Thursday, March 16. 2006
I am an old man and have known a great many troubles, but most of them never happened. Mark Twain
Wednesday, March 15. 2006
Her brave video, from Al Jazeera, at Michael Yon here.
"War is sometimes better than a bad peace." Tacitus. A reader challenged us to comment more on the Iraq War. We don't ignore the subject, but we aren't preoccupied with it either, despite our interest in the news of the day. Why not, when it seems like such a big issue? For one thing, I view it as more of a police action, enforcing UN resolutions, than a full-scale war. Second, once Iraq was fully invaded, it has not been so much of a war as a force-supported effort at democratic nation-building. That is a tough job which has rarely been attempted anywhere. It worked in Japan after WW2, but they already had a strong sense of nationhood, and a strong legacy of civilized behavior - if you exclude their barbarism in wartime which is their legacy of shame. Was regime change in Iraq a great idea? Time will tell. I hope so. Is it a central theater of the so-called War on Terror? I don't know- I doubt it, but it has certainly brought them to the killing floor, has it not? Surely no-one is weeping for Saddam, and surely the whole world is delighted to see Iraqis voting. But an end to mad bombers we will not see in our lifetime in the Middle East - its the way a small, and increasingly small, number of them amuse themselves. Regrettably, their leaders do not chose to lead by example. The real war, I believe, is a war against an expansionist Jihad, which thinks it can convert the world to a primitive and violent version of Islam by intimidation. Anyone who will blow themselves to bits to kill a Jew, or a couple of Iraqi policemen and children, would not hesitate to push a button to nuke France, Denmark, the US, Britain, or anywhere else where the Infidel dwells in freedom. The Anglosphere and the Western World just want to be left alone. I think Iraq is more of a TV/political event than anything else. Just as the news has to find a fire, a homicide, a baby animal at the zoo, etc, every night, they have to report a bomb in Iraq. It wears people down, and it causes a loss of perspective - which it seems intended to do on the part of the Jihadists and, it seems, on the part of the media whose disingenuous exaggeration of the negative is shameless. It's the "drip, drip, drip" effect. For some perspective, California had 2400 homicides in 2004, and 4000 motor vehicle fatalities. During the three years that we have been in Iraq, there have been an average of about 650 US casualties per year. And unlike the car crashes and homicides, these are folks who have been willing to do the dangerous work and to take their chances. Heroes, every one. To put the Iraq effort in comparison to other wars, see this chart, stolen from Instapudit who posted it a while ago:  Along with the political battles that seem to swirl around every military effort in US history, there has been a major effort by the opposition party to paint the war as "another Vietnam". Our reader sent us this essay by Gen. Odom, who tries to draw parallels which I do not see. Just for starters, there is no opposing army in Iraq. Second, there is no world power clash here. Third, there is no civil war, nor will there be, as is convincingly argued by Miller at History News. Fourth, casualties are low. Thus I am not persuaded by the defeatists and the gloom-mongers, who are politically invested in failure. And I do believe that those who assert that Middle Eastern folks are too backward to handle freedom are not only racist, but plain stupid. These folks can figure out, in time, that being a part of the world community, and political freedom, are good things. Wisely or unwisely, we have given the Iraqis a great gift. But don't expect the Jihadists to appreciate it: nobody told them that paradise has run out of virgins - same as Massachusetts.
Via Anchoress ("85 Years ago, Chesterton Nailed the Boomers") via Driscoll, from G.K. Chesterton, (who should have had a blog): “A generation is now growing old, which never had anything to say for itself except that it was young. It was the first progressive generation - the first generation that believed in progress and nothing else…. [They believed] simply that the new thing is always better than the old thing; that the young man is always right and the old wrong. And now that they are old men themselves, they have naturally nothing whatever to say or do. Their only business in life was to be the rising generation knocking at the door. Now that they have got into the house, and have been accorded the seat of honour by the hearth, they have completely forgotten why they wanted to come in. The aged younger generation never knew why it knocked at the door; and the truth is that it only knocked at the door because it was shut. It had nothing to say; it had no message; it had no convictions to impart to anybody…. The old generation of rebels was purely negative in its rebellion, and cannot give the new generation of rebels anything positive against which it should not rebel. It is not that the old man cannot convince young people that he is right; it is that he cannot even convince them that he is convinced. And he is not convinced; for he never had any conviction except that he was young, and that is not a conviction that strengthens with years.”
From her blog: Published April 30th by Encounter Books. The suicide bombings carried out in London in 2005 by British Muslims revealed an alarming network of Islamist terrorists and their sympathizers. Under the noses of British intelligence, London became the European hub for the promotion, recruitment and financing of Islamist terror and extremism - so much so that it has been mockingly dubbed 'Londonistan'. In this ground-breaking book, Melanie Phillips pieces together the story of how Londonistan developed as a result of the collapse of British self-confidence and national identity and its resulting paralysis by multiculturalism and appeasement. The result is an ugly climate in Britain of irrationality and defeatism, which now threatens to undermine the alliance with America and imperil the defence of the free world.
 "Scarcely have you descended on the soil of America, when you find yourself in the midst of a sort of tumult: a confused clamor is raised on all sides; a thousand voices come to your ear at the same time, each on of them expressing some sort of social need. Around you everything moves here, the people of one neighborhood have gathered to learn if a church ought to be built; there they are working on a choice of a representative; farther on, the deputies of a district are going to town in all haste in order to decide about some local improvements; in another place, the farmers of a village abandon their furrows to go discuss the plan of a road or a school."
"Citizens assemble with the sole goal of declaring that they disaprove of the course of government. To meddle in the government of society and to speak about it is the greatest business and, so to speak, the only pleasure an American knows..An American does not know how to converse, but he discusses; he does not discourse, but he holds forth. He always speaks to you as to an assembly." From Democracy in America, 1844
Tuesday, March 14. 2006
An excellent point by David Warren (my highlights): The violent audacity of a generation of Muslim neo-jihadis happens to correspond precisely with the self-loathing of a generation of Western post-hippies. Perhaps never before, in the history of interaction between the “Dar al-Islam” (Muslim-ruled world), and the “Dar al-Harb” (the external world with which it is perpetually “at war”), have aspiring Muslim conquerors met such willing candidates for “dhimmitude”. The definition of a “dhimmi” is one who pays the “jizyah” tax to his Muslim rulers; who, in return for this protection money, enjoys an ambiguous special status. This is, as Islamist propaganda is eager to propagate, exactly what is going on when, for instance, governments of the West send foreign aid to Muslim regimes, in the (vain) belief that this will exempt them from the next round of terror hits, or rioting. More generally, the equation of Western aid and domestic welfare payments with the “jizyah” is common in Arab media. It expresses contempt for the West, and our “so-called freedoms”.
Read entire.
Monday, March 13. 2006
 Our News Junkie posted the link, this morning, to Big Lizard's piece "It takes a village meathead." Rob Reiner has apparently used taxpayer dollars to purchase PR and advertising to promote one of his personal political agenda items: the necessity to expand government child care.
The consultant, also hired with taxpayer dollars, advised thusly (highlights from Big Lizard): "We must create demand by creating awareness of the problems caused by insufficient attention to the early years. Currently, not enough people see the need for the state to do more, because they don't see a problem. If we offer people the solution to a problem they are not aware exists, they will reject it. We must educate people that there is a problem, thereby leading to demand for improvement.... We must continue our efforts at parental education. It is crucial that we continue to build upon the work we've already done in educating parents and caregivers about the difference they can make in the way their children develop, not just because it is important in and of itself, but also because it will also help to create more demand for improved programs from the state. The more we communicate about the relationship between the early years and future outcomes -- especially in K-12 -- the more we will create demand for a greater level of service from the state...."
That advice on how to extract more money from California taxpayers cost California taxpayers $110,000. It seems so simple. Create an atmosphere of crisis, and create a "need" - or, if they can get away with it, a "prescriptive right." Then the State can ride in on its white horse to save the day. Thus government expands incrementally, and freedom and autonomy and self-reliance diminish proportionately, with the ultimate goal being, I suppose, a nation of emotional pre-schoolers as in Europe supervised by a supposedly benevolent tyranny of nannies, bullies, know-it-alls, and sanctimonious busy-bodies. Interestingly, there is no evidence that so-called "early childhood education," such as Head Start, does any good whatsover. Other than to give mothers a break from their kids. Young kids are probably better off just banging around and following their natural noses in unstructured ways. AKA "playing." We can see this same pattern of operation on the subject of medical care, climate, gun control - you can name the others. The MSM is typically a willing useful idiot for these efforts, and the cherry-picking of statistics is fairly obvious to those who know anything about statistics. It is easy nowadays to identify when this crisis du jour process is happening. It is usually fairly-well coordinated, with all sorts of advocacy groups, hungry for grant dollars, on board in advance - and it always requires more government power and control. There is never a freedom solution - never.
Friday, March 10. 2006
 The story of Mike Grey is one more example of Life Imitating Satire.
This dude publically admitted speaking English - on his pick-up truck. If this guy loses his job, he'll be the busiest landscaper in Denver. Hey, Denver. We speak English too! (Not too good, though.) The Political Correctness Police have already made a joke of themselves (See Paxety link this morning - "Baa baa rainbow sheep"). "Rainbow"? There's no black in a rainbow. No brown, either. Purple, orange, red, yellow? Huh? And what is wrong with a black sheep? Or a blackbird? Should we kill them all? And the English-speaking persons as well? Black, brown, mutant-white - all are excellent skin colors, and we have no choice about them. What's wrong with acknowledging them? What matters is what is under the skin: what is in the brain and heart and soul. On Maggie's Farm we call that "the difficult stuff" - morals, self-discipline, and character. Good grief! By the way, do you remember the basic high school physics of the rainbow? P.S.: Where can I find an English-speaking landscaper around here? It would work much better... Image: a nice Husquvarna machine
Wednesday, March 8. 2006
Where does the money come from? Blue is Dem, Red is Repub. As Will points out in the piece from which this graph is borrowed, it helps explain why the blue party is out of touch with the country. 
1. Why does the Left want the Jihadists to win? 2. Why does the Left require "understanding" of the Jihadists, but does not require understanding of us, by them? These are rhetorical questions.
Saturday, March 4. 2006
Is it time to bring back "nattering nabobs of negativity"? They have returned, with a vengeance. Thanks for uttering the catchy phrase, Spiro.
Friday, March 3. 2006
Russello reviews Rod Dreher's new book "Crunchy Cons" in the NY Sun: "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum, 259 pages, $24), even with its weaknesses, may be a clarion call for conservatives who have come to realize that the most important things in life cannot be found either in politics or the marketplace, and that what passes for political discourse is largely empty of meaning. This is no academic treatise but rather a look at what America has become since the revolutions of the 1960s and the Reagan era. The ethos of "do your own thing," promoted by 1960s radicals and latter-day libertines, has been combined with a capitalist system all too happy to separate people from traditional commitments and to remake them instead into atomistic consumers tossed amid the "creative destruction" of the marketplace. The results have been broken families, destroyed neighborhoods, environmental degradation, and neglect of the duties one generation owes to another.
Read entire review.
Wednesday, March 1. 2006
A must-read. Thanks to one of our ever-alert readers for noting this remarkable piece in the Brussels Journal: Anti-Jihad Manifesto Misses the Point. A selection: In our opinion, man is a religious being. Secularism destroyed the Christian roots of Europe and, in doing so, created the religious vacuum that is now being filled by Islam. The manifesto warns against “battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. […] We must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.” History in the past century, however, has clearly indicated that those fighting for an “egalitarian” world were the most “liberticidal” of all. Freedom is the right to live “unegalitarianly.” This is why The Brussels Journal defends the right of individuals – though not of the state – to “discriminate” (which, by the way, contrary to what the manifesto implies, is not the same as “oppress”). Indeed, it is no coincidence that the manifesto avoids referring to “Socialism” (and even “Communism”) among the scourges of the past century and prefers to speak of “Nazism” and Stalinism” instead. Half the manifesto’s signatories are probably Socialists, which explains why the manifesto obfuscates the secular, Socialist roots of these scourges. While in America a cultural war is going on between “blue” (liberal) and “red” (conservative), the cultural war in Europe is a three-way war between the European equivalent of the American “blue” (socialist), the European equivalent of the American “red” (conservative, though Europeans often use the term “liberal”) and Muslims. I prefer to refer to the first group as “secularist” (although I realise this is a generalization and many Christians belong to these “secularists,” including – unfortunately – most of our bishops and priests) and to the second group as “Christian” (although many agnostics belong to it). The reason why I make this distinction is because the second group is prepared to acknowledge the importance of the cultural traditions of the West, rooted in the Judeo-Christian values without which classical-liberalism could never have evolved.
I trust those who have lived within Leftist totalitarian states to offer a clearer critique than dreamers who have never done so. As we have attempted to do in many essays here, Vasko Kohlmayer explores the cultural death wish implicit in what remains of Marxism. Always seemed strange to me that Western Civ. is the only civilization that welcomes self-critique: just try it in China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia or North Korea - I guess we are superior in that way. One quote: Regardless of its rhetoric or avowed objective, the driving force behind the Left’s every movement is to strike against some aspect of Western society. Environmentalism, for instance, hits at the West’s economic foundation of free-market capitalism. Multiculturalism seeks to unravel its cultural coherence. The gay rights movement strikes at its moral underpinnings, and so on. The Left, of course, will deny the real reason for its actions. But to evaluate the true value of any act we need to look at its effect not the rhetoric behind it. And the effects of the Left’s actions are invariably – in one way or another – destructive to the West. The Left’s gains have been greatly facilitated by its ingenious modus operandi, which is to cloak its destructive intent in the language of good causes. Civil rights, gender equality, ecological preservation are among some of its favorite ploys. The ostensible caring is not real, for these are not at all what the Left’s efforts are ultimately about.
Tuesday, February 28. 2006
The always-interesting Kling takes a look at the Jewish Liberal-Left, and maps out a cultural-historical narrative which explains it. Here's his summary: The Original | Marxist | Folk Marxist | | | | Pharaoh | Capitalist Class | Wal-Mart | Hebrews | Working Class | Other Stores | Moses | Karl Marx | Liberal Pundits | God | Communism | Government |
His thesis is that a historical-cultural template is applied to circumstances, but that the template doesn't always fit reality. Thinking "inside the box", so to speak. At TCS, read the entire interesting piece.
Mathias Dopfner, Chief Executive of the German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany's largest daily paper, against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat. Written in 2004 - how much truer does it sound today...
EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE (Commentary by Mathias Dopfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG) November 20, 2004
A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.
Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.
Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.
Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.
Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly
500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush ... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.
And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?
I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German)
Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.
One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the
laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European "Peace in
our time".
What else has to happen before the European public and its political
leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially
perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims,
focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.
It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great
military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy
that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually
spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent American
Presidents had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.
His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.
In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the
multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and
being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true
great powers, America and China.
On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those
"arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even
(Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes.
Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so
materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of
additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the
American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.
While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare
systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss
reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation ... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".
These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber
breaking into a neighbor's house.
Appeasement?
Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
Monday, February 27. 2006
Atlas reminds us that yesterday, Feb. 26, was the  anniversary of a declaration of war against the Infidel. The follow-up attack was not a movie.
Sunday, February 26. 2006
From DeHaviland at Samizdata: Guy Herber's excellent article The public mood (while the public moo-ed) got me thinking about the nature of the 'Radical Centre'. The Radical Centre seem to have the same obsession with control that the fascists and communists had but unlike them, it is control for control's sake rather than in the service of some clear ideology: there is no Blairite or Clintonite (or even 'Bushite') 'The Communist Manifesto' or 'Mein Kampf'. They do not seek the triumph of Volk or the dictatorship of the proletariat, they just seek to replace all social interactions with politically mediated interactions. They seek to regulate everything via a total state that does not organise mass rallies or collectivise farms, it just wants a world in which nothing whatsoever is private, everything is political. Their symbol is not the Hammer and Sickle or the Swastika, it is the CCTV camera. Perhaps this also explains the radical centre's transcendent hatred of the USA's system of checks and balances: the US Bill of Rights takes whole sections of civil society and tries to place them outside politics (free speech, the right to have the means to defend yourself etc.). Sure, it fails miserably as often as it succeeds but at least the notion that not absolutely everything is subject to politics is part of the American cultural DNA and that, rather than the US government's policy towards, well, anything, is what makes the US anathema to the Radical Centre (including the US Radical Centre). The Radical Centre has also been called 'Authoritarian Populism' because it seeks to impose the popular will by force and it does not much care what that will is. Just as liberty for liberty's own sake is the objective of the Classical Liberal/Libertarian rather than some 'overarching narrative' as was the case with the radical statist left and statist right in the corpse filled 20th century, the Radical Centre seek control for control's own sake with no particular grand reason in mind other than to perpetuate a political class whose reason for existence is to make decisions about other people's lives. The reason they dislike us so much is that to attack regulatory statism is to attack these people's very reason to exist and we challange them on a profound psychological level. They need to control other people just as we need to control our own lives. The Radical Centre is our demonic reflection.
Thursday, February 23. 2006
The notion that art has a political function is a hold-over from the Hitler and Stalin years, when overt, unsubtle propagandizing was at its height. The notion that art is meant to unsettle the comfortable bourgeoisie is mainly a product of the juvenile and narcissistic 60s. Indeed, the notion that art is a "personal statement" is a modern and, I feel, vain concept. However, it does fit well with the desire for instant celebrity and fame: "It's all about me." In support of Free Speech, I post two infamous, blasphemous and hideous examples of recent "art." What do you think? I think they are high-school level attention-seeking and tasteless examples of adolescent rebellion against the grown-ups. But Free Speech protects jerks - as it should. Riots? No. Sadness? Yes. And hey - the "controversy" fills the galleries. Mind you, the American newspapers have no problem with these forms of "personal expression" - because they know the Christians won't behead them. There happens to be a little item that says "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us..." The first is "Piss Christ." 
This one is The Holy Virgin with Elephant Dung: 
Who, if anyone, is running the White House? Someone is asleep at the switch. Who is running PR? Who is running the "War Room"? From this side of the news, it looks like nobody - or everyone has been on vacation. Time for a staff change - quick. Since the election, there has been no even half-decent political management down there. Wake up, people!
Dr. Weinberg: Ms. Thomas, I'd like to begin by asking you a few questions.
Helen Thomas: I ask the questions here. I am the Deanette of the Washington Press Corps!
Dr. W: Well, please just indulge me for a minute. What city are we in now?
Helen Thomas: Washington DC. Where else would anybody be?
Dr. W: Excellent. And what year is this?
Helen Thomas: 1974. Everyone knows that.
Dr. W: And who is the President?
Helen Thomas: Richard Nixon, the lousy rat bum warmonger fascist pig - that's who!
Dr. W: You seem a bit upset...
Helen Thomas: I am gonna get that Republican wiretapping SOB.
Dr. W: Nixon did wiretapping?...Not that I recall...maybe J. Edgar Hoover and Bobby Kennedy...oh, never mind. Let's move on...
Helen Thomas: Exactly right, Professor. Move On - that's the ticket. But don't you dare criticize my Bobby. (the tape mercifully but mysteriously cut at this point)
Wednesday, February 22. 2006
The New York Sun figured out what The New York Times and the Dems won't say: This is about the unions.
We have all figured it out by now, but Henniger articulates it best. It's the Japanese water torture - you drip drip drip on everything until people just get "tired of the Republican experience." Meanwhile, the Repubs tie themselves in knots trying to respond - but that's not the point! Quote from his WSJ op piece (H/T, Soxblog): Absent any fresh or positive message for voters, why not try winning by turning politics under the Republicans into an experience of unrelenting discomfort? The substance of any given issue falls in importance. Connecting Jack Abramoff to George Bush personally was always a stretch. So what? The most telling evidence of a strategy of discomfiting the body politic was the January bonfire over terrorist wiretaps. Here the opposition shrieked for days about a "constitutional crisis" even as polls were indicating public support for the Bush program, including 28% who would OK tapping anyone's phone "on a regular basis" to catch terrorists.
Read the entire piece. He gets it, like totally.
|
Londonistan