"Stop Apologizing to Islam" by Barbara J.�Stock
Stop Apologizing to Islam
Written by Barbara J. Stock
Sunday, May 15, 2005
We Americans need to get our priorities straight. We are at war with Islam. I want President Bush, Secretary Rice, the media, and the bleeding-heart liberals to stop apologizing to Islam and I want it to stop right now. Islamists are slaughtering people all over the world. Islam has threatened to make our streets “run red with American blood.” A Saudi Islamic cleric gave bin Laden permission to detonate a nuke in a major American city. Enough already!
What has set off the latest round of breast-beating and begging for Islamic forgiveness? Allegedly, the Quran was urinated on, or placed on a toilet or something. Newsweek couldn’t wait to report this non-story knowing it would trigger anti-American riots and give the Islamic propaganda machine fodder for weeks to come. In fact, if Islam has any pattern, people will die because of these still unproven allegations. Once again, the sins of Islamists will be on the back page as we Americans scramble to be forgiven by Islam.
Look for more kidnappings that will be followed by the obligatory beheadings of innocent people so that “Islamic honor” can be restored. As we have all learned, only the death of someone not even remotely involved in whatever it is Islamists are enraged about, restores Islam’s “honor.” These beheadings will be video taped and gleefully shown on Al Jazeera every five minutes. In fact, four Afghani men have already died because of that report. Good job, Newsweek.
What has happened to this country? Four months after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle and his raiders launched an attack on mainland Japan. That raid had one purpose and one purpose only: To humiliate the Japanese and let them clearly know they had picked a fight with the wrong dog. Did Franklin Delano Roosevelt “apologize” for the attack? Of course not! He approved the raid.
On December 7, 1941, 2,403 men died at Pearl Harbor. On September 11, 2001, 2,948 people died with 48 still missing and presumed dead for a total of 2,996 on American soil. Pearl Harbor was at least a military target. The World Trade Center was not.
Now we are at war again. This time with an enemy that has no borders, no country, no government, and no recognizable army. Islam is an enemy that does not hesitate to kill innocent civilians. In fact, Islam prefers civilians because it fears our military. It’s much cheaper and easier to kill a child than a Marine.
Islam was not outraged as Saddam Hussain slaughtered his people. Islam was not outraged as the Taliban executed women for any number of imagined sins. Islam is silent as Iran stones 13-year-old girls to death. Islam is not outraged as thousands of young women die at the hands of their own families in brutal honor killings. Islam says nothing as its terrorist heroes butcher Iraqi Muslims on a daily basis.
What does it take to make a Muslim angry? Say something bad about Islam and you can lose your head. Drop the Quran in the dirt and you will be hanged. In Sudan, a hapless man named Mohamed Taha Mohamed Ahmed, dared speculate that Mohammed was not the son of Abdullah and is now on trial for blasphemy and he will probably be hanged. Mobs of foaming-at-the-mouth Muslims gather outside the courthouse demanding he be torn to bits for even thinking such a thing.
Put women’s underwear on a Muslim prisoner’s head and Islamists lose total control and riot in the streets outraged at the barbaric treatment of their “soldiers.” Islamic terrorists do not uphold a single word of the Geneva Convention. They beat, torture, and behead our prisoners, many of whom are not even soldiers. They desecrate bodies by burning them and hanging them from bridges, but touch that Quran and Islam loses its collective mind.
We are apologizing to these people?
Perhaps Americans need some reminders of some of the crimes that Islam has committed against America. It is in the name of Islam these attacks have been carried out and I hold Islam responsible because it is Islam that has raised these terrorists to hero status.
On the orders of Yassar Arafat the American embassy was attacked in March of 1973 and two diplomats were killed and others were held hostage. Arafat demanded the freedom of fellow Muslim Sirhan Sirhan, in prison for killing Robert Kennedy.
A few months later, in Athens, three Americans were killed and 55 injured as Islamic terrorists threw grenades and machine-gunned civilians waiting for a flight to New York.
In 1983, 17 Americans died when Islamists blew up a car in front of the embassy in Lebanon. Four more Americans died when the American embassy in Kuwait was attacked that same year.
Returning to the American embassy in Lebanon in 1984, 24 more Americans died when yet another car bomb went off outside the embassy.
The year 1985 brought death to five Americans in Rome with 74 wounded in an Islamic attack at the airport. Also in 1985, Americans got their first glimpse into the soul of the enemy when Islamic terrorists took over the cruise ship Achilles Lauro and shot a crippled American Jew in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer, and then pushed him overboard.
In May, 1987, the U.S.S. Stark was attacked by an Iraqi fighter plane and 37 American sailors died.
Libya blew up a Pan Am flight over Scotland killing 189 Americans on their way home for Christmas.
Eighteen American soldiers died in Somalia in 1993 and six Americans died in the first World Trade Center bombing with over a thousand injured.
At 9:03 on the morning of April 19, 1995, a Ryder truck blew up in front of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. On that spring day 168 people died—many of them small children. This classic Islamic attack was quickly blamed on two “home-grown” terrorists. This case is in the process of being re-examined due to overwhelming evidence that al Qaeda and possibly Saddam Hussain were involved.
In 1996, 19 Americans died when Islamists blew up the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Also in 1996 there was the mysterious downing of TWA Flight 800. There were 169 Americans on board.
August 7, 1997 was the last day on earth for 23 Americans who were at the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.
The year 2000 brought the attack on the U.S.S. Cole that killed 17 American sailors.
This, of course, brings us to the attack on September 11, 2001. There have been many more attacks leading up to that horrible day and not once has Islam apologized.
I hear, “We don’t want to sink to the Islamists’ level.” I don’t want to hear that any more either. There is absolutely no comparison to be made. Islamic prisoners are fed, clothed, and allowed to practice the very religion that has sworn to kill us all. I don’t hear any Islamic outrage over the hostage beheadings or Iraqi children being targeted by Islamic butchers. I didn’t hear a peep of anger when a British imam said children were legitimate targets for Islam.
Islam seems to have no limit to the evil it will inflict on others. Because of this, Islam has lost all rights to protest an imagined injustice inflicted on it.
About the Writer: Barbara J. Stock is a registered nurse who enjoys writing about politics and current events. She has a website at http://www.republicanandproud.com/. Barbara J. receives e-mail at dickens502003@yahoo.com.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Friday, May 13, 2005
Power Line: Something I didn't know about Tom DeLay
Power Line: Something I didn't know about Tom DeLay: "Last night, I attended a banquet in honor of Tom DeLay. Mike Krempasky was there too. Mike relates what to me the most moving part of the event, a tribute to the Majority Leader by Russian Jewish immigrant Ena Feinberg:
After attempting to leave the USSR in 1979 and being denied, fired, and blacklisted - the Feinberg family by sheer chance caught the attention of Tom Delay. Tom and Christine Delay adopted the Feinbergs and fought for YEARS to secure their right to escape opression and live in freedom. Six or seven years after first trying to leave, the Feinbergs were visited by Tom and Christine Delay - traveling on tourist visas with no official capacity. Mrs. Feinberg told a powerful tale of the Delays (evangelical Christians themselves) bringing with them everything needed for a seder meal. And with the Delay's help, the Feinbergs celebrated the first seder meal ever held in their own home. Tom Delay helped them escape the Soviet Union in 1987."
After attempting to leave the USSR in 1979 and being denied, fired, and blacklisted - the Feinberg family by sheer chance caught the attention of Tom Delay. Tom and Christine Delay adopted the Feinbergs and fought for YEARS to secure their right to escape opression and live in freedom. Six or seven years after first trying to leave, the Feinbergs were visited by Tom and Christine Delay - traveling on tourist visas with no official capacity. Mrs. Feinberg told a powerful tale of the Delays (evangelical Christians themselves) bringing with them everything needed for a seder meal. And with the Delay's help, the Feinbergs celebrated the first seder meal ever held in their own home. Tom Delay helped them escape the Soviet Union in 1987."
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Weapon of Mass Distraction
Weapon of Mass Distraction: "The pigs are dying from a strain of human virus created from the Spanish flu–a virus that doesn’t exist in nature. Somebody took the virus from its natural habitat, a laboratory freezer, and inserted it into the pigs.
Accident? Bioweapon test? Terror event? We just don’t know."
Accident? Bioweapon test? Terror event? We just don’t know."
Power Line: Where's That Video Tape?
Power Line: Where's That Video Tape?Today's hottest media story relates to a CBS News report on the judicial filibuster by Gloria Borger that aired Monday night. The segment included an interview with Ken Starr, in which Starr, seemingly in reference to the Republicans' effort to end the filibuster, said: "This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government." You can watch the CBS report here. The two Starr quotes are the main feature of the segment; what is most interesting to me is Bob Schieffer's reaction: he clearly understood Starr to be talking about the Republican effort in the above quote.
Only he wasn't. Starr learned of how CBS had edited his interview, and has made public an email in which he wrote:
I sat on Saturday with Gloria Borger for 20 minutes approximately, had a wide ranging, on-camera discussion. In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather has been lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure from our history' snippet was specifically addressed to the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice and that employed viciously against your father with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process as numerous Republicans voted, rightly, to confirm a former ACLU staff worker. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer but they voted -- again rightly -- to confirm her.
As we have noted repeatedly, the mainstream media have pulled out all the stops to support the Democrats on the filibuster. This, though, would appear to be over the line. It is also being reported that Starr has asked for a copy of the video of his interview and been turned down by CBS, but I haven't yet seen that in writing anywhere. I don't know, maybe there is an innocent reason why CBS wouldn't want to give up the tape; maybe they sent it to Davos for safekeeping.
Only he wasn't. Starr learned of how CBS had edited his interview, and has made public an email in which he wrote:
I sat on Saturday with Gloria Borger for 20 minutes approximately, had a wide ranging, on-camera discussion. In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather has been lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure from our history' snippet was specifically addressed to the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice and that employed viciously against your father with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process as numerous Republicans voted, rightly, to confirm a former ACLU staff worker. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer but they voted -- again rightly -- to confirm her.
As we have noted repeatedly, the mainstream media have pulled out all the stops to support the Democrats on the filibuster. This, though, would appear to be over the line. It is also being reported that Starr has asked for a copy of the video of his interview and been turned down by CBS, but I haven't yet seen that in writing anywhere. I don't know, maybe there is an innocent reason why CBS wouldn't want to give up the tape; maybe they sent it to Davos for safekeeping.
What a story from no left turns
No Left Turns Archive: "The Marines
I took a young man to an Armed Forces recruiting station yesterday to meet with an Air Force recruiter. He had made the appointment, and just wanted to hear the recruiter talk about the Air Force and why he should consider signing up. The young man, let’s call him John, has been thinking about joining up for a while, and--for reasons I can’t quite fathom--showed interest in the Air Force. The twenty minute conversation went like this. The recruiter began by saying that there are great educational benefits (it turns out that all the branches have the same educational benefits). And finally, when pressed as to why a young man should consider the Air Force over another branch of the military, the fellow said this (my paraphrase is close to a quote): 'Being in the Air Force is least like being in the military. It feels more like a regular job, you come to work at eight, and you leave at five.' I could see that John wasn’t exactly swayed by this reasoning, so he had no more questions. We left his office, passing the Marine recruiter’s office on our way out.
We were both disappointed by the meeting. I asked John if he thought the Marine recruiter would talk the same way. He said he hoped not. I said, why don’t we find out? So we walked back inside into the Marine’s office. Clearly, we had interrupted him, but he saw us anyway. I asked him a simple question: 'Why should a young man consider joining the Marines over another branch?' This was his response (again, a close paraphrase):
'All the branches offer the same tangible benefits. But we offer the intangibles. Pride, honor, patriotism. When your signing bonus runs out after joining another branch, you still have to look yourself in the mirror every morning. I do that. And I see that I am the tip of the spear. We go in first, and we have been doing this since 1775. We are always ready. We protect our embassies abroad, and all the other hard work. We are Marines.'
The Lance Corporal kept talking, and our hearts were lifted. It was five o’clock exactly as the Air Force recruiter passed us in the hallway on his way home. Soon after that we had to put an end to the conversation--the Marine wanted to keep talking--and stepped out into the sunlight. Well, John, what do you think? That was more like it, said his faster beating heart. On our drive home, we heard a news report that over one hundred bad guys were killed in heavy fighting near the Syrian border, and three Marines met their maker. Good ratio, we said. My wet eyes made it hard to see the road ahead. "
I took a young man to an Armed Forces recruiting station yesterday to meet with an Air Force recruiter. He had made the appointment, and just wanted to hear the recruiter talk about the Air Force and why he should consider signing up. The young man, let’s call him John, has been thinking about joining up for a while, and--for reasons I can’t quite fathom--showed interest in the Air Force. The twenty minute conversation went like this. The recruiter began by saying that there are great educational benefits (it turns out that all the branches have the same educational benefits). And finally, when pressed as to why a young man should consider the Air Force over another branch of the military, the fellow said this (my paraphrase is close to a quote): 'Being in the Air Force is least like being in the military. It feels more like a regular job, you come to work at eight, and you leave at five.' I could see that John wasn’t exactly swayed by this reasoning, so he had no more questions. We left his office, passing the Marine recruiter’s office on our way out.
We were both disappointed by the meeting. I asked John if he thought the Marine recruiter would talk the same way. He said he hoped not. I said, why don’t we find out? So we walked back inside into the Marine’s office. Clearly, we had interrupted him, but he saw us anyway. I asked him a simple question: 'Why should a young man consider joining the Marines over another branch?' This was his response (again, a close paraphrase):
'All the branches offer the same tangible benefits. But we offer the intangibles. Pride, honor, patriotism. When your signing bonus runs out after joining another branch, you still have to look yourself in the mirror every morning. I do that. And I see that I am the tip of the spear. We go in first, and we have been doing this since 1775. We are always ready. We protect our embassies abroad, and all the other hard work. We are Marines.'
The Lance Corporal kept talking, and our hearts were lifted. It was five o’clock exactly as the Air Force recruiter passed us in the hallway on his way home. Soon after that we had to put an end to the conversation--the Marine wanted to keep talking--and stepped out into the sunlight. Well, John, what do you think? That was more like it, said his faster beating heart. On our drive home, we heard a news report that over one hundred bad guys were killed in heavy fighting near the Syrian border, and three Marines met their maker. Good ratio, we said. My wet eyes made it hard to see the road ahead. "
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
G W Bush Wise
Chrenkoff: "President Bush's foreign policy gets attacked from many different quarters. Realists off all political stripes argue that it is too idealist and too naive. The increasingly isolationist left deems Bush's foreign policy hypocritical (why Iraq, and not North Korea or China?) and too realist in a sense that underneath all the lofty rhetoric it is really motivated only by the base commercial and power-politics considerations like control of oil supplies.
In fact, Bush is a realistic idealist, or idealistic realist, and his foreign policy faithfully translates into cold hard realities of international politics a simple prayer attributed to the theologian Dr. Rheinhold Niebuhr. I'm sure you know it - framed, it adorns many a kitchen wall from Poland to Portland, or dangles from many key-chains around the world:
God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
This is it, in essence: there's plenty we would want to do - every autocrat in the world deserves to be deposed and his people given freedom and democracy - but for various reasons we cannot make it happen everywhere at the same time, so for the moment we'll only pick those fights we can win.
Iraq took courage. North Korea and many other places require serenity. Fortunately, W has got the wisdom. "
In fact, Bush is a realistic idealist, or idealistic realist, and his foreign policy faithfully translates into cold hard realities of international politics a simple prayer attributed to the theologian Dr. Rheinhold Niebuhr. I'm sure you know it - framed, it adorns many a kitchen wall from Poland to Portland, or dangles from many key-chains around the world:
God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
This is it, in essence: there's plenty we would want to do - every autocrat in the world deserves to be deposed and his people given freedom and democracy - but for various reasons we cannot make it happen everywhere at the same time, so for the moment we'll only pick those fights we can win.
Iraq took courage. North Korea and many other places require serenity. Fortunately, W has got the wisdom. "
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Peg and Joe's Retirement Home
Peg and Joe's Retirement Home
(click for larger view)
This came vacant on one of our old leases and I thought it would be appropriate for our retirement home. I worked several weekends (2) to completely remodel the inside. I haven't finished the paint job on the outside yet. I plan to paint it Geo. Washington green because of the amount I saved on the place. There are some places on the inside that won't pass Peggy's white glove inspection, but I think she will get accustomed to that and the 'oily' smell. What do you think?
Judicial crisis, Congressional Lying
from: Power Line: "Reporters Gone Wild
Reporters and commentators across the mainstream media are casting aside all restraint in their effort to help the Democrats preserve the filibuster, which, after being reviled by liberals for decades, has suddenly been revealed as one of the great pillars of democracy.
This morning's article by Jim VandeHei and Charles Babington in the Washington Post is one example among many. One could spend hours dissecting it, but two quick points will perhaps suffice. First, note how the Post's reporters frame the issue:
The president, who initiated the conflict by renominating judges whom Democrats had blocked during his first term and demanding new votes this year, is essentially guaranteeing a showdown that is as much about the power of the presidency as Democratic obstinacy, according to numerous government scholars.
Got that? This 'crisis' isn't the fault of the Democrats, who, for the first time in American history, are holding out for a 60-vote requirement to confirm judges. No, it's President Bush who 'initiated the conflict by renominating judges whom Democrats had blocked during his first term.' President Bush carried out his Constitutional duty to appoint judges; the Senate, however, failed to carry out its Constitutional duty to advise and consent to those nominations. Instead, the Democrats filibustered, and no action was taken on them. Why on earth would the President not renominate those judges? They haven't yet received a vote. The idea that the President 'initiated' this conflict simply by carrying out his Constitutional duty to appoint judges to the federal courts is ridiculous.
Then there is this outright falsehood, disguised as reporting:
At his news conference, Gonzales singled out for praise Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice who is a target of Democratic filibuster efforts. While serving alongside Owen in 2000, Gonzales wrote an opinion criticizing her and two other dissenting judges for 'an unconscionable act of judicial activism' in seeking to restrict a minor's right to an abortion.
This is the chief Democratic Party talking point against Justice Owen, but, as we have already shown, not a word of it is true. Gonzales did not criticize Owen. She did not 'seek to restrict a minor's right to an abortion,' but rather voted to affirm the findings of fact made by the trial court, as previously affirmed by the Texas Court of Appeals. And her opinion could not, under any conceivable legal theory, be construed as a manifestation of 'judicial activism.'
Weirdly, immediately after the above passage, the Post goes on to quote Gonzales, who said: 'I've never accused her of being an activist judge.' The reporters make no attempt to reconcile their statement with Gonzales'. However, given that they stated as a fact that Gonzales did 'wr[i]te an opinion criticizing her and two other dissenting judges for 'an unconscionable act of judicial activism,'' an uninformed reader would pretty much have to conclude that Gonzales is lying.
This kind of advocacy journalism is typical of what the MSM is turning out on the issue of judicial appointments."
Reporters and commentators across the mainstream media are casting aside all restraint in their effort to help the Democrats preserve the filibuster, which, after being reviled by liberals for decades, has suddenly been revealed as one of the great pillars of democracy.
This morning's article by Jim VandeHei and Charles Babington in the Washington Post is one example among many. One could spend hours dissecting it, but two quick points will perhaps suffice. First, note how the Post's reporters frame the issue:
The president, who initiated the conflict by renominating judges whom Democrats had blocked during his first term and demanding new votes this year, is essentially guaranteeing a showdown that is as much about the power of the presidency as Democratic obstinacy, according to numerous government scholars.
Got that? This 'crisis' isn't the fault of the Democrats, who, for the first time in American history, are holding out for a 60-vote requirement to confirm judges. No, it's President Bush who 'initiated the conflict by renominating judges whom Democrats had blocked during his first term.' President Bush carried out his Constitutional duty to appoint judges; the Senate, however, failed to carry out its Constitutional duty to advise and consent to those nominations. Instead, the Democrats filibustered, and no action was taken on them. Why on earth would the President not renominate those judges? They haven't yet received a vote. The idea that the President 'initiated' this conflict simply by carrying out his Constitutional duty to appoint judges to the federal courts is ridiculous.
Then there is this outright falsehood, disguised as reporting:
At his news conference, Gonzales singled out for praise Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice who is a target of Democratic filibuster efforts. While serving alongside Owen in 2000, Gonzales wrote an opinion criticizing her and two other dissenting judges for 'an unconscionable act of judicial activism' in seeking to restrict a minor's right to an abortion.
This is the chief Democratic Party talking point against Justice Owen, but, as we have already shown, not a word of it is true. Gonzales did not criticize Owen. She did not 'seek to restrict a minor's right to an abortion,' but rather voted to affirm the findings of fact made by the trial court, as previously affirmed by the Texas Court of Appeals. And her opinion could not, under any conceivable legal theory, be construed as a manifestation of 'judicial activism.'
Weirdly, immediately after the above passage, the Post goes on to quote Gonzales, who said: 'I've never accused her of being an activist judge.' The reporters make no attempt to reconcile their statement with Gonzales'. However, given that they stated as a fact that Gonzales did 'wr[i]te an opinion criticizing her and two other dissenting judges for 'an unconscionable act of judicial activism,'' an uninformed reader would pretty much have to conclude that Gonzales is lying.
This kind of advocacy journalism is typical of what the MSM is turning out on the issue of judicial appointments."
Monday, May 09, 2005
This is the Laffer Curve
The Laffer Curve
"The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future" by Artur LafferThe Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future
The story of how the Laffer Curve got its name begins with a 1978 article by Jude Wanniski in The Public Interest entitled, "Taxes, Revenues, and the `Laffer Curve.'"1 As recounted by Wanniski (associate editor of The Wall Street Journal at the time), in December 1974, he had dinner with me (then professor at the University of Chicago), Donald Rumsfeld (Chief of Staff to President Gerald Ford), and Dick Cheney (Rumsfeld's deputy and my former classmate at Yale) at the Two Continents Restaurant at the Washington Hotel in Washington, D.C. While discussing President Ford's "WIN" (Whip Inflation Now) proposal for tax increases, I supposedly grabbed my napkin and a pen and sketched a curve on the napkin illustrating the trade-off between tax rates and tax revenues. Wanniski named the trade-off "The Laffer Curve."
The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future
The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future: "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future" by Artur Laffer
Here is the full article of explanation of the Laffer Curve.
Here is the full article of explanation of the Laffer Curve.
U.S. Military Band Marches on Moscow
U.S. Military Band Marches on Moscow Unbelievable! Stars and Stripes forever in Moscow!
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Thursday, May 05, 2005
WorldNetDaily: David Hackworth dies of cancer, 74
WorldNetDaily: David Hackworth dies of cancer, 74: " WND David Hackworth RIP,
dies of cancer, 74
WND columnist, most decorated
Vietnam vet, advocate for soldiers"
dies of cancer, 74
WND columnist, most decorated
Vietnam vet, advocate for soldiers"
Lex Communis
Lex Communis: "The most important battle in American history.
CINCO De MAYO!!!
On May 5, 1862, at the Battle of Puebla, a rag-tag, outnumbered, ill-equipped band of Mexican irregulars defeated the cream of the French army, which under Napoleon III was considered to be the best in the world.
In 1862, things were not going well for President Lincoln. The bloodiest day of fighting at Shiloh inApril 1862, had discredited Ulysses Grant; the Pennisular Campaign was stalemated. The immediate future held Lee assuming command of the Army of Northern Virginia and Second Bull Run.
1862 could have seen French and British interest in intervention in the Civil War. The British would have benefitted from the elimination of the American blockade and the return of the cotton trade. The French.. well, the French are the French, and they would have seen the security of their Mexican holdings benefited from a weaker Northern neighbor.
In 1862, the French and the British could have intervened by recognizing the sovereignity of the Confederate States of America and by putting diplomatic pressure on the United States of America to negotiate a peace. That was certainly the strategy that the CSA was counting on. The shape of such an alternative future is at once oddly familiarand alien. Harry Turtledove - the Dean of Alternative History Science Fiction - has played with that scenario in a series of books that eventually pit a USA/German alliance against a CSA/British/French entente in a different version of World War I.
But it never happened, and the reason it didn't happen was because 4,000 Mexican irregulars defeated the cream of the best army of Europe, which dampened the interest of Europe in becoming involved in other North American interventions.
Viva Cinco de Mayo!
Peter Sean Bradley 11:36 AM"
CINCO De MAYO!!!
On May 5, 1862, at the Battle of Puebla, a rag-tag, outnumbered, ill-equipped band of Mexican irregulars defeated the cream of the French army, which under Napoleon III was considered to be the best in the world.
In 1862, things were not going well for President Lincoln. The bloodiest day of fighting at Shiloh inApril 1862, had discredited Ulysses Grant; the Pennisular Campaign was stalemated. The immediate future held Lee assuming command of the Army of Northern Virginia and Second Bull Run.
1862 could have seen French and British interest in intervention in the Civil War. The British would have benefitted from the elimination of the American blockade and the return of the cotton trade. The French.. well, the French are the French, and they would have seen the security of their Mexican holdings benefited from a weaker Northern neighbor.
In 1862, the French and the British could have intervened by recognizing the sovereignity of the Confederate States of America and by putting diplomatic pressure on the United States of America to negotiate a peace. That was certainly the strategy that the CSA was counting on. The shape of such an alternative future is at once oddly familiarand alien. Harry Turtledove - the Dean of Alternative History Science Fiction - has played with that scenario in a series of books that eventually pit a USA/German alliance against a CSA/British/French entente in a different version of World War I.
But it never happened, and the reason it didn't happen was because 4,000 Mexican irregulars defeated the cream of the best army of Europe, which dampened the interest of Europe in becoming involved in other North American interventions.
Viva Cinco de Mayo!
Peter Sean Bradley 11:36 AM"
Gut Rumbles: if you could read my mind
Gut Rumbles: if you could read my mind: "If you could read my mind
CHECK OUT THIS DREAM!
I would break this machine. Hook ME up to it and I would manage to short-circuit every program it had. I can't even read my OWN mind.
I dream vividly and tumoultously. My subconscious mind is a playful creature and it likes to be turned loose to run free at night. Last night, I dreamed that dimes were falling from the sky and I was finding them everywhere I looked. I kept picking up dimes and sticking them in my pockets until my clothes were bulging. I kept finding more dimes.
I woke up nekkid in bed and realized that I didn't have a small fortune stuffed into my pockets. I didn't even have any pockets.
Why the hell did I dream about THAT? Why dimes? Why not $20 bills? Why not $100 bills? If I'm going to dream about gathering riches for free, my subconscious mind should aim a little higher than a tall stack of dimes.
But that's the kind of stuff my brain does at night."
CHECK OUT THIS DREAM!
I would break this machine. Hook ME up to it and I would manage to short-circuit every program it had. I can't even read my OWN mind.
I dream vividly and tumoultously. My subconscious mind is a playful creature and it likes to be turned loose to run free at night. Last night, I dreamed that dimes were falling from the sky and I was finding them everywhere I looked. I kept picking up dimes and sticking them in my pockets until my clothes were bulging. I kept finding more dimes.
I woke up nekkid in bed and realized that I didn't have a small fortune stuffed into my pockets. I didn't even have any pockets.
Why the hell did I dream about THAT? Why dimes? Why not $20 bills? Why not $100 bills? If I'm going to dream about gathering riches for free, my subconscious mind should aim a little higher than a tall stack of dimes.
But that's the kind of stuff my brain does at night."
Ace of Spades HQ
Ace of Spades HQ: "Annan Oil-For-Food Docs Handed Over to Congress
... by a man who is most definitely slicin' like an f'n' hammer, FBI agent Robert Parton.
Documents involving actions taken by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in the Oil-for-Food investigation were handed over to Congress on Wednesday night, FOX News has learned.
The documents were given to federal lawmakers by Robert Parton, a former senior investigator on the Independent Inquiry Committee probing the $64 billion program.
Parton and Miranda Duncan (search), who both resigned from the panel last month in protest, have accused the IIC of downplaying Annan's role in the Oil-for-Food corruption scandal in an interim report released by the panel last March.
The documents were handed over after Parton was issued a subpoena by the House International Relations Committee on Friday night. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, earlier was preparing subpoenas to force Parton and Duncan to testify. It was expected that those subpoenas could be issued as early as Thursday.
Congress has been trying to talk to Parton ever since his resignation two weeks ago. Last week, IIC head Paul Volcker tried to block such efforts by insisting that Parton and Duncan, both Americans, had diplomatic immunity.
And to trot out the same joke again: His claim of 'diplomatic immunity' seems to be doing him as much good as it did Joss Ackland at the end of Lethal Weapon 2.
Chris Shays, who, you know, is just about the biggest pussy in the f'n' world, whines that Parton's cooperation with Congress will undermine amity between the blah blah blah blah blah.
Who gives a shit what Chris Shays thinks?
The best part:
Parton's attorney then wrote to the United Nations and to Volcker asking if they would instruct Parton to defy a Congressional subpoena.
When both the United Nations and the Volcker committee refused to answer, Parton took action and, on Wednesday night, handed over the boxes of documents to a congressional committee.
Hee, hee. 'Put it in print that you want me to defy a Congressional subpoena in order to further a cover-up of the greatest dollar-amount swindle in human history. Put that in print, sign it, and send it to me. And then I'll think about it.'
Robert Parton is on f'n' fire. Damn, I wish I had a Top Ten in me.
Thanks to Andy the Squirrel.
Obligatory Pat O'Brien Reference Update: Andy the Squirrel also offers:
'I don't normally do this. I don't know what's wrong with me. But. I. Want. to go CRAZY. With your oil. Let's do it. Let's get some barrels, let's get some money. But you gotta pay attention to Kojo. Kojo gets very jealous. If you're down with this, just wink.'"
... by a man who is most definitely slicin' like an f'n' hammer, FBI agent Robert Parton.
Documents involving actions taken by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in the Oil-for-Food investigation were handed over to Congress on Wednesday night, FOX News has learned.
The documents were given to federal lawmakers by Robert Parton, a former senior investigator on the Independent Inquiry Committee probing the $64 billion program.
Parton and Miranda Duncan (search), who both resigned from the panel last month in protest, have accused the IIC of downplaying Annan's role in the Oil-for-Food corruption scandal in an interim report released by the panel last March.
The documents were handed over after Parton was issued a subpoena by the House International Relations Committee on Friday night. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, earlier was preparing subpoenas to force Parton and Duncan to testify. It was expected that those subpoenas could be issued as early as Thursday.
Congress has been trying to talk to Parton ever since his resignation two weeks ago. Last week, IIC head Paul Volcker tried to block such efforts by insisting that Parton and Duncan, both Americans, had diplomatic immunity.
And to trot out the same joke again: His claim of 'diplomatic immunity' seems to be doing him as much good as it did Joss Ackland at the end of Lethal Weapon 2.
Chris Shays, who, you know, is just about the biggest pussy in the f'n' world, whines that Parton's cooperation with Congress will undermine amity between the blah blah blah blah blah.
Who gives a shit what Chris Shays thinks?
The best part:
Parton's attorney then wrote to the United Nations and to Volcker asking if they would instruct Parton to defy a Congressional subpoena.
When both the United Nations and the Volcker committee refused to answer, Parton took action and, on Wednesday night, handed over the boxes of documents to a congressional committee.
Hee, hee. 'Put it in print that you want me to defy a Congressional subpoena in order to further a cover-up of the greatest dollar-amount swindle in human history. Put that in print, sign it, and send it to me. And then I'll think about it.'
Robert Parton is on f'n' fire. Damn, I wish I had a Top Ten in me.
Thanks to Andy the Squirrel.
Obligatory Pat O'Brien Reference Update: Andy the Squirrel also offers:
'I don't normally do this. I don't know what's wrong with me. But. I. Want. to go CRAZY. With your oil. Let's do it. Let's get some barrels, let's get some money. But you gotta pay attention to Kojo. Kojo gets very jealous. If you're down with this, just wink.'"
Power Line: "The Felon Swing Vote"
Power Line: "The Felon Swing Vote": "May 05, 2005
'The Felon Swing Vote'
Michelle Malkin has pulled together what we now know about illegal voting by felons in Washington state, which the Democrats have now admitted. Her conclusion:
Even if only 544 felons voted in Washington State last fall and that 85 percent of them voted for Gregoire, the felons changed a 252-vote Rossi victory into a 129-vote Gregoire victory.
That understates the impact of the felon vote because it's limited to the 544 felon voters that Democrats have identified in Rossi-leaning districts. Republicans have documented hundreds more felon voters in Gregoire-leaning districts. Based on the Florida numbers, it's reasonable to assume that a majority of felons in all districts, both Rossi-leaning and Gregoire-leaning, voted for Gregoire.
Bottom line: if felons had been prohibited from voting last fall, as the law requires, Rossi almost certainly would be governor today.
Voter fraud is like illegal immigration--an issue that the vast majority of Americans feel strongly about, but which neither political party wants to push. It's easy to see why the Democrats won't touch either issue; what's not so clear is why the Republicans won't."
'The Felon Swing Vote'
Michelle Malkin has pulled together what we now know about illegal voting by felons in Washington state, which the Democrats have now admitted. Her conclusion:
Even if only 544 felons voted in Washington State last fall and that 85 percent of them voted for Gregoire, the felons changed a 252-vote Rossi victory into a 129-vote Gregoire victory.
That understates the impact of the felon vote because it's limited to the 544 felon voters that Democrats have identified in Rossi-leaning districts. Republicans have documented hundreds more felon voters in Gregoire-leaning districts. Based on the Florida numbers, it's reasonable to assume that a majority of felons in all districts, both Rossi-leaning and Gregoire-leaning, voted for Gregoire.
Bottom line: if felons had been prohibited from voting last fall, as the law requires, Rossi almost certainly would be governor today.
Voter fraud is like illegal immigration--an issue that the vast majority of Americans feel strongly about, but which neither political party wants to push. It's easy to see why the Democrats won't touch either issue; what's not so clear is why the Republicans won't."
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
BostonHerald.com - National Politics: Kerry's expenses: That's the tickets
BostonHerald.com - National Politics: Kerry's expenses: That's the tickets: "WASHINGTON - Sen. John F. Kerry tapped campaign funds for Red Sox tickets and to pay nearly $300 in overdue Boston parking tickets in March, records show.
Kerry's Senate campaign committee wrote a $287 check to the City of Boston Parking Clerk on March 31, 2005. The Bay State senator listed ``travel expense'' as the purpose for the expenditure. "
Kerry's Senate campaign committee wrote a $287 check to the City of Boston Parking Clerk on March 31, 2005. The Bay State senator listed ``travel expense'' as the purpose for the expenditure. "
Everything I Know Is Wrong: 2005 Index of Leading Environmental Indicators
Everything I Know Is Wrong: 2005 Index of Leading Environmental Indicators: Interesting quote: "compared Lomborg to Hitler, he ran afoul of what is known in the Internet blogosphere as “Godwin’s Law,” which holds that resorting to reductio ad Hitlerum is a sure sign that someone is losing an argument."
Are Higher Prices a Blessing? - Mises Institute
Are Higher Prices a Blessing? - Mises Institute: "Consider the long journey that a litre of gas makes from faraway oil fields to your local filling station. Oil deposits must first be found — often on the other side of the world or on the bottom of the ocean.
After massive infrastructure is developed, oil is extracted, transported across the globe, refined, and trucked thousands of kilometres to where you live. Let's not forget the massive military expenditures from countries like the U.S. to secure foreign oil supplies and the political and human turmoil that this creates. Considering all that, why then should gas cost about half as much as bottled water?"
After massive infrastructure is developed, oil is extracted, transported across the globe, refined, and trucked thousands of kilometres to where you live. Let's not forget the massive military expenditures from countries like the U.S. to secure foreign oil supplies and the political and human turmoil that this creates. Considering all that, why then should gas cost about half as much as bottled water?"
WorldChanging: Another World Is Here: Phraselator
WorldChanging: Another World Is Here: Phraselator: "Phraselator
The Means of Expression - Media, Creativity and Experience
ban_cartoon.gif
You've seen text-based pocket translators. You may have even seen speech-to-speech pocket translators. But what if you're somewhere the popular European / North-Asian languages aren't spoken, and saying things other than 'where's the museum'? What if, for instance, you're doing tsunami-relief in Sri Lanka? Or helping Somalian refugees?
Phraselator is what you need, then. Like other speech-to-speech translators,the user can either speak a phrase in English or select it from various conceptually-grouped lists, and the PDA-size device will then speak the equivalent phrase in the selected language. Available languages and phrases are stored on compact flash cards, which can be swapped out for different ones tailored for various situations. The device was originally developed for military field hospitals where doctors also care for wounded locals, but it has since been expanded with modules like 'basic aircrew', 'basic Somali survival', 'disaster relief', and 'basic military interview' (i.e. interrogation), 'traffic law enforcement', and many others. Better yet, they can also provide you the tools to make your own translation modules. The device is also a good deal more rugged than the sort of thing you'd take vacationing in France.
Though the Phraselators you can buy now only offer one-way translation, a two-way translator is already being prototyped and field-tested. Military.com has a good article on the device, and how it has been used by American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. It looks like the product's development is headed more towards military and law-eforcement action rather than civilian relief action, but time will tell.
Posted by Jeremy Faludi at May 3, 2005 03:04 PM | TrackBack "
The Means of Expression - Media, Creativity and Experience
ban_cartoon.gif
You've seen text-based pocket translators. You may have even seen speech-to-speech pocket translators. But what if you're somewhere the popular European / North-Asian languages aren't spoken, and saying things other than 'where's the museum'? What if, for instance, you're doing tsunami-relief in Sri Lanka? Or helping Somalian refugees?
Phraselator is what you need, then. Like other speech-to-speech translators,the user can either speak a phrase in English or select it from various conceptually-grouped lists, and the PDA-size device will then speak the equivalent phrase in the selected language. Available languages and phrases are stored on compact flash cards, which can be swapped out for different ones tailored for various situations. The device was originally developed for military field hospitals where doctors also care for wounded locals, but it has since been expanded with modules like 'basic aircrew', 'basic Somali survival', 'disaster relief', and 'basic military interview' (i.e. interrogation), 'traffic law enforcement', and many others. Better yet, they can also provide you the tools to make your own translation modules. The device is also a good deal more rugged than the sort of thing you'd take vacationing in France.
Though the Phraselators you can buy now only offer one-way translation, a two-way translator is already being prototyped and field-tested. Military.com has a good article on the device, and how it has been used by American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. It looks like the product's development is headed more towards military and law-eforcement action rather than civilian relief action, but time will tell.
Posted by Jeremy Faludi at May 3, 2005 03:04 PM | TrackBack "
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Sunday, May 01, 2005
VDH's Private Papers :: Our Not-So-Wise Experts
VDH's Private Papers :: Our Not-So-Wise Experts
Brent Scowcroft predicted on the eve of the Iraqi elections that voting there would increase the risk of civil war. Indeed, he foresaw “a great potential for deepening the conflict.” He also once assured us that Iraq “could become a Vietnam in a way that the Vietnam war never did.” Did he mean perhaps worse than ten years of war and over 50,000 American dead, with the Cambodian holocaust next door?
Zbigniew Brzezinski feared that we could not do what we are in fact presently doing in Iraq: “I do not think we can stay in Iraq in the fashion we’re in now…If it cannot be changed drastically, it should be terminated.” He added ominously that it would take 500,000 troops, $500 billion, and resumption of the military draft to achieve security in Iraq. Did he mean Iraq needed more American troops than did the defense of Europe in the Cold War?
Madeleine Albright, while abroad, summed up the present American foreign policy: “It's difficult to be in France and criticize my government. But I'm doing so because Bush and the people working for him have a foreign policy that is not good for America, not good for the world.” Elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, troops out of Saudi Arabia, democratic demonstrations in Lebanon, West Bank voting, promises of change in Egypt — all that and more is “not good for the world”?
For the last year, such well-meaning former "wise people" have pretty much assured us that the Bush doctrine will not work and that the Arab world is not ready for Western-style democracy, especially when fostered through Western blood and iron.
But too often we discuss the present risky policy without thought of what preceded it or what might have substituted for it. Have we forgotten that the messy business of democracy was the successor, not the precursor, to a litany of other failed prescriptions? Or that there were never perfect solutions for a place like the Middle East — awash as it is in oil, autocracy, fundamentalism, poverty, and tribalism — only choices between awful and even more awful? Or that September 11 was not a sudden impulse on the part of Mohammed Atta, but the logical culmination of a long simmering pathology? Or that the present loudest critics had plenty of chances to leave something better than the mess that confronted the United States on September 12? Or that at a time of war, it is not very ethical to be sorta for, sorta against, kinda supportive, kinda critical of the mission — all depending on the latest sound bite from Iraq?
Policy #1: Realism
Remember realism? Do we recall James Baker’s quip that the first Gulf War was about “jobs, jobs, jobs,” in line with his later realist fillip about the Balkan genocide: “We don’t have a dog in that fight”? Perhaps that was a sober assessment of the natural limitations on American strength; but had Bill Clinton followed the natural logic of such cynicism, Milosevic would still be in power. Imagine the reaction had the non-teflon Bush said that removing Saddam was about “jobs” or staying out of Dafur was about not having a dog in that fight.
In the Middle East, the tenets of the old realism went something like this: These people are either crazy or backward, and usually both. We are interested in them only to the extent they pump oil and deter Communists. So authoritarians get a pass if they don’t rock the boat and don’t kill too many of their own on television like Saddam or Assad did. Under no circumstances spend American blood or treasure in any pie-in-the-sky project to ameliorate the misery of the Arab people. That will both fail and only earn us disdain as being naïve as well as inept.
Where did this cynical policy lead us? The Saudi royal family — autocratic, corrupt, and unpopular — kept Russians out. Despite embargos and cartels, they mostly pumped overpriced oil. We nodded and stationed troops — and won for our efforts global Wahhabism, whose petrol-fueled mosques and madrassas were the laboratories of thousands of anti-Western terrorists.
The shah, unloved and dictatorial, likewise bought things American. So we kept our nose out of his politics: Khomeini and a quarter century of a nightmarish theocracy ensued. Pakistani dictators, we knew, might hate the Soviets as much as we did, and remind a socialist India to play it straight. Yet American de facto sanction of such strongmen inevitably led to the nuclear conspiracies of Dr. Khan, to the most anti-American and strident Islamists of the Middle East, and to unnecessary tension with the world’s largest democracy India. The formula for an Islamic “republic” is prior Western support for an anti-democratic strongman; the antidote for Islamic fascism is consistent promotion of democratic dissidents.
Policy #2: Punitivism
Then there was the cousin of realism, the much ballyhooed “punitive strike” strategy of “knocking heads when they popped up.” Remember the logic of all those forgotten hits: We bomb, send a message, and then leave — swatting the hornet’s nest and then staying clear when the stingers buzz out from the hive.
So we thwarted the Soviets in Afghanistan and departed happily — allowing in the Taliban and an al Qaeda sanctuary that gave us September 11. Get hit and run from Lebanon and Somalia. Don’t go to Baghdad after success in Kuwait, upsetting our Saudi friends and a corrupt U.N. when Saddam at least keeps a lid on even scarier things. And? After 1991, we got tens of thousands of butchered Kurds and Shiites and years of their subsequent distrust, hundreds of thousands of no-fly-zone sorties, General Zinni’s Operation Desert Fox — and Gulf War II.
Few ever considered that punitivism embodied the worst of all strategies — just enough muscle to enrage our enemies but not enough to scare them, just about right to earn their lasting scorn without ever solving the problem. Nothing is as dangerous in war as striking but not defeating an enemy, showing contempt without the real ability to humble and humiliate him.
The punitive strike was the embodiment of sober and judicious consensus, but all the same suggested to radical Islamists that the more power the United States brandished, the less likely it was to use it fully. That led to bin Laden’s disastrous calculation that George W. Bush was, like many former presidential advisers, someone who worried more about the opinions of the New York Times and the Council on Foreign Relations than about defeating the enemy.
Policy #3: Bribery
Bribery was a third option. We have given somewhere around $57 billion in aggregate aid to Egypt, apparently so that it would be nice or perhaps would keep away from Israel. Forget that the money helped to paper over structural pathologies in the Egyptian economy and empowered corrupt elites. It had even worse results, suggesting to the Cairo Street that a weak country was prevented from fulfilling its destiny of destroying Israel only by American and Zionist machinations — as if an underpowered bantamweight was kept from snatching the heavyweight title crown by devious boxing promoters.
Thus radical Egyptians never quite got it that their government settled for peace of sorts not because of American interference but because had they tried a fourth full-scale war, what was left of the Egyptian military, especially had it not been re-supplied by American arms, would have been ruined. That Mohamed Atta and Dr. Zawahiri came out of Cairo is logical rather than exceptional, as is the frequent murdering by offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood and rumors of illicit weapons programs.
Nor did we dare insist at Oslo that Palestinians should embrace the type of humane institutions found in Israel. So Yasser Arafat met Dennis Ross 500 times. Arafat was said to be the most frequent foreign visitor to the Clinton White House. American money and appeasement followed and we saw kleptocracy, one-vote-one-time, intifadas, and suicide bombings — and the hopes that Mrs. Arafat and her Paris crowd would leave some crumbs for those on the West Bank, who in turn blamed their poverty on the Jews.
Policy #4: "Let Them Be"
And don’t forget the policy of indifference and inaction that was predicated on American paternalism and condescension. It is 2005 and few of us know the names of more than a half-dozen dissidents in Egypt, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, who were seen more as potential disruptors of the status quo than as the hopes of a new American foreign policy based on reciprocal notions of justice. Only in Egypt could an autocratic government that received billions in U.S. aid damn America for trying to give a measly million or two to its democratic reformers.
So for all the mess of trying to insist on democracy in the Middle East and fostering consensual government in the place of strongmen, at least muscular idealism is an improvement on what preceded it. September 11 was the wage of decades of American appeasement and neglect — a pathological Middle East left alone to blame others for its own self-induced mess, kept "in its box" by American money, a few missiles, and soft talk — like a spoiled child allowed to act up because it was incapable of serious mature behavior and because the ensuing tantrums were not worth the messy efforts at remediation.
Policy #5: The New Americanism
We’ve seen some very strange things since this war started on September 11. But nothing is quite as odd as the past architects of failure weighing in on the dangers of “neoWilsonianism,” “neoconservative ideologues,” and veiled references to Israeli machinations, as the Bush administration finally sets right three decades these people’s flawed policies and tries to promote a new Americanism based on our own universal values and aspirations.
If the American public has to hear another sermon from a Brent Scowcroft — “Sharon just has him [President Bush] wrapped around his little finger. I think the president is mesmerized” — or Madeline Albright — “Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?” — about what we are now doing wrong in the Middle East, I think it will collectively heave.
The past ostracism of Arafat and the removal of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, followed by democratic engagement, will bring eventual stability to the Middle East and enhance the security of the United States. After the failures of all our present critics, this new policy of promoting American values is our last, best hope. And the president will be rewarded long after he leaves office by the verdict of history for nobly sticking to it when few others, friend or foe, would.
Brent Scowcroft predicted on the eve of the Iraqi elections that voting there would increase the risk of civil war. Indeed, he foresaw “a great potential for deepening the conflict.” He also once assured us that Iraq “could become a Vietnam in a way that the Vietnam war never did.” Did he mean perhaps worse than ten years of war and over 50,000 American dead, with the Cambodian holocaust next door?
Zbigniew Brzezinski feared that we could not do what we are in fact presently doing in Iraq: “I do not think we can stay in Iraq in the fashion we’re in now…If it cannot be changed drastically, it should be terminated.” He added ominously that it would take 500,000 troops, $500 billion, and resumption of the military draft to achieve security in Iraq. Did he mean Iraq needed more American troops than did the defense of Europe in the Cold War?
Madeleine Albright, while abroad, summed up the present American foreign policy: “It's difficult to be in France and criticize my government. But I'm doing so because Bush and the people working for him have a foreign policy that is not good for America, not good for the world.” Elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, troops out of Saudi Arabia, democratic demonstrations in Lebanon, West Bank voting, promises of change in Egypt — all that and more is “not good for the world”?
For the last year, such well-meaning former "wise people" have pretty much assured us that the Bush doctrine will not work and that the Arab world is not ready for Western-style democracy, especially when fostered through Western blood and iron.
But too often we discuss the present risky policy without thought of what preceded it or what might have substituted for it. Have we forgotten that the messy business of democracy was the successor, not the precursor, to a litany of other failed prescriptions? Or that there were never perfect solutions for a place like the Middle East — awash as it is in oil, autocracy, fundamentalism, poverty, and tribalism — only choices between awful and even more awful? Or that September 11 was not a sudden impulse on the part of Mohammed Atta, but the logical culmination of a long simmering pathology? Or that the present loudest critics had plenty of chances to leave something better than the mess that confronted the United States on September 12? Or that at a time of war, it is not very ethical to be sorta for, sorta against, kinda supportive, kinda critical of the mission — all depending on the latest sound bite from Iraq?
Policy #1: Realism
Remember realism? Do we recall James Baker’s quip that the first Gulf War was about “jobs, jobs, jobs,” in line with his later realist fillip about the Balkan genocide: “We don’t have a dog in that fight”? Perhaps that was a sober assessment of the natural limitations on American strength; but had Bill Clinton followed the natural logic of such cynicism, Milosevic would still be in power. Imagine the reaction had the non-teflon Bush said that removing Saddam was about “jobs” or staying out of Dafur was about not having a dog in that fight.
In the Middle East, the tenets of the old realism went something like this: These people are either crazy or backward, and usually both. We are interested in them only to the extent they pump oil and deter Communists. So authoritarians get a pass if they don’t rock the boat and don’t kill too many of their own on television like Saddam or Assad did. Under no circumstances spend American blood or treasure in any pie-in-the-sky project to ameliorate the misery of the Arab people. That will both fail and only earn us disdain as being naïve as well as inept.
Where did this cynical policy lead us? The Saudi royal family — autocratic, corrupt, and unpopular — kept Russians out. Despite embargos and cartels, they mostly pumped overpriced oil. We nodded and stationed troops — and won for our efforts global Wahhabism, whose petrol-fueled mosques and madrassas were the laboratories of thousands of anti-Western terrorists.
The shah, unloved and dictatorial, likewise bought things American. So we kept our nose out of his politics: Khomeini and a quarter century of a nightmarish theocracy ensued. Pakistani dictators, we knew, might hate the Soviets as much as we did, and remind a socialist India to play it straight. Yet American de facto sanction of such strongmen inevitably led to the nuclear conspiracies of Dr. Khan, to the most anti-American and strident Islamists of the Middle East, and to unnecessary tension with the world’s largest democracy India. The formula for an Islamic “republic” is prior Western support for an anti-democratic strongman; the antidote for Islamic fascism is consistent promotion of democratic dissidents.
Policy #2: Punitivism
Then there was the cousin of realism, the much ballyhooed “punitive strike” strategy of “knocking heads when they popped up.” Remember the logic of all those forgotten hits: We bomb, send a message, and then leave — swatting the hornet’s nest and then staying clear when the stingers buzz out from the hive.
So we thwarted the Soviets in Afghanistan and departed happily — allowing in the Taliban and an al Qaeda sanctuary that gave us September 11. Get hit and run from Lebanon and Somalia. Don’t go to Baghdad after success in Kuwait, upsetting our Saudi friends and a corrupt U.N. when Saddam at least keeps a lid on even scarier things. And? After 1991, we got tens of thousands of butchered Kurds and Shiites and years of their subsequent distrust, hundreds of thousands of no-fly-zone sorties, General Zinni’s Operation Desert Fox — and Gulf War II.
Few ever considered that punitivism embodied the worst of all strategies — just enough muscle to enrage our enemies but not enough to scare them, just about right to earn their lasting scorn without ever solving the problem. Nothing is as dangerous in war as striking but not defeating an enemy, showing contempt without the real ability to humble and humiliate him.
The punitive strike was the embodiment of sober and judicious consensus, but all the same suggested to radical Islamists that the more power the United States brandished, the less likely it was to use it fully. That led to bin Laden’s disastrous calculation that George W. Bush was, like many former presidential advisers, someone who worried more about the opinions of the New York Times and the Council on Foreign Relations than about defeating the enemy.
Policy #3: Bribery
Bribery was a third option. We have given somewhere around $57 billion in aggregate aid to Egypt, apparently so that it would be nice or perhaps would keep away from Israel. Forget that the money helped to paper over structural pathologies in the Egyptian economy and empowered corrupt elites. It had even worse results, suggesting to the Cairo Street that a weak country was prevented from fulfilling its destiny of destroying Israel only by American and Zionist machinations — as if an underpowered bantamweight was kept from snatching the heavyweight title crown by devious boxing promoters.
Thus radical Egyptians never quite got it that their government settled for peace of sorts not because of American interference but because had they tried a fourth full-scale war, what was left of the Egyptian military, especially had it not been re-supplied by American arms, would have been ruined. That Mohamed Atta and Dr. Zawahiri came out of Cairo is logical rather than exceptional, as is the frequent murdering by offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood and rumors of illicit weapons programs.
Nor did we dare insist at Oslo that Palestinians should embrace the type of humane institutions found in Israel. So Yasser Arafat met Dennis Ross 500 times. Arafat was said to be the most frequent foreign visitor to the Clinton White House. American money and appeasement followed and we saw kleptocracy, one-vote-one-time, intifadas, and suicide bombings — and the hopes that Mrs. Arafat and her Paris crowd would leave some crumbs for those on the West Bank, who in turn blamed their poverty on the Jews.
Policy #4: "Let Them Be"
And don’t forget the policy of indifference and inaction that was predicated on American paternalism and condescension. It is 2005 and few of us know the names of more than a half-dozen dissidents in Egypt, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, who were seen more as potential disruptors of the status quo than as the hopes of a new American foreign policy based on reciprocal notions of justice. Only in Egypt could an autocratic government that received billions in U.S. aid damn America for trying to give a measly million or two to its democratic reformers.
So for all the mess of trying to insist on democracy in the Middle East and fostering consensual government in the place of strongmen, at least muscular idealism is an improvement on what preceded it. September 11 was the wage of decades of American appeasement and neglect — a pathological Middle East left alone to blame others for its own self-induced mess, kept "in its box" by American money, a few missiles, and soft talk — like a spoiled child allowed to act up because it was incapable of serious mature behavior and because the ensuing tantrums were not worth the messy efforts at remediation.
Policy #5: The New Americanism
We’ve seen some very strange things since this war started on September 11. But nothing is quite as odd as the past architects of failure weighing in on the dangers of “neoWilsonianism,” “neoconservative ideologues,” and veiled references to Israeli machinations, as the Bush administration finally sets right three decades these people’s flawed policies and tries to promote a new Americanism based on our own universal values and aspirations.
If the American public has to hear another sermon from a Brent Scowcroft — “Sharon just has him [President Bush] wrapped around his little finger. I think the president is mesmerized” — or Madeline Albright — “Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?” — about what we are now doing wrong in the Middle East, I think it will collectively heave.
The past ostracism of Arafat and the removal of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, followed by democratic engagement, will bring eventual stability to the Middle East and enhance the security of the United States. After the failures of all our present critics, this new policy of promoting American values is our last, best hope. And the president will be rewarded long after he leaves office by the verdict of history for nobly sticking to it when few others, friend or foe, would.
Reality of sex offenders
Doug Giles: Jesus, Justice and Jack A**es: "Here’s what we are up against in the formerly good ole US of A. Think about this before you talk about showing “love and mercy” to molesters and start doling out religious quips and clich�s to those of us who are trying to put an end to these predators prowling our parks. Here’s some reality, Saccharine Saint—if you can handle it.
REALITY: There are more than 2 million convicted sex offenders currently living among us, not in prison.
REALITY: Over a 25-year period, more than half of all child molesters will be rearrested for a new sex offense charge.
REALITY: We release more than 200,000 criminals from prison each year, and they go on to commit an extraordinary number of new crimes. For example, during just the first three years following release, these criminals commit more than 3,000 new homicides, more than 3,000 new rapes and more than 3,000 new sex assaults against children. In other words, just like the terrorists of “9/11” who killed 3,000 Americans, we release criminals every year who we know will commit more “9/11’s”.
REALITY: More than 2/3 of all criminals released from prison will be rearrested within three years.
REALITY: The average time served for rape is just six years.
REALITY: The average time served for molesting a child is just three years.
REALITY: Most studies of repeat offenders are designed to hide the true extent of this scandal. Typically, they follow released criminals for just two or three years. But one 25-year study showed that 3/4 of all subsequent convictions occurred more than three years after the criminal’s release from prison. In other words, a study that tracks offenders for just three years misses 75% of the future crimes they will commit on innocent people.
REALITY: Even if your state has long prison sentences, don’t think that makes you safe. One in eight released felons commits their next offense in a different state from the one where they served their time.
REALITY: Ever heard of the car and the bus? Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each year maintaining address lists of released sex offenders, without any acknowledgement by law enforcement or public officials that nothing prevents a released child molester or rapist from getting in a car or a bus, going to another neighborhood and committing a new crime there. Every day in America, sex offenders fully compliant with Megan’s Law commit new rapes and child molestations.
REALITY: A released felon is 53 times more likely than the average man on the street to commit a subsequent homicide.
REALITY: While advocates of releasing predators cite the cost of incarceration ($17,000-$25,000 per year) as too great for government to pay to keep criminals behind bars, NO STUDY has ever tried to calculate the cost to society of the millions of women who have been raped, the millions of children who have been molested, the loss to a family when a loved one is murdered or the cost when someone is mugged or robbed or carjacked.
*These disturbing statistics came from U.S. Department of Justice were compiled by Mike Paranzino and his stellar organization, www.ThrowAwayTheKey.org .
My ClashPoint is this: I understand the need for humans to seem humane and for Christians to seem supernatural in their ability to be “merciful and loving” to the best of the worst, but I submit that being supernatural in their ability to be merciful & loving is more important than seeming so . . . and it should start with showing love & mercy to our children and neighbors first—by protecting them from these savages. Sometimes the most loving and merciful act to be shown a criminal is to prevent him from doing more harm. And someone had better begin doling out death sentences for child molesters, or our neighborhoods are quickly going to turn into one big Neverland Ranch.
* logon to www.ClashRadio.com to hear Giles’ interview with Gil Reavill author of the book, Smut: A Sex Industry Insider (and Concerned Father) Says Enough is Enough.
Doug Giles' provocative weekly one-hour radio program, 'The Clash', has re-launched with several new features. Go to clashradio.com and hit 'listen live.'"
REALITY: There are more than 2 million convicted sex offenders currently living among us, not in prison.
REALITY: Over a 25-year period, more than half of all child molesters will be rearrested for a new sex offense charge.
REALITY: We release more than 200,000 criminals from prison each year, and they go on to commit an extraordinary number of new crimes. For example, during just the first three years following release, these criminals commit more than 3,000 new homicides, more than 3,000 new rapes and more than 3,000 new sex assaults against children. In other words, just like the terrorists of “9/11” who killed 3,000 Americans, we release criminals every year who we know will commit more “9/11’s”.
REALITY: More than 2/3 of all criminals released from prison will be rearrested within three years.
REALITY: The average time served for rape is just six years.
REALITY: The average time served for molesting a child is just three years.
REALITY: Most studies of repeat offenders are designed to hide the true extent of this scandal. Typically, they follow released criminals for just two or three years. But one 25-year study showed that 3/4 of all subsequent convictions occurred more than three years after the criminal’s release from prison. In other words, a study that tracks offenders for just three years misses 75% of the future crimes they will commit on innocent people.
REALITY: Even if your state has long prison sentences, don’t think that makes you safe. One in eight released felons commits their next offense in a different state from the one where they served their time.
REALITY: Ever heard of the car and the bus? Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each year maintaining address lists of released sex offenders, without any acknowledgement by law enforcement or public officials that nothing prevents a released child molester or rapist from getting in a car or a bus, going to another neighborhood and committing a new crime there. Every day in America, sex offenders fully compliant with Megan’s Law commit new rapes and child molestations.
REALITY: A released felon is 53 times more likely than the average man on the street to commit a subsequent homicide.
REALITY: While advocates of releasing predators cite the cost of incarceration ($17,000-$25,000 per year) as too great for government to pay to keep criminals behind bars, NO STUDY has ever tried to calculate the cost to society of the millions of women who have been raped, the millions of children who have been molested, the loss to a family when a loved one is murdered or the cost when someone is mugged or robbed or carjacked.
*These disturbing statistics came from U.S. Department of Justice were compiled by Mike Paranzino and his stellar organization, www.ThrowAwayTheKey.org .
My ClashPoint is this: I understand the need for humans to seem humane and for Christians to seem supernatural in their ability to be “merciful and loving” to the best of the worst, but I submit that being supernatural in their ability to be merciful & loving is more important than seeming so . . . and it should start with showing love & mercy to our children and neighbors first—by protecting them from these savages. Sometimes the most loving and merciful act to be shown a criminal is to prevent him from doing more harm. And someone had better begin doling out death sentences for child molesters, or our neighborhoods are quickly going to turn into one big Neverland Ranch.
* logon to www.ClashRadio.com to hear Giles’ interview with Gil Reavill author of the book, Smut: A Sex Industry Insider (and Concerned Father) Says Enough is Enough.
Doug Giles' provocative weekly one-hour radio program, 'The Clash', has re-launched with several new features. Go to clashradio.com and hit 'listen live.'"
Value of a Mother
Townhall.com 's The ConservativeLog: "Is That All There Is?
The article by Ilya Shapiro over at Tech Central Station touched my heart:
Generation X has arrived, made its presence felt, looked around, and is wondering, 'Is that all there is?'
It is a conversation I keep having, or talking around, with my friends and peers -- the type of folks who 20 years ago would have been called yuppies (which label I at least am happy to wear now, if in a descriptive rather than ascriptive way). They -- we -- have everything we could ever want in this stage of life, but still we search for meaning....
Of course, this overwrought tale of late-20s/early-30s overachievers' angst relates most to Purple or Blue Americans living in major cities who are at or near what we classify as the 'elite' of their professions. These are the people living supposedly perfect lives (or lives on course for perfection) yet feel empty, not being able to find meaning or fulfillment in either materialism or new age spiritualism, Porsches or pilates.
'Dispatches from Purple America' is the name of Ilya's regular column. I had Blue State credentials (Ph.D. in economics, taught at Yale), but I was always too much of a Red State Girl (grew up in Ohio and loved it) to really enjoy them. So, even though I'm an old Baby Boomer (born in 1953, very up-hip for a Generation X-er), I can say with some certainty, there is more to life than the high acheivement and Blue State lifestyle.
I really found myself, believe it or not, in motherhood. In 1991, we adopted a two-year old Romanian orphan boy, and gave birth to a little girl within six months. It became apparent to me that my little boy had to have me, in particular. Not a generic mom, not high quality, low-cost day-care, but me, to be his mom. I went overnight from worrying about the world economy, to worrying about what came out of a little kid's behind. All of a sudden, I was uniquely important in a way I had never been before. My life had meaning to them, the other members of my family.
And you know what? My mind did not turn to mush. I did not lose all my friends, social status and self-esteem. I made a decision to place my intellect and education at the service of the family, and the wider community, rather than at the service of my vitae and my ego. I've never looked back.
Having a blast, Ilya. Check it out.
[12:58 PM 25-Apr-05 | Jennifer Roback Morse |"
The article by Ilya Shapiro over at Tech Central Station touched my heart:
Generation X has arrived, made its presence felt, looked around, and is wondering, 'Is that all there is?'
It is a conversation I keep having, or talking around, with my friends and peers -- the type of folks who 20 years ago would have been called yuppies (which label I at least am happy to wear now, if in a descriptive rather than ascriptive way). They -- we -- have everything we could ever want in this stage of life, but still we search for meaning....
Of course, this overwrought tale of late-20s/early-30s overachievers' angst relates most to Purple or Blue Americans living in major cities who are at or near what we classify as the 'elite' of their professions. These are the people living supposedly perfect lives (or lives on course for perfection) yet feel empty, not being able to find meaning or fulfillment in either materialism or new age spiritualism, Porsches or pilates.
'Dispatches from Purple America' is the name of Ilya's regular column. I had Blue State credentials (Ph.D. in economics, taught at Yale), but I was always too much of a Red State Girl (grew up in Ohio and loved it) to really enjoy them. So, even though I'm an old Baby Boomer (born in 1953, very up-hip for a Generation X-er), I can say with some certainty, there is more to life than the high acheivement and Blue State lifestyle.
I really found myself, believe it or not, in motherhood. In 1991, we adopted a two-year old Romanian orphan boy, and gave birth to a little girl within six months. It became apparent to me that my little boy had to have me, in particular. Not a generic mom, not high quality, low-cost day-care, but me, to be his mom. I went overnight from worrying about the world economy, to worrying about what came out of a little kid's behind. All of a sudden, I was uniquely important in a way I had never been before. My life had meaning to them, the other members of my family.
And you know what? My mind did not turn to mush. I did not lose all my friends, social status and self-esteem. I made a decision to place my intellect and education at the service of the family, and the wider community, rather than at the service of my vitae and my ego. I've never looked back.
Having a blast, Ilya. Check it out.
[12:58 PM 25-Apr-05 | Jennifer Roback Morse |"
Friday, April 29, 2005
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid
The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid: "The new op-ed columnist at the New York Times, John Tierney, finally engages the Social Security debate -- and it's a whopper. After an endless parade of lies from Paul Krugman about how bad reform with personal accounts has been in Chile (for example, this), Tierney actually got on a plane and checked it out himself (Krugman, of course, never leaves his office in Princeton; he gets all the facts he needs from radical leftist websites). Here's what Tierney discovered, upon conferring with a Chilean pal Pablo:
After comparing our relative payments to our pension systems (since salaries are higher in America, I had contributed more), we extrapolated what would have happened if I'd put my money into Pablo's mutual fund instead of the Social Security trust fund. We came up with three projections for my old age, each one offering a pension that, like Social Security's, would be indexed to compensate for inflation:
(1) Retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age.
(2) Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would be almost triple the $25,000 pension promised by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66.
(3)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and a one-time cash payment of $223,000.
You may suspect that Pablo has prospered only because he's a sophisticated investor, but he simply put his money into one of the most popular mutual funds.
Welcome to the fight, John!"
After comparing our relative payments to our pension systems (since salaries are higher in America, I had contributed more), we extrapolated what would have happened if I'd put my money into Pablo's mutual fund instead of the Social Security trust fund. We came up with three projections for my old age, each one offering a pension that, like Social Security's, would be indexed to compensate for inflation:
(1) Retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age.
(2) Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would be almost triple the $25,000 pension promised by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66.
(3)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and a one-time cash payment of $223,000.
You may suspect that Pablo has prospered only because he's a sophisticated investor, but he simply put his money into one of the most popular mutual funds.
Welcome to the fight, John!"
Monday, April 25, 2005
Power Line: Name That Speaker
Power Line: Name That Speaker: "Senator John Cornyn's web site has a new feature called 'Name That Speaker.' The game is to identify the source of the following quote, delivered on the Senate floor:
I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down.
Go to Senator Cornyn's site for the answer." HERE
I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down.
Go to Senator Cornyn's site for the answer." HERE
Blog d'Elisson: IF I COULD BE...
Blog d'Elisson: IF I COULD BE...: "...the creator of a successful meme, I’d sit back and watch it rip its way around the Bloggy-Sphere.
But I’m not. The one meme I tried to start, the Punchbowl Meme, never got any legs. Possibly that's because (1) it was disgusting, and (2) I relied on people who read Bd’E to pass it on spontaneously. What a dolt.
I’m lucky if I get comments equal to 5% of my visitors on a given day. To grab a meme? Too much work. So you need a meme that you can tag people with. Then, a good one will grow like a chain letter.
Well, I got tagged with this one by TeaFizz - so here goes.
First, here’s how it works. You need to pass this on to three bloggers. Tag! [Select three who have not already answered this thing, as otherwise you are merely trying to Piss People Off.]
Now, below you will find a list of 18 occupations. Select at least five of them (more is OK) and feel free to add to the list after you have made your selection from the list that was sent to you.
For each one you select, simply finish each sentence with what you would do as a member of that profession. Be serious, be funny, do whatever the hell you like: just complete the sentences, OK?
Here's the list I got from TeaFizz, with one more tacked on by me:
If I could be a scientist...
If I could be a farmer...
If I could be a musician...
If I could be a doctor...
If I could be a painter...
If I could be a gardener...
If I could be a missionary...
If I could be a chef...
If I could be an architect...
If I could be a linguist...
If I could be a psychologist...
If I could be a librarian...
If I could be an athlete...
If I could be a lawyer...
If I could be an innkeeper...
If I could be a professor...
If I could be a writer...
If I could be a backup dancer...
If I could be a llama-rider...
If I could be a bonnie pirate...
If I could be a midget stripper...
If I could be a proctologist...
If I could be a TV-Chat Show host...
If I could be a knish-stuffer...
Now, for my answers:
If I could be a writer, I could spend time writing an online journal for no compensation other than the occasional linky ego-boost or comment. On second thought, no.
If I could be a missionary, I could, at least, have job security. A missionary is always assured of having a position.
If I could be a lawyer, I could sue myself and get rich.
If I could be a painter, I could spend my time deciding whether to paint pictures or houses.
If I could be a proctologist, I could study under the G.I. Bill. And I’d study the Big Question facing members of my profession: Is it true that a proctoscope is a silver tube with an asshole at both ends?
If I could be a chef, I could start the Extremely Slow Food movement, for those people who want their food prepared lovingly and carefully from the finest ingredients and who are willing to pay through the eyeballs for the privilege. But every so often, I would have to have a greasy Lump-o’-Crapburger from one of the Fast Food Emporia: Know thy enemy.
And a parting shot: If I could be independently wealthy, I could sit on my ass and blog all day. But I’m not, so I can’t. Shit."
But I’m not. The one meme I tried to start, the Punchbowl Meme, never got any legs. Possibly that's because (1) it was disgusting, and (2) I relied on people who read Bd’E to pass it on spontaneously. What a dolt.
I’m lucky if I get comments equal to 5% of my visitors on a given day. To grab a meme? Too much work. So you need a meme that you can tag people with. Then, a good one will grow like a chain letter.
Well, I got tagged with this one by TeaFizz - so here goes.
First, here’s how it works. You need to pass this on to three bloggers. Tag! [Select three who have not already answered this thing, as otherwise you are merely trying to Piss People Off.]
Now, below you will find a list of 18 occupations. Select at least five of them (more is OK) and feel free to add to the list after you have made your selection from the list that was sent to you.
For each one you select, simply finish each sentence with what you would do as a member of that profession. Be serious, be funny, do whatever the hell you like: just complete the sentences, OK?
Here's the list I got from TeaFizz, with one more tacked on by me:
If I could be a scientist...
If I could be a farmer...
If I could be a musician...
If I could be a doctor...
If I could be a painter...
If I could be a gardener...
If I could be a missionary...
If I could be a chef...
If I could be an architect...
If I could be a linguist...
If I could be a psychologist...
If I could be a librarian...
If I could be an athlete...
If I could be a lawyer...
If I could be an innkeeper...
If I could be a professor...
If I could be a writer...
If I could be a backup dancer...
If I could be a llama-rider...
If I could be a bonnie pirate...
If I could be a midget stripper...
If I could be a proctologist...
If I could be a TV-Chat Show host...
If I could be a knish-stuffer...
Now, for my answers:
If I could be a writer, I could spend time writing an online journal for no compensation other than the occasional linky ego-boost or comment. On second thought, no.
If I could be a missionary, I could, at least, have job security. A missionary is always assured of having a position.
If I could be a lawyer, I could sue myself and get rich.
If I could be a painter, I could spend my time deciding whether to paint pictures or houses.
If I could be a proctologist, I could study under the G.I. Bill. And I’d study the Big Question facing members of my profession: Is it true that a proctoscope is a silver tube with an asshole at both ends?
If I could be a chef, I could start the Extremely Slow Food movement, for those people who want their food prepared lovingly and carefully from the finest ingredients and who are willing to pay through the eyeballs for the privilege. But every so often, I would have to have a greasy Lump-o’-Crapburger from one of the Fast Food Emporia: Know thy enemy.
And a parting shot: If I could be independently wealthy, I could sit on my ass and blog all day. But I’m not, so I can’t. Shit."
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Chrenkoff Post Excellent
Chrenkoff: "Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is beating his head against the wall, or to be more precise, against the media:
'The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is encouraging newspaper editors to tell America the full story of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
' 'It�s particularly important today... because the American people need to know the full story,' Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers said in addressing the American Society of Newspaper Editors, 'because it is going to be their resolve that is so critical to our ability to confront the extremist threat'.'
Which is precisely why many in the media insist on focusing on the bad news. Not all, by any means - many reporters and editors do their best to provide fair and balanced reporting; others are simply naturally biased in favor of the 'exciting' bad news at the expense of the 'boring' good news, whether they're writing from Boston or Baghdad - but a significant minority, which is personally opposed to Republican foreign policy, has been doing its best to repeat the brilliant performance of their Vietnam-era predecessors.
Wellington famously remarked that the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton; today, America's wars are being lost in the cafeteria of the Columbia School of Journalism.
'Myers told the editors he reads far more about the problems of servicemembers� equipment and the latest insurgent attack than about 'the thousands of amazing things our troops are accomplishing'...
'The chairman said that part of the problem lies with the military. He said commanders must be more responsive and give more access to reporters. 'We�re working on that,' he told the editors.
'But still, 'a bomb blast is seen as more newsworthy than the steady progress of rebuilding communities and lives, remodeling schools and running vaccination programs and water purification plants'.'
See any edition of my 'Good news from Iraq'.
'Myers challenged the newspaper editors to ensure the American people understand the hundreds of ways their sons and daughters are improving lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
' 'In your profession and mine, (we are) working hard to defend our values, our way of life and our Constitution,' Myers said. 'We risk our comfort, our safety and our lives for what we believe in.' The chairman noted that more than 40 journalists have been killed while covering operations in Iraq. The 'Fourth Estate' always has covered conflicts, Myers noted, but what is different today is the amount of news and that it travels so much faster than in the past.
' 'What questions are the news reports trying to answer?' the chairman asked. 'The theme of the coverage lately seems to be 'When are the troops coming home?' rather than 'What are we accomplishing?'''
That's a rather charitable interpretation and a brave attempt by the General to find some common ground. In fact, 'our values', 'our way of life' and 'our Constitution' quite often tend to mean totally different things to military people and journalists.
'He said the military will work with the press. 'Our task is to give you better access, more timely information and we will do that,' he said. 'In return I would ask you to keep at the task of trying to show as complete a picture as you can. I know our troops deserve that, and I think the American people deserve it as well'.'
As we all know, just because you deserve something, it doesn't mean you're going to get it. Thank God for blogs."
'The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is encouraging newspaper editors to tell America the full story of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
' 'It�s particularly important today... because the American people need to know the full story,' Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers said in addressing the American Society of Newspaper Editors, 'because it is going to be their resolve that is so critical to our ability to confront the extremist threat'.'
Which is precisely why many in the media insist on focusing on the bad news. Not all, by any means - many reporters and editors do their best to provide fair and balanced reporting; others are simply naturally biased in favor of the 'exciting' bad news at the expense of the 'boring' good news, whether they're writing from Boston or Baghdad - but a significant minority, which is personally opposed to Republican foreign policy, has been doing its best to repeat the brilliant performance of their Vietnam-era predecessors.
Wellington famously remarked that the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton; today, America's wars are being lost in the cafeteria of the Columbia School of Journalism.
'Myers told the editors he reads far more about the problems of servicemembers� equipment and the latest insurgent attack than about 'the thousands of amazing things our troops are accomplishing'...
'The chairman said that part of the problem lies with the military. He said commanders must be more responsive and give more access to reporters. 'We�re working on that,' he told the editors.
'But still, 'a bomb blast is seen as more newsworthy than the steady progress of rebuilding communities and lives, remodeling schools and running vaccination programs and water purification plants'.'
See any edition of my 'Good news from Iraq'.
'Myers challenged the newspaper editors to ensure the American people understand the hundreds of ways their sons and daughters are improving lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
' 'In your profession and mine, (we are) working hard to defend our values, our way of life and our Constitution,' Myers said. 'We risk our comfort, our safety and our lives for what we believe in.' The chairman noted that more than 40 journalists have been killed while covering operations in Iraq. The 'Fourth Estate' always has covered conflicts, Myers noted, but what is different today is the amount of news and that it travels so much faster than in the past.
' 'What questions are the news reports trying to answer?' the chairman asked. 'The theme of the coverage lately seems to be 'When are the troops coming home?' rather than 'What are we accomplishing?'''
That's a rather charitable interpretation and a brave attempt by the General to find some common ground. In fact, 'our values', 'our way of life' and 'our Constitution' quite often tend to mean totally different things to military people and journalists.
'He said the military will work with the press. 'Our task is to give you better access, more timely information and we will do that,' he said. 'In return I would ask you to keep at the task of trying to show as complete a picture as you can. I know our troops deserve that, and I think the American people deserve it as well'.'
As we all know, just because you deserve something, it doesn't mean you're going to get it. Thank God for blogs."
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Praactice Ammo
Bad Example: "CHEAPEST PRACTICE AMMO EVER FOR THE CHEAPEST PRACTICE EVER
(A Guest Post by blogless Peter, for Carnival of Cordite)
Let's face it, few of us can really afford to shoot enough to really get absolutely confident in our skill. It's not just the ammunition costs, either. Range time is expensive and with gas costs it's even expensive driving to the range. Then when we get there, we find there are all kinds of restrictions on how we can shoot. Some ranges don't allow rapid fire, most will go into hysterics if we try to work on a draw, and Lord help you if you need to practice engaging a threat from behind.
There is an answer, actually more than one. Primer powered wax, rubber and plastic bullets. Someone who is already a handloader is at least partially set up to use these handy little wonders. Someone who isn't will need some tools and some supplies. Some you have around the house already - a small hammer, a drill - some you'll have to buy, and there are other things that can speed the process up.
The first thing we need is modified cartridge cases. Unless you are already set up to handload, start with new, unprimed cases. Otherwise it's hard to find something that is thin enough to go through the factory flash hole yet strong enough to knock the spent primer out. Most outfits sell cartridge cases by the hundred. A little later on I'll tell you where to buy them and the priming tool you'll need.
The first thing we must do is drill the primer flash hole a little larger with a three-sixteenth inch drill bit. You'll need to hold the cartridge case with a pair of pliers and work the drill with the other hand...it's really a job for two people unless you have three hands. Hold the case as close to the rim as possible with those pliers, the metal is thicker down there and you won't be as likely to smoosh it and make it so it won't chamber. Whatever you do, do NOT omit this step. For technical reasons, a primer - fired with no powder behind a normal-weight bullet - will back out of the case and tie up a revolver. In an autoloader it might come completely out and get stuck in the works. Just trust me on this. I have the technical information and I'm not afraid to use it, it would only take about two pages to explain it." ETC ETC
(A Guest Post by blogless Peter, for Carnival of Cordite)
Let's face it, few of us can really afford to shoot enough to really get absolutely confident in our skill. It's not just the ammunition costs, either. Range time is expensive and with gas costs it's even expensive driving to the range. Then when we get there, we find there are all kinds of restrictions on how we can shoot. Some ranges don't allow rapid fire, most will go into hysterics if we try to work on a draw, and Lord help you if you need to practice engaging a threat from behind.
There is an answer, actually more than one. Primer powered wax, rubber and plastic bullets. Someone who is already a handloader is at least partially set up to use these handy little wonders. Someone who isn't will need some tools and some supplies. Some you have around the house already - a small hammer, a drill - some you'll have to buy, and there are other things that can speed the process up.
The first thing we need is modified cartridge cases. Unless you are already set up to handload, start with new, unprimed cases. Otherwise it's hard to find something that is thin enough to go through the factory flash hole yet strong enough to knock the spent primer out. Most outfits sell cartridge cases by the hundred. A little later on I'll tell you where to buy them and the priming tool you'll need.
The first thing we must do is drill the primer flash hole a little larger with a three-sixteenth inch drill bit. You'll need to hold the cartridge case with a pair of pliers and work the drill with the other hand...it's really a job for two people unless you have three hands. Hold the case as close to the rim as possible with those pliers, the metal is thicker down there and you won't be as likely to smoosh it and make it so it won't chamber. Whatever you do, do NOT omit this step. For technical reasons, a primer - fired with no powder behind a normal-weight bullet - will back out of the case and tie up a revolver. In an autoloader it might come completely out and get stuck in the works. Just trust me on this. I have the technical information and I'm not afraid to use it, it would only take about two pages to explain it." ETC ETC
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Power Line: Oil-For-Food Investigators Resign
Power Line: Oil-For-Food Investigators Resign: "Oil-For-Food Investigators Resign
Roger Simon had this story first: two top investigators for Paul Volcker's U.N.-sponsored inquiry into the U.N.'s Oil-For-Food program have resigned because they thought the initial Volcker report was too easy on Kofi Annan. 'You follow a trail and you want to see people pick it up,' a spokesman for Volcker's team said. The committee 'told the story' that the investigators presented, he added, 'but we made different conclusions than they would have.' One of those who resigned was the Volcker committee's senior investigative counsel, Robert Parton."
Roger Simon had this story first: two top investigators for Paul Volcker's U.N.-sponsored inquiry into the U.N.'s Oil-For-Food program have resigned because they thought the initial Volcker report was too easy on Kofi Annan. 'You follow a trail and you want to see people pick it up,' a spokesman for Volcker's team said. The committee 'told the story' that the investigators presented, he added, 'but we made different conclusions than they would have.' One of those who resigned was the Volcker committee's senior investigative counsel, Robert Parton."
Monday, April 18, 2005
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Past Prognostications
Our Not-So-Wise Experts
A litany of past failure
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
Brent Scowcroft predicted on the eve of the Iraqi elections that voting there would increase the risk of civil war. Indeed, he foresaw “a great potential for deepening the conflict.” He also once assured us that Iraq “could become a Vietnam in a way that the Vietnam war never did.” Did he mean perhaps worse than ten years of war and over 50,000 American dead, with the Cambodian holocaust next door? etc
A litany of past failure
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
Brent Scowcroft predicted on the eve of the Iraqi elections that voting there would increase the risk of civil war. Indeed, he foresaw “a great potential for deepening the conflict.” He also once assured us that Iraq “could become a Vietnam in a way that the Vietnam war never did.” Did he mean perhaps worse than ten years of war and over 50,000 American dead, with the Cambodian holocaust next door? etc
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Monday, April 04, 2005
A Western Heart
A Western Heart: "Look at Freedom House's latest report on free nations:
The report, 'The Worst of the Worst: The World's Most Repressive Societies 2005,' includes detailed summations of the dire human rights situations in Belarus, Burma (Myanmar), China, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Laos, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe. Chechnya, Tibet, and Western Sahara are included as territories under Russian, Chinese, and Moroccan jurisdictions respectively.
The report is available online.
Significantly, six of the eighteen most repressive governments--those of China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe--are members of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), representing nearly 11 percent of the 53-member body."
The report, 'The Worst of the Worst: The World's Most Repressive Societies 2005,' includes detailed summations of the dire human rights situations in Belarus, Burma (Myanmar), China, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Laos, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe. Chechnya, Tibet, and Western Sahara are included as territories under Russian, Chinese, and Moroccan jurisdictions respectively.
The report is available online.
Significantly, six of the eighteen most repressive governments--those of China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe--are members of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), representing nearly 11 percent of the 53-member body."
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Power Line: April 2005 Archives Berger Folly1
Power Line: April 2005 Archives: "Casual readers of the news will have no idea what to make of Sandy Berger's guilty plea. This AP story says:
Former national security adviser Sandy Berger, who once had unfettered access to the government's most sensitive secrets, pleaded guilty Friday to sneaking classified documents out of the National Archives, then using scissors to cut up some of them.
Rather than the 'honest mistake' he described last summer, Berger acknowledged to U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson that he intentionally took and deliberately destroyed three copies of the same document dealing with terror threats during the 2000 millennium celebration. He then lied about it to Archives staff when they told him documents were missing.
Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's public integrity section, tried to be reassuring:
Berger only had copies of documents; all of the originals remain in the government's possession, Hillman said.
The AP describes the Berger incident as 'bizarre,' and, to an ordinary reader, it must seem bizarre indeed. Why would anyone steal and destroy 'three copies of the same document,' and then lie about it?
The answer, obviously, is that all of the 'copies' were different, in that they contained different handwritten notes by various Clinton administration officials, apparently including Berger. This Washington Post story is slightly more informative:
Berger's associates said yesterday he believes that closure is near on what has been an embarrassing episode during which he repeatedly misled people about what happened during two visits to the National Archives in September and October 2003.
Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.
The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an 'after-action review' prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.
Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost. It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact. Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch.
So Berger removed five copies of the Clarke report, carefully destroyed three of them 'late one evening,' and returned the other two to the Archives. Obviously he reviewed the notes on the five documents and destroyed the three that contained information damaging to the reputation of the Clinton administration. I do not find reassuring the Post's suggestion that these were 'copies only' and that it 'remains unclear whether Berger knew that.' Obviously all five copies of the Clarke report were 'copies.' But they contained unique notes, and Berger certainly thought that they were the only 'copies' of those notes in existence, or it would make no sense to destroy them. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that he was wrong.
One aspect of Berger's sentence that seems almost humorous is the fact that his security clearance is suspended for three years. He wasn't going to need it during President Bush's second term, in any event, and he'll have it back in time for the new Democratic administration that, he hopes, will begin in 2009. What a penalty for attempting, apparently successfully, to destroy a portion of the historical record relating to the government's anti-terror activities in the months leading up to September 11."
Former national security adviser Sandy Berger, who once had unfettered access to the government's most sensitive secrets, pleaded guilty Friday to sneaking classified documents out of the National Archives, then using scissors to cut up some of them.
Rather than the 'honest mistake' he described last summer, Berger acknowledged to U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson that he intentionally took and deliberately destroyed three copies of the same document dealing with terror threats during the 2000 millennium celebration. He then lied about it to Archives staff when they told him documents were missing.
Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's public integrity section, tried to be reassuring:
Berger only had copies of documents; all of the originals remain in the government's possession, Hillman said.
The AP describes the Berger incident as 'bizarre,' and, to an ordinary reader, it must seem bizarre indeed. Why would anyone steal and destroy 'three copies of the same document,' and then lie about it?
The answer, obviously, is that all of the 'copies' were different, in that they contained different handwritten notes by various Clinton administration officials, apparently including Berger. This Washington Post story is slightly more informative:
Berger's associates said yesterday he believes that closure is near on what has been an embarrassing episode during which he repeatedly misled people about what happened during two visits to the National Archives in September and October 2003.
Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.
The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an 'after-action review' prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.
Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost. It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact. Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch.
So Berger removed five copies of the Clarke report, carefully destroyed three of them 'late one evening,' and returned the other two to the Archives. Obviously he reviewed the notes on the five documents and destroyed the three that contained information damaging to the reputation of the Clinton administration. I do not find reassuring the Post's suggestion that these were 'copies only' and that it 'remains unclear whether Berger knew that.' Obviously all five copies of the Clarke report were 'copies.' But they contained unique notes, and Berger certainly thought that they were the only 'copies' of those notes in existence, or it would make no sense to destroy them. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that he was wrong.
One aspect of Berger's sentence that seems almost humorous is the fact that his security clearance is suspended for three years. He wasn't going to need it during President Bush's second term, in any event, and he'll have it back in time for the new Democratic administration that, he hopes, will begin in 2009. What a penalty for attempting, apparently successfully, to destroy a portion of the historical record relating to the government's anti-terror activities in the months leading up to September 11."
Power Line: April 2005 Archives Robert Borg Racist
Power Line: April 2005 Archives: "The New York Times features a predictably fawning profile of former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle and current West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd: 'A master of Senate's ways is still parrying in his twilight.' By contrast with its coverage of the Pope's death, the Times had no problem finding quotes from supporters of Senator Byrd before press time.
Robert Byrd is indeed a valuable link not only to the Senate's past, but also to the Democratic Party's history as the party of slavery, segregation, and opposition to equal treatment of blacks. Times reporter Sheryl Stolberg obviously loves Byrd's cornpone constitutional shitck in favor of filibustering a Republican president's judicial appointees. It's a shame that Stolberg exerted no effort to put Byrd's shtick in the context it merits.
Byrd is old enough, for example, to have vowed memorably regarding the integration of the Armed Forces by President Truman that he would never fight 'with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.'
Even after his resignation from the Klan, Byrd continued to hold it in high esteem, writing to the Klan's Imperial Wizard in 1946: 'The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.'
And Byrd is old enough to have participated in filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as to have voted against it after cloture along with 18 other Democrats -- in the name of the Constitution, of course. Funny Stolberg didn't invite Byrd to take a walk down memory lane on that subject. It would have been highly illuminating. (Thanks to Deroy Murdock's excellent NRO column: 'Dems need a houseclean.')
More recently, Byrd put his eloquent voice to use in an interview with Tony Snow on Fox News Sunday. Here Byrd harked back to the days of old, but with a twist, observing that 'there are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time.' Walter Williams mordantly wondered 'whether he was talking about whites who act like blacks.'
In the Times article Byrd cites the late Georgia Senator Richard Russell as his mentor and quotes the advice Russell gave him regarding the ways of the Senate. Russell was a wise man in many ways, but he was also one of the signers of the infamous 1956 Southern Manifesto opposing Brown v. Board of Education -- in the name of the Constitution, of course.
Also signing the Southern Manifesto was the late Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina. Like Byrd, Ervin was resurrected as a heroic cornpone constitutionalist in the eyes of the elite media. In the eyes of the media, Ervin was born again during his chairmanship of the Senate Watergate Committee in 1973. As with Senator Byrd today, all was forgiven.
byrd.jpg
The Times profile of Byrd is accompanied by the photo above by Doug Mills with the caption: 'Senator Robert C. Byrd, after speaking at a MoveOn.org rally last month in Washington, defending the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees.' Only a fellow as supremely lacking in self-awareness as Senator Byrd can miss the inadvertent allusion to the black power salute of the late 1960's in Byrd's gesture, or to the 'right on' salute of the radical left of the same period, or other more remote historical precedents that Senator Byrd himself loves to invoke against his Republican opponents."
Robert Byrd is indeed a valuable link not only to the Senate's past, but also to the Democratic Party's history as the party of slavery, segregation, and opposition to equal treatment of blacks. Times reporter Sheryl Stolberg obviously loves Byrd's cornpone constitutional shitck in favor of filibustering a Republican president's judicial appointees. It's a shame that Stolberg exerted no effort to put Byrd's shtick in the context it merits.
Byrd is old enough, for example, to have vowed memorably regarding the integration of the Armed Forces by President Truman that he would never fight 'with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.'
Even after his resignation from the Klan, Byrd continued to hold it in high esteem, writing to the Klan's Imperial Wizard in 1946: 'The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.'
And Byrd is old enough to have participated in filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as to have voted against it after cloture along with 18 other Democrats -- in the name of the Constitution, of course. Funny Stolberg didn't invite Byrd to take a walk down memory lane on that subject. It would have been highly illuminating. (Thanks to Deroy Murdock's excellent NRO column: 'Dems need a houseclean.')
More recently, Byrd put his eloquent voice to use in an interview with Tony Snow on Fox News Sunday. Here Byrd harked back to the days of old, but with a twist, observing that 'there are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time.' Walter Williams mordantly wondered 'whether he was talking about whites who act like blacks.'
In the Times article Byrd cites the late Georgia Senator Richard Russell as his mentor and quotes the advice Russell gave him regarding the ways of the Senate. Russell was a wise man in many ways, but he was also one of the signers of the infamous 1956 Southern Manifesto opposing Brown v. Board of Education -- in the name of the Constitution, of course.
Also signing the Southern Manifesto was the late Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina. Like Byrd, Ervin was resurrected as a heroic cornpone constitutionalist in the eyes of the elite media. In the eyes of the media, Ervin was born again during his chairmanship of the Senate Watergate Committee in 1973. As with Senator Byrd today, all was forgiven.
byrd.jpg
The Times profile of Byrd is accompanied by the photo above by Doug Mills with the caption: 'Senator Robert C. Byrd, after speaking at a MoveOn.org rally last month in Washington, defending the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees.' Only a fellow as supremely lacking in self-awareness as Senator Byrd can miss the inadvertent allusion to the black power salute of the late 1960's in Byrd's gesture, or to the 'right on' salute of the radical left of the same period, or other more remote historical precedents that Senator Byrd himself loves to invoke against his Republican opponents."
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
What an Easter, What Great Chaplans!
The Chaplains
Oliver North (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/printon20050326.shtml)
March 26, 2005
"Blessed Be the Lord ... Who Trains My Arms for Battle" -- Psalm 144:1
"The safest place for me to be is in the center of God's will, and if that is in the line of fire, that is where I will be." -- Father Tim Vakoc, Army chaplain
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- War can bring out the worst in man. The crucible of combat tests one's faith in self, in fellow man -- even faith in God.
It is particularly so in this war on terror -- where at any moment a brutal, suicidal and fanatical enemy can blow himself to pieces just to kill an American. Yet on Easter Sunday in Iraq and Afghanistan, where our troops brave these dangers daily, tens of thousands of young Americans will attend Resurrection services, where they will pray for their enemies. Those who lead those Easter rituals, the holiest in Christendom, are garbed in the same sun-bleached camouflage as the troops kneeling before them. We call them chaplains. They are part of what make us "different" from our enemy -- and they are a remarkable lot.
My wife and I were married before a Navy Chaplain assigned to the Marine Base at Quantico. When I was wounded in Vietnam, it was Cmdr. Jake Laboon, our regimental chaplain, who called out "take this one next," as the triage corpsmen ran in to get another litter patient for emergency surgery.
Chaplains Bob Beddingfield and Don Dulligan spent months in the field with my Marines -- braving enemy fire to minister to them. As our children were born, other chaplains baptized them in chapels around the country. To say that these "men of the cloth" were an important part of my life in the service would be an understatement. And so it is today for the young Americans I see on my trips to Southwest Asia.
The chaplains in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and offshore in the Persian Gulf -- are cut from the same bolt of "cloth" as those I recall from my days in uniform. They minister to a "flock" -- one of the youngest in the world -- full of Americans only a few months out of high school, all of whom are scared, whether they show it or not.
By the time these "parishioners" return to the United States, they will have confronted more suffering and death -- and had more responsibility -- than their civilian contemporaries will experience the rest of their lives. Yet, if the statistics are right, the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have a lower incidence of "Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome" than any troops in history. Thanks for that should go, in part, to the chaplains.
Two years ago this week, I was covering the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force for Fox News as they battled their way north toward Baghdad. In the aftermath of furious gunfights, I saw chaplains tending the wounded, comforting friends of the fallen and encouraging the weary. On numerous occasions, I've heard chaplains like Carey Cash, Frank Holley and Brian Weigelt remind young warriors that -- despite the horror of combat, the incredible fatigue and the terrifying sights, sounds and smells of war -- the God who made them did not intend that they descend into savagery.
After the capture of Baghdad and Saddam's hometown of Tikrit, the true nature of our opponent became evident. Iraq was flooded with foreign "jihadists" like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who encouraged brutal, inhuman atrocities in an effort to break the spirit of the Iraqi people -- and the Americans who had come to offer them the hope of freedom. The "slaughter houses" in Fallujah -- where American, Iraqi and other hostages were beheaded by masked terrorists posing for cameras -- exemplify the stark difference between "us" and "them."
After a Marine-Army assault liberated the city from the terrorists who had ruled it for months, Chaplain Bill Divine told a group of Marines at a memorial service for their fallen comrades, "There is nothing more Christian than what we are doing here."
Liberal critics of military chaplains take statements like that out of a spiritual context and try to give it a secular intent. But Devine wasn't making a political statement -- nor one intended to enflame the passions of Islamic radicals who hate Christians and Jews. Rather, his words refer to the mission of ridding the country of those who would prevent the Iraqi people from ever enjoying their God-given freedom. Who better to give that message than a chaplain -- and who better to receive it than those who had just paid a terrible price vanquishing real evil?
Thankfully, the detractors have not yet had their day. We've had military chaplains since the Continental Congress created them on July 29, 1775, at the request of George Washington. "By God's grace" -- words Washington used more than once -- we have had great chaplains ministering to our warriors -- and setting an example -- in every war and conflict since. Often, their example reminds us of what Easter is all about.
On Feb. 1, 1943, the U.S. Army Transport Dorchester was torpedoed by a German U-boat off Greenland. Four chaplains -- one Jewish, two Protestant and one Roman Catholic -- distributed life jackets to those unable to make it into lifeboats. When the jackets ran out, they gave their own to the next four soldiers in line. The four chaplains were among the 672 who perished in the icy waters. Their sacrifice allowed others to live and still inspires others to better lives.
Today, Father Tim Vakoc, quoted above, slips in and out of a coma. Last May, while ministering to U.S. soldiers near Mosul, he suffered a terrible head injury when his Humvee hit an Improvised Explosive Device. Vakoc was the first chaplain wounded in Iraq. He, too, was living the meaning Easter.
Oliver North (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/printon20050326.shtml)
March 26, 2005
"Blessed Be the Lord ... Who Trains My Arms for Battle" -- Psalm 144:1
"The safest place for me to be is in the center of God's will, and if that is in the line of fire, that is where I will be." -- Father Tim Vakoc, Army chaplain
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- War can bring out the worst in man. The crucible of combat tests one's faith in self, in fellow man -- even faith in God.
It is particularly so in this war on terror -- where at any moment a brutal, suicidal and fanatical enemy can blow himself to pieces just to kill an American. Yet on Easter Sunday in Iraq and Afghanistan, where our troops brave these dangers daily, tens of thousands of young Americans will attend Resurrection services, where they will pray for their enemies. Those who lead those Easter rituals, the holiest in Christendom, are garbed in the same sun-bleached camouflage as the troops kneeling before them. We call them chaplains. They are part of what make us "different" from our enemy -- and they are a remarkable lot.
My wife and I were married before a Navy Chaplain assigned to the Marine Base at Quantico. When I was wounded in Vietnam, it was Cmdr. Jake Laboon, our regimental chaplain, who called out "take this one next," as the triage corpsmen ran in to get another litter patient for emergency surgery.
Chaplains Bob Beddingfield and Don Dulligan spent months in the field with my Marines -- braving enemy fire to minister to them. As our children were born, other chaplains baptized them in chapels around the country. To say that these "men of the cloth" were an important part of my life in the service would be an understatement. And so it is today for the young Americans I see on my trips to Southwest Asia.
The chaplains in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and offshore in the Persian Gulf -- are cut from the same bolt of "cloth" as those I recall from my days in uniform. They minister to a "flock" -- one of the youngest in the world -- full of Americans only a few months out of high school, all of whom are scared, whether they show it or not.
By the time these "parishioners" return to the United States, they will have confronted more suffering and death -- and had more responsibility -- than their civilian contemporaries will experience the rest of their lives. Yet, if the statistics are right, the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have a lower incidence of "Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome" than any troops in history. Thanks for that should go, in part, to the chaplains.
Two years ago this week, I was covering the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force for Fox News as they battled their way north toward Baghdad. In the aftermath of furious gunfights, I saw chaplains tending the wounded, comforting friends of the fallen and encouraging the weary. On numerous occasions, I've heard chaplains like Carey Cash, Frank Holley and Brian Weigelt remind young warriors that -- despite the horror of combat, the incredible fatigue and the terrifying sights, sounds and smells of war -- the God who made them did not intend that they descend into savagery.
After the capture of Baghdad and Saddam's hometown of Tikrit, the true nature of our opponent became evident. Iraq was flooded with foreign "jihadists" like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who encouraged brutal, inhuman atrocities in an effort to break the spirit of the Iraqi people -- and the Americans who had come to offer them the hope of freedom. The "slaughter houses" in Fallujah -- where American, Iraqi and other hostages were beheaded by masked terrorists posing for cameras -- exemplify the stark difference between "us" and "them."
After a Marine-Army assault liberated the city from the terrorists who had ruled it for months, Chaplain Bill Divine told a group of Marines at a memorial service for their fallen comrades, "There is nothing more Christian than what we are doing here."
Liberal critics of military chaplains take statements like that out of a spiritual context and try to give it a secular intent. But Devine wasn't making a political statement -- nor one intended to enflame the passions of Islamic radicals who hate Christians and Jews. Rather, his words refer to the mission of ridding the country of those who would prevent the Iraqi people from ever enjoying their God-given freedom. Who better to give that message than a chaplain -- and who better to receive it than those who had just paid a terrible price vanquishing real evil?
Thankfully, the detractors have not yet had their day. We've had military chaplains since the Continental Congress created them on July 29, 1775, at the request of George Washington. "By God's grace" -- words Washington used more than once -- we have had great chaplains ministering to our warriors -- and setting an example -- in every war and conflict since. Often, their example reminds us of what Easter is all about.
On Feb. 1, 1943, the U.S. Army Transport Dorchester was torpedoed by a German U-boat off Greenland. Four chaplains -- one Jewish, two Protestant and one Roman Catholic -- distributed life jackets to those unable to make it into lifeboats. When the jackets ran out, they gave their own to the next four soldiers in line. The four chaplains were among the 672 who perished in the icy waters. Their sacrifice allowed others to live and still inspires others to better lives.
Today, Father Tim Vakoc, quoted above, slips in and out of a coma. Last May, while ministering to U.S. soldiers near Mosul, he suffered a terrible head injury when his Humvee hit an Improvised Explosive Device. Vakoc was the first chaplain wounded in Iraq. He, too, was living the meaning Easter.
What are Evolutionists hiding?
Christianity Today, April 2005
Verdict that Demands Evidence
It is Darwinists, not Christians, who are stonewalling the facts.
Charles Colson with Anne Morse | posted 03/28/2005 10:00 a.m.
It was one of the first—and angriest—post-election hissy fits: In The New York Times, Garry Wills credited White House political adviser Karl Rove for getting millions of religious conservatives (whom he compared to Muslim jihadists) to the polls and sneered, "Can a nation which believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an enlightened nation?"
It's an interesting question, considering the iron grip evolutionists have had over our educational institutions for a century. And at first glance, it seems odd that Americans—among the best-educated, most technologically advanced people in the world—would choose miraculous stories over scientific ones.
But is there really so little evidence for biblical miracles, and so much for naturalistic evolution?
As historian Paul Johnson notes, Christianity is a historical religion that deals in facts and events. Among those facts is that Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a virgin, in a specific time and place. Johnson cites the mounting archaeological discoveries that have almost universally supported the biblical accounts. And the life of Jesus, he notes, is better authenticated than most other figures of antiquity, like Aristotle and Julius Caesar. As Johnson puts it, "It is not now the men of faith; it is the skeptics who have reason to fear the course of discovery."
All well and good, but Darwinism, at least, has been empirically proven, right?
Wrong. Sure, there's evidence that evolution takes place within a species—but the fossil record has not yielded evidence of one species becoming another, as Darwin confidently predicted. This lack of evidence has not gone unnoticed by sociologist Rodney Stark. Stark calls himself neither an evolutionist nor an advocate of Intelligent Design; instead, he says, he is merely a scholar pursuing the evidence where it leads. In For the Glory of God (Princeton University Press, 2003), Stark offers startling evidence that Darwinists have covered up mounting flaws in their theory. He concludes that the battle over evolution is hardly a case of "heroic" scientists fighting off the persecution of religious fanatics. Instead, from the start, evolution "has primarily been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science in an effort to refute all religious claims concerning a creator—an effort that has also often attempted to suppress all scientific criticisms of Darwin's work."
Committed Darwinists continue this strategy today. For example, nine years ago biochemist Michael Behe published Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, 1996). Behe argued that complex structures like proteins cannot be assembled piecemeal, with gradual improvement of function. Instead, like a mousetrap, all the parts—catch, spring, hammer, and so forth—must be assembled simultaneously, or the protein doesn't work.
Behe's thesis faced a challenge from the nation's leading expert on cell structure, Dr. Russell Doolittle at the University of California-San Diego. Doolittle cited a study on bloodletting in the journal Cell that supposedly disproved Behe's argument. Behe immediately read the article—and found that the study proved just the opposite: It supported his theory. Behe confronted Doolittle, who privately acknowledged that he was wrong—but declined to make a public retraction.
So who's really rolling back the Enlightenment? Those who invite us to follow the evidence wherever it leads—or those demanding that we ignore it? The folks who want both evolution and Intelligent Design taught in school, with all their strengths and weaknesses—or those who attempt to silence any opposition?
The evidence for Intelligent Design has become so persuasive that the 81-year old British philosopher Anthony Flew, a lifelong atheist who once debated C. S. Lewis over the existence of God, recently admitted that a creator-God must exist.
In the final analysis, any objective observer must conclude that belief in either the biblical or the naturalistic worldview demands faith. The issue is not science versus faith, but science (evolution) versus science (Intelligent Design), and of faith versus faith regarding how the universe and life came to be.
So to return to Garry Wills's question—are we so unenlightened to reject Darwin in favor of Christian doctrine?
I practiced law for many years, dreaming every lawyer's dream to take a great case into the Supreme Court. This is the case I'd most like to argue: pitting the common consensus against the Darwinist establishment.
Copyright © 2005 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
April 2005, Vol. 49, No. 4, Page 112
Verdict that Demands Evidence
It is Darwinists, not Christians, who are stonewalling the facts.
Charles Colson with Anne Morse | posted 03/28/2005 10:00 a.m.
It was one of the first—and angriest—post-election hissy fits: In The New York Times, Garry Wills credited White House political adviser Karl Rove for getting millions of religious conservatives (whom he compared to Muslim jihadists) to the polls and sneered, "Can a nation which believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an enlightened nation?"
It's an interesting question, considering the iron grip evolutionists have had over our educational institutions for a century. And at first glance, it seems odd that Americans—among the best-educated, most technologically advanced people in the world—would choose miraculous stories over scientific ones.
But is there really so little evidence for biblical miracles, and so much for naturalistic evolution?
As historian Paul Johnson notes, Christianity is a historical religion that deals in facts and events. Among those facts is that Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a virgin, in a specific time and place. Johnson cites the mounting archaeological discoveries that have almost universally supported the biblical accounts. And the life of Jesus, he notes, is better authenticated than most other figures of antiquity, like Aristotle and Julius Caesar. As Johnson puts it, "It is not now the men of faith; it is the skeptics who have reason to fear the course of discovery."
All well and good, but Darwinism, at least, has been empirically proven, right?
Wrong. Sure, there's evidence that evolution takes place within a species—but the fossil record has not yielded evidence of one species becoming another, as Darwin confidently predicted. This lack of evidence has not gone unnoticed by sociologist Rodney Stark. Stark calls himself neither an evolutionist nor an advocate of Intelligent Design; instead, he says, he is merely a scholar pursuing the evidence where it leads. In For the Glory of God (Princeton University Press, 2003), Stark offers startling evidence that Darwinists have covered up mounting flaws in their theory. He concludes that the battle over evolution is hardly a case of "heroic" scientists fighting off the persecution of religious fanatics. Instead, from the start, evolution "has primarily been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science in an effort to refute all religious claims concerning a creator—an effort that has also often attempted to suppress all scientific criticisms of Darwin's work."
Committed Darwinists continue this strategy today. For example, nine years ago biochemist Michael Behe published Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, 1996). Behe argued that complex structures like proteins cannot be assembled piecemeal, with gradual improvement of function. Instead, like a mousetrap, all the parts—catch, spring, hammer, and so forth—must be assembled simultaneously, or the protein doesn't work.
Behe's thesis faced a challenge from the nation's leading expert on cell structure, Dr. Russell Doolittle at the University of California-San Diego. Doolittle cited a study on bloodletting in the journal Cell that supposedly disproved Behe's argument. Behe immediately read the article—and found that the study proved just the opposite: It supported his theory. Behe confronted Doolittle, who privately acknowledged that he was wrong—but declined to make a public retraction.
So who's really rolling back the Enlightenment? Those who invite us to follow the evidence wherever it leads—or those demanding that we ignore it? The folks who want both evolution and Intelligent Design taught in school, with all their strengths and weaknesses—or those who attempt to silence any opposition?
The evidence for Intelligent Design has become so persuasive that the 81-year old British philosopher Anthony Flew, a lifelong atheist who once debated C. S. Lewis over the existence of God, recently admitted that a creator-God must exist.
In the final analysis, any objective observer must conclude that belief in either the biblical or the naturalistic worldview demands faith. The issue is not science versus faith, but science (evolution) versus science (Intelligent Design), and of faith versus faith regarding how the universe and life came to be.
So to return to Garry Wills's question—are we so unenlightened to reject Darwin in favor of Christian doctrine?
I practiced law for many years, dreaming every lawyer's dream to take a great case into the Supreme Court. This is the case I'd most like to argue: pitting the common consensus against the Darwinist establishment.
Copyright © 2005 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
April 2005, Vol. 49, No. 4, Page 112
Rick Santorum CHRISTIAN!
Sen. Rick Santorum: I Draw No Line Between My Faith and My Decisions
The Pennsylvania Republican speaks on legislating morality, why he was right about anti-sodomy laws, and his 2006 opponent-apparent, Bob Casey Jr.
Interview by Stan Guthrie | posted 03/28/2005 10:00 a.m.
Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania's junior U.S. senator, was first elected to the Senate in 1994. It has been widely reported that the Catholic Republican and outspoken pro-life advocate will face challenge from another pro-life Catholic, Democrat Bob Casey Jr.
Senior associate news editor Stan Guthrie spoke with Santorum.
President Kennedy tried to draw a bright line between his Catholic faith and his decisions as a public official. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, another Catholic, said much the same thing recently during an interview with George Stephanopoulos. What role does your faith play for you as a senator?
I draw no line, much less a bright one. I think your faith molds and influences tremendously your worldview—just like, by the way, a whole lot of other things that are in your life. But to me, faith is source of morality; it's a source of virtue; it's a source of reason. It's a tremendous influence on my worldview. And while obviously there are other things that influence my decision-making and how I look at the world, it's certainly an important part of it.
The idea that we cast aside our faith and don't replace it with something else to influence your worldview is ridiculous. If you don't have faith, you replace it, I assume, with some secular concepts, or with some other belief system, which goes unidentified. I think that really is—I won't say dishonest, but I think it certainly lacks intellectual honesty to say that by removing your faith as a component of how you conduct yourself that you somehow can do so neutrally. You don't. You just do so with another worldview or another set of values that come from another source.
How do you respond to those who might accuse you of attempting to legislate your morality on others?
I would say that everyone does. The idea that when you make decisions that have moral implications, you're not legislating morality! When you're going to allocate funds for contraceptive services, are you legislating morality? Of course you are. Now the question is, what moral code are you applying, or what values or virtues are you applying to the situation? What worldview do you see?
It's important to understand proper civil discourse, where people are invited to bring all their ideas, irrespective of their origin, to the public square to be debated and hashed out and for compromises and agreements to be made and the majority to proceed forward. That's how democracy and civil affairs are to work.
The idea that only ideas without religious overtones, or religious perceptions, are allowed in the public square—the founders would not only turn in their graves, they'd be spinning.
As the No. 3 Republican in the Senate right now, the Democrats seem to have you in their sights, even to the point of tapping Bob Casey Jr., who's another pro-lifer, to run against you. As someone with a strong pro-life voting record, how do you view his candidacy?
You know, every candidate you run against has strengths and weaknesses. I don't know if he will ultimately be the person who runs against me, but if he is, I'm sure he'll have some positive attributes and negative ones from the standpoint of the voters of Pennsylvania, just as I will. It's a matter, from my perspective, of looking at, more importantly, what I've done [as senator] over the last 10 years—at that point, 12 years—to serve the people of Pennsylvania, and what my plans are in continuing to serve them over the next 6. That really is the more relevant issue. People end up voting in these kinds of elections, high-profile elections like Senate races, based on: 1) does the incumbent deserve to be re-elected, and then 2) if that's not the case, is there a reasonable alternative? My first obligation is just to let the public know what I've been doing and how effective I've been for the commonwealth, and what my plans are for the future.
Do you think Mr. Casey's candidacy would take abortion off the table in your campaign?
I don't think you can run a campaign without having those issues addressed. Our positions may be similar, [but] my understanding is he's never really taken much of a position on the issue beyond a questionnaire or two. But when you're running for a state auditor and state treasurer, those are not necessarily positions where this becomes an important issue.
There may be nuance differences between the two of us; I don't know. But in either case, I think I have a record. He does not. Certainly [my] record has been one of leadership and a variety of different important issues that have actually been issues that have brought people together on the issue of abortion. That's an important thing. I'm known as a pro-life leader on issues where we've gotten people from the other side of this issue to join us.
What are a couple of for instances?
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act are just three that I can think of off the top of my head. We've gotten strong bipartisan support on all of those.
You've heard the recent comments of Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton about the need for Democrats to reach out to pro-life voters. What areas of compromise, if any, do you see with Democrats on life issues?
One of the bills that I'm circulating now and trying to get some sponsorship for is the Women and Children's Resources Act, which is to give funding for alternatives to abortion. In other words, [it would] provide money for centers that would help mothers through unplanned pregnancies to carry the child to term—everything from maternity clothes, diapers, and food to prenatal and postpartum health care. Those are the kinds of things that if you're not pro-abortion, and you have concerns about abortion and its impact on women and you want to provide a real choice to someone who discovers she has an unplanned pregnancy and feels in a panic because she can't possibly figure out how to raise and nurture that child through pregnancy because she may not have health care, and how she's going to be able to afford the cost of delivering the baby, or what she's going to do after the baby is born.
In many cases, poor women are not left with a lot of choices—[and not just] poor women, but a lot of middle to lower middle income people who may not qualify for Medicaid, but this could be a tremendous financial burden for them that they weren't anticipating. What we need to do is offer compassionate alternatives. Again, if you're really about giving women choices, this is something you should be supporting.
What do you think of the approach used by some Catholic bishops during the presidential campaign saying that Catholics really shouldn't be voting for John Kerry because of his position on abortion?
There were some that were very clear about what the moral imperatives are from the standpoint of applying our faith to the political arena. I think the church has always said that faith is not an abstract; it's to be lived out. I think all Christians would agree … that this is not simply a theoretical concept, but one that affects every aspect of your life. They're just following through in describing what they believe the consequences of the faith would dictate. And candidly, I think that's certainly a proper role for the church to take.
In 2003, you spoke out against the Supreme Court's Lawrence decision [overturning state anti-sodomy laws].
Yes, I did. And I also turned out to be right.
Do you feel vindicated?
Well, I was right. The bottom line in what I said was, this is going to lead to a whole lot of consequences. I had to assume the justices understood what they were doing. And of course, the decision was cited in the Goodrich decision in Massachusetts [in which the state Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on homosexual marriage]. I knew that's what courts would say. So this is, again, the problem with courts usurping democratic powers, powers that were clearly given to the legislatures and to the Congress. This judicial activism is a very, very scary thing for the future of this country.
What hope do you see for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which failed to pass in Congress last year?
My guess is, at this point, that it's certainly going to be introduced and we're going to try and get as many sponsors as we can. I don't know whether we're going to have the votes to be able to pass it or not. But one of the things I found out a long time ago is, just because you don't have the votes to win, doesn't mean that you don't accomplish a lot by having the debate. I would use the example of partial-birth abortion as an example of that. Look at the fact that we brought the marriage amendment forward, had a debate as a result of that, we highlighted the issue, and several states ended up putting it on referenda that passed with on average over 60 percent of the vote in the states, and some as high as almost 80 percent.
You are rolling out the Senate Republican Poverty Alleviation Agenda. Many people don't see the Republicans as serious about this issue.
That's because the press likes to pretend that somehow or another Republicans only care about rich people, which is just ridiculous. Republicans care about a growing economy, which employs people from all ends of the economic spectrum. In fact, the faster the economy grows and the stronger it is, the more people are employed at better and higher quality jobs. The best welfare program is a job. I believe that, and everybody else in our party believes that. You do that by being competitive in a global economy and being in a position to employ people at high-quality, good-paying jobs. So that, to me, is the fundamental precept of how we view the economy.
Having said that, I will acknowledge that Republicans have not done, in the past, any kind of a job as a party articulating how we help [poor people] by the policies of growth and development and increasing standards of living. That's what these programs are designed for.
For a long time, Republicans have said that rising tides will lift all boats. That's a Kennedy phrase, but I think Republicans embraced it. That's fine, unless the boat has a hole in it. If the boat has a hole in it, then it's not going to be lifted.
The question is, what's government's role? A lot of Republicans have said it's really the role of local institutions and the family to do it. The problem is that the Democrats decided that wasn't the case, and so they instituted a bunch of government programs that provided individual entitlements and direct, dependent relationships of individuals upon government. Republicans believe in a different philosophy, one that says that the role of government is not to empower individuals, but to strengthen families and community organizations and faith-based organizations so they can help nurture those individuals through the difficult times of their lives.
What are the key features of your new plan?
Welfare reauthorization is going to be a very, very important part of it. We have two major initiatives: One is the fatherhood initiative, which is to try to reunite fathers with their children and with the mothers of their children, and second, the marriage initiative. We need to encourage and promote marriage within communities where there are high rates of out-of-wedlock births, talk about the benefits of marriage, educate women as well as men on the benefits of marriage, not just to themselves but to their children, and actively work in counseling and support for men and women who have children out of wedlock to make sure that they have the nurturing and support and counseling to be able to stay together and potentially marry for the benefit of themselves and their children.
In earlier decades, probably right up through the New Deal, many Christians historically were economic populists who were suspicious of big business. William Jennings Bryan was an example.
That was during the days when people thought communism was actually something that could work. I don't think anybody now looks at society here in America [that way]. I mean, the Left does, and there are probably some Christian activists who certainly believe that, but I think capitalism has won. It's won around the world. It's winning in places that no one ever thought it would win. The idea of markets, properly governed and refereed, is really the way for growth and prosperity that's been beyond anything that anyone could have envisioned. The battle has been won with respect to the West, that capitalism is in fact the fairest, kindest, and most equal treatment that we can provide for the average citizen.
The book by Thomas Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas?, says that many people vote against their own economic interests when they vote for Republicans on the basis of social issues.
That's just the kind derogatory, elitist pablum that you get when people don't realize that there's a lot of people who don't put their treasure in this world and look for something more than just "how much more money I can make." They understand that life is more than a bank account. That's the postmodern view of the world, which is it's all about me; it's all about how much I can get now for me. There are a lot of people who worry about, not just their economic well being, but they worry about their kids, they worry about the culture their children are going to be raised in, they worry about the pervasive incivility that we see in this country. They worry about national security issues. They worry about a lot more things than just me and how much money I'm making. It's certainly important, and I would say that's one of the factors people should consider. But there are a lot of folks who have not bought into the Greenwich Village view of the world.
Thank God for Kansas.
There's a perception among religious conservatives and in the dominant media that Republicans run on social issues and govern on economic issues. How true is that?
Well, all I can say is that I try to do both. The problem with social issues is that in many cases we're increasingly limited as to what we can do by the courts. … The biggest social issue I thought in this [last] election was judges. Unless we get the courts back within the four walls of the Constitution again, we're going to have an increasingly difficult time having democracy work to determine what the moral consensus is with respect to our society and our social values.
What is the right balance between social and economic issues? Or would you even divide it that way?
I think it depends on the time. Obviously, in times of great prosperity, economic issues tend to be [subordinated]. … If you're in the middle of a war, obviously, that happens to trump everything else. But there is, and will continue to be, a constant undercurrent in society about the concerns about the long-term cultural impact of a society that treats marriage the way [our society] treats it; that treats families the way [our society] treats it; treats pornography the way it treats it; treats abortion and children the way it treats them; and treats the disabled and the helpless the way it treats them.
You are the Senate sponsor of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. Why is it necessary?
If passed, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act will require employers to make reasonable accommodations for an employee's religious practice or observance, such as time off and attire. While most employers recognize the value of respecting religion in the workplace, sometimes employees are forced to choose between dedication to the principles of their faith and losing their job because their employers refuse to reasonably accommodate certain needs. This legislation creates a balance for people who want to have their religious convictions respected at work and an employer who is trying to run a business.
Copyright © 2005 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
The Pennsylvania Republican speaks on legislating morality, why he was right about anti-sodomy laws, and his 2006 opponent-apparent, Bob Casey Jr.
Interview by Stan Guthrie | posted 03/28/2005 10:00 a.m.
Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania's junior U.S. senator, was first elected to the Senate in 1994. It has been widely reported that the Catholic Republican and outspoken pro-life advocate will face challenge from another pro-life Catholic, Democrat Bob Casey Jr.
Senior associate news editor Stan Guthrie spoke with Santorum.
President Kennedy tried to draw a bright line between his Catholic faith and his decisions as a public official. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, another Catholic, said much the same thing recently during an interview with George Stephanopoulos. What role does your faith play for you as a senator?
I draw no line, much less a bright one. I think your faith molds and influences tremendously your worldview—just like, by the way, a whole lot of other things that are in your life. But to me, faith is source of morality; it's a source of virtue; it's a source of reason. It's a tremendous influence on my worldview. And while obviously there are other things that influence my decision-making and how I look at the world, it's certainly an important part of it.
The idea that we cast aside our faith and don't replace it with something else to influence your worldview is ridiculous. If you don't have faith, you replace it, I assume, with some secular concepts, or with some other belief system, which goes unidentified. I think that really is—I won't say dishonest, but I think it certainly lacks intellectual honesty to say that by removing your faith as a component of how you conduct yourself that you somehow can do so neutrally. You don't. You just do so with another worldview or another set of values that come from another source.
How do you respond to those who might accuse you of attempting to legislate your morality on others?
I would say that everyone does. The idea that when you make decisions that have moral implications, you're not legislating morality! When you're going to allocate funds for contraceptive services, are you legislating morality? Of course you are. Now the question is, what moral code are you applying, or what values or virtues are you applying to the situation? What worldview do you see?
It's important to understand proper civil discourse, where people are invited to bring all their ideas, irrespective of their origin, to the public square to be debated and hashed out and for compromises and agreements to be made and the majority to proceed forward. That's how democracy and civil affairs are to work.
The idea that only ideas without religious overtones, or religious perceptions, are allowed in the public square—the founders would not only turn in their graves, they'd be spinning.
As the No. 3 Republican in the Senate right now, the Democrats seem to have you in their sights, even to the point of tapping Bob Casey Jr., who's another pro-lifer, to run against you. As someone with a strong pro-life voting record, how do you view his candidacy?
You know, every candidate you run against has strengths and weaknesses. I don't know if he will ultimately be the person who runs against me, but if he is, I'm sure he'll have some positive attributes and negative ones from the standpoint of the voters of Pennsylvania, just as I will. It's a matter, from my perspective, of looking at, more importantly, what I've done [as senator] over the last 10 years—at that point, 12 years—to serve the people of Pennsylvania, and what my plans are in continuing to serve them over the next 6. That really is the more relevant issue. People end up voting in these kinds of elections, high-profile elections like Senate races, based on: 1) does the incumbent deserve to be re-elected, and then 2) if that's not the case, is there a reasonable alternative? My first obligation is just to let the public know what I've been doing and how effective I've been for the commonwealth, and what my plans are for the future.
Do you think Mr. Casey's candidacy would take abortion off the table in your campaign?
I don't think you can run a campaign without having those issues addressed. Our positions may be similar, [but] my understanding is he's never really taken much of a position on the issue beyond a questionnaire or two. But when you're running for a state auditor and state treasurer, those are not necessarily positions where this becomes an important issue.
There may be nuance differences between the two of us; I don't know. But in either case, I think I have a record. He does not. Certainly [my] record has been one of leadership and a variety of different important issues that have actually been issues that have brought people together on the issue of abortion. That's an important thing. I'm known as a pro-life leader on issues where we've gotten people from the other side of this issue to join us.
What are a couple of for instances?
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act are just three that I can think of off the top of my head. We've gotten strong bipartisan support on all of those.
You've heard the recent comments of Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton about the need for Democrats to reach out to pro-life voters. What areas of compromise, if any, do you see with Democrats on life issues?
One of the bills that I'm circulating now and trying to get some sponsorship for is the Women and Children's Resources Act, which is to give funding for alternatives to abortion. In other words, [it would] provide money for centers that would help mothers through unplanned pregnancies to carry the child to term—everything from maternity clothes, diapers, and food to prenatal and postpartum health care. Those are the kinds of things that if you're not pro-abortion, and you have concerns about abortion and its impact on women and you want to provide a real choice to someone who discovers she has an unplanned pregnancy and feels in a panic because she can't possibly figure out how to raise and nurture that child through pregnancy because she may not have health care, and how she's going to be able to afford the cost of delivering the baby, or what she's going to do after the baby is born.
In many cases, poor women are not left with a lot of choices—[and not just] poor women, but a lot of middle to lower middle income people who may not qualify for Medicaid, but this could be a tremendous financial burden for them that they weren't anticipating. What we need to do is offer compassionate alternatives. Again, if you're really about giving women choices, this is something you should be supporting.
What do you think of the approach used by some Catholic bishops during the presidential campaign saying that Catholics really shouldn't be voting for John Kerry because of his position on abortion?
There were some that were very clear about what the moral imperatives are from the standpoint of applying our faith to the political arena. I think the church has always said that faith is not an abstract; it's to be lived out. I think all Christians would agree … that this is not simply a theoretical concept, but one that affects every aspect of your life. They're just following through in describing what they believe the consequences of the faith would dictate. And candidly, I think that's certainly a proper role for the church to take.
In 2003, you spoke out against the Supreme Court's Lawrence decision [overturning state anti-sodomy laws].
Yes, I did. And I also turned out to be right.
Do you feel vindicated?
Well, I was right. The bottom line in what I said was, this is going to lead to a whole lot of consequences. I had to assume the justices understood what they were doing. And of course, the decision was cited in the Goodrich decision in Massachusetts [in which the state Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on homosexual marriage]. I knew that's what courts would say. So this is, again, the problem with courts usurping democratic powers, powers that were clearly given to the legislatures and to the Congress. This judicial activism is a very, very scary thing for the future of this country.
What hope do you see for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which failed to pass in Congress last year?
My guess is, at this point, that it's certainly going to be introduced and we're going to try and get as many sponsors as we can. I don't know whether we're going to have the votes to be able to pass it or not. But one of the things I found out a long time ago is, just because you don't have the votes to win, doesn't mean that you don't accomplish a lot by having the debate. I would use the example of partial-birth abortion as an example of that. Look at the fact that we brought the marriage amendment forward, had a debate as a result of that, we highlighted the issue, and several states ended up putting it on referenda that passed with on average over 60 percent of the vote in the states, and some as high as almost 80 percent.
You are rolling out the Senate Republican Poverty Alleviation Agenda. Many people don't see the Republicans as serious about this issue.
That's because the press likes to pretend that somehow or another Republicans only care about rich people, which is just ridiculous. Republicans care about a growing economy, which employs people from all ends of the economic spectrum. In fact, the faster the economy grows and the stronger it is, the more people are employed at better and higher quality jobs. The best welfare program is a job. I believe that, and everybody else in our party believes that. You do that by being competitive in a global economy and being in a position to employ people at high-quality, good-paying jobs. So that, to me, is the fundamental precept of how we view the economy.
Having said that, I will acknowledge that Republicans have not done, in the past, any kind of a job as a party articulating how we help [poor people] by the policies of growth and development and increasing standards of living. That's what these programs are designed for.
For a long time, Republicans have said that rising tides will lift all boats. That's a Kennedy phrase, but I think Republicans embraced it. That's fine, unless the boat has a hole in it. If the boat has a hole in it, then it's not going to be lifted.
The question is, what's government's role? A lot of Republicans have said it's really the role of local institutions and the family to do it. The problem is that the Democrats decided that wasn't the case, and so they instituted a bunch of government programs that provided individual entitlements and direct, dependent relationships of individuals upon government. Republicans believe in a different philosophy, one that says that the role of government is not to empower individuals, but to strengthen families and community organizations and faith-based organizations so they can help nurture those individuals through the difficult times of their lives.
What are the key features of your new plan?
Welfare reauthorization is going to be a very, very important part of it. We have two major initiatives: One is the fatherhood initiative, which is to try to reunite fathers with their children and with the mothers of their children, and second, the marriage initiative. We need to encourage and promote marriage within communities where there are high rates of out-of-wedlock births, talk about the benefits of marriage, educate women as well as men on the benefits of marriage, not just to themselves but to their children, and actively work in counseling and support for men and women who have children out of wedlock to make sure that they have the nurturing and support and counseling to be able to stay together and potentially marry for the benefit of themselves and their children.
In earlier decades, probably right up through the New Deal, many Christians historically were economic populists who were suspicious of big business. William Jennings Bryan was an example.
That was during the days when people thought communism was actually something that could work. I don't think anybody now looks at society here in America [that way]. I mean, the Left does, and there are probably some Christian activists who certainly believe that, but I think capitalism has won. It's won around the world. It's winning in places that no one ever thought it would win. The idea of markets, properly governed and refereed, is really the way for growth and prosperity that's been beyond anything that anyone could have envisioned. The battle has been won with respect to the West, that capitalism is in fact the fairest, kindest, and most equal treatment that we can provide for the average citizen.
The book by Thomas Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas?, says that many people vote against their own economic interests when they vote for Republicans on the basis of social issues.
That's just the kind derogatory, elitist pablum that you get when people don't realize that there's a lot of people who don't put their treasure in this world and look for something more than just "how much more money I can make." They understand that life is more than a bank account. That's the postmodern view of the world, which is it's all about me; it's all about how much I can get now for me. There are a lot of people who worry about, not just their economic well being, but they worry about their kids, they worry about the culture their children are going to be raised in, they worry about the pervasive incivility that we see in this country. They worry about national security issues. They worry about a lot more things than just me and how much money I'm making. It's certainly important, and I would say that's one of the factors people should consider. But there are a lot of folks who have not bought into the Greenwich Village view of the world.
Thank God for Kansas.
There's a perception among religious conservatives and in the dominant media that Republicans run on social issues and govern on economic issues. How true is that?
Well, all I can say is that I try to do both. The problem with social issues is that in many cases we're increasingly limited as to what we can do by the courts. … The biggest social issue I thought in this [last] election was judges. Unless we get the courts back within the four walls of the Constitution again, we're going to have an increasingly difficult time having democracy work to determine what the moral consensus is with respect to our society and our social values.
What is the right balance between social and economic issues? Or would you even divide it that way?
I think it depends on the time. Obviously, in times of great prosperity, economic issues tend to be [subordinated]. … If you're in the middle of a war, obviously, that happens to trump everything else. But there is, and will continue to be, a constant undercurrent in society about the concerns about the long-term cultural impact of a society that treats marriage the way [our society] treats it; that treats families the way [our society] treats it; treats pornography the way it treats it; treats abortion and children the way it treats them; and treats the disabled and the helpless the way it treats them.
You are the Senate sponsor of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. Why is it necessary?
If passed, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act will require employers to make reasonable accommodations for an employee's religious practice or observance, such as time off and attire. While most employers recognize the value of respecting religion in the workplace, sometimes employees are forced to choose between dedication to the principles of their faith and losing their job because their employers refuse to reasonably accommodate certain needs. This legislation creates a balance for people who want to have their religious convictions respected at work and an employer who is trying to run a business.
Copyright © 2005 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
