Tomorrow, my thoughts on the French... A post like this can go one of two ways: three words, or three thousand. We'll see.
on
| § 0
Well, not really the enemy. But several friends from Ohio are coming out to participate in the planned anti war protest on the mall in Washington this Saturday. Naturally, working in downtown DC as I do, I had no idea that there was a protest scheduled. To be more accurate, I had no idea that it was an antiwar protest. There's always some kind of protest. Usually attended by dirty hippies. As Johno will attest, I hate hippies. (For a heart-warming story about dirty hippies, see this.)
Since it would be rude to go to the protest with them - I would only heckle the dirty hippy protesters - I will, in the spirit of sane and calm public discourse, go paint my new house like a good Republican homeowner. If anyone reading this has ever wondered why only liberals protest, there's your answer.
(I did keep referring to the protest as the "Pro-Saddam rally." I couldn't resist. I'll probably start quoting Orwell's thoughts on the pacifists in WWII when they arrive tomorrow night.)
on
| § 0
Musi ques
I sews on bews
I pues a twos on que zat
Pue zoo
My kizzer
Pous zigga ay zee
Its all kizza
Its always like
Its all kizza
Its always like
Na zound
Wa zee
Wa zoom zoom zee
It's alllll kizza, alright?
on
| § 0
Arthur Silber over at "Light of Reason" has some very tart words for the Pars-dent. Touching on partial-birth abortions and Iraq, Arthur offers this money quote:
Leave aside for the moment your views on the partial birth abortion bill, and focus on the following instead. By his endless "dance of death" with the U.N. (and that phrase might be all too accurate, in terms of the cost in American lives the longer these delays go on), Bush alienates the pro-war conservatives and moderates, and even the pro-war liberals. By his support of the partial birth ban, Bush alienates the social moderates and liberals -- as he also does by his support for measures such as the "faith-based initiative."
So exactly what constituencies does that leave him? Well, let's see...oh, I know: anti-war social conservatives.
Yeah, lots of those. Good luck, George. You'll need it.
By the way-- the newly-passed Senate "partial-birth abortion" bill does not include an exemption for cases where the mother's life is at risk.
?!?
on
| § 0
I've had a busy day at work, so now, finally, an opportunity to post...
In re: Arthur Silber and Johno's concerns about Franco-American relations:
Much of the delay in America's war plans is a direct result of French obstructionism. Between these delays, allowing more time for Saddam to prepare for our invasion; and the French supplying spare parts for Saddam's military through shady third parties in Dubai; we can lay some of the blame for any American casualties directly on the door of the French.
Another major aspect of delays from the American side is consideration for Blair's political health. I think many of the pro war conservatives and moderates are aware of this, as am I, and while frustrated are not necessarily blaming W.
As for the Partial Birth Abortion ban, while it may offend liberals who tend to be absolutist on abortion issues generally, is not so unreasonable. Whatever you may think of early term abortion, letting a baby be (almost) born, and then stabbing it in the head before it comes out is, literally, inches from infanticide. If the baby is that close to being born, I can't imagine any situation where the mother's health would require a doctor to kill a baby that is already nearly out of the mother already.
BTW, there are antiwar social conservatives. For example, Mennonites and Catholics.
In re: Sucking up to tyrants:
I would certainly agree with a toned down version of Peter's argument. The rest of his article is more dispassionate. I posted it it because it was some wonderful bile. However, Boston College is a small institution that does not represent millions of people. The government of France does.
In re: Missy Elliot:
Did you notice the "heh"?
In re: Moran and Buchanan:
It was, "Deranged Mongoloid F*ckwits," originally; but that works, too. Buchanan long ago lost my respect, and even longer ago ceased to be anything that could remotely called conservative. The only accurate political labels I can think of for dear Pat are from the nineteenth century - I keep expecting him to start yelling about free silver or something. Moran, my very own congressman, is a complete jackhole. 'Nuff said. But one thing that blows my mind is the inability of the anti war left to see that by opposing "America's War" they are supporting a repugnant thug who is against everything they claim to stand for. That by supporting Saddam, they are calling for the continued oppression of the Iraqi people. Then, on top of it all, they plaster bizarre conspiracy theories and outmoded slogans. Aaaaggghhh.
In re: Shoe bomber:
Jose Padilla is a Deranged Mendacious F*ckwit and traitor. Therefore, he deserves a scrupulously fair trial followed by the hangman's noose. If we had caught him overseas, different rules might have applied, but we didn't.
on
| § 0
Bucket, I'm not sure that painting European leaders as pimps and Clintons is exactly constructive, or apt. I mean, I'm on your side in this, and the worst that can be said about Chirac or Schroeder is that they are dim, small-minded calculating opportunists. And in the sucking-up-to-tyrants department, let's not forget that Boston College recently gave a visiting professorship to a former dictator, with more to come.
on
| § 0
If "the Jews" really ran the world, don't you think they'd give themselves better PR? This crap with Moran and Buchanan is just utterly, weepingly, stupid. As the WaPost puts it:
There are plenty of good reasons to be against bombing Baghdad. But to portray President Bush's heartfelt desire to rid the world of a dictator and his weapons of mass destruction as part of a Jewish conspiracy is, somehow, insulting.
Damn straight.
As someone who does have misgivings about the Iraq portion of "America's New War" (thanks, CNN!), it gets harder and harder to defend those misgivings when one batch of crazies is bent on making everything about Oil, Stalin, and Hitler, and another batch of crazies is willing to blame some "International Jewish Conspiracy." I believe in Buckethead's words that makes them all 'mendacious f*ckwits.'
Sounds about right.
on
| § 0
Those who know me know that I worry about some recent actions taken by the US Justice Department. So far, the USA PATRIOT Act has pretty much failed to change the game either way, though its full potential both for good and eeeevil remains to be proven. But the proposed "PATRIOT II" on the horizon is a much different, much scarier, matter that I'm sure I'll get all red-faced about in future posts.
One of the central unspoken values of American society is the ability for citizens to live free from fear of their government. Indeed, this is one of the features of "by/of/for the people." However, with certain recent actions by the Justice Department to extend the powers of the executive, I feel that, for me at least, this freedom is being threatened, and in the most petty and pointless ways, and it could get worse. But I digress. More also about hashpipes, websites, and packet sniffing to come, lucky you.
Anyway, the good news on this front is that, according to the New York Times, Jose Padilla (Mr. Dirrty Bomb) will be allowed to see his lawyer. This is a good thing. Padilla, though he may be a low-life, is still an American citizen, and unless he is convicted of treason, he will remain one. Most heartening is that the judge hearing the case admonished the Justice Department,
"Lest any confusion remain, this is not a suggestion or a request that Padilla be permitted to consult with counsel, and it is certainly not an invitation to conduct a further `dialogue' about whether he will be permitted to do so. It is a ruling -- a determination -- that he will be permitted to do so," the judge said."
Hopefully, this indicates a trend in which judges question the Justice Department's efforts to designate US citizens "enemy combatants" and thereby automatically suspend their civil rights. Citizenship is a basic gift, and to allow the government to suspend it at will is to cheapen what it means for everyone. If Jose Padilla was really trying to set off a Dirrty Bomb, and if the government really has evidence strong enough to convict, then the Justice Department has nothing to fear from letting the system work.
on
| § 0
As I've mentioned in the past, though not in this forum, the current state of US-French diplomacy worries me badly. This feeling has only been amplified by the events of the past week. Now that France is nakedly out to take the US down a peg or two, regardless of what ends they use to achieve this goal, and given that the Bush administration seems daily less decisive on the issue of Iraq, the stakes seem to be rising out of all proportion with the situation.
Steven Den Beste posted an article a few weeks ago here, arguing that the current diplomatic crisis is the result of a culture clash between Western Europe and the USA. Despite some factual errors in the piece brought to my attention by a good friend, I tend to agree with overarching theme. Whereas Bill Clinton was awfully fond of the intimate dance of empty postures that composes so much of international diplomacy✶Side note: Bill Clinton has a jive on him. I mean, GOD, I hear him talk, I know he's full of sh*t, but I just can't... stop... myself from wanting to believe him. It's uncanny. And it's dangerous., the Bush administration discards them altogether and declares "here we stand." This approach is fine, insofar as it removes all doubt as to motive and strategy, but it is totally out of step with the way things are done across the ocean (moral judgement not implied). It's like putting John Wayne from "The Green Berets" into a production of Hamlet. Both are perfectly great on their own terms, but they don't mix so good.
I am currently in the middle of John Keegan's The First World War and it has reminded me that Europe, united by centuries-long ties of trade and rule, tends to act like a large, close-knit family. Sure they may squabble, sure they may occasionally try to annihilate one another, but at the core they are a unit with a shared outlook that shapes the way they interact with the world and each other. When faced with an outsider, they tend to react as a whole regardless of their differences. (Interestingly, the former Communist nations tend not to share in this family affair. Huh.) Obviously, since the US's heyday has not included sharing ground with our big brothers, we tend to put less stock in the opinions of other states.
But where exactly is this going to end? From this morning's Wall Street Journal, it appears that France may be willing to achieve its diplomatic reascendency at the potential cost of American lives. Now, although that's not the same as actually killing Americans, it's not exactly the opposite either. (Good analysis of this over at Chicagoboyz.) Of course, that analysis implies that France will be at fault if the US invades Iraq, which is only true if Iraq has been buying French arms. (Hmm. Any proof of that?)
At best (for the USA), the current crisis could result in a complete vindication of US motives and methods, with a concomitant humbling of the French. But at worst, if things take a bad hop, Bush et. al may find themselves in the position of having squandered American diplomatic credibility and decades of goodwill over-- what? A tinpot dictator of a second-rate nation whose connection to "War On Terror 2K3" remains unproven to many both here and abroad. And that would just SUCK.
on
| § 0
Who is very pissed off in this article :
We Americans can expect neither gratitude, understanding nor support from the baroque regimes of France, Germany and their fellow travelers. Chancellor Schroeder? Bill Clinton without the moral fiber. President Chirac? The mouth of de Gaulle, the soul of Petain, and the morals of a pimp. Humanitarian Belgium? Yeah, just ask the Congolese. The European anti-war movement? Necrophiliacs licking the corpse of Josef Stalin.
Europeans will always be willing to weep over the dead. The United States must take a stand for the living. In Iraq. And beyond.
Mr. Peters is ordinarily much less vitriolic, but the whole article is a good read, as well as most of his other work. Check out the USS Clueless' Essential library for two conveniently accessible examples.
I think I will adopt his description of Chirac as my personal motto. It goes along with my "Are we not men, we are Devo" kind of worldview.
on
| § 0
