History
Many people criticize President Bush for mistakes past and present, yet none of the criticisms I have heard repeated by Democratic talking points have perspective or worth.
There have been accusations that Bush is too unilateral, when in fact he is too multilateral. There have been accusations that Bush is a war monger and rushed to war, when in fact, he limped his way to war. There have been accusations that Bush is Hitler, when Bush more closely resembles the only President in history to drop nuclear weapons on populated cities.
Just as there was a Truman Doctrine and a Monroe Doctrine, now there is a Bush Doctrine. The people who look at Bush's defects have no perspective, and therefore their views are colored by their positions more than the positions of the President.
Those who defend the President, do it in terms of negating the accusations, whereas I believe it is more effective to counter a positive with another positive, rather than trying to negate the positive as the Democrats do about Iraq.
When the war was talked about in 2002, there were two people to advocate the UN route. Tony Blair and Secretary of State Powell. Blair, because regardless of his belief in the US-British alliance, Blair is still a Labour Liberal at heart. A world unification sort of leader, with the intelligence and eloquence to accomplish some of his goals politically. So when Blair said to Bush that going to the UN would help him out politically, Bush made the mistake of putting the interests of personal loyalty above that of the sovereignty and security of the United States of America. Who he swore to defend from all foreign and domestic enemies. He didn't fullfill that oath when he allowed the UN to delay us for months, while giving Saddam the time to decide to remove whatever weapons he has to Syria, and to stash money for the insurgency, and to deploy Fedayeen and the rest of his intelligence apparatus to loyalist towns to await the return of Saddam.
The UN has killed more Americans, than any unilateralist policy would have. American military might is unsurpassed, and I am unfraid to say that it is diluted if forced to work in conjunction with other nation's militaries and chains of command. The purpose of the Coalition is to prove their loyalty to the United States, in order to further an alliance of mutual interest, and they accomplish that by devoting both blood and political backing to the cause. I cannot say that have benefited not at all militaristically from our allies, I was not blind or prejudiced enough to believe that the East European countries were only buttering up the US and would not be sending troops, as many believed at the time. Rather, it is that we did not need their help in military terms, as American soldiers are quite good enough to do any job that Poland may offer to take off our shoulders. I appreciate their loyalty, yet it remains that their contribution has not directly, only indirectly, saved American lives by putting themselves in danger for us. That is to be commended, but it pales in comparison to what was cost at the UN, waiting to build such coalitions. If we had gone alone, we would have had to do all the work, but the work would have been minimal compared to the billions of dollars funding the insurgency and the planned looting and chaos. And any political price we would have paid for a unilateralist policy, we are paying now with a multilateralist policy.
If Bush believes that sacrificing more American lives for time to create alliances is a good thing, then I see no difference between that and Kerry's "global test". One is competent, the other is not, that is the only difference.
President Bush also skims on deep waters by tolerating the UN on US soil, when the UN was aiding and abetting the enemy we went to war with, and provided that enemy with the funds to start an insurgency that the UN took time to provide the planning period via inspections.
If the Democrats were sane and American patriots who believed that benefiting this country benefits themselves, or if they believed in the patriotic belief that their country is the greatest of all countries, they would be trying to impeach Bush for his multilateralist policies that are jeopardizing American lives and sovereignty.
But they are not, because they are reactionaries that refuse to react to their own idiotic beliefs of world wide peace or international law.
Regardless of whether the multilateralist policies for Iran or North Korea is correct, the multilateralist policy for Iraq was clearly wrong. Colin Powell told the President he could get a Resolution declaring war, Colin Powell failed. Tony Blair said, go to the UN and I will do the rest; Tony Blair only fullfilled half of that promise.
And the French? They fullfilled -100% of their promise to help.
Bush's other problem is that he places too much of the benefit of doubt in people he never selected as Cabinet Officers in his first term. Trusting in Tenet, was a serious misjudgement. Never trust Washington Bureacracy, of which the CIA head for many administrations are a part of. His loyalties are to his department, not to the people of the US. That is why we elect Presidents based upon a state by state popular vote.
And when that trust is proven to be misplaced, Bush doesn't fire the CIA head immediately. Bush has too little micromanagement in his MBA style administration. Bush gave everything to Tommy Franks, that he asked for, true. Yet Bush when given a decision between more troops on the ground for a better political solution in the future, to a better military solution in the short term for a General that was going to retire after the action, Bush let someone else decide that monumental decision between what is good for the country and what is optimial militaristically. Bush having waited months to give Saddam the greatest amount of advantage that it is possible to give an enemy you are prepared to invade, now isn't willing to override his Generals and wait a few more days to get the Second Front setup via airborne drops.
This is a compound mistake, that reinforces each other. In a fail safe system, with two fail safes, one may go and everything is all right. But if both go at once, you're pocked.
While his decision to go to the UN may be justified on certain terms, his decision to go to the UN and wait it out and then NOT wait it out for the Second Front, is mindboggling. Tommy Franks wanted strategic surprise, well gee, what kind of strategic surprise are we actually going to get in return for not deploying a Second Front after 6+ months of giving Saddam to cook up an insurgency?
Guerrila and terroist movements are primarily political, not military movements. And it is credit to Frank's conservative military values, and Bush's conservative political values, that they did not realize this and taken actions to forestall the fact. And the fact was that invasion of Iraq was a militaristic cake full of icing. Their TRAINING was harder than the March to Baghdad. Therefore why in God's green earth they would sacrifice a Second Front in order to BLUFF Saddam in deploying his Republican guard up there, instead of against our troops, was ridiculous. We would have went through 10X the number of Republican Guard, the problem was that they SCATTERED, not that they got in front of us and had to be piled up like logs.
Much of this is hindsight, but the important parts are also dictated by the contingencies at the time. Tommy Franks knew the consequences, some of what we knew to be pluses and minuses, back then. He knew that the Republican Guard might retreat without a Second Front, the point is, He didn't Care. It was the job of the Administration to care about the future, Franks was going to retire after having two Campaigns in his theater. He wasn't, couldn't, and didn't even think about planning for the future occupation.
Bush, by his inexperience, made a very bad mistake, and it is costing us in the future, because they didn't want to shed American blood for Total Victory in the short term. When they had a chance to defeat the enemy in detail, they didn't do it cause they were too squeemish about casualties. Now they are up against the Republican Guard officers, the secret police apparatus of Saddam, Saddam's UN slush fund, Al-Qaeda Z-man's organization, Iran's financial and political backing of cultural Shiites; fomenting revolution, Syria's leaky borders, Saudi Arabia's exportation of Wahhabism, and every suicide bomber they can smuggle across the border.
By not risking casualties in the short term, they have GUARANTEED casualties in the long run. Because now, their enemies have now combined arms, and it will take far more people to kill and be killed, to defeat a unified organization of alliances and finance than it ever would be to defeat a lone dictator and his security apparatus in Detail. More American lives, more Iraqi lives, more innocents, more sacrifice. Bush almost made it hard on purpose. And that will have consequences, both good and bad, in the decades to come.
War on the cheap, is like war without the belief that Peace is Through Superior Firepower. Both are the belief of pacifistic Christians and pacifistic environmentalists and pacifistic world wide unification. All religious beliefs, none of them war beliefs.
So now we have Bush's two prime mistakes. Too multilateralist. Too much allowing other people to make judgements that he should be the one making. On the balance sheet, Bush's style is more favorable than Johnson's style, but all styles have weaknesses and strengths. If people criticize the true mistakes, they won't be made again by future administrations, hopefully. But people are not doing that, because they hate Bush, and the ONLY way to criticize truthfully is to give recognition to the person, his mistakes as well as his successes.
Only by recognizing the truism of letting the military do their job, may we recognize the problem of letting the military do YOUR job as well. Only by recognizing the benefits of a unilateralist policy, may we criticize Bush's multilateralist policy, and vice a versa. Though it would be hard to recognize a multilateralistpolicy without attributing it to bush and criticizing bush for a non-existent unilateralist policy would be near impossible; the principle is still the same.
If the Demo-derby-crats would criticize using the points I have listed above, they might be worth a shit. But since they can't bring themselves to give credit where credit is due, they will be unremembered in history. Their legacy will be that of the Republicans in WWII... nobody will know a thing except that they were against President George W. Bush.
It happened with WMDs, it happened with bait and switch, heck it even happened with election fraud.The Democrats cannot help rewriting history.
Their opposition to the very concept of reforming the system after President Clinton supported reforming Social Security is inexplicable. Why is the system fine now when it was broken then? Why do his compatriots categorically oppose it now? Could it be that they simply don't want to allow the Republicans to get the credit for a fix, and to take yet another issue away from them, as he did with the
Now they are saying there is no social security problem in the futur,e that it is all a concotion of the Bushitlers. History tells us that Bill Clinton said there was a problem, he just didn't advocate a plan to solve it.
Without history, would the Democratic party become the defacto Ministery of Truth?
This source is where I first got the idea of world war III and world war IV.
Good background information when reading this post.
- Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere."- Abraham Lincoln, 1858 Speech in Illinois
Yes, our defense is in the preservation of that which motivates other men to strive for liberty.
You will note that "freedom" is used more and more to replace liberty. Anyone who has read 1984, understands the alternative meaning of "free" and how it can be so insidious unconsciously or consciously.
Throughout its history, America has given hope, comfort and inspiration to freedoms cause in all lands. The reservoir of good will and respect for America was not built up by American arms or intrigue; it was built upon our deep dedication to the cause of human liberty and welfare. Adlai Stevenson
This Jeffersonian idea of liberty and to promote it, is important. But it is only half of the catalyst needed for a truely enlightened and visionary foreign policy. Liberty and human rights in the world, had to have a national self-interest component, a realpolitek component. As WWII had and the Iraq War has as well.
Wilson's decision to promote liberty and to stop aggression, by having the US interfere in European affairs, was not a very good idea. Even if he personally did not want to go to war, he could have stopped the American public's desire for violence simply be refusing to exercise his commander-in-chief powers. He would have lost his Presidency, but the fate of future history would have been inevitably changed if the President lead foreign policy, instead of being lead by public opinion.
The World Wars of the 20th Century will be forever known as the Chain Reaction Wars. That is how I view it at least, and I predict that it will be viewed like that in far future.
WWI, began because of military alliances and European factionalism. WWII began because of the issues unresolved and created in WWI, as the Treaty of the French created a cruel defeat for the German people. Unlike America, Europeans are cruel and sadistic in victory.
WWIII, the Cold War, was a "low-intensity" conflict fought by proxy nations like Israel vs Arabs, North Vietnam vs South Vietnam, North Korea vs South Korea. WWIII, of course, was caused by the fact that we won WWII and had to allow Stalin the territory he gained and the weapons he stole from his allies.
And WWIV, was caused in part because of the consequences of winning WWIII. Alliances with dictators allowed the dictators to gain power and influence, further increasing the amount of factionalism and misery in the Middle East.
Each World War, were fought on drastically different standards. WWI was fought in the Trenches with huge masses of troops marching into the fire. WWII was fought with armored tanks and other lightning quick technology. WWIII was fought with intel, subversion, and intrigue, as well as skirmishes across the world. WWIV is fought with both the evolved technologies of WWII, the defunct tactics of WWIII, along with the result of a new ideology, Islamicfascism. Combining high technology, with low tech, and "trade craft". Secrets, and more secrets.
I suspect that WWV will be when we fight Europe, Russia, or China. Europe will be assimilated by Muslims, and their culture will implode. When American troops on European lands start getting killed, the American public will demand a withdrawal with far louder voice then they are demanding of Iraq. China and Russia will take advantage of European chaos, to further their own self-interests. And this of course, will conflict somewhere along the line with the US. I can only speculate, rather than predict, as WWIV is not yet over. And WWV will depend, largely, on how the last World War was won.
Sometimes people call me an idealist. Well, that is the way I know I am an American. America is the only idealistic nation in the world. Woodrow Wilson
One of the problems with idealism, is it needs determination to be real. And that determination is something Americans specialize in.
Patriotism is easy to understand in America; it means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country. Calvin Coolidge
Coolidge has a unique take on patriotism. When Republicans sometimes call Democrats, unpatriotic in what they say, it is seemingly an unconscious realization that what the Democrats believe is simply counter to the principle values this nation was built up. Yet, their unconscious desire conflicts with those very principle values, as free speech is one of those American values. Yet, disagreeing with speech, is far different from restricting it.
Unpatriotic, looking out for yourself rather than looking out for your country. Those who are unwilling to take risks, because they fear the personal cost, regardless of the national benefit.
We are the standard-bearers in the only really authentic revolution, the democratic revolution against tyrannies. Our strength is not to be measured by our military capacity alone, by our industry, or by our technology. We will be remembered, not for the power of our weapons, but for the power of our compassion, our dedication to human welfare. Hubert Humphrey
We will also be remembered for our military. The greatest in the History of Humankind.
But stil, the power of our ideals, is also the most power in the History of Humankind.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty. John F. Kennedy
What Bush suffers from is an inability to stir the fire in men's mind. What Bush is gifted with, is an even more indomitable determination to succede and take risks.
Indeed, let every nation, friend or foe, know that under the leadership of our American President, we will not falter nor flail at the difficulties destiny have provided us.
Know this, and fear the success of the United States of America, and her allies.
O! Ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose not only the tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the Old World is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive and prepare in time an asylum for mankind. The cause of America is, in a great measure, the cause of all mankind. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression. Thomas Paine
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression"
Thomas Paine, author of COmmon Sense, was not an intellectual's intellectual. He was a self-educated man of the people. Therefore he recognizes something most people refuse to, that liberty either overtakes everyone, or is overtaken herself by her enemies.
Great has been the Greek, the Latin, the Slav, the Celts, the Teuton, and the Anglo-Saxon, but greater than any of these is the American, in which are blended the virtues of them all. William Jennings Bryan "American Mission" speech
You could even say that America is the ultimate and greatest hybrid evolutionary system developed by the advance of Human knowledge and experience.
An evolutionary system with the power to dominate, yet the wisdom to stop corruption.
What constitutes an American? Not color nor race nor religion. Not the pedigree of his family nor the place of his birth. Not the coincidence of his citizenship. An American is one who loves justice and believes in the dignity of man. An American is one who will fight for his freedom and that of his neighbor. An American is one who will sacrifice property, ease, and security in order that he and his children may retain the rights of all free men. Harold Ickes "I Am an American" speech
If an American is one that loves justice and fights for his freedom and that of his neighbor, then America is full of non-Americans.
The whole history of our continent is a history of the imagination. Men imagined land beyond the sea and found it. Men imagined the forests, the great plains, the rivers, the mountains and found these plains and mountains. They came, as the great explorers crossed the Atlantic, because of the imagination of their minds because they imagined a better, a more beautiful, a freer, happier world. Archibald Macleish
I imagine a Middle East free of the conditions that breeds terror, hate, and ignorance.
You cannot qualify war in harsher terns that I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it. I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot not heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for more blood, more vengence, more desolation. War is hell. General William Tecumseh Sherman
The difference betweeb Sherman and the pacifist idiots who complain about the Iraq War being too "hellish" is that Sherman was willing to destroy everything in his path to help end the war while the pacifists are willing to extend the war through whatever non-violent means possible.
Their sentiments are the same, War is Hell. But Sherman understand that War SHOULD be Hell, while pacifists think that War shouldn't be Hell nor should War exist.
The difference, of course, is always the difference between those who are willing to achieve their goals using the means to accomplish those goals, and those too quesy to do what it takes to accomplish their goals.
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. Benjamin Franklin
Tell that to universal medical care and social security, products of LBJ and FDR respectively.
Of course, the Founding Fathers have no bearing on the policies of the current Democrats in power.
The American is wonderfully alive; and his vitality, not having often found a suit-able outlet, makes him appear agitated on the surface; he is always letting off an unnecessarily loud blast of incidental steam. Yet his vitality is not superficial; it is inwardly prompted, and as sensitive and quick as a magnetic needle. He is inquisitive, and ready with an answer to any question that he may put to himself of his own accord; but if you try to pour instruction into him, on matters that do not touch his own spontaneous life, he shows the most extraordinary powers of resistance and oblivescence; so that he often is remarkably expert in some directions and surprisingly obtuse in others. He seems to bear lightly the sorrowful burden of human knowledge. In a word, he is young. George Santayana
Young, and wiser than the oldest European. A young man, with the responsibilities of the Elders, getting tired of the old fools complaining about everything.
Just people who don't know Americans, are anti-American
The next night in the Berber town of Matmata we met a pair of German travelers -- Michael and Jung. Both were in their 30s, like us. They were great guys. Traveled every year together, always to Muslim countries. Thought Europe was boring. Hoped, like us, to travel to Libya next. Tried, like us, and failed to get into Libya this trip. We shared a hookah with them, and that's when Shelly asked them the question: "Are you two ever invited to sit down for tea?"One of the reasons why he doesn't want special treatment is because Americans do not think of themselves as personally exhalted or more enlightened than the rest of the world. Only some Americans, those who don't subscribe to American principle virtues, think that way.
They looked at each other, surprised at the question.
"By Tunisians?" Jung asked.
"By Tunisians," she said.
And they looked at each other again. "No," they both said.
No tea for the Germans. For God's sake, why not? They were friendly, respectful, interested in the country and the culture, perfectly charming, and they both spoke the language -- well, they spoke French at any rate, Tunisia's second language. Yet no one ever asked them to tea.
They came to the same conclusion as Shelly and I; we got asked to tea because we're Americans. I feel awkward about this, and I can't explain why it happens. I don't want special treatment, and I certainly don't expect it. That's just the way it is in Tunisia right now. Anti-Americanism isn't quite what it's cracked up to be.
And when he says it isn't a clash of civilizations, he is partly right. It isn't a clash between "civilizations", but one between civilization and totalitarian, fascist slavery. With a mix of barbarianism in.
The the only ones who likes Americans, are the ones who like how we do things in our civilization. Tunisia seems to be one of the ones who like the American model, perhaps it is because they were once a French colony and saw how things looked if they followed the anti-American route.
A stunning attack on the racist toleration in the Democratic party
Which U.S. Senator is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan?
Which U.S. Senator wasn't just a member of the KKK but was a "Kleagle" -- an official recruiter who signed up members for $10 a head?
Which U.S. Senator said he joined because it "offered excitement" and because the Klan was an "effective force" in "promoting traditional American values."
Which U.S. Senator wrote the following, three years after he claims to have ended his ties with the KKK: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union."
Which U.S. Senator also wrote that he would never fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
The always reliable instapundit has come up with a link about gun crime in Britain Where violent crime, at least with guns, are presumably nonexistent of course.
Yes, that's right folks, while overall crime in the UK has been dropping slightly, violent crime involving guns is increasing! From Bloomberg Radio:
Or maybe the filters of the media just isn't working correctly, because I believe I read that as "gun crime has went up". How can that be if the media was still in control of information?
It is always interesting to see history cycle in on itself.
How many Liberals does it take to win a war?
How many of you Liberals does it take to win a war? Well how the hell can we tell? You wont fight one anymore. You say that you support the troops, but the truths plain as your face, Youd pull us from the battle, march us home in full disgrace. Youve no stomach for the fighting, got no mettle, got no pluck; If you ran this war on terror, wed be a very well plucked duck. The wolves of Jihad smell your dread, can smell your craven breath, And emboldened by the fear they scent, lust for our bloody death.
But wait, you protest piously , We are fighters for the poor. Might we suggest you start to fight, before wolves come through the door? Do you think theyll still believe in you, your poor, your gays, your blacks, When the wolves run wild among them, sinking fangs into their backs? Think then that theyll be caring, when theyre counting out their dead, We inflict pain on a captive wolf to learn whats in his head? Do you really think, you bleeding hearts, when they bleed in scarlet torrents, Theyll care we cage the savage wolves, search lairs without signed warrants?
Getting to be about time, so let us reflect upon the arguments we have seen and heard
A good perspective on Shia-Sunni relations.
It is an interesting connection between WWII propaganda used for good, and the old axiom that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
To realize what a stunning piece of hypocrisy this is, you have to understand the position of Jeremy Paxman at the BBC. He is as representative of his network as Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather have been of CBS or as Peter Jennings or Ted Koppel have been of ABC. How dare the BBC cop a "Blair lied!" attitude when Paxman, Mr. BBC himself, was publishing the same argument at the same time as Blair?
2. That leads us back to a question I posed at the beginning of this post: Why the sudden 180-degree turnaround in Paxman/BBC attitude on the subject of Saddam's possession of WMD?
The answer, I think, lies in this excerpted sentence from Chapter 11: "For twenty years, Iraq, under Saddam's leadership, has held up Caliban's mirror to the West." In late 2001, when Harris and Paxman were apparently doing most of their writing, to August 2002, when the book was published, the notion that Saddam Hussein had kept his stockpiles of WMDs and was an immediate threat was not yet an argument in America's and George W. Bush's interest; it was still, at that point, an argument with which to indict the West.
In Harris and Paxman's telling, Western civilization was the Frankenstein that produced the monster Saddam. And not only was the West to blame for creating Saddam; but the history that Harris and Paxman relate is one of the monster repeatedly outsmarting his creator, rendering his creator impotent to stop him.
As the months wore on into the autumn and winter of 2002-03, however, and it became clearer that Bush was making essentially the same argument that Paxman and Harris were making but that Bush was using it to build a case for war, it rapidly became less an anti-Western argument and more a pro-Western one. Even worse, it became a blatantly pro-American and pro-George Bush argument. Anti-Western feeling may be rampant at the BBC, but it pales beside the BBC's anti-American feeling. And so, virtually overnight and without missing a beat, the BBC and the media in general became corrosive skeptics on the subject of Saddam Hussein and current stockpiles of WMDs.
Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.
The frightening thing, he reflected for the ten thousandth time as he forced his shoulders painfully backward (with hands on hips, they were gyrating their bodies from the waist, an exercise that was supposed to be good for the back muscles) -- the frightening thing was that it might all be true. If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened -- that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death?
The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -if all records told the same tale -- then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control', they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink'[.]
One advantage I must note that Winston didn't have, is that our media is free. Free to utter lies but free to be held acountable as well. Less so if it is government funded of course, but even so, more than WInston ever had. However, because the whole point of a free media is to reduce propaganda and lies, when a media is found to be producing propaganda and lies, the media will use the principle of "free press" to get away with it. So, one step forwards, one step backwards.
An article at techcentral reflects on the relationship between the genocide being ignored by the UN and the world and a murder in the US that was ignored by neighbors looking out their windows.
I tend to look at it not as antipathy or apathy towards human suffering, as was true of the Genovese case, but as a case of extreme fatigue. After WWII and Truman's support of the creation of the UN, America believed that we could now forget about the woes of world and concentrate on our own problems and economy. Then the Cold War occured and America had to worry anew about foreign problems, especially Korea and Vietnam. Vietnam was the most noted "defeat", it being a political defeat credited to Americans rather than foreign fighters, of the entire Cold War. And the Cold War ended not on a bang, thankfully, but in a whimper. As the Soviet Empire simply fell away. And therefore it was easy to believe that we were progressing to the point where we can simply ignore foreign problems, since it will magically go away. Intellectually, people know that it isn't realistic, but since most people don't care about what goes on in the rest of the world that doesn't America, it is so easy to believe in what one wants to be true. And therefore we had an sabbatical, as Bush called it. A time of relative peace and quiet. And then, people started bothering us again. The UN is an excuse Americans used in the past, for why they were too tired to govern the world. Americans were simply too decked down with responsibilities to notice Rwanda. But not too nearsighted not to notice Slobodan Milosovic after the Cold War.
So my conclusion is that Darfur occurs because Americans are sick and tired of alternatively being blamed for our interventions and blamed that we don't do "enough" around the world. As Hanson put it,
In fact, an American consensus is growing that envy and hatred of the United States, coupled with utopian and pacifistic rhetoric, disguise an even more depressing fact: Outside our shores there is a growing barbarism with no other sheriff in sight. Any cinema student of the American Western can fathom why the frightened townspeople huddled in their churches and shuttered schools almost hated the lone marshal as much as they did the six-shooting outlaw gang rampaging in their streets. After all, the holed-up 'good' citizens were always angry that the lawman had shamed them, worried that he might make dangerous demands on their insular lives, confused about whether they would have to accommodate themselves either to savagery or civilization in their town's future, and, above all, assured that they could libel and slur the tin star in a way that would earn a bullet from the lawbreaker. It was precisely that paradox between impotent high-sounding rhetoric and blunt-speaking, roughshod courage that lay at the heart of the classic Western from Shane and High Noon to The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and The Magnificent Seven.
A good Deutsche perspective on German media, how capitalists haters thrive only because of capitalism, or appealing to the masses
And of course the inauguration
Update January 23.
I also found Fox New's video archive of the speech. Which can be found in the Video tab of this news piece
Posted By : Ymarsakar |
Link |
History
| Comments (0)
Essay on capitalism and the Duck
I remember Ducktales of course, but I didn't realize it had such a noticeable effect on older people
Posted By : Ymarsakar |
Link |
History
| Comments (0)
This is an informative and intriguing "speech" from John Ross, the author of Unintended Consequences, about the future trend and history of gun control here in the US.
This article is a must read for gun culture peeps
"Then you need to understand that many people in this country take their gun rights very seriously. Every single Democrat in Missouri that lost his or her race on Tuesday is anti-gun. Why are they antigun? What earthly reason is there for them to be that way? The gun issue is absolutely killing Democrats everywhere outside the big cities. You're disappointed Claire McCaskill didn't beat Matt Blunt for Governor. Blunt's only 32, has little legislative experience, and barely squeaked out a win. How did he do it, with all the unions endorsing McCaskill, her having more experience, and lots more money? She lost because gun owners vote their gun rights. No gun-owning union member I know will vote for any antigun candidate, period, regardless of what the union leadership tells him to do. McCaskill wanted to repeal concealed carry, and it cost her the election.
"Mom, you yourself admit that people like me with our guns aren't any problem at all. All the candidates you like that lost Tuesday would've won if they vigorously supported the Second Amendment. Why do almost all Democrat politicians today want to disarm honest, taxpaying adults? Why is that one thing so all-important to them? Why? You believe in pro-choice as a freedom issue. You oppose mandatory waiting periods for abortions. Why won't your pro-choice candidates oppose waiting periods for guns? If they did, they'd be more likely to get elected or re-elected, pass the pro-choice legislation they want, and keep abortion available, safe, and legal. Isn't that the most important thing? Isn't it much more important than taking away my guns?
"Would you expect a black voter to ever vote for a candidate who had repeatedly and consistently voted for bills that would let cafes segregate their lunch counters once again?" I asked.
"Of course not," she answered.
"Then how can you hope people like me might support John Kerry, when he voted for every antigun bill put in front of him, and against every progun bill, in the last 20 years? Why do John Kerry, Claire McCaskill, Tom Daschle, and all the other Tuesday losers want to disarm me? Can you imagine Harry Truman wanting to disarm honest adult Americans?" My mother admitted she could not.
As I left, my mother looked energized. She said something about bringing up the points I had made with the Party leaders, as she believed she still had some influence there. I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation.
I don't understand the Democratic Party at all any more.
In addition to strongly recommending his book Unintended Consequences, which I haven't read yet but that is only because I'm in the process of acquiring it, this is also neat stuff to read It seems intimidation isn't just a liberal policy in universities, it is a thing that is favored by any government agency, especially since most of those government agencies are mostly liberal in membership.
Maybe that 95% John Kerry vote in Washington DC went farther than I imagined if the ATF peeps were this disgruntled.
Posted By : Ymarsakar |
Link |
History
| Comments (0)
Posted By : Ymarsakar |
Link |
posted by Ymarsakar at 1/25/2005 06:01:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home