If Milton Friedman had to die, then a week after the defeat of a Republican Congress that had apparently forgotten every lesson Friedman taught in Free To Choose is eerily apt timing. As it happens, had ill health not intervened, Professor Friedman would have been disembarking round about now from a National Review post-election cruise with yours truly and various other pundits and commentators.
Instead, we were obliged to sail without him, and in the days that followed I found myself wondering what the great man would have made of the most salient feature of our deliberations: On the one hand, there are those conservatives for whom the war trumps everything and peripheral piffle like "No Child Left Behind" can be argued over when the jihad's been seen off. On the other, there are those conservatives for whom the war is peripheral and, insofar as it exists, it doesn't begin to mitigate the abandonment of Friedmanite principles on public spending, education and much else. There is a huge gulf between these two forces, to the point where the War Party and the Small Government Party seem as mutually hostile as the Sunni and Shia on their worst days. If the Republicans can't reunite these two wings before 2008, they'll lose again and keep on losing.
Take, for example, Ward Connerly, whose Michigan ballot proposition against racial quotas was one of the few victories conservatives won on Election Day. (Needless to say, most GOP bigwigs, including washed-up gubernatorial loser Dick DeVos, opposed it.) In a discussion of conservative core values, Connerly suggested it wasn't the role of the federal government to impose democracy on the entire planet. And put like that, he has a point. However, I support the Bush Doctrine on two grounds -- first, for "utopian" reasons: If the Middle East becomes a region of free states, it will have been the right thing to do and the option most consistent with American values (unlike the stability fetishists' preference for sticking with Mubarak, the House of Saud and the other thugs and autocrats). But, second, it also makes sense from a cynical realpolitik perspective: Promoting liberty and democracy, even if they ultimately fail, is still a good way of messing with the thugs' heads. It's one of the few real points of pressure America and its allies can bring to bear against rogue nations, and in the case of Iran, the one with the clearest shot at being effective. In other words, even if it ultimately flops, seriously promoting liberty and democracy could cause all kinds of headaches for the mullahs, Assad, Mubarak and the rest of the gang. However it turns out, it's the "realist" option.
The president doesn't frame it like that, alas. Instead, he says stuff like: "Freedom is the desire of every human heart." Really? It's unclear whether that's the case in Gaza and the Sunni Triangle. But it's absolutely certain that it's not the case in Berlin and Paris, Stockholm and London, Toronto and New Orleans. The story of the Western world since 1945 is that, invited to choose between freedom and government "security," large numbers of people vote to dump freedom -- the freedom to make your own decisions about health care, education, property rights, seat belts and a ton of other stuff. I would welcome the president using "Freedom is the desire of every human heart" in Chicago and Dallas, and, if it catches on there, then applying it to Ramadi and Tikrit.
Meanwhile, from the War Party's point of view, the Bush Doctrine is beginning to accumulate way too many opt-outs. For example, a couple of weeks back, U.S. forces in Baghdad captured a death squad commander of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army only to be forced to release him on the orders of the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. When I had the honor of discussing the war with the president recently, he was at pains to emphasize that Iraq was "sovereign." That may be. But, at a time when a gazillion free-lance militias are running around the joint ignoring the sovereign government, it seems a mite pedantic to insist that the sole militia in the country that has to obey every last memo from Prime Minister Maliki is the U.S. armed forces. Muqtada al-Sadr is an emblem not of democracy's flowering but of the arid soil in which it's expected to grow. America would have been better off capturing and executing him two years ago.
That's not the worst mistake, alas. The crucial missed opportunity (as some of us pointed out at the time) occurred five years ago, back when the president still had his post-9/11 approval ratings. You can't hold them forever, obviously, but, while he had them, George W. Bush could have used them for a "teaching moment." As we can see in Europe every day of the week, Big Government is a national security issue -- for all the reasons Milton Friedman understood: In diminishing individual liberty, it transforms free-born citizens into nanny-state charges to the point where it imperils the existence of the nation. If ever there was a time for not introducing a new prescription drug entitlement, wartime is it. Yet the president and Congress apparently decided that they could fight a long existential struggle abroad while Big Government continued to swell and bloat at home.
It has been strange for me in these days since the election to spend so much time with so many figures I admire and to find that each group barely recognizes each other's concerns. The War Party is the War Party, the Small Government Party is the Small Government Party, and ne'er the twain shall meet, apparently. That way lies disaster: You can't be in favor of assertive American foreign policy overseas and increasing Europeanization domestically; likewise, you can't take a reductively libertarian view while the rest of the planet goes to pieces. Someone in the GOP needs to do what Ronald Reagan did so brilliantly a quarter-century ago:reconcile the big challenges abroad with a small-government philosophy at home. The House and the Senate will not return to Republican hands until they do.
#2
You just gave an accurate description of my own preferences as well, Excalibur. They are several of many reasons why I'll probably never vote democratic again in my lifetime.
PALM BEACH, Fla. President Bush believes America should be more of an idea than an actual place, a Republican congressman told WND in an exclusive interview.
"People have to understand what we're talking about here. The president of the United States is an internationalist," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. "He is going to do what he can to create a place where the idea of America is just that it's an idea. It's not an actual place defined by borders. I mean this is where this guy is really going." . . .
"I know this is dramatic or maybe somebody would say overly dramatic but I'm telling you, that everything I see leads me to believe that this whole idea of the North American Union, it's not something that just is written about by right-wing fringe kooks. It is something in the head of the president of the United States, the president of Mexico, I think the prime minister of Canada buys into it. . . ."
"And that's just for starters. Think of what'll happen when they flouridate the water! . . ."
Other conservative commentators, including many who favor stricter immigration restrictions, think he's gone bat-looney. John Podhoretz at National Review:
I speculate in my book, Can She Be Stopped?, that Tancredo will run as a third-party candidate in 2008. Sounds like he'd be perfect to top Lyndon LaRouche's ticket. If you are serious about the importance of immigration restriction, you'd best be looking for a leader who hasn't chosen to place himself beyond the political fringe.
Allahpundit, posting at Michelle Malkin's "Hot Air" blog:
Id hoped never to have to serenade TT with our official conspiracy-theory theme song. But I fear the hour has arrived.
George Bush may not have responded very well to immigration concerns from his base, but he's done more than his father, Bill Clinton, and even Ronald Reagan in bolstering border security. Tancredo is engaging in mindless demagoguery with these doomsday descriptions, and moving closer to the realms of paranoia.
The immigration problem needs attention. It doesn't need more conspiracy theories about supposed New World Orders. Tancredo should know better than to fan these flames just to garner attention to the issue of immigration, but apparently he's most concerned about attracting attention to himself.
Here's my $0.02:
1. Immigration is not a hot button for me the way it is for a lot of others here in the 'Burg. If this were one of my causes, I'd be damned upset at Tancredo for flying off into Lyndon LaRouche territory in a black helicopter, because he's one of the "leaders" of the restrictionist position, and this sort of nonsense discredits the whole movement by association. If there's a rational case to be made for stricter border control (and I think there is, mind you), one might reasonably ask why Tancredo has to resort to wild-ass conspiracy theories.
2. On a more basic level, Tancredo is making the same fundamental mistake as Pat Buchanan. The United States is not, and never has been, a blood and soil nation. It is founded on a set of shared ideas, not on ethnicity. I'm not ethnically Japanese, so even if I were to relocate to Osaka, become fluent in the language, drink tea, eat sushi, admire the cherry blossoms, and become a naturalized citizen of Japan, I'd still be a gaijin. On the other hand, any Japanese person who subscribes to the American idea can move here, become a naturalized citizen, and he and his kid will be just as "American" as the rest of us. Indeed, the world is full of "Americans born in the wrong place." George Bush understands this. Tom Tancredo appears not to.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/23/2006 07:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It isn't just an idea, or a set of shared ideas, it is also the place where those ideas are nurtured. A place of "blood and soil" where like minded peoples of all ethnicities can pursue those ideas and ideals.
Kill the place, and the ideas will wither and die. And this place is in the process of being killed. I think Tancredo hits the nail on the head in most of what he says. Bush is an "Internationalist", along with a large part of our Government, it's how they've been educated.
#2
Mike, your examples were all of legal immigrants. I would guess that, like me, the overwhelming majority of "immigration-concerned" RBers are not against legal immigration. I detest the lawbreaking by both the employers and the Mexican gov't in enticing the flood of illegal immigrants. Since I live in San Diego, I'm primarily focussed on Mexican and Central American illegals, but I also think we need to stop the influx of Islamic immigrants, legal as well as illegal, for a while. Muslim first seems to be a problem for them, and they need to want to be American first. Tancredo has just severed any influence he can have on the debate. Sad to say....
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/23/2006 9:25 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"Immigration is not a hot button for me the way it is for a lot of others here in the 'Burg."
This has nothing to do with immigration. Immigration is not the issue: the issue is our government's continued failure-- or refusal-- to protect our borders and control who comes into this country.
GET CONTROL OVER THE DAMN BORDERS.
Do that, and I'm perfectly fine with letting in as many people as we want-- provided we know who they are, where they go, and they work to support themselves.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
11/23/2006 9:42 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Dave, Frank: your position and mine on this issue are actually pretty close. My problem with folks like Tancredo and Buchanan and Derbyshire is that they want not only to stop illegal immigration, but also legal immigration--and they come off as wanting to do so on grounds of race and ethnicity.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/23/2006 11:16 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I want to do so over issues of education, ideology and net worth.
#6
What Tancredo is talking about is this North American Union idea Bush is cooking up outside the legal jurisdiction of Congress. Its going to encompass all territory down to South American border. One currency. No restriction on movement of populations. Ownership ability for corporations and wealthy few throughout this sphere. American taxes supporting the third world economies of Mexico and Central America. All jobs worth anything will be transferred to Mexico at rates 1/3 to 1/5 paid in US. What's in it for you & yours? A reduced quality of life. What's in it for Wall Street? Tremendous profits. They go from a low level servant class in US to a very real slave class to accomplish their efforts while they live fat and happy in NYC. What's in it for Bush? Oil. Always oil. For undermining US, he and his crowd get access to ownership of the tremendous oil reserves in Carribean all the way down to the Columbian fields. Sound like an idiotic conspiracy theory ? Its happening right now and you are not aware.
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/23/2006 12:24 Comments ||
Top||
#8
they want not only to stop illegal immigration, but also legal immigration--and they come off as wanting to do so on grounds of race and ethnicity.
Not true Mike . In fact, its almost pathetic how Tancredo and others are always forced to add disclaimers every time they explain their position. Their concern is the detriments to American society resulting from mass migration over uncontrolled borders period. And their definition of enforcement of existing laws does not call for a mobilization of troops for a mass deportation for those here illegally. But those that favor open borders and amnesty never miss an opportunity to portray Tancredo, and others like minded, as anti-immigration bigots.
And for all those that are content to think that there isnt a larger agenda behind this boondoggle called Comprehensive Immigration Reform, I suggest you continue to listen to Sen. Kennedy and his ilk wax nostalgic how their granpappies came over on a boat and how were all a Nation of Immigrants. Hell, it might even help if you occasionally roll your eyes and call Tancredo a conspiracy kook.
What's in it for Bush? Oil. Always oil. For undermining US, he and his crowd get access to ownership of the tremendous oil reserves in Carribean all the way down to the Columbian fields.
Chances of an EU-style sovereignty pooling arrangement in North America? Zero per cent whatever Tom Tancredo and the CFR say. In Europe, the EU controls trade policy, sales tax rates, immigration and a ton of other stuff including the approved curvature of bananas. In North America, the Province of Quebec sets its own tax rates, controls its own immigration policy and regulates a ton of other stuff including the color of margarine (it is illegal to sell butter-toned butter substitutes in Quebec hence, no I Cant Believe Its Not Butter. It would have to be a wan off-white color and youd very easily believe its not butter). Seven million Quebecers are not going to submerge themselves within 300 million anglophones and, as Quebec determines Canadas disposition in almost everything, an EU-style North America is not going to happen.
So relax, and enjoy Thanksgiving unless youre Canadian, in which case you enjoyed it back on Columbus Day. Which is one more reason there wont be a North American Union.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/23/2006 17:07 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Tancredo is right on the money. There are several groups whose specific goal is to end national sovereignty. The first issue is the "port of entry" in Kansas City and the rail/road/whatever link from southwest Mexico to somewhere in Canada.All this is being done without involving Congress or the normal Federal bureaucracy. While it sounds like a typical conspiracy-theory pile of crap, there is ample evidence of its reality.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
11/23/2006 17:31 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in Parliament he would recognize the country's francophone Quebec province as a "nation" within Canada.
In an unprecedented move to woo Quebec separatists, he said he would present a motion later in the day asking the House of Commons to "recognize that Quebecers constitute a nation within a united Canada."
I guess this sort of cuts the guts out of Steyns' argument now, doesn't it?
#13
As Hispanics approach majority status in California, secessionist movements favoring integration of the state with Mexico, cum Latin America, are flourishing. First the majority will support dual sovereignty, and when white and black flight begins, California will no longer be American. Ask the island people of Fiji what happens when natives become the minority. Ask non-Germans in the Sudenten region of Europe what happens when a strong German neighbor state, decide they have protective rights where Germans live as minorities in other states. If Tancredo believes a Latin American Anschlus is possible, then he has the historical evidence to support him.
Why pretend that all aliens embrace an American identity?
#14
As Hispanics approach majority status in California, secessionist movements favoring integration of the state with Mexico, cum Latin America, are flourishing.
Gee, I wonder how Hispanics managed to reach majority status in California (Texas also)? Couldn't have anything to do with illegal immigration now could it? Nah, I didn't think so.
Why pretend that all aliens embrace an American identity?
Exactly SS3550! In Mexico, the schools have been teaching for decades that the El Norte Americanos stole Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California from Mexico, in spite of the historical facts. They're not interested in being Americans, they want what they believe is theirs.
#15
I think the overwhelming majority of us are incensed to white-hot about the continuing failure of the US government to secure the borders. I will concede that GW has done a bit, but way short of enough! Further, his willingness to grant amnesty to illegals is guaranteed to bury the American Southwest, if not the country, in hispanic-democrat politicians like the Mayor of Los Angeles, Villaregosa, for decades, replete with the graft, corruption and collusion that continues to make Mexico a sump and is dragging the border areas of California and Az down. I challenge you to drive the 405 in LA and identify the number of English language stations on the AM dial. Less than half!
Go down to Hill or Spring Street in LA after dark if you dare! Entire towns are being converted into new ethnic ghettos throughout California, like Monterey Park (Chinese)Hayward (Afghan). The largest Iranian city in the world after Teheran is Los ANgeles, 600,000. Assimilation isn't working people, and we just blather on about the American Ideal! But, more than anything, we have to stop the 90,000 + Muslim immigrants who enter legally year after year. It's insane to keep pretending they will develop into good American citizens who happen to be Muslim. Overwhelmingly, they just become prosperous Muslims who happen to live in America!
#16
Mick D:
OK. As for Tancredo, he might have overstated his case, but I can't write him off. Why? He is a total patriot who has proven that he can define the enemy. I should put my money where my mouth is and buy his book.
What you describe is happening everywhere, and it is accellerating. The people in charge (whomever that is) are doing their damn best to turn this country into a multicultural 3rd world sewer. And Bush is content to go right along with it. He's an Internationalist underneath that fake veneer of conservativism. Parts of the DFW area are turning into little Pakistan, and other parts are turning into little Mexico. Crime has shot up...you name it.
#18
Seal the southern border.
Define Islam as a death cult and outlaw the practice of same.
Deport anyone who continues to practice Islam.
Deport anyone breaking the law, any law, who is not here legally.
Make English the only language.
Stop immigration into the US and rewrite the limits allowing Europeans with educations in first, Orientals second, North and South Americans third (there should be a long waiting list of illegals on that line).
Then, we'll work on lowering taxes and education that teaches how to think, not how to pass.
#19
Congrats Mike, your post and your comments lumping Tom Trancedo in with the likes of Lyndon LaRouche has discredited you as a serious person regarding immigration.
Rest assured, I won't be looking forward to your "insights" pro / con either.
Please enjoy the rest of Turkey Day and take the time to polish up one of your shirt buttons and call it a medal.
. . . In 1863, the United States was the only significant democracy in the world. The French Revolution had drowned itself in blood; the democratic uprisings of the 1820s and 1840s had been easily and successfully repressed by kings and emperors; and everywhere, it was power and hierarchy rather than liberty and equality which seemed the best guarantee of peace and plenty. Americans remained the one people who defined themselves by a natural proposition, that all men are created equal, so that no one was born with a superior entitlement to command. But this republic of equal citizens had two basic weaknesses. The first was its tolerance of slavery, which drew the line of race across the line of equality. The second weakness was the question of authority in a democracy. In a society where every citizen's opinion carried equal weight, decisions would have to be made by majority rule. But a citizen whose opinion carries such weight might find it difficult to submit to the countervailing vote of a majority which thinks differently, and the result is likely to be a simple truculent refusal to go along. Refusals make for resistance, and resistance makes for civil war. Is there, Lincoln asked in 1861, some deep flaw in popular government, some weird centripetal force, which inevitably condemns popular government to whirl itself into pieces "and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth"? To that question, every king and autocrat in 1861--and every fuehrer, duce and president-for-life since--has answered, smirkingly, yes. And the American Civil War looked like the chief evidence that this was so. Which is why, as Lincoln looked out across the thousands who had gathered on that November day, it seemed to him that what he was viewing was more than just another noteworthy battlefield. It had fallen to him to argue that the Civil War signaled not a failure, but a test, to determine once and for all whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
11/23/2006 06:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
When Congresswoman Pelosi referred to the war against terrorism as a situation to be resolved, it became clear to me that she will make sure that Democrats live up to the Democrat heritage of leaving the conflict in Iraq completely unresolved.
After World War I, President Wilson established their heritage by accepting an armistice to end the conflict, leaving Germany in a position to resume the conflict a generation later.
During World War II, presidents Roosevelt and Truman were encumbered by the constraint imposed when Churchill demanded unconditional surrender to totally end the conflict. As a result, both Germany and Japan gave political freedoms to their people and became allies and trading partners.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
11/23/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I can't help noticing Kennedy's name is missing from this roster of Presidents. No, not the fat, drunken one with the poor driving record. I mean JFK. You know - Cuban Missile Crisis, "Ich bin ein Berliner". Yeah, I know it means "I am a doughnut", but his heart was in the right place when it came to standing up to commie tyrants. He was a Democrat. Boy, have times changed.
#2
". He also gave idiotic orders that prevented ship-board Marine guards from having ammunition in their weapons with the pretense of avoiding an incident, thus leaving the U.S. Navy war ship Cole vulnerable to attack by the terrorists."
We had similar orders in Germany when on guard duty back in the 80's, guarding an ammunition bunker. Thats where the "What are we supposed to do, use harsh language?" line in Aliens came from.
#4
His efforts on behalf of those oppressed by Islamist Communist regimes resulted in an unending series of useless inquests and congressional hearings aimed a discrediting his administrations staff.
#6
During World War II, presidents Roosevelt and Truman were encumbered by the constraint imposed when Churchill demanded unconditional surrender to totally end the conflict.
Just plain wrong. Roosevelt announced the goal of unconditional surrender in a presser at Casablanca without even warning Churchill. Winnie was aghast because it removed hope of cutting a deal with the German military to overthrow Hitler in exchange for leniency. As a result of Roosevelt's unconsidered statement, all Germans were thrown into the same tub as Hitler; and he didn't let them forget it.
The author would have been better served to go back farther in history to the Spanish American War, the Indian Wars and the Civil War. Roosevelt is the exception in a Democrat streak of yellow that goes back 150 years. And that was in spite of one party donk rule of the south most of that time.
#7
Ship-
That's the Douglas B-19, a contemporary of the B-17. It was a one-off heavy bomber prototype that stayed in service through most of the war as a transport - my Dad remembers seeing it in Cleveland after a heavy landing that kept it at the old Cleveland Airport for a couple months until it could get repaired.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
11/23/2006 11:58 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Thanks Mike; I knew it ws a Douglas bird by the cockpit profile, but couldn't remember the designation......
#9
The bird on the poster is an early version of the B-17. It saw many alterations before it actually went into combat.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
11/23/2006 17:44 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Respectfully disagree OS: from the attached link: a Douglas bird. The B-17 did indeed have many iterations before it flew, but this wasn't one of them.
http://www.military.cz/usa/air/war/bomber/b19/b19_en.htm
#11
Also, Kennedy pulled the air cover from the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Talk about a donk war fuckup. People died and were imprisoned. Without air cover, they had no chance.
Honorable mention to Janet Reno though. She attacked and annihilated those Branch Davidians with few loses.
MANY AMERICANS have been wondering why so many Iraqis are willing to fight for militias and terrorist groups but not for the American-backed government. Look at it from their perspective. Would you stake your life on a regime whose existence depends on Washington's continuing support? Given our long, shameful record of leaving allies in the lurch, that has never seemed to be a smart bet.
We have been betraying friends since our first overseas conflict, against the Barbary pirates who captured ships off the African coast and enslaved their crews. To defeat the pasha of Tripoli, the U.S. made common cause with his brother, Hamet Karamanli. In 1804, American envoy William Eaton led a motley force of mercenaries and Marines across North Africa to install Karamanli on the throne. The offensive was called off prematurely when President Jefferson's envoy reached a deal with the pasha to free his American captives in return for $60,000. Karamanli was evacuated to the U.S., but his family members were left as hostages. Eaton raged: "Our too credulous ally is sacrificed to a policy, at the recollection of which, honor recoils, and humanity bleeds."
Something similar could have been said about U.S. conduct after World War I. President Wilson was the leading champion of "national self-determination" at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, yet the U.S. did nothing to safeguard the states he helped midwife. We stood by, for instance, when Czechoslovakia and Poland were occupied by the Nazis. This callous indifference was repeated after World War II when we did too little to save the Eastern Europeans from Russian occupation.
Continued on Page 49
#1
I once thought Max Boot was, as far as the El Lay Times goes, remarkably nearly almost okay.
But this is nothing less than a hit piece. Who got us into the messes, right or wrong and cherry-picked for effect, and who pulled us out, right or wrong, and the political context of those decisions is given short and selective shrift.
Duh, Iraq. In the current situation, it is clearly the DhimmiDonks, Moonbats, and Tranzis, ably assisted by the 50-1 ratio of MSM hit pieces (the Daily Drone) to reality (those occasional op-ed pieces they allowed for the gossamer pretense of neutrality), who have engineered public perceptions for partisan gain - oh, and fuck the Iraqis is the end result. Of course, being Arabs, the Iraqi Arabs are helping in every way they can, but regards your point, cutting off US support, it's your guys who're abandoning Iraq. It was your agenda so long - have you conveniently "forgotten"? Lol, yeah right.
And let's put a fine point on it... your use of the word "allies" in regard to Iraq is nothing short of hysterical - le classique straw man. That is one wild-assed exaggeration in regard to Arabs in general, and Iraqi Arabs in particular. Only the Kurds could possibly be considered our "allies" in Iraq. And look how they're doing... great, because they're not idiots, not Arabs, not fools bent on sectarian revenge and hate. You'll note that the failure of the Arabs has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with us, Max, my boy. No, the Arabs aren't allies by any stretch, negating your entire article, and for what it's worth after that sinks in, what's going to happen to Iraq after "we" have nuked our support will be courtesy of your DhimmiDonk assholes and your employer and the ilk on your island of delusion. It will be a slaughter you can be proud of, man. Really.
The astounding disingenuousness of the El Lay Times asstards lamenting the failure -> quagmire -> cut & run, their Meme Themes of Choice for the last 2+ years, and spreading it out into an anti-US meme, "we" are cutting and running, is beyond asinine, it's black comedy.
Fuck off Max. Fuck off and Die. Oh, and please pass it on. My regards to the NYT / LAT / etc empire: may your stock continue to fall, your staff continue to be felled in great swaths, and everyone who supports anything you pursue continue to pay for it, reaping pain instead of profit, derision instead of acclaim, ignominy instead of fame... until you are, deservedly, no more. *pfffft*
#3
Don't worry, grom. Your credentials as resident Gutless Bile Master are safe. You must be as happy as a pig in shit about Olmert - gives you the perfect excuse to kvetch and moan at every turn. When that becomes boring you can take shots at Bush. Damn, bring a tear to mine eye to see such a happy asshole.
This is no 'personal' decision. The fundamentals of modern civil society are at stake. By Ayaan Hirsi Ali
British Prime Minister Tony Blair says the Muslim veil is a mark of separation, which makes the integration of Muslim women into society more difficult. He's right. Those who wear the veil deliberately set themselves apart.
Many are coerced into shrouding their bodies. The veil is the visible symptom of their more comprehensive subjection. They are required to be obedient, to ask permission of their male guardians when they leave the house, often with a chaperone. These victims of force, whether they live in England or in Saudi Arabia, almost always have very limited education. They are married young, through arranged or forced marriages, and are groomed for docility. They do not appear in unemployment statistics, or any statistics at all. As ordained by their faith, they are invisible.
Those women who voluntarily choose the veil are different. Often they are literate, verbally forthright and independent. Many are recent converts"born again" Muslims and Islamic activists who may be well integrated into society. Yet they have made a clear choice. They reject the Western lifestyle. The veil is an expression of the moral philosophy they hold and wish to impose upon others. They seek to provoke, to intimidate. In many European cities it is increasingly common to see girls, sometimes as young as 5, with headscarves tied tightly around their necks, or even little veils. They are taught to keep away from boys, from unbelievers and from Muslims who are weak in the faithin other words, other, unveiled Muslim little girls. That is precisely the purpose of the veil.
The veil also manifests division of the sexes. Women must veil; men do not. Underlying this simple dogma is a sexual morality that holds women responsible for the sexual conduct of men. Men may become aroused to sinful thoughts at the sight of a woman. For that, the unveiled woman will be punished in hell by Allah. Australia's most senior Muslim cleric, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, recently spoke about a group of Muslim men jailed for many years for gang rapes: "If you take uncovered meat and place it outside on the street ... and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is itthe cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem." He went on: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her higab, no problem would have occurred."
The most wicked aspect of this "morality" is the complete lack of male responsibility for male conduct. And this sexual morality clashes deeply with that of the West, which emphasizes female eroticism in fashion, music, films, advertising. Feminists may argue the merits of all this, but one distinction remains important. In the West, there exists an assumption that men are capable of sexual restraint. It is this presumption that makes it possible for us women to freely take part in public life and make our own private choices. The victim of rape in a miniskirt did not ask for it, and the husband who rapes his wife is guilty of a felony.
And what of the debate over the separation of church and state, as waged in France? No single religion may dominate the public space. Everyone may freely exercise their religiona right not enjoyed in Saudi Arabia, Iran or Pakistanbut they may not seek to impose it on others. They may not wear "ostentatiously visible" insignia of religion in schools.
Muslim women who veil in Western societies violate all these norms. They are being immodest and invasive. They will succeed only in creating hostility. To every woman who decides to walk out the door looking like Batman and then complains of being ridiculed, I say, you are inviting it. Bear it or shed it.
Hirsi Ali, a former member of the Dutch Parliament, is author of "The Caged Virgin" and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.
I'm hoping that this will be posted under the nick "ryuge" and that my cookies can be reset to that. If it doesn't work, maybe a moderator can help me get it reset sometime in the future. Thanks.
Changed the nick but I can't fix the cookie issue. E-mail Fred. AoS.
#1
The most wicked aspect of this "morality" is the complete lack of male responsibility for male conduct. And this sexual morality clashes deeply with that of the West, which emphasizes female eroticism in fashion, music, films, advertising. Feminists may argue the merits of all this, but one distinction remains important. In the West, there exists an assumption that men are capable of sexual restraint. It is this presumption that makes it possible for us women to freely take part in public life and make our own private choices. The victim of rape in a miniskirt did not ask for it, and the husband who rapes his wife is guilty of a felony.
All of this answers well towards my objections regarding how Islam is essentially one vast abuse of women. Of far greater importance is the first sentence alone:
The most wicked aspect of this "morality" is the complete lack of male responsibility for male conduct.
Even outside the context of sexuality, this statement still applies in full force. Islamic males simply refuse to take personal responsibility for anything. Whether it be mistreatment of women or flying fully loaded passenger jetliners into occupied skyscrapers, all such vile conduct is always attributed to or blamed upon someone else. One can only hear "The Devil Great Satan made me do it!" so many times before its potency as an excuse finally begins to wither.
Anglican Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali put it so extremely well:
THE Church of Englands only Asian bishop, whose father converted from Islam, has criticised many Muslims for their dual psychology, in which they desire both victimhood and domination. In the most outspoken critique of Muslims by a church leader, Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, said that because of this view it would never be possible to satisfy all their demands.
Their complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene when Muslims are victims, as in Bosnia or Kosovo, and always wrong when the Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists, as with the Taliban or in Iraq, said Nazir-Ali. Given the world view that has given rise to such grievances, there can never be sufficient appeasement and new demands will continue to be made.
The way that Muslim males desire both victimhood and domination epitomizes the deep hipocrisy and interminable exoneration for even the most heinous behavior that Islam encourages amongst its followers.
When such veritable license to kill is combined with taqqiya, the pinnacle of deceit, it makes a deadly brew that portends absolutely no good for the West. It is a much needed ray of hope that Blair and Straw have both begun to denounce the veil for what it is, a refusal to integrate.
While the hijab might provide a veneer of protection in Arab cultures where its absence is an invitation to rape, in societies that vigorously prosecute sexual assault such apparel merely signifies a refusal to accept the proper protections and normatives of a new host country.
The best resolution of this issues lies in banning the hijab, niqab and burqa. Let those extremists who cannot abide such accomodation to their newly adopted place of residence remove themselve to somewhere that is willing to endure such Neanderthal behavior.
There are many other measures that can serve to discourage Islamic extremism, but such a ban represents one of the most easily enforced and readily enacted moves to do so.
#2
In the O Club, Fred suggested I try to reset my cookie through the comments box - so I'm trying one more time. Otherwise, I will e-mail him. Thanks for your help, Mr. Salmon, I mean White. :-)
#1
In Melbourne, Australia, the Victorian Taxi Association spokesman Neil Sach's reaction was even more telling. "Muslims are good people and the community has to realise that the days of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant are well and truly over," he concluded.
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.
When Congresswoman Pelosi referred to the war against terrorism as a situation to be resolved, it became clear to me that she will make sure that Democrats live up to the Democrat heritage of leaving the conflict in Iraq completely unresolved.
