Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Dennis Prager is an Idiot

Bush cannot be blamed for the problems in Iraq, because they were unforeseeable, says Mr. Prager.

Apparently the idea that Iraqi would be willing to kill other Iraqis as part of the insurgency is too much for his widdle bwain to take in.

There are respectable arguments to be made against America's initially going into Iraq. But intellectually honest opponents of the war have to acknowledge that no one could anticipate an "insurgency" that included people leaving children in a car and then blowing them up.

No one could anticipate that civilians would be used to carry bombs to kill the enemy? Or that Iraqis who allied themselves with the occupying army would be killed as "collaborators?" Or that maybe a lot of the Iraqis don't see it as killing their own people when the people they ar killing are from a rival tribe or sect?

Give me a break, Dennis.

That is all.

Friday, March 23, 2007

NBC and USA Network Stupidity

You know, some people would like to have quick summaries of every episode of a show at their disposal.

So why do the idiots at NBC not have these for every episode of Law & Order: SVU? And why do the idiots at USA not have their own episode guide?

And why does everyone use Macromedia Flash Player for EVERYTHING? Couldn't at least the links be in html format of something, so you can see what they are to without having to click them, or so that you can choose how to open the links in using right-click?

Why does everyone in media (i.e. TV, movies, singers) use technology to make their websites more complicated rather than trying to make them accessible?

That is all.

Slip of the Tongue

Via Daniel Larison:

This article in the Weekly Standard is mostly unobjectionable, although this one point is rather odd:

For the fact is that Dicker, like Alan Dershowitz, and like most American Jews, is more committed to the liberal Democratic political agenda than she is to Israel. Unlike evangelicals, these Jews didn't see Israel's security trumping everything else. They can't bring themselves to make common cause with conservative Zionist Christians because they hate the conservative agenda more than they love Israel.

The implication is pretty much that it is appropriate for American Jews to put Israel first, and to be more loyal to Israel than they are to whatever principles they wish to see uphelkd in this country.

Now don't get me wrong, I think it is great for my fellow evangelicals and Jews to be geting along, and I have no problem with someone supporting Israel and believing that our policy in the Middle East should reflect the fact that we are allies. Nonetheless, the implication that someone who is an American citizen should be more concerned with the "mother country" (as it were) than in the nation that they belong to is rather bizarre, and makes it difficult to honestly defend against charges that the neoconservatives (at least those neocons who consider the Weekly Standard their newsletter) have dual loyalties.

That is all.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Interesting Look into the Mind of an Anarchist Who is Taking a Liberal Position

Let me put this question more directly. Is it racist for white people not to want to die out?

Apparently so.

That is all.

The Toronto Vampire Scene

I recently found seasons one and two of Forever Knight on DVD for only $20 apiece, which is why I haven't had much time to blog.

That is all.

Monday, March 19, 2007

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Ever notice how the people who keep clamoring for tolerance when they are not the ones in charge suddenly forget about it when they feel that they are the ones who have the power?

This is a very good article by Debra Saunders pointing out the hypocrisy of those who claim "tolerance," while showin nothing but comtempt for anyone with a different moral viewpoint than theirs.

Of course, I am not particularly enamored of her attempt to portray dissent on the Iraq War as hurting the troops, but then you cannot have everything you want in a column.

David Limbaugh similarly comments.

Of course, Tom Toles and Sully, in supporting Toles cannot bear tha thought that someone is so gauche and inappropriate to actually admit to believing in Biblical morality on such an issue. Note that Toles does not just disagree with Pace's statement, he thinks that it was terrible that Pace would make the statement.

That is all.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

What Does He Mean?

Daniel Larison mentions this post by Andrew Sullivan:

[Sununu]'s the first Republican in the Congress to call for Gonzales to be dismissed. Sununu is also one of the few truly principled conservatives on the Hill. A coincidence? I think not.

My first thought:

I find it interesting that Sullivan nowhere explains or links to anything that explains why he feels that Sununu is one of the few principled conservatives aside from this particular action (as Sully says that he "is also one" instead of "is one," it can be assumed that he formed this opinion of Mr. Sununu prior to his call for Gonzalez's dismissal.

My bet: Sununu is for gay marriage or soemthing like that.

That is all.

Public Schooling and Leftist Dogma

This and this serve as just more evidence that despite the claims by leftists that they are "for freedom" and that the right-wingers are "authoritarian," when leftists get control they are as eager to control other people and to ram their beliefs down people's throats as they accuse the right of being.

That is all.

Saturday, March 10, 2007

No One Noticed but Me (Exhibit 3 in a Series)

See also: Exhibit 2

and Exhibit 1.

In February 2002, more than a year before the invasion of Iraq, Norman Podhoretz wrote:

In a long article in Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria has contended that the way
“to save the Arab world” is for the United States to get over this “fear
of the worse alternative” that has prevented us from pressuring for
political and economic reforms:

We do not seek democracy in the Middle East—at least not yet. We seek
first what might be called the preconditions for democracy . . . the
rule of law, individual rights, private property, independent courts,
the separation of church and state. . . . We should not assume that what
took hundreds of years in the West can happen overnight in the Middle
East.

Well, yes—and fulfilling Zakaria’s agenda would be a tremendous leap
forward. But I have to take issue with the idea that democracy and
capitalism can grow only in a soil that has been cultivated for
centuries. After all, in the aftermath of World War II, the United
States managed in a few short years to transform both Nazi Germany and
imperial Japan into capitalist democracies. And thanks to our victory in
World War III, something similar seems to be happening on its own steam
in Central and Eastern Europe, and even in the old heartland of the evil
empire itself. Why should the Islamic world eternally remain an
exception?


That is all.

Friday, March 09, 2007

No One Noticed but Me (Exhibit 2 in a Series)

See also Exhibit 1.

Steve Sailer recently referred me to this speech given by Bush to the American Enterprise Institute.

He spoke on February 26, 2003.

While he does emphasize "weapons of mass destruction" as the immediate casus belli, he also makes it very clear that he views the democratization of Iraq, and in fact of the entire world, a high priority and one of the main objectives should he go to war with Iraq. It is definitely more than a passing thought along the lines of "we have to replace Saddam with something, might as well be democracy."

Moreover, Bush, unlike Podhoretz in the previous piece, doesn't seem to view democratization as a long-term goal, to be achieved perhaps after inculcating democratic institutions over a generation or two.

He makes it clear that he wants us to start building Iraqi democracy immediately after defeating Saddam, and that he views the Iraqis as being as ready for democracy and freedom as Germany and Japan were.

Money quotes:

A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq.

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people... Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us.

If we must use force, the United States and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq.

All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.

After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home.

There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. The nation of Iraq -- with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people -- is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom.

Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the "freedom gap" so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times... A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.

It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that... the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life. Human cultures can be vastly different. Yet the human heart desires the same good things, everywhere on Earth. In our desire to be safe from brutal and bullying oppression, human beings are the same. In our desire to care for our children and give them a better life, we are the same. For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror.

So for those of you who thought that the democracy push only occurred after the war ended and we didn't find WMDs - you haven't been listening.

That is all.

What She Really Means

Noemie Emery in a nutshell:

"I'm okay with him supporting killing babies, as long as he kills some of those durn ragheads at the same time."

Oh, yeah, "Hack" Kelly says much the same thing.

Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Daniel Larison.

That is all.

Illegal is Illegal

I agree with VDARE: deport illegal aliens - even if they are Irish rather than Mexican.

A more humorous take on this at Rankine 911.

That is all.

Sunday, March 04, 2007

Pronouncing my Nom de Plume

For those who are new to the blog, it is pronounced

GLAVE - stir

That is all.

No One Noticed but Me (Exhibit 1 in a Series)

One of the things that surprised me after the invasion of Iraq was how many people were surprised at the announcement that out goal was democratization. It had always struck me that the idea of focibly changing the political culture of the Middle East was the underlying motivation behind the war.

But a lot of people argue that no, the entire argument was over Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Neither the president nor the pro-war pundits promoted democratization as a major goal until after the invasion.

Very well. I will go on the lookout for things that were written prior to the war in Iraq to prove that the idea of democratization was a major goal.

Exhibit 1: In Praise of the Bush Doctrine by Norman Podhoretz, dated September 2002.

In this aticle, while he does mention the WMD issue, two things are clear:

(i) He views Iraq not as a war in and of itself, but as a stepping stone to the conquest and re-shaping of the Middle East.

(ii) He very much views changing the political culture as the primary goal of our Middle East venture rather than an afterthought (as in, after we remove Saddam, we need something to replace him, so it might as well be democracy). Granted, he is not in favor of the immediate institution of democratic trappings as Bush turned out to be, but it is obvious that he wants to imposition of a secular democracy in the Middle Eastern countries, and furthermore, regards it as eminently doable.

In other words, as in Afghanistan and Iran, changes of regime are the sine qua non throughout the region.

Obviously it would be foolish to anticipate an overnight conversion to democracy and free markets. But I would argue that what might realistically be expected is the creation of conditions that would point in that direction... why should Islam alone forever be exempt from the processes that affected Judaism and Christianity before it?

The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced... should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as... the Saudi royal family and Egypts Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority...

There was a song that became popular in America during World War II: We did it before, and we can do it again. What I am trying to say to the skeptics and the defeatists of today is that yes indeed we did it before; and yes indeed we can do it again. yria and Lebanon and Libya... the Saudi royal family and Egypts Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority...

There is no denying that the alternative to these regimes could easily turn out to be worse, even (or especially) if it comes into power through democratic elections...

Nevertheless, there is a policy that can head it off, provided that the United States has the will to fight World War IV, the war against militant Islam to a successful conclusion, and provided, too, that we then have the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated parties. This is what we did directly and unapologetically in Germany and Japan after winning World War II... and it is George W. Bush's ultimate aim in World War IV.


I will try to continue this series, and for each new entry will put links in to previous ones.

That is all. For now.
There was an error in this gadget