Maybe we need a "Loon" column, via NRO/Hewitt/others:
One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington.
Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.
Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."
#6
bill moyers is from Marshall, Texas...just a hop, skip and a jump down Interstate 20, from where I live. He might as well be from another planet. I have no idea how he got so full of shit.
moyers is no Texan. He should be buried up to his chin in a fireant mound.
Posted by: Tom Dooley ||
01/31/2005 22:28 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"He should be buried up to his chin in a fireant mound."
Lol - now that's a Texan talking. Being from Foat Wuth, I hear ya, lol!
Moyers probably spent too much time hanging out with Pierre Salinger...
(2005-01-31) -- Sen. John Kerry. D-MA, said today that history will judge Sunday's landmark election in Iraq as an "utter failure for George W. Bush if the U.S. cannot find a way to give al Qaeda and other disenfranchised so-called 'terror' groups a voice in Iraq's new government."
"We use that word 'terrorist' to marginalize and demonize people whose way of expressing ideas is culturally different from ours," said Mr. Kerry. "But when a man takes up the scimitar to behead an innocent civilian, or straps on the exploding vest for a walk through the marketplace, he's just passionately stating his philosophy. Who are we to judge his methods?"
Mr. Kerry, who told NBC's Tim Russert that he's "keeping his options open" for another failed run for the White House in 2008, denied Republican accusations that he's on the "wrong side of history" in his opposition to Bush administration efforts to bring freedom to the Middle East.
"How can they say I'm on the wrong side of history?" he asked rhetorically. "I'm speaking out against Bush blunders in Iraq, and I plan to vote for another $80 billion to fund the blundering. You tell me which side of history I'm on."
Posted by: Korora ||
01/31/2005 9:46:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
LOL! Ott nails the ethereal Skeery to the barn door, yet again.
#2
Next thing you know, Mr. Ott will be making up silly tales about how Kerry was running guns to the Khmer Rouge. Oops, too late...already on "Meet the Press".
#6
Two counties in Ohio voted for a different party's Presidential candidate in 2004 and 2000. One was Stark County; Bush 2000, Kerry 2004. The other was Clark; Gore 2000, Bush 2004. Those Brits were as persuasive as in 1776.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/31/2005 14:47 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Mrs D., has the Guardian fessed up to being instrumental in re-electing GWB? I'm sure their readers would like to know.
#8
Of course, it wasn't their fault. I would agree, though. Clark county is pretty samll in the Ohio scheme of things. Bush's majority in the state was almost twice the total number of voters in Clark County.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/31/2005 15:18 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Steve S. Kerry said this on the floor of the senate in 1986...
âMr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia"
So now he says he was "running guns' to them ? He just crapped in that boonie hat.
#1
Interesting take on the whole conspiracy issue; on the other hand, would they even bother to believe us? They ask their holy men which hand to use when wiping their asses; I wonder whether our counter-propaganda wouldn't just be dismissed as infidel lies. Although there's always the chance that we'll reach people who use their brains instead of their Korans . . .
The thing about conspiracy theories in the Middle East is that they've been around for a very, very long time. Their systems of tribal/cultural interaction have moved on them for centuries (probably since before the birth of Mohammed, but that's just a guess on my part). It's always going to be easier for them to believe that it's a conspiracy then it will be for them to accept certain facts which they might not appreciate.
Of course, if the tsunami was caused by decadent practices, one wonders what caused those Iran earthquakes. Allah not too happy with the mullahs?
Posted by: The Doctor ||
01/31/2005 17:46 Comments ||
Top||
Shucks. My illusions are shattered. I may go into seclusion. Maybe I'll enter a monastery...
WASHINGTON: The Musharraf regime is "unlikely to evolve into a long-term ally in the war on terrorism," though the United States should seek to "prevent Pakistan from descending into chaos in the short term," according to the Cato Institute, a leading liberal think tank. The Institute set up in 1977 to pursue libertarian values issues a handbook every year for the consideration of Congress and the administration. In its section on South Asia, Cato urges the US to vigorously pursue Al Qaeda and Taliban elements inside Pakistan's territory - "preferably" in cooperation with the Musharraf government - mobilise international support to contain Pakistan's nuclear proliferation and hold it accountable for allowing the export of nuclear military technology, and focus on India as a potential long-term military and economic partner of the United States in the region.
Quoting the 9/11 Commission's recommendations on Pakistan that it described as "hard choices," Cato said the United States should commit itself to a period of sustained aid, including military assistance, to Pakistan, but only on condition that Gen Pervez Musharraf proves that he stands for ''enlightened moderation'' by confronting Islamic extremism, curbing nuclear proliferation, and paving the way for the return to democracy. Cato said the "fundamental conundrum" the United States has faced in its dealings with Pakistan both before and after 9/11 lies in the recognition that Islamabad's pre-9/11 alliance with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and its strong ties to radical Islamic terrorist groups helped to create the environment that gave birth to Al Qaeda. However, Cato noted that the 9/11 Commission report portrays Pakistan as "dramatically different" than it was before 9/11. The report implies that the decision by Musharraf to sever his country's links to the Taliban and provide logistical support for the US invasion of Afghanistan marked a dramatic reversal in Pakistan's approach to radical Islamic terrorism.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/31/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Musharraf is smarter than the average bear. The USA gives him great leverage against India.
#2
cato was a lawyer and a roman sophist orator for sale--a libertarian is not a liberal--who do they want in charge--hamid gul--these people better live in the real world--mushareff went to christian high school and college--his brother is a doctor who lives in chicago--his son went to mit and does high tech in boston--both his parents became american citizens--wtf do they want john galt as president of pakistan--mushareff will do
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI ||
01/31/2005 3:41 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Cato shares the Indian Hawk analysis of Pakistan, that entire system in Pakistan (like Saudi Arabia) is hopeless, and it is better to have as little to do with the nation as possible, while strengthening the alliance between India and the US.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
01/31/2005 4:18 Comments ||
Top||
#5
And is India going to occupy the entire nation of Pakistan for us? Dont think so. And India's going to pursue its own agenda, not do what we want. And what does all out alliance with India and against Pakistan do for us in the rest of the muslim world. Basically Cato is interested in complete US withdrawl from the region including KSA, Iraq and Israel.
#9
CATO? LIBERAL?! Not only are there a bunch of members of CATO in the Bush administration, there are CATO followers all over the place. The most high-profile was Michael Powell, head of the FCC.
They are convinced that there is no such thing as a naturally occuring monopoly in business, and oligopolies are fine. They are rigid in their orthodoxy and bizarre interpretation of free markets. You don't talk with them. They are either talking or arguing at you. And having had a similar experience with one of them, this quote really summarizes them at work and play: "Theyâre ideologues, like Trotskyites. All questions must be seen and solved within the true faith of libertarianism, the idea of minimal government. And like Trotskyites, the guys from Cato can talk you to death." --Nat Hentoff
#10
I think the Cato liberal thing came from the Pakistani paper's misunderstanding of the difference between liberal and libertarian. Stupid error, but it doesn't really change the guts of the article.
Fact is Bush just said dictatorship bad, and Mushariff is running a dicatorship which could make things kind of funky between them. Besides that Mushariff has been questionable on the cleaning up Taliban across the border position.
I think the world would be better off if Pakistan split into three as long as the nukes were secured before hand.
#11
In the rest of the world, liberal still means whatit did 100 years ago, Classical Liberalism. Instead of having socialists and communists, we evolved the term liberal into what the Democrats believe today. Our bad.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/31/2005 16:18 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Indeed. In the rest of the world "liberal" tends to mean fiscally right-wing.
#14
Hmm, "pro-free market", then? I thought that "fiscally right-wing" still tends to be globally understood in roughly the same manner.
Unless you mean that in this article they don't mean *only* that, they probably also mean in its more general 'freedom-supporting' sense, which means libertarian-leaning ideas across the spectrum of politics.
#15
I suspect right wing is understood in the same manner golbally. It is just incomplete. It must be further modified, vast, far, extremist, fascist, conspiracy etc.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/31/2005 17:04 Comments ||
Top||
#16
May I defend the word liberal as its used in the US, Canada, and to a lesser degree the UK? In fact liberalism in the mid-19th century didnt always mean "liberal" as the euros use it - (IE free market classical liberalism - which BTW, is also not libertarianism - many "classical liberals" accepted state intervention in traditional moral realms and even some economic ones that Libertarians dont) Liberal was those who opposed the conservative establishment - IE those who supported constitutional reform efforts, the basis of politics on rights, rather than on traditional elites, and the end of established churches etc. While not always insistent on immediate universal suffrage, they tended in the direction of "democrats" They were NOT Marxists, who subordinated political rights to a theory of economic justice. However they were not ALL opponents of social welfare systems, and other state interventions in the economy. In Germany and Austria "Progressives" moved to the left of the more traditional business liberalism. In England this was led by Lloyd George, who maintained his membership in the Liberal party for some time, and still considered himself a liberal. In France the term radical was used by those favoring progressive taxes and a limited welfare state, and apparently over time in Germany the term liberal for these faded as well. When a movement paralellel to Lloyd George liberalism emerged in the US, it was first called Progressivism, but came to be called liberalism following the UK model. In the UK the business liberals ended up merging into the old Conservative party - theyd been heading there since the time of Joseph Chamberlain. The tories thus ended up a combination of old 'conservative' interests - established church and landed wealth - but absorbed "business liberalism" - the US never really had "conservative interests" in that sense, outside the south, so the business liberal GOP was called conservative (once its mugwump-progressive wing had departed, a gradual process)
AFAIK in europe most "liberal" parties accepted some degree of welfare statism - they continued to be called "liberal" in contrast to the social dems, who called for a more extensive welfare state, and extensive state ownership of industry. Today most soc dem parties have given up on state ownership of industry, and accept a more limited welfare state. Social democracy thus blurs with "progressivism" as it does in the US, where the left wing of the dem party, heir to a socdem-progressive alliance still calls itself liberal.
If we want to use 19thc usage, we would have to depart from BOTH current US usage, and current euro usage. In fact the entire US spectrum from Ronald Reagan to Ted Kennedy is "liberal" - you have to go beyond ted to get real socialists, and beyond Reagan, to the paleocons and theocons to get real "conservatives". Ditto in Europe, most thirdway leaning soc dem parties are liberal as well. As are most "conservative" and CD parties.
To revert to the 19th century usage, wed have to admit a far wider usage of
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.
WASHINGTON: The Musharraf regime is "unlikely to evolve into a long-term ally in the war on terrorism," though the United States should seek to "prevent Pakistan from descending into chaos in the short term," according to the 
