The only positive thing I can think of about Hitlers time on earthIm sure he would have eliminated all bloggers. In Colonial times, bloggers were called Pamphleteers. They hung on street corners handing them out to passersby. Now, they hang out on electronic street corners, hoping somebody mouses on to their pretentious sites. Different medium, same MO. Shakespeare accidentally summed up the genre best with these words from a MacBeth soliloquy: . . .a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. . .
That's a quote from a Philadelphia sportswriter responding to a baseball blogger who, fairly politely and rationally I think, wrote him an email telling him that his pick for MVP was wrong. The blogger based his conclusion on Sabermetric stats (Sabermetrics are just a non-traditional way of analyzing stats which seem to be far more indicative of actual performance than traditional baseball stats; they're being used more and more by clubs to make personnel decisions) and told the sportswriter his choice was second-best.
Not exactly the sort of discussion you would think would call for praise of Hitler in response, but that's what happened.
Know what, pal? Bash this. . .Tell your bloggers, my career against theirs. . .
Unable to argue against the blogger's conclusions, and also unable to say something mundane like "Well, obviously the two men are pretty closely ranked in statistics, whichever way you cut it; I just think Rollins was more deserving," the guy, as is so typical, makes his stand on the fact that he is, in fact, In The Media and therefore right. The Media has deemed him worthy; ergo he is worthy. The Media is always right in their evaluations; that's why they're The Deciders, after all. . . .
Let me offer my own Hitler analogy. Hitler appealed most of all to the "insecure class," those who had a little something of a life going but not so much of one they didn't fear losing what they had. They were somewhat comfortable economically and socially, but not comfortable in retaining that position. So Hitler offered them a narrative and an enemy and convinced them that under his plan, they wouldn't have to worry -- their identity as true-blooded Germans would be enough to sustain them in the position they feared losing.
It seems the media offers its lesser lights a similar reassurance. Join the party, chant the slogans, hate the chosen enemies of the party, and the party will take care of you. You need not fear the grasping lower classes and interloping foreign-types who want to take what you have away from you.
It's always the weakest, least members of a group that are the most passionate about their membership in the group. The group gives them what they do not have of their own merits: a somewhat undeserved sense of personal value.
The Germans were angry at their treatment at Versailles + Depression era + failures of the democratic Weimar Republic, broadly genuinely believing that other Euros or the World were de facto laughing at them = unfairly exploiting their personal + National probs - DITTO FOR MANY PRE- AND POST 9-11 MUSLIMS AND ISLAMISTS. ADD MANY SECULAR LEFTIES, etc. TO THIS.
I'm leaving this one, but as a mod let me make clear, we're getting too many off-topic submissions.
WHY do people gay or straight need the states permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didnt, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.
For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couples wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows even out alone by the haystack the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
In 1215, the church decreed that a licit marriage must take place in church. But people who married illictly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.
Continued on Page 49
James Taranto, "Best of the Web" @ the Wall Street Journal
"Saudi Arabia's participation in the U.S.-sponsored talks on Middle East peace was seen as a diplomatic coup for the Bush administration but the kingdom has made clear there will be no handshakes with Israeli officials," Reuters reports from Washington . . . .
Now of course handshakes are not always sincere. As Reuters notes, Yasser Arafat shook hands with Yitzhak Rabin in 1993; and in the process he made fools of Rabin, Bill Clinton and the Norwegian Nobel Committee. So in a way Faisal's snub is refreshingly honest. At least he is not making a pretense of amity only to betray it later.
What is more, a refusal to shake someone's hand is a sign of weakness. Contrary to Faisal's protestation, it is a sort of theater--a show that one is unable to rise above one's own grudge to observe ordinary social niceties. The Saudis have no legitimate grievance against Israel (the Palestinian problem notwithstanding); their hostility toward the Jewish state is based in a combination of religious hatred and envy.
Faisal has demonstrated that Saudi Arabia is a petty little country, worthy only of the world's contempt and condescension. It is a clarifying moment in Mideast politics.
I dont see how any one can say that Saudi Arabia is a petty little country. It is certainly the richest middle easter country. They have a gigantic amount of the worlds oil and have turned many countries to more extreme forms of Islam. I dont see how anyone could call the petty.
Yes in that sense they were being petty and I couldn't agree more but I think he made a mistake when he generalized about the entire country. I find country steriotypes to be stupid. You cant say things about the country based on the perfomance in this event.
I think they meant "pretty", as in "that's a pretty little country - why don't we take it...at least the oily part?"
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/27/2007 20:17 Comments ||
.com said it first, but I've thought it a few times....
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/27/2007 20:19 Comments ||
Perhaps Evan can give us some examples of contradicting behavior from some- any- citizens of Saudi Arabia. Some noble, generous, act.
Funding Jihadi-generating mosques all over the planet doesn't count.
You really think we should conquer Saudi Arabia. I think that would only serve to heighten anti American feelings that are already strong. Basically if you try to attack one of the fundamentalist Muslim countries they will just be able to say "see the Americans are evil" and they would double there following. They gain energy and momentum when Muslims are killed. Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq we were disliked, now we are hated. fundamentalist Muslim has nearly doubled, killing of other branches of Islam. And the idea that we could get oil is ridiculous. That was the reason for invading Iraq and look were that got us. Thousands of lives and a few trillion dollars later were no farther then we started. if we got this much resistance in Iraq I imagine we would get a lot more in Saudi Arabia. They would burn all there oil before they let us get our hands on it. Fighting a form of religion is a lot different then just fighting a country. you cut off
one head and four more can grow in its place.
Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq we were disliked, now we are hated.
I hate to be the one who has to tell you this but America has always been hated by the MME (Muslim Middle East). Nothing, repeat, NOTHING, short of nuking Mecca and Medina could "serve to heighten anti American feelings that are already strong". Most ironic of all is how the one thing that we are most reluctant to donamely, go in with hobnailed jackboots and stomp Massive Muslim Assis one of the only things that might earn us some respect.
Have you ever been to a Muslim country, Evan dear? Mr. Wife spent a number of years over there, and while he met some charming and interesting people, he developed very strong opinions about the general run of humanity in various parts of the ummah. And before you ask, he spent as much time on the factory floor and restaurant kitchens as he did with the kind of educated elite that like to hang out in expensive international hotels and the name universities.
The same sort of arguments advanced by many libertarians, such as Rep. Paul, to "explain" the anti-American actions of foreign terrorists, also have been offered by liberals to "explain" the heinous acts of common criminals. Read any sociology or criminology text, and you'll find endless laundry lists of "causal explanations" for crime: poverty, neglect, poor parenting, lousy schools, poor "socialization," inadequate pre-natal care, hunger, disease, bullying, racism, police brutality, social stigmatizing, untreated psychological disorders, victimless-crime laws...you name it.
And in both cases -- foreign and domestic -- it's always American culture, society, and/or policies that are the toxic "root causes" underlying the actions of those who attack us.
Just as many libertarians like Paul treat the actions of al Qaeda and other terrorists as "blowback" for the sins of American society against them, liberal social-science professionals treat the actions of home-grown criminal thugs as "blowback" for the alleged sins of American society against them. These bloody acts are never the terrorist's or the criminal's "fault" (responsibility), you see; rather, they are all our fault, for "driving him" to do his dastardly deeds.
You may remember that during the Cold War, precisely the same sort of "explanations" were offered by liberals and, later, by left-libertarians such as Murray Rothbard to lay the blame for Communist aggression at the West's (especially America's) doorstep. It was our imperialist provocations around the world that were "driving" the Soviet bloc to "respond" by conquering and butchering millions, building weapons of mass destruction, constructing the Berlin Wall, etc. It was our economic and cultural "imperialism" that was driving indigenous peoples everywhere into the arms of the communists.
I defy anyone to draw a rational, meaningful distinction between such "explanations" for criminal or terrorist aggression, and "excuses" for it. After all, "causal explanations" for human actions aim at exonerating the actor for committing them, by treating those acts as if they were not under the actor's conscious, volitional control, but as if they were instead deterministically driven "responses" to external provocations or "causes."
Just as I reject the liberal "excuse-making industry" that denies volition and rationalizes the acts of criminals, I am totally fed up with the disgraceful foreign-policy perspectives of those libertarians who portray the United States as the causal agent of every evil on earth -- thus rationalizing the atrocities of foreign terrorists and despots. . . .
. . . Part of the sloppy thinking at the root of "noninterventionist" lunacy is the tacit equation of individual rights with "national sovereignty" -- and also the equation of "economic interventionism" (against peaceful individuals) with "political interventionism" (against despotic regimes). Philosophically, these twin equations are completely bogus.
Only individuals have rights or "sovereignty"; and only those governments that recognize the individual rights of their own people have any legitimate claims to exist.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "
Dictatorships thus have no "rights" or "sovereignty."
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Likewise, the concept of economic "interventionism" -- developed by the Austrian school of economics to describe coercive governmental interference with free individuals in the marketplace -- cannot be equated with political "interventionism" against governments, especially against dictatorships. . . .
Too damn lazy to do foreign relations even national security outside the borders. Like Bush says "its hard work".
To fearful of exposing the weakness of being lazy and non-confrontational. Relying strictly on defense and internalization is what has led to collapse of many societies.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
11/27/2007 9:56 Comments ||
Non-interventionism can also come from disgust with the world. I'm not a non-interventionist but part of me is and that part grows every day. The part of me that says pulling back will only work for a while, then we have another big nasty bloodbath like WW2 wins out every time. So far. But I tell you the disgust has grown much faster during the War on Terror. Much faster.
Lots of folks out there using labels on themselves that simply aren't accurate.
Andrew Sullivan calls himself an "economic conservative who is a social liberal", and it turns out that he is, when all is said and done, a leftist and social anarchist who doesn't like paying taxes.
Ron Paul calls himself a libertarian, but it turns out that he is an anarchist who indulges in the leftist "blame America first" mentality.
W calls himself a conservative, but engages in Keynesian economics.
Hillary Clinton pitches herself as a moderate Democrat but her policies consist of the worst and most far left (redundant?) parts of the New Deal and the Great Society, with some of the ugliest parts of postmodernism thrown in for extra flavor.
We need a better truth detector when it comes to labels.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
11/27/2007 18:08 Comments ||
I think America is suffering under the delusion that it is the best and most moral country and can there for police and govern the less moral countrys. I will admit that there are times were that is called for but in this case the whole situation was brought up by the stupid desision to try to help a suffering country overthrow its evil dictator. That just showed that things are never so bad they cant get worse.
American overthrows less moral countries? As far as I can tell the Netherlands is not on any serious defense department lists, neither is Thailand. I think you need to reevaluate your terminology.
The US does not like people slaughtering their own people. Sometimes we do nothing about it, and that confuses people, and other times we come down upon the dictator like the hammer of God. This randomness causes many dictators (such as Chavez and Zimbabwae's Bob) from going to the extremes they otherwise might because they don't know what the triggering mechanism is. THat works for me as it's cheaper than taking out every dictatorship and keeps the slaughter down.
This is quite enlightening. Anyone noticed how all meat supplies and some vegetables are continually contaminated with E-coli and many other bacteria we know nothing of. Have you had severe stomach flu lately ? Continually ? We never used to be afflicted. It's not flu, it's contaminated food. All these packers knowingly allow these third world dogs to handle our food. Glad to see that one went bankrupt after the largest recall in history. The only safe place to get your meat is a local butcher you know and trust or dress it and cure it yourself if you live in a rural area. Otherwise, turn vegetarian. Might lower your chloresterol afterall.
About every 100,000 years, great ice-age ending periods of global warming have made the Earth temporarily more habitable for life. The Earth currently is involved in the most recent of these 100,000-year periods.
These people need to read their own sentences. The ice-age ending periods known as inter-glacials tend to last 10- to 15-thousand years. We are currently involved in one of these interglacial periods - at the tail end of one as a matter of fact - not one of the 100-thousand year glacial periods.
The reason is that an adventitious confluence of circumstances over the last 5,000 years has, for the first time, allowed an advanced form of civilization to emerge on Planet Earth.
As opposed to Planet Q'onoS.
This might have happened a million years ago (but did not).
By Homo erectus, presumably. Though this might have been difficult considering what we believe to be their limited capacity for speech and that the first non-controversial evidence for the controlled use of fire would have to wait another 700-hundred thousand years. It is not all about the weather.
And so the Battle of Iraq is to be brought to an end, in T.S. Eliot's phrase, "not with a bang but a whimper."
With any justice in the world, it'd end in a series of victory/homecoming parades in a hundred cities in the U.S.
With the eyes of the world focused on the Middle East peace talks in Annapolis, Md., President Bush's war tsar, Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, quietly announced that the American and Iraqi governments will start talks early next year to bring about an end to the allied occupation by the close of Mr. Bush's presidency.
Whereupon it will be a partnership of two close allies.
The negotiations will bring to a formal conclusion the U.N. Chapter 7 Security Council involvement in the occupation and administration of Iraq, and are expected to reduce the number of American troops to about 50,000 troops permanently stationed there but largely confined to barracks, from the current 164,000 forces on active duty.
They won't be confined to barracks; they'll be working with and assisting Iraqi troops as the latter become increasingly capable.
"The basic message here should be clear. Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own. That's very good news. But it won't have to stand alone," General Lute yesterday told reporters in the White House.
Bringing the war to a close by the end of 2008 will ensure that the next president will face a fait accompli in Iraq, a fact that will further remove from the presidential election the Iraq war as an issue of contention.
The Dhimmicrats will have a problem with that, since it will be hard to conclude anything other than we won.
Like the sharp reduction in casualties in Iraq since the full implementation of the "surge" in fighting forces, the agreement with Iraq will help Republican presidential candidates who have backed Mr. Bush's war strategy.
The agreement also will strengthen those more moderate Democratic candidates, such as Senators Clinton and Obama, who have resisted the siren voices on the left of the Democratic Party demanding a faster and total withdrawal from Iraq.
Obama? Moderate? Say what?
Mr. Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki of Iraq agreed a Declaration of Principles in a teleconference yesterday, a "nonbinding pact" that set forth a "common sheet of music with which to begin the negotiations," to be completed by July 2008, which would end with "an enduring relationship based on mutual interests," General Lute said.
The Security Council's current Iraqi mandate runs out at the end of next month, and the Iraqi government would like it to run one final year before the lifting of all restrictions on Iraq's sovereignty, which were imposed after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait leading to the Gulf War in 1990.
The Iraqis do not want one more year before lifting restrictions on seovereignty, they want one more year AND immediate lifting of restrictions. Get your facts straight.
America and Iraq will decide on a "strategic framework agreement," a bilateral arrangement for a continuing American presence in the country, including the number of American troops to remain as a bulwark against political instability and a safeguard against continuing Al Qaeda attacks.
"The shape and size of any long-term, or longer than 2008, U.S. presence in Iraq will be a key matter for negotiation between the two parties, Iraq and the United States," the general said. It is already planned that 20,000 American troops will leave Iraq by July 2008.
General Lute said he considers the deal essential to bolster pro-Western elements in the Iraq government. "From the Iraqi side, the interest that they tend to talk about is that a long-term relationship with us, where we are a reliable, enduring partner with Iraq, will cause different sects inside the Iraqi political structure not to have to hedge their bet in a go-it-alone-like setting, but rather they'll be able to bet on the reliable partnership of the United States," he said. "To the extent it doesn't cause sectarian groups to have to hedge their bet independently, we're confident that this will actually contribute to reconciliation in the long run," he said.
The agreement in principle "signals that we will protect our interests in Iraq, alongside our Iraqi partners, and that we consider Iraq a key strategic partner, able to increasingly contribute to regional security," the general said.
America is seeking to put its future relationship with the Iraqi government on the same bilateral basis as that of other allies in the region, with agreements on political, economic, and security measures, though the general was at pains to point out that the deal, to be negotiated by the State Department, is unrelated to the wider debate about peace in the Middle East.
"It's not linked in any meaningful way that I can think of to what's going on in Annapolis," he said.
Nor will the finished agreement amount to a treaty, which would have to face approval by Congress. General Lute played down the status of the negotiations while stressing that they are essential to allow Iraq and America to resume normal relations.
"We have about a hundred agreements similar to the one envisioned for the U.S. and Iraq already in place, and the vast majority of those are below the level of a treaty," he said. "We don't anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress." and who wants input from the Congress?
I do. I want this done as a treaty, same as we did for Germany and Japan. I want the Democrats on record in, say, September 2008 about where they stand on this. I want the next President honor-bound to the deal. I don't want any weaseling out of helping the Iraqis the way we cut-and-ran from the South Vietnamese in '74 and '75. A treaty prevents that; a treaty ensures that anyone who runs away pays a heavy political price. A treaty requires agreement from the major players on both parties.
This has got to frighten the Donks. They will certainly step up their efforts to undermine our success. Their desire to see us fail is so strong they're likely to do some increasingly stupid things to help the enemy.
the Pink Salmon One speaks wisely. It will be crucial to make the Donks and weak-kneed Rhino's put up or shut up before the next election when the voters have a chance to say whether they want a spineless nest of copperheads or do we want to accept the victory our troops, diplodinks (yes, some have done good work), and POTUS have given us, against all efforts to Cut and Run. In fact, I'd call it the Cut-N-Run Referendum just to make the choices clear
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/27/2007 20:32 Comments ||
Darth, I agree, Congress could screw up a free lunch, but if alchohol is provided they'd do their best not to screw it up. The question is what ungodly amounts of alchohol is required?
Included in this article is some interesting detail on Hirsi Ali's life. Facts I was not aware of. Good piece if you can let slide the editorializing by the author of the article. (Example: Now that Hirsi Ali is working for a conservative think tank in the USA she has come to believe (God forbid!)it best to shut down the madrassas in the USA/Europe since Islam does not respect the separation of church and state. Oh, and did you know that Theo Van Gough was murdered by a...Dutchman? Yeah, and her application for asylum in Holland... well it was "bogus" because the only persecution she sufferd from came from her immediate family and not any formal gov't...uh huh).
Posted by: Mark Z ||
11/27/2007 15:54 Comments ||
WAFF.com has couple of articles on SPanish- and French Muslim women's probs wid Islam.
It goes without saying that in the case of a U.S. attack on Iran the Shiite population in Iraq would be largely supportive of Tehrans retaliatory military actions.
It goes without saying that Iran's Shiite population are Persians and Iraq's Shiite population are Arabs.
The notion that direct negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran legitimize its authority is to ignore the basic truth that the fundamental source of legitimacy of the Iranian regime lies with the Iranian people.
That notion that the fundamental source of legitimacy of the Iranian regime lies with the Iranian people is to ignore the fact the Iranian regime is a religious dictatorship at war with the Iranian people.
... the most effective way to chip away at the IRGCs power is to vigorously integrate it into the global economic and political system rather than isolate it
Doubtful. It assumes that Iran is like any Western nation and that the Revolutionary Guard can be controlled via engagement. A very dubious assumption. It can't be done with the PLA; what makes him think it can be done here?
its economic power is unevenly distributed among its members. Many lower-ranking Guard militants come from the low-income sector of Iranian society and have leanings toward the reformist camp. Offering younger IRGC officers an opportunity to participate in regional and global markets could create division between senior and middle ranks within the Guards economic community.
Again doubtful. It would only work if the junior IRGC members were allowed to 'participate', and even then the more senior would still be better off. In any case you end up with an IRGC beinga bigger economic (and thus political) factor within Iran.
the most effective way to chip away at the IRGCs power is to vigorously integrate it into the global economic and political system rather than isolate it
Who pays someone to peck out these delusional fantasies at their keyboard? The expression of such complete and total idiocy should be restrained via the use of a straightjacket coupled with injections of powerful anti-psychotic medications.
...they illustrate the importance of balancing freedom of speech with responsibility
Like you've ever balanced 'academic freedom' with responsibility. It's all about power. And as long as you have the 'power', you'll continue to abuse it and the student population, of course in the name of the People[tm] or the Children[tm] or the Greater Good[tm].
Talkmaster Boortz takes Dr. Telles-Irvin down hard. I can only hope Boortz was diligent and emailed his comments to her in addition to posting the fisking of her email on his website. The VP for Student Affairs lives in a make believe world. She needs to hear criticisim from an adult.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
11/27/2007 14:41 Comments ||
The ads, which promoted a showing of the movie on Nov. 13 and a panel discussion afterward, entitled "Radical Islam Wants You Dead," offended many Muslim students on campus. Regardless of its original intent, the language reinforced a negative stereotype, created unnecessary divisiveness and contributed to a generalization that only furthers the misunderstanding of the religion of Islam.
The truth is always a valid defense. Curiously, the truth typically offends worst those of whom it is most true about. With clockwork regularity, Muslims around the world only cry out when their own ox is being gored. Islam's lack of protest over atrocities committed against non-Muslims amounts to such a deafening silence whereby their collective inaction has become all that is necessary for evil to succeed. Islam's profound lassitude when confronted with the suffering of others is revealing it as the face of evil in our world.
CAIR pressures administrators to consider only their claims as to the effects of so-called "islamophobia" material. They allow no defense of truth. CAIR is not a champion of the inherent dignity of people; they are working to establish sharia degeneracy, and are doing so on a global scale.
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.