I notice how all the democrats and their counterparts here have suddenly changed the rules again. For two years they have continually called the President and members of his administration liars, cheats and all sorts of names. That he "deliberately misled" this country into an unnecessary war. Their extreme wing has compared him to Hitler and proclaimed that the terrorists are better than he is. Bush is called an "incompetent bastard" and every possible vile name. America is referred to as a "terrorist state" and on and on. (Michelle Malkin has posted some interesting comments from the DU--for even more unbelievable vitriol you can check out her link--or you can just take my word for it that the people at the DU have slipped the bounds of earth and are well on their way to interstellar space).
Now, finally, when the Bush Administration is fighting back and calling them to account for what they have said and what they are saying--all of a sudden we start to hear the whining.
"We just want to debate..." "Are you calling us unpatriotic?" "How dare you refer to someone who makes cowardly statements as a coward?"
They can dish it out, but they can't take it. They question Republican motives all the time, but seem to be unable to tolerate their own motives being questioned.
You know. The usual bait and switch. They didn't mean it, after all, it seems (if the vote in the house on Murtha's proposal meant anything). You see, they want to have their cake and eat it too! They want to bash Bush as much as they like; undermine the war and the brave men and women who are fighting it; and they don't want you to question their motives. Or their patriotism.
Well I do. I question their motives. I question their patriotism. I question their integrity. I question their honor. I question their courage to stand up for what is right in the face of declining public support (due mainly to their efforts). I question their support for the troops. I even question their intelligence if they cling to the notion that somehow their unceasing public attacks and deliberate undermining of both the military and the commander in chief aren't enabling and encouraging the enemy,while putting our own soldiers in more jeopardy.
In fact, the only thing I don't question about them is their capacity for self-delusion.
I worry about their mental health. I really do.
Personally, I don't believe for a moment that they really want to debate the issues. What they want to do is more grandstanding and showboating to try to score even more points at the expense of our military and the Bush Administration. If you believe that they have any goodwill--except insofar as it will get them votes--then you have not been listening to them very carefully.
Just go check and see what Pelosi has been saying. Or Biden. Or (shudder) Kerry and his sidekick Edwards. If you think these are reasonable adults who will do what is right instead of what is expedient, then I also question the soundness of your own psychological health and maturity.
When the Democrats are capable of discussing their reservations about U.S. foreign policy without the accompanying media circuses and infantile grandstanding; and when they actually come up with alternative ideas or suggestions for how to win the war, instead of how to lose it--then, and only then will I take them seriously.
I am moderately irritated with the Republicans and the mistakes that have been made in Iraq and in the WOT. But, I am fed up beyond belief with the Democrats, who have been dragged kicking and screaming every single inch of the way into the realities of the 21st century.
If they cannot be bothered to do what is needed and to persevere to the end to defend this country and its national security interests, then I want nothing to do with them.
UPDATE: Here is yet another example of how intensely "patriotic" the folks on the left are. They never miss an opportunity to paint the soldiers defending our freedom as war criminals.
Monday, November 21, 2005
IN THEIR OWN WORDS
I spend my life listening to what people say. While I have to make judgements all the time about whether I am being told the truth or not, I tend mostly to take what people tell me seriously. Especially if they are telling me that they want to do harm to themselves and/or others.
Here is what Abu Bakar Bashir, the alleged spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia has to say about Islam and the West in an interview in his jail cell in Jakarta: (hat tip: Dave King)
This man just had his sentence reduced for conspiracy in the Bali bombings and will soon walk free.
There is no reason to doubt that he means what he says.
Here is what Abu Bakar Bashir, the alleged spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia has to say about Islam and the West in an interview in his jail cell in Jakarta: (hat tip: Dave King)
Scott Atran: What are the conditions for Islam to be strong?
Abu Bakar Bashir: The infidel country must be visited and spied upon. If we don't come to them, they will persecute Islam. They will prevent non-Muslims converting.
SA: What can the West, especially the US, do to make the world more peaceful?
ABB: They have to stop fighting Islam. That's impossible because it is sunnatullah [destiny, a law of nature], as Allah has said in the Koran. If they want to have peace, they have to accept to be governed by Islam.
SA: What if they persist?
ABB: We'll keep fighting them and they'll lose. The batil [falsehood] will lose sooner or later. I sent a letter to Bush. I said that you'll lose and there is no point for you [to fight us]. This [concept] is found in the Koran.
[....]
SA: So this fight will never end?
ABB: Never. This fight is compulsory. Muslims who don't hate America sin. What I mean by America is George Bush's regime. There is no iman [belief] if one doesn't hate America.
SA: How can the American regime and its policies change?
ABB: We'll see. As long as there is no intention to fight us and Islam continues to grow there can be peace. This is the doctrine of Islam. Islam can't be ruled by others. Allah's law must stand above human law. There is no [example] of Islam and infidels, the right and the wrong, living together in peace.
This man just had his sentence reduced for conspiracy in the Bali bombings and will soon walk free.
There is no reason to doubt that he means what he says.
JOIN THE INSANITY!
The Carnival of the Insanities now has its own banner that takes you right to the most recent Carnival!
If you would like to have this banner on your site, Click Here to get the html code. I've also put this information on the sidebar.
Join the Insanity!
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Wishful Thinking? Just Maybe?
We can dream.
The Elaph Arab media website reported on Sunday that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of the al-Qaida in Iraq terror group, may have been killed in Iraq on Sunday afternoon when eight terrorists blew themselves up in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.
The unconfirmed report claimed that the explosions occurred while coalition forces surrounded the house in which al-Zarqawi was hiding. American and Iraqi forces are looking into the report.
UPDATE: Whoo-hoo! Arab media is reporting that he is dead. This could be the real thing!
UPDATE II: Yahoo News is reporting that efforts are underway to confirm that Zarqawi is among the dead after an attack in Mosul.
UPDATE III: Iraq the Model has some details of the raid. (4:15 pm)
UPDATE IV: FOXNEWS is now reporting all of the above. Bret Beir has talking to U.S. officials at the Pentagon. A forensic team is onsight for DNA testing. (4:36 pm)
The officials are connecting the fact that Zarqawi's family is disowning him at exactly this same time. On the down side, the Pentagon is wondering why terrorist sites are acknowledging his death and whether it might be a ploy to make the US think he's dead when he isn't.
UPDATE V: Just a thought. If it turns out to be true, was Zarqawi's usefulness to Al Qaeda taking a big hit? Big enought that someone felt he'd be more useful to them messing around with those 72 virgins in the sky?
A Pretty Piss-Poor Job
From StrategyPage:
If few of the troops understand that the news business is driven by dramatic events, then almost none of the journalists reporting the war or commenting on the war understand anything about military culture. Nor do they appreciate even the slightest aspect of military strategy, tactics and planning.
These same journalists who have been indoctrinated in the multicultural ethos of academia and who wouldn't dream of being "insensitive" to the most primitive of the world's cultures (who are we to judge, after all?), have no problem at all continually insulting the dedication and committment of our troops; their efforts and their honor.
And, it is even in most cases, far worse than that. These "fair and neutral" observers who call themselves journalists don't even bother to try to learn anything about their subject matter. For the representatives of the media, the troops are tried and convicted of crimes against humanity and must fit into the "oppressor" template that these closet marxists carry around in their head.
Let's try this analogy.
A journalist is assigned to write a report on a very complicated surgical procedure. He has no idea about what the usual techniques that surgeons use for this procedure; nor does he know what the instruments are. Perhaps he feels that knowing too much might prejudice him unduly for the surgeon, when he would like to be an advocate for the patient.
He appears at the surgical operating room at the start of the operation. Many confusing thoughts go through his mind. What is all this special clothing? Why do they do these seemingly endless hand washings. Oh my god! They have that poor patient naked on the table. Why are they sticking that big tube down the naked man's throat? It's cold in here. They're cutting him! The blood gushing out. This is terrible! A bloody mess. Unbelievable! The surgeon and all the assistants have blood on their hands! It's on their clothing, too. That surgeon is a monster! He is unconcerned about the incredible damage he is inflicting on that poor helpless man.
Why are they taking that vein from his leg? What does that have to do with anything? Obviously they have a sadistic desire to simply inflict needless pain! This man is having heart surgery not leg surgery! What incompetence! Does his superior know what he is doing?
And--what is that? I can't believe it! They are attaching his heart to a machine! The man is now completely dependent for his life on this doctor who doesn't care about spilling the poor man's blood. Who gave that monster the right to perform this atrocity? That poor patient! How he will ever survive the butchering is beyond me......
Yes. If a MSM reporter were on the scene, I'm sure he'd describe the complicated procedure as a medical quagmire conducted by sadistic doctors who enjoy inflicting humiliation and pain on the poor patient. He probably wouldn't stick around to find out how the surgery came out either (it's rather long). Nor would he research the underlying illness that led to such a daring and necessary procedure.
Or would he? Would a decent journalist do the background necessary to be able to intelligently report on this topic? Would he understand the special knowledge possessed by the surgeon and surgical team? Would he appreciate the dedication, stamina, psychological strength and courage it takes to commit yourself to saving a life?
Would that journalist appreciate that the pain the patient will suffer in the next several months is quite bad--but not as bad as the inevitable death he or she once faced before the surgery?
Would that journalist dare to call himself a reporter, if he didn't understand even the most fundamental aspects of what he was reporting on?
There is no reason on earth that soldiers and warriors should have to appreciate the news business or what drives it. Their job is only to risk their lives every day to protect and defend their country and its citizens--even if that leads to their own death. They accept this reality with hardly a second thought. It is their job. It is their duty. It is their honor.
But there is every reason why a competent journalist would need to appreciate and understand the subject matter he is reporting on--that is, the U.S. military forces and their background, mission, rules, strategy, tactics, weapons, and culture.
Because that is what journalist's are supposed to do. Not engage in histrionics or provide commentary free from context and background. That is their duty to the public.
And as a group, they are doing a pretty piss-poor job of it.
Few of the troops understand that the news business is driven by dramatic events, not the tedious kind of process the troops go through every day to defeat the terrorists. To the troops, the war is being won. They see bad guys killed in large numbers, and few Americans getting hurt (it’s fairly common for their to be about twenty enemy dead for each American loss). The troops see tangible evidence, every day, of Iraqis having a better life. The troops cannot understand why that is not news, and why journalists always seem to be looking for a negative angle. To the average G.I., the attitude is, “what are these reporters looking for?” They are looking for a story, and bad news is a story. Good news is not. As a result of this clash of cultures, reporters are increasingly seen as a potentially dangerous enemy. For the troops, this is already accepted as true for many Arab journalists. Some of those have been arrested for hostile activity, or later revealed as al Qaeda agents. European journalists are seen as particularly clueless, so wrapped up in their anti-American fantasies, that communication is nearly impossible. But after watching a CNN clip on the net, or viewing an online story from the New York Times or Washington Post, it’s hard to view U.S. journalists as fellow Americans.
If few of the troops understand that the news business is driven by dramatic events, then almost none of the journalists reporting the war or commenting on the war understand anything about military culture. Nor do they appreciate even the slightest aspect of military strategy, tactics and planning.
These same journalists who have been indoctrinated in the multicultural ethos of academia and who wouldn't dream of being "insensitive" to the most primitive of the world's cultures (who are we to judge, after all?), have no problem at all continually insulting the dedication and committment of our troops; their efforts and their honor.
And, it is even in most cases, far worse than that. These "fair and neutral" observers who call themselves journalists don't even bother to try to learn anything about their subject matter. For the representatives of the media, the troops are tried and convicted of crimes against humanity and must fit into the "oppressor" template that these closet marxists carry around in their head.
Let's try this analogy.
A journalist is assigned to write a report on a very complicated surgical procedure. He has no idea about what the usual techniques that surgeons use for this procedure; nor does he know what the instruments are. Perhaps he feels that knowing too much might prejudice him unduly for the surgeon, when he would like to be an advocate for the patient.
He appears at the surgical operating room at the start of the operation. Many confusing thoughts go through his mind. What is all this special clothing? Why do they do these seemingly endless hand washings. Oh my god! They have that poor patient naked on the table. Why are they sticking that big tube down the naked man's throat? It's cold in here. They're cutting him! The blood gushing out. This is terrible! A bloody mess. Unbelievable! The surgeon and all the assistants have blood on their hands! It's on their clothing, too. That surgeon is a monster! He is unconcerned about the incredible damage he is inflicting on that poor helpless man.
Why are they taking that vein from his leg? What does that have to do with anything? Obviously they have a sadistic desire to simply inflict needless pain! This man is having heart surgery not leg surgery! What incompetence! Does his superior know what he is doing?
And--what is that? I can't believe it! They are attaching his heart to a machine! The man is now completely dependent for his life on this doctor who doesn't care about spilling the poor man's blood. Who gave that monster the right to perform this atrocity? That poor patient! How he will ever survive the butchering is beyond me......
Yes. If a MSM reporter were on the scene, I'm sure he'd describe the complicated procedure as a medical quagmire conducted by sadistic doctors who enjoy inflicting humiliation and pain on the poor patient. He probably wouldn't stick around to find out how the surgery came out either (it's rather long). Nor would he research the underlying illness that led to such a daring and necessary procedure.
Or would he? Would a decent journalist do the background necessary to be able to intelligently report on this topic? Would he understand the special knowledge possessed by the surgeon and surgical team? Would he appreciate the dedication, stamina, psychological strength and courage it takes to commit yourself to saving a life?
Would that journalist appreciate that the pain the patient will suffer in the next several months is quite bad--but not as bad as the inevitable death he or she once faced before the surgery?
Would that journalist dare to call himself a reporter, if he didn't understand even the most fundamental aspects of what he was reporting on?
There is no reason on earth that soldiers and warriors should have to appreciate the news business or what drives it. Their job is only to risk their lives every day to protect and defend their country and its citizens--even if that leads to their own death. They accept this reality with hardly a second thought. It is their job. It is their duty. It is their honor.
But there is every reason why a competent journalist would need to appreciate and understand the subject matter he is reporting on--that is, the U.S. military forces and their background, mission, rules, strategy, tactics, weapons, and culture.
Because that is what journalist's are supposed to do. Not engage in histrionics or provide commentary free from context and background. That is their duty to the public.
And as a group, they are doing a pretty piss-poor job of it.
CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES
Time for the weekly insanity udate, where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see! This has been a week of rare idiocy (as always!). Calling all bloggers! Be sure to send in your entries to the Carnival, which will be posted every Sunday. Entries need to be in by 8 pm ET on Saturday to make their way into the list that week. Only one post entry per blogger, please. Thanks for all the submissions. SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!***NEW*** Feel free to add your own insanities in Trackbacks to this post!
1. Another story the media is ignoring. Along with this one. And another one slips off the radar. I wonder why? Hmmmmmmm. Fact checking the MSM (video here) !
2. A perfect example of being hoist on their own petard.
3. You are only allowed to say something like this if you are a Democrat. Curiosly, other things they said are taboo. But to be fair, we should all ask Santa to put a plan for America in Howard Dean's
4. Tibetan Dissident Bi-athalon - a running and shooting event in the next Olympics.
5. Speaking of the Olympics. Here's a good idea for the soccer event. And, while we're discussing soccer, check out the latest in poor sportsmanship.
6. And this, children, is what is known as "psychological projection".
7. An example of "intellectual harassment" pure and simple. Academic insanity is everywhere.
8. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (and so on ad infinitum). And this is certainly a likely scenario given all that we know.
9. Introducing the 2005 Renault Flambeau!
10. Suicidal love? (hat tip: SC&A)
11. Child abuse = No mobile phone?
12. A better title would be "The Wit and Wisdom of Osama" - but then there would be nothing to publish. Tim Blair is outraged: For heaven's sake, be reasonable, man!
13. Unable to attend due to a prior lack of committment.... And this is funny, too. Delusional funny--but funny.
14. Les Risibles. A musical.
15. This is good. Very very good.
16. Rugby players are...different. So is this individual.
17. There must be some way they can blame global warming in those previous centuries on Bush! If only they had the Kyoto Protocol in the 1300's!
18. What did Che ever do to save mushroom princesses??
19. Terrell Owens' other complaints against the Eagles. And yes, Jesse Jackson has nothing better to do.
20. File this one under "the pen is mightier..." --or at least more dangerous than we thought.
21. Have you heard this joke? "How many lawyers does it take to defend Saddam Hussein?" Just one, but he would really have to be innocent???
22. Saddam is lost to him, so where else would a lying, cheating sociopath be welcome?
23. Humanitarian motives seem unlikely.
24. Don't you understand? In the PC universe some religions ARE more equal than others.
25. Do you think Allah will bless you, Mr. Vonnegut? With 72 sirens of Titan? Or are you working on Slaughterhouse 6 - The Terrorist Version?
Saturday, November 19, 2005
What A Concept!
Imagine for a moment a higher educational system that actually used good business practices and was responsive to their customers.A place you could send your children knowing that they were being taught to think--not what to think.
A place were good teachers were rewarded and the bad weeded out; and where there are no ideas that are prohibited from discussion and evaluation.
A place where even Republicans and conservatives (curse them!) would be welcome to express their ideas! And all that mattered would be the quality and rationality of the idea --not the political party of the person expressing it.
Where the only "conformity" encouraged was conformity to reason and reality (how bourgeoise and unpostmodern!)
But...no. They are far too superior to be held to such a capitalistic standard. Besides they see it as their job to tell their customers what to think (or at least, the children of their customers).
Our institutions of higher learning might actually be dedicated to thinking--instead of holy temples of political correctness and multicultural indoctrination. Intellectual "diversity" and open debate would be encouraged, instead of conformity.
Of course there might still be a niche market where professors like Ward Churchill and this one, could act out their pseudointellectual power ambitions and intimidate or suppress any "deviant" thoughts that might emanate from the young minds foolishly sent their way.
Capitalism in higher education. What a concept!
Paris Burns Anyway
Charles Krauthammer in Time Magazine: (hat tip: The Corner)
On the one side are the protester-arsonists, many if not most of them Muslim, whom the Interior Minister called racaille (rabble)--young, restless, violent, vibrant, angry, jobless, envious and fecund. And on the other side is an aged and exhausted civilization, the hollowed-out core of European Christendom, static, aging, contented, coddled, passive and literally without faith. Who would you think will win in the end?
[...]
France always thought it had one last resort, one ready strategy for fending off the rage of its Arab street: beyond avoidance lay appeasement. No country in the West has done more to cultivate world Arab opinion, to appease Arab terrorists, to ostentatiously oppose American Middle East policy (Iraq above all), to champion the signal Arab cause of Palestine. It was no accident that Yasser Arafat chose Paris as his place to die--Paris, after Jerusalem, his second holiest city.
Paris burns anyway. As the French seem to learn every 70 years, appeasement does not work. It merely whets the appetite. And the angry alien young were already hungry.
You know that things must not be all sunshine and roses when the Hollywood types abandon ship.
The problem is that there is nowhere you can go to get away from the danger; no appeasement; no negotiation possible. It must be faced and fought until all the rats are finally exterminated.
WHAT IS EASY vs WHAT IS RIGHT
Last night I went to see Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire with my daughter and several of her friends. It was a fabulous movie, somewhat darker than the previous ones--but so is the book. I was struck once again at how chillingly the entire series of Harry Potter books parallels the Western world's awakening to an ancient evil that never completely went away to begin with, but which now is rising in an even more powerful and deadly form.
In fact, Rowling's series has become the metaphor of our times. Whether this is conscious or unconscious on Rowling's part is neither here nor there.
When Dumbledore says to Harry at the end of the movie (paraphrasing), "Dark and difficult times lay ahead. Soon we will have to decide between doing what is easy and what is right." [In the book, Dumbledore tells all the Hogwarts students: "Remember Cedric. Remember, if the time should come when you have to make a choice between what is right, and what is easy, remember what happened to a boy who was good, and kind, and brave, because, he strayed across the path of Lord Voldemort. Remember Cedric Diggory."]
Yesterday, two important things happened. The first was an "oops" message from everyone's favortie mass murderer Zarqawi, as he backpedaled from claiming that the hotel suicide bombings that killed many innocent people in Jordan intended to do exactly that. This message was being translated as some of his other thugs were blowing themselves up in the middle of a crowded mosque during prayers in Iraq.
Please note that Zarqawi had made several triumphant--and unapologetic-- claims of responsibility for the Jordanian carnage before public sentiment there began to turn angrily against him. In short, his mi apologia was the result of negative public opinion. Part of the islamofascist strategy has always been to use the weapon of public opinion and let the U.S. and its allies snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. For Zarqawi it is simple. He cannot possibly win militarily; hence his strategy is to cause his enemies to defeat themselves.
Meanwhile, yesterday also saw a heated debate in Congress and voting on a resolution that forced the Democrats to put their money where their mouth has been for the last year. It overwhelmingly failed. In short, it failed because the Democrats--who have been whining about Iraq and undermining all progress there since before last year's presidential election--also know the value of public opinion. They have been catering to their base for some time instead of doing what needs to be done to win this war.
The Democrats always want to go the easy way. That's why they put such stock in opinion polls. Doing what needs to be done is not always popular. The hard choices; the right choices are beyond them--unless they feel the polls are with them, then it becomes easy for them.
The American public may be confused about exactly how well things are going overall in Iraq--they have good cause to wonder with all the negative words coming from the mouths of the media and some of their elected leaders--but when push comes to shove, the public has a better sense of what is right than any of those posturing peacocks (and peahens) in the leadership positions of the Democratic party.
Last night, Congress did what was right; and finally stopped sliding toward what was easy.
But this isn't the end. There will be many such choices in the next couple of years both for Congress and for the American people. How to wage this war is up for debate. But no sane person can still be debating on whether to wage it. It is all around us--in Paris, Germany, England, Indonesia, Africa, Pakistan....not just in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The evil we are confronting in the world is not going to go quietly away. Thousands and perhaps millions (if Zarqawi, Zawahiri, and Bin Laden have their way) of innocent people will continue to stray into the path of this evil and they will suffer and die because of it.
It would be easy to pretend that this danger to life; to peace; to civilization did not exist.
Dark and difficult times lay ahead. I hope we will continue to choose what is right.
In fact, Rowling's series has become the metaphor of our times. Whether this is conscious or unconscious on Rowling's part is neither here nor there.
When Dumbledore says to Harry at the end of the movie (paraphrasing), "Dark and difficult times lay ahead. Soon we will have to decide between doing what is easy and what is right." [In the book, Dumbledore tells all the Hogwarts students: "Remember Cedric. Remember, if the time should come when you have to make a choice between what is right, and what is easy, remember what happened to a boy who was good, and kind, and brave, because, he strayed across the path of Lord Voldemort. Remember Cedric Diggory."]
Yesterday, two important things happened. The first was an "oops" message from everyone's favortie mass murderer Zarqawi, as he backpedaled from claiming that the hotel suicide bombings that killed many innocent people in Jordan intended to do exactly that. This message was being translated as some of his other thugs were blowing themselves up in the middle of a crowded mosque during prayers in Iraq.
Please note that Zarqawi had made several triumphant--and unapologetic-- claims of responsibility for the Jordanian carnage before public sentiment there began to turn angrily against him. In short, his mi apologia was the result of negative public opinion. Part of the islamofascist strategy has always been to use the weapon of public opinion and let the U.S. and its allies snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. For Zarqawi it is simple. He cannot possibly win militarily; hence his strategy is to cause his enemies to defeat themselves.
Meanwhile, yesterday also saw a heated debate in Congress and voting on a resolution that forced the Democrats to put their money where their mouth has been for the last year. It overwhelmingly failed. In short, it failed because the Democrats--who have been whining about Iraq and undermining all progress there since before last year's presidential election--also know the value of public opinion. They have been catering to their base for some time instead of doing what needs to be done to win this war.
The Democrats always want to go the easy way. That's why they put such stock in opinion polls. Doing what needs to be done is not always popular. The hard choices; the right choices are beyond them--unless they feel the polls are with them, then it becomes easy for them.
The American public may be confused about exactly how well things are going overall in Iraq--they have good cause to wonder with all the negative words coming from the mouths of the media and some of their elected leaders--but when push comes to shove, the public has a better sense of what is right than any of those posturing peacocks (and peahens) in the leadership positions of the Democratic party.
Last night, Congress did what was right; and finally stopped sliding toward what was easy.
But this isn't the end. There will be many such choices in the next couple of years both for Congress and for the American people. How to wage this war is up for debate. But no sane person can still be debating on whether to wage it. It is all around us--in Paris, Germany, England, Indonesia, Africa, Pakistan....not just in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The evil we are confronting in the world is not going to go quietly away. Thousands and perhaps millions (if Zarqawi, Zawahiri, and Bin Laden have their way) of innocent people will continue to stray into the path of this evil and they will suffer and die because of it.
It would be easy to pretend that this danger to life; to peace; to civilization did not exist.
Dark and difficult times lay ahead. I hope we will continue to choose what is right.
Friday, November 18, 2005
A RESPONSE TO ALL MY HATE MAIL
I have been the recipient of a great deal of hate mail lately, particularly because I dare to call the Left out and cast aspersions on their integrity, honor, and patriotism. (It also has to do with the increased traffic on this site after a few links by Instapundit, Power Line and Michelle Malkin--but hey! I'm not complaining!)
Since I don't intend to individually respond to all that lovely hate mail, I thought I would write an all-encompassing post that touches on a few of the key points I would like to make to the emailers in case I wasn't direct enough in the posts they were responding to.
So, let me be perfectly clear. At this point in history the Left's behavior is bereft of any and all integrity; is dishonorable; and, in my opinion, borders on treason.
If you want to know specifically who I am referring to when I use the term the "Left", please turn on your television sets; read your newspapers; and or go and watch the antics of UPJ or ANSWER, Sheehan or others as they parade around and make pseudointellectual speeches at their "antiwar" marches and protests.
Or, just listen to a few of the leading members of the Democratic Party for a few minutes.
How they can possibly imagine that their self-serving rhetoric is for the good of America is beyond me.
Their unconscionable, narcissistic behavior unequivocally endangers American troops; puts Americans all over the world at risk; and enables and encourages a determined and fanatical enemy. It is laughable to claim that they "support the troops" or that they are "patriots" .
How many deaths in Iraq can be laid directly at their door? How many have they killed by deliberatly encouraging the Zarqawis of the world? They simply avert their eyes and blame others.
They don't have the courage to face the consequences of their own rhetoric and their thoughtless and counterproductive behavior. Like anyone in complete and utter denial, they cling desperately to their illusions so they don't have to face reality.
UPJ and ANSWER are communist and socialist fronts that have duped a lot of useful idiots into thinking they are supporting "peace and justice". On the contrary. It is exactly that totalitarian ideology that is responsible for almost all state-sponsored human misery, suffering and death in the last century. If you are aware of these facts, and still support such organizations, then you are not a useful idiot, you are a malignant narcissist and an accessory to mass murder.
As far as the so-called Democratic "leaders" in Congress, if they want to be seen as " supporting the troops," they will do what is necessary to win the war. If they want to see themselves as "patriots", they will work in good faith--sans personal political agenda or self-aggrandizing photo-ops and news conferences-- with the Commander in Chief and military leaders to develop plans that really support the troops in achieving American strategic and tactical objectives in the Middle East. And, of course, bear in mind that you did lose the last election--and if you want to change course in American foreign policy--fine. 2008 is just a few years away.
Having your "integrity" determined by poll numbers is cynical distortion of the word's meaning. Behaving honorably in the past does not give you a free pass to behave dishonorably now.
So, keep that hate mail coming! Calling me vile names and telling me to perform certain biological acts on myself is just further evidence of your side's intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
Have a nice day.
UPDATE: 11/20/05- Looks like I'm not the only female blogger who has had it with the four-letter words that take the place of argument. Only Michelle has it much worse than me -- in addition to being a woman (much more talented than I) she's also a member of a minority group, which means that the Left can reflexly attack her for not following their victimhood prescription and being subservient to their ideology. Whenever you see this sort of behavior (calling Blacks who don't conform to their way of thinking "Uncle Toms"; attacking women who disagree with their positions on women's helpless victimhood, etc. etc.) its important to realize that this is a serious kind of "projection". THEY are the ones who want to keep you in your "proper" place (as they define it) and ascribe their own underlying racism and sexism to you. Its much less intellectually taxing for them that way; and they can maintain their sense of moral superiority.
Since I don't intend to individually respond to all that lovely hate mail, I thought I would write an all-encompassing post that touches on a few of the key points I would like to make to the emailers in case I wasn't direct enough in the posts they were responding to.
So, let me be perfectly clear. At this point in history the Left's behavior is bereft of any and all integrity; is dishonorable; and, in my opinion, borders on treason.
If you want to know specifically who I am referring to when I use the term the "Left", please turn on your television sets; read your newspapers; and or go and watch the antics of UPJ or ANSWER, Sheehan or others as they parade around and make pseudointellectual speeches at their "antiwar" marches and protests.
Or, just listen to a few of the leading members of the Democratic Party for a few minutes.
How they can possibly imagine that their self-serving rhetoric is for the good of America is beyond me.
Their unconscionable, narcissistic behavior unequivocally endangers American troops; puts Americans all over the world at risk; and enables and encourages a determined and fanatical enemy. It is laughable to claim that they "support the troops" or that they are "patriots" .
How many deaths in Iraq can be laid directly at their door? How many have they killed by deliberatly encouraging the Zarqawis of the world? They simply avert their eyes and blame others.
They don't have the courage to face the consequences of their own rhetoric and their thoughtless and counterproductive behavior. Like anyone in complete and utter denial, they cling desperately to their illusions so they don't have to face reality.
UPJ and ANSWER are communist and socialist fronts that have duped a lot of useful idiots into thinking they are supporting "peace and justice". On the contrary. It is exactly that totalitarian ideology that is responsible for almost all state-sponsored human misery, suffering and death in the last century. If you are aware of these facts, and still support such organizations, then you are not a useful idiot, you are a malignant narcissist and an accessory to mass murder.
As far as the so-called Democratic "leaders" in Congress, if they want to be seen as " supporting the troops," they will do what is necessary to win the war. If they want to see themselves as "patriots", they will work in good faith--sans personal political agenda or self-aggrandizing photo-ops and news conferences-- with the Commander in Chief and military leaders to develop plans that really support the troops in achieving American strategic and tactical objectives in the Middle East. And, of course, bear in mind that you did lose the last election--and if you want to change course in American foreign policy--fine. 2008 is just a few years away.
Having your "integrity" determined by poll numbers is cynical distortion of the word's meaning. Behaving honorably in the past does not give you a free pass to behave dishonorably now.
So, keep that hate mail coming! Calling me vile names and telling me to perform certain biological acts on myself is just further evidence of your side's intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
Have a nice day.
UPDATE: 11/20/05- Looks like I'm not the only female blogger who has had it with the four-letter words that take the place of argument. Only Michelle has it much worse than me -- in addition to being a woman (much more talented than I) she's also a member of a minority group, which means that the Left can reflexly attack her for not following their victimhood prescription and being subservient to their ideology. Whenever you see this sort of behavior (calling Blacks who don't conform to their way of thinking "Uncle Toms"; attacking women who disagree with their positions on women's helpless victimhood, etc. etc.) its important to realize that this is a serious kind of "projection". THEY are the ones who want to keep you in your "proper" place (as they define it) and ascribe their own underlying racism and sexism to you. Its much less intellectually taxing for them that way; and they can maintain their sense of moral superiority.
THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN !
Dr. Sanity is on a roll! This week's winners in the Watcher's Council are now posted at the Watcher of Weasels. Every week the Council nominates posts from the blogs of the Council members, and posts from around the blogsphere. The Council then votes to select the "Best" of all these posts. I'm proud to have been selected two weeks in a row for the honor of Best Council Post! Congratulations to all the other winners.
BEST COUNCIL POSTS:
First Place
Let's Discuss Bush Derangement Syndrome Again Dr. Sanity
Second Place (a two-way tie!)
Questioning Their Patriotism The Glittering Eye
"The Untouched Hot Potato" Gates of Vienna
BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:
First Place
Attention GOP Leadership: The Anchoress
Second Place
The J. Patrick Buchanan Memorial Library for Failed Prophets of Doom Varifrank
Be sure to check out all the really great posts that won over at the Watcher's site. It will make excellent week-end reading!
THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY THEME SONG
(sung to the tune of "I Walk The Line"; with deep apologies to Johnny Cash)
I keep a close watch on those polls of mine
They're really helpful since I lack a spine
It seems to me surrendering's just fine
So when its time, I moan and whine
I find it very, very easy to change views
And when I do its always makes the News
It really is a very simple ruse
So when its time, I moan and whine
As sure as right is wrong and good is bad
Appeasing terrorism makes me glad
Because I sure don't want to make them mad
So when its time, I moan and whine
There's no way for me to stay on just one side
There are no principles to which I can subscribe
I simply float along on every tide
And when its time, I moan and whine
I keep a close watch on those polls of mine
They're really helpful since I lack a spine
It seems to me surrendering's just fine
So when its time, I moan and whine
UPDATE: BTW - This is what the Democrats consider "hawkish". "Chickenlittlehawk", more like.
I keep a close watch on those polls of mine
They're really helpful since I lack a spine
It seems to me surrendering's just fine
So when its time, I moan and whine
I find it very, very easy to change views
And when I do its always makes the News
It really is a very simple ruse
So when its time, I moan and whine
As sure as right is wrong and good is bad
Appeasing terrorism makes me glad
Because I sure don't want to make them mad
So when its time, I moan and whine
There's no way for me to stay on just one side
There are no principles to which I can subscribe
I simply float along on every tide
And when its time, I moan and whine
I keep a close watch on those polls of mine
They're really helpful since I lack a spine
It seems to me surrendering's just fine
So when its time, I moan and whine
UPDATE: BTW - This is what the Democrats consider "hawkish". "Chickenlittlehawk", more like.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
REALITY BITES
I like Thomas Sowell and have enjoyed many of his books, which are excellent. His is a voice of sanity that can gently bring even the most delusional soul back to the world of reality--if they will but listen. Democrats and the RINOs in Congress would do well to listen :
What Sowell is saying so clearly and forthrightly is that no matter how you feel about it, REALITY EXISTS. This is a shocking revelation for many people, who have come to believe that what they happen to feel strongly about at any given moment trumps that objective reality that lurks around out beyond the confines of the self.
I feel it is true, therefore it is true.
One example of the application of this philosophy from CBS Rathergate escapades last year is here. If you listen to Mary Mapes today, you will be listening to a person who has become angry and bitter because what she felt was true (and still feels to this day) has been rejected by people more in touch with reality than she is. Fortunately, this is quite a few people.
In a previous post where I discussed feelings, countertransference and reality, I wrote:
Sowell applies the same idea to the court of economic reality. Your feelings might tell you that you don't like to pay high prices, but they will ultimately have to come to grips with the reality behind the high prices. Your feelings tell you to help the poor; but you can't escape the reality that many government programs throughout history to help the poor have backfired and ended up victimizing the poor instead. Just because these programs make you feel good, doesn't mean that they work to end poverty. And just because you feel strongly about them doesn't mean they are good. In this, as in many other areas, good intentions merely pave the way to hell or worse.
When you make all these kind of decisions based solely on your feelings, one way or another, reality will simply come back to bite you.
Of course, if the overiding goal is just to make yourself feel better--rather than to actually accomplish anything of substance in the real world--then the Democratic Party and the Left is for you. Enjoy!
I first became aware of the law of gravity as a small child when I pedalled by tricycle off the porch and crashed into the yard. Gravity was of course operating all along, whether I was aware of it or not.
Economics is a lot like that. Many people who are completely unaware of economics sometimes discover it the same way I discovered gravity, through some personal or national crash.
Liberals especially tend to think up all sorts of good things we want -- a "living wage," "affordable housing," "universal health care," and an ever-expanding wish-list of things that everyone should receive as "rights" -- with little or no awareness of the economic repercussions of turning that wish list into laws.
In many cases, items on their wish list have already been turned into laws in other countries and in other periods of history, but there is remarkably little curiosity as to what the actual consequences were in those countries and times.
People who want the government to control the prices of pharmaceutical drugs seldom, if ever, raise the question of what actually happens in places and times when government has controlled the prices of pharmaceutical drugs. Canada and other countries do it. What consequences have there been?
One major consequence is that Canada and other countries do not create nearly as many of the new life-saving pharmaceutical drugs as the United States does. These other countries live off the results -- the medicines -- produced by the enormously costly research that "obscene" pharmaceutical profits finance in America.
Those who want us to imitate those countries do not confront the inescapable fact that we cannot all live off somebody else -- in this or other things. Somebody has to pay the costs.
[...]
Prices are not just arbitrary numbers plucked out of the air or numbers dependent on whether sellers are "greedy" or not. In the competition of the marketplace, prices are signals that convey underlying realities about relative scarcities and relative costs of production.
Those underlying realities are not changed in the slightest by price controls. You might as well try to deal with someone's fever by putting the thermometer in cold water to lower the reading.
What Sowell is saying so clearly and forthrightly is that no matter how you feel about it, REALITY EXISTS. This is a shocking revelation for many people, who have come to believe that what they happen to feel strongly about at any given moment trumps that objective reality that lurks around out beyond the confines of the self.
I feel it is true, therefore it is true.
One example of the application of this philosophy from CBS Rathergate escapades last year is here. If you listen to Mary Mapes today, you will be listening to a person who has become angry and bitter because what she felt was true (and still feels to this day) has been rejected by people more in touch with reality than she is. Fortunately, this is quite a few people.
In a previous post where I discussed feelings, countertransference and reality, I wrote:
A person's visceral response to another individual is usually based on mostly unconscious factors that are in play in the responder's life. To make an assessment of the gut feeling's appropriateness, the contents of the unconscious must be explored and brought to the conscious level and considered. Those unconscious internal conflicts can easily mask the inappropriate aspects of the feelings, making them worthless as a means of understanding the external world.
Taking this kind of action as a method of checking and understanding one's own feelings is a process called "insight" or "self-awareness". Some people do this quite naturally and honestly. Some learn in therapy or when they are in crisis. But if insight is absent then one's feelings have the potential to do great harm --both to one's self and to others.
Some unconscious factors, or psychological defenses, that can make one's feelings untrustworthy are: 1) the person you are responding to has become symbolic of someone else in your life (displacement, fantasy, or perhaps distortion); 2) focusing on one particular aspect of a person, you ignore other, more objective data that are available to you about the person (denial); 3) you place your own unacceptable feelings onto the other person--e.g.,I'm not an angry person, -- he's an angry person! (projection or full-blown paranoia).
The truth is that there are countless ways that unconscious processes within ourselves can distort our responses to others and to reality itself.
Growing up and attaining maturity requires that we take a moment to consider such factors playing a role in our emotions before we act on those emotions. If we come to know ourselves and understand our own weaknesses, vulnerabilities, limitations and secrets; then our emotional responses to people or to the world can be very valuable tools to help interpret the world. But they are only tools, and if not used wisely, they can do more harm than good. Feelings cannot be used in a court of law--for good reason. And they are not ultimate truth in the court of reality, either.
Sowell applies the same idea to the court of economic reality. Your feelings might tell you that you don't like to pay high prices, but they will ultimately have to come to grips with the reality behind the high prices. Your feelings tell you to help the poor; but you can't escape the reality that many government programs throughout history to help the poor have backfired and ended up victimizing the poor instead. Just because these programs make you feel good, doesn't mean that they work to end poverty. And just because you feel strongly about them doesn't mean they are good. In this, as in many other areas, good intentions merely pave the way to hell or worse.
When you make all these kind of decisions based solely on your feelings, one way or another, reality will simply come back to bite you.
Of course, if the overiding goal is just to make yourself feel better--rather than to actually accomplish anything of substance in the real world--then the Democratic Party and the Left is for you. Enjoy!
ShrinkWrapped Takes On the Fall of the West
ShrinkWrapped is beginning a new series on Narcissism, Disintegration, Suicidality & the Fall of the West
and I'm looking forward to it!
Here is some of the tantalizing beginning:
If you are so inclined, my own thoughts on Narcissism can be found in a three-part series here. And be sure to read what the blogsphere's resident psychoanalyst has to say!
and I'm looking forward to it!
Here is some of the tantalizing beginning:
I would contend that what we are seeing, especially in Europe, is the natural history of Narcissism playing out on a wide stage; further, what is happening there is a cautionary tale for the American experiment. This post is to be the first of a series examining the history of Narcissism, the ways in which the personal and the societal have interacted and continue to interact to worsen the problems that stem from the Narcissistic aggrandizement of the self, and offer some ideas on ways to lessen the impact of the societal illness so engendered.
Psychoanalysis is a retrospective science (or hermeneutic exercise, if you prefer) which seeks to explain a person's current difficulties by discovering the earlier templates or models which determine the person's relationship with himself, with others, and with the greater reality. Applying the same tools to an analysis of a society is, of necessity, going to work better in retrospect than as prediction, however, since the past is prologue, certain outcomes can be seen in nascent form by looking closely at the current reality.
For example, if a patient has a tendency to choose lovers who are inappropriate, the most likely outcome of a new relationship, barring any structural changes in their character, is a repetition of past failed relationships, but perhaps with some differences in the details. Likewise, a society that has failed to adequately identify and resolve its problems will also, barring major structural shifts, continue to repeat the same errors until it fails.
If you are so inclined, my own thoughts on Narcissism can be found in a three-part series here. And be sure to read what the blogsphere's resident psychoanalyst has to say!
John Edward's Bad Hair Day
John Edwards is a textbook example of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of today's Left. You might think that because he came out and sincerely and with great gravity announced a few days ago, "I was wrong" about Saddam and WMD -- that this is a testament to his integrity.
Well, frankly, he's counting on you to think that. Here's what he said back on the first anniversary of 9/11, when it was politically expedient to support a war in Iraq:
The terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them.
But as the Jimmie at The Sundries Shack demonstrates in some detail, John Edwards is one person who was in a perfect position to know if the intelligence on Iraq was "manipulated" or if the President "misled" the American people.
You see, John Edwards was a member of the Select Senate Intelligence Committee that reviewed prewar intelligence in 2004. His signature is right there on the report.
It is now--according to the Edward's internal political advantage weathervane--politically expedient to take the opposite position. With equally great sincerity and honesty, of course.
This weathervane is a big seller in Democratic circles these days.
I will concede that Edwards and Kerry may have had better hair than their opponents in 2004, as they claimed,: but in the intellectual and moral department, they remain completely bankrupt.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
A DEAFENING SILENCE
...from international feminists has greeted this astonishing news:
Betsy Newmark, blogging at Michelle Malkin has this to say:
I spoke at length about the intellectual an moral bankruptcy of today's feminist movement in several previous posts (here and here), and this is what one commentor pointed out in the comments to the first linked post:
The problem is that today's feminists have a vested interest in maintaining the vicitmhood of women; because how can they be the champions of oppressed women ...if they aren't being oppressed anymore??
And since the feminsts have committed to the idea that those evil oppressors of women are (courtesy of Marxist and Leftist theories in general): Bush, Republicans, Capitalism, and America (not necessarily in that order). If you ain't on that list, you get a pass.
Feminists today can't be bothered with the women of Afghanistan and their incredible courage in standing up and risking their lives for freedom-- they are too busy fighting the delusions that are part of a carefully contructed alternate reality.
Female candidates have triumphed in Afghanistan's parliamentary elections, with one bidding to become the new parliament's speaker.
After a delay in counting of more than a month, official results show women secured seats ahead of male candidates in a quarter of the 34 provinces, while in one a woman was outright winner.
Before September's parliamentary vote, the first for 30 years, there had been widespread predictions that, due to the conservatism of Afghan society, women would only gain seats through a quota system which automatically reserved 25 per cent of seats for them under the country's new constitution. But women won seats in their own right and will take up 68 of the 249 in the lower house when it convenes later this month.
Remnants of the Taliban responded to the results by detonating two suicide bombs in Kabul, killing a German peacekeeper and three Afghans. British troops opened fire to repel a threat to their camp in the capital.
Betsy Newmark, blogging at Michelle Malkin has this to say:
Think of the amazing courage of these women. They are risking their lives and the lives of their families in order to try to build a stronger, more moral country. I don't think that I would have that brand of courage. I think of the feminists who fought for women's suffrage in our past. They often made a similar sort of argument that women would clean up politics because they would bring a new morality to the election booth. Well, that certainly hasn't happened here. Maybe, this new women's caucus in the Afghan parliament will be able to band together against the warlords and remnants of the Taliban.
I would think that women rights advocates throughout the world would be trumpeting the courage and achievements of these women. But, instead, there is a very speaking silence from leading feminists. I guess they're afraid that any praise for what women have achieved in Afghanistan would remind people of the President who made those achievements possible. Is that what being committed to women's rights around the globe really comes down to?
I spoke at length about the intellectual an moral bankruptcy of today's feminist movement in several previous posts (here and here), and this is what one commentor pointed out in the comments to the first linked post:
Feminism was utterly successful, much like the March of Dimes when polio was for the most part eliminated. But the March of Dimes still exists, and I am not sure why. The same holds true for feminism. If I remember correctly, one of Senator Kennedy's objections to John Roberts' nomination to the supreme court was that Roberts was not sufficiently against the barriers that young women face being admitted to college. My understanding is that more women are in college than men, by margin of about 53% to 47%, so WTF?. I am glad that my daughter will have more opportunities than girls did in the past, but I don't really think that "the Man is keeping her Down" anymore.
The problem is that today's feminists have a vested interest in maintaining the vicitmhood of women; because how can they be the champions of oppressed women ...if they aren't being oppressed anymore??
And since the feminsts have committed to the idea that those evil oppressors of women are (courtesy of Marxist and Leftist theories in general): Bush, Republicans, Capitalism, and America (not necessarily in that order). If you ain't on that list, you get a pass.
Feminists today can't be bothered with the women of Afghanistan and their incredible courage in standing up and risking their lives for freedom-- they are too busy fighting the delusions that are part of a carefully contructed alternate reality.
Camp Katrina and US Central Command Blogs
If you want to know about some of the great humanitarian work our military is doing, check out this new blog - CAMP KATRINA - which shares stories and pictures from soldiers who served in operation Vigilant Relief, as well as highlighting the other great humanitarian efforts of the US military.
The blog is run by Spc. Phil Van Treuren, a legal specialist from the Ohio Army National Guard JAG Corps. It was originally started to tell the stories of soldiers deployed to the New Orleans area in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. It has now expanded its venue to include stories from soldiers' humanitarian efforts all around the globe.
A description of the site says:
Check it out! And while you are at it, check out U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) for news about Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. I'm putting both sites on my blogroll.
The blog is run by Spc. Phil Van Treuren, a legal specialist from the Ohio Army National Guard JAG Corps. It was originally started to tell the stories of soldiers deployed to the New Orleans area in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. It has now expanded its venue to include stories from soldiers' humanitarian efforts all around the globe.
A description of the site says:
[Camp Katrina will] highlight the entire compassionate side of our military that is often overlooked . . . from hurricane rescue efforts to aid missions overseas.
The military’s primary responsibility will always be to win victory in battle, but we do much more than just kill people and break things. Camp Katrina is proud to highlight stories of our armed forces' humanitarian efforts here and around the world.
We at Camp Katrina believe that the United States military is the greatest defender of freedom and the most virtuous humanitarian force in the world. If you come across any stories, pics or news links that reflect this view, please give Camp Katrina a heads-up.
Check it out! And while you are at it, check out U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) for news about Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. I'm putting both sites on my blogroll.
Terrorism: Getting to the Root of Root Causes
This Frontpagemag.com article by David Meir-Levi is astonishing in its scope and clarity (hat tip: Solomon)
He then goes on to define the enemy and one by one rationally and logically eliminate as "root causes" the usual canards that are carted out after every atrocity.
This part was particularly striking:
You absolutely must read this excellently-argued article in its entirety. It is fairly long, but definitely worth it. Here are several of the conclusions:
In a relevant post from Dr. Sanity's archives titled Shame, The Arab Psyche and Islam, I stated:
As Meir-Levi notes, it is essential that we understand our enemy and discredit the distortions and lies that are used to excuse and justify their barbaric actions. By getting to the root of "root causes" we can begin to discredit the false explanations, that in reality do not explain anything, but only serve to mollify and seduce us into believing somehow our behavior is the cause of the threat.
The root cause of terrorism is very simple. It is the interaction of a backward and aggressively misogynistic Arab culture with a rigidly medieval religion, within which its most sadistic aspects not only thrive, but are enshrined as religious doctrine.
Many of our contemporary intellectual and political leaders are continually in anguish trying to figure out what the U.S. has done to make so much of the Arab/Moslem world hate us. They desperately search for the ways they believe the U.S. is responsible for triggering terrorism against itself. The terrorists and their supporters, meanwhile, knowing that the West perpetually looks for reasons to blame itself, provide the world with many compelling – but false – reasonns why the West should be blamed in the terror war. If we accept these faux explanations uncritically, we shift our focus in the war against global terrorism and the terrorists will have a much easier time defeating us.
In order for us to be able to fight – and win – this terror war effectively, we must discredit the false explanations of why Islamists wage war on our free societies. It is a priority, therefore, that we highlight how the enemies of Western freedom are not telling the truth. And we can do that by dealing with the following issues concretely:
He then goes on to define the enemy and one by one rationally and logically eliminate as "root causes" the usual canards that are carted out after every atrocity.
This part was particularly striking:
It is important to recall that Moslems make up only about 20 percent of the world’s population. Yet we see that Moslem countries contribute to the majority of the violence in the world today. Moreover, Arabs make up only about 5 percent of the world’s population, yet we witness the phenomenon of Arabs in leadership roles in many, if not most, of the Moslem conflicts, including conflicts emanating from those Moslem countries that are not Arab. We also witness Arab countries that host, train, fund, shelter, supply, and deploy Moslem terrorists.
In sum, “Muslim bellicosity and violence are late 20th century facts which neither Muslims nor non-Muslims can deny,” as Huntington aptly argues. And the situation has only gotten worse in the early 21st century. Even Saudi and Pakistani commentators have pointed out that while not all Moslems are terrorists, almost all terrorists are Moslems…and most of these are Arabs. (Emphasis mine)
You absolutely must read this excellently-argued article in its entirety. It is fairly long, but definitely worth it. Here are several of the conclusions:
To answer the question: “Why do they hate us?” we need look no further than at the Islamofascist leaders worldwide who are confronted with our success, threatened by our freedom, humiliated to the point of fury and violence due to their culture’s emphasis upon shame vs. honor. Rather than learn from us or work with us, they seek to destroy us.
They cannot admit to their followers or to us that their real motivation is their own shame and fear. Instead, they make up a long list of fictitious misdeeds in order to justify their hatred. Then they teach and preach to their societies, and especially to their young, the lies about why they hate us, and their children grow up believing such lies.
In addition, they are buttressed by Arab and pro-Arab intellectuals and professors in the West who re-write history in order to make us believe that this hatred is new and is a function of the fictional crimes of which we are accused.
In a relevant post from Dr. Sanity's archives titled Shame, The Arab Psyche and Islam, I stated:
...one of the ways that those who fear shame protect their fragile self is to subjugate those who he perceives as weaker. By doing so, he can rationalize that he is superior to the subjugated individual. In fact, this is the only way he can maximize his honor. In Arab/Islamic culture, women are one of the primary instruments of achieving honor. Hence the bizarre and distorted attitude that the culture has toward women and the exaggerated means by which "honor" must be maintained. So strong is the cultural pressure, even women buy into the delusion (as eloquently demonstrated by Dymphna in this post)
Honor killings of women are all too common in Arab culture, and importantly are not dissuaded by the tenets of Islam.
Other expressions of the shame culture that are obvious is the rampant psychological projection and refusal to accept responsibility for the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Not only are we regularly subjected to imams, religious leaders, and leaders of Muslim states stating even now that 9/11 or the London bombings were not committed by Muslims; they also regularly blame the Jews for such acts. In this way they can avoid the shame that taking responsibility for evil.
Additionally, the emphasis by CAIR and other Muslim organizations in demanding that any statement that criticizes or even suggests blame or responsibility by Islam for terror, be retracted or apologized for, is also just a part of the shame-avoidant dance that leads the culture into the blurry realms of delusion.
Finally, it is not surprising that the most murderous thugs espousing religious ideals as they brutally cut off the heads of infidels are hidden behind masks and dare not reveal themselves to the world. I suspect that on some deep level they know that their "pride" in their sick behavior would be more difficult to boast about if they were not anonymous. "If no one knows it is me committing these acts, then I am not shamed," after all.
While psychological health and self-esteem depend to some extent on overcoming shame and progressing to a level where taking responsibility for one's actions and accepting that there is an objective truth out there that is not determined by other people's opinions; both shame and guilt can be important reality checks to an individual--or to a culture.
When a culture determines that the avoidance of shame is necessary no matter what the cost, the result is a culture of fanaticism, bizarre behavior in the name of "honor"; and simultaneously the cultural oppression, subjugation, and humiliation of women and others perceived as "weak" (and therefore "shameful"). It also inevitably results in the projection of one's own unacceptable behavior and shameful feelings onto another individual or an outside group.
As Meir-Levi notes, it is essential that we understand our enemy and discredit the distortions and lies that are used to excuse and justify their barbaric actions. By getting to the root of "root causes" we can begin to discredit the false explanations, that in reality do not explain anything, but only serve to mollify and seduce us into believing somehow our behavior is the cause of the threat.
The root cause of terrorism is very simple. It is the interaction of a backward and aggressively misogynistic Arab culture with a rigidly medieval religion, within which its most sadistic aspects not only thrive, but are enshrined as religious doctrine.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
DID BUSH LIE? Check It Out For Yourself
Click on the image to bring up a google search on "Clinton Iraq 1998" . Very illuminating. (hat tip: Michelle Malkin)
Also, while you are at it, check out this informative video of the all the "lies" and the lying liars who told them from 1998 - 2003.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)