Monday, May 28, 2007
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Monday, May 07, 2007
Give me a break
Sultan's on the warpath again, which is fine. God knows we all feel the need to blow off steam and whip the appropriate men-o-straw (oh, mixed metaphors, how I love thee). Unfortunately, his latest piece takes this all a bit far.
Sultan accuses liberals of "exploiting terrorism and riots to their own advantage", and using a strategy of "security through appeasement".
With the exception of the civilian rioting angle, though, isn't this what both parties do? Is anyone seriously going to claim that conservatives don't exploit terrorism for their own political purposes and tactics? We're still hearing crap about how "terrorists want Democrats elected," and "if liberals come into power, it will lead to more terrorism," "don't switch horses in the middle of a race" and similar B.S. The two parties use terrorism as a great way of meshing foreign and domestic policy, and getting free scare tactics points, to boot. If liberals use rioters as pseudo-allies as a way of pressing their argument (vote for us or they'll be riots), I have to wonder if conservatives aren't equally guilty of using groups like Al Qaeda in a similar way.
Here Sultan tries the old "both parties are the same now as they were 50/100/200 years ago" trick. When was the last time anyone called Andrew Jackson a progressive? He screwed Congress out of power to shore up the Executive branch, which sounds a lot like what Dubya's done during his term. Does that make HIM a progressive? Tammany Hall? Boss Tweed? Oh yeah, you can't go to any Democratic Convention without people singing his praises. Give me a break. That's like judging modern-day Republicans by using U.S. Grant and Benjamin Harrison as standards. (Or better yet, the American Republican Party- hey, it's almost the same name, that's good enough, right?) Besides, what happened to the "liberal/conservative" benchmark as opposed to Democrat and Republican?
See above. Conservatives play a slightly different tune ("we'll bomb Afghanistan back to the stone age") but they're playing the terror card and the "elect us or things will get worse card" just as much. "Only solution?" Yeah right. You could just as easily swing this the other way- liberals suggest a number of different responses, including force but also diplomacy, coalition-building, etc, whereas conservatives are more likely to want to go it alone, guns blazing, whether or not that's actually likely to solve the problem (see Afghanistan, Iraq). Neither approach is foolproof, and neither is fuck-up-proof. But this representation is simply dishonest. And don't think "the other guy's in bed with Bin Laden" isn't just another way of trying to come off as "Good Cop."
That's the "essential" liberal position? Says who? Marx, maybe, but I get the impression that most liberals are a tad more nuanced than that. Besides, conservatives also think some forms of violence are legitimate- the American Revolution, the Maccabee revolt, hell, this whole War On Terror thing. What's "collateral damage" if not blaming the victims? Oh, we dropped a bomb and flattened a village and the terrorists got away? Well, those villagers should have known better than to hang out with terrorists! Please.
Go take a poll on that one and get back to me.
NOT necessarily. Sometimes, however, rioting is indeed symptomatic of larger social ills, such as in the French Revolution, which, despite its many flaws, was in part the result of people actually starving in the streets. This is the basic idea behind any civil disobedience- see the Orange revolution in Ukraine, the anti-Disengagement campaign in Israel, the Cedar revolution in Lebanon, Tiananmen Square, the riots to get Milosevic out of power, or the Civil Rights Movement. Just because some riots and protests are ONLY about violence doesn't mean that all riots are done for the hell of it. Furthermore, if riots are partially the result of cultural and economic alienation, then some combination of trying to address grievances with increased force is likely to be more effective in stopping them than just cracking skulls and prosecuting people, which is going to make the targets more radicalized, probably get them more support from fence-sitters, and eventually create an evolutionary process which makes them more dangerous because they know how to avoid getting caught. Force isn't always the best answer, and that's the problem with the conservative argument. No, we shouldn't give Bin Laden a foot massage, but we should understand why he's popular with Muslims and see if there's any way we can undercut that support without betraying our own values. (We can even leave Israel out of the equation for a minute: we support various totalitarian Arab and Muslim states because they're supposedly "pro-Western." If we started putting pressure on them to reform, we would probably look a lot less hypocritical to Arabs who see us blabbing about democracy as justification for nation-building while enabling so many countries to remain profoundly undemocratic.) Just because someone is an enemy doesn't preclude them from having a point.
Sultan accuses liberals of "exploiting terrorism and riots to their own advantage", and using a strategy of "security through appeasement".
With the exception of the civilian rioting angle, though, isn't this what both parties do? Is anyone seriously going to claim that conservatives don't exploit terrorism for their own political purposes and tactics? We're still hearing crap about how "terrorists want Democrats elected," and "if liberals come into power, it will lead to more terrorism," "don't switch horses in the middle of a race" and similar B.S. The two parties use terrorism as a great way of meshing foreign and domestic policy, and getting free scare tactics points, to boot. If liberals use rioters as pseudo-allies as a way of pressing their argument (vote for us or they'll be riots), I have to wonder if conservatives aren't equally guilty of using groups like Al Qaeda in a similar way.
Elections by way of the mob has been an old tactic of the progressive side. Andrew Jackson was after all elected by the mob, that proceeded to trample and trash the White House. In the French Revolution, murderous mobs were capably employed to deal with "Enemies of the Revolution", intimidating anyone who might dare speak out against them.
During the Civil War Riots in New York, touched off by the Democratic Tammany Hall in order to sabotage the War and help elect a Democrat President-- mobs targeted Republicans and Republican editors, before going off to lynch blacks and hang police officers from streetlamps. These riots were not only confined to New York either, but took place in several Northern urban centers that were Democratic party strongholds.
As demographics changed, so did the rioting. In the second half of the 20th century, American Democrats would be more likely to rely on riots by blacks, rather than riots against blacks-- a sea change for a party that had spent a good deal of time in bed with the Klan.
Here Sultan tries the old "both parties are the same now as they were 50/100/200 years ago" trick. When was the last time anyone called Andrew Jackson a progressive? He screwed Congress out of power to shore up the Executive branch, which sounds a lot like what Dubya's done during his term. Does that make HIM a progressive? Tammany Hall? Boss Tweed? Oh yeah, you can't go to any Democratic Convention without people singing his praises. Give me a break. That's like judging modern-day Republicans by using U.S. Grant and Benjamin Harrison as standards. (Or better yet, the American Republican Party- hey, it's almost the same name, that's good enough, right?) Besides, what happened to the "liberal/conservative" benchmark as opposed to Democrat and Republican?
In the age of Muslim Terror-- conservatives offer the defensive and offensive use of force-- while liberals preach that the only solution is to meet their grievances. When war efforts falter, the voices of liberals are more likely to be heard preaching appeasement. While the appeasement of course never succeeds-- it isn't meant to.
If conservatives respond to escalating violence with escalating force-- liberals respond with escalating appeasement. Violence is a condition they wish to prolong because it enables them to play 'Good Cop' warning that a failure to elect them will result in even greater violence.
See above. Conservatives play a slightly different tune ("we'll bomb Afghanistan back to the stone age") but they're playing the terror card and the "elect us or things will get worse card" just as much. "Only solution?" Yeah right. You could just as easily swing this the other way- liberals suggest a number of different responses, including force but also diplomacy, coalition-building, etc, whereas conservatives are more likely to want to go it alone, guns blazing, whether or not that's actually likely to solve the problem (see Afghanistan, Iraq). Neither approach is foolproof, and neither is fuck-up-proof. But this representation is simply dishonest. And don't think "the other guy's in bed with Bin Laden" isn't just another way of trying to come off as "Good Cop."
The essential liberal position holds that society as it is-- is evil and unjust and that violence against it, is directed by those who are oppressed by it. Violence is therefore righteous and it is the victims of violence who are at fault. This is not a condition that can be remedied by anything short of a Communist like transformation of society from one that serves individual ambitions, to a collective society that has rendered all individuality moot in favor of equality enforced by the state.
That's the "essential" liberal position? Says who? Marx, maybe, but I get the impression that most liberals are a tad more nuanced than that. Besides, conservatives also think some forms of violence are legitimate- the American Revolution, the Maccabee revolt, hell, this whole War On Terror thing. What's "collateral damage" if not blaming the victims? Oh, we dropped a bomb and flattened a village and the terrorists got away? Well, those villagers should have known better than to hang out with terrorists! Please.
The ultimate purpose of liberalism is to bring about this transformation into a totalitarian socialist state.
Go take a poll on that one and get back to me.
Violence is the means for achieving that transformation. To the progressives, violence by the disenfranchised and oppressed is the engine of social change. Only by voting for them-- can the violence be employed to bring about a real social transformation. Whether that violence is the violence of mobs ransacking the city in protest of having to fight a war on behalf of blacks or riots in the ghettoes-- whether it's suicide bombers in the London subway or rock throwers in the West Bank-- the left wing approach is to view that violence as a symptom of injustice which must be given in to in order to create a just society.
NOT necessarily. Sometimes, however, rioting is indeed symptomatic of larger social ills, such as in the French Revolution, which, despite its many flaws, was in part the result of people actually starving in the streets. This is the basic idea behind any civil disobedience- see the Orange revolution in Ukraine, the anti-Disengagement campaign in Israel, the Cedar revolution in Lebanon, Tiananmen Square, the riots to get Milosevic out of power, or the Civil Rights Movement. Just because some riots and protests are ONLY about violence doesn't mean that all riots are done for the hell of it. Furthermore, if riots are partially the result of cultural and economic alienation, then some combination of trying to address grievances with increased force is likely to be more effective in stopping them than just cracking skulls and prosecuting people, which is going to make the targets more radicalized, probably get them more support from fence-sitters, and eventually create an evolutionary process which makes them more dangerous because they know how to avoid getting caught. Force isn't always the best answer, and that's the problem with the conservative argument. No, we shouldn't give Bin Laden a foot massage, but we should understand why he's popular with Muslims and see if there's any way we can undercut that support without betraying our own values. (We can even leave Israel out of the equation for a minute: we support various totalitarian Arab and Muslim states because they're supposedly "pro-Western." If we started putting pressure on them to reform, we would probably look a lot less hypocritical to Arabs who see us blabbing about democracy as justification for nation-building while enabling so many countries to remain profoundly undemocratic.) Just because someone is an enemy doesn't preclude them from having a point.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Time for an Intervention?
Falwell claims "God told him" to eat Food
After being confronted on Tuesday by his entire extended family, Reverend Jerry Falwell admitted to cleaning out the household fridge, but said it was "almost positively" the will of the Lord. "You forget, children, I’m a pastor. I’m in almost constant communication with God," Falwell replied. "By the way, Jon, he says he wants you to take a few steps back. You’re blocking the TV, I mean, Devil machine."
Falwell held a short press conference after the incident. "What happens between me and my family is not for public consumption," he remarked. "The Lord likes His privacy and so do I. If people want to know more, they’re going to have to subscribe to the members section of my website, Jerry’s Judgment. We have a great column up there right now in which I deconstruct the entire Homosexual Lobby-Grand Masonic-New World Order-Frito Lay, Inc.-conspiracy. Sign up now for only 29.95 a month, and I’m sure the Lord will bless you, eventually."
Jaundace Falwell-Smith, a distant cousin, said that this was the thirty-fifth occasion that she could remember Falwell ruining. "He ate the whole cake at my sixth birthday party, and then said I was possessed when I started crying. Let me tell you, we’d be mighty steamed if he didn’t have a direct pipeline to the Almighty."
Pat Robertson, a longtime colleague of Falwell’s, defended his friend on his television show, The 700 Club. "What people don’t seem to appreciate is that that’s God up there," he said, his giant ears almost levitating him off the ground. "When you get that call from the big guy, you don’t argue with him, you don’t debate, you do what he says. If he tells you to make dumb-ass political comments about stuff you know nothing about, you do it. If he tells you to make a complete ass out of yourself by faith-healing or quack medicine, you do that, too. And if he says, 'Jerry, that fridge full of food is an abomination unto me, vanish it from my sight,' well by God, I guess it’s chow time. To do anything else would be to stick your finger in God’s eye, and scientific testing has proved he doesn’t like that." Robertson went on to suggest that Falwell may have in fact just averted a natural disaster, and recommended that a government sub-committee be set up to investigate whether he should be awarded a medal for heroism. Fellow theological heavyweight John Hagee chastised Falwell's family for opening the preacher up to public scrutiny, and blamed the liberal media for blowing things out of proportion. "The Lord gave us dominion over the earth, and last I checked that included a man's own kitchen. To quote Saint Anthony: back off, forces of Satan!"
Friday, May 04, 2007
First thing we do is kill all the Sophists
WND's Andrew Longman claims Iraq's going "just fine." As you can imagine, as a person who does not live in a cave or some sort of catatonic state, I was a little surprised to hear this. But I decided to give Drew the benefit of the doubt.
Longfellow seems to be forgetting that a large chunk of the Iraqi fighters are Islamists, including Shiites, Sunnis, and Al Qaeda, many of whom have ties to various terrorist organizations, and who have been involved in what many would term terrorism within Iraq during the past several years. Swing and a miss!
Yeah, and if our troops were, say Mamluks and we didn't give a shit about them (or anyone we killed over there), we'd have nothing to worry about. But that's not the case. What else you got?
Yo, Andy, pass me some of that crack, since you seem to be into the good stuff. Let's think this one through- a city has tons of murders in a year, and loses tons of its cops to violent crime in the process. Do the mayor and police chief high-five because their city is now a "bug-zapper?" And draining Iran? Since when? Those guys are so crazy they're accusing Ahmadinejad of being a godless heretic. Oh yeah, what progress.
As near as I can tell, Drewski's logic here seems to be that the more the Iraqis kill each other, the fewer crazy Iraqis there are. This logic would be iron-clad were it not for the fact that it seems to contradict almost everything we know about long-running civil wars and ethic/religious conflicts. You know, that whole cycle of hatred and violence thing? Take a look at South Africa, the Balkans, Northern Ireland, and Israel and the West Bank while you're at it. If your only strategy is to let the Sunnis and Shiites kill each other until they're too tuckered out, you're in for a lot of killing (which, to be fair, looks like it's going to be happening in any event).
Actually, I'm pretty sure we've screwed up protecting almost anybody there, Short-man.
There's more:
There are only two problems with the Iraq war. One is that Iraqis like killing each other. The second is that it is emotionally unpleasant to watch Iraqis kill each other. But objectively, if viewed in regard to the interests of the United States, the Iraq war is doing just fine.What are America's security needs? We need to be sure that a large, wealthy, military industrial complex does not have political leadership that would both generate weapons of mass destruction in defiance of regulation by international bodies, and would not simultaneously support Islamist terrorist organizations. On that score, Iraq is a big win.
Longfellow seems to be forgetting that a large chunk of the Iraqi fighters are Islamists, including Shiites, Sunnis, and Al Qaeda, many of whom have ties to various terrorist organizations, and who have been involved in what many would term terrorism within Iraq during the past several years. Swing and a miss!
Second, America needs to fight al-Qaida in such a way that their membership gets wiped out and ours does not. Ideally, then, we'd like to have the American military fighting the enemy on the other side of the world, far from our civilians. So, for fighting al-Qaida, you do not get a much better scenario than Iraq. Terrorists fly there using priceline.com, and "there" is geographically as far as you can get from North America. The only Americans terrorists can find there call in air strikes from their mobile phones rather than just the Starbucks store-locator.
Yeah, and if our troops were, say Mamluks and we didn't give a shit about them (or anyone we killed over there), we'd have nothing to worry about. But that's not the case. What else you got?
Today, Iraq is like an international bug-zapper for jihadists. It sendeth forth a glow in the night to all delirious Ahmadinejad wanna-bees, so they come flying from all over the world to die, to embarrass themselves, to fight a losing battle. We are even beginning to drain Iran of them.
Yo, Andy, pass me some of that crack, since you seem to be into the good stuff. Let's think this one through- a city has tons of murders in a year, and loses tons of its cops to violent crime in the process. Do the mayor and police chief high-five because their city is now a "bug-zapper?" And draining Iran? Since when? Those guys are so crazy they're accusing Ahmadinejad of being a godless heretic. Oh yeah, what progress.
As near as I can tell, Drewski's logic here seems to be that the more the Iraqis kill each other, the fewer crazy Iraqis there are. This logic would be iron-clad were it not for the fact that it seems to contradict almost everything we know about long-running civil wars and ethic/religious conflicts. You know, that whole cycle of hatred and violence thing? Take a look at South Africa, the Balkans, Northern Ireland, and Israel and the West Bank while you're at it. If your only strategy is to let the Sunnis and Shiites kill each other until they're too tuckered out, you're in for a lot of killing (which, to be fair, looks like it's going to be happening in any event).
True, we should not be inactive on the humanitarian front. The actions of America in failing to protect the Christian minority has been a complete disgrace. But while we recognize this, the solution is not to defame the morality of the whole effort. It is to load up the platoons and protect those we can.
Actually, I'm pretty sure we've screwed up protecting almost anybody there, Short-man.
There's more:
Perspective is needed. America's security aims are being achieved and the most unbelievable military victories have taken place all at casualty levels considered record minimum by war historians. Humanitarian concerns and the 1,500-year-old hate between sects are primarily the responsibility of the Iraqis. Failing to heal the Middle East doesn't constitute failure on our part.
It does when we've been telling everybody that this was our GOAL! How many people do you think would have been on board with this crap if Bush told us we were going to make Iraq into a blood-soaked hellhole, minus the Baathists?
Andy concludes:
Our job is to keep our eye on the ball: making the terrorist miserable. Gen. Petraeus has pointed out on national TV that there are about eight military raids per day where al-Qaida are being captured or killed. Precisely why is that a "failure" in the war on terror? That's 3,000 raids per year on Osama bin Laden. Democrats were previously beside themselves that there were not enough al-Qaida in Iraq to justify invasion, but now that there are many and a franchise of the same name, Democrats want to leave because the fighting is hard. Is there a pattern here?
If the Iraq theater is measured by a standard of whether the Islamist caliphate is being defeated, that being the only relevant measure, then this war is strategically doing just fine.
What are we to make of the bizarre contrast between our national grief over the terrible slaughter of students and faculty at Virginia Tech and our muted reaction to the continuing bloodbath in and around Baghdad? One mass killing in the 209 years since Virginia Tech was founded is not exactly a trend. It is a terrible thing but not likely to be repeated anytime soon.
We cannot say the same about events in Baghdad and Iraq. Just today four separate car bombs in and around Baghdad teft at least 160 Iraqis--mostly Shia--dead. Yesterday, Tuesday, at least 85 bodies turned up and there were more bombings. Monday was not much better--thirty corpses and at least twenty killed in bombings. Sixty nine plus on Sunday. And the beat goes on.
...When you consider the events of the last week in Iraq there is no reason any sane Iraqi--Sunni or Shia--would have any confidence in the Petraeus plan. Petraeus and U.S forces are in trouble. Desperate trouble. Despite White House flacks and politicians like McCain insisting that things are improving in Baghdad, the continued mass casualty bombings, the stacks of bodies left on the streets, the destruction of key infrastructure (like the Sarafiya bridge), and the bombing of the Iraqi parliament is reality and cannot be casually dismissed as the crazy ravings of a news media intent on reporting bad news.
Yup, sounds like we're doing a hell of a job. Maybe Longman should volunteer to go man the "zapper."
Lynch Crap
WND's Phyllis Schlafly-wannabe claims that she knows why Jennifer Lynch is getting "shunned" by the media. Let's see- is it because the media's been living up Bush's butt for the past seven years and, with help from Republicans in government and Fox News, have been consistently cock-blocked on the odd-attempt to actually find out real information? Or possibly that conservatives who made Lynch into an American hero to rally the flag behind have soured on her now that she's rebelling against their made-up BS?
Nope, says the heavy-metal-ex-wife-sounding Jane Chastain. It's because the media's mad that Lynch contradicts their feminist model of "women can be soldiers just like men."
Um... ok?
That's right, any propagandizing of Lynch was clearly motivated by feminists, not warmongering patriotism-whore hawks. Got it?
Yeah, except of course for that time she was interviewed by Diane Sawyer, way back at the HEIGHT of her popularity and where, incidentally, she blamed the military for making up details about her story. But never mind that, because those two gals were wearing pants and weren't at home baking cookies between pregnancies, so they really couldn't have anything useful to say in the first place, right?
While I'm sure Rush Limbaugh would agree with Chastain's assessment, I'm not so sure anyone else does. Also, sorry to harsh Chastain's buzz, but while the "mainstream" media was definitely complicit in swallowing the White House's crap, it's not like liberals haven't been poking holes in the Lynch stuff before now (usually resulting in attacks from conservatives, a-la the Tillman case). To be fair, some conservatives and libertarians were, too, as were some in the media itself. Doesn't this sort of disprove Chastain's "the media promoted Lynch for feminism's sake" argument? As does this recent editorial in the NY Times by a former military honcho who blames GOVERNMENT, not the military, and incidentally, not the media (where exactly does the Pentagon fall in this case?) for inflating the Lynch story.
Interesting side-point- Chastain isn't alone in opposing women being in combat. Check out this article from LewRockwell.com. All the talk of how sending women to fight is unAmerican and unChristian made me chuckle.
Nope, says the heavy-metal-ex-wife-sounding Jane Chastain. It's because the media's mad that Lynch contradicts their feminist model of "women can be soldiers just like men."
Why did the press give the West Virginia beauty the cold shoulder this time around? She didn't follow the script that had been carefully crafted of her capture on March 23, 2003, after her Army maintenance company lost its way and was ambushed by the enemy. She didn't toe the radical feminist line of "I am a warrior, hear me roar!"
Um... ok?
Unfortunately, Jessica is either misinformed or she misspeaks when she blames the fabrication of her story on the Pentagon. Who was the "unnamed" U.S. official who gave the story to the Washington Post? That tag could fit hundreds of people. The military is awash with feminists anxious to prove that men and women are interchangeable fungibles.
That's right, any propagandizing of Lynch was clearly motivated by feminists, not warmongering patriotism-whore hawks. Got it?
When Jessica emerged from her trying ordeal, she unknowingly stepped into the middle of the debate over women in combat, and, by refusing to play the warrior role, she unwillingly poked her finger in the eye of the mainstream media, which seems hellbent on selling us on this notion. Yes, she can write a letter to Diane Sawyer or a network news organization and it will be read, but she isn't likely to get more airtime because she is considered no longer useful.
Yeah, except of course for that time she was interviewed by Diane Sawyer, way back at the HEIGHT of her popularity and where, incidentally, she blamed the military for making up details about her story. But never mind that, because those two gals were wearing pants and weren't at home baking cookies between pregnancies, so they really couldn't have anything useful to say in the first place, right?
Jessica was never a war hero. She is no longer a media hero. However, if she will go to the Center for Military Readiness and do some research on this issue of women in combat, she could use her position to wake up America and be a hero to all clear thinkers who don't wish to see enlisted women used as cannon fodder just so a few female officers can make it to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
It may not be fair that the average man is six inches taller, 50 pounds heavier and has 42 percent more upper body strength than the average woman, but it is reality. There are many things women can do better than men, but being a warrior is not one of them!
Except that the military doesn't ban skinny short dudes from serving in combat. But never mind, since this strawman really doesn't have much to do with Lynch in the first place.
While I'm sure Rush Limbaugh would agree with Chastain's assessment, I'm not so sure anyone else does. Also, sorry to harsh Chastain's buzz, but while the "mainstream" media was definitely complicit in swallowing the White House's crap, it's not like liberals haven't been poking holes in the Lynch stuff before now (usually resulting in attacks from conservatives, a-la the Tillman case). To be fair, some conservatives and libertarians were, too, as were some in the media itself. Doesn't this sort of disprove Chastain's "the media promoted Lynch for feminism's sake" argument? As does this recent editorial in the NY Times by a former military honcho who blames GOVERNMENT, not the military, and incidentally, not the media (where exactly does the Pentagon fall in this case?) for inflating the Lynch story.
Interesting side-point- Chastain isn't alone in opposing women being in combat. Check out this article from LewRockwell.com. All the talk of how sending women to fight is unAmerican and unChristian made me chuckle.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Trephenation- the latest craze for idiots
I'm convinced: having a hole in his brain is pretty much the only explanation for Joe Farah's latest op-ed, "Don't discriminate, except …" Farah whines about Hollywood hypocrisy:
Tolerance.Diversity.
Non-discrimination.
These are the high and mighty values by which our modern society measures its morality.
They sound nice.
They sound lofty.
They sound inclusive.
But never judge a word by its sound.
These words may evoke good feelings in you. But it is how words are defined that counts.
Farah then shows a copy of a memo from a talent agency looking for a Latino talk show host- what essentially looks like a casting call.
This is what tolerance, diversity and non-discrimination really means in Hollywood, in the world of government-subsidized broadcasting and in academia. It doesn't mean, as you might believe, all people are welcomed. It doesn't mean employment on the basis of merit alone. It doesn't mean non-discrimination.
It actually means discrimination on the basis of sex, skin color, ethnic origin, age, etc.
I suspect if you as an employer sent out such a memo recruiting for a white male of a certain age range, you would find yourself prosecuted. But as long as you are searching for people other than white males of a certain age range, it's anything goes.
Of course, color-blind Joe's objection against Hollywood typecasting would be a lot more hard-hitting if he hadn't repeatedly penned wacky screeds like this calling for racial profiling.
...I never seem to get checked.
Why am I complaining? Because I fit the profile of the very people who are most likely to hijack an airplane or blow it up in a suicide attack.I am an Arab-American. I have an Arabic surname. I look Arabic.
I know what you are going to say: "Farah, pulling you out of line would be profiling. It's not American to discriminate against people because of their national origin or racial characteristics."
Need I remind my fellow Americans that we are at war? I personally would much prefer to see our country use its precious security resources more wisely. Not everyone is a security risk. Common sense needs to be employed if we are to make this country safer. Isn't it preferable to inconvenience me and people who look like me than to turn our entire country into a virtual police state?
...There is a way to make our airliners safe. We should follow the El Al model. I have flown El Al often. On El Al, I am treated with suspicion. All Arabs are. And that is why El Al had not witnessed a hijacking in 20 years until last week when an Arab secreted a knife on board a flight with a plan to commandeer the plane into an Israeli skyscraper. Sky marshals wrestled him to the ground and averted a disaster.
Why would I want to see a security system that would cause me more hassle? Because I want to see my flights land at airports – not in buildings. A few moments of irritation are well worth it. When I fly El Al, it gives me peace of mind to have my bags searched, to go through extra security checks, to be interrogated longer than non-Arabs.
Yo Joe, your brain's dripping on my shoes. Got a towel?
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Flogging Dead Koreans
Apparently today was supposed to be blog of silence day. Sholom has more, including the reasons why he thinks this is horsecrap.
Following his lead, I once again feel the need to yell about VTech- or rather, more BS the right is throwing at it.
Pat Buchanan, take it away.
Pat, are you high? You're half German and a quarter Scots-Irish and Irish each. Does that make you an alien? Cho was a legal immigrant to this country, and there's no suggestion that the fact that he was an immigrant was what set him off. His whole family had the same status as him, and I don't know of any information that suggests they hated America. Besides, Cho came here at age eight. How do you know if he hated America then?
People said the same thing about the Irish in the 1800s and Jews in the 1900s, Patty. Just because you think so doesn't make it true.
What immigrants AREN'T strangers? It's a new country with new customs and, in all likelihood, a new language. Am I missing something here?
That's bullcrap, Pat. The fact is that America is a huge country with a large population. Add new technology and an influx of people to urban centers and you're going to have cultural alienation and a breakdown of community. That's just how it goes. Not only that, your conception of peoplehood and community is flawed. Even a supposedly ethnically homogenous country like England or Germany still has all sorts of divisions based on geographical, cultural and linguistic differences (watch a soccer game sometime if you don't believe me).Furthermore, there were violent rampages before 1970. Like, say, Bath School (1927), Howard Unruh (1949), Charles Starkweather (1957), the University of Texas (1965), and Richard Speck (1966).
As I said, Pat, go to England, go to Germany, go to Scandinavia. There are always differences and rivalries within cultures. Besides, that's like saying that Italian-Americans and German-Americans can never get along because they have nothing in common. This is just crap. Faith? That's hysterical considering how much infighting there's been in America between Christians and Jews, Catholics and Protestants, Protestants against each other, not to mention various outsider groups like Mormons, Amish, Quakers, etc. Music? Are you serious? Yeah, if only we all could learn to appreciate waltzes, military marches and country music that would fix everything. If you think music is going to fix the problem of immigrants not assimilating, you're really off your rocker.
And? Don't they have that right? Why is this not ok? Who decided the melting pot was the only legitimate model?
Prove it!
First, an illegal is not the same as an immigrant, Pat. Even a moron like you should be able to understand the difference here. And those guys were terrorists whose goal was to infiltrate the United States as a strategic maneuver to inflict damage. That's not even close to coming here and then "going berserk."
Nice cherry-picked stats, Pat. Of course, anyone willing to do a basic google search will quickly discover that us Native Americans aren't too shabby in the killing each other department. What about other mass murders that "real" Americans committed? Like the Amish schoolhouse murders, or all those postal workers, or all those school shootings in the 80s and 90s, or Hastings Arthur Wise, or Brenda Ann Spencer or Mark Barton or James Pough or Theodore Strelski or John List or Brian Uyesugi? (Wait, are we counting Hawaiians as Americans? What about American Indians?) Are you really going to blame this all on immigrants? What about other serial killers, like Bundy or Gacy? What is this supposed to prove, exactly?
The two have nothing to do with each other, Pat. There will always be crazies, there will always be assholes, and there will always be criminals. The BS factor comes in when you try to act as if the problem is with crazy berserker immigrants instead of us lilly-white "real" Americans, a position particularly ironic since the original Nativists would have run a kraut-mick like yourself out of town as soon as look at you.
Get a clue, Pat.
Following his lead, I once again feel the need to yell about VTech- or rather, more BS the right is throwing at it.
Pat Buchanan, take it away.
Almost no attention has been paid to the fact that Cho Seung-Hui was not an American at all, but an immigrant, an alien. Had this deranged young man who secretly hated us never come here, 32 people would be heading home from Blacksburg for summer vacation.
Pat, are you high? You're half German and a quarter Scots-Irish and Irish each. Does that make you an alien? Cho was a legal immigrant to this country, and there's no suggestion that the fact that he was an immigrant was what set him off. His whole family had the same status as him, and I don't know of any information that suggests they hated America. Besides, Cho came here at age eight. How do you know if he hated America then?
Cho was among the 864,000 Koreans here as a result of the Immigration Act of 1965, which threw the nation's doors open to the greatest invasion in history, an invasion opposed by a majority of our people. Thirty-six million, almost all from countries whose peoples have never fully assimilated in any Western country, now live in our midst.
People said the same thing about the Irish in the 1800s and Jews in the 1900s, Patty. Just because you think so doesn't make it true.
What happened in Blacksburg cannot be divorced from what's been happening to America since the immigration act brought tens of millions of strangers to these shores, even as the old bonds of national community began to disintegrate and dissolve in the social revolutions of the 1960s.
What immigrants AREN'T strangers? It's a new country with new customs and, in all likelihood, a new language. Am I missing something here?
To intellectuals, what makes America a nation is ideas – ideas in the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Gettysburg Address and Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech.
But documents no matter how eloquent and words no matter how lovely do not a nation make. Before 1970, we were a people, a community, a country. Students would have said aloud of Cho: "Who is this guy? What's the matter with him?"
Teachers would have taken action to get him help – or get him out.
That's bullcrap, Pat. The fact is that America is a huge country with a large population. Add new technology and an influx of people to urban centers and you're going to have cultural alienation and a breakdown of community. That's just how it goes. Not only that, your conception of peoplehood and community is flawed. Even a supposedly ethnically homogenous country like England or Germany still has all sorts of divisions based on geographical, cultural and linguistic differences (watch a soccer game sometime if you don't believe me).Furthermore, there were violent rampages before 1970. Like, say, Bath School (1927), Howard Unruh (1949), Charles Starkweather (1957), the University of Texas (1965), and Richard Speck (1966).
Since the 1960s, we have become alienated from one another even as millions of strangers arrive every year. And as Americans no longer share the old ties of history, heritage, faith, language, tradition, culture, music, myth or morality, how can immigrants share those ties?
As I said, Pat, go to England, go to Germany, go to Scandinavia. There are always differences and rivalries within cultures. Besides, that's like saying that Italian-Americans and German-Americans can never get along because they have nothing in common. This is just crap. Faith? That's hysterical considering how much infighting there's been in America between Christians and Jews, Catholics and Protestants, Protestants against each other, not to mention various outsider groups like Mormons, Amish, Quakers, etc. Music? Are you serious? Yeah, if only we all could learn to appreciate waltzes, military marches and country music that would fix everything. If you think music is going to fix the problem of immigrants not assimilating, you're really off your rocker.
Many immigrants do not assimilate. Many do not wish to. They seek community in their separate subdivisions of our multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual mammoth mall of a nation.
And? Don't they have that right? Why is this not ok? Who decided the melting pot was the only legitimate model?
And in numbers higher than our native born, some are going berserk here.
Prove it!
The 1993 bombers of the World Trade Center and the killers of 9-11 were all immigrants or illegals.
First, an illegal is not the same as an immigrant, Pat. Even a moron like you should be able to understand the difference here. And those guys were terrorists whose goal was to infiltrate the United States as a strategic maneuver to inflict damage. That's not even close to coming here and then "going berserk."
Colin Ferguson, the Jamaican who massacred six and wounded 19 in an anti-white shooting spree on the Long Island Railroad, was an illegal. John Lee Malvo, the Beltway Sniper, was flotsam from the Caribbean.
Angel Resendez, the border-jumping rapist who killed at least nine women, was an illegal alien. Julio Gonzalez, who burned down the Happy Land social club in New York, killing 87, arrived in the Mariel boatlift.
Ali Hassan Abu Kama, who wounded seven, killing one, in a rampage on the observation deck of the Empire State Building, was a Palestinian. As was Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Robert Kennedy.
The rifleman who murdered two CIA employees at the McLean, Va., headquarters was a Pakistani. When Chai Vang, a Hmong, was told by a party of Wisconsin hunters to vacate their deer stand, he shot six to death. Peter Odighizuwa, the gunman who killed the dean, a teacher and a student at the Appalachian School of Law, was a Nigerian.
Hesham Hadayet, who shot up the El Al counter at LAX, killing two and wounding four, was an Egyptian immigrant. Gamil al-Batouti, the copilot who yelled, "I put my faith in Allah's hands," as he crashed his plane into the Atlantic after departing JFK Airport, killing 217, was an Egyptian.
Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, the UNC graduate who ran his SUV over nine people on Chapel Hill campus and said he was "thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah," was an Iranian.
Juan Corona, who murdered 25 people in California to be ranked with the likes of Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy, was a Mexican.
Where does one find such facts? On VDARE.com, a website that covers the dark side of diversity covered up by a politically correct media, which seem to believe it is socially unhealthy for us Americans to see any correlation at all between mass migrations and mass murder.
Nice cherry-picked stats, Pat. Of course, anyone willing to do a basic google search will quickly discover that us Native Americans aren't too shabby in the killing each other department. What about other mass murders that "real" Americans committed? Like the Amish schoolhouse murders, or all those postal workers, or all those school shootings in the 80s and 90s, or Hastings Arthur Wise, or Brenda Ann Spencer or Mark Barton or James Pough or Theodore Strelski or John List or Brian Uyesugi? (Wait, are we counting Hawaiians as Americans? What about American Indians?) Are you really going to blame this all on immigrants? What about other serial killers, like Bundy or Gacy? What is this supposed to prove, exactly?
are we really a better, safer, freer, happier, more united and caring country than we were before, against our will, we became what Theodore Roosevelt called "a polyglot boarding house for the world"?
The two have nothing to do with each other, Pat. There will always be crazies, there will always be assholes, and there will always be criminals. The BS factor comes in when you try to act as if the problem is with crazy berserker immigrants instead of us lilly-white "real" Americans, a position particularly ironic since the original Nativists would have run a kraut-mick like yourself out of town as soon as look at you.
Get a clue, Pat.
Liberal Media my Ass
It's like Al Franken said (paraphrased), the problem with the media isn't left or right, it's that they're a bunch of lazy self-serving jackasses.
Case in point.
And for another example- just now Wolf Blitzer finished talking to John Edwards about Mitt Romney making fun of the 400-dollar haircut thing. Edwards said they should be talking about the issues. Fair enough.
"Coming up next- what would the Presidential candidates bring with them if they were stranded like Gilligan on a desert island? The answers might surprise you."
...I swear to God. Somebody get me a machete.
Case in point.
And for another example- just now Wolf Blitzer finished talking to John Edwards about Mitt Romney making fun of the 400-dollar haircut thing. Edwards said they should be talking about the issues. Fair enough.
"Coming up next- what would the Presidential candidates bring with them if they were stranded like Gilligan on a desert island? The answers might surprise you."
...I swear to God. Somebody get me a machete.
Drowning in a sea of Jackasses
Last night I was watching a PBS documentary on Mormons, and it mentioned that the Mormon church has a big problem with Mormon "intellectuals" (apparently a rather pejorative term within the community), especially when they publish or question official Mormon history and doctrine in public. More than a few have been excommunicated for it in the past few years.
One of the non-Mormon historians (he might have been an archaeologist) the filmmakers interviewed was trying to give some context to the whole thing and said something very interesting- "Mormonism isn't unique in needing validation from the historical record- there's still no archaeological evidence that the Exodus happened."
"But Jews don't give a shit!," I cried to anyone who would listen. And that's sort of true, but not always. The best recent example of this is when Conservative Rabbi David Wolpe gave a Passover sermon saying if the Exodus had happened at all, it probably didn't resemble the story in the Torah (he also said the whole issue didn't matter, since the historicity of the story wasn't what was important). While some people agreed with him, or at least got the point, others all but called the rabbi an apikoros. (Hi Dennis!)
Among other things, Dennis Prager accused the media's timing of being biased:
Dennis missed the fact that the LA Times story was at least partially in response to/covering the Wolpe incident, which happened a week earlier. Oh well, not important, I'm sure. This issue is particularly interesting, because six years later, we see the same argument being parrotted by YidwithLid, who has a bee in his bonnet (kippah?) over the same damn issue.
Oh for the love of Bacon Cheeseburgers.
A newspaper reporting on a story tangentially related to Passover in some proximity to the holiday of Passover? Outrageous! Wow, that's almost as bad as the Discovery Channel running a loopy documentary about Jesus in the same month as Easter. Except worse, I'm sure, because it involves us, and our issues are worth more pissed-off points than the goyim's.
Hey Yiddle, how about the fact that the Times is far from the first paper to run a story like this? Does them being part a trend complicate your vision of their singular jackassery? Or does it just mean every paper that challenges Exodus in springtime is in the same self-hating boat? What about rabbis like Wolpe, who are saying similar things? I've been to a few Shabbats where the odd frumie said something snide like, "oh yeah, the Conservatives say Exodus didn't happen", but even they don't seem to suggest that it's a plot to delegitimize Judaism, much less Israel as a state. Admit it, this is a joke, right?
In other moronic news, Pat Boone is still insisting he can read, so by WND's journalistic standards, that makes him good enough to print. He compares Harry Reid to Moses' spies in Canaan, who, he notes, "were completely demoralized and defeated by one negative report!" Yes Pat, and I'm sure it had just been shlepped in from the Kinko's, just like modern times.
There's more.
Oh, is THAT the secret? If we only just shut up, keep praying, and believe that God likes us best, THEN it all works out, but if we actually do some critical thinking then we get smitten? Damn it, God, why did you give us this capacity to ask questions or look at evidence? Why couldn't we have been made like deep-sea fish or moles? And Pat, news flash- America's a relatively young country, and it's not like awful things haven't happened to us over the course of even that history. Remember when the British blew up the goddamn White House?
Except that it's not working, we're still dying, and the Iraqi fighters don't seem to be easing up. In the meantime, our army is depleted and demoralized and other places we've committed to help are feeling the neglect- like, oh, I don't know, Afghanistan, or Waziristan, which a lot of Americans have probably never even heard of. Also, a large percentage? Where are you getting those numbers? Bush's popularity is in the toilet, and the war isn't faring much better. A recent Gallup poll says 60% of Americans want a timetable on ending the war. Is this another strategy of yours, kind of like prayer? If you just believe people agree with you, that'll make it happen?
One of the non-Mormon historians (he might have been an archaeologist) the filmmakers interviewed was trying to give some context to the whole thing and said something very interesting- "Mormonism isn't unique in needing validation from the historical record- there's still no archaeological evidence that the Exodus happened."
"But Jews don't give a shit!," I cried to anyone who would listen. And that's sort of true, but not always. The best recent example of this is when Conservative Rabbi David Wolpe gave a Passover sermon saying if the Exodus had happened at all, it probably didn't resemble the story in the Torah (he also said the whole issue didn't matter, since the historicity of the story wasn't what was important). While some people agreed with him, or at least got the point, others all but called the rabbi an apikoros. (Hi Dennis!)
Among other things, Dennis Prager accused the media's timing of being biased:
During Passover and on Good Friday the Los Angeles Times published a front-page article titled "Doubting the Story of Exodus." The timing was typical of the insensitivity often shown in mainstream media to religious Jews and Christians. It is unimaginable, for example, that any mainstream newspaper would ever print a front-page article on Martin Luther King’s extramarital affairs on Martin Luther King Day.
Dennis missed the fact that the LA Times story was at least partially in response to/covering the Wolpe incident, which happened a week earlier. Oh well, not important, I'm sure. This issue is particularly interesting, because six years later, we see the same argument being parrotted by YidwithLid, who has a bee in his bonnet (kippah?) over the same damn issue.
NY Times Tries to De-legitimize Judaism
On the first day of Passover the NY Times sunk to a new low in their editorial policy of trying to de-legitimize the State of Israel. They adopted the Arab strategy of trying to deny Jewish History to take away the Jewish people's claim on the Exodus. As many of us coming were coming home from telling the Exodus story at the first Seder, the Times was printing a story saying that he Exodus didn't happen.
Let me digress for a second, I don't need the NY Times or anybody else to tell me what did or didn't happen in the Exodus, as David Ben Gurion said any Jew who does not believe in miracles is not a realist. Part of believing in G-d is having faith. Faith doesn't need proof. But it would be nice for the NY Times to read a Torah so they know what they are talking about.
...The Times takes an article about an archaeological dig in the Northern Sinai to try to dispel one of the most central themes of all Jewish Theology, the Exodus. Of course they were looking in the WRONG place.
Why would the Times pick the first day of Passover to tell such "cock and bull story?" Maybe its just another way for the NY Times owners to disassociate themselves from the Jewish community like when they buried the early reports of the Holocaust. Either way it seems like part of their attempt to de-ligitimize Israel, by removing any association between Jews and the land.
Oh for the love of Bacon Cheeseburgers.
A newspaper reporting on a story tangentially related to Passover in some proximity to the holiday of Passover? Outrageous! Wow, that's almost as bad as the Discovery Channel running a loopy documentary about Jesus in the same month as Easter. Except worse, I'm sure, because it involves us, and our issues are worth more pissed-off points than the goyim's.
Hey Yiddle, how about the fact that the Times is far from the first paper to run a story like this? Does them being part a trend complicate your vision of their singular jackassery? Or does it just mean every paper that challenges Exodus in springtime is in the same self-hating boat? What about rabbis like Wolpe, who are saying similar things? I've been to a few Shabbats where the odd frumie said something snide like, "oh yeah, the Conservatives say Exodus didn't happen", but even they don't seem to suggest that it's a plot to delegitimize Judaism, much less Israel as a state. Admit it, this is a joke, right?
In other moronic news, Pat Boone is still insisting he can read, so by WND's journalistic standards, that makes him good enough to print. He compares Harry Reid to Moses' spies in Canaan, who, he notes, "were completely demoralized and defeated by one negative report!" Yes Pat, and I'm sure it had just been shlepped in from the Kinko's, just like modern times.
There's more.
Any of this sound familiar, like anything that's happened in our own current events, just this last few weeks?
Surely you heard Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announce sorrowfully in a press conference for all the world to see and hear, "… this war is lost." Just like that. Story ended. We're defeated; we can't win. Our enemies are too much for us, and we've got to tuck our tails between our legs and come home fast as we can. We're grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we are in their sight.
This pronouncement contradicting the assessments of our own Caleb, Gen. Patraeus, and our other military leaders on the ground in Iraq, who are telling us that we can win, that over 3,000 young Americans have not died in a failed mission, that though a violent segment of Iraqis are indeed "devouring their own inhabitants," America and its allies are gradually securing the land for freedom and self-government. Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Cindy Sheehan and the other dissenters to the contrary, our Calebs and Joshuas are assuring us that American might and purpose will prevail!
If we have the will. If we don't turn and run.
And if we still believe there is a mighty God who has historically taken an interest in America and our conflicts, and who has given us victory over all opponents when we were united in resolve and purpose. And most importantly, perhaps, when we openly and collectively declared our dependence on Him and sought His aid, not depending solely on our own judgment and abilities.
Do you realize that, in our whole history, America has never been defeated – when we were united under God?
Oh, is THAT the secret? If we only just shut up, keep praying, and believe that God likes us best, THEN it all works out, but if we actually do some critical thinking then we get smitten? Damn it, God, why did you give us this capacity to ask questions or look at evidence? Why couldn't we have been made like deep-sea fish or moles? And Pat, news flash- America's a relatively young country, and it's not like awful things haven't happened to us over the course of even that history. Remember when the British blew up the goddamn White House?
That's not claiming, presumptuously, that we've always been perfectly right in our various purposes and tactics – far from it – but by God's grace, when we have pulled together, supported our fighting forces with everything in us, praying publicly and believing God would grant us victory over our enemies, He has!
When we've been divided, we've lost. Not often, but history tells the truth: A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Maybe some of the reasons we become divided over wars are the same reasons we lose them- stragetic reasons, moral reasons, etc. What good does it do to have a magic invisible man helping us win every battle if there are good reasons we shouldn't be fighting it? Pat's argument falls apart the second you question whether America fighting in Iraq is a good thing- to say nothing of the fact that it presumes a victory is both possible as well as existent. What would "victory" in Iraq look like? Presumably it would involve Sunnis and Shiites not killing each other and no foreign elements fucking with govt. policy, be they Al Qaeda, Iraq, Syria, etc. The second component could (theoretically) be achieved through military action, but I don't see how killing the Iraqis is going to make them hate each other less (though it will make them hate us more).
At this moment in time, we are a house divided. Our president, our commander in chief, our military, and still a large percentage of the populace and our elected representatives believe in the urgency and rightness of our military presence in the Middle East. We're not just fighting to liberate another nation and establish democratic government in that part of the world; we're also serving notice to our demonically ruthless sworn enemies that we will not tolerate their coming into our midst to kill and demoralize us. Rather, we'll come looking for them, and we'll bring a superior force and face them in their own part of the world – not in our homeland.
Except that it's not working, we're still dying, and the Iraqi fighters don't seem to be easing up. In the meantime, our army is depleted and demoralized and other places we've committed to help are feeling the neglect- like, oh, I don't know, Afghanistan, or Waziristan, which a lot of Americans have probably never even heard of. Also, a large percentage? Where are you getting those numbers? Bush's popularity is in the toilet, and the war isn't faring much better. A recent Gallup poll says 60% of Americans want a timetable on ending the war. Is this another strategy of yours, kind of like prayer? If you just believe people agree with you, that'll make it happen?
And though it's been unexpectedly difficult and costly, our troops – still the strongest and best equipped in the world – appear to believe overwhelmingly that we're accomplishing our goal, and want to finish the job, no matter what it costs.That is absolute horsecrap. At this point our troops are exhausted and overworked and our equipment is shit. It's easy for Pat Boone to congratulate the troops on kicking ass, he doesn't have to go on a third tour in Baghdad.
To them, and many Americans, defeat and surrender is just not an option.
And sacrificing another three thousands Americans for a situation that shows no signs of improvement IS? What planet are you living on?
But how do you think our enemies received Harry Reid's pronouncement?
I think they received it with shouts of glee, triumph and renewed purpose. I think it inspired them with new resolve to kill as many innocent Iraqis as possible and as many patrolling American soldiers as possible – and both as quickly as possible.
Since when do Republicans care about what our enemies think? Now you're listening to the Arab street? What a crock. Our enemies in the Middle East don't need our help to shout with glee- they're winning, we're dying, and we still don't know why
Jesus Crap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)