the shoe was on the other foot.

So to claim that Beck is so over-the-top that he should be taken off the air is liberal lunacy pure and simply.

Speaking of boycotts, the left is engaged in yet another boycott, that of the trendy leftie Whole Foods chain. Whole Foods founder and CEO had the temerity to - gasp - go against the leftist party line in an editorial published in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago. Now the lefties are all up in arms and are boycotting his stores.

Andrew Breitbart hits another home run today in his editorial in today's Washington Times, so we'll just quote in in full:

Boycotting the boycotters

Andrew Breitbart

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

John Mackey - the founder, CEO and marketing genius behind Whole Foods - finds himself in an organic, unsustainable mess with his carefully cultivated affluent, liberal customer base after penning an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal titled, "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare."

For starters, Mr. Mackey opens with a line from known-liberal-allergen Margaret Thatcher that features the dreaded "S" word: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Then he goes on to provide eight sensible free-market solutions gleaned from his company's well-regarded employee health care program.

Mr. Mackey, a free-market libertarian, is now at the mercy of an unforgiving grass-roots mob intent on destroying his company. More than 25,000 people have signed on to a Whole Foods boycott on Facebook.

"Whole Foods has built its brand with the dollars of deceived progressives," the online petition reads. "Let them know your money will no longer go to support Whole Foods' anti-union, anti-health insurance reform, right-wing activities."

A complementary Web site, WholeBoycott.com, features unintentionally comical video testimonials from aggrieved former customers. The mainstream media have picked up on the story and fanned the flames.

The success of Whole Foods is largely built on Mr. Mackey's understanding of the liberal mind. It wants the good life - but with instant absolution for the sin of conspicuous consumption. Whole Foods is marketing at its best. Iconography and slogans throughout the store - not unlike those Barack Obama used to win the presidency - tell the shopper they are saving the planet in large and small ways.

The product is so good even conservatives and skeptics are willing to play along.

But Mr. Mackey missed the key ingredient of modern liberalism: intolerance to the ideas of nonliberals. And this miscalculation may prove to be devastating to his multibillion-dollar business.

Everywhere one looks these days, the intolerance of self-avowed liberals is on display. Especially since Mr. Obama came to power.

The purportedly open-minded and empathic among us who now run everything - save for NASCAR and Nashville - openly wage war against those who dare disagree.

Witness Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi's joint-penned editorial in USA Today in which the House's two top Democrats describe those publicly questioning Mr. Obama's proposed health care system overhaul as "un-American."

One need not go back too far in the political time machine to recall a time when the same people were claiming that the term "un-American" was being tossed at liberals for opposing the Iraq war, and that Republicans were stifling free speech.

Examples were rarely, if ever, given. It just was. And we were told this was a very, very bad thing.

The Dixie Chicks brilliantly used this sob line to become a Rolling Stone magazine cover staple, a blue-state crossover and an international cause celebre. A chorus line of would-be liberal celebrity martyrs took a similar marketing tack proclaiming McCarthyism was again afoot - as conservative Hollywood kept its collective mouth shut knowing that support for President Bush or the war was an instant career-killer.

Yet amid the cries of "dissent is patriotic" - a phrase seen on the bumper stickers of cars in the Whole Foods parking lot - the antiwar movement grew and grew, unfettered by the war's supporters or by the party in power.

As the Hollywood Left churned out antiwar film screeds, it was creating a narrative of its victimhood as it victimized Mr. Bush and his administration with the false accusation that dissenters were being persecuted. But now that they are in power, Democrats are brazenly wielding punitive weaponry against dissenting Americans and are using the power of the state to shut up citizens.

The Democratic leadership - and its friends in the mainstream media - seem determined to brand opposition to the president's legislative agenda as illegitimate, even racist in origin. Individuals and grass-roots organizations are helping the statists' cause by advocating boycotts and other means of stifling dissent.

The strategy is clear: Intimidate people from speaking up or from attending public protests by telegraphing that anyone can be made a demon for standing up and exercising basic, constitutional rights.

To call these people hypocrites would be a grave insult to those who fail to live up to their own standards. Liberalism has never been about establishing a universal standard. Liberalism is simply intellectual cover for those wanting to gain political power and increase the size of the state.

For free-speech principles to be reinforced and free-market ideas to win the day, more people are going to have to stand up and be heard.

Mrs. Pelosi and the Whole Foods boycotters are on the wrong side of history.

The way to stand up to them is to go to "tea parties," raise a ruckus at health care debates and - buy organic garlic, herb fresh goat cheese and three-bean salad with quinoa at your local Whole Foods store.

This time, you really could be saving the planet.

• Andrew Breitbart is publisher of the news portals Breitbart.com and Breitbart.tv. His latest endeavor, Big Hollywood (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com), is a group blog on Hollywood and politics from the center-right perspective.

Posted by Tom at 9:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 17, 2009

Alinsky's Rule 12: Destroy the Individual

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

Hillary Clinton used to complain about "the politics of personal destruction," but the Republicans of the 1990s had nothing on the radicals of today. Other than the occasional observation by Rush that Chelsea Clinton wasn't going to win any beauty contests, she didn't have to worry about her child or extended family.

But these liberals today are something else. For almost eight years they say that George W. Bush is another Hitler, and then whine when anyone compares their healthcare plan to the German plan under the Nazis. We heard one despicable attack on George W. Bush after another, and all the time the media stayed silent. But anyone says anything about their messiah Obama, or puts up an offensive poster, and you'd think the world had come to an end if you watch the liberal news.

Speaking of news, these liberals can't take any dissent. On the left side of broadcast media you have CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS. There's a grand total of one on the right, Fox News, and they can't stand the idea that it even exists. Sure, for decades conservatives have lamented liberal bias in the news. But I never saw the sheer hatred toward any network that I see for Fox. They want it off the air, and over at Democrats.org they're actually getting some companies to drop their advertising.

To this day they attack every single member of Sarah Palin's family with apparent impunity from criticism from the media.

We saw how after the defeat of Proposition 8 in California the brown shirts of the "gay rights" movement attacked Mormons, storming their churches and issuing the most vile slanders and attacks.

Carrie Prejean gave one of the most unoffensive and nice answers I've ever heard to a question on gay marriage, yet was subject to the most vile and insane attacks from everyone from hollywood media types to Keith Olbermann.

Even Anderson Cooper, supposedly a "serious" CNN anchor, made "tea bagging" "jokes" with his guests, referring to a gay sex practice too disgusting for me to explain here.

And all of this is considered quite normal for liberals, from what I can tell. Olbermann and Cooper are still employed at their respective networks.

As Sister Toldjah asked last week, "Since when the hell did the MSM ever give a damn about Hitler comparisons?"

Andrew Breitbart nails all this and more in his column today in The Washington Times, which I am reproducing in it's entirety:

George W. Bush-by-proxy syndrome
Andrew Breitbart

There is an extensive body of writing from both sides of the political aisle that has analyzed the extraordinary depths of hatred leveled at former President George W. Bush.

His birth into a wealthy and politically connected family is where a lot of the animus starts. His rejection of his Connecticut roots and adoption of a rugged Texan persona naturally riled his birth-constituency. His disjointed speaking style also alienated many others - especially those who covered him in the Northeastern media. Naturally, some of his initiatives were controversial. His allies say he didn't do enough.

But all presidents make mistakes, pursue unpopular ideas, possess off-putting personality traits and don't do enough to appeal to their core supporters. Something far more insidious was at work in the hatred of our most recent former president.

Now that Mr. Bush is quietly going about his retirement, this strain of rage - the GWB43 virus - has spread like wildfire, finding unsuspecting targets, each granting us greater perspective into what not long ago seemed like a mysterious phenomenon isolated only on our 43rd president.

The first person to catch the virus was Sarah Palin, whose family also was infected, including, unforgivably, her children.

Then it was Joe the Plumber, for asking a question.

Next were the Mormons.

Then it was Rush Limbaugh - who hit back.

Next, tax-day "tea party" attendees were "tea bagged."

Then there was a beauty contestant.

And a Cambridge cop, too.

And now we have town-hall "mobs."

Smile ... you've been "community organized."

When put on the media stage, these individuals and groups have been isolated for destruction for standing in the way of a resurgent modern progressive movement and for challenging its charismatic once-in-a-lifetime standard-bearer, Barack Obama.

This is their time, we've been told. And no one is going to stand in the way.

The origins of manufactured "politics of personal destruction" is Saul Alinsky, the mentor of a young Hillary Rodham, who wrote her 92-page Wellesley College senior thesis on the late Chicago-based "progressive" street agitator titled, "There Is Only the Fight."

Mr. Obama and his Fighting Illini, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, have perfected Mr. Alinsky's techniques as laid out in his guidebook to political warfare, "Rules for Radicals." In plain language, we see how normal, decent and even private citizens become nationally vilified symbols overnight - all in the pursuit of progressive political victory.

"Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)"

With the complicity of the mainstream media and abetted by George Soros' money and netroots nation, Mr. Bush never stood a chance.

But the more the virus spreads, the more we study it and, perhaps, find the cure. The repetitive use of the same technique against anyone who would dare stand up and oppose the progressive movement and especially its leader has exposed the game and rendered its tactics less effective.

In fact, one could make the argument that the Republican Party, usually slow on the uptake, has finally figured it out. There are no major Republican targets out there opposing Mr. Obama and his aggressive agenda. The conservative movement appears leaderless, but perhaps for the best.

Maybe that is the strategy: Standing back and letting the Obama machine flail in its pursuit of its next victim.

A grass-roots movement of average Americans has stood up, making it extremely difficult to isolate and demonize an individual.

Mr. Alinsky noted in "Rule 12" that it is difficult to go after "institutions." And attacking "tea baggers" and "mobs" has only created more resistance and drawn attention to the left's limited playbook. Even Americans expressing their constitutionally protected right to free speech are open game.

Now that many people are Googling the Alinsky rule book and catching up with the way Chicago thugs play their political games, Mr. Obama and the Fighting Illini are going to be forced to create new rules - or double down on the old ones.

Worse yet, as his approval ratings descend rapidly - Rasmussen has him at 47 percent, the lowest of his presidency - angry citizens may be turning the tables on him, using Mr. Alinsky against him.

They won't have to "freeze" and "personalize" him either. He's got 3 1/2 years left with the klieg lights focused on him. And if Mr. Obama can't get the economy rolling and continues to demonize everyday folks for his failures, he will be further isolated from sympathy and even ridiculed.

Yes, it's cruel - and effective.

Ask Mr. Bush, the magnanimous guy who gave the new president a heartfelt hug the day he took office. He knows.

Boy, I wish I could see his famous smirk right about now. I always loved how much they hated that.

The Democrats made a classic error after the last election by overestimating their mandate. A majority of voters wanted the Republicans out, and thought they'd give the Democrats a chance. But they didn't buy into the entire socialist-left Democrat agenda, and they're finding this out the hard way now.

In the end, I think Andrew might be right; the left has overplayed it's hand. The American people are waking up and we're seeing it at the town halls. More, the town halls are showing that liberal-left tactics of intimidation aren't working anymore.

Posted by Tom at 9:30 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

August 3, 2009

Is Health Care a Right?

Is heath care a right? Short answer; no.

Consider our Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Did you read it? I hope so.

Now consider Franklin Delano Roosevelts' proposed Second Bill of Rights, sometimes called his "Economic Bill of Rights"

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

Thankfully this was never formally adopted. Unfortunately some of it it has been adopted in practice, which was Roosevelt's intent. He was not one to let the Constitution stand in his way.

The difference between the two is striking. The first tells us what the government cannot do to us, the second what it should do for us. The first simply requires it to stay out of the way, the second to proactively interfere in our lives. The first describes what the government must do in cases where it wishes to charge a citizen with a crime, the latter what it must do to make us happy.

Today we are told by the left that health care is a right. The government may or may not have an obligation to provide it, but it most certainly is not a right as properly defined.

Theodore Dalyrymple has some thoughts in his piece in last week's Wall Street Journal that are well worth pondering.

If there is a right to health care, someone has the duty to provide it. Inevitably, that "someone" is the government. Concrete benefits in pursuance of abstract rights, however, can be provided by the government only by constant coercion.

People sometimes argue in favor of a universal human right to health care by saying that health care is different from all other human goods or products. It is supposedly an important precondition of life itself. This is wrong: There are several other, much more important preconditions of human existence, such as food, shelter and clothing.

Everyone agrees that hunger is a bad thing (as is overeating), but few suppose there is a right to a healthy, balanced diet, or that if there was, the federal government would be the best at providing and distributing it to each and every American.

Where does the right to health care come from? Did it exist in, say, 250 B.C., or in A.D. 1750? If it did, how was it that our ancestors, who were no less intelligent than we, failed completely to notice it?

If, on the other hand, the right to health care did not exist in those benighted days, how did it come into existence, and how did we come to recognize it once it did?

When the supposed right to health care is widely recognized, as in the United Kingdom, it tends to reduce moral imagination. Whenever I deny the existence of a right to health care to a Briton who asserts it, he replies, "So you think it is all right for people to be left to die in the street?"

When I then ask my interlocutor whether he can think of any reason why people should not be left to die in the street, other than that they have a right to health care, he is generally reduced to silence. He cannot think of one.

Moreover, the right to grant is also the right to deny. And in times of economic stringency, when the first call on public expenditure is the payment of the salaries and pensions of health-care staff, we can rely with absolute confidence on the capacity of government sophists to find good reasons for doing bad things.

The question of health care is not one of rights but of how best in practice to organize it. America is certainly not a perfect model in this regard. But neither is Britain, where a universal right to health care has been recognized longest in the Western world.

Not coincidentally, the U.K. is by far the most unpleasant country in which to be ill in the Western world. Even Greeks living in Britain return home for medical treatment if they are physically able to do so.

The government-run health-care system--which in the U.K. is believed to be the necessary institutional corollary to an inalienable right to health care--has pauperized the entire population. This is not to say that in every last case the treatment is bad: A pauper may be well or badly treated, according to the inclination, temperament and abilities of those providing the treatment. But a pauper must accept what he is given.

Universality is closely allied as an ideal, ideologically, to that of equality. But equality is not desirable in itself. To provide everyone with the same bad quality of care would satisfy the demand for equality. (Not coincidentally, British survival rates for cancer and heart disease are much below those of other European countries, where patients need to make at least some payment for their care.)

In any case, the universality of government health care in pursuance of the abstract right to it in Britain has not ensured equality. After 60 years of universal health care, free at the point of usage and funded by taxation, inequalities between the richest and poorest sections of the population have not been reduced. But Britain does have the dirtiest, most broken-down hospitals in Europe.

There is no right to health care--any more than there is a right to chicken Kiev every second Thursday of the month.

Posted by Tom at 9:41 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

June 7, 2009

The Speech Obama Should Have Given in Cairo

Last week I eviscerated President Obama for giving a pretty awful speech to Muslims while in Cairo. Doctor Zero, posted at Hot Air the speech Obama should have given:

I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and grateful for your hospitality. I will honor you in return by addressing you directly. I came here to speak to you, not to European leaders or American media commentators. I hope you will forgive my frankness, but we have much to talk about, and some of what I came here to say will not be easy for you to hear.

I will not waste your time by carefully selecting quotes from the Koran, in a misguided attempt to tell you what your religion means. I am here to tell you what membership in the community of civilized nations means. Your faith is your own affair, but it ends where the rest of our lives begin. It is fashionable among the Western elites to say that we have much to learn about the Muslim world, but the truth is precisely the reverse. One of the bedrock principles of Western democracy is that we don't need to understand, or even like, a particular religion in order to respect its faithful and their rights. There are some things the West is long overdue in teaching its Muslim neighbors, however. Let us begin with dismissing the notion of a "Muslim world." There is no such thing. There is one world, made increasingly intimate by the easy movement of people, resources, and ideas. We are all in the process of learning how to live with our fellow men, and while the West is far from perfect, we are much further ahead in our studies than the nations of the Middle East. Our security, and yours, will be greatly enhanced if we can lend you some of the wisdom we have accumulated.

We did not come by this wisdom easily. We learned by taking incredible risks... and making terrible mistakes... magnified by the power of Western military tradition and technology. The people of the Middle East have never known anything to compare with the industrialized slaughter of the two World Wars, in which millions of lives were lost to decisively settle the question of what makes a government just and legitimate. You have never watched five thousand of your sons die on a single day, to secure a beachhead against the forces of genocidal fascism - a battle we commemorate on the sixth of June every year. Your fighting men have not faced anything like the battle for Okinawa, where American Marines faced an eighty percent chance of death - and did not waver. You have not sacrificed half a million soldiers to destroy the evil of slavery, as America did during its Civil War. You have not spent blood and treasure around the world to save other nations from the savage darkness of communism. You have no leaders to equal the Founding Fathers who pledged their lives, and sacred honor, to win America's independence from imperial domination.

You have not burned and bled for freedom, as we have. We would spare you that pain, if we could. We are willing to burn and bleed for you - and we have been doing so, for eight long years. Instead of indulging in foolish paranoid fantasies about crusaders and oppression from America, open your eyes and look to the mountains of Afghanistan, where over a thousand Coalition troops have died to overthrow the Taliban, after their despicable complicity in the murders of September 11, 2001. We did not have to send those troops into harm's way, to avenge the slaughter at the World Trade Center. We could have eliminated all life in that region, in a matter of hours. If we followed the standards of our enemies, we would have. We sent our best and bravest into battle because of who we wished to spare, not who we wanted to kill.

Open your eyes and look to Iraq, where we allowed thousands of Iraqi troops to lay down their arms and go home, instead of killing them where they stood. We paid an awful price for this act of mercy, as many of those men went on to join the brutal terrorists who dreamed of keeping the Iraqi people enslaved. Some in America and Europe find it politically expedient to draw moral equivalency between American soldiers and the terrorists they fight. I ask you to show me the al-Qaeda "equivalent" of Private First Class Ross McGinnis, who climbed down into an armored vehicle and smothered a grenade to protect his crew, when he could easily have leaped from his gunnery hatch to safety. Show me an "insurgent" who can match the valor of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, who flung himself into an impossible battle against odds of a hundred to one... to save the lives of a hundred wounded men. These two soldiers are among those who have won the Congressional Medal of Honor for their sacrifices in Operation Iraqi Freedom. No one on the other side is worthy of such an honor. I say this to you because keeping silent - whether from misguided modesty, self-loathing, or the desire to avoid offending your vanity - is an insult to your honor, and an injury to your future.

We have made a fetish of "tolerance" in America, and it has curdled into poison. I am here to tell you what the civilized world is no longer prepared to tolerate. We will not stand silently by while women are enslaved, brutalized, or murdered. We will no longer hypnotize ourselves with self-criticism over gay rights, while you bury gay men and women under piles of jagged stone. We will not swallow our tongues for fear of offending Islam, when Islam oppresses all other religious beliefs within its borders. We know you can do better. We also know that nothing will improve unless we demand you do better... and we do demand it. The world has turned, and the old days of totalitarianism and pillage are done. There is no more place in it for barbarians. Believe what you will, follow your customs, honor the holy writings of your Prophet, and strive to understand God's will through prayer, music, and scholarship. You will find nothing but honest respect and admiration from the West. But when you stand among civilized people, you will be civilized people. When you are shown respect, you will answer with respect. As the West reveres and protects the life of your innocents, so you will revere ours.

I speak to you as the democratically-elected leader of a great republic, which has earned the right to walk tall and proud through the halls of history. It is a right earned on battlefields... but also at humanitarian relief camps, pharmaceutical laboratories, civil-rights marches, and field hospitals. It is a right earned by rebuilding shattered enemies after terrible wars, by tearing down the statues of tyrants and building schools for the children of their liberated victims. Ours is a hard-won glory that can be seen in six men raising a flag on Mount Suribachi, or one man planting that flag in the dust of the moon... or millions of men and women stepping into voting booths. Look at the free people of Iraq, with their fingers proudly covered in purple ink after they vote, and know that America is eternally eager to share her glory. Indeed, we believe we can only render it proper honors by sharing it with all of our brothers and sisters around the world. But also remember this: the Middle East stands at a crossroads, and the heavy responsibility of reconciling faith, tradition, and the demands of the modern world rests with you. You must choose between old hatreds and new possibilities. You must choose between murder and prosperity. I have come here today to tell you clearly, and without reservation, that you cannot have both. May the next leader chosen by the American people stand in my place someday, to congratulate you on a wise choice.

Posted by Tom at 9:42 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

June 4, 2009

President Obama's Speech to the "Muslim World"

Early today President Barack Obama delivered a major address to the Muslim world from Cairo, Egypt. The transcript is here. Following are excerpts and my observations. And yes I'll try and be fair.

All indented text is President Obama, except at the end under "other opinion"

The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Oh for pete's sake. We're only in the second paragraph and this train is going off the rails. I've read more than a little world history, and I don't recall "centuries of co-existence and cooperation" between the Islam and the West. I'm not even sure it adds up to a few decades.

More fundamentally, we're off into victimology. Obama seems to be saying that the problems in the Muslim world are the fault of the West.

He is right, though, in that modernity is seen as a threat by many Muslims.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library.

Heavens. This is either ignorant or a deliberate misrepresentation. Islam has been a minuscule part of American history.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words - within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."

This is good and I'm glad he said it. Here he is on solid ground, and this is just what the rest of the world needs to hear. It gets even better with this:

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

Great stuff. Unfortunately it's not followed up with "and there is no religious freedom in the Muslim world and this needs to change." But of course Obama didn't say this. President Bush's Freedom Agenda is dead as far as this administration is concerned.

We also have this curious part

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores - that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

There is the grating bit about only he is allowed to use his middle name when it suits his purposes, but how dare anyone else.

There are nowhere near seven million Muslims in the United States. Daniel Pipes cites two studies saying that the true figure is probably closer to 3 million (here and here), and maybe less than that.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

For the most part this is boilerplate drivel, and I was tempted to pass it off as such until I reread it and a phrase in the middle jumped out at me

any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail

If Obama has his way then we have come to the end of American Exceptionalism.

Sorry, Mr. President, but there are differences between nations and peoples, and as currently constructed some are better than others. Some nations and cultures are better than others. Cultures that tolerate stoning are bad. Cultures that subjugate their women are bad. West Germany was better than East Germany. South Korea is better than North Korea. Taiwan is better than mainland China. And Israel is better than Gaza. Of course I write not of genetic, racial differences, but of culture, legal, and governmental practices.

As I have written time and again, the entire problem with the United Nations, and what makes it such a terrible institution, is that by it's nature it sees all natiions as equal. It makes no distinction between democracy and tyranny.

Barack Obama is either a moral idiot, steeped in relativism, or he can't say what he really means. If we take him at his word, he has no preference for America. We are just one of many nations, with nothing special about us.

Throughout the years the United States has been seen as a beacon of hope for many. Economic, religious, and political freedoms have never been perfect here, and often in need of great reform. But even our imperfections have never prevented people from coming here to seek a better life. More, our example has inspired millions around the world to better their own countries.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with....

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

All very good. Unfortunately in between all this we find this statement

The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism - it is an important part of promoting peace.

As Robert Spencer points out, this is utter nonsense. The idea that Islam is part of "promoting peace" flies against what one reads in the daily papers. Islam as currently practiced in much of the world is part of the problem. It is a religion for the most part stuck in the Middle Ages that desperately needs real reform. That President Bush also spun us with the "religion of peace" line is no excuse.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Here we go again, back to his serial apologies. He just has to remind everyone that he that he opposed the war in Iraq, the clear implication being "we're sorry." Absolutely disgraceful.

How about other countries being asked to apologize to us for a change? For that matter, instead of us trying to understand the rest of the world, how about they try to understand us?

On to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

As the invaluable Melanie Phillips reminds us "The Palestinians have been offered a homeland repeatedly - in 1936, 1947, 2000 and last year. They have repeatedly turned it down. The Arabs could have created it between 1948 and 1967, when the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt. They chose not to do so. They could have created it after 1967, when Israel offered the land to them in return for peace with Israel. They refused the offer. The Palestinians have suffered because they have tried for six decades to destroy the Jews' homeland."

But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

This is relativism at it's worst.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Yes the Palestinians must abandon violence, but comparing their situation to that of black people is absurd. It implies an equality of justice that simply is not there. The Palestinians are in their current situation not because they have been mistreated by the Israelis, but because 1) they have been mistreated by their fellow Arabs, and 2) they have taken a bad situation and made it infinitely worse by their own behavior.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.

He's certainly right that the Palestinians need to switch their energies from building rockets to building industry. And yes Hamas needs to do the things he outlines, and maybe one day pigs will fly.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

I'm not a fan of the settlements either, but they're not the problem. I guess he figures he has to say this though to appear even handed.

Moving to Iran, we have this

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically- elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

With Obama, every criticism of the Muslim world has to be met with an equal criticism of the United States. So before he can talk about Iranian transgressions, he has to apologize for something the United States did - as if there is an equality. We had to put up with this moral equivalency all throughout the Cold War from the anti-anticommunists and it looks like that attitude is alive and well in the White House today.

Next the president moves to the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons. Much of what he says is standard dipomatic drivel, but we do have this which is of note

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation - including Iran - should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

Several points.

First, this business about how "no single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons" is again just so much moral relevancy. A gun in the hands of a policeman is good, while a gun in the hands of a bank robber is bad. Nuclear weapons in the hands of France or the United States is good, nuclear weapons in the hands of the Soviet Union or Iran is bad.

Second, energy concerns do not justify Iran's nuclear program.

Third, the idea of a world without nuclear weapons is a childish fantasy. I know, I know, Reagan said it too. All politicians say it. And it's silly coming from any of them. For some reason though they all feel compelled to repeat it.

Next the president addresses democracy. Or at least how he doesn't think it particularly important.

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

The best reading of this is that he wants everyone to live in liberty but the exact structure of that government is left to the people. One wonders if he knows or cares that after World War II we imposed systems of government on Japan and Germany.

Again fine words, but not backed up by the needed challenge to the Muslim world; "you need to reform because there is precious little liberty in your part of the world."

Next the president addresses religion

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

The idea that "islam has a proud tradition of tolerance" is so insanely at odds with reality I'm speechless.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit - for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

I hardly see religious tolerance in the West as a problem.

Next we come to women's rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Can he actually believe that the veil is anything less than a symbol of subjugation?

Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

As if there is an equivalence between the struggle by women for equal rights in the West and in the Muslim world. Two hundred years ago women had it better in the West than they have it in much of the Muslim world today. Obama had a chance to demand women's rights and he blew it.

In his final comments President Obama discussed economic and scientific cooperation, but it was all boilerplate and as such of little interest.

Conclusion

Islam needs to be challenged to reform, and Obama dropped the ball. Yes I realize that it all must be couched in diplo-speak, but even so.

The Muslim world does not need our "understanding." It needs liberty for its people.

One problem with not standing up to dictators is that this is used by those leaders to squash dissent in their countries. Former political prisoners Natan (Anatoly) Sharansky (gulag, Soviet Union) and Armando Valladares (Cuba) have spoken and written about this. What they say is that obsequiousness by a US president is shown to dissidents and political prisoners and they are told "see, the US president doesn't care about you!" On the other hand, when a US president calls out the totalitarians, word eventually makes it to even political prisoners, whose morale is boosted. Sharansky, for example, tells of being told of Reagan's "evil empire" speech while in the gulag and being greatly encouraged.

The bottom line: President Obama had an opportunity to challenge the Muslim world to reform and adopt principles of liberty and he failed.

Dissidents across the Middle East are weaping.

Other Opinion

The Washington Times:

Respect is a two-way street. Recent polls suggest that about half of Americans hold negative views of Islam, and this is not merely blind bigotry. If they want respect, Muslim states must seek active ways to improve relations with the United States

Melanie Phillips

So in conclusion, yes, there was some positive stuff in this speech - but it was outweighed by the United States President's shocking historical misrepresentations, gross ignorance, disgusting moral equivalence between aggressors and their victims, and disturbing sanitising of Islamist supremacism.

In short, deeply troubling.

Angelo Codevilla

Just imagine: After a thousand years during which Islam and Western civilization have trod opposite paths in philosophy, science, and the most basic attitudes toward relations between the sexes and the role of work in life -- and after a half-century during which Muslims have murdered Western ambassadors and Olympians, to the cheers of millions of their own -- suddenly a young American seems to believe he can conjure up a "new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world." How could anyone imagine he possesses such a "reset button"? The answer only starts with Yuppie hubris.

Dr Zuhdi Jasser

As long as this administration ignores ideology and focuses only on superficial public relations, the Islamists will continue to advance the ideas of political Islam while we sleep. It is time for a comprehensive, public domestic and foreign strategy against Islamism. It is time for Muslims to lead this effort with real American support and not just lip service.

Mansoor Ijaz

The architecture of President Obama's speech was brilliant -- it certainly addressed the most burning issues facing Muslims around the world today.

Atmospherically, he hit it just right. His recitations from the Koran, his greeting to the gathering in Arabic, and even the respect he showed by saying "Muhammad, peace be upon him" when referring to Islam's Holy Prophet, all demonstrated an abiding respect for Islamic traditions...

Where he failed in Cairo was to delineate the overarching fact that Islam's troubles lie within. It is not that America is not at war with Islam. It is that Islam is at war within itself -- to identify what this religion and system of beliefs is in the modern age. Osama bin Laden and his Egyptian sidekick Ayman Al Zawahiri want to take us all back to the Stone Age because they have nothing better to offer their followers than hate-filled preaching. Why didn't Obama say that?

Islam's worst enemies are within it. If wealthy Gulf Arabs want peace for Palestinians with Israel, why don't they take a fraction of their profligate spending (in nightclubs in Geneva, at bars in London, at boutiques in Milan) and redirect it to rebuilding Palestinian enclaves with schools, hospitals, food-production facilities, and manufacturing plants? We might then have durable peace possible in the Middle East. Why didn't Obama say that?

Charles Krauthammer: "Abstraction...self-absorption...vapidity...moral equivalence"

Wesley Pruden

He told the Cairo audience that "to move forward we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts," but he wasted the opportunity to forcefully instruct Muslims that respect and appreciation must be mutual. While conceding the mote in American eyes, he said almost nothing about the beam that blinds Muslim eyes. He enumerated the "sources of tension" between Islamic countries and the West and never mentioned terrorism. He chided the West for its harsh view of Islamic treatment of women - "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal" - and suggested that denying education to women is the gravest Muslim sin against women. He could have denounced "honor killings," forced marriages and how women in Muslim countries are flogged on the pretext of minuscule violations of eighth-century Sharia law.

Posted by Tom at 10:25 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

June 3, 2009

Book Review - Defending Identity

Identity - Merriam-Webster; he distinguishing character or personality of an individual. The Free Dictionary; The set of behavioral or personal characteristics by which an individual is recognizable as a member of a group. Answers.com; The collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a thing is definitively recognizable or known.

What is your identity? How do you see yourself?

There's personal identity; father, mother, Little League coach, Girl Scout leader. Some people see their identities through what they own; a fast car or a multitude of electronic gizmos. Others see it through their work; teacher, lawyer, business executive, construction supervisor.

These identities are important but they're not what Sharansky has in mind. In Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy, Natan Sharansky is more addressing group identities; political, ethnic, religious and national. His thesis is that for the most part these identities are good, and in fact are vital the success of democracy. Attempts to suppress these identities will not only fail, but are counterproductive to the success of free societies.

Before I read this book this book identity is not something I've thought much about, and after reading it I have come to realized that it is far more of a complicated subject than I had realized. But before giving my own thoughts on the matter, a summary of the book is order.

Time in the Gulag

Some say that strong identity and democracy are incompatible. Many intellectuals insist it it so. Sharansky is convinced that this is false and that just the opposite is true. Identities, he says, vitally important to us not only as individuals but as democratic nations. The main message of Defending Identity is that identity is the ally of freedom, not it's antithesis.

Authoritarian regimes repress ethnic and religious identities not in accord with those prescribed by the state. Democracies allow multiple identities along these lines to flourish. The Chinese totalitarians are threatened by the Falug Gong and Tibetans, whereas the tolerant Indians do not persecute any of their minorities (the issue of the "Untouchables" and the problem of caste is somewhat different).

The formative experience in Sharansky's political life that has formed the basis for much of his thought was the nine years he spent in the Soviet Gulag. The gulag, he says, was a laboratory where he discovered truths and tested ideas against the harshness of the prison system. His time there convinced him that identity and freedom were inseparable.

In prison Sharansky discovered, or rediscovered, his Jewish identity. In it he found the strength he needed to get through his time there. Far from dividing him from non-Jewish prisoners who also had strong identities, it enabled him to join them in a common struggle. Most of these identities were religious; Pentecostal, Catholic, Baptist, or national-ethnic; Crimean Tatar, Ukrainian. It wasn't the details of their particular identities that mattered, just that they were strong ones. It was those with weak identities who had the most trouble adjusting or adapting to prison life.

Further, the various identity groups didn't 'come together' to defend each other's goals. Far from it, for each acted in it's own interest. They defended each other not because they believed in each others causes, but rather because they came to realize that if the government could persecute one group for it's beliefs, it could persecute any of the others as well.

Trouble in Europe

Many or most native Europeans have lost most sense of identity. Christianity is dead or dying. Nationalism is perceived as a throwback and the cause of world wars. Guilt over real or perceived historical injustices has caused the crisis of confidence, resulting in a loss of identity. Identity in Europe must be uniform, and everyone must have the same identity, which is to say no identity. The loss of identity in Europe has helped lead to the erosion of democracy. It's a long subject, but for example they do not have freedom of speech in most parts of Europe as we have it in the United States. The structure of the European Union is also such that it has become a rule by bureaucracy, not elected leaders.

The Muslim immigrants who have swept into Europe in the past few decades have no crisis of confidence. They have very strong identities and are not shy about them. In many or most cases, their values and identities are in fact antithetical to Western notions of liberty and tolerance.

The result is a clash; the natives want democracy without identity, and the Muslim leaders want identity without democracy. As a result, identity and democracy are seen as opposites. In reality, he says, you can't have democracy without identity.

Assaults on Identity

There have been two major assaults on identity since the start of the 20th century; Marxism and post-modernism. The Marxists wanted to subjugate all identity that was separate from their own vision of the communist utopia. The post-modern movement inherits much from Marxism, but while the goal of the latter is to strengthen class consciousness as the only acceptable identity, the former seeks to weaken all identity, especially one's own.

The post-moderns see the wars and assorted social problems of the 20th century as stemming from nationalism and religion. Their solution is to transcend these identities and merge everyone into a global community. In this view, since identity causes problems, eliminating them would result in a world without conflict.

The problem, of course, is that you can't get rid of all identities at once. If just a few aggressive ones are left, they will dominate, sometimes to the point of eliminating democracy. We are seeing the start of this in Europe, where the natives are helpless against the strong identity of an aggressive, radical, Islam.

Multiculturalism is a form of post-identity. Unfortunately, the muliculturalists (along with "diversity," and uber-tolerance it's twin sisters), favor some identities over others, which adds to the problem. Western nationalism is bad, but third-world national movements are good. Christianity is frowned upon and only tolerated if it of the left-wing variety, but the most fundamentalist Islam is just another lifestyle choice.

One problem with the post-modern liberals is that when they look at problem areas of the world, such as the Middle East, they "look for explanations not in ideology but in grievances because the belief in absolute values is rejected and the idea of Western guilt plays a central role." As a result, post modern thinkers see the solution as an end to settlements and the establishment of a Palestinian state rather than in changing the ideology of the jihadist mindset of Fatah or Hamas.

Types of Identity

Sharansky opposes the attempt by the French government to ban the wearing of the veil in schools because it contradicts their "enormous tolerance toward the coercion and repression that daily transpires in many Muslim areas within that country." In other words, rather than oppose all coercion, they are being selective, with the result that they are preceived as opposing a Muslim expression of identity. And no democracy, Sharansky says, should repress identity unless it is harmful to that democracy.

He also does not object to the use of hyphens by immigrants to describe themselves. While it is popular on the right to criticize the use of "Italian-American," "Arab-American," or "African-American," he sees it as a positive expression of identity that compliments rather than threatens democracy.

Just as ethic identity does not threaten democracy, neither does religious identity. In our current age the secular left is doing everything it can to remove religion, or at least Christianity, from the public square. But if religion is to be an identity, it cannot be banished in this manner. Indeed, all of American history shows that public expressions of religion compliment, and do not threaten, democracy.

Again, this is not to say that all identities are acceptable. Mormons were made to disavow the practice of polygamy in order for Utah to be accepted into the Union. Giving this up reduced or changed a part of their identity.

Where we have failed in America is to incorporate Native Americans and African American identities. On the other side, surveys universally show that Muslims in America feel their identity is more respected than those in Europe.

The Special Case of Israel

Because Israel is a state created out of nothing (no the land wasn't stolen), it is a unique laboratory with which to study the subject of identity and democracy. Further, the Jews who emigrated there from Europe were naturally quite traumatized, so it would be interesting to see how they handled the subject of identity. Would they embrace their historic Jewish identity, or abandon it?

The surprise answer - to me, anyway - was that they abandoned it. The question of identity was an aspect Israeli history that I'd never considered. I'd always assumed that Israeli Jews were, if anything, even more cognizant of their history and traditions than those of the diaspora. It turns out that at least for the first thirty or so years of Israel's history nothing could be farther from the truth.

It wasn't supposed to be that way. Theodore Hertzl, the Austrian Jew who founded the modern Zionist movement, envisioned an Israel that embraced classic Jewish heritage. Although he himself was mostly secular, he envisioned an Israel of diverse Jewish beliefs and cultures, but all rooted in the past.

The actual founder of Israel and it's first president, David Ben-Gurion, had a completely different vision. A socialist, Gurion had little use for religion. His socialist ideal "was of a person who disconnects himself from his past - a past that is seen as two thousand years of humiliation and slavery - and takes fate into his own hands." It all very much paralled the "New Soviet Man" concept. Ben-Gurion's equivalent was the Sabra, or "new Jew," borne of the "Jewish dust." The past was mostly meaningless, and a new identity for Israeli Jews would be forged. Not just words, this ideology was taught in the schools as state dogma.

This started to change when over one million Jews emigrated from the Soviet Union, mostly in the 1970s. Having been deprived of their identity in their former communist country, they were anxious to get back to their Jewish roots, and not about to adopt another "new man" as an identity. It was this group to which Sharansky belonged.

Long story short, the new immigrants kept their Jewish identity and changed Israel in the process. Rather than segregate themselves, they became fully part of Israel. The result is an Israel structured more along the lines of the "mosaic" of identities envisioned by Hertzl rather than the "melting pot" of multiple identities into one. According to Sharansky, it has all been a huge success.

Defending the Nation-State

Israel is important because "for the believers of post-identity, Israel has become equated with the colonial sins they are intent on expiating." Almost thirty years ago, I remember a college professor tell us that Israel was illegitimate because it was founded on Judaism, a concept that according to him was anachronistic in the modern world. Without realizing it I had run into my first post-identity thinker.

The worst and most important of the post-nationalist and post-Zionist thinkers are Eric Hobsbawm and Edward Said. Most arguments against nationhood and Israel can be traced back to one or both of them.

Zionism, nationalism, and identity are for Sharansky tied closely together. All three are for the most part good (there are always unhealthy exceptions) and combined produce democracy. Weaken one and Israel collapses. For other countries, weaken the other two and democracy collapses. The concept of the nation-state is itself vital in establishing identity. As discussed above, a weakened sense of statehood is one reason why Europe is in trouble.

The justification for a Jewish Israel is that that's what the majority of Israelis want. This does not mean that the rights of minorities cannot be protected. Further, it does not mean a theocratic state per se, but rather one that embraces a Jewish heritage, a somewhat different concept.

Further, the survival of Israel as a predominantly Jewish state is crucial not just for it but for the entire world. Israel is an island of democracy in a region of dictators, religious fundamentalists, and terrorists, and a sense of Jewish identity is vital to its own survival. As a democracy surrounded by totalitarian neighbors it is a beachhead of freedom, something we should want to spread. Therefore it is vital that Israel survive as a Jewish state.

Peace or War

For life to be of any value it must be lived freely. The peace of slavery is no peace worth having. To live freely you must be able to have your identity. It is this freedom, then, that liberates, not simply the absence of war.

As mentioned above, many in the West today see identity as the cause of war, they thus seek to suppress it in the name of peace. Four hundred years ago John Locke wrote in "A Letter Concerning Toleration" that the attempt to impose one religion was what was leading to wars in Europe, and his recommendation was to let everyone believe what they wished. His views were adopted, but today we have come full circle.

Weaking identity may seem to lead to a happy society of no conflict between identity groups, but in reality leaves it defenseless against anti-democratic groups with their own strong identities. People without strong identities tend to be sheep and not resist when a group with a strong one comes into town.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the so-called "peace process" born of the 1993 Oslo Accords. As Sharansky tells it

The so-called Oslo peace process took place between two societies moving in directly opposite directions in terms if identity. Israeli society was being pushed in the direction of cosmopolitanism. Palestinians, under Arafat's corrupt dictatorship, were going through a crash course in hatred of Jews, Israel, and Zionism and making the rejection of the Jewish-Israeli identity the basis of their own. The hope for peace became predicated on a rejection of Israeli identity and a rejection of Palestinian democracy. On one side stood democracy without identity. On the other stood identity without democracy. The explosion was inevitable.

And indeed not only has the so-called peace process gone nowhere, but Palestinian society has not become any healthier.

Many people do not take radical Islam, or other such movements, seriously. We're told that ok they can blow up a few buildings, but the idea of them taking over Europe or the West is preposterous. "They'll integrate peacefully" is the line we've all heard.

Part of the problem is that most of those who believe this are of the post-modern mindset who have no identity themselves. "Multiculturalism," "diversity," and "tolerance" are not identities. As such, these people have a hard time understanding the power that strong identities can have on others. The result is that they think that if only Israel will stop building settlements the Palestinians will abandon all that talk about jihad. They don't understand that it is not issues that motivate them, but an ideology driven by a strong identity.

My Take

I'm not sure that Sharansky has it all right, or that he's thought through every nuance or complication as well he might of. Further, I'm not certain that the experiences of his own life, or that of Israel, are directly transferable to the United States or the rest of the world.

But the book has caused me to rethink my own assumptions about identity. It is fashionable for us on the right to criticize the use of a hyphen when describing one's identity; "Italian-American," Irish-American," African-American" and the like. This is a debate where I am sympathetic to both sides. I suppose the hyphen business is all a matter of degree and emphasis, and whether it's used for identity or to seek political advantage.

Malcolm X is not someone who gets much sympathy from conservatives. And there is much to criticize in his life. But in recent years I have become quite sympathetic to his adoption of "X" as a last name. After all, his African heritage had not only been stolen, it was quite ignored in the public educational system and culture at large. It was quite acceptable for those with Irish heritage to have a St. Patrick's Day parade, but how dare you think there was anything about Africa to celebrate.

Let's be honest, we all have a tendency to think that our own identity is good and certain others are bad: those crazy fundamentalist Christians, or those gay people and the way they dress, or maybe why does he have to wear his business success on his sleeve? Sometimes it's ethnic, sometimes religious, and sometimes political. But I think we all tend to view certain identities as good and others as bad.

Further, there is much about identity that Sharansky does not address in the book. What are proper and improper expressions of identity? Good v bad identities are also barely expressed. It 's one thing to have your own identity, but to what extent is everyone else expected to publicly acquiesce to it? For example, if a religious minority within a country wants their holidays off work with no penalty, that's one thing. It's quite another though if they insist everyone else recognize it also and government and business close down.
How far do concessions go?

In the end, though, this is not a scholarly tome It is a 232 page treatise that serves it's purpose well. Sharansky has a powerful life story, and Israel is at the center of the conflict between democracy and tyranny, between modernity and fundamentalist Islam. As such, his is too important a voice to ignore.

Posted by Tom at 9:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 18, 2009

An Insurgency Ends

The war in Sri Lanka between the government and the Tamil Tigers isn't one I've followed. Truth be told that before I started to write this I probably knew about as much about it as I did the one in northwestern Africa between the Polisario Front and Morocco. As such, I'll be careful. Nevertheless, it would seem that given our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq it may hold a few lessons.

Dead: Velupillai Prabhakaran, leader of the Tamil Tiger rebels

A quick summary of the situation from Fox News

Sri Lanka declared Monday it had crushed the final resistance of the Tamil Tigers, killing the rebel group's leader along with his son and other commanders, according to reports.

The death of Velupillai Prabhakaran came as the government claimed to have seized control of the island state for the first time in 26 years, ending Asia's longest-running war...

Sri Lanka's army chief, Lt. Gen. Sareth Fonseka, said on television that his troops routed the last rebels from the northern war zone Monday morning and were working to identify Prabhakaran's body from among the dead.

News reports on Sunday had the Tigers admitting defeat, so this is not just hot air from Fonseka.

A useful timeline is also on the Fox website. Depending on where you date the start of the conflict, it lasted somewhere around 26 years.

What of it, and why should we care?

The most obvious lesson is that defeating even large insurgencies with military force can be done. We therefore should not be demoralized that after 7 1/2 years in Afghanistan we don't seem close to victory. We should also be proud that we were able to mostly defeat the insurgency in Iraq in less than 6 years (though I will be the first to admit that we're not out of the woods just yet).

Richard Fernandez has the scoop at the Belmont Club

...it may be the manner in which Colombo (the largest city and former administrative capital of Sri Lanka) finished the Tigers that is the real news. UN and Western appeals to the Sri Lankan government to halt the fighting were disregarded; it also barred the Western Media from the battlefront and paid scarce attention to 'international world opinion'. The New York Times reported, almost bitterly that Colombo had the temerity to win in violation of all the rules:

Assertions about fighting and casualties in the Sri Lanka war cannot be verified because the government severely restricts access by independent journalists. Several, including two from The New York Times, have been prohibited from entering the country, and one who flew late Sunday to Colombo, the capital, was ordered to leave on a return flight. ... There is no doubt that Mr. Rajapaksa's government appears poised to achieve what none of his predecessors managed in 25 years: to rout the Tamil Tigers, who controlled nearly a fourth of the island, and destroy their ranks as a conventional army. As the war's climax approached, both sides had rebuffed repeated calls from the United Nations and several foreign countries to spare civilians caught in the war zone. The United Nations estimates that at least 7,000 have died since January.

A corollary is that we should not listen to those who insist that insurgencies can only be defeated by political means. In most cases, it takes both military force and political action. While the military can deal fatal blows alone it cannot work. The lesson of Iraq, and as elucidated in Field Manual 3-24 (see below) is that one must first use the military to secure the population, then political and economic action is required to win them over. In this regard, Sri Lanka 's victory over the Tamil Tigers seems something of an aberration. But maybe over the years they were able to divorce the Tigers from their ethnic Tamil base, I don't know.

Contrary to what some would have you believe, it was never our policy in Iraq or Afghanistan to win by military means alone.

Third, it usually takes an awful long time. 26 years is 1/3 of the average lifespan in the West, and no doubt a bit more in Sri Lanka. I know I've quoted this exchange many times (lastly in Afghanistan and the Long War), but it is useful to do so here again.

In a 2007 interview Lt. Col. (Dr) David Kilcullen stunned Charlie Rose:

DAVID KILCULLEN: There has never been a successful counterinsurgency that took less than 10 years.

CHARLIE ROSE: Less than 10 years?

DAVID KILCULLEN: Successful.

It doesn't come across as well in print. Watching it, you see Rose lean forward and in utter amazement say "Less than 10 years?" with special emphasis on "10 years."

He had Kilcullen on for a reason; he's arguably the worlds foremost expert on the subject. A retired Austrailian Army officer, he was a contributor to then Lt. Gen. David Petraeus' U.S. Army / Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24, the book that outlined the strategy behind what was popularly called the "surge." In 2007 he served as Senior Counterinsurgency Adviser to Gen. Petraeus. After that he went on to become a special adviser on counterinsurgency to Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. You don't have to agree with him on everything, but he knows what's what.

Meanwhile, the European Union demonstrates its complete irrelevancy by demanding a war crimes investigation:

Foreign ministers from the 27-nation EU said allegations that international humanitarian and human rights laws were violated had to be investigated, but did not say by whom.

"Those accountable must be brought to justice," they said in a statement.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said there have been "very grave allegations" of war crimes on both sides of the conflict and "they should be properly investigated."

Glad these guys weren't around in 1945. The EU moralists dither while the Sri Lankans did what they had to do. The website of the British D-Day Museum says that "Between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed, mainly as a result of Allied bombing." Wonder what they'd have to say about that?

Don't get me wrong; I've no doubt that bad things were done by both sides in Sri Lanka. The casualties are no doubt horrific. Nor do I think we should just wink at everything. It's more that the chattering classes seem positively obsessed with the subject. Can they not also see that not taking harsh action against insurgents might also be a human rights violation? One of the least humanitarian things is to let wars drag out.

But wait, it gets worse. From the Times of London (h/t Belmont Club)

Now that their military hopes are dashed, the fear in western capitals is that the Tamil Tigers will again turn to terrorism. If the Tamil leadership goes ahead with their threats of suicide will there be anyone left to negotiate with?

Folks, you just can't make this stuff up. And to think that these are the folks we're counting on to help us in Afghanistan and the War on Terror er, "Overseas Contingency Operations."

Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

April 21, 2009

Carrie Prejean: True Character

Here is the exchange that started it all

Perez Hilton: "Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?"

Carrie Prejean: "Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much."

Myself, I can't see what all the fuss is about. Her answer was polite and non-confrontational. She did not denigrate or insult anyone. All she did was state her belief, and can hardly be accused of "forcing her morals" on anyone.

But of course it did raise a fuss.

Demonstrating that he us utterly without class, Hilton called Perjean a "dumb bitch" in an interview following the incident. Here's the video blog he made where he says it, if you can stand to watch

What a guy.

But if this was just one loser asking a question then making a video about it we could let it go and I wouldn't be posting this. But it goes farther. A lot farther. Fox News reports this

In an exclusive interview with Pop Tarts on Monday night, Miss USA contestant Brooke Werner said that she was shocked by Miss California's controversial response on Sunday evening.

"Everyone has the right to their own actions," Werner said. "But I totally disagree with Carrie. I have a very different perspective on gay marriage and I would never have said what she said."

The remaining 45 pageant princesses watched the competition from backstage and after Prejean's anti gay marriage answer, apparently the room fell pretty silent.

"A lot of people were shocked," the Vermont beauty queen said. "We were all kind of giving each other those eyes, we couldn't believe it."

And even though Prejean herself as no regrets about her answer, Werner said the pressure of the moment probably made her speak before thinking things thru thoroughly.

"Under the stress, you can't answer at a level you normally would, it is a lot of pressure," she added. "But I thought it was a great question, its a very hot topic right now and was totally appropriate."

"Shocked?" Have we gotten to the point where even politely stating that you personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman is "shocking?"

And the condescending statement from Werner that Ms Prejean was under stress so didn't answer as she normally would is pretty revealing about the hollywood mindset.

But it gets better

Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement.

"As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family."

Apparently we have gotten to the point where for the liberal Hollywood types at least, no dissent on this issue is allowed.

As for Ms Prejean, she's sticking to her guns

In an exclusive interview with FOXNews.com's Courtney Friel, Miss California says her phone has been ringing off the hook with people offering her support after she took on a question about gay marriage on Sunday night's Miss USA telecast.

"I have no regrets about answering [judge Perez Hilton] honestly," she said in one of her first interviews following the show, where she answered that she was against gay marriage becoming legal in California. "He asked me for my opinion and I gave it to him. I have nothing against gay people and I didn't mean to offend anyone in my answer."

In her interview, Prejean talks about being "tested" by God, the outpouring of support, and the first thing she and her family did after the show. (Hint, it involves ketchup and mustard.)

FOXNews.com: How are you feeling today?

Carrie Prejean: Honestly, happy. This happened for a reason. By having to answer that question in front of a national audience, God was testing my character and faith. I'm glad I stayed true to myself.

Read the whole thing.

I say God bless Carrie Prejean. Let me explain why

This is about resisting the forces of political correctness that seek to enact their policies by eliminating debate. It is about standing up for decency, for your beliefs in a society where the mockers get the headlines.

What's going on here is a full fledged frontal attack on traditional values. What they're trying to do is make certain subjects undiscussable. We saw the attacks on the Mormon Church in the wake of the defeat of Proposition 8 in California. We are not at all there yet, but we are moving in the direction of the soft-totalitarian state taking shape across the pond.

Some years ago I saw an editorial in one of our local newspapers, congratulating a young man for "standing up" to then-Senator George Allen over the issue of gay rights (or marriage, I forget). The editorial lauded the person for his "courage" in the matter.

At the time I thought, "courage?" About the least courageous thing you can do in America today is speak out for gay rights or marriage in a public forum. You're guaranteed favorable press coverage, and will be extolled by almost all of the talking heads on TV. Speak out against the gay agenda, however, and watch out. You'll be denounced as a bigot, homophobe, on and on.

Carrie Prejean has courage. Real courage. The type of courage we need a lot more of.

I harbor no animosity towards gays themselves. No I do not believe you are automatically going to hell if you are gay (it's not for me to decide anyway. Only God gets to make that judgment). I'm all for tolerance as properly defined; no legal penalties, government discrimination, or personal insults. I'm against gay marriage and having it taught in our schools as an equal lifestyle, that's all.

Political correctness and attempting to end debate are what it's mostly about, but it goes farther. It's about what you do in your daily life. It is not just about big public events/interviews or even political issues.

It's about resisting peer pressure from workmates who want to to go to the bar and have a dozen drinks after work and look at you like you're weird when you demur. It's about situations like when you're on a business trip, and some of the guys want to go to a nudie bar, and having the courage to stand up and say no, that does not comport with your values. It's about standing up when a mocker makes fun of Christianity or tells a dirty joke.

I am sure that Carrie Perjean is the type of person who would stand up when challenged in a personal situation as well.

Not that I've always done the right thing in these circumstances. Like all of us I am a fallen creature, so if you want to make the charge of hypocrisy, then I plead guilty. Peter denied Christ three times after promising not to do so, and likewise I've failed to stand up for things I've believed in at times. But I try, and do think I'm getting better. As with Peter, I'm confident that I'll be reinstated.

Many are blogging about this, but some of the better posts are by Jason over at The Western Experience andProfessor Donald Douglas at American Power. Be sure and pay both a visit.

Posted by Tom at 10:30 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

April 19, 2009

Doctors Without Borders: Running Cover for Terrorists

Years ago I gave substantial amounts of money (for me, anyway, these things are of course relative) to Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres. They seemed to be doing good things in extremely bad parts of the world and supporting them seemed the natural thing to do. In recent years I've given a lot less as I've changed where I send my charitable dollars, but still send them enough for them to send me their booklet/magazine once or twice a year.

Despite what I'm about to write, I want to make clear that they are still doing good things in extremely bad parts of the world.

But despite that, I'm not giving them any more money, and the reason is that this is what I saw in their recent "Alert" booklet (it's also on their website):

Gaza: A Devastating Disregard for Civilians

Attacks on the Gaza Strip by the Israeli army during three weeks in December 2008 and January 2009 made medical action extremely difficult. The vulnerability of civilians sparked humanitarian outrage and widespread criticism.

Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) works in some of the most conflict-ridden areas of the world, but in most cases, civilians have the ability to flee to safer areas. Inside the locked-down borders of Gaza, one of the world's most densely populated areas, there was no way out. From December 27 to January 19, the number of wounded people grew to 5,450 and the dead totaled 1,300, according to the UN agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA). Shelling destroyed an estimated 17,000 homes and reports spread about bombing of locations considered safe zones and used for shelter by civilians....

..."Despite official statements from the Israeli government, there are serious obstacles to providing humanitarian aid and, specifically, medical aid. Bombs and bullets do not spare ambulances, hospitals, or health workers," said Dr. Marie Pierre Allie, president, MSF France, during a January 16 press conference. MSF attempted several times to reopen its pediatric clinic in Beit Lahia to relieve Kamel Edwan Hospital. But each time, the attempt was cut short; a January 1 bomb attack forced the MSF team to suspend its work only two hours after starting. Two MSF clinics for post-operative care, where patients from Al Shifa hospital are usually referred, were empty: patients in Gaza City could not reach the clinic, and no one could enter the south of the territory from the north after the Israeli army effectively cut the 140-square-mile Gaza Strip in two....

The safety of medical facilities, protected under humanitarian law, was not respected, according to Dr. A: "Buildings near Al Shifa hospital were hit with missiles. And when a building is bombed, the neighbors are immediately affected. The hospital windows that were broken in the explosions caused cuts and wounds, mainly to the children who were sleeping." Over three weeks, 34 facilities were destroyed or damaged, including 8 hospitals, according to the WHO....

MSF expressed strong criticism of the Israeli army's assault on Gaza and of the international community for standing by while the incursion continued for 22 days.

"How far can the Israeli army go before the international community mobilizes to stop it?" asked Cécile Barbou during a press conference on January 16. "It's hell here. Even people carrying white flags are being shot at. It's high time for the international community to organize, position itself, make decisions, and take the measures required to stop this conflict. This passive stance is unbearable, intolerable! This has got to stop. We are outraged."...

"Today, 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip--almost half of them children--are the victims of incessant shooting and bombing," said MSF head of mission Franck Joncret. "How can anyone believe that such a steamroller attack would spare civilians, who are prevented from fleeing and are crowded in a densely-populated enclave?

The idea that Israel exhibited a "disregard for civilians" is outrageous and insane.

I urge you to give no more money to this organization, despite the good work that they do around the world. The piece cited above makes accusations completely out of touch with reality.

Of course Israel does not do everything right, and I've said this time and again on this blog. But if one adds up the moral scales the difference between Israel and Hamas is that of the United States and Nazi Germany. We were wrong to fire bomb Dresden as we did in February of 1945, but that didn't change the moral calculus of that war either.

I first began to question the integrity of Doctors Without Borders in the immediate aftermath of our invasion of Afghanistan after 9-11, when I heard one of their officers testify on Capital Hill. He was objecting to U.S. Military airdrops of food aid, saying that only private organizations such as his should do such things. I forget his exact reasoning, but it struck me as pretty specious at the time.

But Doctors Without Borders has gone too far this time. I was able to forgive their earlier transgressions, but not this one. This article (and probably others) whitewash the situation in Gaza to the degree where they are effectively acting as a Hamas propaganda agent. I looked on their website for a section on Israel, but the country is not even mentioned as an area of concern. Because Israel does such a good job at protecting it's citizens, they are not worthy of aid. The Palestinians, on the other hand, deliberately put their people in harms way hoping they will be killed, the better to use them as propaganda. This is bad enough, but organizations such as Doctors Without Borders should not be assisting them in crafting their message.

Sample Previous Posts on the subject of Israel, it's 2007/8 war with Hamas, and Moral Clarity:

Of Moral Idiots and War Crimes
The Israeli War on Hamas and the Moral Bankruptcy of the "International Community"
The Israeli War on Hamas and Personal Responsiblity

August 19 2009 Update

Apparently I wasn't the only one who criticized them, because now we see this on the same page:

Editor's Note
To our Supporters:

It has been brought to our attention that a number of our supporters were upset by the article, "Gaza: A Devastating Disregard for Civilians," on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict published in the spring 2009 edition of the Alert newsletter.

At Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), we pride ourselves on transparency and accountability to our donors and to an open and constructive dialogue with those who believe in supporting the principles of providing assistance to victims of violence and disease regardless of political, religious, or economic affiliations.

Upon further reflection, we recognize the legitimacy of the concerns expressed that the Alert article was too one-sided in its presentation of the Gaza conflict. The article, as it was written, did not sufficiently contextualize the Israeli incursion into Gaza as a response to the longstanding and indiscriminate rocket attacks being launched by Hamas from the Strip into Israel. In no way was the omission of the broader context intended to diminish the suffering caused by these attacks on Israel. Human suffering is deplorable in all its magnitudes.

As MSF, we pride ourselves on a constant reflection of our medical humanitarian action and speaking out. This is a daily engagement playing out in our headquarters and among our field teams around the world. As our supporters, you are a vital part of this reflection. Just as MSF is an association composed of medical and non-medical field staff from across the globe, bound by independent, impartial, and neutral medical action, we are a movement supported by millions of individuals like you.

We thank you for the vitality of your engagement in our collective endeavors, and in difficult economic times need your continued support more than ever. Please continue to challenge us, in all aspects of our work, in the days ahead.

I'll give them credit for this, and most of these organizations wouldn't have even gone this far. They still don't take back the most offensive and factually incorrect charge, that Israel showed a "a devastating disregard for civilians."

It's not clear whether they live in a fantasy world whereby a military can act with fewer civilian casualties, whether they don't realize that Hamas deliberately puts Palestinian civilians in harms way hoping they'll be killed so they can be exploited for propaganda purposes, or they're pacifists who don't believe in any military action no matter what. Annoyingly, they don't address these hard issues.

As such, I'm still not giving them any money.

Posted by Tom at 10:30 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

March 9, 2009

Obama's Unlimited Stem Cell Research - No Ethics Allowed

Today the Obama Administration reversed President Bush's ban on certain types of stem cell research. It was done by executive order, and you can download it here.

The key in my first sentence is "certain types." If you don't know why, don't worry, for many in the media don't appear to know either.

The issue is that there are two types of stem cells, embryonic and adult. Too many people on the left talk about "stem cells" as if that's all there was to it.

I'll give you my bottom line up front; I think that embryonic stem cells, like embryos in the womb, are individual, separate, human beings and as such should be protected by law. As I oppose abortion, I oppose creating and killing embryonic stem cells. As you'll find out below, I'm sure about embryos in the womb, but not 100% on the embryonic stem cells.

My reasoning is simple; killing a life to save a life is immoral. I think that in fact this is a point we can all agree on. If you believe that embryonic stem cells, like embryos in the womb, are not individual, separate, human beings, fine. But lets avoid irrational statements and name calling while discussing the issue.

Here is a summary of the dispute, taken from Wikipedia. Yes I know, it's not always a good source, but this article is not flagged as "the neutrality of this article is disputed" so what we get is I think is probably pretty accurate:

There exists a widespread controversy over human embryonic stem cell research that emanates from the techniques used in the creation and usage of stem cells. Human embryonic stem cell research is controversial because, with the present state of technology, starting a stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo and/or therapeutic cloning. However, recently, it has been shown in principle that adult stem cell lines can be manipulated to generate embryonic-like stem cell lines using a single-cell biopsy similar to that used in preimplantation genetic diagnosis that may allow stem cell creation without embryonic destruction.[34] It is not the entire field of stem cell research, but the specific field of human embryonic stem cell research that is at the centre of an ethical debate.

Opponents of the research argue that embryonic stem cell technologies are a slippery slope to reproductive cloning and can fundamentally devalue human life. Those in the pro-life movement argue that a human embryo is a human life and is therefore entitled to protection.

Contrarily, supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that such research should be pursued because the resultant treatments could have significant medical potential. It is also noted that excess embryos created for in vitro fertilization could be donated with consent and used for the research.

The ensuing debate has prompted authorities around the world to seek regulatory frameworks and highlighted the fact that stem cell research represents a social and ethical challenge.

Read on and you quickly find that the entire issue is horribly complicated. As such, I'll be the first to tell you that I don't understand it all and take much of my position on this issue from people I trust, like these folks, who have investigated the matter in detail.

I think that serious people on both sides of the debate will admit that it's not a simple matter. Further, most I think will agree that we don't want to leave all decisions to scientists. At the very least, if they want our money for their research, not to mention their salaries, they must listen to our opinions.

Yes we all want to save lives. Yes, we on the right are in favor of research that results in cures for the dread diseases that we hope we never get. But please, those of us who object to embryonic stem cell research are not just a bunch of religious kooks, as too many on the left want to paint us. Religion can and does form our world view, including that of protecting the unborn. It is a sad day when this in and of it self is said to be invalid. I would simply comment that the left has no problem with religion when it's used to promote government spending on the poor, or when it's part of the antiwar movement (note that I don't have any problem when it's used that way also. I just disagree with the theology and reasoning).

We're told, insistently screamed at, that we must have unlimited stem cell research. It will save lives, they say.

Undoubtedly some cures will be found through such research. But there's the nagging suspicion, confirmed by the most elementary google search, that the promise has been wildly exaggerated. Another basic google search returns many articles stating that recent scientific advances render embryonic stem-cell research unnecessary. But increasingly facts don't matter, because we must have research. It all reminds one of Al Gore and his global warming adherents.

No doubt that just as with global warming, many proponents of unlimited stem cell research are sincere good people. In these matters I try to give the benefit of the doubt.

But there are many, especially although not exclusively in the pro-abortion, er, "pro-choice" movement, whose motives are... less than honest.

You see, it's only partially a scientific debate. At its heart, the stem cell debate is really part of the controversy over abortion. Where you come down it all depends on where you think life starts. Or whether you just want to go out, have sex with whomever you like, and not worry about the consequences.

It's all part of what Ramesh Ponnuru was talking about in The Party of Death. These are the people who are not just happy with abortion and all manner of scientific research and how-dare-you-bring--up-ethics, they're pushing us to accept things such as cloning and assisted suicide.

If such things do not at least give you pause, you need to start wondering about yourself. If you think that George W. Bush, or any serious person on the right is callous with regard to Afgani or Iraqi civilian deaths, you're not intellectually honest. If you think we haven't at least considered whether support for the death penalty might not contradict our pro-life position, you're poorly informed.

The notion that science must be unfettered from all moral and ethical concerns is seen in the Washington Post story on the matter, the headline of which is "Obama Aims to Shield Science From Politics." Sigh.

The Post uses the term "politics" because they want to disparage those of us who want restrictions. Despite its fairly bland denotative meaning as simply "The art or science of government or governing," the term has taken more a more sinister connotative meaning in everyday speech. The Post doesn't want you to think that there might be legitimate ethical concerns.

It is not, after all, "politics" or "political ideology" to believe that that embryonic stem cells, like embryos in the womb, are individual, separate, human beings and as such should be protected by law.

Further, let's consider that there is legitimate debate over the use of animals for scientific research. There is growing awareness, I think, that there should at least be some sort of restrictions. Certainly there is a large movement, mostly on the left, that supports much restriction if not outright bans on animal testing. I think it safe to say that these are usually the same people who on abortion call themselves "pro-choice" and who today celebrate Obama's decision.

However one comes down on animal testing, it is only the callous few who insist that "anything goes" in the name of saving human lives. To be sure, I value human lives more than animal, and if at least some testing is beneficial, so be it. But the point is that those who support restrictions do so because they understand that no, scientists cannot be allowed to do whatever they want unfettered by moral and ethical concerns.

Which brings us to President Obama and his executive order.

What's noticeable about it is its complete lack of acknowledgment that their might be an ethical debate. Download the executive order linked to above and read it yourself if you don't believe me. Obama sees not restrictions on science at all as valid.

At least when President Bush announced his policy he went on national television and explained it to the nation. He admitted it was a "complex and difficult issue," and one he had arrived at only through much study and reflection.

Obama shows no such concern. During the signing ceremony he remarked that

This Order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let's be clear: promoting science isn't just about providing resources - it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient - especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.

To Obama, any restrictions at all are "manipulation or coercion" and "ideology." This is amorality at it's worst. Apparently, as part of the new regimen; we are to serve science, not the other way around. It's the attitude of science uber alles, and those of us without the proper degree need to just shut up and listen to our betters. And keep the cash flowing.

During the campaign I tagged Obama as "the pro-abortion candidate" because of his extremism on the matter. Since becoming president, his policy decisions confirm what I wrote. People like him, who voted against the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and then lied about why he did it, are callous with regard to all life. We saw it in his executive order, and I fear we'll see more.

Posted by Tom at 10:30 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

February 4, 2009

If You take the King's Shilling, You do the King's Bidding

We knew this was coming:

Obama Caps Executive Pay Tied to Bailout Money

President Barack Obama on Wednesday imposed a $500,000 cap on senior executive pay for the most distressed financial institutions receiving taxpayer bailout money and promised new steps to end a system of "executives being rewarded for failure."

Obama announced the unusual government intervention into corporate America at the White House, with tax cheat Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at his side....

The pay limit comes amid a national outcry over huge bonuses to executives who head companies that seek taxpayer dollars to remain afloat. The demand for limits was reinforced by revelations that Wall Street firms paid more than $18 billion in bonuses in 2008 amid the economic downturn and the massive infusion of taxpayer dollars.

The limit would apply to top-paid executives at the most distressed financial institutions that are negotiating bailout agreements with the federal government. It also would apply to other banks that receive aid, but they could get around the limits by publicizing to shareholders plans to exceed the salary cap.

This is exactly why bailouts are so bad. Once you take aid from the government, you are beholden to them.

These business executives are playing right into Obama's hands. What idiots. The left pretends to be outraged, but I think many are secretly happy as it gives them the excuse they need to set a "maximum wage," something they've wanted for decades.

We've all seen the stories. Bonuses paid to executives of companies who are losing money and laying off employees. Expensive trips, private airplanes, manicures and spas seem to be the rule.

The situation on Wall Street has gotten so bad that even the pro-business Washington Times editorialized that these "business excesses are disgraceful."

I've run into conservatives who say Obama is violating property rights on this matter. But that's only true in cases where he tries to impose these things on businesses that are not taking government money. More to it, this is about greed, which I also remind conservatives and Christians is also a sin, there being many passages about it in the Bible. To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, I may not be able to define greed, but I know it when I see it. And the American public knows what it sees.

If you come to me complaining that you can't pay your mortgage, and I loan you a few thousand dollars, I had better not see you going out to the movies or taking a vacation until you've paid me back.

Right now executive pay is only being capped for companies that take bailout money. As with most things government, I think it'll slowly spread. Once the left gets there way here, they'll come up with other reasons to cap pay all across the board, regardless of whether the company takes bailout money or not. For example, next they'll say that any company that gets a government contract must cap executive pay. Then...who know where this will end.

And years from now, they'll look at the corporate executives who paid themselves bonuses and such while their companies were failing, and say "It is you who are to blame."

Saturday Feb 7 Update

That didn't take long. Financial Week reports that House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank wants to set pay caps for all corporations:

Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that now apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.

"There's deeply rooted anger on the part of the average American," the Massachusetts Democrat said at a Washington news conference today.

He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies.

Give these guys and inch and they'll take a mile.

Posted by Tom at 9:30 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 17, 2009

Of Moral Idiots and War Crimes

Note: I wrote this before the cease-fire was announced. I'll have more to say about it later tonight.

Now we have "senior UN officials and human rights groups" accusing Israel of war crimes. The charge is that the IDF engages in "reckless and indiscriminate" shelling of civilian neighborhoods in Gaza. To add grotesqueness to an already idiotic charge, they charge that IDF soldiers are using "Palestinian families as human shields."

Just because I had to see the idiocy on display for myself, I went to the website of the UN Human Rights commission, and found their latest missive on how "the violence must stop." It is a model of moral neutrality. Read it for yourself. If you were completely unfamiliar with the players, you would never know from anything this commission said that Israel was a democracy that had been the subject of terrorist attacks for years, and that the other was a fascist jihadist terrorist entity.

But no, they couldn't do that. The article in the Guardian exposes the moral idiocy of the UN and that of these so-called human rights organizations in all their macabre glory. Or gory.

The UN's senior human rights body approved a resolution yesterday condemning the Israeli offensive for "massive violations of human rights". A senior UN source said the body's humanitarian agencies were compiling evidence of war crimes and passing it on to the "highest levels" to be used as seen fit.

Some human rights activists allege that the Israeli leadership gave an order to keep military casualties low no matter what cost to civilians. That strategy has directly contributed to one of the bloodiest Israeli assaults on the Palestinian territories, they say.

John Ging, head of the UN Palestinian refugee agency in Gaza, said: "It's about accountability [over] the issue of the appropriateness of the force used, the proportionality of the force used and the whole issue of duty of care of civilians.

Who said terrorism doesn't pay?

One of the things Israel is accused of doing is the illegal use of "white phosphorus," particularly in the form of what are called M825 Felt-Wedge projectiles. The claim is that the IDF is illegally using this and similar weapons in densely populated areas, and that this is illegal.

To be sure, White phosphorus can be nasty stuff. So can suicide vests, but the UN and so-called human rights groups can't be bothered with them. Might get death threats, you know.

John Noonan, writing at The Weekly Standard, explains

The problem in the UN's argument, as with most of the arguments against Israel's use of force in Gaza, is that it rewrites international treaties on warfare to better fit an anti-Israel narrative. White Phosphorous -- or 'Willy Pete' -- has been used for decades to create large smokescreens for troop cover and target illumination and is not -- despite any claim to the contrary -- an incendiary weapon (nor is it proscribed under any law on armed conflict). Article one of the treaty banning incendiaries says as much:

Incendiary weapon means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.

(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems.

That's not to say Willy Pete is without collateral effects. There have been several documented cases where WP has injured or killed civilians, as the illuminant burns slowly at extremely high temperatures. But like with other legal conventional munitions such as artillery shells and guided bombs, the responsibility for incidental death and damage lies with Hamas and any other combatant which uses human shields to mask its operations.

International war crime statutes were written to prosecute those who fill mass graves with the bodies of noncombatants, the Hitlers and the Milosevics, not those who use legal illuminants in small, localized conflict. If a treatise on armed conflict can no longer differentiate between the use of military smoke shells and deliberate rocket attacks on civilian populations, the effect is to doom such treaties to irrelevance.

It's the last paragraph that's important. There is a type of "internationalist" and human-rights type who can no longer distinguish between a terrorist entity that deliberately puts it's own civilians in harms way hoping they will be killed so they can be used for propaganda, and a democracy fighting a defensive war imperfectly.

Balance of Outrage

What gets me is that the outrage over atrocities, real or imagined, is so far out of balance. No one would say that Israel, or the United States for that matter, is above reproach. If you want to say we should not use this or that weapon, fine, make your case.

But shouldn't you also spend just a little bit of time criticizing terrorists? If you want to ban cluster bombs ok, make your case, but why can't we have one banning suicide vests as well? Of course, we know why such a treaty doesn't exist; the UN and human rights organizations don't care, and the Muslim nations would object. They'd say that singled them out (as if banning cluster bombs doesn't single us out) or insist on an exemption for "wars of national liberation" (like they do for a simple definition of terrorism).

I've heard all the excuses about how we must maintain the moral high-ground, how it would be useless to ban something like suicide vests, or how two wrongs don't make a right so what does it matter? I don't buy any of them.

Melanie Phillips, as always, cuts to the heart of the matter and asks the right questions:

One final question: when Foreign Secretary David Miliband, UN Secretary-General Ban-ki Moon and a zillion others in the west lament the 1000 in Gaza whom the Israelis have killed, are they lamenting the killing of the 75 per cent-plus of that total who were Hamas terrorists, whose purpose in life was to annihilate Israel and exterminate Jews? Are they lamenting the killing today of the key senior Hamas leader Said Siyam, said to have been a radical close to Iran? Would they have preferred that all these individuals remained alive to continue pursuing their genocidal project? Are they saying that no-one should be killed in war and that therefore there should never be war? And if so, when will we hear Miliband similarly lament all those Taleban who have been and are still being killed by British forces in Afghanistan, along with al Qaeda in Iraq?

I'm not sure about the first three, but the answers to the last two are yes and that's probably next.

Double Standards

If the "world community" is so upset about civilian deaths in Gaza, why aren't they as concerned about what's going on in the Congo? A story in Pajamas Media, using at it's source a Ugandan news outlet, says that "over 1,000 civilians have been killed by a Ugandan rebel group since Christmas."

Terrible that so many of the horrors that take place in Africa go unreported.

Sunday Evening Update

Mona Charen adds more to our list of horrors ignored by those oh-so-concerned by Gaza:

Since the start of 2007, 16,000 civilians have been killed in fighting. Not in Gaza, so you may have missed it. It was in Somalia, where an Islamist movement is fighting Ethiopian troops. This is the 18th year of civil strife in that country.

In Sri Lanka, some 70,000 people have perished in a civil war that has flared on and off since 1983. The regime in Burma has killed thousands and forced an estimated 800,000 into involuntary servitude.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire), 45,000 people are dying every month. Nearly 5.5 million have died since 1998 in a conflict that grew out of the violence in Rwanda and spread. Half of those deaths were of children under the age of five, according to the International Rescue Committee. The violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has caused more human devastation than any conflict since World War II.

In Darfur, Sudan, more than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million made homeless by violence.

Posted by Tom at 5:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 8, 2009

The Israeli War on Hamas - Not Nessarily a Left-Right Divide

While I think it's accurate to say that that most on the right support Israel, and most on the left at least oppose what Israel is doing even if they're not outright pro-Hamas, this is not always the case.

Republican Congressman Ron Paul reveals his moral bankruptcy when says that "we should be on neither side; this is a conflict that has been going on for a long time"

You can see why he didn't make any headway in the primaries.

Pat Buchanan isn't any better. Here's an excerpt from what he wrote on Dec 30:

About Israel's right and duty to defend its border towns, there is no dispute. When Hamas permits Gaza to be used as a launch pad for rockets, it must expect retaliation. Nor can Hamas claim some right to dictate the limits of that retaliation.

Yet the wisdom of so savage a retribution for rockets that killed not one Israeli is open to question. And crass Israeli politics seems to be behind this premeditated and planned blitz....

The moderate Palestinian Mahmoud Abbas, who has been talking to Israel, testifying to her good faith, has been made to appear the puppet and fool. A new intifada spreading to the West Bank, with suicide attacks inside Israel, is now possible.

Moderate Arabs, who have recognized Israel or backed peace, will now be seen by the Arab street as appeasers impotent to stop the public suffering of the Palestinian people....

Whatever Israel decides, we support. For eight years that has been the most reliable guide to U.S. Middle East policy.

Buchanan's statement that Israel has a right to defend itself is clearly a throwaway line. Where all his Arab moderates are is a mystery to me. None of this is a big surprise, though, because as far back as 1991 William F Buckley Jr concluded that Buchanan was an anti-Semite.

On the other side, consider this blog post by a guy who styles himself "Truth101." I ran into him over at American Power, where we usually disagree, but was pleasantly surprised to find him taking Israel's side. Here's an excerpt from his post "The Left isn't always Right"

One of my fellow lefties at Newshoggers posted some nonsense about Israel and the Gaza Conflict. He was trying to make a case that Israel was occupying Gaza and was overreaching or something.

Lefties: the people of Hamas are not your friends. They are lying, sniveling pricks that have no interest in peaceful coexistence with anyone. Let alone Israel. Once the Left and the world accepts these jokers for the no good terrorist, innocent women and children killing pricks they are, we will all be better off and ready to fight a real war on terror. Not the make Halliburton and Blackwater lots of money war Bush has waged.

In the comments section I wrote that my hat was off to him for his clear thinking on this issue.

No matter what Israel does the so-called international community disapproves. The good news is that unlike during the 2006 war in Lebanon, Israel is holding its own in the propaganda war, and setting the record straight as soon as Hamas propaganda hits the news. I'll go out on a limb and sai that I think Israel is going to win this one, much the the chagrin of the internationalists.

Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

January 7, 2009

The Israeli War on Hamas and the Moral Bankruptcy of the "International Community"

Nothing so illustrates the moral bankruptcy of the so-called international community," and indeed of so many others both on the left and on the right, as does the Israel-Palestine issue.

Consider this letter to the editor published in today's Washington Times. A brief excerpt:

This is a call for women of the world to unite with peace-loving men to stop the terrorist tactics used by both parties in the Israel/Palestine confrontation. It is nonsense for one group to say they are fighting terrorism when they themselves are using terrorist tactics....

Is the main reason for using weaponry today so that those in positions of power can keep their power? Our present State Department can only mouth one-sided views having to do with "our allies."

This attitude tries to make us afraid and to urge us to fight "an enemy." The truth is that we are the people of one world, and when we harm others, we are harming ourselves and the whole earth.....

BETTY CYPSER

Katonah, N.Y.

If queried about her letter, my suggestion to Ms Cypser is for her to say that she was drunk at the time so didn't really mean what she wrote.

Unless Israel is perfect and kills absolutely no civilians it is condemned by folks like her and the "international community," while the actions of Hamas are ignored or excused. Don't believe me? Do as columnist Mona Charen did and google for "international condemnations of Hamas" She's right, no such condemnations come up, even if you fiddle with the wording. On the other hand, google for "international condemnations of Israel" and you get quite a bit.

Lest anyone think that I'm just reprinting a crazy letter to the Times and doing a google search to make the point, Charen points out that

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, "strongly condemned Israel's disproportionate use of force," as did Brazil. Indonesia called on all countries to "sever all forms of diplomatic and business ties with Israel." French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who currently holds the rotating chair of the European Union, did call upon Hamas to halt its rocket attacks but also censured Israel's "disproportionate response."

We've all seen the articles. There's no need to go on. We see this every time Israel responds to terrorism. After the failure of the 2000 peace talks at Camp David, Yassir Arafat launched an intifada against Israel, sending suicide bombers into Jewish cafes and pizza parlors. Israel responded with a security fence. Who did the international community condemn? Israel.

Israellycool get's it about right in what is unfortunately only a half-parody:

In other news, Hamas executed 6 suspected collaborators with Israel (leading to widespread condemnation by "human rights" organizations and "peace activists"), France's Channel 2 have once again shown their true colors, and an ex-aide of Saddam Hussein has gotten all Baghdad Bob on us.

The "international community" has been intent on pushing for a cease-fire from the moment Israel launched what they call Operation Cast Lead. They apparently actually think that if such an agreement was hammered out Hamas will honor it's side of the deal, all past experiences to the contrary. Nowhere have I found any proposal from anyone to stop Hamas from launching it's terror rockets.

Even if such a promise was to be made, Israel would be justified in rejecting it based on history. In 2005 the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1559, which demanded the disarming of Hezbollah. To this date Hezbollah has not been disarmed because it refused to relinquish it's weapons and no one has the will to do it by force. Countries do not send troops on UN peacekeeping missions if they think there is a chance of serious fighting.

Even so, it is important to note that despite the chatter, many Muslims and Arabs are not taking Hamas' side. They make the standard denunciation of Israel, but one gets the impression it's just for show. They're angry at Hamas for interrupting what they saw as a "peace process" that might actually get somewhere (I don't think so, but that's for another day). They also realize that Hamas basically had it's own country, and did itself no good by provoking a powerful foe into attacking. This is good, and Israel senses it.

What's really disturbing is when the Bush Administration joins in the international chorus. To be sure, they've kept the UN Security Council from passing egregious resolutions (see eye on the UN website) but why do they have to join everyone else in calling for a cease fire? Why can't they just say one time it would be good if Israel destroyed Hamas? We expect others to back our attacks, but we can't back Israel?

I'm sure that privately we are telling Israel to "go for it" but I get tired of the two-facedness of it all. Condi Rice has proven to be a terrible Secretary of State, her 2007 peace conference in Annapolis being ill-planned and achieving nothing. The good news for the Obama Administration is that they can hardly do worse. Knock on wood.

Saturday Evening Update

On Thursday, Jan 8, the UN Security Council Resolution passed Resolution 1860 calling for a ceasefire. It's all a lot of hooey. Here are a few excerpts

Expressing grave concern at the escalation of violence and the deterioration of the situation, in particular the resulting heavy civilian casualties since the refusal to extend the period of calm; and emphasizing that the Palestinian and Israeli civilian populations must be protected,...

Stresses the urgency of and calls for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza;...

Calls on Member States to support international efforts to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation in Gaza, including through urgently needed additional contributions to UNRWA and through the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee;

The document expresses the moral equivalency the UN has been so famous for. All states are equal, and no blame is assigned. At least the US abstained, though we should have vetoed it. I know we abstained instead of exercising our veto power so as not to fray relations with states like Turkey and Jordan, but it was still a cowardly act.

The good news is that the Olmert government seems to have more backbone than we do. According to this AP story, they may even be escallating the war

Israel dropped bombs and leaflets on Gaza on Saturday, pounding suspected rocket sites and tunnels used by Hamas militants and warning of a wider offensive despite frantic diplomacy to end the bloodshed.

Good. Hamas is a cancer that needs to be cut out and killed. Although they were foolish enough to vote them into power, the real benefit would be the Palestinian people themselves.

Sunday January 18 Update

An editorial in today's Jerusalem Post hits the nail on the head. Money quote:

Israelis are told that no matter the provocation, we are "too quick" to resort to force. As if negotiations with Hamas were an option; as if eight years was too quick.

And if we've acted so "disproportionately" in our brutal march to triumph, how come the enemy is still standing and declaring victory?

To the morally obscene charge that we've committed "genocide" in Gaza - does anyone seriously doubt that were genocide our goal, heaven forbid, there would be 500,000 dead Palestinians, and not 1,000?

What other army drops warning leaflets and makes automated warning calls prior to attacking? Why is it ethical for Hamas to fire from a mosque or over the walls of a UN facility, but unethical for our citizen-soldiers to save themselves by responding with heavy weapons?

The truth is that no Western country faced with a similar set of circumstances - fighting an enemy that principally targets non-combatants while hiding behind its own civilians - would comport itself with higher moral standards than the IDF.

Sophomoric ideals about wartime morality are barely tolerable in Philosophy 101. When mouthed by leaders and pundits who should know better, they reflect intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

Posted by Tom at 9:15 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 5, 2009

The Israeli War on Hamas and Personal Responsiblity

Once again, here goes another post on the Middle East in which I have to check the "Moral Clarity" category box as well.

Of all the issues around the world, the Israeli-Palestine one is the absolutely most frustrating from this standpoint. It generates more moral confusion than any other. And let me be clear on this; I'm not talking about whether it was wise for Israel to attack Hamas, or Hezbollah in 2006. One can be morally clear on the issues and simply believe that there was another way to deal with the problem.

Here is a typical news story, this one from the AP

Israel ignored mounting international calls for a cease-fire Monday and said it won't stop its crippling 10-day assault until "peace and tranquility" are achieved in southern Israeli towns in the line of Palestinian rocket fire.

They never call for a cease fire when it's only Israel getting hit. Nor do they call it a "crisis", a word you see all over the news now that Israel is shooting back.

I could pick any of a hundred anti-Israel posts, but Glenn Greenwald, writing at Salon, is typical when he goes after pro-Israel blogger Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard:

One should be clear that this sociopathic indifference to (or even celebration over) the deaths of Palestinian civilians isn't representative of all supporters of the Israeli attack on Gaza. It's unfair to use the Goldfarb/Peretz pathology to impugn all supporters of the Israeli attack. It's certainly possible to support the Israeli offensive despite the deaths of these civilians, to truly lament the suffering of innocent Palestinians but still find the war, on balance, to be justifiable.

Those who favor the attack on Gaza due to that calculus are certainly misguided about the likely outcome. And many war supporters who fall into this more benign category are guilty of insufficiently weighing the deaths of Palestinian innocents and, relatedly, of such overwhelming emotional and cultural attachment to Israel and Israelis that they long ago ceased viewing this conflict with any remnant of objectivity.

Greenwald is nicer than most of his sort in saying that it is "certainly possible to support the Israeli offensive despite the deaths of these civilians," but there's one big problem with his thesis.

The Palestinians aren't as innocent as he says they are.

A Brief History

Fist we need to set the stage.

In January of 2006 the Palestinians voted Hamas into power in the elections for the Palestinian Parliament, Hamas winning 75 seats to Fatah's 45. The electoral system is a bit complicated (see here), as some of the seats are awarded by proportionality and some by district. While because of these peculiarities (follow the link) Hamas didn't have quite the level of support the results would indicate, in the end a significant amount of people voted for Hamas.

In June of 2007, Hamas took complete control of Gaza in a bloody coup, killing who knows how many Fatah members and civilians (websites vary). They created their own government in Gaza, basically splitting the Palestinian Authority in two, with Fatah (nominally) in control in Judea and Smaria (the "West Bank").

Caroline Glick describes the run-up to the war in an interview with K-Lo over at The Corner

The fighting in Gaza today started about three weeks ago when Hamas renewed its rocket, mortar, and missile assault against Israel. Last June, Israel foolishly agreed to a six-month ceasefire with Hamas. Hamas used the time to have Iran double the size of its missile arsenal and double the range of its missiles, and to build up its Iranian-trained, armed, and financed Hezbollah-style army of 20,000 men. Hamas called its renewed offensive "Operation Oil Stain." On December 17, Hamas attacked Israel with more than 80 missiles, rockets and mortars. It took Israel ten days to finally respond to Hamas's assault, which for the first time put Israeli major cities like Ashdod, Yavne, Beersheva, and Gedera under assault.

Who is Responsible?

To varying extents, a people bear responsibility for their government. If it is a dictatorship, the people are only responsible to the degree that they try and resist it. I realize it's all very easy to talk about resisting tyranny from the safety of one's keyboard and from the perspective of the United States in 2009, but it's true nonetheless.

Certainly, though, if you vote that government into place you bear responsibility. And the fact is that when given the chance, Palestinians voted for Hamas. They got what they wanted. And let's be clear, Fatah isn't that much better. Their Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are their terrorist wing, as they have been designated by the U.S. Department of State since 2002.

Here's the point - If you vote for terrorists as your government, and then they terrorize your neighbor, you have no legitimate reason to cry foul if your neighbor strikes back.

At least the Germans and Japanese had the decency not to pretend that they were the victims when we bombed and occupied their homelands.

Strangest of all, it is in the best interests of the Gazans that Hamas be destroyed. Ever since Israel withdrew from Gaza in August of 2005, they have basically had their own country. Not much of one, to be sure, and one beset with huge social and economic problems, but a country or homeland of sorts. They had a golden opportunity to show everyone that they could be a responsible self-governing entity. And they blew it.

Among other things the Gazans inherited in the wake of the Israeli withdrawal were more than 3,000 greenhouses, which could have been used to grow valuable flowers for export to Europe. American Jewish philanthropists even paid $14 million to save them from destruction by Jewish settlers so the Gazans could have them. And what happened? Many were damaged or destroyed by looters that the Palestinian authorities were helpless to stop, often because their security forces stood idly by.

They got their homeland, and they have made the worst of it.

Discrimination

This said, it is still incumbent upon nations to not directly target civilians. It is an integral part of Just War Theory. Now, I don't think that traditional JWT is completely applicable to our modern world. It needs updating. But the principal of discrimination, which basically says you cannot directly target civilians, is accepted by all civilized nations.

The whole issue gets complicated, and I urge readers to follow the links and read the whole thing themselves, but the salient point here is that Israel does not target civilians and Hamas does. Just because civilians are killed while attacking military targets does not mean that "Israel is killing civilians," because such a formulation implies that Israel is doing so deliberately.

In the end, the Gazans therefore bear some responsibility for what is happening to them. Critics need to stop pretending that they are totally innocent bystanders.

Posted by Tom at 10:00 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

December 28, 2008

Israel Hits Hamas in Gaza

I thought about titling this "Israel Hits Hamas," but in our modern age of moral confusion that wouldn't do. Israel isn't "attacking Gaza" any more than they were "attacking Lebanon" two years ago. Apologists for whichever terrorist faction being hit like to make it appear that Israel is attacking the whole country, civilians and all. Unfortunately, too many seem to buy into this story line. As such, I find myself including "Moral Clarity" as a category for all of my posts on the Middle East.

Starting yesterday, Saturday Dec 27, Israeli jets have struck Hamas positions in Gaza in Operation Cast Lead. This in response to unrelenting Qassam rocket attacks by Hamas and it's associated factions/groups into Israel. One wonders what Hamas was thinking. Surely they knew that the Israeli strikes were bound to happen.

Most likely Hamas was looking for a replay of the July-Aug 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. It is thought by most that because Israel did not succeed in neutralizing Hezbollah or it's ability to launch rockets, the latter won. Hamas has been provoking Israel, hoping for a retaliation, and calculating that they will survive. The mindset of the terrorists is that if they survive somewhat intact they win, an in a way they're right. That hundreds or thousands of of their own fighters, never mind innocent civilians may die helps all the more, as photos of dead bodies shown on TV around the world make for good anti-Israel propaganda. A Reuters report has it that Hamas is not allowing the wounded to cross into Egypt for treatment.

Israeli motivations, of course, are different. Their stated intention, as taken from a story on the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) website:

"Our intention is not to arrive at a ceasefire; it is to destroy Hamas' motivation and intention to fight," explained IDF Spokesperson, Brig. Gen. Avi Beninyahu. "The IDF's goal is to create a different reality along the Gaza periphery; to create a safe and secure environment that will be long lasting." In addition, Brig. Gen. Beninyahu expressed complete confidence that IDF forces are acting with caution and intention: "We know exactly what we need to do and what needs to be done. We will continue to act in order to decrease the terror coming from the Gaza Strip."

Ok, but I'm not exactly sure what this means. On the one hand it's possible this is just a short-term attempt to quell the rocket attacks. The government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is not a strong one, and the PM himself caught up in many scandals and criticized for many things, including his handling of the 2006 war in Lebanon. His popularity is low. As such, it's hard to have much faith that this will be a better thought out war than the last one.

But people do learn, and anyway Gaza is not Lebanon. It and Hamas are smaller than Lebanon and Hezbollah. Olmert may be determined to carry through until Hamas cries uncle or has truely suffered to the point where they are not even much of a political entity anymore. Unlike in Lebanon, where Hezbollah had an open supply line from Syria, Hamas can be much more easily cut off.

Seen from it's most cynical perspective, it's possible that the Israeli government is doing this for purely political reasons. There will be a general election this Feb 10, and according to this scenario Olmert just doesn't want to look weak going into them.

The last possibility is that Olmert will follow air strikes with a ground assault and will not only reoccupy Gaza but will go all out to end Hamas' existence. This would take time and would be difficult, and so is not likely.

It's impossible to say how long Israel has been planning this. The reason is that they no doubt constantly monitor Gaza, Lebanon, etc, so keep their target lists updated daily. It's probably more a matter of arranging air schedules and flight paths than anything else. My guess is they can "pull the trigger' with very short notice.

Before we go farther, here's a useful timeline I found at Fox News

-- June 1967: Israel captures the Egyptian-controlled Gaza Strip during six-day Mideast war. An Israeli census put the population at 380,000, at least half of whom were refugees from Israel. Today the population stands at about 1.5 million. The U.N. lists just over 1 million as refugees and their descendants.

-- December 1987: A clash in the Jebaliya refugee camp sets off Palestinian uprising, which lasted until 1993 and claimed the lives of more than 2,000 Palestinians and 192 Israelis. The militant Islamic Hamas is formed early in the uprising.

-- September 2005: Israel withdraws its troops and all of its 8,500 Jewish settlers. It retains control of Gaza's airspace, coastal waters and border crossings.

-- June 2007: Hamas violently seizes control of Gaza after routing forces loyal to rival Fatah faction of President Mahmoud Abbas.

-- June 2008: Hamas and Israel reach truce to halt the cross-border rocket attacks and end Israeli offensives in Gaza.

-- November 2008: Palestinians resume rocket and mortar fire into Israel after Israeli incursion.

-- Dec. 19, 2008: Hamas formally declares the truce over, rocket fire on Israel intensifies.

-- Dec. 27, 2008: Israel launches a fierce air offensive, killing more than 200 Palestinians in the first day.

As of this writing, a story on the IDF website says they've hit some 210 target locations in Gaza. Hamas has fired some 110 rockets and mortar shells into Israel since Operation Cast Lead began.

Moral Clarity, Please

Whenever Israel strikes back at terrorists you can count on stories like these to appear:

The Telegraph: Israel launches more air strikes as UN calls for ceasefire

The United Nations Security Council called for an immediate ceasefire as there was growing evidence of Israeli plans to increase its military operations.

Jerusalem Post: Israel defends Gaza op to UN chief

President Nicholas Sarkozy of France, who holds the rotating European Union presidency, said he "firmly condemns the irresponsible provocations that have led to this situation, as well as the disproportionate use of force," according to an e-mailed statement.

The EU itself has also urged an immediate halt to Israeli air strikes and Palestinian attacks in and around Gaza and the lifting of Israeli blockades in the area, saying in a statement that the 27-nation bloc "condemns the disproportionate use of force" from both sides. "There is no military solution in Gaza," the EU statement said, urging a lasting truce.

The EU statement also urges the "reopening of all checkpoints and the immediate resumption of fuel and humanitarian aid deliveries."

Washington Post: Israeli Airstrikes on Gaza Strip Imperil Obama's Peace Chances

Israel's airstrikes on Gaza yesterday, in retaliation for a nonstop barrage of rocket attacks from Hamas fighters, raised the prospect of an escalation of violence that could scuttle any hopes the incoming Obama administration harbored of forging an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

Terrorist groups can fire rockets at Israel for years with no "international condemnation", yet everyone calls for an immediate cease fire when Israel responds.

Israeli response to terrorism must be "proportionate." Yet these same moral pontificators are quick to condemn "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" thinking.

And of course there is the "peace process" that must be preserved, even when it is obvious to anyone with eyes that it is all process and no peace. We could only make peace with these terrorists if only those dastardly Israelis would stop defending themselves.

Israel isn't perfect. I wish they'd stop growing the settlements in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank"). Sometimes I wonder if bulldozing homes, even those of terrorists, is really the best response.

Of all the criticisms leveled at Israel, the one that their response is not "proportionate" is the most ridiculous. Don't get me wrong; I very much know that proportionality is part of Just War Theory. Follow the link and you'll see that I wrote quite a bit on the subject a few years ago.

Suffice it to say for now that the requirement for proportionality does not mean "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." After all, our own response to Japanese attacks on U.S. forces at Pearl Harbor, Wake Island, and the Philippines was hardly proportional as measured by this standard. We invaded and ended their government, while they never had plans to even attack the continental United States, much less march into Washington D.C.

So of course Israel's response is greater than Hamas' rocket attacks. If the schoolyard bully pushes you, you don't push him back, you knock his block off. The point is not to engage in tit for tat, but to end the rocket attacks. Just as the bully won't push you anymore if you show that you will go all-out to defend yourself, Hamas will stop if it becomes convinced that it's very existence is threatened. If not, then Israel ends it's existence.

More later. For now check out the live blogging of the war over at Israellycool.

Posted by Tom at 9:30 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

December 4, 2008

The Cluster Bomb Treaty

This is maddening

OSLO, Norway (AP) -- Ninety-three countries signed a treaty banning cluster bombs Thursday, as diplomats accepted the wishes of victims who begged them to bar the weapons that kill and maim civilians long after the conflicts end.

Some of the world's top military powers -- including the U.S., Russia and China -- refused to attend, arguing cluster bombs have legitimate military uses, such as repelling advancing troop columns.

"We're of course disappointed by the states that did not show up here in Oslo," said Steve Goose, the arms director of Human Rights Watch. "They're on the wrong side of history. Some of them are clinging to what is now a widely discredited weapon."

Under the accord, negotiated in May, signatories agreed not to use cluster bombs, to destroy existing stockpiles within eight years, and to fund programs that clear old battlefields of dud bombs.

Grrrrr

They may has well just call it the "Screw the United States Treaty" for what it amounts to.

What I want to know is after they're done here if these brave souls will push for a ban on suicide bombers. Call me crazy, but I'm not going to hold my breath for that one.

These people suffer from a case of serious moral confusion.

It's all so typical. Here we have the mad mullahs of Iran working feverishly to obtain nuclear weapons, and when they get enough of them they'll probably nuke Israe. We have terrorists the world over building heaven knows how many suicide vests and car bombs to kill thousands of innocents. Fidel Castro wannabe Hugo Chavez seeks dictatorial powers, is arming himself to the teeth with Soviet weapons, is tied to the FARC terrorists in Columbia, and is cozying up to Iran. Hugo Chavez wannabe Evo Morales would make himself a dictator if he could. Pakistan is turning out terrorists by the thousands from it's madrassas, and the Saudis sending forth cadres with zillions of dollars to take over and radicalize Mosques the world over, China wants to take over Taiwan and seeks hegemony in the south-west Pacific. The Russians seem not to know the Cold War is over as they continue to modernize their ICBMs and develop modern warheads. They're doing business with Iran and want their empire back. Did I miss anything?

Yes I did; the United Nations has no agreed upon definition of "terrorism."

It's true. You'd think terrorism would be pretty easy to define. We all know it when we see it. So why can't we get a definition that will satisfy everyone? Eye on the UN has the story:

The definitional impasse has prevented the adoption of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the UN failed to adopt the Convention, and the deadlock continues to this day.

The prime reason is the standoff with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). It seeks to insert into the Convention: "The activities of the parties during an armed conflict, including in situations of foreign occupation....are not governed by this Convention." Or, as the Pakistani delegate describes the standoff on behalf of the OIC, there is a need "to make a distinction between terrorism and the exercise of legitimate right of peoples to resist foreign occupation." In October 2007 the Coordinator of the informal negotiating meetings which had been organized "to move the process forward" circulated a document in which she named the outstanding issues. The OIC demand was on the top of the list, namely, "the importance not to affect the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination."

The Arab Terrorism Convention and the Terrorism Convention of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) define terrorism to exclude armed struggle for liberation and self-determination. This claim purports to exclude blowing up certain civilians from the reach of international law and organizations. It is central to interpreting every proclamation by the states which have ratified these conventions in any UN forum purporting to combat terrorism.

in other words, they want to be able to claim that Palestinian is not terrorism. In fact, I think they want to be able to claim that any Muslim terrorism that suits their purposes is not terrorism. And no doubt they want a definition that allows them to brand Israel, and, when it suits them the United States, as terrorist countries.

But no, to this bunch it's much more important to go after a weapon that is important to the United States.

The group behind it all is one called the Cluster Munition Coalition. From their website, here are the ones who have signed

Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile, Comoros, Republic of Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Lesotho, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia (FYR), Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania, Timor-Leste, Togo, Uganda, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela and Zambia.

Here's the bottom line; when all hell breaks lose somewhere no one is going to rely on any of the nations listed above. Please don't bring up the UK or France; they couldn't even take care of Bosnia/Kosovo by themselves. Their military's are a hollow shell of what they were during the Cold War, and they were pretty small them.

No I am not saying that just because we're the United States we can do whatever we like. What I am saying is that treaties to ban specific weapons usually miss the point, and this one strikes far from the mark.

First, it's usually not the weapon but who's using it and how. Just as there are responsible and irresponsible use of firearms in the home, there are responsible and irresponsible use of cluster munitions. The US military only uses them to stop an advancing army. Israel, who also refused to sign, uses them because to lose a war means 6 million dead Jews. Further, we have worked hard to reduce the dud rate, which seems to be the biggest concern for those pushing this ban.

Therefore, if they wanted to set rules as to how cluster munitions could be used, or set an upper limit on their dud rate (and every weapon has a dud rate) that would be one thing, and that's an approach I agree with. We have rules with regard to civilian use of firearms; when you can use them in self-defense, and we ban certain types of guns like automatic weapons. We can do likewise with cluster bombs.

Second, of all the world's problems and things that ought to be banned cluster bombs falls pretty far down in my book. It's typical of the mindset that promotes this treaty to go after the United States and Israel (which is what they are doing), because they know we're law abiding nations. They won't go after nations that send forth terrorists because they know those nations will tell them to get lost. Oh, and direct some of the terrorists their way.

Look at the nations who refused to sign; the United States, Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and Finland.

These are all nations that have to take war seriously. Most the nations that signed don't, and the rest I think just wanted to stick their thumbs in the eyes of the great powers. That Finland refused to sign may strike one as odd, but as their defense chief told the Washington Times, "we would have risked having a significantly weaker and more expensive defense." He explained that without cluster munitions defending their border with Russia would exceed $1.2 billion, more than they could afford. Those who are unsure of why the Fins are so sensitive about this need only read about the "Winter War," when Stalin invaded their country in 1939.

I'm still waiting on the treaty to ban suicide attacks. I'll settle, though, for a meaningful UN definition of terrorism.

Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

October 20, 2008

"Freedom of Speech in Jihad Analysis: Debunking the Myth of Offensive Words"

About time someone said this.

From a story in today's Washington Times written by the invaluable Bill Gertz:

A U.S. military "Red Team" charged with challenging conventional thinking says that words like "jihad" and "Islamist" are needed in discussing 21st-century terrorism and that federal agencies that avoid the words soft-pedaled the link between religious extremism and violent acts.

"We must reject the notion that Islam and Arabic stand apart as bodies of knowledge that cannot be critiqued or discussed as elements of understanding our enemies in this conflict," said the internal report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times.

The report, "Freedom of Speech in Jihad Analysis: Debunking the Myth of Offensive Words," was written by unnamed civilian analysts and contractors for the U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for the Middle East and South Asia. It is thought to be the first official document to challenge those in the government who seek to downplay the role of Islam in inspiring some terrorist violence.

"The fact is our enemies cite the source of Islam as the foundation for their global jihad," the report said. "We are left with the responsibility of portraying our enemies in an honest and accurate fashion."

I hope these guys keep their resumes updated, because they're going to need them if Obama's elected in November. The political correctness on this is bad enough with GW Bush, but it will be absolutely out of control with Obama.

You can download the report from the Times website at the link above. If that disappears, you can go here.

The reason why it is important that we use words like jihad, takfir, Islamist, and the rest is that we need to be clear as to who we are fighting. We need clarity on the nature of the enemy, who he is, and his historical roots. While we must understand that no, not all Muslims accept the idea of violent jihad, we must also understand that all too many do, and that they are the ones currently in control of the umma.

Of course, any "Red Team" is not the end-all-to-be-all. Their job is to provide the "counter" or "alternative" analysis, the purpose of which is to challenge assumptions. It's just that in this case I think they're right.

Read the whole thing, but here is an excerpt from the Executive Summary:

There are a growing number of USG documents that suggest that we stand in danger of (if we have not already) demonizing Islam and/or associating all Muslims with violence simply by invoking the Islamic identity, or Islamist goals, or a particular extremist group. While there is concern that we not label all Muslims as Islamist terrorists, it is proper to address certain aspects of violence as uniquely Islamic. This does not imply that all violence is Islamic, or even that all violence perpetrated by Muslims is uniquely Islamic. The fact is that our enemies cite the sources of Islam as the foundation of their global jihad. We are left with the responsibility of portraying our enemies in an honest and accurate fashion.

There are a lot of problems in our current approach, but one of them is not "demonizing Islam." President Bush and virtually all other Western leaders have gone out of their way to do the opposite.

The problem, rather, is with those who want to define our problem as narrowly as possible. Many do not even want to use the term "war," but rather see it through the lens of law enforcement. They generally see the problem as only al Qaeda and only in Afghanistan. This must end, and we should label our enemies as they are: Jihadists, Takfiris, and Islamists.

Posted by Tom at 9:30 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

October 19, 2008

Joe Biden, Sarah Palin, Dan Quayle, and When a Gaffe is not a Gaffe

Oct 20: Updated at bottom with today's Biden gaffe

And to think that they crucified Dan Quayle because he spelled "potato" wrong.

Unless they do the same to Joe Biden, the media and late night talk-show hosts who made so much fun Dan Quayle need to send him a letter of apology.

Anyone who follows politics knows that Senator Biden is a walking gaffe machine. Consider this small collection of his wit and wisdom:

If you're not sure, Roosevelt was not president when the stock market crashed and TV hadn't been invented in 1929.

And then we have his debate with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin:

" When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."

Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel."

Huh?

"Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Pakistan already has deployed nuclear weapons. Pakistan's weapons can already hit Israel and the Mediterranean."

Pakistani missiles barely have the range to get halfway to Israel, much less hit anything in the Mediterranean.

We could go on and on listing Biden's gaffes, see here and here for material. Joe Biden says stupid things every single week. The man is an absolute walking gaffe machine. But listing them is not my purpose, and would take too long.

The True Story of the Potato

Did you know that the reporters who were in the room with Quayle when he misspelled "potato" didn't know how it was spelled either? It's true. Not only that, but the school had prepared flash cards with the words that were used in the spelling exercise, and the one for the word in question had it spelled as "potatoe"

Bet you didn't know that, either.

In fact, when Quayle noticed the discrepancy between the flash card and the way the student spelled it, he showed the card to the other adults standing with him, and they nodded in agreement that the student had spelled it wrong.

That little fact wasn't reported by the media either.

The true story of what happened can be found in many places, but perhaps the most comprehensive is by Quayle himself in his 1994 memoir Standing Firm. He devotes an entire chapter to the incident.

I'm not going to do a book review here, but suffice it to say that if you think that Quayle uses the book as an opportunity to settle scores, lash out at the media, or engage in bitter "I didn't deserve it," you'll be disappointed. Quayle is the opposite of the stereotypical politician; humble, candid, and amazingly hard on himself.

When Is a Gaffe not a Gaffe?

So why is it that Joe Biden does not suffer the same fate as Dan Quayle? Why is it that Sarah Palin is seemingly held to a higher standard than other Biden? These are not easy questions to answer, but let me take a shot at it.

One is simply how you look and come across. Joe Biden looks and sounds like a senator or professor. He also looks his age. Dan Quayle has a boyish look that chronological age will never wear away. Sarah Palin sounds like a midwestern "everywoman," and makes no attempt to act or talk Washingtonese.

Another is how you handle the aftermath. Quayle admits that he screwed up the press briefing that immediately followed the incident. At this point neither Quayle or anyone in his entourage knew anything was amis (recall that no one in the room challenged the "e" and many thought it correct). When a reporter slyly asked "so how do you spell "potato" again?" he should have realized his earlier mistake and made a joke about it. Unfortunately, he was caught off guard and unsure what the reporter was talking about. It was this "deer in the headlights" part of the incident that made a small mistake into a career defining event more than the incident itself.

All this, remember, according to Quayle himself. I told you he was hard on himself in the book.

The media is on the lookout for anything Sarah Palin might say that is slightly wrong. Rest assured that if she said that "jobs" was a three letter word it would be the subject of late-night jokes for the rest of her life.

Biden, on the other hand, seems to skate along making gaffe after gaffe without anyone other than us nasty right-wing bloggers seeming to care. There is no aftermath for him to deal with because most of the press simply ignore his gaffes.

Therefore, another part of the reason for the disparity of treatment is that Joe Biden is a liberal and Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin are conservatives. The media and comics are overwhelmingly liberal and use their platforms to push their cause, and this means highlighting gaffes by people they don't like and ignoring those of people they do like.

So in the end, I conclude that there are three reasons for the disparity in treatment. Not in order of importance, they are: Image and how you present yourself, how you handle the aftermath, and media bias.

Monday Evening Update

No sooner do I write the above post than Senator Biden proves the case. Via ABC News (H/T NRO)

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee said at a Seattle fundraiser Sunday, "it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

Wait a second. I thought that with the ascendancy of The One the rest of the world would all like us again? Isn't that why we are supposed to elect him?

But now "the world" will test Obama with an "international crisis, a generated crisis"? Why would they generate a crisis, if he's the one we've all been waiting for?

But wait, it gets better. Biden continues:

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said, including the Middle East and Russia as possibilities, "and he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

What in the world does that "not gonna be apparent initially...that we're right" bit mean? That he's going to screw it up initially?

Don't leave me yet, there's more:

"Gird your loins," Biden told the crowd. "We're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride."

Do what?

The garrulous Biden...

or rather, "The blithering idiot"

...said that he's "forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I'm not being falsely humble with you."

Oh yes that was certainly humble of you.

"I think I can be value added, but this guy(Obama) has it. This guy has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us.""

Or maybe he'll be down in the polls because people will come to their senses and realize that he has no idea how to handle international crises, and that his blithering idiot of a vice president is of no help whatsoever.

Posted by Tom at 8:45 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

October 9, 2008

Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, and a Tale of Two Americas

John Edwards gained a lot of political traction with his "Two Americas" schtick. Economics may be one way to divide Americans, but it's not the only way.

For a number of years liberals have told us that we should elect their candidates because they are "smarter" than conservatives. This usually, but not always, takes the form of citing university degrees. They tend to denigrate conservatives, most famously Ronald Reagan and George W Bush as "stupid" and "anti-intellectual.

We see this now with their characterizations of Senator Barack Obama and Governor Sarah Palin.

One argument that Obama's followers make as to why we should elect him is that he was once president of the Harvard Law Review, and later taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. Palin, on the other hand, is mocked as a rube who "only" has a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho.

Imagine, if you will, an audience that consists of two groups of people: One, the faculty of Harvard University. The other, Americans from the small towns of the mid-west. Suppose they hear the following speech given by General of the Army Douglas MacArthur (ret) (originally given to the corps of cadets at West Point). A brief excerpt will make the point:

Duty, Honor, Country: Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying points: to build courage when courage seems to fail; to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith; to create hope when hope becomes forlorn....

But these are some of the things they do. They build your basic character. They mold you for your future roles as the custodians of the nation's defense. They make you strong enough to know when you are weak, and brave enough to face yourself when you are afraid. They teach you to be proud and unbending in honest failure, but humble and gentle in success; not to substitute words for actions, not to seek the path of comfort, but to face the stress and spur of difficulty and challenge; to learn to stand up in the storm but to have compassion on those who fall; to master yourself before you seek to master others; to have a heart that is clean, a goal that is high; to learn to laugh, yet never forget how to weep; to reach into the future yet never neglect the past; to be serious yet never to take yourself too seriously; to be modest so that you will remember the simplicity of true greatness, the open mind of true wisdom, the meekness of true strength. They give you a temper of the will, a quality of the imagination, a vigor of the emotions, a freshness of the deep springs of life, a temperamental predominance of courage over timidity, of an appetite for adventure over love of ease. They create in your heart the sense of wonder, the unfailing hope of what next, and the joy and inspiration of life. They teach you in this way to be an officer and a gentleman.

Upon hearing these words, which group will think "yes, these are ideals to which I aspire but may never reach, and which part will snicker?

And when the audience hears this part...

The unbelievers will say they are but words, but a slogan, but a flamboyant phrase. Every pedant, every demagogue, every cynic, every hypocrite, every troublemaker, and I am sorry to say, some others of an entirely different character, will try to downgrade them even to the extent of mockery and ridicule.

...which group will think "yes, sadly there are those of that type in our country too" and which will sit upright and think "wait, he's talking about me" ?

If later a bugle plays taps for our fallen troops while an honor guard stands erect and proud, which group will salute and put their hand over their hearts, tear in eye, and which will roll their eyes?

And if at the end a flight of F-15s flys overhead in a "missing man" formation, which will thrill at the sight while understanding its meaning, and which, uncomprehending the significance of the maneuver, will simply snear that "it was all just part of the military-industrial complex"?

You ask me, I take the William F. Buckley Jr. approach to government. He famously once said that he'd "rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."

Before all you liberals get your panties in a wad, no I am not ascribing all of the worst aspects of the Harvard crowd to Barack Obama. If he was in our audience, in good Clintonian fashion he'd put on a good show. Heaven only knows his true feelings, but his radical background and associations are not encouraging.

So go ahead, all you liberals, denigrate Sarah Palin as you wish. Go on, mock her winks, her manner of speaking, her lack of elite eduction, that she has five children, that she - gasp - hunts and fishes, whatever amuses you.

Me? I'll take her alone any day over the entire faculty of Harvard when it comes to running this country.

Posted by Tom at 9:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 7, 2008

Why Ayers and Wright Matter

I haven't written very much about Senator Obama's questionable associations, but when I have I've made my thoughts pretty clear. I find it hightly objectionable that we should have a candidate from a major party who consorted with figures such as Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers. That he may well become president is disturbing.

There are two questions; how well did he know these figures, and what does it matter? I've answered the former in previous posts such as this one of a few days ago.

The reason why Obama's association with Ayers and Wright is important is that it goes to his judgment. Obama tells us that we should elect him because of his superior judgment. He bases this largely on one thing; his opposition to invading Iraq. The issue, then, is not Obama's character.

For purposes of argumentation lets ignore whether it was wise to invade Iraq.

What does it say about a man's judgment when he associated with Ayers and Wright? The Obama camp would have us believe that Obama didn't know that Ayers was an unrepentant terrorist, or that it was ok to associate with him because he had denounced Ayers, or that because Ayers' terrorist activities took place when Obama was a child.... I never did get that last one.

Where was Obama's vaunted judgment during all of this? If it was so superior, shouldn't have have caught on quickly as to who and what Ayers was? Why did he praise Ayers book on education, for example?

Lets also get over the notion that Obama is somehow excused because he was a child when Ayers was a terrorist. This is so completely irrelevant that it boggles the mind. The question is not how old Obama was when Ayers was committing his terrorist acts, the question is whether Obama knew, or should have known, of Ayers terrorist past during their relationship.

If Obama wants us to believe that his judgment is so superior then he should have been able to figure out who Ayers was pretty quickly. Either way Obama loses; if he didn't know it exibits bad judgment for not being able to evaluate other people (something critical in a president), and if it did it shows bad judgment because no one in their right mind should associate with an unrepentant ex terrorist.

For example, on his very website it still says that "Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." If his judgment with Ayers was so poor, why should we believe he will be able to size up Ahmadinejad any better? Recall that Obama actually used the example of the 196_ Kennedy-Khruchshev summit as a reason to meet with foreign dictators. One reason why the summit turned out so disasterously for Kennedy was that he had failed to size Khruchshev up correctly before meeting him, whereas Khruchshev had correctly judged that he would be able to bully Kennedy.

As for Wright, lets be clear what didn't happen. Obama did not attend Trinity United for a short period 10 or 20 years ago. He didn't just start to attend recently. Wright isn't just some preacher who endorsed Obama. Wright is not just a preacher that Obama went out and got his endorsement. Obama went to Trinity United for 20 years, and heard sermon after sermon. He described Wright as his "spiritual mentor." He only left when it became politically inconvenient to stay.

For that matter, what does it say about Obama's judgment that he attended the Million Man March? If his judgment is so superior, why didn't he figure out who and what Louis Farrakhan was before the event?

Finally, let's not pretend that Ayers and Wright were Obama's only questionable associations. The list goes on. Frank Gaffney, writiing in The Washington Times, goes over more, including Frank Marshall Davis, a Stalinist communist who admired the Soviet Union, Madeline Talbott of ACORN, Don Warden, (who converted to Islam and changed his name to Khalid al-Mansour). "Mr. al-Mansour has worked closely to advance the influence operations in America of one of Saudi Arabia's most insidious royal billionaires, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal." Worse still is Rashid Khalidi, who was

...a former colleague of Mr. Obama's at the University of Chicago and now a professor at Columbia. Mr. Khalidi is an enthusiastic supporter of the Palestinians, fervent critic of Israel (which he calls a destructive "racist" state), an admirer of suicide bombers and a driving force behind the Arab American Action Network (AAAN). This so-called pro-Palestinian "community organization" in Chicago is another beneficiary of the largess of the Obama-Ayers team at the Woods Fund and promotes an agenda that would horrify many of Mr. Obama's Jewish supporters.

If you want to question McCain's judgment over the Keating Five scandal, fine. The investigative report showed that McCain portrayed "poor judgment" and it is a mark against him. I do think you're stretching to compare that, though, to association with an unrepentant terrorist and a racist kook preacher. One can even say that McCain tried to make up for the whole affair with his McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Obama, of course, has no legislation to his name.

A Thought Experiment

To all of you liberals who see no problem with Obama's association with Ayers, or don't even think that he "associated" with him, consider if the shoe was on the other foot.

What would you think if John McCain had had the exact same relationship with abortion-clinic bomber Eric Rudolf? Can you honestly say that you'd have no problem with the situation?

For that matter, consider if John McCain had sat in a church for 20 years and listened to a white supremacist.

I know liberals will scream at this, but I do think in all honesty that if McCain had done either of these things we on the right would have purged him from our ranks long ago.

Update

The invaluable Andy McCarthy discusses Obama's radical past and concludes that

What Obama is about is infiltrating (and training others to infiltrate) bourgeois institutions in order to change them from within -- in essence, using the system to supplant the system. A key requirement of this stealthy approach (very consistent with talking vaporously about "change" but never getting more specific than absolutely necessary) is electability. With an enormous assist from the media, which does not press him for specifics, Obama has walked this line brilliantly. Absent convincing retractions of his prior radical positions, though, we should construe shrewd moves like the ostensibly reasonable Second Amendment position as efforts make him electable.

This is why Ayers is so important: it is a peek behind the curtain of Obama's rhetoric. When he talks about "education reform," that sounds admirable and, given the state of the schools, entirely reasonable. But when you look at what the Obama/Ayers program really tried to do to the schools (see, e.g., Stanley's work on this), it is radical. With a guy who speaks in euphemisms -- "change," "social justice," "due process," etc. -- it is vital to have concrete examples of how these concepts are put into action.

I have spoken with several undecided voters who tell me that they see Obama as a moderate, not much different in his positions than McCain. It's all I can do not to let my jaw hit the floor when I hear this. My conclusion is that one, the McCain campaign in general, and Senator McCain in particular, have done a poor job at communicating who and what Obama is. Two, the media are so in the bag for Obama that they're doing as good a job of investigating him as they did with John Edwards. This does not portend well.

Posted by Tom at 9:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 30, 2008

A Childlike View of the World

David Gelernter knocks it out of the park with a piece in The Weekly Standard that will leave youngish yuppie liberal types seething.

His thesis is that the generation who grew up after the 60s Cultural Revolution know little about recent history, and most of what they do know is wrong. Recall Obama actually using the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit as a reason why he should meet with Ahmadinejad.

He calls them "gen-CR", and his indictment is stinging

We know what to expect of gen-CR. Unless they have grown up in regions or families with an unusually strong grasp of tradition, patriotism, and reality, gen-CR'ers tend to have a fuzzy view of history, an unconditional belief in tolerance and diplomacy, and contempt for the military and war-making. Their patriotism (such as it is) tends to focus on the "global community" or "the planet" or some other large, meaningless object. (Beyond a certain point, patriotic devotion spread too thin simply evaporates-which is a good way to get rid of it if you are, say, an English intellectual trusting to the European Union to eradicate this primitive emotion.)

Ouch.

To be sure, not everyone in a particular generation fits to type. After all, not all baby boomers burned their draft cards and protested the war in Vietnam. But there are certain general characteristics (dare we call them "stereotypes"?) of each generation.

On to some history:

His (Obama's) announcement that he would meet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions shows exactly why a president must not merely know history but have a decently nuanced view. It was wrong for Chamberlain to meet Hitler and foolish for JFK to meet Khrushchev, but right for Begin to meet Sadat and for Churchill to make repeated long, dangerous journeys to meet Stalin.

We've all read leftie blogs gleefully point out that we were supposedly "allied" with Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war, and how in 1983 Reagan-envoy Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad and shook hands with Saddam, and how these supposedly illegitimized our 2003 invasion.

Never mind that we weren't really "allied" with Iraq. For awhile I tried to point out that we were very much allied with Stalin's Soviet Union, and yet as soon as the war ended fought a Cold War against them for 40 years, so did our onetime alliance with them illegitimize that too? Eventually I grew weary and gave up. Too many on the left today lack the moral clarity to understand the difference.

But other than racism, sexism, or the new one, "homophobia", Hemingway points out that "Gen-CR recoils from the idea of enemies." Last night I was listening to Dennis Prager on the radio say that when he spoke with Europeans they told him that what they didn't like about America was that we spoke about good and evil. Anecdotal to be sure, but it rings true.

Start with a given: An Obama administration might still bring about defeat in Iraq; speeded-up troop with-drawals might weaken this new democracy and bring on its collapse like a burnt-out log into a blaze of terrorist violence. But if it did-if the left's policies proved tragically mistaken-Obama's supporters would never know it. What would the collapse of America's noble project in Iraq look like in the funhouse mirrors of the New York Times, NBC, Time and Newsweek and NPR and the rest of the establishment media? "In the end, Bush policy plunged Iraq into chaos, but Obama was smart enough to pull out before more American lives were lost." And that's what Democrats would "know" about Iraq.

It would all just be another excuse to blame George W Bush and from which to seek political advantage, the better to put us all under the rule of the EPA.

Members of the CR generation who had mainstream, establishment educations have been trained like pet poodles to understand where romping is allowed and where it is forbidden. The permissible range of thought on such topics as protected minorities, protected species, protected psychosexual deviations, et al. is clearly spelled out from kindergarten onward.

Yup. I see more intolerance among the "tolerance" and "diversity" crowd than anywhere else. The push for gay marriage is about a lot of things, but marriage isn't one of them. Their real agenda is to force everyone to accept and approve of the gay lifestyle whether they want to or not. Anyone who deviates from correct thought will be severely punished.

You doubt me? Consider the fate of Harvard President Harry Summers, and before the incident that got him in trouble he was considered a right-thinking liberal:

To understand this generational shift in the making, consider the resignation of Harvard president Lawrence Summers in 2006, under attack for having said that, just possibly, the far greater number of male than of female scientists might have to do with innate differences between men and women-something that a large majority of working scientists (male and female) almost certainly take for granted (whether or not they are willing to say so). But Summers had expressed a forbidden thought, and (despite his abject confessions and apologies at the Harvard show trials) was duly banished. In the gen-CR age now approaching, such embarrassing accidents will no longer happen. Forbidden ideas simply won't occur to the Harvard presidents of the future.

The Obama generation in action.

Posted by Tom at 9:30 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 7, 2008

Proving Malkin Right

Michelle Malkin calls it like it is in her editorial today. Here's an excerpt:

There's something about outspoken conservative women that drives the left mad. It's a peculiar pathology I've reported on for more than 15 years, both as a witness and a target. Thus, the onset of Palin Derangement Syndrome in the media, Democratic circles and the cesspools of the blogosphere came as no surprise. They just can't help themselves.

Liberals hold a special animus for constituencies they deem traitors. Minorities who identify as social and economic conservatives have left the plantation and sold out their people. Women who put an "R" by their name have abandoned their ovaries and betrayed their gender. As female Republican officeholders and female conservative public figures have grown in number and visibility, so has the progression of Conservative Female Abuse. The astonishing vitriol and virulent hatred directed at Alaska's Republican Gov. Sarah Palin is the most severe manifestation to date.

As if to prove her right, several liberals left some rather unhinged comments. Here are a few

By: petemurray

1. Ms. Palin has rushed to make political capital from her Down's syndrome child. However, as Alaskan writer and herself a mother of a Down's syndrome daughter, and Democrat, Mary Mullen points out, all the programmes onwhich Alaskan parents of special needs children depend to assist them in helping their children maximize their potential were put in place under Democrat administrations and were opposed tooth and nail by the Republicans.
2. The political wedding of her pregnant 17 year old daughter is nothing less than child-abuse in the cause of political respectability. To pressurize this pregnant child into marriage at this age is to ignore the statistical fact that 95% of such marriages fail with sad personal consequences to all concerned. This child was impregnated when she was 16 and in most advanced societies "Levi" would not be preparing for marriage. He would be preparing his defence to charges of statutory rape.
3. Imagine what a field day Ms. Malkin and the other attack-dogs of the extreme right-wing press would have had if Chelsea Clinton had got herself pregnant at 16 rather than exercsing restraint and growing up a credit to herself and her parents.
4. Is feckless teenage parenting and the equally feckless failure of parents to inculcate decent values in their teenage children now off the agenda for conservative pundits?

September 7, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. | Mark as Offensive

By: SDindependent

It is Sunday, McBush has Palin sequestered, she is not allowed to take a singe question from anyone. According to the lobbyist that runs his campaign, Rick Davis she will not be interviewed until she is ready..... "READY". What the hell is this. She is not READY to answer a question from a reporter but she is READY to step in and take over the presidency.

This has got to be the most ominous scam on the American public since the Bush-Cheny Iraq War on WMD's claim.

September 7, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. | Mark as Offensive

By: kc

More spittle for Cons to lick up. Ms.hatelibs selling some of her wonder spittle for the gullible Cons to swill down. Drink it up and feel empowered by hate. Nothing more liberating in the world then being given permission to hate. Lick it up. Feel the power.
September 6, 2008 at 9:52 p.m. | Mark as Offensive

You can see that when Malkin wrote Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild, she had no lack of material to draw from.

Posted by Tom at 8:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 21, 2008

Senator Ted Kennedy

As I think we all know by now, Senator Edward Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor. The prognosis is not good.

I wish him nothing but a speedy recovery. He and his family are in my prayers.

Much as I may disagree with him and other liberals on policy matters, I wish none of them personal misfortune. It is time to put all of the aside right now as he and his family go through this difficult time together.

Posted by Tom at 7:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 16, 2008

Bush in Israel and the Democrat Melt Down

Well well, so Senator Obama and a whole slew of Democrats are all bent out of shape over what President Bush said in Israel. Here's the part of his speech before the Knesset yesterday that has them all in a tizzy:

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)

Note, of course, that no Democrat is actually named. If the currently outraged Democrats had been thinking, they would have issued statements that went something like this:

"One thing all Americans agree on is that appeasement doesn't work. As president, I will engage in tough, principled, and direct diplomacy just like Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan before me. And of course, no American president will engage with terrorists, least of all those who seek to destroy our stalwart ally, Israel. I look forward to celebrating the 65th anniversary of Israel's independence."

But nooooo, they had to all go off and through a big hissy fit.

Senator Obama showed why he'll never be qualified to be president:

I'm a strong believer in civility and I'm a strong believer in a bipartisan foreign policy, but that cause is not served with dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we've seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple days

and

That's exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world

"Divisive"? This from a senator who's party wants to force "gay marriage" on us through the courts; the most undemocratic branch of government? That is in bed with Movon.org, one of the most "divisive" groups out there? That panders to the nutroots crowd who regularly deride Bush and Cheney in the most vile terms?

Mark Salter nails Obama's M.O.

We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is.

Rich Lowry lists Obama's "rules", and what is "off limits"

He can't be called a "liberal" ("the same names and labels they pin on everyone," as Obama puts it); his toughness on the war on terror can't be questioned ("attempts to play on our fears"); his extreme positions on social issues can't be exposed ("the same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives" and "turn us against each other"); and his Chicago background too is off-limits ("pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy").

Should we on the right take Obama up on his stated desire to have an oh-so-clean campaign?

We could take Obama's rules in good faith if he never calls John McCain a "conservative" or labels him in any other way. If he never criticizes him for his association with George Bush. If he doesn't jump on his gaffes (like McCain's 100-years-in-Iraq comment that Obama distorted and harped on for weeks). And if he never says anything that would tend to make Americans fearful about the future or divide them (i.e., say things that some people agree with and others don't).

Oh, and he would have to stop lying about the meaning of Senator McCain's "100 years in Iraq" statement.

Obama's not alone, though, in his whining. Michael Goldfarb, blogging at The Weekly Standard, has usefully compiled a list of reactions. Here's one

(Senator Joe) Biden again did not mince words when discussing Bush's remarks, accusing the president of engaging in "long-distance swiftboating" with his speech in Israel. Biden also cited numerous examples of the Bush Administration reaching out to unfriendly regimes in Libya, North Korea and Iran, arguing that Bush's insinuation that the Democrats were soft on terrorism was "truly delusional ... and truly disgraceful."

The Democrats can sure dish it out but they can't take it.

So What of Appeasement?

The Democrats claim that they're not appeasers of dictators and terrorists. Are they?

Since Senator Obama is the one in the limelight, let's look briefly at his record:

Senator Obama: yesterday "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists..."

Senator Obama November 1, 2007: "I would meet directly with Iranian leaders. I would meet directly with Syrian leaders. "

A quick look at the relevant website for the State Department confirms what we already know

Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism....

Since Syria's 1979 designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, it has continued to provide political support to Palestinian terrorist groups.....

What really is the difference between meeting with Hamas, Hezbollah, and the leaders of those who sponsor them? Neither group could survive were it not for their sponsors.

Want more? Here's Obama at one of the Democrat debates last year:

Asked if he would be willing to meet separately "without precondition" during the first year of his administration with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, Obama said, "I would."

Here he is again:

"The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them...is ridiculous," Sen. Obama said in a debate last year. "One of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria."

What's ridiculous is the notion that such a meeting will not be trumpeted as a victory by the Jihadists. What Obama does not seem to realize is that the United States is not just an average run-of-the-mill nation. The President, Democrat or Republican, is not called "the leader of the free world" for nothing. Simply meeting with the President will be interpreted as lending legitimacy to regimes that are illegitimate and worried about it. Dictators, by their very nature, have no real legitimacy. The pseudo-elections in Iran and Venezuela (they probably have them in Syria, Cuba, and North Korea too) change this not at all.

So even if nothing is decided at these "talks", they will be portrayed as a victory by the other side. We can say all we want that no, they're not a victory for Iran/Syria/Cuba/North Korea/Venezuela, but it won't matter. The propaganda organs of our opponents will be out in full force, and in one of Bush's biggest failings he hasn't beefed up ours, so there won't be much of a response.

Not Just Obama

It's not just Sen. Obama who is an appeaser. Kathryn Jean Lopez has helpfully compiled a list of other Democrats the President could have been talking about, such as

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, freelance diplomat, who in December 2007 said: "the road to Damascus is a road to peace."

Or, perhaps he meant Speaker Pelosi in April 2007: "I believe in dialogue. As my colleagues have said over and over again, unless you communicate, you cannot understand each other. You cannot reach agreement."

Or maybe he meant recent Obama endorser and former North Carolina senator John Edwards, who, according to his own press release in February of last year, believes "the U.S. should step up our diplomatic efforts by engaging in direct talks with all the nations in the region, including Iran and Syria."
...

Or former Democratic presidential candidates and senators Chris Dodd and John Kerry, who met with Syria's al-Assad and said: "As senior Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee, we felt it was important to make clear that while we believe in resuming dialogue, our message is no different: Syria can and should play a more constructive role in the region ...

Liberals typically bring up the fact that U.S. presidents from Roosevelt to Reagan met with Soviet leaders. This is true, but misleading. These were meetings well scripted out in advance, with little being left to chance. Reykjavik in 1986 was the exception, not the rule.

Further, Obama seems blissfully unaware that unscripted high-level meetings are highly risky. As often as not they backfire. Reykjavik backfired on Gorbachev. Khrushchev sized up Kennedy as a "weakling" in their initial meeting, prompting the former to believe he could get away with sneaking nuclear-armed missiles into Cuba. It's widely thought that Stalin snookered Roosevelt at Yalta. If nothing else, Obama should read Khrushchev's rants at Eisenhower or Nixon during some of their meetings. That alone would give him second thoughts.

So should we not "talk" with these regimes? I hate to sound Clintonian, but it depends on what you mean by "talk". A meeting with an Iranian representative in the back room of the Canadian embassy in Madrid? No problem. President-to-President talks surrounded by thousands of reporters? Hold your horses.

Lastly, in fairness I will say that President Bush's tough talk hasn't extended to the Saudis, who's export of Wahhabism is designed to destroy the West. Also, our dopey Secretary of State has been "pressuring Israel to meet with Hamas representatives". Side

On the upside, Senator John McCain tells it like it is

If Senator Obama wants to sit down across the table with the leader of a nation that calls Israel a stinking corpse--what is it that he wants to talk about with him?

Nothing.

Meaningful negotiations could take place if they stop sponsoring terrorist organizations...those are the preconditions for sitting down with the Iranians.

Exactly right.

Update

This is the guy who wants to negotiate with the dictators of Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba (h/t Dagney's Rant)

I'm sure they'll all take him very seriously after he destroys our ability to respond to anything militarily.

What we need to do is spend more money on weapons, not less.

Posted by Tom at 8:00 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

March 27, 2008

The Global Patriot Incident

On March 25, the American Forces Press Service issued the following:

A ship on short-term charter to the U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command fired warning shots at a small boat approaching the ship as it was preparing to transit the Suez Canal last night, military officials reported.

There were no reports of casualties from the ship, the Global Patriot.

Officials said several boats approached the Global Patriot while it was preparing to transit the Suez Canal. The boats were hailed and warned by a native Arabic speaker on the Global Patriot to advise them to turn away. Other warning steps, including a signal flare, were used to caution the boats.

One small boat continued to approach the ship and received two sets of warning shots 20 to 30 meters in front of the boat's bow. All shots were accounted for as they entered the water, officials said.

Here's the same story with video

The initial report of no casualties, however, turned out to be wrong. The next day the AFPS issued this

U.S. 5th Fleet officials today expressed regret for the death of an Egyptian citizen who died the night of March 24, an apparent result of warning shots fired at a small boat approaching a ship chartered by the U.S. Navy.

"We express our deepest sympathies to the family of the deceased," Vice Adm. Kevin J. Cosgriff, 5th Fleet commander. "We are greatly saddened by events that apparently resulted in this accidental death. This situation is tragic, and we will do our utmost to help take care of the family of the deceased."

The U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet Command continues to work cooperatively with Egyptian authorities, including the Suez Canal Authority, through the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, officials said. A full investigation into the incident is under way....

Oh boy, I thought, here we go again. Will we get the same reaction from the left as we did in early January when several small Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats zoomed around 3 US Navy ships?

This blog doesn't get many comments, but I did get one on the post that I wrote about the incident from some leftist who wrote that "So, WHY was it that the Iranians threatened the US? Funny stuff, eh pal? Some jokester on the CB airwaves! The Pentagon once again has mud on its face." Over on his own blog he took great delight in mocking the administration. I heard much the same from commenter "anon" over at the most excellent DowneastBlog (I can't find the exact post).

The incident with the Global Patriot hasn't received the same coverage, but the Internet being what it is I felt sure that someone else was blogging about it. I checked the Daily Kos and Huffington Post to see if they had anything. To their credit, I have only been able to find straight-up news reports on those two blogs. So unless I'm missing something they're not engaged in any wackyness on this one. There is a long thread about it over at the Democrat Underground, but other than the usual talk about "mercenaries" not much of note.

You don't have to go far on Google, however, to find posts on "Global Patriot". This guy titles his post "Global Patriot Lied: Egyptian WAS Murdered", so you know where he's coming from. Another says that the incident proves that we're "ignoring sovereignty". His theory is that we're trying to paper over the affair because "It's just some Egyptian guy", but if it is was an Australian "the papers would go beserk!" There are more but these came up on page 1.

Now, I'm sure that many leftists are being responsible about this incident, as my search of the Daily Kos and Huffington Post showed. And no doubt the right has it's share of nutty bloggers as well.

I just rather thought I'd use this post to discuss this from a larger perspective. Because if the left isn't going nuts over the incident with the Global Patriot, the one in January with the Iranian speedboats showed that too many will rush to see anything as another Gulf of Tonkin Incident, just as every spike in violence in Iraq is seen as portending another Tet Offensive.

My friend (ok I've only met him once) Steve Schippert was writing the other day over at National Review's The Tank blog about an incident in Iraq, but his words apply here as well

There are things beyond our control in Iraq. And there are mistakes we make. But there are far more things that we simply are not aware of because we are not omniscient or omnipresent. Or, you can believe that we are a torturous, imperialistic force of bad actors and worse actions. Take your pick.

Anyone who has read this blog at all knows that I take the former position.

With regards to the Global Patriot, any one of a number of things may have happened. Our guys may have simply miscounted the rounds as the hit the water and not realized that one hit the Egyptian. Or the rounds may have skipped along the water (yes this really happens) and then hit the Egyptian. The contractors simply assumed that the rounds went into the water.

Another possibility is that Egyptians may really be members of a Jihadist organization like al Qaeda and killed their own guy to stage an incident (kind of like a suicide bombing but for purely propaganda purposes). It's also possible that the contractors lied about the incident.

Maybe we'll never know.

The question is, what is your initial reaction? If it's to give our side the benefit of the doubt then you possess moral clarity. Yes, let's pursue a vigorous investigation. But as with Schippert, it annoys me to no end that there are those who's first reaction is to assume that the American government is lying, misleading, racist, on and on.

And please, lets not have any tripe about how we all need to "question authority". That's not what this is about. It's about a knee-jerk leftism that lives in the past and wants every American military venture to become another Vietnam.

The bottom line is that bad things happen by accident. You can take every imaginable precaution and you will still have incidents of this sort. And it doesn't matter whether a conservative Republican or liberal Democrat is in the White House.

This said, we do need to be aware that incidents such as this one will be exploited by the anti-American and Jihadist media to their fullest extent. As I have written many times, we are engaged in a War of Ideas as much if not more than one involving bombs and bullets. We need to do all that we can to keep these incidents from happening. We also need to do all that we can to put our own media in place so that when they do we can get out our side of the story quickly and efficiently.

I think that the responsible position is to simply wait for the results of the investigation. If we don't think the investigation was honestly done, then let's say so. If the results of the investigation are such that we need to change our procedures, fine, let's do so. If we even need to prosecute people let's do so, though this seems unlikely. But it's at best irresponsible to judge before the facts are in.

In the meantime, though, can we please give our side the benefit of the doubt?

Posted by Tom at 9:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 6, 2007

Can We Question Their Patriotism Now?

According to a new Fox News poll, "nearly one out of every five Democrats thinks the world will be better off if America loses the war in Iraq"

Here are the details; The poll was conducted by telephone on Sept 25 & 26. The total sample was 900 registered voters nationwide, giving it a margin of error of +/-3%.

The relevant question is this one

Do you personally think the world would be better off if the United States loses the war in Iraq?
______________Yes______No_____(Don't Know)
Democrats____19%_____62________20
Republicans____5%_____87_________8
Independents___7%____ 76________17

Don't get me wrong; I'm just as disturbed by the 5% of Republicans and 7% of Independents who would answer such a question in the affirmative as I am the Democrats. For that matter, I cannot imagine how anyone could say they don't know. Of the Republicans, my guess is they're Ron Paul types.

The best I could say for someone who would think that "the world would be better off" is that they buy into the lies that we are wantonly massacaring Iraqis, and that if we left the violence would magically cease. They probably also believe that it is a war fought to steal Iraqi oil, or to benefit "big business" like Halliburton, or some such thing.

The poll question looks pretty straightforward to me. I don't see how someone could complain that it was worded poorly, or that the results have been twisted out of context or something.

The bottom line is that almost 1 in 5 Democrats, and 1 in 20 Republicans want their country to lose a war. This is not a question of why we went in, or should we stay, or whether the war is winnable. By agreeing with question they want us to lose, and as such deserve to have their patriotism questioned.

Posted by Tom at 7:33 PM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

September 27, 2007

From Muslim Foot-Baths to Muslim Smoking Rooms

This post by Mark Steyn over at The Corner highlights a situation that is sadly becoming all too typical

Okay, Muslim foot-baths in Kansas City airport, gender-segregated swimming sessions at French municipal pools, banning pork from Aussie hospital menus, no eating donuts for Belgian cops during Ramadan, no seeing-eye dogs or alcohol in Minneapolis taxi cabs, fine, fine, fine. Must be sensitive and all that.

But this is an amazing victory. In Vancouver, infidels can't smoke but Muslims can:

Vancouver's hookah-parlour owners are celebrating after winning an exemption Thursday from a proposed new bylaw that will ban smoking on most sidewalks in commercial districts, in bus shelters and even in taxis passing through Vancouver.

In giving the bylaw unanimous approval-in-principle, Vancouver city council members bowed to arguments that hookah lounges provide an important cultural space for the city's Muslims and granted them a temporary exemption...

[Emad Yacoub] said hookah lounges are essential for immigrants from hookah-smoking cultures, because it helps them deal with the depression common for newcomers and gives them places like they have at home.

Where do the rest of us go to deal with depression? As Jay Currie asks, "What about my culture?"

By creating a special exemption for Muslims - who do seem to be the only immigrant group actively demanding these sorts of “cultural accommodations” we are basically declaring our Muslim citizens worthy of special treatment and, at the same time, unworthy of the health concerns which are purported to be the basis of general smoking bans.

The state, in other words, is prepared to treat Muslims as free-born adults who can weigh the "cultural value" (ie, the pleasures) of smoking against the health risks. But not the rest of us.

Posted by Tom at 8:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 24, 2007

Ahmadinejad at Columbia

I was able to tune into Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about halfway through his address at Columbia University earlier today. What struck me was what a poor speech it was. He rambled and seemed not to be able to stay on any one topic for long. I was unimpressed.

Much more interesting was the question and answer period which followed. He is the master of evasion, able to take just about any question and turn it into a soliquoly on "justice" for the Palestinians. When asked whether Iran was building nuclear weapons he engaged in moral equivalence; "you have them and you tell others they can't have them?" Sadly though unsurprisingly, many in the audience applauded him.

Playing to Western leftists, he tried to portray Iran as the a victim; of terrorism, Western imperialism, of economic sanctions for no reason, and of Iraqi chemical weapons.
The last is at least true, although no doubt many leftists will simply use this as an excuse to attack the United States. All we want is justice and freedom, he insisted.

Many students were having none of it, there being many reports of anti Ahmadinejad demonstrations outside of the lecture hall. And many in the United States who haven't paid much attention to him will rightly be offended by his insistence that more "research" is needed to determine whether the holocaust occured or not.

Also President Bollinger (whom I heard later on the Sean Hannity show) did attack Ahmadinejad pretty good during his introduction, and to their credit many students applauded him. On the flip side, they should have just boycotted the whole thing.

Here's how I think it will play out from a public perception standpoint

This is win for Ahmadinejad in Iran and in Muslim countries, as they will only show him at his best. They won't show Bollinger's introduction. They'll also show the students applauding Ahmadinejad. The mere fact that he spoke at a major American university give him legitimacy and standing.

Further, this invite and his speaking at Columbia feeds into the fantasies of the jihadists. The Khumeinists believe that they can declare jihad and create a regional Imamate. They believe that they can pull the wool over our eyes as to their true intentions. This event today encourages that belief.

On the other side, some in Muslim countries will hear Bollinger's introduction (from one source or another), and this will be damaging. Also, more people in the United States will now realize what a dangerous man this guy is.

The real shame here is on Columbia University for inviting him in the first place. I don't buy their excuse that everyone should be given a forum. Dean Coatsworth even said that they would have invited Hitler if he had been willing to debate. This is absurd. There are some people so extreme we need not listen to them. Grand Wizards of the KKK are an example. Anyone who denies the holocaust and has repeatedly said that Israel should be wiped off the map is another.

Unfortunately, this is the same university that allowed Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minutemen, was literally chased off stage by leftist idiots in October 2006. According to his website, he was supposed to return this year but the deal was nixed. It's unclear why, but Gilchrist said that the Columbia Political Union succumbed "to pressure from anti-freedom-of-speech gangsters." It wouldn't surprise me.

While I'm sure Ahmadinejad had great security, I'm sure he had nothing to fear from any students at Columbia. Conservatives don't storm stages or disrupt speakers, and leftists will tolerate anyone who hates the U.S.

And anyone who wonders where the faculty of Columbia's sympathies lie need only consider that this is a university that has banned ROTC and military recruiters, yet has no problem inviting a man like Ahmadinejad.

Rather, I think the Editors of National Review have figured out why Columbia invited Ahmadinejad

Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Rather, it is one more capitulation in series of victories for anti-Israel sentiment at the university. Columbia has long had problems with professors’ intimidating students who disagree with them about Israel’s right to exist, and its Middle East–studies department is a hotbed of anti-Israel hysteria. The sad reality is that there isn’t much daylight between Ahmadinejad’s positions on the legitimacy of the founding of Israel and those of Columbia professors Joseph Massad and Gil Anidjar.

I think they have it about right. Bollinger and other academics prattle about "free speech", but the experience of conservative speakers at universities over the past 30 years has put the lie to this. Recall also that these academics are the same ones who pushed onerous speech codes (most of which have fortunately been overturned by the courts).

In the end, sometime in the next year or so we'll have to face the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons and their sponsorship of terrorism. Hitler had no shortage of apologists in France and Britain in the mid-30s. After he took Czechoslovakia (and certainly after Poland) most people came around, though it was nearly too late. Let's hope it's not so close this time.

Posted by Tom at 9:24 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 1, 2007

MEMRI TV

Let's take a minute to recognize an organization that is absolutely invaluable for anyone who wishes to understand the Middle East.

MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, is or should be a national treasure. From their mission statement

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) explores the Middle East through the region's media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East.

What you have are translators who sift through all manner of newspapers, magazines, blog sites, radio broadcasts and television shows that originate out of the Middle East. Material deemed important is posted in English on their website. You can also sign up for their email newsletter, which I have done.

Translated are the good, the bad, and the ugly. Contrary to what detractors no doubt say, any fair survey of MEMRI translations shows that they are not simply trying to make Arabs or Persions look bad. But there will be no pleasing some people.

Recently launched isMEMRI TV, which is fast becoming an indespensible resource. . Middle Eastern television shows are monitored and posted with English subtitles. Transcripts for each show are also available.

Unfortunately they don't allow you to post clips on other sites, like what you can do with YouTube or other videosites. Hopefully this will change, but until then head over and check out what they've got.

Posted by Tom at 8:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 18, 2007

The End of Great Britain as We Know It

For an appalling display of the ignorance and stupidity of British youth, watch the latest edition of BBC TV’s Question Time.

May as well turn Westminster into a mosque right now and get it over with.

(h/t Melanie Phillips)

Posted by Tom at 7:46 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 17, 2007

The Polls! The Polls!

So Senator Webb thinks that we need to pull out of Iraq because a NYT poll says that 55% of enlisted soldiers say we should withdraw from Iraq. He said this in a debate with Sen Graham last weekend on Meet the Press. Webb also used this argument when he made the Democrat rebuttal to President Bush's State of the Union address last January.

It isn't just Sen. Webb, the anti-war folks in general use polling results incessantly to justify their demand that we withdraw now from Iraq.

Logically speaking this type of argument is called an enthymeme, which is a syllogism without one it it's parts; major premise, minor premise, or conclusion. Webb and those like him who use this argument don't spell out their reasoning, but based on what

We should base our policy on the latest poll
The latest poll on Iraq says that most people favor immediate withdrawal
Therefore we should withdraw immediately

If those who use polls as part of their argument deny that this is their argument, which part are they denying? Most likely they'd deny the major premise (line 1). Perhaps what they mean is

We should base Iraq policy on the latest poll
The latest poll on Iraq says that most people favor immediate withdrawal
Therefore we should withdraw immediately

or

We should base military policy on the latest poll The latest poll on Iraq says that most people favor immediate withdrawal Therefore we should withdraw immediately

But syllogisms 2 & 3 seem rather selective. If you're going to base Iraq policy, or military policy on the polls, why not policy in all areas? Why not decide other issues on the polls too, such as abortion, school choice, or illegal immigration? It is not clear why we should choose policy based on polls in one area and not another.

Perhaps, however, those who use polls as part of their argument are saying yet something else.

We should base our policy on poll readings if said poll holds firm over a period of time Polls on Iraq have said for some time that most people favor immediate withdrawal Therefore we should withdraw immediately

This is the only argument that really makes any sense. Unfortunately, those who make their argument based on polls rarely get into this level of detail, so I'm forced to guess.

Truth be told, I realize I am seriously overthinking this. My general observation is that people who make their arguments based on polls, whether they be conservatives or liberals, rarely think through what they are saying to this level. Most of they time they are simply pulling numbers to support a predetermined conclusion and we all know it.

And lets be clear, conservatives can be just as guilty of this as liberals. In the recent debate over the immigration (really amnesty) bill in Congress, some conservatives based their opposition to the bill on poll numbers which showed that the majority of Americans opposed the legislation.

But I think you need to be consistent. If you're going to use poll numbers to justify your position in one area, you've got to do it in others. You can't say, for example, that we should pull out of Iraq because the polls say we should, then take a position against school choice even though polls show the majority of Americans favor it.

We can get into a deep philosophical discussion on this whole matter of public opinion and public policy, and I'm sure it gets rather complicated, but since that isn't really the subject of this post I'll just touch on a few areas.

Of course in any republic public opinion matters. But this opinion gets to be expressed at regularly scheduled intervals called voting. The founding fathers were just as afraid of mob rule as they were of tyranny. They wanted a government somewhat insulated from the passions of the moment. This is one reason why our Congress is divided into two houses, in which the House most closely represents the immediate will of the people with the Senate a bit more insulated.

Once elected, should represenatives take notice of changes in the public mood? My answer is that yes they should take notice but they should be wary of making radical policy changes based on polls and focus groups.

A few months ago I wrote a post on the Democrat Party's "New Rules for Going to War" Two of my mock rules were

• It at any time a poll of the American people show that their support for military operations goes below 50% the troops are to be immediately withdrawn

• It at any time a poll of active-duty military personnel show that their support for military operations goes below 50% the troops are to be immediately withdrawn

I guess I could call my latter rule the "Senator Jim Webb honorary rule for going to war".

It'd all be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. They didn't poll the troops in the Revolution, Civil War, WWII, or Korea, or any other war to see what they thought. Yes public opinion matters, yes it matters what the troops think. It's rather the modern obsession with polls, especially when they're used selectively and really to bolster predetermined conclusions that bothers me. And you just can't make public policy by turning to the latest poll, whether it's of the general public or the military.

Reasonable people can disagree about what exactly the public thinks we ought to do about Iraq, and how long they've felt that way. On the one hand I don't think it's nearly as clear cut as the anti-war left would have us believe, but at the same time there's no denying that there's a deep frustation and disillusionment.

But enough of my philosophical ramblings. The bottom line is that too many politicians and people in general use polls to justify predetermined positions. They also only use polls when it bolsters their position on an issue, and ignore them when they go against their position. I'm sure I've been guilty of this too on occasion. It's an easy trap to fall into.

The bottom line is that too many politicians, mainly in the Democrat Party but also in the GOP, are completely poll-driven and seem utterly devoid of principle. This needs to change.

Posted by Tom at 9:30 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

June 24, 2007

Fake Arguments against Democracy

The latest argument coming from the left is that by not supporting Hamas, the Bush Administration, and conservatives in general, do not respect Democracy.

Here's Jimmy Carter (h/t NRO)

The United States, Israel and the European Union must end their policy of favoring Fatah over Hamas, or they will doom the Palestinian people to deepening conflict between the rival movements, former US President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday.

Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was addressing a conference of Irish human rights officials, said the Bush administration's refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was "criminal."

Carter said Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

Next up is a writer on the Daily Kos (h/t LGF)

The extreme contempt both Israel and the U.S. have for democracy means that, despite recent events in Gaza, the isolation and strangulation of Hamas and the Palestinians of Gaza will likely continue. The probable Israeli response to Hamas’ assumption of power in Gaza will be to ease restrictions in the West Bank and engage in meaningless “peace talks” with Abbas, with the cynical aim of increasing his popularity relative to Hamas’. In the long-term, however, if Hamas remains resilient and does not submit to external pressures to relinquish power, we could very possibly witness a full-blown “‘Bay of Pigs’ type invasion of Gaza”, with Dahlan at its head.

If what we want to see is a relatively stable Palestinian democracy with the capacity to engage in meaningful peace negotiations with Israel (and again I emphasise that these are not the objectives of the Israeli government), the policies we should follow are obvious, as they have been for months. The Hamas government should be recognised as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and should be engaged with in the form of meaningful final status negotiations.

Sorry, but I'm not buying this.

The whole issue raises interesting, and I don't think completely easy to answer, questions about the nature of democracy, and it's twin, liberty.

The short version of my answer is that there is a lot more to democracy than just the mechanics of voting. Carter I'm not so sure about, but I have to think that most liberals and even leftists know this full well. So when the folks at Kos berate conservatives for not accepting Hamas because they were elected, I have to think they're not being entirely serious in their criticism, because it's eithe that or they're outright apologists for terrorism. I have to think that most who spout this line are just blinded by their hatred of President Bush. In short, they've got Bush Derangement Syndrome.

After all, if the Ku Klux Klan started winning elections in the U.S., I can't imagine the left would accept their right to rule regardless of the fairness of the vote.

Likewise, the Nazi party won a plurality of the vote in the 1933 elections, coming in first with 43.9%, more than twice that of their nearest opponent. The election itself was relatively free and fair, but who today would say that it really represented "democracy"?

All of this brings to the forefront the central question of elections and their relationship to what we think of as "democracy": Is it just or acceptable for a non-democratic party to come to power through elections?

What is Democracy?

The US Department of State helpfully provides a longish definition. Here are some of the highlights

Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but the two are not synonymous. Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles about freedom, but it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been molded through a long, often tortuous history. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom.

Several "Pillars of Democracy" are listed

# Sovereignty of the people. # Government based upon consent of the governed. # Majority rule. # Minority rights. # Guarantee of basic human rights. # Free and fair elections. # Equality before the law. # Due process of law. # Constitutional limits on government. # Social, economic, and political pluralism. # Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.

Wikipedia says that

Liberal democracy is a representative democracy along with the protection of minorities, the rule of law, a separation of powers, and protection of liberties (thus the name liberal) of speech, assembly, religion, and property.

I think that most Westerners can agree that all of the above are pretty good definitions of democracy.

Back to the Palestinian Authority

Clearly, then, Hamas does not qualify as an institution committed to democracy. Neither, for that matter, does Fatah. Therefore, when the Kos author talks about "extreme contempt both Israel and the U.S. have for democracy" we can conclude that he either has no understanding of democracy, is just off on a political rant and is thus guilty of lazy thinking, or is just an apologist for terrorism. Or, as I mentioned above, he's got BDS.

As for ex-President Carter, I think he's just a bitter old man. He never reconciled himself to this 1980 defeat, and for a Christian seems not to have learned how to forgive. He's thrown in with the worst dictators, has become a virtual anti-Semite, and I believe will be judged harshly by history.

The Algerian Example

What if a situation develops whereby a political party promises to dismantle the institutions of democracy if it is elected? What if it actually wins a majority of the popular vote?

Such a situation has actually occured, not once but several times in the post-WWII era.

In 1991, the Islamic Salvation Front won the first round of Algeria's first multi-party elections. The ISF had promised to turn the country into an Islamic state and institute sharia law. After the voting, the military stepped in and annuled the elections. Western governments either applauded or remained silent. This led to a civil war, and some 160,000 people were killed over the next ten years. However, in the end the insurgents were defeated and a true democracy (republic, actually) is emerging.

What it Means

We in the West are good at the mechanics of voting. Through international agencies we can set up relatively free and fair votes most of the time.

But our record at installing actual democratic values has been rather hit-or-miss. We got it right in Germany and Japan. India has also turned out to be a stable democracy. We got it wrong in Zimbabwe and most other African states. El Salvadore seems to be doing well, but Nicaragua not so much.

Iraq somewhat parallels the Palestinian Authority. It was easy enough for us to set up voting, not so easy to convince people to respect each other's liberty.

In the end, then, we need to recognise that democracy is about more than voting. We need to think harder about what it takes to instill concepts of liberty in troubled regions, and not fixate on voting. This is a tough subject, and will require much thinking and trial and error in order to get it right in a place like Iraq. The first step, though, is to have moral clarity on the subject, and to recognize the true nature of democracy.

Posted by Tom at 10:00 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

April 22, 2007

The VA Tech Shooting

I haven't weighed in on this before now because it's the type of thing in which first impressions are often the wrong ones, because there was so much else going on, and because it wasn't as if no one else was talking about it.

Why did a Cho Seung-Hui, kill 32 people and himself? Was it something that we "allowed" to happen because "we" didn't do something to stop him? Or was it a random act of violence that simply proves that there is evil in this world?

My inclination is to answer that Cho was a psychotic who was inspired to his deed by negative aspects of our culture. It's easy Monday-morning quarteback signs of violent psychosis, but the signs were there and nobody did or could do anything. Yes there is simply evil in this world and this was one time it reared it's ugly head.

As such, the best single reaction we can have to this incident is to pray for souls of the departed as well as their families. This may seem trite to nonbelievers, but to those of us who know God understand the true power of communication with the almighty.

Not the Issue

Let's just get it out of the way right now; gun control is not the issue. The left will no doubt seek to use this incident, just as they did Columbine or any other gun murder, to agitate for more laws. The good news is that they will not be successful. The bad news is that we'll have to put up with some nonsense for awhile.

We'll hear that the "gun lobby" is what is stopping "sensible gun control". Yet a lobby is nothing more than the sum total of the individuals that contribute to it. In this case, the gun lobby consists of millions of Americans who are members of the NRA or similar organizations and vote for pro-gun candidates. The simple fact is that the anti-gunners have not been able to mobilize voters to a degree anywhere near that of pro-gun organizations.

We'll also hear that those dastardly "high capacity" magazines are to blame. In this case Cho used a Glock 9mm and .22 semi-auto pistols. The capacity of the former is 17 rounds with the standard magazine. It is possible to pass a law that would restrict sales of magazines with greater than say 6 or 7 rounds (the capacity of a 1911A1). But anyone who has fired an automatic pistol knows how easy it is to change magazines; it is an operation that can be completed in a few seconds, much faster than someone could "rush" the shooter.

Some will even tell us that we need to ban handguns altogether. They're living in a fantasy world; it just isn't going to happen.

More seriously is the issue of Cho's derangement and why he didn't show up in any of the databases that are checked as part of any gun purchase. From what I've been able to gather, Cho was never actually institutionalized but only at an outpatient clinic, which is why he didn't show up on the relevant database(more information on Cho's situation here). Whether we want to include outpatient files in gun background checks is, I think, as much of a civil rights issue as it is a gun control one.

Also is the issue of gun sales to non-citizens. Cho held a green card, which doesn't prevent him from getting a gun. I'm not up on the law here, but if as I think it's true that we don't deny green card holders any other part of the Bill of Rights, so don't see how we can deny them their Second Amendment rights. But I might be wrong here, and icertainly it is something we can discuss.

Mostly, though, the "gun control is the problem" argument fails the test of correlation. If lack of gun control is related to crime, then we should have had higher crime prior to the late 1960s than we do today. Yet the opposite is the case. We basically had no gun laws on the books before the late 1960s, yet crime was dramatically lower. The crime rate underwent a dramatic rise in the 1960s, just as the time gun laws were being put on the books. The crime wave of the 1930s was nothing compared to what we experience today. Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger, and Pretty Boy Floyd were pikers compared to today's criminals. The Valentine's Day Massacre was huge at the time but today would be a 2 or 3 day story.

The Issue

The issue, I think, is how an obviously disturbed individual was allowed to remain on campus. That Cho was nuts is obvious just from reading his plays. News stories routinely say that he "seethed with rage" . Professors and students alike were afraid of him.

While it's easy to be a Monday-morning quarterback, it is nevertheless disturbing that despite all the signs nothing was done.

But from what I've been able to gather nothing was done because nothing could be done. We as a society made a decision some decades ago that our mental health laws needed serious reform. We decided that too many people had been unjustly incarcerated because they were declared insane, and that it was better to err on the side of letting them go. Liberals saw it as a civil-rights issue, and conservatives saw it as a chance to save money on mental hospitals. So we're all to blame.

Jennifer Roback Morse summed up the problem

Until someone commits a crime, it is usually not possible to take actions that would prevent him from hurting himself or others. We don’t have facilities for people who pose a threat to others, but who haven’t done anything yet. Many mentally ill people cycle between homelessness and the county jail, incarcerated for petty crimes, but receiving no long-term help. The Treatment Advocacy Center, based in Arlington Virginia, estimates that as many as a third of the homeless suffer from either bi-polar disorder or schizophrenia. But we can’t make the mentally ill take their medications, even if those medications can mean the difference between a rational person who can function normally and a delusional person who is a danger to others.

As to what should be done, she has I think some useful suggestions as to how to get started

What would be constructive is an honest discussion about how a free society should face the reality of mental illness. It is not a protection of civil liberties to redefine the mentally ill as if they were rational and able to make informed decisions about their care and treatment, even when they are obviously not. As we can see from the Virginia Tech massacre, it is not consistent with public safety to wait until a mentally ill person has committed a crime. It is not “personal responsibility” to expect the families of mentally ill people to take care of them themselves. This means turning their homes into a 24-hours-a-day mental institution, staffed by relatives who never get training, help, or a day off.

The ever-insightful Peggy Noonan offers a more straightforward analysis; we lack common sense.

There seems to me a sort of broad national diminution of common sense in our country that we don't notice in the day-to-day but that become obvious after a story like this. Common sense says a person like Cho Seung-hui, who was obviously dangerous and unstable, should have been separated from the college population. Common sense says someone should have stepped in like an adult, like a person in authority, and taken him away. It is only common sense that if a person like Cho leaves a self-aggrandizing, self-celebrating, self-pitying video diary of himself to be played by the mass media, the mass media should not play it and not publicize it, not make it famous. Common sense says that won't help.

Surely she is right, but still one cannot help but to have sympathy for the administrators who did nothing. If they had thrown Cho out of school they would have undoubtably faced a lawsuit.

It would seem, therefore, that a reform of our mental health laws are in order.

Also Not The Issue

Note what I did not say was the issue; a lack of money. The problem is not that we don't have enough "services", although we will undoubtably hear this line from what we'll call the mental-health lobby.

The problem was not that Cho didn't have access to a therapist. The problem was that it was legally impossible to separate him from vulnerable students and professors, or, for that matter, from society at large.

Right to Carry

I am a big believer in right-to-carry, although I have never exercised it myself. Virginia, like most states in recent decades, has a law in which any law abiding citizen may obtain a conceiled carry permit after going through a special class and passing a proficiency test. However, the Virginia Tech administrators banned guns from their campus, as was their right. Was this a wise decision?

The answer, I think, is that while it was a dumb decison we cannot say had students and professors been allowed to carry firearms Cho's shooting spree would have been stopped. Yes there have been shooting sprees in other schools that were stopped by armed administrators or teachers. But while allowing teachers and (in college) students to be armed may be a good idea, it isn't really the issue.

What About the Culture?

It is a serious concern that negative aspects of American culture played a role in Cho's decison to go on a shooting rampage. If a combination of mental illness and access to guns led to shooting sprees, we'd have seen this sort of thing every month in the seconed half of the 20th century. As mentioned earlier, there were virtually no restrictions on who could buy guns before the late 1960s. College attendance skyrocketed after World War II in the wake of the GI bill. Yet Columbine-type shootings seem to be a thing of the present. Why?

One can't help be be a bit taken aback by the glorification of violence in so much of our society. From TV and movies to video games, wild senseless violence seems absolutely out-of-control. At least in the old movies when people were killed it seemed to be for a reason, even when it was gangsters doing the shooting. Now it's just "how many people can we kill" in a move or video game.

In the wake of the VA Tech massacre, the Wall Street Journal reprinted "No Guardrails: August 1968 and the death of self-restraint", an editorial that first ran in 1993. Here's the money section

We think it is possible to identify the date when the U.S., or more precisely when many people within it, began to tip off the emotional tracks. A lot of people won't like this date, because it makes their political culture culpable for what has happened. The date is August 1968, when the Democratic National Convention found itself sharing Chicago with the street fighters of the anti-Vietnam War movement.

The real blame here does not lie with the mobs who fought bloody battles with the hysterical Chicago police. The larger responsibility falls on the intellectuals--university professors, politicians and journalistic commentators--who said then that the acts committed by the protesters were justified or explainable. That was the beginning. After Chicago, the justifications never really stopped. America had a new culture, for political action and personal living.

With great rhetorical firepower, books, magazines, opinion columns and editorials defended each succeeding act of defiance--against the war, against university presidents, against corporate practices, against behavior codes, against dress codes, against virtually all agents of established authority.

It was the death of self-restraint. It wasn't so much a situation of rules being violated as it was that basic concepts of acceptable behavior were thrown out the window.

In the End

Changing the culture is something we should and must work for but is necessarily long-term. As such it cannot be our only task.

We must work to change a system in which those-in-charge cannot get rid of obviously idisturbed individuals. A debate over civil rights is a necessity. If we give administrators too much power the potential for abuse is enormous. Yet the current situation cannot be allowed to stand.

Gun control is not the issue or problem. Right to carry is necessary, but won't really solve the problem either. The problems are in our culture and the inability of administrators to make common-sense decisions. We need to change what we must change.

Update I - The Media

I don't know how I forgot to write about this aspect of it but as we all know Cho desperately wanted his act carried on TV. In a highly controversial decision, NBC obliged. Tongue-in-cheek, columnist Jack Kelly asked that if we're going to ignore the Second Amendment in our quest for safety why worry about the First Amendment (I can't find a link to this column, it was in the Sunday Washington Times and they didn't have a link on their site. I also can't find the exact quote on the Volokh Conspiracy)

"A practical, connonsense way of reduciing gun violence - especially in schools - would be a federal law prohibiting, or at least seriously limiting, the interstate reporting of serious gun crimes like Virginia Tech for five working days," suggsted a poster at the Volokh Conspiracy, a blog devoted to legal issues.

No one seriously is proposing to violate the First Amendment in this way. "Person from Porlock" was parodying the enthusiasm of journalists for gun control legislation.

Absolutists on the First Amendment are rarely so absolute on the Second.

Update II: "False Posturing and Real Threats"

Mark Steyn hits it out of the park today. Here's the money section

I think we have a problem in our culture not with "realistic weapons" but with being realistic about reality. After all, we already "fear guns," at least in the hands of NRA members. Otherwise, why would we ban them from so many areas of life? Virginia Tech, remember, was a "gun-free zone," formally and proudly designated as such by the college administration. Yet the killer kept his guns and ammo on the campus. It was a "gun-free zone" except for those belonging to the guy who wanted to kill everybody. Had the Second Amendment not been in effect repealed by VT, someone might have been able to do as two students did five years ago at the Appalachian Law School: When a would-be mass murderer showed up, they rushed for their vehicles, grabbed their guns and pinned him down until the cops arrived.

But you can't do that at Virginia Tech. Instead the administration has created a "Gun-Free School Zone." Or, to be more accurate, they have created a sign that says "Gun-Free School Zone." And, like a loopy medieval sultan, they thought that simply declaring it to be so would make it so.

The "gun-free zone" turned out to be a fraud -- not just because there were at least two guns on the campus last Monday, but in the more important sense that the college was promoting to its students a profoundly deluded view of the world.

Bingo

Posted by Tom at 8:13 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

April 16, 2007

Moral Posturing

People are engaged in moral posturing when they say they want to "do something" about a problem but then reject all options that involve risk or pain. Their words make them sound concerned, but they are not willing to sacrifice anything to achieve the objective. They don't want to do anything that would actually solve the problem, they just want to sound like they care.

Let's look at three areas in which people posture constantly

Darfur

Everyone wants to save Darfur. Hundreds of thousands are dying there and many more have become refugees. The essence of it is simple enough; the Islamist government of Sudan is trying to put down a rebellion in Darfur, and has adopted the most severe scorched-earth policies to do so. Rather than use the Sudanese Army, the government in Khartoum funds and supplies a militia group known as the Janjaweed, which carries out it's nefarious word. Rape and murder are the favorite intimidation tools of the Janjaweed.

So far the governments of the United States and United Kingdom are just about the only two on the planet interested in "doing something". The something they have been doing has been limited to private economic sanctions, trying to work through the United Nations Security Council, and sending in humanitarian aid to the people of Darfur.

It's not working, of course. The sanctions thus far imposed don't impress Khartoom, the French, Russians, and Chinese all prevent the Security Council from taking serious action, and all the humanitarian aid in the world won't prevent murder and rape.

But we all want to "do something", right?

So let's consider some real options and see if you're still on board.

We could put trade sanctions on China. Why China, you ask? Well, the Chinese have decided that Sudan is going to be their main source of foreign oil for their growing economy. They've got big contracts with Khartoum, and the last time I checked some 5,000 troops in Sudan to help protect the oil fields. This is why China stifles our efforts in the UN; they don't want to make the government mad at them.

So let's force the issue by twisting China's arm. Let's make them feel some pain and maybe they'll put pressure on Khartoum.

Course we know this will mean higher prices at the store for us, and harm to US businesses that trade with China, but we're on board because we want to save Darfur, right?

If you don't like that option we could sail an aircraft carrier off the coast of Sudan and tell the government that we'll put a few JDAMs on key buildings in Khartoum if they don't play ball. Heck we could even do it with a B-2 one night. If you don't like that we could send in special ops forces to supply and train Darfur resistance groups.

Course, Sudan might retaliate by getting back in the game of terror, which is where they were during the 90s. And sooner or later some of our special ops guys will get killed. But hey, we're all for saving Darfur, right?

Or if you don't like those options let's do this; trade sanctions against all countries that trade with Sudan. Course, that would mean sanctions against France, Russia and most of the world, and it would hurt our economy too, but we're all for saving Darfur, right?

Global Warming

We're all supposed to believe that the earth has a fever and that unless we do what Al Gore says civilization as we know it will come to an end. We are told by Gore and those like him that mankind is the main cause of global warming and that we must change our ways.

So in the late 90s they came up with someting called the Kyoto Protocols, which would requite a 5.2% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from what we were emitting in 1990. Calculated up this would mean about a 29% reduction from where we are today. And all this is not really guaranteed to cure our planet but might slow down the process.

Well we all want to care so you hear otherwise intelligent people prattling on about how oh yes they too want to stop global warming. Anyone who doesn't see things their way is not just wrong but probably a holocaust denier too since everybody knows that all real scientists are 100% on board with everything Al Gore says.

But since all good people are on board, let's do something about global warming! On board, everyone?

Good, because here's what you're going to need to do; trade that SUV for a mini-cooper or Prius, shut down that air conditioner in your house unless it gets over 90 degrees, put your big-screen TV out by the curb for the trashmen to pick up, and everyone in the house shares one computer.

And by the way, we don't really need all those streetlights, do we? Just bring a flashlight for parkinglots because it's really such a waste to light them all night long too. Don't mind the workmen at your office, they're just there to bust out the windons and install the type you have at home that you can open up on a hot day. You didn't think you could run the A/C all day at work, did you?

Free Tibet!

We've all seen them; the little bumper stickers on the back of cars like the sort posted above.

Tibet, if you're not sure, is a mountainous region in northwestern China. Existing for centuries, Tibet was most of the time an independent country but in the 1950s was taken over by China, which now rules it as the Tibet Autonomous Region.

For whatever reason a number of Americans have decided that not only is it unjust that China continue to rule Tibet, but it's worth doing something about.

That something is putting a bumper sticker on their car. To show that they care.

But how much do they care? Enough to suffer any pain in the cause of freeing Tibet? Run a few risks?

Start talking about putting trade sanctions on China or funding Tibetan resistance groups and suddenly these people aren't so ardent over the cause anymore. Suggest sailing our carriers into Chinese waters to threaten destruction of their navy unless they free tibet and they'll grasp their chests and fall to the ground.

My Position

Of the three subjects above I think that we ought to take stronger action with regard to Darfur, including some of the things that I suggested. I think that the earth is in a natural warming cycle and that the actions of mankind are not contributing in any meaningful way to it. As such, it would be foolish in the extreme to listen to Al Gore ore any of his fellow alarminsts. I would like to free Tibet, but it would be impossible in practice to achieve. As such, you won't find a Free Tibet bumper sticker on my car.

Moral Posturing

You know someone is posturing when they proclaim themselves oh-so-concerned about a problem but aren't willing to make any sacrifices to see it achieved. Solving any real problem will involve risk and pain, whether it's saving Darfur, reducing man-made emissions, or freeing Tibet. If you really care about solving a problem you've got to be willing pay a price somewhere.

Lots of people today are looking for free solutions. They want to sound caring and concerned. But when presented with options that might involve any risk or sacrifice on their part, they suddenly back down. Suddenly it's not such a vital issue any more.

This is why I think that UN resolutions are so popular. They allow the caring and concerned person to go on record as being caring and concerned. The problem with the UN Security Council, of course, is that it's a lowest-common-denominator affair. Only in the most wildly egregious situations (think the Falklands or Saddam's invasion of Kuwait) will you get all members on board. But most of the world couldn't care less about Darfur or Tibet, and the less-developed countries of the world (think China and Russia) aren't about to make any economic sacrifices to appease Western environmentalists. As a result, the only think that comes out of the UN on most issues are resolutions that have all the strength of a milquetoast sandwich.

But to far too many people it's all about how you sound, not what sacrifices you're willing to make or what risk you're willing to run to achieve the objective. As a result, you have lots of moral posturing.

Posted by Tom at 8:03 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

April 14, 2007

And You Shall Have Peace!

Guess what some of the Democrats in Congress have introduced(hat tip TigerHawk)?

H.R. 808: Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act

SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE.

(a) Establishment- There is hereby established a Department of Peace and Nonviolence (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the `Department'), which shall--

(1) be a cabinet-level department in the executive branch of the Federal Government; and

(2) be dedicated to peacemaking and the study of conditions that are conducive to both domestic and international peace.

(b) Secretary of Peace and Nonviolence- There shall be at the head of the Department a Secretary of Peace and Nonviolence (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the `Secretary'), who shall be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(c) Mission- The Department shall--

(1) hold peace as an organizing principle, coordinating service to every level of American society;

(2) endeavor to promote justice and democratic principles to expand human rights;

(3) strengthen nonmilitary means of peacemaking;

(4) promote the development of human potential;

(5) work to create peace, prevent violence, divert from armed conflict, use field-tested programs, and develop new structures in nonviolent dispute resolution;

(6) take a proactive, strategic approach in the development of policies that promote national and international conflict prevention, nonviolent intervention, mediation, peaceful resolution of conflict, and structured mediation of conflict;

(7) address matters both domestic and international in scope; and

(8) encourage the development of initiatives from local communities, religious groups, and nongovernmental organizations.

SEC. 102. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS.

(a) In General- The Secretary shall--

(1) work proactively and interactively with each branch of the Federal Government on all policy matters relating to conditions of peace;

(2) serve as a delegate to the National Security Council;

(3) call on the intellectual and spiritual wealth of the people of the United States and seek participation in its administration and in its development of policy from private, public, and nongovernmental organizations; and

(4) monitor and analyze causative principles of conflict and make policy recommendations for developing and maintaining peaceful conduct.

(b) Domestic Responsibilities- The Secretary shall--

(1) develop policies that address domestic violence, including spousal abuse, child abuse, and mistreatment of the elderly;

(2) create new policies and incorporate existing programs that reduce drug and alcohol abuse;

(3) develop new policies and incorporate existing policies regarding crime, punishment, and rehabilitation;

(4) develop policies to address violence against animals;

(5) analyze existing policies, employ successful, field-tested programs, and develop new approaches for dealing with the implements of violence, including gun-related violence and the overwhelming presence of handguns;

(6) develop new programs that relate to the societal challenges of school violence, gangs, racial or ethnic violence, violence against gays and lesbians, and police-community relations disputes;

(7) make policy recommendations to the Attorney General regarding civil rights and labor law;

(8) assist in the establishment and funding of community-based violence prevention programs, including violence prevention counseling and peer mediation in schools;

(9) counsel and advocate on behalf of women victimized by violence;

(10) provide for public education programs and counseling strategies concerning hate crimes;

(11) promote racial, religious, and ethnic tolerance;

(12) finance local community initiatives that can draw on neighborhood resources to create peace projects that facilitate the development of conflict resolution at a national level and thereby inform and inspire national policy; and

(13) provide ethical-based and value-based analyses to the Department of Defense.

(c) International Responsibilities- The Secretary shall--

(1) advise the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State on all matters relating to national security, including the protection of human rights and the prevention of, amelioration of, and de-escalation of unarmed and armed international conflict;

(2) provide for the training of all United States personnel who administer postconflict reconstruction and demobilization in war-torn societies;

(3) sponsor country and regional conflict prevention and dispute resolution initiatives, create special task forces, and draw on local, regional, and national expertise to develop plans and programs for addressing the root sources of conflict in troubled areas;

(4) provide for exchanges between the United States and other nations of individuals who endeavor to develop domestic and international peace-based initiatives;

(5) encourage the development of international sister city programs, pairing United States cities with cities around the globe for artistic, cultural, economic, educational, and faith-based exchanges;

(6) administer the training of civilian peacekeepers who participate in multinational nonviolent police forces and support civilian police who participate in peacekeeping;

(7) jointly with the Secretary of the Treasury, strengthen peace enforcement through hiring and training monitors and investigators to help with the enforcement of international arms embargoes;

(8) facilitate the development of peace summits at which parties to a conflict may gather under carefully prepared conditions to promote nonviolent communication and mutually beneficial solutions;

(9) submit to the President recommendations for reductions in weapons of mass destruction, and make annual reports to the President on the sale of arms from the United States to other nations, with analysis of the impact of such sales on the defense of the United States and how such sales affect peace;

(10) in consultation with the Secretary of State, develop strategies for sustainability and management of the distribution of international funds; and

(11) advise the United States Ambassador to the United Nations on matters pertaining to the United Nations Security Council.

(d) Human Security Responsibilities- The Secretary shall address and offer nonviolent conflict resolution strategies to all relevant parties on issues of human security if such security is threatened by conflict, whether such conflict is geographic, religious, ethnic, racial, or class-based in its origin, derives from economic concerns (including trade or maldistribution of wealth), or is initiated through disputes concerning scarcity of natural resources (such as water and energy resources), food, trade, or environmental concerns.

(e) Media-Related Responsibilities- Respecting the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the requirement for free and independent media, the Secretary shall--

(1) seek assistance in the design and implementation of nonviolent policies from media professionals;

(2) study the role of the media in the escalation and de-escalation of conflict at domestic and international levels and make findings public; and

(3) make recommendations to professional media organizations in order to provide opportunities to increase media awareness of peace-building initiatives.

(f) Educational Responsibilities- The Secretary shall--

(1) develop a peace education curriculum, which shall include studies of--

(A) the civil rights movement in the United States and throughout the world, with special emphasis on how individual endeavor and involvement have contributed to advancements in peace and justice; and

(B) peace agreements and circumstances in which peaceful intervention has worked to stop conflict;

(2) in cooperation with the Secretary of Education--

(A) commission the development of such curricula and make such curricula available to local school districts to enable the utilization of peace education objectives at all elementary and secondary schools in the United States; and

(B) offer incentives in the form of grants and training to encourage the development of State peace curricula and assist schools in applying for such curricula;

(3) work with educators to equip students to become skilled in achieving peace through reflection, and facilitate instruction in the ways of peaceful conflict resolution;

(4) maintain a site on the Internet for the purposes of soliciting and receiving ideas for the development of peace from the wealth of political, social and cultural diversity;

(5) proactively engage the critical thinking capabilities of grade school, high school, and college students and teachers through the Internet and other media and issue periodic reports concerning submissions;

(6) create and establish a Peace Academy, which shall--

(A) be modeled after the military service academies;

(B) provide a 4-year course of instruction in peace education, after which graduates will be required to serve 5 years in public service in programs dedicated to domestic or international nonviolent conflict resolution; and

(7) provide grants for peace studies departments in colleges and universities throughout the United States.

If I wanted to caricature the left I couldn't do better than this.

The bill goes on but I think you get the point. Go and read the whole thing if you can stand to. You can also find it on THOMAS.

As you might expect, presidential hopeful Rep Dennis Kucinich is one of the sponsors. It's prominently displayed on his Kucinich 2008 website. He says he's got 52 cosponsors.

As things stand now it'll never get out of committee. However, if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008 and they expand their hold in Congress, all bets are off. To be sure, it would still be a long shot, but the left would push hard for it and if groups like Moveon.org expand their influence enough in the Democrat party then anything's possible. They'll at least push for it.

Posted by Tom at 5:44 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

March 25, 2007

When All Else Fails, Blame American Capitalism

This morning I'm flipping through the paper, and come across an AP article titled "Youngsters in Britain Seen as Menace to Society". Ok, I think, another article about how the country is going to pot. More about crime, juvenile delinquency, and the general decay of manners.

And that's pretty much how the story started out. Pretty soon, however, the political correctness started in. The Institute for Public Policy Research, described as "center-left", decided that it's all the fault of the complainers, terming it all "pedophobia". "There has always been a culture in Britain that's a bit anti-children," said one of the researchers.

Standard stuff, however regrettable. Then came this:

Britain's poor performance may be one of the downsides of the country's embrace of American-style free-market competition -- a move that has unleashed enormous economic energy since the 1980s, but widened inequalities and left many without a safety net.

I had another drink of coffee to make sure I wasn't dreaming.

So it's American-style capitalism then, that has caused all these poor "youths" go commit crimes? A lack of welfare checks causes them to join gangs?

You don't have to have all of the figures in front of you to know that Western countries have been spending more and more on the social welfare "safety net" and less and less on the military. I recall some figures recently published in the Washington Times in which during most of the Cold War the United States spent 8-10% of GDP on its military, and the UK over 5%. Today the US is at 4% and the UK 2.3%. During the height of the Cold War in the 1950s and 60s 50% of the Federal budget went to the military. Today it's 19%. I'm sure the figures are similar for the UK.

No safety net? What do people like Jill Lawless and the people at the Institute for Public Policy Research think the rest of the money was spent on?

Posted by Tom at 9:10 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

The Moral Blindness of Omar Shakir

When I decided to file this under two categories; the Middle East and Moral Clarity I had to smile. Rarely do Muslims or those on the left have moral clarity when it comes to the Middle East. They go to great lengths to excuse the terrorism and human rights abuses committed by every Muslim regime in the region, while complaining incessantly and loudly about their favorite whipping boy; Israel.

I open this mornings paper and find an article titled "Student urges Stanford divestment from Israel".

Grrr

You just know what such a story is going to be about, and you just know how awful it's going to be. This one didn't disappoint.

Student Omar Shakir wants Stanford University to divest from a country that he says engages in an apartheid-style system of oppression and human rights abuses against a beleaguered minority.

Bosnia? Sudan? Not quite. Mr. Shakir is referring to Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians, and his campaign has become this year's hot political topic on the Stanford campus.

"We don't want our university to profit from abuses of human rights and violations of international law," said Mr. Shakir, a senior international-relations major who heads Students Confronting Apartheid in Israel.

This Omar Shakir sounds about as vile as Jimmy Carter.

Shakir is head of a group caleld Students Confronting Apartheid in Israel. They're beyond disgraceful.

I've no idea whether Shakir will achieve his goals. On the one hand I rather doubt it. The article does mention that he has "legions" of critics. On the other hand these leftists are nothing if not persistent, and if not countered quickly and forcefully they will get their ideas adopted.

Some time ago on this blog I laid out my position on the Israeli settlements. Since there's no point in reinventing the wheel, here it is again

Today we hear from the Arabs that the settlements are the major obstacle to peace. And, if you read the papers, you can be forgiven for thinking that if only the Israelis would give up their settlements a peace could be quickly worked out. The solution, it is said, is to give the Palestinians a country on the West Bank, and to let (demand, really) that Israel live within it's pre-1967 borders.

This is not true for a number of reasons.

1. If the settlements are the problem today, then what was the problem before 1967? Terrorism against Israel did not begin with the end of the Six Day War. The PLO, for example was formed in 1964.
2. If the West Bank is such a perfect home for the Palestinians, why didn't Jordan give them this land as their country when they had the chance (i.e. before 1967)?
3. The fact is that Israel is willing to negotiate with the Arab countries but with the exception of Egypt and Jordan the Arab countries still refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist.
4. The Palestinian "right of return" must be abandoned. This is not something that you read about often (if at all) in your daily newspaper but it is one of the most important things that must be resolved. In short, during the 1948 War of Independence, some 800,000 Arabs fled the area (for reasons that are disputed). Today their ancestors demand the right to return to Israel and claim the land they left, or at least to take up Israeli citizenship. One need not be a demographer to see that these ancestors (and anyone could claim to be one as documentation would be impossible to verify) would now number in the tens of millions. They would simply flood Israel with Arabs, and, in the next election, vote the state of Israel out of existance.
5. In short, if the Arabs had not opposed Israel's right to exist from the beginning, had negotiated a peace, had given the Palestinians a homeland on the West Bank, stopped their terrorism, formed democratic (or at least representative) governments, the present situation could have been entirely avoided.
6. Further, the Security Fence that Israel is building is not preventing peace as some alledge. It is stopping terrorism, and that is a good thing. My only question is why didn't the Israelis think of it earlier. And I don't care what any "world court" has to say about it.

So "the settlements" per se are not really the issue preventing peace.

The Real Issues

The main issues preventing peace are the following

1. Lack of Moral Clarity. I've written on this before here. Here are two of the essential elements of moral clarity lacking in some people:
A. Israel is an imperfect democracy, but it is a democracy. No Arab state is a democracy. This does not mean that Israel may do anything it wishes, but it does mean that we should give them the benefit of the doubt.
B. Israeli forces practice discrimination in warfare. That is, they only attack military targets. Civilians are sometimes killed as a byproduct, but the civilians are not the target themselves. Arab/Muslim terrorists deliberately target civilians. Why this is hard for some people to understand is beyond me.
2. Lack of Democracy among the Arab States. Natan Scharansky wrote about this in his excellent book "The Case for Democracy". Simply put, democracies do not fight each other. We in the west are partly responsible for the current state of affairs, since in the past we did not pressure Arab governments to reform.
3. Palestinian terrorism - until the Arab states and/or the PA put and end to terrorism by organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the others there will be no peace.
4. The expansion of the settlements should stop. Ok, I know I said earlier that "the settlements per se" are not the problem. And that is true. But it is also true that in my opinion Israel does not need new settlements, and by expanding them they give Palestinian extremists a propaganda message that is useful in recruiting terrorists.

I'll even add that Israel should abandon most of the setttlements. Not all, but most.

The Bottom Line

In the end the Arabs have had many opportunities for peace and have blown every one of them. They could have accepted the UN partition in 1948. Jordan could have given the Palestinians the West Bank at any time before 1967. They could have at least offered to join Sadat in his peace talks with Begin. Arafat could have listened to President Clinton at Camp David in 2000 and accepted what Prime Minister Baruk offered him.

And when Israel unilaterally handed over Gaza they could have shown the world what wonderfully peaceful people they were by spending their time trying to make the place better, instead of turning it into a base from which to attack Israel.

But no, they can't do this. And they cry foul when Israel does the only sensible thing and builds a wall to keep the terrorists out. But then, such is the moral blindness of people like Omar Shakir

Posted by Tom at 8:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 13, 2007

Soldiers Angels in Kansas City

My friend Kat, who normally blogs at The Middle Ground, has been working with some of her friends to do something special for the troops in her area.

They became involved in the Kansas City chapter of the Soldiers Angels, a 501 3(c) organization dedicated to sending care packages to our troops overseas. Their motto: "May No Soldier Go Unloved"

Among other things, Kat and her frields constructed a float and marched in the annual North Kansas City, Missouri Snake Saturday Parade. The Snake parade is a charity event and raises awareness for charities in the Kansas City area.

Videos are on the KC chapter website. Go and watch them.

Several times I have posted about Adopt-a-Platoon, an organization in which I participate to send letters and care packages to soldiers. Whether you choose to participate through one of these or another charity doesn't matter. Our troops need to know that we care about them and are willing to take action. Head over and sign up today.

Posted by Tom at 7:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 3, 2006

On Hypocrisy and Evangelicals

There's a story out whereby evangelist leader Ted Haggard bought methamphetamines and received a massage from a gay prostitute. You can follow the link for details if you like but they don't really matter to me because I'd never heard of him until now, and whether the story is true or not doesn't make any difference to me.

As is predictable the lefties are going nuts over it. Their glee is that of a child who's just received the Christmas present he's always wanted. As with the story above, I'm not going to bore you with links to prove this because if you're reading this you've probably also been on websites wereby lefties were whooping it up over the story so you know what I'm talking about.

Much more interesting to me is why the left would find such joy over the story, and why anyone who would is such a complete idiot.

David Frum summed up my thoughts earlier today on a post on his blog over at NRO, so I'll just quote him:

A sensational but to-date unsubstantiated allegation has been hurled at a major American religious figure. On much of the left, the reaction is gleeful delight: See! He is no better than anybody else!

In my mind, however, this story highlights a widespread moral assumption that I have never been able to understand.

Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse.

One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives.

The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one. Instead of suggesting that his bad acts overwhelm his good ones, could it not be said that the good influence of his preaching at least mitigates the bad effect of his misconduct? Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?

After all, the first man may well see his family and church life as his "real" life; and regard his other life as an occasional uncontrollable deviation, sin, and error, which he condemns in his judgment and for which he sincerely seeks to atone by his prayer, preaching, and Christian works.

Yet it is the first man who will if exposed be held up to the execration of the media, while the second can become a noted public character - and can even hope to get away with presenting himself as an exemplar of ethics and morality.

How does this make moral sense?

Let me put it another way:

In every other avenue of life, we praise people who rise above selfish personal wishes to champion higher principles and the public good. We admire the white southerners who in the days of segregation spoke out for racial equality. We admire the leader of a distressed industry who refuses to ask for trade protections and government handouts. We admire the Arthur Vandenbergs and (someday) the Joe Liebermans who can reach past party feeling to support a president of the opposing party for the sake of the national interest.

If a religious leader has a personal inclination toward homosexuality - and nonetheless can look past his own inclination to defend the institution of marriage and to affirm its benefits for the raising of children - why should he likewise not be honored for his intellectual firmness and moral integrity?

"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self."

I thought that he was so right that I sent him the following email

David

You are dead right in your comments and analysis.

We live in an age in which all too many people, especially those in the media, consider hypocrisy to be the worst of all sins. To these elites, one who does wrong and encourages wrong is not as bad as the person who tries to do good and encourages others to do good, but who occasionally succumbs to temptation.

Thus Hugh Hefner and Larry Flint are usually given more respectful treatment than a Christian minister who even once has fallen into sin. The former are "genuine", while the latter is a hypocrite. A strange world, is it not, when being "genuine" is held in higher esteem than trying to do good!

The result is that those who try to do good and encourage others to do so must live up to a standard of absolute perfection lest they be subject to the worst sort of ridicule.

But we shouldn't really be surprised. We see in our daily lives how people who go out and do things they oughtn't, like excessive drinking, mock someone who doesn't if that person does the least wrong thing in some other area. The reason for this is simple; it makes the mockers feel better about their activity. As you put it, they say "See! He is no better than anybody else!"

Regards,
Tom
(Strange, for some reason MT is combining everything into one giant paragraph whenever I try to indent (blockquote) my letter. I'll figure it outlater)

The bottom line is that hypocrisy is a bad thing but it is not the worst thing.

It is indeed difficult to strive for virtue in the face of so many who would mock you for the least failure. But I learned a long time ago not to live for the approval of others.

Previous
Hate and Self-Satisfaction

Here are two excellent articles on the subject of hypocrisy with which I agree
The Secret Files of the Anti-Hypocrite Squad by Jonah Goldberg
Hypocrisy!” he cried by Ramesh Ponnuru

Posted by Tom at 9:19 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

August 12, 2006

Do the Lebanese Deserve Freedom?

There's hardly a newspaper today that doesn't print a story like this one in the Washington Times about Lebanese bloggers

"Poor Israel, Poor Israelis. ... They can make a mistake and kill tens of children and apologize and the U.S. quickly forgives them. ... Lebanese children are Hezbollah supporters that should die for the new and democratic Middle East that George Bush has promised the world," Zadigvoltaire wrote sarcastically in his "Beirut Notes" blog.

The same writer is just as furious at Hezbollah and its leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, for starting the war.

"Get out of Lebanon Hassan and take your ideology of death and hate with you," Zadigvoltaire wrote. "Go to heaven and let us live in the pro-American hell in peace and prosperity like many other places in the Middle East and Asia."

So let me get this straight. Lebanon has been hijacked by a terrorist army, which occupies it's southern half, which the government dare not confront, and the Lebanese people are upset when someone comes in and trys to destroy the terrorists.

Of course, it's not only the Lebanese, or a seeming majority of them, who are upset. The United Nations Human Rights Council is in on the action too

The U.N. Human Rights Council yesterday condemned Israel for "massive bombardment of Lebanese civilian populations" and other "systematic" human rights violations, and decided to send a commission to investigate.

Although the United States and Israel objected, but the resolution passed 27 - 11.

The Old Sense of Moral Clarity

There is a scene in the movie The Longest Day which should be required viewing for everyone who wants to condemn Israel.

The allies are storming the Normandy beaches on D-Day, and shellfire is going off all around them. Buildings are exploding, the whole bit. A French man and his wife are awoken from their sleep by the commotion, he looks out his window and sees the landing craft headed towards the beach. Without another thought he cheers wildly and grabs a bottle of wine or champagne that he has been saving for the occasion. He rushes down to the beach, still in his bedclothes to meet the invaders. He rushes about as they get out of their landing craft, trying to find a soldier who will share some of his drink. In the background the entire time this is happening, buildings are being hit by the shellfire and are exploding and collapsing. Not finding a soldier who will share his wine, he ends up toasting the occasion by himself.

By our modern standards the scene is silly and overdone. Today's quest for uber-realism dictates that everything be portrayed exactly as it occured, and as such, no "type" figures are allowed.

Apocryphal Realism

The scene, although of course not literally accurate, represents an attitude, the man a "type". There was a time when people understood simple truths that we seem to have forgotten today.

And that truth is that although war sucks, it is better to be free, and we have to recognize that innocents will die in the process.

The D-Day Museum website tells us that "between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed, mainly as a result of Allied bombing." This fits with what I heard from tour guides when I was over there some years ago.

Yet the Frence do not hate us because of this. They will tell you that they are grateful that we liberated them, even though they lost many of their countrymen in the process. "It was the price to be free of the Nazis" one man told me when I was over there. They will explain that although they disagree with many post-war American policies, we should not confuse this with World War II>

Why do so few people today understand this concept?

The Lebanese

In a sane world the Lebanese would be happy that Israel was bombing Hezbollah. They would rise up and help try and destroy it, or at least not complain. No doubt some are clandestinely working for Mossad or some other Israel intelligence service. I recognize this. But it is distressing that so many would evidently rather live with a terrorist army controlling much of their country than suffer a bit when someone tries to destroy the terrorists.

What if Your Country...?

Every now and then some leftist will ask me "what if your country was being bombed by someone else? You wouldn't like it, would you?"

To which the only possible answer is "well, if my country was ruled by an evil dictator like Saddam/Castro/etc, or had a terrorist army in it's midst, and the army of a democracy came to bomb them, I'd be pertty happy!"

The Answer to the Question

It is tempting to throw up one's hands and just say that the Lebanese do not deserve freedom. They(or most of them) obviously don't mind Hezbollah, so if that's what they want fine, go ahead and let half your country be ruled by a terrorist army.

But we can't do that. For one thing, of course, Hezbollah is using Lebanon as a base to attack Israel. Secondly, and more fundamentally, we can't give up on people, no matter how frustrating the situation becomes. We have to hope that if we try hard enough long enough, they will see the light. There was a time, no doubt, when people in this country wondered if large-scale racism would ever end. But the Jim Crow attitude that seemed so ingrained did die in our country, and similar attitudes can be overcome in others. It won't be easy, and will take a long time, but we can't give up.

Posted by Tom at 7:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 1, 2006

Book Review: Why We Fight: Moral Clarity And The War on Terrorism

To put it mildly, the war on radical Islam is getting more difficult by the day. For those of us who have been ardent supporters of what we call the War on Terror, and believe firmly the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do, and that "of course" we should support Israel, these are difficult times.

We've all seen the headlines, and most of you visit the same websites that I do. National Review says that we may not be winning the war (either Iraq or the larger one on terror) , but we're not winning it either. Bret Stevens and Ralph Peters think that Israel is losing it's war agaist Hezbollah.

Michael Ledeen thinks it's the 1930s all over again. That's never good. Supposedly we got over that the day after 9-11.

The greatest failure of our leaders, with rare exceptions, is their refusal to see the war plain, which means Iran and Syria (might as well call them “Syran,” since they operate in tandem, with Tehran pushing most of the buttons). It was never possible to “win in Iraq” so long as we insisted on fighting in Iraq alone. You can not win a regional war by playing defense in one country. It was, and remains, a sucker’s game. Syran pays no price at all for killing our kids and our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now in Gaza and Lebanon/Israel.

Syran reasonably concluded that there was no price to pay for killing us, and so they predictably expanded the scope of the war. Our leaders do not see this whole; they see each component as a separate issue. They see that Hezbollah is an Iranian entity. They see Iranian Revolutionary Guards officers at work in Lebanon and Iraq. They know the best weapons in the war come through Syran and in many cases are manufactured by Syran. Any logical person has to conclude that you cannot win this war without defeating Syran.

Unfortunately, I think Ledeen is correct. 9-11 did not prove to be sufficient to wake us from our slumber. And no, Iraq did not distract us, as the left will tell you. They'd have forgotten about the whole thing once the Taliban were defeated in Iraq.

With all this, I thought it would be a good idea to step back for a minute. The situation may be dire but it is never lost. Time to remind ourselves why we need to fight this war.

It wasn't long after the terrible events of Sept 11 2001 that William Bennett saw the need to write a book explaining "why we fight". Just as Reagan was attacked for his "evil empire" reference, President Bush was attacked for "Axis of Evil". In our postmodern age, the very word "evil" is too much for some people.

The book Bennett wrote was Why We Fight: Moral Clarity And The War on Terrorism. It is short, only 170 pages, and without footnotes or index. But it was not meant to be a scholarly work, rather a quick treatise on, well, why we fight.

If you doubt that such a book is necessary, all you have to do is read the reviews at Amazon. It is obvious that the left made a concerted effort to trash the book by flooding Amazon with negative reviews. They wouldn't have done this if they hadn't felt threatened, and Bennett's logic provides much to threaten them with.

On to the book. Rather than attempt to summarize it, I thought it best if I just quoted extensively from it.

One route to pacifism, as I mentioned earlier, runs by way of current psychological doctrine. Generations of American Children have by now been raised on the principle that violence is always wrong, and that every difference can be negotiated though “dialogue.” Likewise, generations of American businessmen and executives have been trained in the principles of conflict resolution and anger management. Generations of American diplomats and negotiators have been instructed in the art of “getting to yes.”

What is wrong with that? Nothing – as long as the parties to a dispute are playing by the same procedural rules, as long as the matters under dispute are truly negotiable, and as long as each side can be trusted to abide by the settlement. In other circumstances, and especially in war, anger management is a best irrelevant. “Don’t hit!” is easy advice; “Don’t hit back!” is more fraught with complexity.

The appeal to stifle our anger and negotiate our differences with extremists bent on nullifying our existence was not only irrelevant, it was immoral; it amounted to a counsel of unilateral disarmament and a denial of justice.

One saw this bias (against the employment of force by the U.S.) at work, for example, in the insistence that the war against terrorism be prosecuted by me4ans of an international coalition and not by the United States alone. Of course, there were sound strategic reasons for securing the active cooperation of others, as we did from the start. Morally, too, there is always something to be said for having an explicit seal of approval from the global community. Something, but not everything. To make such international approval a requirement of action, as if otherwise we lacked warrant to defend ourselves, was not morally sound but morally repugnant, springing from a hostility to America that had little to do with pacifism and everything to do with the larte4r political and ideological agenda of the “peace party”. The idea behind it was that we could not b e trusted to restrain ourselves – and idea that no amount of evidence to the contrary could dislodge from the minds of those holding it.

“Killing people won’t prove anything. It’s more of the same”
More of the same? Terrorists target innocent civilians by definition; they seek the destruction of innocent life. Military action to combat terrorism seeks to avoid noncombatant casualties. It’s not more of the same; it is the opposite of the same.

“You should never be violent”
…teaching children this lesson does an unforgivable injury both to them and to the adult community of which they are about to become a part. It renders them vulnerable to abuse and injury, and leaves them without moral or intellectual recourse when abuse and injury are inflicted upon them. If no distinction is made between kinds of “peace,” children are deprived of the tools they require to distinguish a just from an unjust peace, peace with honor from the peace of the grave. They are robbed of the oldest and most necessary wisdom of the race, which is that some things are worth fighting and dying for.
Are we to tell our children that, because “you should always find a peaceful way to solve your problems,” the brave men who fought in the revolutionary War, the Civil War, the two World Wars, and every other conflict in history were acting immorally? That way lies a generation prepared only for accommodation, appeasement, and surrender.

John Stuart Mill:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of a moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth was is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight – nothing he cares about more than his own safety – is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

(on multiculturalism) In short, little schoolchildren are routinely taught that America represents but one of many cultures and in principle deserves no automatic preference, that there is no such thing as a better or worse society, that cultural values different from our own need to understood and accepted in a spirit of sympathetic tolerance, and that, all things considered, we ourselves have at least as much to answer for as to be proud of.

The nonjudgementalism with which some of us have allowed ourselves to become infected, and which we wear as a badge of tolerance, functions as an excuse for gross moral irresponsibility. Pretending to rise above the “common” view, it robs us of the ability to recognize and call things by their proper names.

Under the aegis of nonjudgementalism, some Americans have ended up tolerating, protecting, or apologizing for evil….the refusal to distinguish good from evil (or right from wrong).

…it does no good to pretend that religions and cultures are everywhere basically the same, and basically the same as the ones we happen to know.

There is a defensive and an offensive Jihad. There are tighter limits on the latter. The nature of the war between Islam and the infidels is governed by rules. There can be no killing of innocents, or terrorism.

Around the world, we have intervened repeatedly during the past decade in behalf of Muslim interests. We defended Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein; we stopped wholesale persecutions of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo; we brought assistance to the Muslim nation of Somalia, we were; long the biggest provider of food in Afghanistan itself, and now we have liberated that country from the boot of the Taliban. We have often been rewarded for our efforts with petulance, double-dealing, resentment, hatred – and terror. That large parts of the Muslim world remain sunk in economic and social degradation is a fact for which we are assigned the blame.

If the Islamic world is ever to experience the uplift it has demanded, all this will have to change – on both sides. They will have to cease rejecting Western civilization and instead begin to study it, we will have to cease indulging ourselves in guilt….

…whatever the connection between hatred of Israel and hatred of America (prev: that the Muslims hate America because of our support of Israel)….one could more plausibly argue, as Norman Podhoretz did in the Wall Street Journal, …that the connection ran the other way: that “the hatred of Israel is in large part a surrogate for anti-Americanism,” and that “if Israel had never come into existence, or if it were magically to disappear, the U.S. would still stand as an embodiment of everything that most of these Arabs consider evil.”

…as Gamal Abdel Nasser, the president of Egypt, put it with complete frankness, the “aggression” the Arabs sought to undo in provoking that war (1967) was the existence of Israel itself.

As the writer Norah Vincent has coldly but truly put it, “If it weren’t for our (and Israel’s) cultural commitment to tolerance and the rule of law, to the use of violence only in self-defense and to the reaching of diplomatic solutions, the Palestinian people would have no cause at all. They would not exist.”
And what if their cause should triumph? “Do you imagine,” Vincent asks, that the new state of Palestine “would be anything other than a repressive dictatorship bent on crushing it’s God-given enemies/” And “do you really suppose there would be any Jews left to protest?”

If you don't have Why We Fight on your bookshelf, get it.

Posted by Tom at 9:05 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 28, 2006

More Moral Confusion at the UN

Jan Egeland, the guy who called US aid to Indonesia "stingy" after last year's tsunami, is at it again. Now he says that Israel has "created a generation of hatred" with it's attack on Hezbollah (hat tip TigerHawk)

Talk about being born yesterday. The Arabs have hated Israel from day one. The never accepted that country's right to exist.

But what's most interesting is that he goes to great lengths to be evenhanded in the way he condems both Hezbollah and Israel

"The rockets have to stop. The terror has to stop. But please remember that for every civilian killed in Israel there are more than 10 killed in Lebanon. It has to stop on both sides." He charged that Israel had used "excessive" and "disproportionate" force in violation of international humanitarian law, and dismissed Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's contention that proportionality is measured in relation to the threat posed by a force.

"You cannot invent new kinds of proportionalities. I've never heard that the threat is supposed to be proportional to the response," he said. "Proportionality is there in the law. The law has been made through generations of experience on the battlefield. If you kill more civilians than military personnel, one should not attack," he said.

Egeland reiterated his condemnations of Hizbullah's tactics. "Armed men should not cowardly hide among civilians. It will inflict civilians casualties," he said, calling Hizbullah's cross-border kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers "a mega-catastrophe."

But, he stressed, "Civilians must be protected, and when there are many more dead children than armed men, something is fundamentally wrong, not only with how the armed men behave and where they seek hiding, but also in the response."

From what I can tell, Egeland is saying that because not as many Israeli civilians have died, Israel should not be responding as vigorously. Or that they're killing too many Lebanese civilians.

Yes it should "stop on both sides." But here's what it comes down to: You go to Israel and ask, "what would it take for you to stop?" The Israeli spokesperson would say "Hezbollah has to stop attacking us." Go to Hezbollah and ask the same question, and the response you'll get is "Israel must cease to exist and we're going to fight it until we win." The only way to reconcile these differences is for one or the other to be destroyed.

Speaking of rockets, one fired by Hezbollah hit the top floor of a hospital in he Israeli border town of Nahariya earlier today. Fortunately no one was killed. Think many people will trip overthemselves in a rush to condemn Hezbollah?

The same article goes on to say that Hezbollah has fired a "new kind of rocket, which landed deeper inside Israel than hundreds of other strikes in 17 days of fighting." But according to Egeland, Israel is supposed to sit there and take it, becasue they cannot respond proportionally.

Proportionality

The proportionality is part of just war theory, something developed in the West by Christian thinkers which I think is a pretty good guide to actions before and during war. I wrote extensively about it last year, and you can find all of my posts on it here.

From the section on proportionality

"The principle of proportionality with regards to conduct in war "deals not with a whole war but with a single military action in that war. The criterion requires that the good to be achieved by the action be proportionate to the damage done. Again, this means values preserved compared with values sacrificed, not a single cost-accounting of lives and dollars."

and

In summary, then, the jus ad bellum criterion of proportion says one mustn't go to war unless the values to be preserved by the war exceeded the values to be sacrificed. Within the war, the jus in bello criterion of proportion says that when one takes action against enemy military units or installations, the values sacrificed in the attack must not exceeded the values that would be threatened by the continued existence of the target.

The application, of course, is where it get's tricky. Let's take a quick look at a few things that are going on.

1) Hezbollah rockets have turned Israel's third largest city, Haifa (pop 280,000) into a ghost town. Ditto for the border along Lebanon.

2)By dropping leaflets, Israel is warning residents who live near Hezbollah sanctuaties to evacuate.

3) Israel is using precision weapons when necessary. No these do not prevent all civilian casualties, but they do mimimize them

4) Just War Theory does not allow sanctuaries. It is impermissable to hide behind civilians and then scream foul when they are killed.

5) The number of civilians killed so far is far less than in previous wars.

6) The doctrine of proportionality does not contain a "one to one" rule. That is not how it works.

7) If Israel had done nothing, or stops short of destroying Hezbollah and accepts a ceasefire under the auspices of the UN, within a short time Hezbollah will rearm itself with more and longer-range missiles. They will return to firing them, this time deeper into Israel. Israeli civilians will be killed. At some point Israel will say "enough is enough" and respond, but this time Hezbollah will be even stronger, so the fighting harder, thus more civilians killed. It is therefore better to suffer some casualties now than more casualties later.

Creating "a Generation of Hatred"?

The idea that all Israel is doing is creating "a generation of hatred" is the strangest of all. The Arabs have hated Israel since 1948. Even before the state of Israel was created, the Jews and Muslims in the area did not always get along. Perhaps a few Lebanese who didn't mind Israel will now be turned against it, but even that doesn't go very far.

Here's the point; suppose that is was true that most Lebanese hate Hezbollah and want them gone. Suppose further that they are sympathetic to Israel, or at least don't hate it (ok, a lot of supposing, but hear me out). Wouldn't they want Israel to destroy Hezbollah even if it cost civilian lives?

The website of the D-Day Museum says that during the Battle for Normandy, "between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed, mainly as a result of Allied bombing", which fits with what a tour guide told me when I was over there some years ago. Yet the French were and are today thankful that we freed them (Yes they are. Despite policy differences since then, they do appreciate that we liberated them from the Nazis).

Any deaths are a tragedy. The question is whether it is better to suffer fewer now or more later. And I think the answer to that question is obvious.

Posted by Tom at 8:17 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 22, 2006

Outrage

I have't written anything about Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, or Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, Madras, Oregon, the two solders who were captured, tortured, and killed by the terrorists in Iraq because no words seemed adequate. The whole thing was so horrible that words cannot really express what I think or feel about it. Here, then, for what it's worth, are a few thoughts about the situation.

My first reaction was probably the wrong one, that we should "take the gloves off" and do what it takes to defeat the terrorists. Yes we should redouble our efforts. Perhaps we should even revisit our rules of engagement. But to submit to a fit of rage and issue orders to "do what it takes" would be the wrong response, I think.

What's amazing, I think, is that this has not happened before, or does not happen more often. Think about it. We've been there over 3 years and this is the first incident of it's type that I can think of. All similar cases involved civilians. It is a tribute, I think, to our military that they're procedures have proteceted our troops so well so far against this sort of thing.

The behavior of self-proclaimed human rights groups has been predictably abysimal. Most of them took their good sweet time before issuing any sort of statement condemning what was done to the soldiers, and when they did, such as Amnesty International, they seemed more pro-forma than anything else. "Thanks for nothing", as Richard Hernandez put it. Michelle Malkin, as usual, has the full story. Human Rights Watch had nothing on their home page about it as of this writing, but does have a decent report on abuses by the insurgents on their site. Check it out.

The Democrats, except for the lonely Joe Lieberman, have gone completely insane.

Murtha is a disgrace. He is absolutely out of control. I go to Walter Reed to visit the soldiers too so don't try that one on me.

Their are said to be "fissures" in the Democrat Party over Iraq; one group wants to set a hard and fast deadline of July 1 2007 for US troops to be out of Iraq, the other a "phased redeployment of U.S. forces this year." Neither is a war-winning strategy, and both are completely irresponsible.

John Kerry spun his cut-and-run strategy as "empowering" the new Iraqi government. Uh, no.

In Vietnam we decided to "declare victory and go home". Today's Democrats want to declare defeat and go home. Or just go home regardless of consequences.

They act as if we've not no successes at all. But just the other day we killed another terrorist leader, one "described as the group's "religious emir" ".

They insist that we give these terrorist Geneva Convention protections. I've no time for detail now, but I've written before how ridiculous that would be. Andrew McCarthy agrees in a must-read piece on NRO yesterday. The bottom line to this issue, if you read what we wrote, is that to give the terrorists Geneva Convention protections would be to undermine the conventions themselves by rewarding the very behaviour that they were drafted to prevent.

Further, there will be those who draw parallels between Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and this incident. John Podhortz has examples of them doing just this in an NYP editorial. I guess if you're so morally confused that you can't see the difference between the US, who prosecuted those who committed the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and is investigating the Marines who may have committed war crimes at Haditha, and the terrorists who do this as a matter of policy, there's probably nothing I can do for you.

But we can debate our policies on interrogation another day. What we are doing does not bring us to the level of the terrorists, no matter what the lefties say.

And on the other side, no this is not the time to go on a rampage or issue orders to "do what it takes".

By The Way

Did you know that we've found chemical weapons in Iraq? Yes, it's true. Not a small amount, either, although they appear to be pre-1991 weapons. Check it out. Yes I know it's not exactly what we'd expected to find when we invaded. But neither is it unsubstantial. Richard Fernandez offers his thoughts at The Belmont Club, and Glenn Reynolds has a round-up of news and commentary.

No doubt the lefties are busy telling everyone that this doesn't mean anything, that Saddam can't be blamed, and that anyway it's all our fault.

Posted by Tom at 7:47 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

May 25, 2006

The Anti-Anti-Terrorists

During the Cold War there were three groups of people in the West

1) The pro-communists
2) The anti-communists
3) The anti-anti-communists

Contrary to what some would tell you, yes there really was a communist movement in the United States. While it never stood a chance of overthrowing our government, if given a chance it might have influenced policy more than it did. Fortunately, many communists were exposed, some of the spies, such as Alger Hiss and Julius Rosenberg.

Liberals like to tell us that they participated in helping to defeat the Soviet Union and-how-dare-you-suggest-otherwise. And this is partially true. More precisely, it depends on the timeframe. Prior to the late 1960s we did have a species known as a liberal hawk. They were typified by presidents such as Harry Truman and John F Kennedy Jr, by senators such as Henry "Scoop" Jackson, and by philosophers such as Sidney Hook. During this time, many social liberals were staunch anti-communists.

But all this had changed by the early 1970s. Many liberals spent most of the next two decades opposing US efforts to stop the spread of communism, especially in Central America. They began to oppose every weapons system, from strategic weapons such as the MX and B-1 to theater weapons such as cruise missiles and Pershing IIs. There was never a Soviet proposal they didn't like, and rarely one by Reagan that they did. Some, but not all, became anti-anti-communists, more obsessed with opposing the efforts of anti-communists than anything else. It was at this time that some liberals broke with the Democrat party and became Republicans, calling themselves "neo-conservatives." They retained their (what was considered them) social liberalism, but realized that the Democrat party no longer represented their views on foreign policy.

The New Paradigm

The War on Terror has spawned three groups which closely mirror the ones of the Cold War

1) The pro-terrorists
2) The anti-terrorists
3) The anti-anti-terrorists

Let's go through them one at a time.

The Pro-Terrorists

Fortunately, there aren't very many. Unfortunately, when they do rear their heads they aren't always labeled as such.

One example of a pro-terrorist is Lynne Stewart, who was convicted in February 2005 of providing material support to terrorists, defrauding the government and making false statements.

Examples of pro-terrorist groups would be Code Pink, who in December of 2004 donated $600,000 in medical supplies and cash to the terrorist insurgents who were fighting American troops in Fallujah, Iraq." Another is International ANSWER, which is a front group for the communist Workers World Party. The various groups who participated in the June 2005 "International Tribunal", in which the sanctioned the killing of US troops in Iraq, certainly qualify as pro-terrorist(see section I. 11. in the link).

Although they portray themselves as anti-war, they're not. They're pro-terrorist.

Others are more borderline between pro-terrorist and anti-anti-terrorist. One wonders if the people who make up the Christian Peacemaker Teams are pro-terrorist or just naive "useful idiots."

The Anti-Terrorists

You do not have to believe that invading Iraq was a good idea to be an anti-terrorist, so let's get that out of the way right now.

Nor do you have to be a Republican. Democrats such as Senators Joe Lieberman and Joe Biden qualify as anti-terrorists.

However, you do have to think that since we are there we have to win it to qualify. Iraq is now part of the WOT whether anyone likes it or not. Failure to recognize that is crucial.

More importantly, though, is your answer to questions such as these:

What do you spend the balance of your time thinking about: how to win the War on Terror, or how terrible a person you think President Bush is.

Are most of your ideas on how to better interrogate suspects so that we get the information we need, or are you more concerned with protecting their real and imagined civil liberties?

Do you truely believe that we are in a war, or do you think that "the terrorist thing" is something best handled by international agreements and better police work?

Do you think we brought 9-11 on ourselves?

Do you think that the UN can play a useful war in helping to win the War on Terror?

Do you believe that the spread of democracy (which yes I know involves more than just voting) is crucial to defeating the terrorists?

I don't think I need to spell out which answers make you an anti-terrorist and which make you an anti-anti-terrorist.

The Anti-Anti-Terrorists

No anyone who complains about some aspect of how the Bush Administration is fighting the War on Terror is an anti-anti-terrorist. Yes, it is ok to question some of our intelligence-gathering efforts. But re-read the questions above. What do you spend most of your time thinking about; how to capture or kill terrorists, or whether some aspect of your civil rights are being violated? Yes civil rights are important, but if that's what you spend most of your time worrying about you're not being of help in winning the War on Terror.

Representative Jack Murtha is an anti-anti-terrorist. Cindy Sheehan also qualifies. Groups such as Moveon.org and the ALCU certainly seen to spend most of their time thinking of ways to thwart our efforts. For that matter, most of the "anti-war" groups listed on David Horowitz' DiscoverTheNetwork.org are anti-anti-terrorist, if not outright pro.

Worse, though, is when the national media join in. While Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post is capable of some very good reporting, sometimes I have to wonder which side of the WOT he and his newspaper are on, like when he breathtakingly reported what our military was engaged in a campaign to turn Iraqis against al-Zarqawi.

Sorry, but there is a Fifth Column in this country, and they are making it difficult to win.

Posted by Tom at 9:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 11, 2006

Who's Side is the Washington Post On?

The Washington Post is capable of some extremely good reporting on the war in Iraq. See here, here, and here for examples. Unfortunately, yesterday was not one of them.

Here is the headline and subheadline (or whatever you call it)

Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi

Jordanian Painted As Foreign Threat To Iraq's Stability

Uh-oh. Right off the bat we know we've got a problem. Anyone who hasn't been living in a cave knows that 1) the most vicious third of the insurgency is made up of al Qaeda, a main contributor to that country's violence 2) Zarqawi is (or was) the head of al Qaeda in Iraq. So what is there to "play up"?

But wait, it get's worse.

The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program. The effort has raised his profile in a way that some military intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The documents state that the U.S. campaign aims to turn Iraqis against Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, by playing on their perceived dislike of foreigners. U.S. authorities claim some success with that effort, noting that some tribal Iraqi insurgents have attacked Zarqawi loyalists.

And the problem with this is what exactly?

It all sounds good to me. Bravo to the military, I say. Glad to see that we're not just fixated on the military aspects of fighting an insurgency, but realize that we're in an information war too.

What does the Post want? Would they be happy if our government shut up and let the terrorists have the media to themselves? Or are they just frightened that they don't have a monopoly on shaping opinion like they did just 10 years ago?

I'd be amazed if we weren't conducting a propaganda offensive designed to marginalize al Qaeda. Is't that what we're supposed to be doing? Liberals are always telling us that we can't win it militarily.

Back to the Post article. As if the leading headline was not enough, here's the editorializing

Some senior intelligence officers believe Zarqawi's role may have been overemphasized by the propaganda campaign...

Although Zarqawi and other foreign insurgents in Iraq have conducted deadly bombing attacks, they remain "a very small part of the actual numbers,"...

"The long-term threat is not Zarqawi or religious extremists, but these former regime types and their friends," Col. Derek Harvey, who served as a military intelligence officer in Iraq and then was one of the top officers handling Iraq intelligence issues on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told an Army meeting at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., last summer.

Oh for heavens sake. Yes we're all quite aware that the insurgency is made up of three groups; 1) ex-Ba'athists, or "regime dead-enders", 2) Rejectionists, non-Ba'athists who simply hate the idea of a Western democracy, and 3) al-Qaeda in Iraq.

But anyone who has not been living in a cave knows that the while al Qaeda is the smallest of the three groups, it is also the most deadly.

And, as Cliff May pointed out, the purpose of quoting Col Harvey is to insinuate "that the U.S. military’s communications effort is dishonest."

A US military spokesman made this clear yesterday, the AP reported in a Post story today

More than 90 percent of the suicide attacks in Iraq are carried out by fighters recruited, trained and equipped by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, a U.S. military spokesman said Monday.

Zarqawi and al-Qaeda in Iraq "are real threats to the citizens, security and stability of Iraq. And we continue to conduct aggressive operations to eliminate the threat they pose not only to Iraq, but also to the rest of the region," Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said in a statement.

I think that General Lynch has it about right.

Stephen Spruiell looks at the subheadline in the Post story and asks

Are we to believe that, absent the military's efforts to warn us, we would all be laboring under the illusion that Zarqawi is a gentle peacemaker who's just trying to get out the vote?

Scott Johnson of Powerline sums the whole thing up nicely

So here's the situation: (1) Zarqawi, a foreign terrorist, indisputably is conducting deadly bombing attacks, (2) there's disagreement about his precise level of activity and overall significance, (3) playing up his role is reasonably calculated to create deadly conflict among Iraqi terrorist-insurgents. Under these circumstances, should the U.S. "play up" Zarqawi's role or give him the benefit of the doubt? Unless one is on Zarqawi's side or is suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, the question answers itself.

Sure does.

Posted by Tom at 7:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 25, 2006

Useful Idiots

I wasn't going to write about this but I just can't take it anymore. Normally I try to provide what I hope are unique peerspectives on issues, and don't repeat the story-of-the-day that everyone else is talking about.

But this issue with the rescue of the Christian Peacemaker Teams hostages in Iraq has set me off.

Just to lay my cards on the table, I am a Christian, I go to church every Sunday and participate occasionally in mission programs. Currently I attend a non-denominational somewhat evangelical church. I used to go to a Presbyterian church, but changed when I moved to a different town. Over the years my reading had led me to conclude that the national leadership of the Presbyterian Church USA was hopelessly left-wing and so it seemed as good a time as any to sever that relationship.

That said, I do not believe nor would never insinuate that in order to be a Christian you have to be conservative. Far from it. One can certainly be liberal or even left-wing and still be a good Christian.

Nor do I question any one's personal relationship with God.

But what I will do is question people's public actions. And the actions of the Christian Peacemaker Teams(CPT) has been nothing short of reprehensible.

The Story

Some four months ago three members of a group called Christian Peacemaker Teams were kidnapped in Iraq. The kidnapped men were Norman Kember, Jim Loney, and Harmeet Sooden. It is not entirely clear as to who the kidnappers are, but according to the BBC Mr Loney "described the kidnappers as a criminal gang, apparently motivated by money. The same story, however, tells of a split in the gang, with some motivated more by ideology.

In a daring raid this past Thursday, British, Canadian, and US troops rescued the three hostages. The raid was led by a British SAS unit, which is their equivalent of our Navy SEALs.

These same kidnappers had just two weeks ago murdered fellow CPT member Tom Fox. Mr Fox had been beaten before being murdered.

Ingrates

So you think they'd be grateful to their rescuers, and help in locating other hostages so that they might be rescued too, right?

Think again

The London Telegraph has the story

The three peace activists freed by an SAS-led coalition force after being held hostage in Iraq for four months refused to co-operate fully with an intelligence unit sent to debrief them, a security source claimed yesterday.

The claim has infuriated those searching for other hostages.

Neither the men nor the Canadian group that sent them to Iraq have thanked the people who saved them in any of their public statements.

But wait, it get's worse. Yesterday the CPT issued a statement which reads in part

Harmeet, Jim and Norman and Tom were in Iraq to learn of the struggles facing the people in that country. They went, motivated by a passion for justice and peace to live out a nonviolent alternative in a nation wracked by armed conflict. They knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers. We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end.

The initial statement contained not a single word of thanks to their rescuers. This was noted by many people, who chastised them for it. Later that same day (Thursday March 23) they added this addendum

We have been so overwhelmed and overjoyed to have Jim, Harmeet and Norman freed, that we have not adequately thanked the people involved with freeing them, nor remembered those still in captivity. So we offer these paragraphs as the first of several addenda:

We are grateful to the soldiers who risked their lives to free Jim, Norman and Harmeet. As peacemakers who hold firm to our commitment to nonviolence, we are also deeply grateful that they fired no shots to free our colleagues. We are thankful to all the people who gave of themselves sacrificially to free Jim, Norman, Harmeet and Tom over the last four months, and those supporters who prayed and wept for our brothers in captivity, for their loved ones and for us, their co-workers.

We will continue to lift Jill Carroll up in our prayers for her safe return. In addition, we will continue to advocate for the human rights of Iraqi detainees and assert their right to due process in a just legal system.

So they just forgot, huh? If you believe that I've got a bridge for sale.

Contradictions

Richard Hernandez ("Wretchard") of The Belmont Club pointed to this ABC News story

Peggy Gish, a member of the Chicago-based group for which the former hostages worked in Baghdad, said the men were bound and their captors left the building "right before the intervention." ...

Gish said the captives were not always bound during their captivity and were allowed to exercise regularly. The kidnappers provided medication for Kember, who had an undisclosed health problem. She said the three appeared physically fit despite their long captivity. "We do not know of any specific maladies, any particular illnesses, as a result," she said. "Even Norman (Kember) seemed fairly strong for what he had gone through."

Gish said the captives never learned why they were kidnapped or who their captors were. "Our team has never received any direct communication with them," she said of the captors, adding that no ransom was demanded or paid.

Gish also said she did not know why Fox was killed. "He was the only American," Gish said. "I don't know if that's the reason."

He then asks some relevant questions

Why did James Loney characterize his captors as "criminals" or Norman Kemper call them "criminals rather than insurgents" whose "motive was believed to be money" if "the captives never learned why they were kidnapped or who their captors were"? Although the captives were "not always bound during their captivity and were allowed to exercise regularly" they never learned a thing about why Tom Fox was killed. Did they bother to ask? Why would Fox be singled out as "the only American" if the captors were criminals interested only in money? Or are they now not sure?

Who Are the Christian Peacemaker Teams?

From the CPT website, their mission statement

Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) offers an organized, nonviolent alternative to war and other forms of lethal inter-group conflict. CPT provides organizational support to persons committed to faith-based nonviolent alternatives in situations where lethal conflict is an immediate reality or is supported by public policy. CPT seeks to enlist the response of the whole church in conscientious objection to war, and in the development of nonviolent institutions, skills and training for intervention in conflict situations. CPT projects connect intimately with the spiritual lives of constituent congregations. Gifts of prayer, money and time from these churches undergird CPT’s peacemaking ministries

Sounds innocuous enough. Lefty and naive, but noting special.

But then there's a photo of some of their protesters confronting some Israeli soldiers with the caption

CPTers "get in the way" of Israeli soldiers preparing to open fire on peaceful Palestinian protesters.

And then, regarding "Palestine"

A continuing presence in the Hebron District (West Bank) since June 1995. Team members stand with Palestinians and Israeli peace groups engaged in nonviolent opposition to Israeli military occupation, collective punishment, settler harassment, home demolitions and land confiscation.

Regarding Iraq

A Baghdad-based presence since October 2002. Team members accompanied the Iraqi people through the U.S.-led 2003 war and continue during the post-war occupation to expose abusive acts by U.S. Armed Forces and support Iraqis committed to nonviolent resistance.

And also

The primary focus of the team for eighteen months following the invasion was documenting and focusing attention on the issue of detainee abuses and basic legal and human rights being denied them. Issues related to detainees remain but the current focus of the team has expanded to include efforts to end occupation and militarization of the country and to foster nonviolent and just alternatives for a free and independent Iraq.

Not one word about terrorism that I could find. Anywhere.

Just from reading the CPT site, one could be forgiven for believing that the Israeli and American armies had no enemies to fight at all. To the CPT, insurgents and terrorists simply do not exist.

If they want to say that they are Christian, that they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, I'll believe them. Their members might well spend other time participating in evangelism or other activities that are not political and more in line with Christians ought to be doing.

But there is little that is Christian about the Christian Peacemaker Teams organization itself. One searches in vain for any scripture or religions teachings on their site. Indeed, in their FAQ section they go to great pains to point out that they are not a missionary organization. Indeed, their actions seem to be entirely political.

They do say that "participants in CPT are Christians", that they "engage in regular spiritual reflection" and that "public and private prayer is emphasized". But that's about it. Nowhere is there a theological justification for their pacifism. There are a very few mentions of Jesus, but as far as I can tell there are no references to scripture anywhere on their website.

As always, David Horowitz has the scoop on the CPT at his database of the left Discover The Network. Here's part of it

Clearly, the evidence demonstrates the vast gap between CPT's claims to work for peace "through non-violent means," and its biased political agenda. CPT's strident advocacy is part of the NGO-led divestment campaign designed to promote demonization and isolation of Israel in the framework of the on-going political conflict.

They call themselves "peacemakers", I call them Useful Idiots.

Update

The Iraqi government is furious

Iraq's embassy to Canada lashed out at the Christian Peacemaker Teams Friday, calling them "phony pacifists" and "dupes" after the anti-war group responded to the rescue of three of its kidnapped activists by condemning the U.S.-led military intervention in Iraq.

In a statement obtained by the National Post, the Iraqi embassy called CPT "willfully ignorant" and "outrageous," and accused the Chicago-based group of being on the side of anti-democratic forces in Iraq.

"The Christian Peacemaker Teams practises the kind of politics that automatically nominate them as dupes for jihadism and fascism," the embassy's statement said.

"The statement shows they even share the rhetoric of the jihadists, even if they do it out of naivete. Despite their claimed affinity for 'non-violence,' this is false.

"Politically, they are on the other side of this war. Christian Peacemaker Teams are objectively on the side of the fascists, Saddam Hussein's loyalists and al-Qaida in Iraq."

It is abundantly clear that Christian Peacemaker Teams are opposed to and, in effect, at war with Iraqi democrats, Americans, the British, and the rest of the multi-national Coalition."

They don't mince words, do they? Can't say I disagree.

Posted by Tom at 12:06 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

March 4, 2006

India and Moral Clarity in the Nuclear Age

Last week President Bush went to India to sign an historic agreement on nuclear energy:

Reversing decades of U.S. policy, President Bush ushered India into the world’s exclusive nuclear club Thursday with a landmark agreement to share nuclear reactors, fuel and expertise with this energy-starved nation in return for its acceptance of international safeguards.

Eight months in the making, the accord would end India’s long isolation as a nuclear maverick that defied world appeals and developed nuclear weapons. India agreed to separate its tightly entwined nuclear industry — declaring 14 reactors as commercial facilities and eight as military — and to open the civilian side to international inspections for the first time.

As indicated, this trip solidified agreements long in the making. In the July 18 2005 New Framework for the U.S.-India Defense Relationship, the two countries laid out the basis for a new relationship

The United States and India have entered a new era, We are transforming our relationship to reflect our common principles and shared national interests. As the world's two largest democracies, the United States and India agree on the vital importance of political and economic freedom, democratic institutions, the rule of law, security, and opportunity around the world.

In the joint statement announcing the new relationship, the two countries again stressed a common value in a committment to a democratic form of goverment

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Bush today declare their resolve to transform the relationship between their countries and establish a global partnership. As leaders of nations committed to the values of human freedom, democracy and rule of law, the new relationship between India and the United States will promote stability, democracy, prosperity and peace throughout the world.

Friday's joint statement reiterated this theme once again

President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today expressed satisfaction with the great progress the United States and India have made in advancing our strategic partnership to meet the global challenges of the 21st century. Both our countries are linked by a deep commitment to freedom and democracy; a celebration of national diversity, human creativity and innovation; a quest to expand prosperity and economic opportunity worldwide; and a desire to increase mutual security against the common threats posed by intolerance, terrorism, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

It is this last part that will be the subject of today's post.

Predicatably, the sniping has already started

Moral Equivalency Rears it's Head

From today's Washington Times

The new U.S.-India nuclear cooperation pact is complicating the Bush administration's efforts to rally international pressure against Iran's suspected nuclear-weapons programs.

Critics of the India deal in Congress and among arms-control activists say the concessions President Bush granted to India in the nuclear deal signed Thursday in New Delhi make it harder to preserve a united front against Tehran's efforts to build atomic bombs.

Some lawmakers in Congress, which must approve parts of the India deal, say the bad precedent it sets for Iran and other rogue states seeking nuclear weapons is enough to kill the accord.

The India deal "empowers the hawks in every rogue nation to put their nuclear plans on steroids now that they can no longer be isolated," said Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat and co-chairman of the congressional task force on nonproliferation.

The argument goes something like this; it is hypocritical for any nation who has nuclear weapons to tell another nation that it can't have them. Therefore if we are to rid the world of nuclear weapons everyone must be willing to get rid of their own as well.

This is no doubt what Iran will soon tell us (if they haven't already). Unfortunately all too many in the West will then immediately say "see, we told you so!" (if they haven't already)

But go back to the the July 18 2005 joint statement

President Bush conveyed his appreciation to the Prime Minister over India’s strong commitment to preventing WMD proliferation and stated that as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, India should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states.

Exactly. Guns in the hand of police officers are good. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are good. Guns in the hands of people with criminal records is bad. Just as banning all guns is foolish, so is bannning all nuclear weapons.

The UK and France each posess nuclear arsenals. Both maintain submarine fleets with nuclear armed missiles, so are relatively invulnerable. Therefore, theoretically either could destroy much of the United States. But whatever our differences with either, no one in any of the three countries would entertain such a notion even for a nanosecond.

To be sure, these analogies aren't perfect when it comes to rogue states like North Korea and Iran, but they never are, and that's why they call them analogies.

But as the editors of National Review pointed out yesterday

It takes a high degree of naivety to think that the deal will somehow affect the calculus of Iran, North Korea, or other would-be nuclear powers. Those states have their own reasons for wanting the bomb, and the thought of Kim Jong-Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad poring over the U.S.-India agreement and shouting “Eureka!” as he spots the loophole that lets him build his nukes is charming but absurd. India, for its part, will continue its nuclear-weapons development, deal or no deal. We’re not worried about that — but if you are, President Bush hasn’t changed anything for you.

Iran and North Korea can only play the moral eqivalency game if we let them. They try it because they know they have willing dupes in the West who take them up on it.

Let's welcome this new relationship with India. Recognizing that not all states are equal, and so not all nuclear weapons are equal, is long overdue. The agreement, like all treaties made with foreign powers, must still be ratified by Congress. We should encourage them to do so.

See also Part II: India and the US - Natural Allies?

Posted by Tom at 1:11 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 20, 2006

Moral Clarity and Military Strikes

I've about had it with how some people have reacted to the our recent strike on a house in Pakistan, and I'm going to let you know why in this post. Hang around, and you'll also learn about one of the most nasty Nazis of World War II and how he ties into all this.

As we all know, we struck a house in Pakistan with (probably) Hellfire missile(s) fired from a predator drone.

At first, it was reported that we had missed our target, one Ayman al-Zawahiri, the reported #2 man in al-Qaeda. Predicatably, the left went nuts, condemning the United States and George Bush for slaughtering innocents.

Then we leared that in fact we did kill at least one top member of al-Qaeda, including their top bomb maker, Midhat Mursi aka Abu Khabab al-Masr. Sorry, Kos.

18 other people were killed, and they have been described as "innocent". But is this an accurate description?

To the left, the answer is obvious; hell yes and put BushCo in prison for war crimes!

The rest of us, who are not affected with moonbatery, may consider the question in a more rational manner. Kevin Drum, a leftie blogger himself, asks the real questions:

For the sake of argument, let's assume that we had pretty good intelligence telling us that a bunch of al-Qaeda leaders were in the house we bombed. And let's also assume that we did indeed kill al-Masri and several other major al-Qaeda leaders. Finally, let's assume that the 18 civilians killed in the attack were genuinely innocent bystanders with no connection to terrorists.

Question: Under those assumptions, was the attack justified? I think the answer is pretty plainly yes, but I'd sure like to see the liberal blogosphere discuss it. And for those who answer no, I'm curious: under what circumstances would such an attack be justified?

Who is Innocent?

The issue of killing innocents in war falls under Discrimination and Proportionality in Just War Theory. It actually gets quite complicated, and anyone who wants to read my full treatment of the subject can go here for Discrimination and here for Proportionality.

Boiled down to it's essense, however:

"The principle of discrimination means that one may not licitly make attacks in which noncombatants are directly intended to be killed"

And for the other requirement, proportionality:

"The principle of proportionality with regards to conduct in war "deals not with a whole war but with a single military action in that war. The criterion requires that the good to be achieved by the action be proportionate to the damage done. Again, this means values preserved compared with values sacrificed, not a single cost-accounting of lives and dollars."

(see links above for reference)

I'll say it once more; the issues surrounding these two principles are complicated so please see the posts before criticizing the rest of this post.

The bottom line is that our strike met the two principles of fighting a Just War (justifying going to war is a different matter)

Discrimination

We did not directly target noncombatants. If they were truely innocent(which can be debated), they were killed as a byproduct.

The issue of our accepting a level of risk to protect innocents did not enter into the equation, as only those who have watched too many James Bond movies can believe that commandoes could have carried out this mission.

Civilian homes are normally off-limits. However, when enemy soldiers(whether they are legal or illegal combatants does not matter) occupy them, their status changes. More importantly, when civilians willfully shelter enemy soldiers they themselves must accept a level of risk.

That we fired Hellfire missiles shows that we exercised great care in our selection of weapons. In previous wars entire hillsides or towns would have been desctroyed.

To be sure, the selection of the Hellfire had as much to do with being sure we "got the bastard" as any concern for civilians. I am not naive about this. Nevertheless, it cannot be overemphasized that a very small area was actually destroyed.

Any reasonable person can only conclude that we met the test of discrimination.

Proportionality

To recap, proportionality "requires that the good to be achieved by the action be proportionate to the damage done."

In other words, did we prevent more future deaths than we caused?

I do not see how this can be answered by anything but a "yes."

We cannot allow our enemies a sanctuary, whether it be geographic by hiding across a border, or social by hiding among civilians. To do so prolongs wars and allows our enemy to kill more of us and our allies, and this is morally unacceptable.

Proportionality accepts that there is and can be no perfect war, where civilians are never killed and mistakes are never made. This would be foolishness of the worst order.

That Most Terrible of Nazis

Reinhard Heydrich was second-in-command of the dreaded Schutzstaffel, or "SS", reporting directly to Heinlich Himmler, who himself reported to no one but Adolf Hitler.

The SS was esentially the private military of the Nazi party. It was not part of the Germany Army. The SS ran the concentration camps, and carried out much of the Nazi terror within Germany once Hitler came to power.

(Note: Yes I know it's all more complicated, I'm trying to be brief)

In short, the SS was a very evil organization. Heydrich was head of the Sicherheitsdienst, or "SD", also known as the SS Security Service.

Heydrich himself was a very nasty individual. It is said that he intimidated everyone he met, including Himmler.

He oversaw the mass arrests that followed Hitler's seizure of power in 1933, and it was he who founded Dachau, one of the most notorious concentration camps. He led the mass murders of the SA (storm troopers), a separate organization who helped the Nazis gain power but that Hitler later saw as a rival organazion.

Once Germany had captured Poland, Heydrich organized the Einsatzgruppen, or "extermination squads", who started the mass murder of the Jews, first by shooting, then by gas in the concentration camps.

Bear with me now

He also chaired the 1942 Wannsee Conference, in which the top Nazis decided on the "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem", which I do not think needs further explanation.

In short, one of the most evil men of his day, indeed in history.

In 1941, he as made "Protector of Czechoslovakia", and settled into headquarters in Prague.

Free Czech agents, smuggled into the country by British Intelligence, assassimated him. The Nazis, furious at this, murdered at least 1000 Czechs in retaliation.

Do you see where I am going with this?

Are the Equal?

On one level, no. Heydrich was part of a regime that murdered millions. For all the terror al-Qaeda has unleashed, they have come nowhere near the Nazis.

On the other hand, that al-Qaeda has not murdered millions is more due to lack of opportunity than anything else. Does anyone doubt that if they had the means to kill millions "infidels" they would?

Some readers will no doubt object to my comparison in this post, and so be it. But for our purposes here I believe that the two operations , the one to kill Heydrich, and the other to kill al-Qaeda leaders, are roughly equivalent.

Decision Time

Despite the differences between the two incidents, the problem for decision makers is the same; do the benefits outweigh the inevitable loss of innocent life?? The British and Czech agents both knew that if their attack was successful the Nazi retaliation would be brutal. The American leaders knew that civilians would be killed in the missile attack, and we might not even kill any terrorist leaders.

The British and Czechs didn't have to worry about bad PR as we do today. For them the calculus was one of lives lost to others saved. The WOT is as much in the sphere of public opinion as it is on the battlefield, and so such things must be taken into account.

By my reconing, no matter what we do we'll take heat from someone. It is to be expected that we'll face criticism from Al Jazeera, and unfortunately, the American left (read this again if you don't believe how bad they can get).

But I don't want to turn this into an anti-left post, that's too easy. My real purpose was to lay out the difficulties that decision makers face, and some of the principles that should guide us in making the hard calls.

Update

Bill Roggio at ThreatsWatch provides an update on who was killed:

al-Qaeda’s losses in Damadola may be even worse than thought last evening. Since the death of Abu Khabab al-Masri, Khalid Habib and Abd Rahman al-Maghribi were reported, two more al-Qaeda commanders are believed to have been killed. Dan Darling provides a breakdown of the al-Qaeda leaders thought to have been killed in the nightime airstrike:

Abu Khabab al-Masri (WMD committee head) Abd Rahman al-Masri
al-Maghribi (al-Zawahiri’s son-in-law, al-Qaeda commander)
Abu Ubeidah al-Masri (Kunar operations chief)
Marwan al-Suri (Waziristan operations chief)
Khalid Habib (southeastern Afghanistan commander)
Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi (southwestern Afghanistan commander)

Mr. Darling includes Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi as one of those reported killed, however Newsday states that while he was invited to the dinner, “it was not clear whether Al-Iraqi attended and there was no report that he was missing.”

In addition, the government of Pakistan was pretty involved too. Roggio concludes that

Perhaps recognizing the trend, Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz issues the obligitory diplomatic concerns over the attack while confirming joint operations along the border will continue

No doubt.

Posted by Tom at 8:40 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 4, 2006

With Men Such as These...

Read this from today's Washington Times and tell me we should abandon the Iraqis to their fate:

Home was a short drive but a lifetime away for Capt. Furat, a young Iraqi army officer whose courage under fire exemplifies America's best hopes for the budding military force. While other soldiers visited relatives in nearby towns and villages on weekends, Capt. Furat remained at his base north of Baghdad for fear of exposing his family to danger; he had become too well-known and the death threats too specific.

At least, that was the case until he made a fateful visit home on Christmas Day.

Capt. Furat -- whose family name has been withheld from this article to protect his relatives -- served as a special forces soldier in Saddam Hussein's army and took an American bullet in the leg during the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Later that year, he joined the new Iraqi army as what is now known as the "Tiger Battalion" was being formed in Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad. That alone made him a target in the mixed Sunni-Shi'ite region, where the tensions that fuel the Iraqi insurgency remain intense.

Leading by example
Capt. Furat loved a soldier's life. A powerfully built man who once boasted that blood from an earlier battle still stained the knife that hung from his belt, he had begun to gain superhero status among the men he led and the Americans soldiers with whom he fought. Over time, the battles with insurgents became more frequent. Attacks came in spurts, sometimes two or three in a single week.

Capt. Furat typically would be leading his men in flimsy, unarmored Nissan pickup trucks when insurgents struck, usually with a roadside bomb followed by a burst of bullets from the palm groves lining the Diyala River and its tributaries. U.S. forces rushed to strengthen armor on their own vehicles after a soldier raised the issue with visiting Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in December 2004, sparking a public outcry in the United States. But more than a year later, most Iraqi troops remain easy targets. In October, insurgents lying in ambush killed four men from Capt. Furat's unit, including his bunkmate, as the soldiers provided security for a constitutional referendum.

When such attacks came, Capt. Furat was typically first out of his truck, returning fire, shouting orders, attending to the wounded. His men, their resolve stiffened by his example, stood their ground in combat time and time again. More often then not, they would drive off the attackers before U.S. forces arrived to support them. The Tiger Battalion is just one unit of several hundred men, a small part of a larger effort in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis risk their lives daily by working with the Americans. But during a recent two-month period in which I served as an embedded photojournalist with his unit, I witnessed something utterly different from earlier accounts of Iraqis cowering in battle.

This unit wanted to fight. Its soldiers believed in themselves. After each firefight, their confidence grew, not only in battle, but in the larger sense that maybe they were part of something bigger than their own survival. They strove to perform as a professional army. Asked once about the Shi'ite-Sunni tensions that threaten to tear Iraq apart, Capt. Furat blushed and turned away before replying, "I'm an Iraqi."

I never found out whether he was a Shi'ite or a Sunni. Once he gave me a St. Barbara medal, honoring a saint who is said to protect against explosions and artillery. I wondered whether he was a Christian or whether, like many Iraqi Muslims in the days before the rise of militant Islam, he simply paid his respects from time to time at small shrines on the grounds of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Perhaps now I will find out. Capt. Furat, 26, went home for Christmas Day to visit his family.

Insurgents attacked, killing a cousin and damaging his spine with a bullet through the abdomen. I am on my way back to Iraq, to an American field hospital in Balad, where I hope to find out much more about this soldier who may never walk again.

No one knows whether he will regain the vigor that won the overwhelming admiration of his men. But surely there will be a place in the new Iraq for men like Capt. Furat.

With men like these, how can anyone think of abandoning Iraq?

Posted by Tom at 8:19 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 11, 2005

Hate and Self-Satisfaction

This little tidbit from the Washington Times last week sums up, I think, why some people hate George W Bush:

"What those who despise President George W. Bush -- and there are many, judging by the reaction to the last election -- don't get is that any philosophy or political vision that lacks the concept of evil will not fly with a great many folks in America.

"Liberals tend to explain evil in the world as the product of bad luck, disease and other impersonal forces ... assault, battery, robbery, burglary, theft, laziness, recklessness and the like -- these are all due to sad circumstances in the lives of the offenders. ... It's always in the stars, not in ourselves, that the fault lies.

"... This is why when President Bush had the gall to use the phrase 'axis of evil,' and when Ronald Reagan earlier referred to the Soviet Union as 'the evil empire,' liberals smugly dismissed it all as shallow moralizing unworthy of sophisticated folks everywhere. ...

"I am convinced that one of the main reasons [President Bush] won the election is that many Americans simply could not abide some of Kerry's supporters, academics and other intellectuals who scoff at the belief that there are morally right and wrong actions that people engage in throughout the world. --

"They supported Bush, who at least appears to acknowledge an elementary fact about human life: some folks act badly and are responsible for their actions, while others act decently and should be recognized. Not until liberals produce a philosophical-political vision that makes room for this position will they stop being at odds with the bulk of Americans."

Tibor R. Machan in "For Liberals, No One's Evil" in the October/November issue of Free Inquiry

Very true, as far as it goes. Let's examine it a bit further.

Hypocrite!

This is a favorite charge, usually made by liberals about conservatives and religious leaders. It is also one that is usually made by people seeking to avoid either debate, or examination of their own moral failures, or both.

Before we go on, however, we need to distinguish between inconsistency and hypocrisy, for they are often mistaken for one another. Inconsistency is when a person does or says two things that are at odds with one another. In 1990 John Kerry voted against going to war with Iraq over Kuwait. When running for president in 2004, he said that he opposed the war in Iraq because we did not have a large international coalition. In taking this position Kerry was certainly inconsistent, but he was not a hypocrite.

An argument stands or falls on its own merits, not those of the person making it. Adultery is a sin, a bad thing. This is so whether the person admonishing us to be faithful to our spouses is faithful himself. It was either a good idea or not to invade Iraq, and whether or not the person making the case for invasion had ever served in the armed forces or not is irrelvant.

Hypcrisy is certainly something to be avoided, both in one's personal life and in recommending public policy. While the preacher who says that we must lead clean lives is certainly speaking the truth, if nothing else, his message is dimished if he is caught in bed with another man's wife.

Ramesh Ponnuru examined the charge of hypocrisy in the June 20th, 2005 edition of National Review (digital subscription required.

The traditional view of hypocrisy made allowance for the garden-variety sinner: His words and his beliefs may line up, but his actions fall short of them. The current view of hypocrisy makes no such allowance in practice. Any gap between words and actions is taken not to be merely evidence toward the verdict of hypocrisy, but to be the thing itself; and the words are judged at least as harshly as the actions. A subtle shift from integrity to authenticity has been made.

What makes this change more consequential is that journalists have adopted this view of hypocrisy and made it a standard for their coverage. The result is to tilt the political field against those who speak up for moral standards in public. A surefire way for a public figure not to be judged a hypocrite, and thus a good way for him to keep his moral lapses out of the papers, is not to uphold moral standards in public. (Betraying your vices does not run the same risk. When Hugh Hefner briefly decamped from the Playboy Mansion because it was not a good environment for his children, nobody called him a hypocrite.)

Ponnuru hit upon one of the most maddening characteristics of our modern culture; one in which the person who tries do live right but falls is considered a worse person than the person who doesn't try at all, and indeed flaunts his immorality. Considered even worse is the person who dares to tell others that they should live moral lives, yet who themselves yields to temptation.

Who is subjected to more abuse by the media and professionaly punditry; Monika Lewinsky or Jim Bakker?

To be sure, Bakker defrauded his followers of millions, so the analogy is not perfect (they never are). But consider their reactions when caught: Lewinsky seems proud of her affair with the president, while Bakker wrote I was Wrong, a 1996 mea culpa. I rather doubt we will ever see a similar book from Lewinsky, nor will one be demanded from her.

So we may conclude that while hypocrisy is something to be avoided, as a sin it has so en blown out of proportion that being a hypocrite is viewed as worse than someone who commits a sin and doesn't care who knows it. This is wrong.

But Why Such Satisfaction?

Why is it, after a religious figure gets caught in a scandal, that some people so much satisfaction in their fall? Several reasons, I think.

Some, usually religious folk themselves, think that the fallen was wrong to begin with. They may have objected to their style, or to their theology. But they usually keep their satisfaction to themselves, realizing that such thoughts are quite unchristian. And they are the minority, and not what this post is about.

No, the majority who vocally and gleefully exult in the fall do so for much worse reasons. And to find out why we need to go elsewhere for a minute, so stay with me.

Who has been in a situation whereby everyone else in the group wanted to do something that you knew was wrong. Maybe it was a situation when you were a kid and they all wanted to go to a place your parents had forbade you to go. Maybe it was on a business trip when "the guys" all wanted to go to a strip club and you demurred. Either way, the reaction is often the same; they make fun of you. You suddenly become the bad guy, the one who "doesn't want to have fun".

The reason for their behavior is obvious; somewhere inside they know that what they are doing is wrong, or unacceptable, or frowned upon by society. And it makes them feel better about themselves when they attack you.

It's the same reason we gossip; it makes us feel better about ourselves. People read Dear Abby, or watch Judge Judy, for the same reason; "I guess my life isn't really so screwed up. So-in-so is worse."

And this brings me back to the fallen leader. Most of those who are vocal in their satisfaction are that way because they themselves are doing things they ought not to be doing, and this is a way of justifying it to themselves.

Some will not like this, but that's just the way it is.

Bill Clinton

Almost time to get back to our president. Before I say why so many hate him, I think I owe my readers, especially any liberal ones, an answer to the question of why so many conservatives hated Bill Clinton.

Policy is always part of it, although this alone does not explain things fully. Sure, we hated "Clinton Care", but that was more Hillary. And we disliked that he cut so much from the military, but George H W Bush started that. And sure, he involved us in military ventures that had no bearing on national security, but they didn't cost much in lives or treasure.

And it wasn't really personality either. I can't tell you how many times I heard a fellow conservative say "I admit he'd be a great guy to go out and have a beer with, I just wouldn't bring the wife/girlfriend along!"

No, it was his lack of morals that so offended us. With Clinton it was a scandal-of-the-week, one thing after another, all culminating with the horrible Monika Lewinsky affair.

Back to George W Bush

All of this brings us back to George W Bush and our initial question of why some people hate him so.

First, we need to remember that such hatred is nothing new in our world. It is always tempting to view the times in which one lives as unique and special. While they may be in certain ways, we much avoid the temptation to view everything as if it has never occured before, perhaps in worse ways.

One only has to go back twenty-odd years ago to remember how another president was hated. What is interesting is that liberals said the same things about Reagan that they now say about Bush. They called Reagan stupid, an intellectual lightweight, that he was controlled by more powerful personalities around him, that he was a "cowboy" that would surely lead us to World War III, on and on it went. How they hated him, and how well I remember it. Then when he died they pretended like they'd liked and respected him all along.

Next, we cannot dismiss the fact that some genuinly dislike Bush for his politicies. It is always tempting to believe the worst about one's political enemies, and assume that their motives are always base. This we must avoid. So I will say that there are some who simply think Bush is wrong on this or that.

But by the same token it is clear that many on the left have simply become unhinged. Anyone who believes that "Bush lied!" about WMD, people who simply will not believe that it was an honest mistake, are part of this group. Those who believe that the slow federal response to hurricane Katrina was motivated by race hatred of blacks are also members. And it is these people that we will consider.

In my opinion, there are four primary reasons for Bush-hatred:

1) He got over his drinking problem
2) He is both religious and conservative
3) He believes that evil exists
4) He believes that morality matters

1) Consider that of the favorite "jokes" made by people such as Bill Maher is that President Bush has started drinking again, and is now beating his wife.

Let's face it, if you're doing something you ought not to be doing, and someone else who is doing the same comes clean, it makes you look bad. Thus there is a tendancy to attack the person who cleans up their act.

Now, I am not condemning all drinking, not at all. Nor am I saying that anyone who makes fun of Bush's old problem is themselves a drinker. If this is what you think you are missing the point.

My point is that there is a certain group of people in this country who simply cannot stand it when someone cleans up their act. To this group, once you have done wrong you are apparently supposed to wallow im misery the rest of your life, to prostrate yourself and always beg for forgiveness, or to engage in self-flagellation in the manner of Hawthorne's Arthur Dimmesdale.

2) People on the left don't like religious conservatives. Bush is in that category. 'nuf said.

3) A lot of people today have a problem with the term "evil", when applied to anyone other than Nazis or Klan members. Bush is derided as seeing the world in "black and white" terms, of having a "manichaean" outlook. Sophisticates on the left see Bush as being a simpleton, while a more astute viewers understand the nuances. Just as they derided Reagan for calling the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire", they sneer at Bush's "Axis of Evil".

4) Just as many cannot stomach the term "evil", they are uncomfortable in discussing morality. They usually say that they don't like "being preached to", but that doesn't hold water. The left has spent a lot of time and energy forcing its morality on everyone else, and just doesn't like it when they get a taste of their own medicine.

But the point here is that many on the right look around the country and are unhappy with what we see as a serious decline in parts of our culture. Whether it be the sitcoms where the "humor" is one sexual inuendo after another, the soft porn of an Abercrombie and Fitch catalog, the sexualization of girl children through the marketing of ever-more revealing clothes, or the in-your-face gay culture that we are all now supposed to unquestioningly accept, a lot of people do not like what they see. And it keeps getting worse, deviancy keeps getting defined downward.

It's not that George W Bush has made an attempt to change the culture, for he really hasn't. It's what he represents that bothers these people. By reforming himself and living a clean life, by being openly religious(and meaning it), and by having a wife who is not a policy-wonk with presidential ambitions, he is seen as being part of this group. And, in a way, he is.

They Can Come Home

Liberals can and should come home. It's not that complicated; drop the Hollywood crowd, do more than pretend that you recognize that religion has a significant place in American culture, speak about moral values in a meaningful way. But as Machan says, "Not until liberals produce a philosophical-political vision that makes room for this position will they stop being at odds with the bulk of Americans." Let's hope they do.

Posted by Tom at 7:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 7, 2005

Our Shared Western Values

In my last post I took some people to task for having fuzzy ideas as to Western Values. What follows are some of the things that we in the West do, or should, have in common. They are what make us what we are, and make us different, and yes, better, than others around the world.

A Judo-Christian heritage. I'm not so much talking about going to church on Sundays, or even really being religious. The simple fact is that the Old and New Testaments have had enormous influence on our development whether some people like it or not.

A Democratic, or Representative form of Government. One can trace our democratic heritage from Athens, to the Magna Carta, to the Declaration of Independence.

A Free Market Economy, with Regulations. We are the envy of the world. We have figured out how to bring the most economic well being to the most people. Am amazing achievement, really, given human history.

Tolerance of Differences. A proper definition of "tolerance" is a societal agreement not to legally persecute people who are different in some way, or to openly "hassle" them in everyday life. Unfortunately, the term been misused of late. Gay-rights activists now tell us that "tolerance" really means approval of their lifestyle. This is incorrect. One may tolerate something one disapproves of.

Individual Rights. This as opposed to "community rights", sometimes espoused by advocates of "Asian Values". Further, rights are not "culturally specific". These rights, such as the ones in the American Bill of Rights, "are endowed to us by our creator', and thus apply to everyone on the planet, whether their governments are currently respecting them or not.

We see ourselves as Individuals. This as opposed to seeing ourselves as members of a group. Sadly, some in the West today are trying to reverse this trend. Paradoxically, it is the "multiculturalists" who are pushing this.

We look Forward Instead of Backward. Tradition is important, but it is the emphasis that counts. This idea of looking forward is stongest in the United States, but I believe that in is a value that most in the West hold.

Feel free to disagree, or to suggest additions.

Posted by Tom at 11:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Question of Political Identity and Values

in The War On Terror

David Frum asks "Who Are We?" in the most September 12 print edition of National Review (digital subscription required to view it online).

The questions references the age-old political question of Identity: "Who am I as a political creature?" In the Middle Ages this question might have been answered with reference to nobility, clergy, whether one was a merchant or serf, Christian or Muslim. In the early years of our nation one might have said "Virginian" first, "American" second. In the past few hundred years, we in the West we have come to see ourselves in terms of nationhood. Seeing ourselves as citizens of a particular nation is stronger in the United States or Australia, weaker in western Europe, so it varies by locale. Either way, Westerners see themselves as members of a political entitiy, as opposed to most Muslims, for example, who see themselves more in terms of their religion.

Frum is interested in the question the question of nationhood poses,and puts it in terms of "common values". Political scientists distinguish between a "state", which is political entity, and a "nation". Wikopedia has as good a definition as any, and tells us that the members of a nation

...are distinguished by a common identity, and almost always by a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent. The national identity refers both to the distinguishing features of the group, and to the individual’s sense of belonging to it.

The key in this is "identity". One way individuals may be said to have a common identity is to hold certain values in common.

And it is just this that worries David Frum.

The Enemy Within

The War on Terror (a poor term, but let that pass) has more in common with the Cold War than any other that we have fought, in that if we are to win then a critical mass of our citizens must not only believe that the war is worth fighting and winning, but must understand that it is in part (even primarily) a war of values, and that our values are superior.

During the Cold War we had a fifth column within the west that fortunately never reached this critical mass. But, contrary to the claims of some revisionist liberals today, it was a near-run thing. Perhaps the critical juncture was in the early '80s when we determined to meet the Soviet SS-20 threat with GLCMs and Pershing IIs. If the anti-nuclear left had prevented their installation, the Cold War might still be in progress.

Frum worries that we face the same problem today. The situation in America is no small matter, but it's Tony Blair and the UK that really worries him.

At the Labour party’s national conference nine days after the first London bombing, British prime minister Tony Blair offered a powerful and memorable answer: “The spirit of our age is one in which the prejudices of the past are put behind us, where our diversity is our strength. It is this which is under attack. Moderates are not moderate through weakness but through strength. Now is the time to show it in defense of our common values.”

Sounds good, right? But as Frum demonstrates, when you dig beneath the surface of those fine words, you find...nothing.

A Nearly Extinct Species

In the US, as in Europe, you used to be able to find a species known as the "liberal hawk". Leaders such as Harry Truman, LBJ, and Henry "Scoop" Jackson, were once common. Ditto for Europe. Frum describes Blair's thinking:

Tony Blair was the original liberal hawk, albeit one endowed with rather more staying power than most of the breed. Still, you can catch a continuing echo of the Old Labour way of thinking in his July 16 speech to the Labour-party conference: They believe in the global caliphate; we believe in . . . diversity, which is to say, in everything, which is again to say, in nothing. That’s why Blair refers to “our common values” without dropping any hint as to what those values might be. To name them would be to exclude others, and to exclude things is to acknowledge limits to our diversity.

Ah, "diversity", that new god to whom the left prays, and the rest of us are force to acknowledge, lest our HR department find out our true opinions.

The Paradox of "Diversity"

To believe in "diversity", and it's twin "multiculturalism", is to believe that all cultures are worthy of respect. Fine if you're dealing with Episcopalians vs Catholics vs Jews vs aethists, but what happens when you throw radical Islam into the mix?

Chaos, thats what.

As Frum relates, Britons today face an insane situation whereby in the name of "diversity"

...imported brutalities have begun to occur under the jurisdiction of Western police and Western courts: “honor killings,” forced marriages, and the below-the-horizon pressure for the tacit legal recognition of polygamy. Britain’s Inland Revenue acknowledged in December 2004 that it was considering legal changes that would permit a husband to divide his estate tax-free among more than one wife. In at least one U.K. case (A-M v. A-M, 2001), British courts have held that polygamous marriages contracted outside Britain could be recognized as valid by British authorities. Although it remains a crime in Britain to enter into a second marriage before the first is dissolved, senior Muslim officials estimate that up to 4,000 British Muslim men have multiple wives. And one British Muslim group plans to launch a challenge to British marriage laws before the European Court of Human Rights.

What's a good multiculturalist to do? On the one hand, multiculturalism dicates "...that immigrants, and others, should preserve their cultures with the different cultures interacting peacefully within one nation." (Wikopedia) On the other, Islamic culture is in many instances directly contradicts western values.

Lets take a minute to define matters. "Tolerance", if one means by it a societal agreement not to persecute others because of their race, sex, religion, excetera, then I'm all for it. Tolerance is then one of the hallmarks of western civilization. But that's not what we're talking about here.

We are talking about whether we have the desire to defend ourselves. Do we have what it takes to say to Muslim immigrants "sorry, but that's not acceptable here. Change or move back to where you came from."

Do We have What it Takes?

George W Bush does. Most Americans do, too. Many Democrats get it, although those on the left certainy don't

And unfortunately, Tony Blair probably doesn't either. As John O'Sullivan observes in the Aug 29 edition of NR (digital subscription only), "One senses that Blair, underneath his public mask of self-confident leadership, is baffled by the scope and nature of the problems of domestic and imported radical Islamism facing him."

Blair understands WMD, and the necessity of a strong relationship with the US, I'll give him that. But he can't understand how anyone cannot but fail to love his new "multicultural" UK.

Frum tells of what happens when we refuse to defend ourselves:

The Islamic extremists accuse the West of lacking any sexual morality. Indeed, the alleged immorality of the West — the indecent liberty of women, the lewd explicitness of entertainment — is one of the principal grievances of Islamic radicals in the West. (One of the perpetrators of the second London bombing, Somali-born Yasin Hassan Omar, was also offended that alcohol was sold in Western cities in violation of Islamic law.) They think: The West believes in nothing but personal whim. Anything goes! And those Westerners who draw comparisons between Islamic extremists and defenders of traditional marriage — don’t they think just the same thing? Yes! We believe in nothing but personal — well, not whim, that sounds . . . whimsical — but choice. Anything goes!

Far too many in the west simply have not recognized that there is a significant number of Muslim immigrants who see "diversity" as a sin. While only a small number become terrorists, it is the number who turn their eyes from the radicals, or who even shield them, that should be our concern.

Frum summarizes the situation in Europe:

National survival in the age of terror is not just a matter of intelligence operations and security measures. It’s not just a job for armies and police. National survival depends on the willingness and ability of the targets of terrorism to assert and defend a national identity: an identity that is more than a catalogue of self-doubts and self-criticisms, an identity that is more than a statement of disagreements and diversities — an identity that can say, in English, in French, in German, on behalf of the nations of the Atlantic community on both sides of the ocean, This is who we are — and we are prepared to fight for it

.

NEXT: Our Shared Western Values

Posted by Tom at 8:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 30, 2005

Defender of Dictators

Ok, so maybe Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez isn't a complete dictator. He was elected, and probably will be reelected in 2006 when his time comes up. But he's still a pretty unsavory character, and is bad news for the region and his own country.

But if Chavez isn't quite a left-wing dictator, he's certainly trying to act like one. Consider Mark Falcoff's description of his "dialogues", from the August 29 edition of National Review (digital subscription required)

It’s Sunday in Venezuela, which means it’s time for President Hugo Chávez to go on radio and television to “dialogue” with his people. Dialogue is actually not the right word; except for this week’s special guests (Cuban dictator Fidel Castro by telephone from Havana, and later, Cuba’s health minister), Chávez does all the talking — endlessly, tediously, often jumping from topic to topic in no apparent order. This time it’s a full eight hours. The subjects include the evils of capitalism and “neo-liberalism,” the unspecified contribution Cuba can make to solving Venezuela’s energy problems, the nefarious George W. Bush, the dangers of a free-trade agreement with the United States (“a grinding stone to crush peoples”), the vast wave of support that Venezuela and its president now supposedly enjoy throughout the hemisphere and even the world . . .

So what does Jesse Jackson do? Run down to Venezuala to defend him, of course.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson yesterday urged President Bush to strongly condemn a U.S. religious broadcaster's call for the assassination of Venezuela's leftist president, saying Washington needs to cool down the rhetoric against this South American nation and major oil producer.

The U.S. civil rights leader met with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in private at the presidential palace yesterday, saying beforehand that he hoped to help ease tensions aggravated last week by Pat Robertson's suggestion that Mr. Chavez ought to be killed.

"We must make it clear that talk of isolating Venezuela, talk of assassinating its leader, this is unacceptable, and it must be denounced roundly by our president and by our secretary of state," Mr. Jackson said in an interview shortly before meeting with Mr. Chavez.

"The U.S. and Venezuelan leadership must have a detente on rhetoric. That exacerbates tensions," Mr. Jackson said. "We need to have a cooling down of divisive rhetoric."

There are so many things wrong here it's hard to know where to start.

There's the obvious aspect that I alluded to in my opening, in that Jackson shouldn't be defending someone like Chavez

But there's also the question of whether a president should criticize a private citizen for what he said. There are times when it may be necessary to do so, but it would take an extreme situation. Normally, presidents should leave the job of criticism to the private sector, to journalists, bloggers, and the like.

One can only believe that if President Bush criticized a non-politician liberal he would be in turn denounced for "putting a chill on the first amendment".

Posted by Tom at 10:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 11, 2005

Stand up for Israel

Maia Lazar has organized a "Jewish Blogburst". Stop over at the blogburst site where she has a list of those who participated and an excerpt from their post.

I will use this opportunity to discuss once more a topic that I believe to be vitally important; moral clarity and the Middle East.

In all of the areas of the world, of all the issues that we discuss, none is more clouded by moral confusion as that of Israel and the Middle East. It is a subject that to me seems so obvious, yet to so many others at home and abroad it is so clouded. It almost pains me to say it, but their moral confusion on this issue is evidence of problems with the entire concept of democracy, freedom, and the concept of "right versus wrong". Big stuff, but there it is.

The Confused

Here is what we hear from the confused on an almost daily basis:

• Israel stole land that belongs to the Palestinians
• Israel is one of the most repressive states on the planet
• Zionists are racists
• Israeli troops deliberately kill civilians
• "The Jews" control the banks, Hollywood, U.S. foreign policy, (fill in the blank with your favorite)

On and on it goes. Of all of the repressive regimes on our planet, tiny Israel receives more venom and hatred directed towards it than all of the others put together. It is regularly attacked in the UN General Assembly. It is despised in Europe.

The fact is, of course, that those who attack Israel so venemously know perfectly well what they are doing. They are not really confused at all.

A Perfect Example

The best example of moral confusion is in regard to Israeli military actions versus terrorist actions by Palestinian and other Muslim extremists.

Israel directs it's attacks at military targets, by which we mean people who are either armed themselves or directly part of a military-type structure aimed at doing harm. Sometimes civilians are killed during the fighting. However, they civilians are not only the ones not targeted, but the evidence is overwhelming that Israel, like the United States, goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties.

Palestinian and other Muslim extemists, however, directly target Israeli civilians.

Why this difference is hard for some people to understand is utterly beyond me. My only conclusion is that they are so enraptured by leftist ideologies that they are beyond reason.

The Settlements

We're forever hearing that the settlements are standing in the way of peace.

To which I ask; if the settlements are the problem today, what was the problem before 1967?

The usual response; silence. Of course. They have no answer.

I wrote about this at some length in a previous post. My conclusion:

The main issues preventing peace are the following

1. Lack of Moral Clarity. I've written on this before here. Here are two of the essential elements of moral clarity lacking in some people:
   
1. Israel is an imperfect democracy, but it is a democracy. No Arab state is a democracy. This does not mean that Israel may do anything it wishes, but it does mean that we should give them the benefit of the doubt.
2. Israeli forces practice discrimination in warfare. That is, they only attack military targets. Civilians are sometimes killed as a byproduct, but the civilians are not the target themselves. Arab/Muslim terrorists deliberately target civilians. Why this is hard for some people to understand is beyond me.
2. Lack of Democracy among the Arab States. Natan Scharansky wrote about this in his excellent book "The Case for Democracy". Simply put, democracies do not fight each other. We in the west are partly responsible for the current state of affairs, since in the past we did not pressure Arab governments to reform.
   
3. Palestinian terrorism - until the Arab states and/or the PA put and end to terrorism by organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the others there will be no peace.
4. The expansion of the settlements should stop. Ok, I know I said earlier that "the settlements per se" are not the problem. And that is true. But it is also true that in my opinion Israel does not need new settlements, and by expanding them they give Palestinian extremists a propaganda message that is useful in recruiting terrorists.

1. 
   

Onwards to Democracy

There will not be a permanent peace in the Middle East until the Arab states start to embrace pluralistic forms of government. This includes the Palestinian Authority.

Natan Sharansky wrote about this in his book "The Case for Democracy". Sharansky said that agreements such as the one at Oslo were a mistake because they did not require that the Palestinians reform themselves, and I believe that history has shown him to be correct.

While some doubt that democracy is possible among Muslims, Sharansky (and I) disagree. Many once thought that democracy was not possible for people in the former Soviet Republics and Eastern Europe. History has proven them wrong.

Stand up for Israel

So in the meantime we must stand up for Israel, for to do so is to stand for democracy. We do this not because of some misguided notion of "Israel right or wrong", for Israel is not always in the right. But it is more right more often that it's enemies, far more, in fact. And we also stand up for Israel because, strange as it may sound, to do so is to stand up for democratic change in the Arab world, for they deserve to live as we do also.

Posted by Tom at 3:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 28, 2005

Nostalgia for a Dictator?

One of the things that most perplexes Americans is the tendancy of some of those who once lived under totalitarian rule, and now live under at least some freedom, to express nostalgia for the ancien regime.

Consider two stories that were in the news recently. The first one is in today's Washington Times:

"Life has changed for the worse," said Bushra Mahmoud, 40, a mother of three who was sitting in the waiting area. "There is a creeping zealousness among men and women that is really frightening. You sit on the bus and have abuse heaped on you by the fanatics because you are not wearing the hijab [Islamic head covering]. These things never used to happen."

Intimidation of women for religious reasons has become more common in the past year, and those who do not cover themselves are often the targets of kidnappers. Salons have been bombed and the Princess Salon's chief stylist, Nazar Zadayan, says he has been threatened several times.

They go on to point out that the situation for women is better in Afghanistan, where women can take off their burkas without fear. Too many religious conservatives were elected to the new legislative body in Iraq, however. While many women ran for office, only those with conservative values were elected.

The second is about Putin's recent remarks about the "glory days" of the Soviet Union (hat tip Amy Ridenour):

Russian President Vladimir Putin told the nation Monday that the collapse of the Soviet empire "was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century" and had fostered separatist movements inside Russia.

In his annual state of the nation address to parliament and the country's top political leaders, Putin said the Soviet collapse was "a genuine tragedy" for Russians.

"First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century," Putin said. "As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.

Such words are shocking to the majority of westerners. No matter the situation in Russia, how could anyone long for the Soviet Union? Does he not remember Stalin's terror?

I do not doubt that the fears expressed by the Iraqi women are well founded. When a country has been kept under the heal of a dictator for so long, all sorts of tensions are kept underground. Ancient hatreds and prejudices do not go away, they are simply put on hold. And when the dictatorship is removed, they spring to the surface.

It has been said by many that democracy is about more than holding elections. That has never been better illustrated by the stories above.

The German Experience

Perhaps the most famous example of a people longing for a authoritarian past and rejecting democracy occurred in Germany during the 1920's. To the modern mind, it would seem obvious that the Weimar Republic was better than Prussian militarism. Yet consider the hyperinflation that struck Germany during the early days of the Weimar Republic
(Nazi Germany: A New History, by Klaus Fischer):

Germans were caught in a vortex from which there seemed no escape. the world was upside-down: a simple penny postage stamp cost 5 million marks, an egg 80 million, a pound of meat 3.2 biullion, a pound of butter 6 billion, a pound of potatoes 50 million, a glass of beer 150 million. Prices changed from day to day, prompting people to rush to the stores armed with satchels of worthless money to buy simple necessities.

To many Germans this period seemed like an economic apocalypse....We might also add that it also seemed like the end of faith in government, its good word, and its assurance that the savings of ordinary citizens would be protected.....The savings of thrifty middle-class Germans was wiped out. It was not uncommom for German savers to receive polite letters from bank managers informing them that "the bank deeply regrets that it can on longer administer your deposit of sixty-eight thousand marks, since the costs are all out of proportion to the capital. We are therefore taking the liberty of returning your capital. Since we have no bank-notes of small enough denominations at our disposal, we have rounded out the sum to one million marks. Enclusure: one 1,000,000 mark bill." To add insult to injury, the envelope was adorned by a canceled five million mark postage stamp.

It's not a wonder why people became Nazis.

The government literally was forced to take back small denomination bills and print extra zeroes on them, and them reissue them.

A Sailor's Story

When I was in St Petersburg, Russia, in 1993, one of the sights we visited was the cruiser Aurora. After paying our fee and going onboard the ship, we were met by an old man who, in passable English, offered to take us on a tour of the vessle. Knowledgeable by now as to the ways of Russia, we realized that he was not an official tourguide but just someone who wanted to make a few extra dollars by taking westerners on tours. We agreed and he did a fine job.

As always, we made it a habit to ask the people we met about their backgrounds and their opinions of various matters. We found out that this man had been a captain in the Soviet Navy but had retired several years ago, when the country was still the Soviet Union. His pension had been wiped out by inflation, and he depended on tips from westerners to make his living. He apparently talked the officials into letting him on board to do this, probably in return for a percentage of his tips. We had encountered this situation several times before and, given the man's knowledge of naval matters, had no reason to doubt his story. We gave him something like a ten dollar tip, which was an enormous sum of money in their economy.

Given this and other stories we've all heard about Russia, is it a wonder some people say that they long for the days of Stalin? There is something in us that longs for stability and predictability. And when it seems like the world is falling apart,

Nostalgia for a Dictator?

So do the people in the stories above truely long to be ruled by a dictator? I don't think so. I think it's more a desperation that comes from living in difficult and uncertain times. The Iraqi women do have good reasons to be afraid. The Russians do have cause to bemoan their reduced status in the world. The Germans of eighty years ago did have reason to think their world had turned upside down.

It's all too easy for us in the West to talk highly of freedom and democracy, when even our Great Depression was fairly mild compared to the situations described above. Success in Iraq and Afghanistan depends as much on security and the economy as it does on elections and establishment of a representative government.

Democracy is about a way of thinking, a means of peacefully resolving conflict within society. It is the establishment of common law, of civil society, of all those things that we take for granted but which takes centuries to get right, if ever at all.

So we mustn't be overly upset when we read about a people longing for days when they were ruled by a tyrant. We should take it as a warning, as a message that we have a lot of work to do. But I'm not really worried that we don't take this seriously in Iraq or Afghanistan. One of the hallmarks of American liberation, from the Marshall Plan in Europe, to MacArthur's administration of Japan after World War II, to our liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan, has been our willingness to spend billions on reconstruction. That some on the left do not seem to recognize the importance of this investment must not disuade us from our task. We can only lose this War on Terror if we want to.

Posted by Tom at 10:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 4, 2005

Mark Steyn on Terri Schiavo

In some of my earlier posts on the issues raised by Terri Schiavo's death, I commented on the trend toward dehumanizing descriptions of those who some want to kill. Michelle Malkin has posted part of a must-read column by Mark Steyn about the case of Robert Wendland. If you found what happened to Terri Schiavo scary, you'll find this one to be an absolute horror story:

Do you remember a fellow called Robert Wendland? No reason why you should. I wrote about him in this space in 1998, and had intended to return to the subject but something else always intervened — usually Bill Clinton’s penis, which loomed large, at least metaphorically, over the entire era. Mr Wendland lived in Stockton, California. He was injured in an automobile accident in 1993 and went into a coma. Under state law, he could have been starved to death at any time had his wife requested the removal of his feeding tube. But Rose Wendland was busy with this and that, as one is, and assumed there was no particular urgency.

Then one day, a year later, Robert woke up. He wasn’t exactly his old self, but he could catch and throw a ball and wheel his chair up and down the hospital corridors, and both activities gave him pleasure. Nevertheless Mrs Wendland decided that she now wished to exercise her right to have him dehydrated to death. Her justification was that, while the actual living Robert — the Robert of the mid-1990s — might enjoy a simple life of ball-catching and chair-rolling, the old Robert — the pre-1993 Robert — would have considered it a crashing bore and would have wanted no part of it.

She nearly got her way. But someone at the hospital tipped off Mr Wendland’s mother and set off a protracted legal struggle in which — despite all the obstacles the California system could throw in her path — the elderly Florence Wendland was eventually successful in preventing her son being put down. He has since died of pneumonia, which is sad: the disabled often fall victim to some opportunist illness they’d have shrugged off in earlier times, as Christopher Reeve did. But that’s still a better fate than to be starved to death by order of the state.

Ouch. Later Steyn discusses the dehumanizing terminology that helped make her death possible:

Many people seem to be unusually anxious to pretend that this judicial murder (Terri Schiavo) is merely a very belated equivalent of a discreet doctor putting a hopeless case out of her misery, or to take refuge in the idea that some magisterial disinterested ‘due process’ is being played out — or as a reader wrote to me the other day: ‘Why are you fundamentalists so clueless? It’s the law, dickbrain. Michael Schiavo isn’t acting for himself; he’s been legally recognised as the person qualified to act for Terri in expressing her wishes based on her own oral declarations.’

Which sounds fine and dandy, until you uncover your ears and a lot of the genteel euphemisms and legalisms and medicalisms — ‘right to die’, ‘guardian ad litem’, ‘PVS’ — start to sound downright Orwellian. PVS means ‘persistent vegetative state’, and because it’s a grand official-sounding term it’s been accepted mostly without question by the mainstream media, even though the probate judge declared Mrs Schiavo in a persistent vegetative state without troubling to visit her and without requiring any of the routine tests, such as an MRI scan. Indeed, her husband hasn’t permitted her to be tested for anything since 1993. Think about that: this woman is being put to death without any serious medical evaluation more recent than 12 years ago.

How did we get to this point, and where are we going?

One consequence of abortion is that, in designating new life as a matter of ‘choice’, it created a culture where it’s now routine to make judgments about which lives are worth it and which aren’t. Down’s Syndrome? Abort. Cleft palate? Abort. Chinese girl? Abort. It’s foolish to think you can raise entire populations — not to mention generations of doctors — to make self-interested judgments about who lives and who doesn’t and expect them to remain confined to three trimesters. The ‘right to choose’ is now being extended beyond the womb: the step from convenience euthanasia to compulsory euthanasia is a short one.

... the Schiavo debate provides a glimpse of the Western world the day after tomorrow — a world of nonagenarian baby boomers who’ve conquered most of the common-or-garden diseases and instead get stricken by freaky protracted colossally expensive chronic illnesses; a world of more and more dependants, with fewer and fewer people to depend on. In Europe, where demographic reality means that in a generation or so all the dependants will be elderly European Christians and most of the fellows they’re dependent on will be young North African or Arab Muslims, the social consensus for government health care is unlikely to survive. Terri Schiavo failed to demonstrate conclusively why she should be permitted by the state to continue living. As Western nations evolve rapidly into the oldest societies in human history, many more of us will be found similarly wanting.

Follow the link from Michelle's site to the Spectator and read the whole thing.

Posted by Tom at 9:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 14, 2005

A Lack of Moral Clarity

Earlier this week I wrote about Moral Clarity as it relates to how we look at foreign policy questions. In his column yesterday Morton Kondracke gave us two perfect examples of a lack of moral clarity in regards to thinking on the Israeli-Palestinian problem.

First up is former General Brent Scowcroft, longtime Washington policy advisor. Kondracke says that in a November op-ed in the Washington Post, Scowcroft advised that the United States

"should insist that Israel stop construction of its wall on the West Bank" and not only to withdraw from Gaza, as it plans to do, but also to "evacuate" the West Bank.

Scowcroft argued that the security Israel currently derives from the fence it has built -- a barrier that has largely stopped suicide bombings in Israel proper -- should be replaced by international peacekeepers from Europe. It's an idea that Israel will never accept.

Note that nothing is demanded of the Palestinians. They need not reform their authoritarian government; much less take any measures to stop terrorism. Further, as Kondracke points out, Israel is simply not going to completely pull out of the West Bank. So Scowcroft is either not within the bounds of reality, in which case we can dismiss him entirely, or he would force Israel to take suicidal steps, in which case he sufferes from a severe lack of moral clarity.

Next is Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor in the Carter Administration.

Brzezinski puts the matter in even starker terms, declaring that, in the minds of the world's Muslims, the United States has joined Israel in a "war against Islam" and that the way out is to join Europe in pressing Israel for a peace deal with Palestinians and with Iran, whose nuclear program Israel deems a threat to its existence.

There is a certain point where no matter what you do people will believe what they are going to believe. We have fought perhaps the most politically correct war in history, going out of our way on numerous occasions to say that we are not at war with Islam but with "terror" (yes I know, you can't be a war with a tactic, and the war is really against radical Islam, but that's a subject for another day). Perhaps we could do better at getting or message out, or doing this or that better. Those are legitimate subjects. But we are at the point were we must press on no matter what some other people think.

Bush's "global war on terror," Brzezinski said at the luncheon, "lumps all terrorists together and all Islamic terrorists together. Wise strategy lies not in uniting your enemies, but dividing them." When I asked Brzezinski, who was Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, whether he meant that the United States should take a benign attitude toward anti-Israeli terrorists like Hamas, he said, "I don't mean that we shouldn't condemn terrorism," but "let's not universalize Islamic terrorism. ... Let's recognize there are varieties of Islamic terrorism."

Uh...what difference does that make? Murderers are murderers no matter what their excuse. Brzezinski, too, suffers from a lack of moral clarity when he says that we should "take a benign attitude" toward some terrorists. Kondracke demolishes this kind of thinking:

If "realism" in foreign policy means selling out an ally like Israel to curry favor with inconstant friends in Europe and the Arab world, it can't be good. In fact, it would send a message to militant Islam: "Aha, the leader of Western civilization has lost its nerve. Terrorism pays. We're on the march.

Predictably, both Scowcroft and Brzezinski are pessimistic about what will happen in Iraq. They both want us to let Europe and the UN to take over management of Iraq. Neither seems to care much about what type of government the Iraqi people will live under. Neither seems to care as to whether they will live in freedom or tyranny.

Their mantra is "stablity uber alles". Their primary mistake is in equating Israel with the Palestinian Authority. To them everyone is just a piece on a chessboard. Not only do they not care much about the Israelis, they don't care about the Palestinian people either. If "strengthening Arafat" was what they told us during the '90s, we can be sure that democracy in a Palestinian state is not on their agenda either.

Thirty years ago the United States had an ally in South Vietnam. The latter was a flawed partner, but one that had potential for progress towards democracy. At the time South Korea and Taiwan were under the rule of authoritarian regimes, and today both are fairly stable democracies. Natan Sharansky has argued that we must not underestimate the potential for democracy anywhere, even in the most "unlikely" places. I believe him to be correct.

We abandoned South Vietnam to the wolves, which devoured her quickly. The people of that country, however, did not go quietly. Tens of thousands attempted to flee, many on small, overcrowded boats into the open ocean. Thousands died, and some were rescued. They became known as the "boat people", and you may have met some of them but just not know it.

Will Scowcroft or Brzezinski be there to pick up Iraqi boat people if the nation collapses? Don't count on it.

Posted by Tom at 10:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 5, 2005

Moral Clarity

I started reading Natan Schransky's new book The Case for Democracy recently, and I'm already struck by something he said in the preface. Sharansky is talking about moral clarity, and why it is important as a reference point in order to create a better world:

But today, detached from the concept of a free society, human rights have no reference point. The concept of human rights has come to mean sympathy for the poor, the weak, and the suffering. To be sure, this sympathy is essential if we want to live in moral societies and should be encouraged and cultivated by families, faiths, schools, and governments. yet without moral clarity, sympathy can also be placed in the service of evil.

A world without moral clarity, is a world in which dictators speak about human rights even as they kill thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, and even tens of millions of people. It is a world in which the only democracy in the Middle East is perceived as the greatest violator of human rightrs inthe world. It is a world in which a human rights conference against racism, such as the one that took place in Durban, South Africa a few years ago, can be turned iinto a carnival of hate.

Amen.

No democracy in Cuba? But they have free healthcare! Che Guevara was a murderer? But he cared about the poor! Palestinian terrorists kill thousands of innocent civilians? But the Israelis build a wall and Palestinian workers are inconvenienced!

It is not only left-wing ideologues like Noam Chomksy who make these arguments, as even Washington Post columnist William Raspberry crossed that line the other day.

Are the United States and Israel perfect? Of course not. But it is moral idiocy when Ted Kennedy compares Saddam's torture chambers to Abu Ghraib. It is moral idiocy when those on the far left accuse us of "mass murder" every time a civilian is killed. And it is moral idiocy when they equate Bush with Hitler. But there are lots of moral idiots out there; just read some of the left-wing blogs.

Bill Bennett spoke a lot about this in his book Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism. He saw clearly the result when moral clarity was abandoned:

“You should never be violent”

…teaching children this lesson does an unforgivable injury both to them and to the adult community of which they are about to become a part. It renders them vulnerable to abuse and injury, and leaves them without moral or intellectual recourse when abuse and injury are inflicted upon them. If no distinction is made between kinds of “peace,” children are deprived of the tools they require to distinguish a just from an unjust peace, peace with honor from the peace of the grave. They are robbed of the oldest and most necessary wisdom of the race, which is that some things are worth fighting and dying for.

Are we to tell our children that, because “you should always find a peaceful way to solve your problems,” the brave men who fought in the revolutionary War, the Civil War, the two World Wars, and every other conflict in history were acting immorally? That way lies a generation prepared only for accommodation, appeasement, and surrender.

Most leftists, unless they are completely in outer space, will concede that sometimes war and violence are necessary. But they then set such strict conditions as to reveal that they live in a fantasy land.

In a future post I will discuss Just War theory. Moral clarity is required in order to discuss what constitutes a Just War, and Sharansky and Bennet set the stage perfectly.

(P.S. if you want a good laugh, read some of the lefties who try to attack these two books in the Amazon.com reviews section. Their venom is a testament to the effectiveness of Sharansky and Bennett)

Posted by Tom at 4:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 12, 2004

Yassir Arafat

When I first heard that Yassir Arafat was seriously ill and that his days may be numbered, my first response was "good." My second response was to ask forgiveness for that thought from the good Lord. I'm pretty confident, though, that Arafat will have a much tougher time getting through the pearly gates than me.

The plight of the Palestinian people is at once sad and maddening. Sad because so many of the live in such abject poverty, and are controlled by "leaders" who are nothing more than terrorists. It is maddening because they have brought so much of it on themselves. Their history is one of lost opportunities.

Arafat was as much trouble to the Arab nations among which he and his PLO lived as the Israelis against whom he fought. King Hussein had to use his army to chase him out of Jordan. He brought nothing but misery to the Lebanese when he used Beruit as a base. And his tenure as leader of the Palestinian Authority has only brought a much worse form of terrorism, suicide bombings, to the West Bank and Israel.

He stole upwards of a billion dollars from his own people. The money now resides in Swiss bank accounts. If the secret codes died with him, then that is just all the more money that he squandered for the "cause".

President Clinton gave Arafat his Palestinian nation on a silver platter and he turned it down. The excuse was that he would only be granted 95 or 98% of the West Bank, and the few Israeli enclaves left constituted an intollerable insult. The real reason, perhaps, is that he was so locked into his role as rebel that he could not handle the idea of actually leading a nation.

Perhaps the best insight into his character took place some years ago when it was reported that he threatened his own security chief with a pistol at a cabinet-type meeting. This showed Arafat as he truely was; the Arab equivalent to the teenager who robbed convenience stores grown up to be mafia don. He was nothing more than a street thug who managed to ingratiate himself with world leaders.

Now we have the sickening spectacle of these so-called leaders paying tribute to the fallen terrorist. It's bad enough that the man was actually awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Scenes such as the huge funeral with thousands of weeping worshipers are unfortunately the norm for such types. So many showed up for Stalin's funeral that crowd control became impossible and, in a macabre tribute to the dictator, hundreds suffocated.

Perhaps now the new Palestinian leadership will be able to break free of the bonds of the past that held Arafat so tightly. A look at their personal histories does not give one optimism, unfortunately. But it took a protoge of Stalin, one Nikita Khrushchev, to lead that country out of the darkness of terror. While Khrushchev remained a dictator (and indeed something of a warmonger), at least the mass murders stopped. It is not wishing for much to hope that the new Palestinian leaders can do as much.

Update I

So why did so many Westerners fall for his act? Max Boot, writing in the Sunday Washington Times, says that they are

Motivated by a combination of guilt for their countries' past conduct, a taste for vicarious revolutionary adventure, and condescension toward Africans and Asians thought incapable of Western standards, European and American intellectuals were willing to excuse any crime committed in the name of "national liberation."

Makes sense to me.

Update II

Charles Krauthammer thinks that with the death of Arafat the prospects for peace are more distant than most people think.

Posted by Tom at 8:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 8, 2004

Crying over Arafat

Would you cry over the impending death of Yassir Arafat? This BBC reporter evidently did:

Barbara Plett, BBC's Middle East correspondent, reported on a BBC Radio 4 program last Saturday her impressions of the sickly Arafat's departure. "When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry," she said.

They don't call it the "Biased Broadcasting Corporation" for nothing.

Their reporting got so bad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq the the crew of a British warship, the HMS Ark Royal demanded that BBC broadcasts be turned off.

Posted by Tom at 11:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack