About Me

Name: JDComments
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

The Old Liberal Switch and Bait

Posted by JDComments on Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:33:27 PM
 As the MSM tries to make an insult out of President Bush saying Barack Obama is "articulate",  the movie "The Sting" comes to my mind,  because we are watching confidence  men try to pull the "switch and bait" , replacing something of importance with an inconsequential for the sake of robbing us.

In this case, the important thing was Joe Biden's announcement that he is impressed when a Black is "clean", so much so he had to announce it.  Pretend for a minute that Rush Limbaugh had said this instead, and you wil realize how much outrage this should have caused on the Left.

The replacement is Bush's comment about articulateness, a positive quality sadly lacking among most people, and something I would be proud to be called.  However, for the purposes of the con, it has no value, but it will do to distract us.

We, the American people, were robbed by this of the opportunity to debate and clarify the soft bigotry of low expectations [and it doesn't get any lower than praising hygiene] that the Liberals continue to enslave the Black community in.  By trying to make the President's comments the "news" the MSM has tried to defuse the whole situation and protect one of the Democratic "icons" [ I guess Biden's an icon- he's been in the Senate forever!].

As an aside, it should also be pointed out that by criticizing the President for an honest compliment, the MSM has passed a milestone in its quest for a politically correct society- we now live in a world where everything is interpreted as an insult to minorities, and all we can do is apologize to them, even about noting their sincere and impressive accomplishments. It certainly doesn't leave much room for improvement or communication.

Hopefully this con game will fail, and the Black community will begin to understand the true beliefs of their so-called Liberal allies. As for the rest of us, may we refuse to succumb to the culture of victimology which disparages true accomplishments so as to keep us all ensnared  in guilt and subservience.

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why do Liberals INSIST on Global Warming?

Posted by JDComments on Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:14:40 PM
Global warming has quickly worked itself into the Pantheon of Liberal Causes, those sacrosanct untouchables which are meant to be slavishly believed, and if you dare to question them the Left descends upon you with the wrath they reserve for only the especially heinous, such as  Ann Coulter. But why is this one of those idols they worship with blind devotion , the kind they reserve for Darwin, abortion and just about anything which disparages white men?

If it was "true" one could understand the faith they place in it. However, recently quite a few eminent scientists have written quite convincingly about the fallacy of the whole idea of man-made warming. Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project has written an excellent article debunking just about everything that has earned Al Gore his various recent accolades, and he is not alone as he himself points out.

The idea that this is an established fact is just plain wrong, and shame on all those who attempt to pass it off as such.

So why has the Left such a vested interest in seeing it believed?

Probably because it fits so nicely into their model of governing.

By that I mean their need for BIG causes that demand BIG solutions, the kind only the enlightened Liberals can provide through BIG government programs and laws. Global warming offers all that and more, which helps explain the salivation it elicits .

The fact that the solutions to man-made warming targets business and industry, and overrides national sovereignty, just adds the icing to this cake for the Left- how could they resist a cause which allows them to also assail their greatest antagonists. When they contemplate global warming they must truly see a winning lottery ticket offering to fulfill their grandest dreams.

And so because of all this, the "fact" of rising temperatures being caused by human activity  is not to be subjected to debate or doubt - it is to be blindly accepted and acted upon, offering Liberals a 21st century problem that can dwarf the ideas they have championed to date.  And whether it is true or not is irrelevant, just like so many of their other causes.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

European Cowardice Rears its Head Yet Again

Posted by JDComments on Sunday, February 04, 2007 10:27:51 AM
Chirac's "slip" last week seeming to accept a nuclear Iran is now being "hailed" as the forerunner of a policy of containment which concedes the inevitable and depends on the pragmatism of the Iranians to prevent the use of the weapons.

According to the article:

 ...he became the first Western leader to imply that containment of a nuclear Iran is preferable to other options, especially war.

Ahh yes, especially war.

The French abhorrence of war explains why Hitler was able to enjoy the Eiffel Tower just a few  weeks after "engaging" the French defensive forces in 1940- I guess they, too, preferred almost anything to war.

But in this case they have substantial reasons for believing their strategy will work:

" ...a country that possesses the bomb does not use it and automatically enters the system of deterrence and doesn’t take absurd risks.”

Yes, we will ignore the apocalyptic ravings of the Iranian President and his support for terrorism throughout the Middle East, or his dinner reservation with the mythical twelfth Imam who is coming to bring about the Islamic version of the Last Judgment. Nothing here seems to imply that rationality won't rule, does it?

The French are cowards, as their ignominious war record documents, and now they are willing to allow their fear of any kind of conflict to result in a religious madman getting  the ultimate weapon,  hoping that he will not do what he is promising .

Hitler, too, broadcasted his aims, and the French ignored him until Panzer tanks were cruising the Champs Elysees, and then they just threw up their hands and collaborated.  I suppose they would have argued he, too, wouldn't have used a nuclear bomb if he had had it in the closing days of WWII.

And I am sure they would have had a good explanation for the big, smoking hole where Paris had stood.

The French are now willingly and obediently standing by while Muslims take over their country, a loss to western civilization I am finding hard to mourn. However, we cannot allow their defeatist, appeasing philosophy to influence us.
 
A Nuclear Iran is unacceptable even if it doesn't use its weapons because of the shadow they will throw over the Middle East and the oil fields. They must be stopped. Regardless of what the French  think, there are worse things then war.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

For Dems, Retreat is "Peace"

Posted by JDComments on Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:19:38 PM

The headline of a NY Times article reads:

Democratic Hopefuls Split Over the Best Path to Peace

The only problem is that the debates, suggestions and accusatory rhetoric put forth by the illustrious group of Democratic politicians has nothing to do with "peace" and everything to do with retreat and hiding.

By almost universal consensus, US redeployment from Iraq will result in wholesale slaughter and unprecedented bloodshed, the likes of which hasn't been seen since Pol Pot, someone else who benefitted from  a retreat by the US military due to Liberal cowardice.

And yet this is what the newspaper of record, whatever that means, hails as "peace". I guess for them the absence of an opposition results by definition in "peace". By that logic, we should disband all our police forces, and declare "peace in our cities.

And if the US dissolves its military forces, it can declare world peace.

The absurdity of that idea is mitigated by the fact that there are Liberals in San Francisco  who really advocate that position, and all those who genuflect before the alter of the UN are closet believers in it too.

We are slowly getting back to the Chamberlain tactics that define peace as anything that doesn't entail the risk of military combat. Whether that is abdicating a country to a Nazi madman, or forsaking 25 million people to the mercy of a small group of religious fanatics, the important part for the Liberals is that we will not be standing up for what we believe and risking our lives and treasure, but rather that they can point to their successful implementation of "peace"and wait for the public idolatry to stream in.

And in this case, they can also wait for the next horrific attack on our homeland as they watch the senseless slaughter of perhaps millions of innocents in the country they have "pacified".

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Nature of the Failure of Liberalism

Posted by JDComments on Friday, February 02, 2007 11:39:01 AM
Liberalism is a failure as an operating philosophy for a number of reasons, some technical , but others having more to do with the core beliefs of the ideology. Seen as a whole, the idea that this movement is periodically in control of the strongest nation on Earth is a frightening thought.

From the technical aspect, Liberals fail to take into account the law of unintended consequences, as Deroy Murdock adroitly shows in a piece that outlines the unforeseen effects of the government encouraging ethanol use. As he points out, even when a "desirable" outcome such as reduced oil consumption is the goal, the ripples  that result usually have adverse and negative ramifications. The road to h*ll is paved with good intentions.

Liberals also ignore the axiom that power corrupts, believing themselves inured to the temptations of mortal men. WIlliam Jefferson's freezer  and Harry Reid 's knack for amazing land deals are just two Democratic examples of the fact that the Liberal faith in their incorruptibility is overblown and misplaced. Therefore when they clamor for bigger and more powerful government they call down upon themselves the fate the Ancient Greeks expected for those who exhibited hubris, and its not pretty.

But both these failings allow for noble goals, even if it is impossible to attain them because of human frailty and natural complexity. The more fundamental flaw in Liberal thinking is their striving for aims which are not only impossible to achieve, but which are wrongheaded even in the abstract.

Thus the eternal quest for equality, which is codewords for removing all differences between people, is not only a futile quest, it is an evil aim, and I mean that word in every aspect of its foreboding nature.

To me the attempt to reduce all people to similarity whether through income redistribution or statistical goals of representation, denies the very essence of humanity, the uniqueness of each one of us. To try and wash us all with broad strokes in the name of eliminating the drawbacks of our differences also means we remove all the advantages and benefits that arise from those same disparities.  In the name of Man Liberals seek to repress the infinite facets of men, and that is a horrible goal.

In the same vein, the drive towards license in the name of liberty is wrong, and would undermine all that civilization can point to in its evolution to modernity.
 
The Left has replaced liberty from governmental interference with an all encompassing freedom from all restrictions, and that is a formula for anarchy and the dissolution of society. If there is a definition to culture, it is the restraining of man's base instincts through morality, religion, philosophy, law and various other institutions that have developed over centuries and millennia. The Liberal ideal to "free"us from these runs counter to all that we have learned over recorded history.

The Liberal quixotic quest to impose their rationality on the messiness of reality flies in the face of practical considerations, and fails to account for human nature. But worse than that, it seeks to suppress that very nature, and  seeks solutions which if implemented would diminish us all. Neither their means nor their ends are justified, and it doesn't get any worse than that.




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberal Stupidity About the First Amendment

Posted by JDComments on Thursday, February 01, 2007 6:35:43 PM
Last night  I watched Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity's insignificant other, try to get Newt Gingrich to admit Dick Cheney was trying to "chill" free speech by saying the dissenters in this country were giving comfort to the enemy.
 
Gingrich gave the correct answer- people have the right to their opinion, but they shouldn't always do something just because they are allowed to. As a parent I consider this the most important thing you can teach your child, the essence of growing up,  and yet Colmes just didn't seem to get it.  As I sat there swearing at his intransigence , I also marveled at his stupidity.

Is it so hard to understand that the First Amendment , restricting governmental constraints on speech, is not to be taken as carte blanche to do or say whatever you want. Rather it defers to the individual with the expectation that his morality, integrity or whatever else you want to  call it will guide him in his decision making . Liberty is not license, but freedom from the government so as to allow personal choice.

Liberals, by disparaging religion, relativizing morality, and encouraging indulgence in anything that feels good have destroyed all the guideposts that men have always used to make moral choices, and in their place have left the void of the First Amendment, which says you can say anything you want. Thus Colme's relentless harping on the the perceived "chill" that Liberals lament whenever anyone criticizes their thoughtless rants.

Is he so stupid as to believe the enemy would not find solace and motivation in hearing Americans decry the war and demand retreat?  Unfortunately I didn't hear Gingrich ask him that, because I would love to hear his answer. Perhaps he thinks the enemy will be so impressed by the tolerant Liberal environment which allows what should be considered treasonous actions to be aired that they will surrender? Or not.

As your children grow older you allow them more and more "freedom", hoping that all you've taught them will guide them to do the right thing, even when that means they have to deny themselves something. This is a lesson Liberals have yet to learn, and their poor upbringing is endangering us all.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Sound and Fury" Journalism

Posted by JDComments on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:21:50 PM
This post's title alludes to the fact that this particular article makes a totally unsubstantiated claim which seems to herald good news for the French, but which actually may show that the demographic time bomb in their midst may be exploding, and their Liberal aspirations prevent them from knowing this.  Thus the good news it seeks to trumpet signifies nothing.

That  "good" news is the country's rising birthrate, bucking a European trend which may harbinger a not too distant future when that continent crumbles from a declining population insufficient to support it's socialist welfare policies .

However, France has one of the biggest Muslim populations in Europe, a fecund group which is only too happy to procreate to fill the jihadist army. If the exploding population consists of predominantly future suicide bombers than France may be sowing its own destruction as a Christian nation,  a status which has allowed it to indulge in its Leftist, rationalist fantasies pretty much unscathed. All those potential mullahs running around in the street may change that in a few decades.

However, there is no way to know if this is the case becasue in the article's own words:

This can't be proven by statistics since, in the name of French "égalité," French statistics do not take account of race or national origin.

Yes, in the name of political correctness the French cannot even know if they harbor in their midst the burgeoning beginnings of a population explosion that may change them irreparably for the worse.

This reporter is sure that the native French are responsible for the increasing birthrate, and makes some lame attempts to justify this based on what he sees in the street and that wonderful paternalism which encapsulates the country in a cocoon which is slowly strangling them. Sorry if I don't share his confidence that all of a sudden the French have decided to repopulate their country with patriotic denizens. Commonsense tells me this is highly  unlikely, and the more likely scenario is that France is on its way to being Syria West.

And if their ignominious behavior in WWI and WWII tarnished the French reputation for survival, what can you say about them now when they may be raising in blissful ignorance their next conquerors?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Overwhelming Victory Depicted as Near Debacle

Posted by JDComments on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:33:23 AM
 Read this article from the NYT about the weekend battle in Najaf and you will find that:

Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity of an obscure renegade militia

Certainly doesn't sound very promising for the good guys thats for sure.

Fortunately a little later in the piece we find out:

The Iraqis and Americans eventually prevailed in the battle

Whew, that was a close one. But just how close was it? Well:

Government estimates of the number of fighters killed ranged from 120 to 400.An Iraqi military official said at least 25 security force members were killed in the battle.

Every other article I have read has put the total insurgents death between 250 and 300. And even this piece says the leader of the group was also killed.

Does that sound like a near rout of coalition forces to you? Put another way, what would it take for this reporter to decide it was an overwhelming victory for the Iraqi and American governments?

The impression I take away from reading this is that the anti-war bias is so strong in the MSM that even victories have to be disparaged lest they give encouragement to those who still believe we can win in Iraq.

As Nancy Pelosi has managed to muddle beyond recognition the definition of victory in this war, so the MSM does it's part by obfuscating the successes which are occurring everyday in the conflict.

We are reaching the point where failure is claimed because triumph will not be accepted under any circumstances. Loss will be declared because nothing is acknowledged as victory.

Joseph Goebbels, who described the German "victory" as the Allies decimated Berlin, couldn't do a better job than our free press of fabricating a "reality" that is anything but.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why We Are Not "Over Reacting"

Posted by JDComments on Monday, January 29, 2007 5:34:11 PM
The article In the LA TImes by David Bell that makes the argument that we are overreacting to the attacks of 9/11 in a time honored fashion that is out of proportion to the actual threat posed by the Islamic Fascists is predicated on the physical harm posed to the US. As such it is nearsighted, and misses the true danger that we are currently facing , which is indeed a mortal one.

Even if we accept Bell's presumption that terrorists can never really offer a severe  physical existential threat to the US, and that is a tremendous leap of faith considering the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world today,  the Islamic jihad has the capability of doing considerably more damage to us than any explosion, no matter how big, could.

Simply put, they can cut off our life blood, which is oil.  Imagine a world with $200 a barrel oil, and $8 a gallon gasoline, with people freezing to death in the NorthEast, while every item made of, or transported by, oil is skyrocketing in price, and you begin to understand the true threat we are facing.

As much as the Left looks down upon any mention of "war for oil" as if they were discussing their hired help's dirty laundry, without oil our economy simply stops- period. The industrial age is really the age of energy, and for good or bad we have made oil the key ingredient in the founding of our modern society.

Now imagine the Middle East roiled by a nuclear Iran  dominating Iraq while Hezbollah is attacking Israel and undermining Lebanon and AL Quaeda is blowing up Saudi petroleum facilities. All this while the Chinese and Indian appetite for oil is skyrocketing. 

Even without political upheaval oil is destined to increase in price. With a jihad seeking to destroy the status quo- it is a nightmare scenario.

If Bell doesn't understand that the Terrorists have it within their power to bring us to our knees unless we defeat them in Iraq and the Middle East, then I guess he believes we have achieved that Liberal Utopia he mentions where war is no longer an option.

Unfortunately it will bear a great resemblance to the Middle Ages in terms of industry and living standards, with the slight difference that instead of attending churches, we may all be required to pray five times a day towards Mecca.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Racial "Profiling Ban Must be Stopped

Posted by JDComments on Sunday, January 28, 2007 1:04:19 PM
As expected, the Libs are seriously considering a "racial profiling "ban [see article ].

The problem is that it is not a racially based corrective at all, but  instead:

Feingold's last bill would have banned federal, state and local law enforcement officials from "relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion" during investigations.

It sounds wonderfully idealistic, but it is totally wrong in rationale, and will be extremely harmful to the War on Terror.

First, the rationale problem. Racial profiling is abhorrent because it equates a person's race with his behavior, beliefs, capabilities and other traits which have nothing to do with the color of his skin. Thus racial profiling says that because these are erroneous conclusions, profiling people based on race is wrong and therefore illegal.

However, national origin, religion and ideological beliefs are correlatable with behavior, and indicative of the actions of the person. Choosing Islam as your religion says alot about you, and since we are in a war against miltiant Islam being waged specifically by Arab males, any attempt to disallow religious beliefs or ethnicity from being a factor in an investigation is more than just marginally wrong, it is criminally wrong.

If we allow the Dems to pass this it would be tantamount to saying we could not shoot German soldiers in WWII just because they were German, and will be a huge step back in protecting ourselves.

The Liberal need to appear moral and highminded must not be paid for by our vulnerability. This bill must never see the light of day.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Buchanan Misunderstands "Ideological " War

Posted by JDComments on Saturday, January 27, 2007 2:18:48 PM
 Pat Buchanan is a true Conservative, one of whose basic tenets is you cannot seek to impose a new system on people in the quest for their  improvement. Actually that is the reason Conservatism arose in 18th century England as it sought to resist the undercurrents from the French Revolution's "jihad" for populist liberty.

In being true to this, Buchanan has consistently faulted the Bush Administration for the Iraqi war, which he describes as "ideological". As he points out, democracy was, and is, exploited by fanatics from Hitler to Hamas  to attain power and wreak havoc. In other words, in seeking to instill freedom in the Middle East we better be careful for what we wish for because we might get it.

Having said this, I still think Buchanan is missing the big picture.

First of all, all wars are "ideological" in that there must be a cause that incites the aggression. Nazism and communism are two of the easier examples to point to, but it has always been so, going back to Ancient Greece and the conflicts between the socialistic militarism of Sparta versus the democracy of Athens. People fight over ideas.

The battle with Islam is no different.

Whether or not we should be pursuing an ideological solution to this conflict is another matter, and here many disagree with the Administration.

I have posted on this before, pointing out that there is really only two ways to proceed against the IslamoFascists, and that is either trying to "free" them and replace bullets with ballots to use a facile phrase, or to wage a hegemonic war of extermination, in which we seek to destroy the opposing ideology, as we did in WWII.

Considering the options, I think Bush was more than humane in trying the former first in a valiant effort to resist a war that could literally result in millions of deaths. So much for trying to do the nice thing.

And it is in the inevitability of this war that I think Buchanan is really out of touch with the situation, in that he subscribes to the belief that it is our presence in the Middle East, along with Israel ,that is the problem, and therefore if we leave all will be fine. This is an example of  the ossification in thinking that gives Conservatism a bad name.

 IslamoFascism has nothing to do with our being in the Middle East and all withdrawing would do is leave an area strategically vital to us in the hands of fanatics seeking our destruction. It would be almost unimaginable to consider our retreat , and yet that seems to be Buchanan's position.

Radical, imperialistic Islam has been on the rise since the Wahhabi sect in Saudi Arabia early in the 20th century. The Iranian revolution in 1979, the victory, with our aid ,against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the debacle in Mogadishu in the 1990's and all the ensuing terrorists acts  culminating in 9/11 have all fed the fervor and confidence of this movement. Our presence in the Middle East has nothing to do with it other than casting a little more fuel on an already rampaging fire, while allowing us to project our force and influence matters.

Leaving Iraq now would be the greatest triumph to date for this group of miscreants from the Middle Ages, and the fallout is horrible to contemplate.

Buchanan makes some good points about the possible futility of democracy amongst these people, but to preach cut and run, and our responsibility for their disgruntlement and the predicament we are in , is just as willfully blind as the nonsense issued by the Liberals, who at least are cynically using the war for their electoral advantage, whereas Buchanan comes across as sincere if entirely wrong.

We are at war with a ruthless enemy seeking our subjugation or destruction. Running is not, and never is, the answer, especially against an opponent who prizes strength above all else.

Buchanan's view may have  been appropriate when the oceans afforded us protection, and horses were the main implements of mobile war, but that is no longer the case.

Pat, the world has passed you by, and its time for you to realize that for all our sakes.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Peaceful"Palestinians Continue to Kill One Another

Posted by JDComments on Saturday, January 27, 2007 12:15:29 PM
As civil war continues in Gaza [even if Matt Lauer has not officially declared it yet], the Palestinians continue to demonstrate why all those who continue to blame Israel for the problems in the Middle East are fools.

As Hamas and Fatah escalate their attacks on one another,  Hezbollah incites revolution in Lebanon, and the Shia and Sunnis in Iraq play "Can you top this" with the deaths of innocent bystanders, the unmitigated lies propagated by people like Jimmy Carter and the ISG which seek the source of all the problems in the region in the Israeli 'oppression" of the peaceful Palestinian "refugees" who only want to have a place to hang their AK-47's should be discredited as the nonsense they have always been.

Unfortunately that is not the case.

Like the specter of "racism" in this country, the Israeli "occupation" has become a foundation stone of Liberal dogma, and any attempt at using reality to undermine it is brushed aside with casual disdain. The Left has so much invested in perpetuating these sham charges that to accept their invalidity is just too painful.

And they accuse the Conservatives of being the party that never changes!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Europeans Have Surrendered

Posted by JDComments on Friday, January 26, 2007 12:55:52 PM
 An article  on Spiegel Online scathingly indicts the Europeans,and to some degree the US, for essentially conceding defeat to the Muslim world in the war they are waging against tolerance and freedom. It is a harrowing recitation of the evidence of the weakness of the West, and points to its inevitable defeat by the Islamic extremists who understand well the nature of their enemy, and their propensity for appeasement and surrender.

In addtion to the usual comparisons with the negotiations in 1938 with Hitler, the author, Henryk M. Broder , documents how some European socialists are now trying to equate their philosophy with Islam in a perverse attempt to make the European abdication acceptable.

Considering how the Left in this country has more often compared Evangelical Christianity with Islam in order to disparage the former, it will be interesting to see if a "flip flop" occurs and they begin expounding the views of their European brethren anytime soon. Perhaps Rosie O'Donnell will begin hiding herself in a burkha [an idea which Ann Coulter feels may be the only saving grace of a victory by the Islamists].

This is a harrowing, depressing piece which is, unfortunately, all too accurate. The description of the willful blindeness of the Left as they try to survive against an opponent which they so obviously fear reads like a mass psychosis, which it basically is.

However, the question of why a culture which has dominated the world for over 500 years,and which has been battling Islam since Charlemagne's grandfather defeated their attempts to spread from Spain 1300 years ago,  has now devolved into a whimpering, cloying weakling whose only recourse is to hope their defeat can be postponed, like a man on death row seeking a delay , is not really addressed.

The answer should be evident, and yet because it is so intertwined with European self identity , it cannot be accepted.

Simply put,  the tolerance, multiculturalism, relativism, and atheism which Europeans so proudly claim as proof of their moral and intellectual superiority has also undercut their exceptionalism and ambition, resulting in a mindset which paralyzes itself with rationality and excuses when faced with a foe whose fervor and certainty of its destiny provides it with the energy to overcome all in its path.

Throughout history ,men have been motivated by faith, emotion, and visceral desires, those things which bypass the rational to tap the hidden, unconscious forces which truly change the world.

The greatest speakers in history, whether Pericles in classical Greece or Hitler, do not win over crowds with logic and reasoning, but by appealing to their patriotism, beliefs and feelings.

The Europeans have sterilized themselves into impotency by sacrificing all this to rationality and fairmindedness. As a result they no longer understand why they should fight,and so they do not.

The last bastion in the West still capable of believing in their exceptionalism is led by the US, along with Australia, Israel, and perhaps Britain.

If the Liberals there succeed in emasculating us as well, then it truly will be time to , as Broder says, turn on the answering machine announcing "we surrender". Perhaps we can use the French recording which they have been playing for decades.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Economic Inequality Debunked

Posted by JDComments on Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:54:34 PM
Tyler Cowen, a professor at George Mason University, has written an interesting piece which totally disparages that great Liberal shibboleth of increasing income inequality in the US which they use as an indictment of capitalism. Surprisingly, it appears in the NYT [which proves even a broken clock is right twice a day] and is a refreshing breath of fresh air against the stale arguments which the Paul Krugmans of the world espouse.

The article is well worth reading, and includes several different arguments which prove that the "gap" in incomes is a lot more complicated, and not nearly as large, as is routinely depicted.

It ends with the following:

The broader philosophical question is why we should worry about inequality — of any kind — much at all. Life is not a race against fellow human beings, and we should discourage people from treating it as such.

What matters most is how well people are doing in absolute terms. We should continue to improve opportunities for lower-income people, but inequality as a major and chronic American problem has been overstated.

I have posted several times on the same idea, but never expressed it so well.

As much as the Liberals need and seek their "causes" to champion to justify their existence,  here is something they are creating from whole cloth, and the fact that it is specious does not stop it from being a caustic factor in our society, resulting in animosity and frictions which are unjustified and should not exist.

As usual, in the name of creating a "better" world, the Liberals succeed in achieving just the opposite and we all pay the price for it.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Our Delethalization of War Continues

Posted by JDComments on Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:04:06 PM
In our quest for "humane" warfare, the military is now testing a "ray "gun that causes its target to feel hot, but not actually be hurt.  Added to the technology which allows surgical strikes, pretty soon armed conflict will be just slightly more dangerous than a paintball match- and that is the problem.

As we continue to delethalize war,  what we are actually doing is disarming  and incapacitating our ability to defend ourselves, for war without the threat of death and destruction is impotent, as we are finding out in Iraq.

To see this, we must understand what war is- another form the battle of wills takes. In negotiations, that battle is decided by compromise. In war, it is resolved by the imposition of the victor's will.

To achieve that,  the other side's determination must be broken, and the threat of being killed is the predominant way this is achieved. Even the destruction of property is not alone sufficient to bring about victory, as the failure of the London Blitz proved. Only the very real possibility and actuality of death achieves this.

As proof, just look at what the daily body bag count from Iraq has done to the American spirit. Does anyone believe if no one was dying over there that the animus against the war would be so extreme?

And there is the irony- as our enemy seeks to kill more and more people, knowing the effect this has, we try to limit the damage we do with the result that the greatest military force in the world is proving ineffective in subduing a ragtag group of miscreants.

Our humanity , which we take such pride in, is actually our Achilles' heel, stopping us from perfroming in the way we should to achieve our aims in Iraq. The failure to kill, and even to truly threaten, the enemy with death is perceived as weakness, and extends the conflict indefinitely.  Thus our striving for the humane actually leads to prolong suffering, and more casualties for our side.

So when I read about harmless ray guns and the like, I don't have visions of Buck Rogers in my head, or images of peacefully defeating enemy combatants. What I see is our foes laughing at us as they realize we are not trying to harm them, while they are doing their best to slaughter us.

And that is not war, but suicide for us.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234567891011Next »