#1
We have our tranzi multicults and dismal dismal dismal media. Some people get it, but many don't.
If Australia is America's best ally, then I realize how tenous the the alliance is. We are just a recession away from the Australian Labour Party gaining power and they are way to the Left of the Democrats.
#2
I doubt that would drive them away Phil.
Remember that you are living in the shadow of Indnesia, and with the exception of New Zealand, Quite otherwise alone in the world. Who else would they turn to for allies?
#3
He's right. God bless the Aussies. They're good friends to have around, particularly if there's some fighting to be done. They'll be in there mixing it with the best of them.
Posted by: mac ||
06/23/2006 16:27 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Stick to singing. Get off the political soapbox. If I wanted to hear your tripe, I'd wait until the movie came out. Do you want your doctors,lawyers, teachers, vetinarians, etc. to sing country songs while they are providing services to you. Well, then STFU--none of us want to hear your very important, pertinent views on politics. Just do what you do best--SING. Put on a good show. Give your fans what they pay for and quit defrauding them.
#2
Even a reference to the Dixie Chicks provokes a violently patriotic response in the states. They have inadvertently increased our patriotism and support of the war and our military.
#3
To me the Dixie Chix symbolize something else. They symbolize how a small group of powerful have hidden the real public dialog that is occuring and drowned it out with the rants of the hysterical few.
There have been multiple movie stars, rock stars, athletes, and other important people who have made statements or actions of support for our country, President, tropps and fight for the survival of enlightened civilization - but only those willing to criticize it get the 24/7 coverage. I know this for a fact.
I like the Dixie Chix because they very clearly illustrate this fact. By their own admission, hey lost their audience and have to be satisfied with belonging to a smaller, but cooler crowd. There has been a massive corporate effort to repackage them and sell them, but it's been largly ineffective. Sure, they sold 900,000 records but how many could they have sold?
There will never be such a corporate effort to package or sell the huge numbers of stars who did speak of love to country or any newstories highlighting the thousands of stars who did turn out to show support.
But the end result is, that despite the massive marketing of failed ideas - the people just go on about their business, ignoring the megaphones and doing and thinking as they wish. So much effort for so little result. It hardly seems worth it.
WASHINGTON -- In the Australian House of Representatives last month, opposition member Julia Gillard interrupted a speech by the minister of health thusly: "I move that that sniveling grub over there be not further heard.''
For that, the good woman was ordered removed from the House, if only for a day. She might have escaped that little time-out if she had responded to the speaker's demand for an apology with something other than "If I have offended grubs, I withdraw unconditionally.''
God, I love Australia. Where else do you have a shadow health minister with such, er, starch? Of course I'm prejudiced, having married an Australian, but how not to like a country, in this age of sniveling grubs worldwide, whose treasurer suggests to any person who "wants to live under sharia law'' to try Saudi Arabia and Iran, "but not Australia.'' He was elaborating on an earlier suggestion that "people who ... don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off.'' Contrast this with Canada, historically and culturally Australia's commonwealth twin, where last year Ontario actually gave serious consideration to allowing its Muslims to live under sharia law.
Such things don't happen in Australia. This is a place where, when the remains of a fallen soldier are accidentally switched with those of a Bosnian, the enraged widow picks up the phone late at night, calls the prime minister at home in bed and delivers a furious unedited rant -- which he publicly and graciously accepts as fully deserved. Where Americans today sue, Australians slash and skewer.
For Americans, Australia engenders nostalgia for our own past, which we gauzily remember as infused with John Wayne plain-spokenness and vigor. Australia evokes an echo of our own frontier, which is why Australia is the only place you can unironically still shoot a Western.
It is surely the only place where you hear officials speaking plainly in defense of action. What other foreign minister but Australia's would see through "multilateralism,'' the fetish of every sniveling foreign policy grub from the Quai d'Orsay to Foggy Bottom, calling it correctly "a synonym for an ineffective and unfocused policy involving internationalism of the lowest common denominator''?
And with action comes bravery, from the transcendent courage of the doomed at Gallipoli to the playful insanity of Australian-rules football. How can you not like a country whose trademark sport has Attila-the-Hun rules, short pants and no padding -- a national passion that makes American football look positively pastoral?
That bravery breeds affection in America for another reason as well. Australia is the only country that has fought with the United States in every one of its major conflicts since 1914, the good and the bad, the winning and the losing.
Why? Because Australia's geographic and historical isolation has bred a wisdom about the structure of peace -- a wisdom that eludes most other countries. Australia has no illusions about the "international community'' and its feckless institutions. An island of tranquility in a roiling region, Australia understands that peace and prosperity do not come with the air we breathe, but are maintained by power -- once the power of the British Empire, now the power of the United States.
Australia joined the faraway wars of early-20th-century Europe not out of imperial nostalgia, but out of a deep understanding that its fate and the fate of liberty were intimately bound with that of the British Empire as principal underwriter of the international system. Today the underwriter is America, and Australia understands that an American retreat or defeat -- a chastening consummation devoutly, if secretly, wished by many a Western ally -- would be catastrophic for Australia and for the world.
When Australian ambassadors in Washington express support for the U.S., it is heartfelt and unalloyed, never the "yes, but'' of the other allies, perfunctory support followed by a list of complaints, slights and sage finger-wagging. Australia understands America's role and is sympathetic to its predicament as reluctant hegemon. That understanding has led it to share foxholes with Americans from Korea to Kabul. They fought with us at Tet and now in Baghdad. Not every engagement has ended well. But every one was strenuous, and many quite friendless. Which is why America has such affection for a country whose prime minister said after 9/11, "This is no time to be an 80 percent ally,'' and actually meant it.
#1
I was going to post this and saw that Sherry, as usual, was much faster. Damn :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/23/2006 20:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Now, if only you guys would learn how to play soccer, like the Aussies do (go the Socceroos) then we would get on better.
To make up for it, all Rantburgers will be obliged to barrack for the Aussies on Monday when we play Italy. OK!
(ducks)
Novel strategy: Run on their lack of accomplishment.
Most Congressional majorities campaign for re-election by touting their legislative achievements. Not this year. House Republicans have decided that the key to saving their majority is not to solve the immigration problem they've spent the last year building into a "crisis." Give them credit for novelty, if not for wisdom.
This is the only way to read House Speaker Denny Hastert's decision this week to delay a House-Senate conference on immigration reform, and instead to stage a summer anti-immigration road show. Republicans plan to use the events to further raise the false alarm of "amnesty," which means further attacking their own President's immigration policy. We realize this year's immigration debate long ago left the rational world and is now driven entirely by political fear. But even as political strategy, this is the equivalent of snake-handling; it will be diverting to watch, unless the snake bites back.
Republicans came to this strategic epiphany after concluding that Representative Brian Bilbray won his special election victory in California this month by demagoguing immigration. But all that election really proved is that a GOP Beltway lobbyist could keep a seat in a 60% Republican district so long as he outspent an opponent who committed the final-week gaffe of encouraging immigrants to vote illegally. Replicate that trifecta around the country this November, and Republicans wouldn't need to campaign.
Looking at House Republicans who are vulnerable this year, we can't find a single one who will lose because of support for President Bush's comprehensive immigration reform. That isn't Heather Wilson's problem in New Mexico; she always has a tough race and favors both border security and a guest worker program. Chris Shays also won't save his seat by rallying the bluebloods in Greenwich, Connecticut, against their Mexican maids and construction workers. On the other hand, J.D. Hayworth could lose his seat in Arizona despite taking his anti-immigration riff to any radio or TV show that will have him.
What might well cost all of them their seats is the growing perception that this Congress hasn't achieved much of anything. If Republicans want a precedent, they might recall what happened to Democrats who failed to pass a crime bill in the summer of 1994. Already in trouble on taxes at the time, Democrats looked feckless on crime and health care and went down to crashing defeat. Immigration could do the same for Republicans, who have been flogging the issue for months as a grave national problem. Doing nothing about it now risks alienating even those conservatives who merely want more border police.
House Republicans insist they can't vote for any bill that can be called an "amnesty" for illegals, and that that's what the Senate and Mr. Bush want. But this is a box canyon of their own making. No serious person believes that the 11 million or so illegals already in America will be deported. Nor will these illegals come out of the shadows unless there is some kind of process that allows them to become legal and keep their jobs, even if it falls short of a path to citizenship. And immigrants will keep coming illegally in search of a better life unless there is some legal way they can apply for and find work.
Yet by denouncing any such compromise as "amnesty," the restrictionists have poisoned their own voters against accepting the only policy with a chance to solve the problem. When Indiana's Mike Pence, a stalwart conservative, offered a compromise that included a guest worker program, the Tancredo brigades savaged even him as endorsing "amnesty." Rather than see the Pence plan as a way out of their political mess, Mr. Hastert failed to defend him. On immigration, Mr. Tancredo is now the real speaker of the House.
Even if all of this somehow works this election year, the long term damage to the GOP could be considerable. Pete Wilson demonized illegal aliens to win re-election as California Governor in 1994, but at the price of alienating Latino voters for a decade. The smarter Republicans--President Bush, Karl Rove, Senator John McCain, Colorado Governor Bill Owens and Florida Governor Jeb Bush--understand that the GOP can't sustain its majority without a larger share of the Hispanic vote. Making Mr. Tancredo the spokesman on this issue is a surefire way to make Hispanics into permanent Democrats.
Every poll we've seen says that the public favors an immigration reform of the kind that President Bush does. That's because, whatever their concerns about border security, Americans are smart enough to know that immigrants will keep coming as long as they have the economic incentive to do so. They also don't want the social disruption favored by the deport-'em-all Tancredo Republicans.
On policy, the country could do worse than pass nothing this year on immigration. We've muddled through for years, and at 4.6% unemployment the U.S. economy is easily absorbing the illegal workforce. But having turned the immigration issue into a rallying cry, Republicans have put themselves at political risk if they do nothing. If the GOP finds itself in the minority next year, we trust its restrictionists will stand up and take a bow.
#1
Wow. Talk about demogoguery, this unsigned, thus representing the entire DJ Opionion Journal's Editorial Staff's position, "opinion" article is a primer on the art.
#2
1. Enforce the border.
2. Deport those you do catch.
3. Actively pursue those who employ illegals.
4. Agressively expedite the process of admitting legal immigrants and radically improve the process of monitoring them (requires tamper-resistant documents and computerized tracking.)
5. Require proof of legal status for reciept of public services (this is the trickiest, since to be effective it would also require such proof of citizens - "Papers, please!")
6. Eliminate the 'anchor baby' citizenship status; change the law (Constitution?) such that birth citizenship only applies to babies born to mothers legally in the country.
Don't worry about chasing down the millions of illegals already here; make them 'self deport' by making it easier and better to enter legally and less beneficial to stay illegally.
Does this make me an evil Tancredo Republican? Demand the Tom-Tom ticket in 2008 (Coburn & Tancredo, in either order.)
#3
The smarter Republicans--President Bush, Karl Rove, Senator John McCain, Colorado Governor Bill Owens and Florida Governor Jeb Bush--understand that the GOP can't sustain its majority
The day that the GOP places party majority over principles is the day they lose their base...based upon this editorial it seems that day is fast approaching
#4
When the press can't control the will of the people, then the politicians who would do anything to be re-elected are (fill in the negative adjectives). The press can eat a snake's ass for all I care.
We've got our congressmen on the ropes, so call them or email them and make your desires known. Today, the people control the people's House more than ever before. The spending bills are being debated now, and the democrats all want to increase spending, while the republican majority will not allow it. Urge them to hold the line and not give in to the Senate on the border issue. Democracy rules.
#7
what a funny article. Talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth. Yada, yada. Not only was it MEGO material, but it makes no meaningful point.
We don't want amnesty, we want reform. It's really that simple.
#8
"And immigrants will keep coming illegally in search of a better life unless there is some legal way they can apply for and find work.'
It is a serious misreading of American voters to believe that they accept a widespread guest worker program as part of "comprehensive" immigration reform. Most aren't thinking that far ahead or thinking of how such legislation could affect their lives, but I dare the Republicans to do it. Were such a guest worker program legislated, the financial effects would turn mild-mannered Clark Kents into a pissed off, superhuman American electorate right quick.
Good distinction made about letting illegals pay their penalties and stay and work legally versus granting citizenship. Sounds like a potential common middle ground between Dems and Pubs.
#9
The mention at all of J.D. Hayworth made me cringe. His district is white and indian. On top of it, Phoenix has some of the most conservative republican Mexican-Americans in the country. The last two democrats to run against Hayworth were human sacrifices. Both, I think, were carpetbaggers, brought in because nobody local wanted to be thrown off a cliff.
The Arizona indian tribes love J.D., not just because he is good for their business, but because they like him personally.
#12
Amen, Old Spook. If they can get border control through, without "comprehensive" reform, incumbents might stand a chance in November. If it all falls through because reform is not "comprehensive", they're gonna have some serious splaining to do to the folks back home.
#13
After reading one of the best rants recently on the state of the society (GS?) I hesitate to wax verbose, but this has to be said.
It isn't just a commitment to real border enforcement first that is at issue, it has to be the entire issue of immigration itself. We are committing cultural suicide at a rate unparalleled in human history, except perhaps by the Romans in the later parts of the western Imperial period. Who sections of Los Angeles are only marginally American now, Glendale is overwhelming becoming Armenian, and Monterrey Park now has more Chinese lingauage signs than English by a factor of 5-1. Turn on any L.A. am radio and scan the channels. English is the minority language! The LA Unified Schoold District has over 60% dropout rate (Detriot still wins at 80% I'm told). The myth of acculturation and assimilation are debunked! These folks don't want to be American, they just want the goodies! Our country is awash in foreign-born (over 25-30% of all California residents weren't born in this country). Everywhere you look, the systems and structures of society are collapsing. Whore politicians chase the minorities and finagle gifts like in-state tuition for illegals. ... Sorry I digree too far.
Close the border, enforce employer sanctions, conduct immigration sweeps, impliment a real-ID act with biometrics, deport alien prisoners immediately (over 20% of the California state prison system) and stop LEGAL immigration for at least a three year hiatus!
Oh, and by the way, closer scrutiny of all Islamic applicants before even issuing a visa!
Absent these kind of draconia reforms, I too suspect that what comes isn't going to be pretty or safe.....
#1
This should remind us that of the many differences between the Vietnam war and the war in Iraq, the three most important are talk radio, Fox News, and the Internet.
#2
I don't know why everyone likes FOX. Sure, they are better than CNN and they do squeak a few ideas out - but when was the last time you saw them do anything other than reinforce what CNN or any other outlet says by asking it in the form of a question? SHOULD ROVE BE FIRED? SHOULD WE BRING OUR TROOPS HOME? SHOULD FOX CONTINUE TO REPORT ON ABU GHARIB 24/7? To those who understand - that's just a reinforcement of the point that CNN and other anti-American outlets are trying to make.
Ever seen them do a report on the good our soldiers are doing? Ok - maybe you can find one or two - but for the most part it's all about the car bombs and "should" we go home. I've never seen them do a report on the starvation in Korea or the brutality of the Muslim world. Not one report on the daily slaughter of Christians and damn few on the UN food Oil for Food scandal.
I think FOX gets way too much credit when what I see is an organization that simply repeats the same negative information - but simply asks it in the form of a question.
#7
I like Fox better than the networks but I get annoyed with their meaningless "chatter" at times. I don't particlarly like the "Friends" format as I never really liked that program. It always struck me as just silly and inane. The news should just be reported without an attitude--or how about telling the truth occasionally instead of contriving the news to the way you would like it? I get so tired of the MSM arbitrating morals and values for the rest of us like we are bunch of idiots to be controlled via the newspaper and television spoon. I got a kick out of an interview that Don Imus has with Andy Rooney the other day. Andy Rooney did not care for Dan Rather because his liberal biases were too obvious. O.k. to be a left wing moonbat according to Rooney but just don't wear it on your sleeve. So, the key to be a successful MSM reporter or anchor, in his view, is to be subtle about your left-wing biases.
#8
Ala Oliver Stone's flick JFK, Rather did investigative specials both for and against Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone assassin of POTUS Kennedy, ergo trust the MSM. Even KOS from DAILY KOS/KosKids was depicted on FNC as saying that one of the primary reasons the Dems are losing/dying as a Party is that Dem candidates follow only the polls - they flip-flop or waffle depending on the poll(s) of the moment. NOT TO INDIC THAT OTHERS IN THE AUDIENCE DID NOT SUPPORT KOS's STATEMENTS, BUT ONLY ONE PERSON CLAPPED WHEN KOS SAID THAT DEMS MUST REALIZE AND UNDERSTAND THAT THE AMER PEOPLE WANT LEADERS WID MORAL CENTERS, LEADERS WHOM WILL TELL THE TRUTH AND DO WHATS BEST FOR AMERICA BECUZ OF THEIR CORE BELIEFS, NOT MOMENTARY POLLS OR NEPOTISM/SPEC FAVORS.
The uniqueness of the current crisis must be fully grasped
This week the world took a step towards nuclear confrontation. The crisis was fomented not by Iran but by its ally North Korea as Pyongyang made loud preparations ahead of a test launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile. Unlike previous test launches, the Taepodong-2 missile at issue has a 15,000 km range capable of hitting the West Coast of the continental United States. This makes the crisis more personal for the US, and us up here in Alaska.
North Korea's latest strategic gambit is highly significant to Israel. Its import stems from its relevance for Israeli strategists tasked with crafting a policy to contend with Iran's nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles programs. If Israel draws the proper lessons from the current crisis with North Korea it will take the necessary steps to better position itself against Iran's developing threat. By so repositioning itself, while enhancing its national security, Israel would strengthen the forces in the US and Europe that call for the jihadist, genocidal Iranian regime to be confronted rather than appeased. Regimes like Iran and Norks are divide and conquer types. Be strong and they will back down. Be weenies and appeasers and they will keep pushing you up against the wall.
An international storm broke out as soon as North Korea's preparations to launch its Taepodong-2 missile and so directly threaten America became known. For the first time, the US activated its ground based missile defense shield. The US Navy conducted the largest naval carrier group exercise since the Vietnam War off the coast of Guam. Three carrier groups participated. US Ambassador to Japan Thomas Scheiffer said that from America's perspective, "all options are on the table" if North Korea launches the missile. On Thursday, two former senior defense officials from the Clinton administration published an op-ed in The Washington Post urging the Bush Administration to launch a cruise missile attack against the missile on its launch pad. Thanks for the Op-Ed advice, Clintonians. You guys sure did a bang-up job in appeasing containing the Norks. Yeah, thanks a lot.
On Wednesday Japan which has been operating under North Korean missile threat since Pyongyang tested a Taepodong-1 missile over Japan in 1998 deployed ships and planes towards North Korea to closely monitor developments. For their part, the South Koreans who have lived under threat of destruction at the hands of North Korean artillery pointed at Seoul for the past several decades announced the cancellation of former president Kim Dae Jung's planned visit to the north and Unification Minister Lee Jong Seok said that a missile launch would force Seoul to curtail food aid to North Korea. Appeasement does not work, SKors. You've been had by Kimmie. Now realize your mistake and work toward a solution with your allies. Do not be stuck on stupid. The stakes are too high for your country.
North Korea Wednesday demanded that the US agree to conduct direct negotiations with it in order to defuse the crisis it fomented. As Han Song Ryol, North Korea's UN deputy chief of mission put it to a South Korean reporter, "We know that the US is concerned about our missile test launch. So our position is why don't we try to resolve this problem through negotiations?" Create a crisis and demand "negotiations with lunch and per diem. Old playbook technique. Not interested.
US President George W. Bush rejected North Korea's demand for direct talks. The US position is that if Pyongyang wishes to speak with the US it should return to the six-party talks with the US, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea which it abandoned last November. Which, if it happened, would not go anywhere. The only way that we could have an acceptable agreement is to have verification of the terms of an agreement with complete on-site inspections. The Norks would never agree to that, (and come to think of it, neither would Iran), so the 6-party talks would be just an exercise in booking airlines, hotels, and catering services.
By Thursday afternoon it appeared the North Koreans had softened their stand and their manufactured crisis was ending with a whisper. Yet, even if this is the case, when the events of the week are analyzed it is not clear that North Korea lost this round.
To appreciate why it is difficult to know who is emerging as the winner of the latest confrontation, the uniqueness of the current crisis must be fully grasped. Until this week, North Korea's threat to the US was indirect. It threatened America by threatening its allies, forces and interests in Asia. Now it is directly threatening the US mainland. Whereas until now the US focused its efforts on defending its allies and interests, now it must also defend its own territory that from what now on should be considered to be under direct threat from Pyongyang. Got our attention, it did. We will be facing the same threat from Iran as their warhead delivery system missiles are upgraded to reach the US.
There are three clear and complimentary goals that North Korea seeks to achieve by directly threatening the US. First it seeks to capitalize on Bush's political weakness. One can almost hear the conversation in Kim Jong Il's bunker, "Why should the Iranians be the only ones to cash in on Bush's decision to make the Europeans love him?" If Bush now seeks to be relevant by appeasing axis of evil members, that thinking goes, then far be it from North Korea to let Teheran be the only beneficiary of the policy shift. Like cancer cells, they will be successful when the body's immune system is compromised. Of course, the LLL will never realize this until it is too late, and even then they will not admit it, because they are True Believers.
Undoubtedly Pyongyang is also trying to exploit the weaknesses in the US alliance with South Korea. For the past several years, Seoul has adopted anti-US positions in the hopes of appeasing Pyongyang and strengthening its ties with China. This week the US placed great pressure on Seoul for it to cancel Kim Dae Jung's visit to Pyongyang. It is not unreasonable to assume that Pyongyang took Jung's visit into account when it timed the launch of its latest provocation. If Seoul had not bowed to US pressure and cancelled the visit, North Korea could have exploited it to announce in Jung's presence that it was canceling its planned launch. By doing so it would have weakened the position of US officials who insist on refusing North Korea's demand for direct talks.
Lastly, by directly threatening the US North Korea is maneuvering to improve its international position. Specifically, Pyongyang wishes to force the Americans to accept its status as a nuclear power. While the stalwart positions taken this week by Japan and South Korea indicate that for the time being Pyongyang was unsuccessful in achieving its first two goals, it may well have made progress towards achieving this latter aim.
In his statement in Vienna on Wednesday, Bush said, "It should make people nervous when non-transparent regimes who have announced they have nuclear warheads, fire missiles." Actually, that was a understatement. It scares the sh*t out of me. Spell n-u-c-l-e-a-r b-l-a-c-k-m-a-i-l.
Although he took a clear stand against the planned missile launch, Bush did not threaten North Korea's nuclear arsenal, indeed he may have given it de facto recognition. If the US does agree to discuss the ICBM issue with North Korea in the six-party talks rather than limit those talks to Pyongyang's nuclear arsenal, Pyongyang could use this development to foment a breach in the US alliance with Japan and South Korea. The two Asian allies could perceive the US move as tantamount to abandoning them to their fates. I would not talk about NORK nuke arsenals. I would quietly make plans for taking it out, however, making sure that there are no NYT plants in the planners at the Pentagon (no mean feat, there).
There are many notable similarities between the ways North Korea and Iran engage the world. Both manufacture international crises in order to squeeze concessions out of the US and its allies in exchange for neutralizing their manufactured crises. Both seek to exploit all differences of opinion between Western nations to strengthen the voices of appeasement at the expense of the voices calling for Iran and North Korea to be brought to account for their behavior.
Iran and North Korea both wage war against near and distant foes. Pyongyang threatens South Korea, Japan and the US. If it manages to unravel their alliance, it will be able to threaten each far more effectively.
Iran campaigns against Israel, the US and the EU. From Teheran's perspective, if it can place the world's undivided attention on its war against Israel, it will be able to deter the US and Europe from contending with the fact that it is also working to undermine their security. Teheran has to this end worked assiduously to hide the fact that its Shihab ballistic missile program is directed mainly against Europe and the US and not against Israel.
Iran does not need guided or ballistic missile systems in order to attack Israel. Today Iranian forces directly control Hizbullah's arsenal of missiles, mortars and rockets along Israel's northern border with Lebanon. Last December when Iran took command of the Palestinian campaign against Israel in Gaza, it gained a significant presence along Israel's southern border.
If Israel does nothing to prevent it, in all likelihood we will soon see Iranian forces deployed along Israel's eastern border with Syria. The defense pact signed this week between Syria and Iran paves the way for the introduction of Iranian forces in Syria across from the Golan Heights. MK Yuval Steinitz, the former chairman of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee explains that such an Iranian deployment "goes along with the trends we are now seeing regarding the beefing up of the Iranian presence along our border with Lebanon."
Moreover, if Prime Minister Ehud Olmert implements his plan to give Judea and Samaria to Hamas and Fatah, Iranian forces will be deployed on the outskirts of the Dan Region, the Sharon Plain, the lower Galilee and Jerusalem. All in all, today Iran has no need for sophisticated ballistic missiles to attack Israel. This is heading for a showdown. Iran is infiltrating Gaza and the West Bank. Once again, the Paleos are suckers. When the time is right, the enemies will attack Israel.
This week the Northern Command brought reporters to the border with Lebanon to show them that Iranian forces now command Hizbullah outposts located 20 meters from the border. The commanders stipulated that Israel will not be the first side to open fire along the border. It is quite possible that such restraint is misguided.
Israel would do well to follow the example set this week by Japan and South Korea. While both countries let the US lead the international response towards North Korea, they both also took reasonable, unilateral steps aimed at ensuring their own security from the unique threats North Korea poses towards each of them. Israel must also take steps to secure itself from the unique threats Iran poses against it, while leaving the US in charge of managing the international community's confrontation with Teheran. If Israel were to seize the initiative against Iran and its terrorist proxies in Gaza and Lebanon while preventing their deployment across from the Golan Heights and in Judea and Samaria it would be accomplishing two goals at once. First it would be diminishing the most immediate Iranian threat it faces today while enhancing US options for dealing with Teheran's ballistic missile arsenal and its nuclear program. Second, by dealing with the Iranian threat that endangers Israel alone, Israel would be increasing international awareness of the fact that the Shihab missile program is not first and foremost a threat to Israel in spite of Iran's attempts to portray it as such.
A poll published at the beginning of the month revealed that 63 percent of Dutch citizens believe that Islam is incompatible with modern European life. More than anything else, this poll demonstrates that as the threat of global jihad becomes more tangible, citizens of the Free World will have less of a tendency to try to appease jihadist forces. By weakening the immediate threat Iran now poses towards Israel, Jerusalem will force Europe and the US to understand more clearly just how real Iran's threat towards them actually is.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/23/2006 14:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"At the end of the fight, one guy's left standin'. And THAT'S how you know who won."
-- The Untouchables
This was posted earlier as a comment by Glomogum Shogum2997.
I thought it deserved a posting of its own.
Many of our institutions, the press and the education system being prime examples of probably equal importance, are based as much in honor and trust as in law. The relationship has been kept in balance mainly because the exceptions where the privilege has been grossly abused were bashed or cajoled back into line by their own. A self-regulating code which we rely upon in many of our institutions. A code that is in obvious jeopardy or dead in some cases.
We are in the midst of a sea change, IMO, regards the honor and trustworthiness of these privileged quasi-governmental institutions. A tipping point in their unelected leadership has apparently been passed and there is consistent proof that many have grown too large and powerful for the self-correction of peer judgment and the number of such arrogant pretenders to power now seems sufficient to shelter, if not favor, the untrustworthy, the dishonorable. Appeals to honor have been met with further similar actions - and they have little to do with the press mantra ("the public's right to know") or the educators mantra ("we expose the students to the whole range of thought") - they are about power and influence. They are about control. They are about undermining our system of fair-play and equal opportunity in the public square to make sure one side, one message is heard. This amounts to sedition, I believe.
Except for the divide during the Civil War, AFAIK, the situation is unprecedented, at least in terms of endangering Americans and the very vitality of our Republic. There is no obvious immediate solution other than to prosecute case by case. Has the time for lining people up against the wall come? Are we that far down this road? I'm seriously beginning to wonder. I'm afraid that, sure as the sun will appear in the East tomorrow morning, we approach that moment. Everybody - even the loonies - seem to "feel" it.
I think President Bush is honorable and worthy of America's trust. I'll speculate a bit and guess that this puts me in a minority of, say, 40%. Another minority of, say, 20% consider Sulzberger and his lot to be the trustworthy and honorable party in the impasse. The remaining 40% aren't so sure about either - and probably split, issue by issue. We don't need lockstep, but we certainly do need to restore honor and trust to our system. We need (at least) two political parties participating - rationally. I believe Bush has proceeded with caution and restraint. He has called upon their honor and been not just rebuffed, but ridiculed and reviled.
Box checked.
The key seems to be that the publisher lot has a powerful grip on The Message - and they're wielding it with abandon in service of interests that do not want the same America that most Americans want - applying the numbers I've suggested above. Due to their actions, the situation has devolved into a bizarre vendetta to destroy the Bush Presidency. I have come to believe that they would do the same to any Presidency which didn't dance to their tune. They have poisoned the entirety of public discourse. The Democrat Party has, since they lack any rational ideas of their own, jumped on-board, jettisoning any hope of beating back this insanity. It's akin to institutional suicide - for both. All to do... what? Get Bush? Destroy America as we know it and want it to remain? Whose America will this country become?
As with Islam, it seems obvious that we have been engaged in an all-out war. That undeclared cowardly war began with the Oil Embargo of 1973 and became so obvious anyone could see it in Tehran in 1979. Now we have a socialist / Tranzi war on the American democracy from within which has come out into the open - and this instance probably became obvious, at least to some of us, with Nixon and Vietnam. They were victorious in bringing down a government and setting the stage for today. Those who "felt the power" as teens now have weaseled their way into positions of authority and power. They have swallowed their own immaculate teenage fantasy bullshit and revel in the numbers of Senators and Congressmen and Judges and Deans and Party Leaders and Elites they have nurtured and harbored until they believe they can repeat the stunt. The Second Wave cometh.
Since President Bush was duly elected, twice (a shot for the fevered brow crowd to get excited about), then he is the leader of the American democracy. His decisions and efforts have been a mixture of bold action and attempts to build consensus. Some have been profoundly bold. Some have been amazingly tame. Has he failed us? Not yet, we're still here bitching and complaining where we can find a suitable venue. Has he moved too slow or taken positions which we find far too mild on some issues? Yes, indeed. There is no apparent consensus possible on some issues, such as endangering America by putting private power games above the Constitution or allowing a massive influx of illegals who, simply put, cannot be trusted. I'll take my concerns to the ballot box, regards Bush and Congress. Regards these usurpers... I'm now beginning to realize that in my heart of hearts I favor stronger measures.
I've heard it repeated that he is fair game for any and all criticism. I personally do not agree with that except in principle - the principle of public discourse and redress where society decides, where laws are made under the Constitution, and judicial fiat is unthinkable - but that well has been thoroughly poisoned and is tightly controlled by the publishers and editors. Regards the judicial activists, those ideals are proven lost every day - from Kelo to the release of sex offenders, from almost anything the Ninth Circuit decides to the inability to get effective voter fraud measures in place.
Write a Letter To The Editor which takes the press to task for such leaks... which demands of them accountability and honesty in their overwhelming repetition of lies and idiot memes, proven false repeatedly... which demands to know why the emergence of obvious agendas is not allowed to be discussed and condemned in their pages... which demands that they acknowledge its existence and one-sided view... Pick any topic in which they have obviously thrown aside the very reason our Constitution granted them favor and demand they account for their actions, just as they disingenuously demand of others. What will happen? Nothing. I've tried it with both mild and strong versions. What I see is merely occasional lip-service to dissenting opinion on the Op-Ed page and the continued diatribe of one-sided, specious, illogical, fear-mongering, factually false, lick-spittle tirade that serves their agenda. Ad nauseum.
Honestly, were it not for Rantburg and its like, which have taken the place of the Letters To The Editor page and provided an outlet for discourse, I believe we would already be in the throes, maybe sporadic - maybe in earnest, of a Second Civil War. I would certainly be considering more dire actions than voting the bums out and trying to expose the institutional abuse wherever possible.
So, how do we proceed? Is clear license for sedition, which is surely the question when public officials in positions of trust and sensitivity are intentionally suborned, now to be accepted as the "new" reality?
No. By God, No. Let every elected official - and the unelected, too - in this country be put on notice that we do not accept this, that we have the power as voters, and we will exercise it. Use every means available - email, letters, contributions, button-holing your representatives at their "events", organizations - everything. Make it clear. Make them feel what you feel. Exercise your power. It is about power. We need a solid two-party system to remain healthy. We do not have it. So, we suffer accordingly.
who will wield the power in America? Americans, via the ballot box, or media powers and the other institutional parasites, sycophants, racist triangulators, and Tranzi whores, dragging the clueless and cowardly Democrats along behind?
It is out in the open. Sunshine has begun the disinfection process. They have shot their bolt and we are wounded. But not mortally. Not yet.
My thanks to the many, many thoughtful posters here who have helped me clarify my thoughts by posting theirs. If any fault or criticism is levied against this post, I sense the sinktrap may be close at hand, please let it be clear: my conclusions are my own. Thank you. Again, I apologize for the length, but thinking out loud is the only way for me. :-}
Posted by: DanNY ||
06/23/2006 14:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[13 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Whither goest thou, America, in thy shiny black car in the night?
Quote in todays paper: The worlds least free place for making movies is the US, because it has a fixed model.
Ang Lee. Ang Lee. So hows that Saudi distribution deal for Brokeback going, eh? I suppose hes correct in the sense that our fixed model includes a certain amount of story, coherence and profitability, but Hollywood regularly rewards people who shrug at all three. If there are fixed models for certain genres such as movies based on comic books are exciting or cowboys, as a rule, tend not to cuddle theyre celebrated most when theyre inverted.
Now, I can imagine a few folk are nodding their head in assent at Mr. Lees remarks the dynamics of the modern movie biz, from an overemphasis on opening large to the lack of gritty 70s style auteur movies to the focus-tested anodyne drivel the studios pump out to fill the seats between the holiday tent-pole features. Its a business, and as such the dollar sign demands the artist assume certain postures, follow the stations of the crass. In one sense, thats true; on the other hand, however, Hollywood turned out some of its best product when the rules were made of chromium steel, and even the lesser B-pictures still have class or charm or rude force, depending on the genre. Ill take a second-class Warner Bros. 30s movie over a grindhouse 70s post-Easy-Rider film any day, simply because the former will have a measure of competence and dramatic unity. The high-profile 30s musicals were the very definition of a fixed model the audience might well have thrown candy bars at the screen if all the basic tropes werent present. The lawman is foiled in a way that doesnt undermine the rule of law, the banker is reconciled to the ways of the flesh, the headstrong couple who just want to croon and hoof find fame, the good gal pal nabs Mr. Nibs and the bad girl is left sputtering well I never. Cue the dancers! Thats a fixed model. They must have made 30 pictures with those premises.
Its not an original argument, and Ive just given a crude sketch of the various positions. Its also a pointless, if enjoyable, argument; there is gold and dross in every era of cinema, regardless of the models, despite the models, because of them. But see how were not arguing the real curious note in his quote?
The worlds least free place for making a movie is the US.
Its possible he said In one sense, America provides the greatest freedom to a filmmaker, because there is no government board to approve your funding, no government censor to shut you down, no hordes of ignorant people who call for your death if you show a womans ankle. But in a certain rarified artistic sense, well, within the structure of Hollywood and I use that term to mean both the studios and the distribution networks, which have their own economic dynamic its really the least free, because because it has a fixed model of expectations. Most executives are hesitant to greenlight a movie like Brokeback because it wont open wide at 2000 plus theaters. So if youre looking for major player participation, you face difficulties you would not get in France. On the other hand, smaller studios, a larger pool of investors, and alternate distribution channels, combined with a free press and DVD afterlife, tend to ensure than nearly any film that needs to get made will get made. And many that dont.
Maybe thats what he said. Probably not, since he was speaking in Hong Kong.
Hows that biopic of the guy who stood in front of the tanks shaping up? Heard about the Falun Gong feature going into turnaround; condolences.
Why did this quote appear in the paper?
Well, because it was said, I suppose. Food for thought, and all that. I suppose if an author went to Russia and said that the United States was the least free place to write a book because of fixed models, wed print that too. Does the emphasis on making Oprahs list stifle free expression? Discuss! That would be nonsense, of course, and Lees remark is nonsense as well. But I cant shake the nagging feeling that some people yes, the dreaded indistinct some people noted that quote, nodded in assent, and felt that small warm glow you get when your worst suspicions are echoed by high-profile people. Because these are, after all, terrible times. Dark times. The lights are guttering out all over the land, and only the wise silent souls can see the truth. Wise, because they went to college; silent, because dissent is crushed daily as a matter of state policy.
Well. We always have our catastrophists and hysterics; there will always be people who sit in cafes and bitterly complain about the impending revocations of personal freedoms and then dutifully go outside to smoke a cigarette in the cold, because thats the law now. (It would be an act of civil disobedience to light up in the café, but it wouldnt be cool. Your girlfriends sister has asthma.) Whats unique and maybe Im wrong; happens daily is that the entire America experience past and present is now irredeemable. For a while the present was okay, because the right people were in charge, and there was a change we could attain Utopia with the right pieces of legislation. When that was the case, it was understandable to unload on the old benighted past, because that led up to this, and this would absolve the land.
(I never understood why 18th century America was castigated for not manifesting the values of the 20th, even though 18th century America held forth ideas that would be radical to 20th century Africa, and paved the way for those 20th century American values to exist and flourish. Were always held up to the most peculiar standards. Our motives are base, our freedoms illusory or rationed or insufficient. It matters less that a freedom was granted in 1920; whats truly illustrative of this rotten house is the fact that it wasnt granted in 1871. As thought the world has always been free, kings died when the first Caesar was stabbed, Papal bulls since 500 AD have boiled down to oh, whatev and the entire world was a grand placid Sweden, where civilized people nibbled on crackers and tried to ignore the rude Yank on the lawn firing off his blunderbuss for no particular reason. You can site a hundred stories about French racism all you like, but it wont matter because they applauded Josephine Bakers nightclub routines in Paris in the 20s.)
But now theres no hope of absolution. The tipping point is past. Darkness falls. The mask is off. The rough beast slouches. Cliches accumulate. The weight of the past swamps the boat, and faith in the future drowns alongside the ability to take pleasure in the present. The worlds least free place for making movies is the US. How true, how true.
Whats the Keats line? Half in love with easeful death. It is easier and more satisfying to number yourself among the elect who mutter the funereal rites than stand up on a box and shout dammit, were still alive! We enter our fourth century taking for granted freedoms that were unimagined in our first.
This argument will seem quaint in 20 years, when people look back at the 90s as the equivalent of the repressive 50s, because gays could not marry. For those who want Utopia today, yesterday is always a villain. Regardless of how it made tomorrow possible.
A little faith, thats all Im asking. Faith and perspective.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/23/2006 07:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I guess Ang Lee hasn't tried filming a movie in Saudi Arabia or North Korea lately. Or Mogadishu.
#2
Or even France, where you have to provide x amount of French content and hire x amount of French workers and drink x amount of French wine to be even considered for funding, film fest entries, etc.
#3
Hollywood vacillates between cranking out movies directed with a strict format, strict budget, strict screenwriting, etc., managed by corporate "suits" that know nothing about making a successful movie, but who all want their name associated with a successful project.
On the other hand, then they get the opposite, a director with a huge hit on his hands, a runaway ego in both him and his big-budget actors, and so little studio control that it produces a financial disaster.
Ang Lee is the latter example. He made Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon outside of "the system", and so Hollywood gave him complete freedom to ruin The Hulk.
He blew his chance, so they wanted him on a leash, cranking out the reliable, uncreative pap like Chris Columbo, on time and on budget. He reacted by doing a low-budget controversial movie guaranteed to excite the Hollywood homosexual mafia.
This makes no soap with suits who become asexual when money is involved. (This is also why the casting couch has become an anachronism; money is far more important to them than sex of any kind.)
Ang may be finished in Hollywood, if he has pissed off the studios too much with his complaining. The studios are all owned by non-entertainment corporations that have no more patience for artistic temper tantrums than it would if some accountant wanted to come in to work naked.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
