Compare and Contrast
July 21, 2008 by Laura · Comments Off
My blood’s not boiling, but I’m quite depressed. This is what it’s come to. That this behavior is considered socially acceptable anywhere, for any reason, is just sad. The video is well done, but the content is shameful. It’s not shameful to have a reasoned position against the war, or against specifics in how the war is being fought. But the willful ignorance and the uncivil behavior is shameful. It’s legal and should remain so, of course, but it ought to be socially unacceptable in the same way that racism is socially unacceptable. I’m more of an Adams fan than a Jeffersonite, but this quote is spot on:
“I fear [political difference] is inseparable from the different constitutions of the human mind and that degree of freedom which permits unrestrained expression. Political dissention is doubtless a less evil than the lethargy of despotism, but still it is a great evil, and it would be as worthy the efforts of the patriot as of the philosopher, to exclude its influence, if possible, from social life. The good are rare enough at best. There is no reason to subdivide them by artificial lines. But whether we shall ever be able so far to perfect the principles of society, as that political opinions shall, in its intercourse, be as inoffensive as those of philosophy, mechanics, or any other, may be well doubted.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney, 1797. ME 9:389
[Added: and it's not just a handful of freak protestors in CA. The ultimate in incivility.]
And now, to cleanse the palate, via Baldilocks, the news the “professional” media will not give you:
As Soon As Obama Gets To Iraq, We’ll Win The War
Over at Riehl World View Dan asks the question -
But seriously, now that the media will be in Iraq and things are much improved, will they genuinely report that … the way they should have been doing all along? Or, will they simply deliver the profound wisdom emanating from Obama’s teleprompter and talking points to their all too eager ears? Stay tuned.
Most of the focus of this trip will be on Afghanistan; how awful things are and how we’re losing and can’t ever possibly win, ad infinitum. Every difficulty will be lovingly reported in the greatest possible detail. The New York Times has already started, taking care in this article to note that an Afghanistan surge would be a complete waste of time, and that we should instead send more money immediately.
But in what reporting on Iraq that the media does deliver, I predict that because Obama will be in Iraq, the media will associate him with victory almost to the point of giving him credit for it.
Highly Dowdified quotes will be employed, as well as repeated clips of his pro-troop quotes. There will be no mention of the fact that he voted against troop funding. The focus will be bringing the troops home in victory, not on how the victory was achieved.
This is the only way the media will be able to bring themselves to report that the troops have achieved any success at all. That’s the only way the victory will get the front page coverage it deserves. If John McCain is mentioned at all, it will be on the 18th paragraph of page A15.
The narrative will be that the Messiah has come to Iraq and consequently peace reigns. Hallelujah.
Updated: Baldilocks notes the audacity as well:
You have to “admire” Barack Obama’s ability (audacity) to get out in front of a passing parade and become its leader, while MSM entities like Reuters are content to carry on with the months-long process of anointing him.
What Could Go Wrong?
July 17, 2008 by Laura · Comments Off
We’re sending diplomats back to Iran. What could go wrong? The Guardian article has a photo of Iranians at a rally with a “Death to America” sign but that was waaay back in 2004. I’m not worried. After all, Iran has signed onto the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, which is also known as the Hostages Convention.
Iran has announced its opposition to all terrorist activities, including the taking of hostages and any other measure that breaches people’s fundamental liberties and rights, upsets the peace and stability of societies, and hinders the development of countries.
So it’s aawwl good, baby. I’m not a bit worried. It turned out okay last time, right?
52 Americans arrived back in the United States today after being held hostage by Iran for 444 days. The hostages were released five days earlier, the same day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as the 40th U.S. President.
“The released hostages stepped off ‘Freedom One,’ the jet that brought them home from West Germany, to an explosion of cheers at Stewart Airport and threw themselves into the arms of waiting and weeping relatives,” reported The Post Standard on January 26, 1981. “The hostages were serenaded along the route with ‘God Bless America’, ‘America the Beautiful’ and chants of ‘USA! USA! USA!’ by people teeming behind barricades along the route under trees streaming with yellow ribbons.”
Jimmy Carter admitted to just one mistake throughout the crisis: a failure to use enough helicopters in the rescue attempt.
This BBC article includes interviews with a hostage and a hostage taker. Typically of the Beeb, it’s extremely sympathetic to the hostage-taker, and it’s one of the least angry hostages. An interesting footnote is that his wife is the one who kicked off the ribbon movement:
My wife did [the yellow ribbon] which of course triggered the way in which American people hang up ribbons for all manner of causes.
It’s a symbol, a national symbol in this country of reaching out, of caring for caring for our fellow Americans.
Now the yellow ribbon that was put around the oak tree in my front yard that began this tradition is on permanent display at the library of US Congress.
Others following the story.
Arlen Specter and Joe Lieberman strike a blow against lawfare
New York state stepped up to protect author Rachel Ehrenfield (a really gracious woman - I booked her when I was producing talk radio and she was a pleasure to deal with, unlike many others) from an attack on her free speech by passing the Libel Terrorism Protection Act.
However, a federal version of Rachel’s Law was needed. Joe Lieberman and Arlen Specter sponsored the Senate version - here’s their WSJ article on Free Speech Protection Act of 2008:
…introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete King (R., N.Y.) and co-sponsored by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D., N.Y.). This legislation builds on New York State’s “Libel Terrorism Protection Act,” signed into law by Gov. David Paterson on May 1.
Our bill bars U.S. courts from enforcing libel judgments issued in foreign courts against U.S. residents, if the speech would not be libelous under American law. The bill also permits American authors and publishers to countersue if the material is protected by the First Amendment. If a jury finds that the foreign suit is part of a scheme to suppress free speech rights, it may award treble damages.
First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams argues that “the values of free speech and individual reputation are both significant, and it is not surprising that different nations would place different emphasis on each.” We agree. But it is not in our interest to permit the balance struck in America to be upset or circumvented by foreign courts. Our legislation would not shield those who recklessly or maliciously print false information. It would ensure that Americans are held to and protected by American standards. No more. No less.
As much as I gripe about Congress, every once in a while I couldn’t be happier with them. This is really important legislation - please contact your Congressional representation and urge them to co-sponsor and to vote for it.
Added: thanks for the link, Foxfier!
Suffering like a Calvinist
We got an email update from a man in our church who has a very sick child. As he and his wife went through the process of diagnosis and treatment (ultimately including surgery) of their pre-schooler, he mentioned in this email how proud he was of his wife:
[We] have had to take a few walks down the hall to look out what we now, maybe cheesily, call the “perspective glass”. It’s a window that overlooks the courtyard below. We sit there to talk and cry and get refocused … and cry some more. I think it was Samuel Rutherford who said, “When I find myself in the cellar of affliction I look for God’s choicest wines.” Many in our church have and are tasting even finer wines, walking through deeper trials; but for our part we have most certainly sensed God’s nearness to be our good these past several days. It’s hard for me to commend my wife more highly than to simply say that she suffers like a Calvinist. She has taken some hard news while whispering through tremors, “You are sovereign and good and we trust You.” We have heard reports that some of the nurses and doctors have observed something different in Rm 312. One Dr. bumped into [a visiting church member] and told her that though she is not a ‘religious person’, she feels “God’s presence in that room”. She went on describing things she’s observed that you and I would simply call ‘sustaining grace’. She has no experiential category for it. Don’t take this to sound triumphalistic or ideal. We’ve cried more these last two weeks than the previous 10 years hands down.
[Edited: all things considered, and on the very wise advice of my husband, I deleted my personal notes here. It's sufficient to say that God is sovereign, He is good, and I trust him; that Romans 8:28 applies when I like my circumstances and also when I don't. - Laura]
Plus ça change…
July 7, 2008 by Laura · Comments Off
A frightening thought: The New York Times: An Army of Durantys
Commentary’s Abe Greenwald notes that the New York Times has a habit of referring to “Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni insurgent group that American intelligence officials say has foreign leadership.” Greenwald notes that al Qaeda in Iraq’s leaders have in fact been Jordanian, Egyptian and Saudi Arabian.
Greenwald could have added that referring to AQI as “Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia” is one way to divert the casual reader from the fact that al Qaeda has been active in Iraq.
Duranty was a Stalin apologist who purposely hid the deaths of millions, enabling Stalin to continue killing free from criticism. There’s no evidence that any nation would have intervened, but we’ll never know what the response to the genocide would have been, because Duranty deliberately hid the facts. Here are a few quotes from an article by Arnold Beichman:
“There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be.” –New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1
“Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.” –New York Times, August 23, 1933
“Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please. Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin’s program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding.” –New York Times, December 9, 1932, page 6
“You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” –New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 18
“There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition.” –New York Times, March 31, 1933, page 13
And here’s one more from Beichman’s article, from a memoir by Zara Witkin, an American who lived in the Soviet Union at the time. One evening the Moscow correspondents were discussing how to get the story of Stalin’s engineered famine out in spite of oppressive government censorship, reporter Ralph Barnes asked Duranty what he was going to write. Duranty said,
Nothing. What are a few million dead Russians in a situation like this? Quite unimportant. This is just an incident in the sweeping historical changes here. I think the entire matter is exaggerated.
Duranty’s acknowledgement of “a few million dead” shows that this was no simple misunderstanding. It was a cover-up. And he didn’t simply “dismiss more diligent writers’ reports.” He went out of his way to call them liars by calling their accurate reports “scare stories.” This was done deliberately and maliciously, as Duranty privately acknowledged that the reports he had denounced were correct.
Contradicting what he had written in the New York Times, on September 26, 1933 in a private conversation with British Diplomat William Strang, Duranty said, “it is quite possible that as many as 10 million people may have died directly or indirectly from lack of food in the Soviet Union during the past year.”
The damage dishonest reporting can do ripples out for decades. Even when Stalin finally died in 1953, his crimes were not detailed by the New York Times, and today if you asked the average man on the street which dictator in history killed the most people, they would say Hitler, even though both Stalin and Mao eclipse him. The failure to acknowledge the truth about the war - on a number of levels, not just in accurately identifying the enemy - has a huge impact on American politics. And that’s really the point, isn’t it? The Times continues to shield murderous thugs in order to manipulate politics at home.
NYT, MSNBC singing a new song
June 25, 2008 by Laura · 2 Comments
The Bush Paradox - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com
… During that period in 2006 and 2007, Bush stiffed the brass and sided with a band of dissidents: military officers like David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno, senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and outside strategists like Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute and Jack Keane, a retired general.
Bush is also a secretive man who listens too much to Dick Cheney. Well, the uncomfortable fact is that Cheney played an essential role in promoting the surge. Many of the people who are dubbed bad guys actually got this one right.
The additional fact is that Bush, who made such bad calls early in the war, made a courageous and astute decision in 2006. More than a year on, the surge has produced large, if tenuous, gains. Violence is down sharply. Daily life has improved. Iraqi security forces have been given time to become a more effective fighting force. The Iraqi government is showing signs of strength and even glimmers of impartiality. Iraq has moved from being a failed state to, as Vali Nasr of the Council on Foreign Relations has put it, merely a fragile one.
h/t Gateway Pundit
And Flopping Aces has MSNBC singing the same song… sorta.
Captured members of Al Queda groups from this same camp claim that they were assisted, trained, supplied, and funded by Saddam’s IIS as well as taking orders from Saddam’s IIS.
Captured documents confirm their claims.
Captured regime members confirm their claims.
Now even highly anti-war/pro-Democrat MSNBC confirms the claim itself. Al Queda leaders confirm the claims (Zawahiri and Zarqawi specifically).
Shocking.
Jihad Watch and Lawfare
June 19, 2008 by Laura · Comments Off
Hot Air » New Jihad Watch…bound and gagged:
Lawfare is just another front in the war, and our failure to treat it as such will lead to our eventual loss.
Dan Simmons has a very instructive story that diagnoses the problem clearly:
“You were a philosophy major or minor at that podunk little college you went to long ago,” said the Time Traveler. “Do you remember what Category Error is?”
It rang a bell. But I was too irritated at hearing my alma mater being called a “podunk little college” to be able to concentrate fully.
“I’ll tell you what it is,” said the Time Traveler. “In philosophy and formal logic, and it has its equivalents in science and business management, Category Error is the term for having stated or defined a problem so poorly that it becomes impossible to solve that problem, through dialectic or any other means.”
I waited. Finally I said firmly, “You can’t go to war with a religion. Or, I mean . . . sure, you could . . . the Crusades and all that . . . but it would be wrong.”
The Time Traveler sipped his Scotch and looked at me. He said, “Let me give you an analogy . . .”
God, I hated and distrusted analogies. I said nothing.
“Let’s imagine,” said the Time Traveler, “that on December eighth, Nineteen forty-one, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke before a joint session of Congress and asked them to declare war on aviation.”
“That’s absurd,” I said.
“Is it?” asked the Time Traveler. “The American battleships, cruisers, harbor installations, Army barracks, and airfields at Pearl Harbor and elsewhere in Hawaii were all struck by Japanese aircraft. Imagine if the next day Roosevelt had declared war on aviation . . . threatening to wipe it out wherever we found it. Committing all the resources of the United States of America to defeating aviation, so help us God.”
“That’s just stupid,” I said. If I’d ever been afraid of this Time Traveler, I wasn’t now. He was obviously a mental defective.“The planes, the Japanese planes,” I said, “were just a method of attack . . . a means . . . it wasn’t aviation that attacked us at Pearl Harbor, but the Empire of Japan. We declared war on Japan and a few days later its ally, Germany, lived up to its treaty with the Japanese and declared war on us. If we’d declared war on aviation, on goddamned airplanes rather than the empire and ideology that launched them, we’d never have . . .”
I stopped. What had he called it? Category Error. Making the problem unsolvable through your inability – or fear – of defining it correctly.
