Wednesday, May 10. 2006
John has better access to the White House than lil' ol' Maggie's Farm has. If they don't read this, and take it to heart, at Powerline, they might be the brain-dead, clueless fools I am afraid they are. Please do not let that be so.
A tax on Extraction? Yes, you heard right, Mr. Chavez will be extracting as much money as he can and from whomever he can and he will be extracting it right over to the City of Extraction also known as Geneva. Can you spell Swiss Bank Account? "We are going to create a new oil tax, called the tax on extraction," Mr Chavez told viewers of his marathon six-hour Sunday show. BBC NEWS | Americas | Chavez doubles tax for oil firms
Friday, May 5. 2006
 I think it was in Annie Hall. Alvy Singer is putting together a lobster dinner for his date with Annie - the famous lobster scene. She reads from the paper about the serial killer striking again, and he replies "I was nowhere near there."
My point is not to comment on Jewish guilt. Almost every religion and ethnic group with which I am familiar thinks they have the worst case of guilt. (Not sure about Islam. Do they feel guilty if they fail to kill an infidel?) My point is to comment on neurotic guilt vs. healthy, normal guilt. Woody Allen's line is funny because it touches the neurotically guilty place in all of us. Normal people with sturdy consciences commonly have a slice of neurotic guilt in their personalities, unfortunately. It is usually a guilt about bad thoughts, bad impulses, destructive tendencies, ugly selfish conniving, envy, cruelty, etc., or about minor, easily forgiveable moral slips. Oftentimes, such thoughts and impulses are out of our awareness, but the key is that, with neurotic guilt, one hasn't really done much to feel guilty about. Healthy, wholesome guilt occurs to those with strong consciences when they truly cross a major line which is engraved in their hearts. It is painful, and should be painful. The warning and the punishment is self-administered, as it should be. A non-neurotic sense of guilt is, in my opinion, a matter of the spirit and not so much a matter of psychology. Everyone has stupidly or carelessly screwed up, if they have lived long enough, but a pattern of wrong-doing without appropriate self-punishment bespeaks a spiritual void as well as a non-functioning conscience. (We call that pride, or self-love, or narcissism, or sociopathy.) Sometimes I wonder whether liberals wear guilt as a badge of pride. It is known to occur in AA meetings, where sometimes folks believe that the lower into tatoo-land they have gone, the more authority they can claim. Silly, and perversely narcissitic. The subject comes up after reading Shelby Steele's instantly-famous essay, which basically rips apart "liberal guilt" and shows it to be the neurotic foolishness that it is. (The subject of guilt also fits with Wednesday's post on "feelings," ...and it also comes up after reading today's post on the World Council of Churches, which contains an appalling display of public self-congratulatory hystrionic hand-wringing - so self-congratulatory, in fact, that I tend to doubt its sincerity and wonder whether it is a pseudo-humble, pseudo-contrite form of political statement. Ostentatious contrition is sometimes just the flip side of spiritual pride. If you read the whole piece at Touchstone, you will see that it's a living satire, like Woody Allen's line. I can say that, as an American citizen, I am pretty much guilt-free as far as I know, but as an individual, I am morally imperfect, and thus disconnected from God's loving but inscrutable will, despite my aspirations.) Steele demonstrates that the undercurrent of irrational guilt in our culture, nurtured by a generation of America-haters devoted to highlighting historical imperfections and ignoring historical sources of national pride, has weakened our spine, our confidence, our common sense - and our freedom to pursue our self-interest. This is very similar to what neurotic guilt can do to an individual. Here is short list of things about which almost all of us can say "I was nowhere near there": slavery, racial discrimination, genocide, destroying the planet, oppressing helpless people, imposing our religion on others, imperialism, evil intentions, raping and killing women and children. "Collective guilt"? Let's forget that notion: caring for our own souls is a big enough job, and a life-time job. I have no idea how preachers do what they do... Discrimination against individuals I do not like or approve of? You bet. Always. Capitalism? Wonderful - gives everyone freedom to pursue their own path as they see fit. There are another ten pages in this, but this is enough for now. Image: Woody and Keaton in Annie Hall. An afterthought: Christ set a high standard - impossibly high - in His most famous preaching, in His commentary on the Ten Commandments in the Sermon on the Mount. Among many other things, He came close to equating evil thought with evil action, thus making all humans sinners, for sure. But Christians accept that, just as they accept the need for supernatural salvation. That is another spiritual matter, and not a psychological one. As a psychiatrist, and a Christian, I deal with these two realities, sometimes with difficulty. Life is not meant to be easy, despite what the French want to think. "I never promised you a rose garden."
 The WCC has taken the now-well-trodden path away from God, towards the temptation of secular and political moon-bat-ism, (which is a much easier path to walk along, as it is the path of spiritual pride and self-satisfaction. It must feel good).
With its co-option by the Loony Left, who hope to use its reputation as one more mouthpiece, the hope for ongoing ecumenical dialog has died. But, I wonder, how important is that idea anyway, really? A few quotes from the report in Touchstone: The decision has been a generation in the making, and no single vote, speech, motion, paper, legislative minute, consciousness-raising session, litany of repentance, people’s drama, or interpretive dance arising from the World Council of Churches’ 9th Assembly, held February 14–23, 2006, in Porto Alegre, Brazil, can be accounted as the definitive end of its Christian life. The thirty-year battle for the soul of the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the institutional ecumenical movement has ended. Founded in 1948 to foster the reunification of Christian Churches, the WCC has effectively shed its religious calling, and in its place has chosen social activism in the pursuit of "relevance.”
and This “relevance” found voice at the opening session of the 9th Assembly when the North American delegates offered a litany of repentance. Americans and Canadians confessed to the delegates from more than one hundred countries “the sin of racism,” “our compulsion to despoil the earth,” “our thirst for violence,” “the hunger for revenge,” “our lust for empire,” our “self satisfaction and self-adoration,” and our “hearts hardened by terror and media manipulation.” Latin American delegates joined the chorus agreeing that America was the problem, confessing to having “to breathe air polluted by foreign-owned industries” and to being “subjected unilaterally to the interests of large corporations or the countries reckoned to be great.” Asian delegates added a refrain, calling for repentance for “the invalid babies still born in Vietnam as a result of Agent Orange used [by America] during the war in Vietnam.” The call had to be made in absentia, however, as no Vietnamese were actually present.
I find this public hand-wringing both pathetic and ridiculous. Not to mention prideful, since I am sure none of them can really take credit for the sins they recite. Read the whole sorry tale here. It reads like just one more story of the Left insinuating itself into worthy non-profit organizations, like the YWCA, the UCC, the Ford Foundation, PBS, etc. Sad stuff. They never quit, and seem to have more time on their hands than normal working folks. And they have no right to repent any guilt of mine: that is my problem, not theirs. They are not Jesus, and they should climb down from their manufactured plastic cross. Image: Aslan. Not a tame lion.
Thursday, May 4. 2006
Yale deserves this guy: Iowahawk. And Hawk deserves his free Pepsi.
A quote from Dinocrat's piece on the May Day foolishness: The idea of illegal people ‘demanding’ anything at all is as offensive as the Sun-Times editorial, particularly when you think of all those people who go through hoops and the horrible, terrible labyrinth of lawyers and government bureaucrats, spending years and thousands of dollars trying to get one of the 140,000 green cards issued annually. There is no ‘middle ground’ between homeowners and home invaders, and to suggest that there is, with an attitude of noblesse oblige, makes our blood boil. By the way, what business is it of the Chicago Sun-Times to suggest that citizens give up the sovereignty of their country just because some people take the day off and walk around with the flags of various nations? Fortunately for us all, there is no ‘middle ground’ in the trend of the MSM as they decline towards zero year after year.
The marchers may not be fully aware of this but their leaders are: they are pawns in a much bigger political chess game. It's about the demography, stupid!
Wednesday, May 3. 2006
Obviously, the war in Iraq was not for oil, because we aren't taking any. Instapundit makes a semi-tongue-in-cheek case that we should go to war for oil. Look where the profits are going... here.
This post below stolen from Willisms - his entire piece is here: Voting With Their Feet- When it comes to domestic migration (Americans moving from one part of America to another), not all states are created equal. On April 20, the United States Census Bureau released its latest current population report (which has lots of neat maps, if you are interested), detailing which states gained population at the expense of others, and vice-versa (.pdf):  Generally, people are leaving states that John Kerry won in 2004 in favor of states that George W. Bush won in 2004. Again, this isn't immigration from other countries, or even birthrate-based population changes. This is strictly a measure of Americans moving from blue states to red states, from blue counties to red counties, from blue cities to red cities. Policies matter. Pro-growth policies, not surprisingly, produce growth. Indeed, the counties with the most outmigration from 2000-2004 tended to be left-leaning counties (.pdf):  It's clear that people are leaving Democrat-dominated areas to escape tyranny (of taxes, of weird rules and regulations, of higher crime rates, of the higher cost of living, of failing schools, etc.), to find opportunity elsewhere.
Monday, May 1. 2006
 The following from a director with Southwest Bell in Mexico City:
I spent five years working in Mexico. I worked under a tourist visa for three months and could legally renew it for three more months. After that you were working illegally. I was technically illegal for three weeks waiting on the FM3 approval.
During that six months our Mexican and US Attorneys were working to secure a permanent work visa called a FM3. It was in addition to my US passport that I had to show each time I entered and left the country. Barbara's was the same except hers did not permit her to work.
To apply for the FM3 I needed to submit the following notarized originals (not copies) of my:
- Birth certificates for Barbara and me.
- Marriage certificate.
- High school transcripts and proof of graduation.
- College transcripts for every college I attended and proof of graduation.
- Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had worked for at least one year.
- A letter from The St. Louis Chief of Police indicating I had no arrest record in the US and no outstanding warrants and was "a citizen in good standing."
- Finally; I had to write a letter about myself that clearly stated why there was no Mexican citizen with my skills and why my skills were important to Mexico. We called it our "I am the greatest person on earth" letter. It was fun to write. All of the above were in English that had to be translated into Spanish and be certified as legal translations and our signatures notarized. It produced a folder about 1.5 inches thick with English on the left side and Spanish on the right.
Once they were completed Barbara and I spent about five hours accompanied by a Mexican attorney touring Mexican government office locations and being photographed and fingerprinted at least three times. At each location (and we remember at least four locations) we were instructed on Mexican tax, labor, housing, and criminal law and that we were required to obey their laws or face the consequences. We could not protest any of the government's actions or we would be committing a felony. We paid out four thousand dollars in fees and bribes to complete the process. When this was done we could legally bring in our household goods that were held by US customs in Laredo Texas. This meant we rented furniture in Mexico while awaiting our goods. There were extensive fees involved here that the company paid. We could not buy a home and were required to rent at very high rates and under contract and compliance with Mexican law. We were required to get a Mexican drivers license. This was an amazing process. The company arranged for the licensing agency to come to our headquarters location with their photography and fingerprint equipment and the laminating machine. We showed our US license, were photographed and fingerprinted again and issued the license instantly after paying out a six dollar fee. We did not take a written or driving test and never received instructions on the rules of the road. Our only instruction was never give a policeman your license if stopped and asked. We were instructed to hold it against the inside window away from his grasp. If he got his hands on it you would have to pay ransom to get it back. We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually using the number of our FM3 as our ID number. The company’s Mexican accountants did this for us and we just signed what they prepared. It was about twenty legal size pages annually. The FM 3 was good for three years and renewable for two more after paying more fees. Leaving the country meant turning in the FM# and certifying we were leaving no debts behind and no outstanding legal affairs (warrants, tickets or liens) before our household goods were released to customs. It was a real adventure and If any of our senators or congressmen went through it once they would have a different attitude toward Mexico. The Mexican Government uses its vast military and police forces to keep its citizens intimidated and compliant. They never protest at their White House or government offices but do protest daily in front of the United States Embassy. The US embassy looks like a strongly reinforced fortress and during most protests the Mexican Military surround the block with their men standing shoulder to shoulder in full riot gear to protect the Embassy. These protests are never shown on US or Mexican TV. There is a large public park across the street where they do their protesting. Anything can cause a protest, such as proposed law changes in California or Texas.
Sunday, April 30. 2006
It may amaze some Europeans, liberals and even God-fearing righties without adequate knowledge of history that Islamists were a pain in the rear even before the United States was a real country. The MSM makes a big thing of indigenous culture, and it was the indigenous culture of the Islamic states along the Mediterranean to kill and terrorize centuries before America gave them a convenient excuse. Gwynnie suggests that the naive might consider reading this book (unless some knowledge and wisdom might disrupt their political agenda!
"While Europe appeased the Barbary pirates, America sent in the Navy. (Wall Street Journal, Apr. 29, 2006): "A book review of The End of Barbary Terror, By Frederick C. Leiner: "In 1815, Washington was in ruins: the White House and Capitol building burned and sacked by the British, the national treasury depleted, the U.S. bruised and battered (but not defeated) by the War of 1812. President James Madison called the Congress to its make-shift chamber at the Post Office Building and asked for something extraordinary: a declaration of war against a state thousands of miles away. "What followed was the U.S.'s first war on terror. This little conflict is now largely forgotten, but it had great and lasting consequences, establishing the U.S. as a global naval power and ending more than two centuries of state-sponsored terrorism in the Mediterranean. "'The End of Barbary Terror' by Frederick Leiner recounts Madison's decision and the war that followed against an enemy that had attacked and tormented European powers greater than the U.S. since the 1500s. The Barbary states of Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli and Morocco had run a lucrative kidnapping and slavery racket in the Mediterranean, capturing commercial ships, enslaving thousands of Christians and extorting millions of dollars in ransom and protection money from Europe. "Slave taking was jihad," writes Mr. Leiner, and the tactics employed by the Islamic leaders of the Barbary states "were a form of terrorism, a method of seaborne violence meant to intimidate the peoples of Europe." It was essentially a system of government-regulated kidnapping. The pirates would capture ships, forcing their passengers to work as slaves onshore until somebody came up with enough ransom money to buy their freedom. "Eventually the major European states simply paid protection money, deciding it was easier to appease the pirates than confront them. "Paying the Barbary rulers a 'license' for trade was less expensive than constantly convoying ships or attacking the Barbary powers in their heavily fortified ports," Mr. Leiner explains. America played the game too. In the five years before the war, the U.S. counsel in Algiers doled out a half-million dollars in "gifts" and "tributes" intended to buy safety for American ships. . . . "The book recounts a stunning military success. . . . With a mix of bravery and luck, Decatur defeated two enemy ships on his way to Algiers. Within 48 hours of arriving on the shore of the most powerful Barbary state, Decatur was able to force peace on American terms ("dictated at the mouths of our cannon," as he later said). The U.S.'s infant Navy had scored a victory that had eluded European powers for nearly three centuries. "America's quick victory embarrassed the Europeans and demonstrated that there was no reason to fear the Barbary pirates. Within months, England battled to free British subjects enslaved in Tripoli and soon the entire system of paying tribute to the pirates came crashing down. The American example gave Europe the backbone to fight the terrorists rather than appease them."
Read the whole thing
Friday, April 28. 2006
then they came for my bacon,...Chicago bans foie gras. So will California. (h/t, Prof Bainbridge). Hey, where would we be without government telling us what to eat?
Wednesday, April 26. 2006
Mark Steyn on climate fear: Do you worry? You look like you do. Worrying is the way the responsible citizen of an advanced society demonstrates his virtue: He feels good by feeling bad. But what to worry about? Iranian nukes? Nah, that's just some racket cooked up by the Christian fundamentalist Bush and his Zionist buddies to give Halliburton a pretext to take over the Persian carpet industry. Worrying about nukes is so '80s. "They make me want to throw up. . . . They make me feel sick to my stomach," wrote the British novelist Martin Amis, who couldn't stop thinking about them 20 years ago. In the intro to a collection of short stories, he worried about the Big One and outlined his own plan for coping with a nuclear winter wonderland: "Suppose I survive," he fretted. "Suppose my eyes aren't pouring down my face, suppose I am untouched by the hurricane of secondary missiles that all mortar, metal and glass has abruptly become: Suppose all this. I shall be obliged (and it's the last thing I feel like doing) to retrace that long mile home, through the firestorm, the remains of the thousands-miles-an-hour winds, the warped atoms, the groveling dead. Then -- God willing, if I still have the strength, and, of course, if they are still alive -- I must find my wife and children and I must kill them." But the Big One never fell. And instead of killing his wife Martin Amis had to make do with divorcing her.
Read the whole darn funny thing.
It is unusual for scientists to get on a bandwagon as passionately as many have with the global warming issue, and to punish dissenting views. It does make one wonder what it's all about. This is from Lindzen's piece in Opinion Journal last week: So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation. All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
Read entire. Lindzen is a bit of a controversial figure, as explained here (h/t, Tim Blair). The fact that he smokes cigarettes is used to discredit his research. As I say, all of the emotion around an earth science issue is very odd. It is past science: it's a holy mission now, for some.
Monday, April 24. 2006
We claim to be Centrist in outlook - not
"moderate," whatever that means. Your Editor in Chief, pictured on right, took this highly-reliable political-orientation test and came out "Centrist." That is good proof. But if we come out "centrist," then who the heck comes out "conservative"? Or has the "center" moved a bit, over the past few years? Take the test and find out what you are. And stop pushing the button below that photo. The video is disabled. What do you think we are?
Friday, April 21. 2006
So Scott McClellan has resigned as the White House press secretary. Say what you want about the fellow, at least he had better skin tone than Marlon Fitzwater. People are bandying about names for his replacement, mostly speculation centered on Fox News Channel's Tony Snow. Does it really matter who you have as your press spokesman?
Thursday, April 20. 2006
I disagree with lots of it, and agree with lots of it. But I welcome a sane, adult, and friendly debate about the proper role of government in the lives of free people. Our Uncle Norm has posted it here. If I had the time, I would go through it point by point. But I have a business to run, jobs to create, opportunities to nurture, money to be put to work, and new ideas to develop. Maybe I will find the time soon. In the meantime, I wish Uncle Norm would covertly take on a real job in the real world, and have the chance to find out what it is like. He might be quite surprised: Good capitalist work is great, challenging, life-affirming, scary, creative, rigorous, and infinitely more exciting than being a professor to a bunch of drooling, hormone-poisoned, brains-full-of-mush late adolescents. And it is fun to make a real income. I wish those good guys would try it, before they pontificate about socialism. But I like them and enjoy them anyway. There is lots more to life than politics - but individual freedom is high on my list of pleasures. For better or worse, let me deal with what I have been blessed with, and leave it to me to figure out what my goals are - if any.
Wednesday, April 19. 2006
 We have posted earlier on the hazards of being an illegal in Mexico, and the huge obstacles to becoming a legal immigrant into Mexico - while the Mexican govt. takes great joy in dumping their unwanted citizens into the US:
Considered felons by the government, these migrants fear detention, rape and robbery. Police and soldiers hunt them down at railroads, bus stations and fleabag hotels. Sometimes they are deported; more often officers simply take their money. While migrants in the United States have held huge demonstrations in recent weeks, the hundreds of thousands of undocumented Central Americans in Mexico suffer mostly in silence.
Read the whole sorry, hypocritical, ridiculous story, at Ace. Mexico is beautiful, but a screwed-up joke of an irrational country - as bad as Sweden.
Maggie's Farm has always been fond of our fellow blogger over in the UK, Norm Geras. Despite some different points of view (Norm seems to be a socialist, more or less, with that naive socialist faith in government experts and power - not that Norm himself is naive in the least), his blog has always been thoughtful, fact-based, responsible, and respectful of good-faith disagreement. (Like everyone else including us, Norm would be happy with any government run by people with the integrity, spirit, faith in the individual etc , that we want to have ourselves. A dream.) Now Norm and his pub pals have put together the Euston Manifesto, which needs to be perused rather than summarized. However, in tone it is a progressive manifesto which rejects all of what we at Maggie's consider the loony, anti-American, anti-Western, suicidal, and anti-Israel traits of the Loud Left. A quote from Geras' and Nick Cohen's piece in The News Statesman yesterday, regarding the manifesto: The supporters of the Euston Manifesto took different views on the war in Iraq, both for and against. We recognise that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justifications for the war and the manner in which it was carried through. We are, however, united in our judgement of the reactionary, murderous character of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, and we recognise its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view that, from the day this occurred, the proper concern of the liberal left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to create, after decades of brutal oppression, a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted - rather than endlessly rehearsing the arguments over intervention.
Read their whole piece. The subject of the manifesto has attracted a great deal of attention, because it offers a path to sanity for the Left, and offers a basis for rational discussion between Conservatives and the Left and between non-Conservatives who take Jihad seriously and the Left. We moderates love and welcome rational disagreement and discussion. We are just sick of the hatred.
Tuesday, April 18. 2006
Quoted from a piece from Winds of Change, on how bias infects all of our thinking, and decision-making: "So who's right - the decision-makers who claim objectivity or the citizens who roll their eyes? Research suggests that decision-makers don't realize just how easily and often their objectivity is compromised. The human brain knows many tricks that allow it to consider evidence, weigh facts and still reach precisely the conclusion it favors.... People realize that humans deceive themselves, of course, but they don't seem to realize that they too are human."
True - one reason that intellectual diversity is so critically important in public and public trust sectors like the academic social sciences, not to mention the media et. al. Claims that abstract 'professionalism' will trump these tendencies are simply not credible to common sense or human experience. One may realize that one's friend knows a lot about drugs given that she is a highly successful consultant who devises physician marketing programs, with Eli Lilly as her #1 client - but one would be wise to add a grain or two of salt to her explanations about, say, the safety of Prozac re: potential side-effects. Both experimental and anecdotal evidence suggest that this is justified, and wise.
Read his entire piece.
Monday, April 17. 2006
 The top 5% of income earners pay 50% of the taxes in the USA.
The top 10% of earners pay 2/3 of the taxes in the USA.
The top 50% of earners pay 96% of the taxes.
So when they talk about tax cuts for the "rich," which includes a NYC cop married to a nurse, they are talking about the folks who pay most of the taxes. It isn't very complicated. If they can move 100% of the taxes paid by the top 10%, the voters can vote themselves whatever they want for free, paid for by others. A sweet deal, if you want to be a kid all of your life. In my opinion, this is a lousy program. Everyone should pay heartily - it's supposed to be the price of civilization, and the dues you pay to be a member of a fine nation. But I felt the same way when Nixon got rid of the draft. A bad, politically-motivated decision. Everyone should be required to serve their country, and to pay their dues. Period. Including females. And there should be no withholding of taxes - that should not be an employer's problem. We should all just pay, ourselves, to make it clear that it is our money, our dues, our deal, and our country.
Thursday, April 13. 2006
 Hey, Ted Kennedy, read this: Man who lets Children Die in Car gets Life.
It is so beyond me how Kennedy gets re-elected. The story of how he avoided prosecution has been long-told. It is true that none of us is without sin, but come on! Even if you're drunk, you save the girl, or you die trying. Every gentleman knows that fun has a price. Image of the Senator from Chappaquiddick's car, with diver, from here.
Steyn on Facing Down Iran. Every American - no, every human - should read this, if they have not already. One quote: If we’d understood Iran back in 1979, we’d understand better the challenges we face today. Come to that, we might not even be facing them. But, with hindsight, what strikes you about the birth of the Islamic Republic is the near total lack of interest by analysts in that adjective: Islamic. Iran was only the second Islamist state, after Saudi Arabia—and, in selecting as their own qualifying adjective the family name, the House of Saud at least indicated a conventional sense of priorities, as the legions of Saudi princes whoring and gambling in the fleshpots of the West have demonstrated exhaustively. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue—though, as the Royal Family has belatedly discovered vis-à-vis the Islamists, they’re somewhat overdrawn on that front. The difference in Iran is simple: with the mullahs, there are no London escort agencies on retainer to supply blondes only. When they say “Islamic Republic,” they mean it. And refusing to take their words at face value has bedeviled Western strategists for three decades.
Read the whole thing, or remain ignorant.
Wednesday, April 12. 2006
The backlash is growing. Thousands of illegals marching 
and making demands is not the way to endear yourselves
with folks who spent their day at work. Yesterday, our Barrister said his heart was hardening (scroll down). Today, our Chairman was moved to write about what citizenship entails. Today, I see the gentle Sensible Mom reach the boiling point. Pardon my English puts the lie to the old "jobs Americans won't do", noting how American workers were sent home from New Orleans because "the Mexicans have arrived." And everyone knows my opinion - Give California to Mexico and call it a day. Hawkins has a powerful piece which I hope, but doubt, is being read in DC. It's not only good politics, but it's right. Quote: Just imagine if the Republicans in the Senate took the same line as the Republicans in the House and pushed a bill that does nothing but secure the border and strengthen our immigration laws. Not only would it be wildly popular, but think of what a fantastic issue it would be for the elections in 2006. It would literally put the Democrats in a position where they would feel compelled to vote against securing the border. Plus, think about the other issues that this would put in play: -- The GOP would be the party that believes in respecting the law and the Democrats would be the party that believes in rewarding people for breaking the law. -- The GOP would be the party sticking up for the jobs of poor Americans while the Democrats would be the party that wants to bring in foreigners to take jobs from Americans. -- The GOP would be the party looking out for the American taxpayers, while the Democrats would be the party that wants to make illegals citizens so they can give them welfare and food stamps. -- The GOP would be the party that puts Americans first, while Democrats would be the party for people who believe that foreigners should be given a leg up over Americans in America.
Read the whole thing.
 American and Canadian citizenships are the most desirable in the world. Both countries are the most welcoming in the world, sometimes to their detriment.
We were both, long ago, huge empty expanses in need of sheep-herders, ranchers, pioneers, miners, farmers, and shop-keepers. Both countries made it easy to obtain citizenship, compared to all other countries on the planet. Far too easy, if you ask me, because true citizenship is not only a gift, but a privilege which is accompanied by many dead-serious responsibilities and duties. Acceptance as a citizen is not a free lunch. I suppose I view Duties as more important than Rights, because, as a social contract nation, rights and freedom can only be protected by a dutiful people. Jefferson: "A nation, as a society, forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society." (In these times, the word "right" has been perverted and twisted to mean "a right to get" something rather than a "freedom from state power".) As I observe all of the complexities of the illegal immigration issue, and peruse the Aliyah Diary series posted here, depicting the long and difficult process of becoming an Israeli citizen, I begin to wonder what American citizenship means, and what it should mean - not the legal part, but the thing itself. When I call someone a "good citizen," or a "desirable citizen," this is at least part of what I mean, as a regular American: - They try to obey all of the laws of the land (excluding speeding).
- They aspire to honest and honorable behavior in all of their dealings with people and institutions, as defined by our civilization.
- They are interested in, and know, the history and traditions of the country and its philosophical underpinnings.
-They have some concept of what freedom means, and are skeptical about government power.
- They take care of their kids and their families.
-They aspire to personal independence and responsibility
-They seek ways to give of themselves ("Ask not...")
-They are willing to fight and die for their country when called upon, even if they think they know better.
- They speak their mind fearlessly.
- They keep themselves informed about world and national issues.
- They like to work and to assume responsibilities.
-They vote, even if they hate their choices, and get involved in community activities.
- They love our capitalist heritage, because it provides opportunity and freedom to try to do whatever we want without the weight of government on our backs.
-They Pledge Allegiance, and mean it - not so much to a flag, but to an idea, embodied imperfectly in a nation of people.
- They help a neighbor in need; they are charitable.
- They delight in the words of the Constitution on which we are founded.
-They respect our abundant and wonderful free worship of God.
-They are grateful for the remarkable system we have.
-They love our land, want to protect and preserve our heritage, not as real estate, but as a precious gift and a heritage to be passed on without destruction.
- They receive and profess citizenship as a sacred blessing for us as a precious island in a world full of danger, tyranny, insecurity, lack of opportunity, ignorance, hopelessness, brutality, and inhumanity.
There is no higher honor or achievement in life than that of being a "good citizen" of a free republic. It is not easy. I aspire to it, and it is my highest compliment.
Tuesday, April 11. 2006
Please welcome Roger as the newest outspoken denizen of our dank and dark slave quarters, wantin' to fly like an eagle while bein' chained to the floor in the basement of Maggie's Farm. It is not an everyday occurrance to snag a deceased Norman King of Sicily to channel through one's blog.
The Nail that Sticks Up Must Be Hammered Down How many millimeters outside the left-wing circle of acceptable opinion are you allowed to stray without bringing the "We Shall Overcome Lite" protests to your doorstep? Public figures in the United States whose views would make them eligible for the Vice Presidential slot on the Kennedy ticket in 1960 are routinely called Rethuglicans and Nazis today and shouted down. Look at poor Joe Lieberman, wandering the landscape, and wondering: Where'd my party go? Professor Ann Althouse is a feminist liberal, by any sane person's definition of it. But she has the audacity to have an open mind about things, and doesn't think Bush is Hitler, and so attracts a diverse and literate commentariat to her blog. And she's put her foot outside the circle twice in one day, bless her heart. She's caused a bit of a stir by being invited to dinner before a public appearance by Camille Paglia at UWisconsin that Professor Althouse graciously recommended on her blog. The invitation was withdrawn and Ann was then told her presence would not be required at dinner after all, because she wasn't quite 100% cheerleading for Ms Paglia on her blog. Professor Althouse is simultaneously fending off an assault by the organizers of a "punk" music festival recently held in Madison, called "Slutfest" who took exception to Ann allowing commenters to point out that their punk festival sounded like "My Little Pony Nihilism." What do you do when you don't get 100% cheerleading for your "Slutfest?" Threaten to get The Professor reprimanded or fired. Read the potty-mouthed Slutfesters idea of salty language --it's a hoot. Visit the Professor's fine and fun blog salon, and tell the fainting couch feminists the real feminists are Constitutional Law Professors, not Madonna Ciccone wannabes and Slutfesters.
|
