Bobby Labonte got an unexpected win in the NASCAR-Busch Series at Talladega Superspeedway.
He won the Aaron's 312 on an exciting last turn pass of former teammate Tony Stewart, during a green-white-checkered flag finish after a late caution. Labonte, who is the only driver to win both a Busch Series title (1991) and a Nextel Cup title (2000), had not won a Busch race since 1998. The finish was made even more exciting as his Dollar General Monte Carlo blew its engine as it crossed the finish line.
Watch the finish here and the celebration in victory lane here.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Et tu, Mr. Tenet?
George Tenet, the former CIA Director, is making the rounds of talk shows and the like, in order to promote his book, At the Center of the Storm. As have so many opportunistic ex-administration officials before him, Tenet has chosen to pump up sales by claiming that he was wronged by the President and Vice-President with regard to the "leaking" of his comment that finding WMD in Iraq would be a "slam dunk".
He now claims that his comment was taken out of context and did not relate to WMD. He further said that the "leaking" of that comment was the "most despicable" thing that ever happened to him in his years of public service.
Despicable is a good word to use with regard to Tenet. A holdover from the Clinton Administration, he never saw eye-to-eye with President Bush. Clearly he did little to prevent anti-administration CIA officials from taking various steps detrimental to the President, including leaking sensitive information regarding national security operations. While it does not appear that he had a direct role in sending Joe Wilson to Niger, he certainly knew of and/or directed the Justice Department referral into the alleged Valarie Plame "outing", despite the fact that her "covert" status (or lack thereof) did not support prosecution of any crime.
Most hypocritically, he calmly accepted the Medal of Freedom from the President (picture above). I don't remember any complaints being aired at that point.
Victor Davis Hanson expresses similar questions about Tenet's revisionism in this article posted at the National Review Online. Hanson quotes Tenet from a pre-war Washington Post interview wherein he reiterated his certainty about finding WMD:
“CIA Director George J. Tenet, questioned about the value of ongoing inspections by the United Nations, said there is “little chance you’ll find weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq unless Hussein cooperates with inspectors. On the other hand, Tenet said he would expect U.S. troops “will find caches of weapons of mass destruction, absolutely,” were they to invade the country."
The interview (quotes from which Hanson's article excerpted) also included Tenet making the Iraq/al-Qaeda connection through Abu Musab Zarqawi (the now dead leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq). Tenet clearly saw Zarqawi as a threat. Hanson subtly points out that Tenet wants credit for his good call on Zarqawi but wants to distance himself from his bad prediction on WMD.
Here's my prediction, Tenet will be viewed as a hero by fever-swamp liberals, who, before his conversion, hated him for helping the administration make the case for war in Iraq. The truth is that Tenet is just another opportunistic back-stabber who decided to cash in while he could. So much for public service and loyalty.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Sheep to the Slaughter?
Marc Danziger has written an interesting article regarding the fact that Virginia Tech students took little, if any, action to defend themselves from the murderous assault of the deranged S. H. Cho.
His point was not that the students were weak or cowardly, but rather that the "training" they received in how to deal with such a crisis failed them. He argues for a new "doctrine" that may help the next would-be victims avoid the same fate.
He compared the Va. Tech situation with the change in "doctrine" for handling an airline hijacking after 9/11:
"Sept. 11, 2001, was not a failure of our security systems, but rather a failure of doctrine. “Doctrine” is defined as a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions. On Sept. 10, 2001, we had a standard doctrine about response to aircraft hijackings.
The passengers and crew should be compliant, not confront the hijackers, minimize exposure to violence and get the plane onto the ground, where negotiations or intervention would resolve the issue."
As Danziger points out, the doctrine has now changed:
"No passenger airplane will be hijacked again anytime soon except by multiple hijackers with guns — and possibly not even then."
Its an interesting point. I for one would like to think I'd be willing to go down fighting. But its easy to be an arm-chair quarterback. Who knows how any of us would react to such a horrible situation.
His point was not that the students were weak or cowardly, but rather that the "training" they received in how to deal with such a crisis failed them. He argues for a new "doctrine" that may help the next would-be victims avoid the same fate.
He compared the Va. Tech situation with the change in "doctrine" for handling an airline hijacking after 9/11:
"Sept. 11, 2001, was not a failure of our security systems, but rather a failure of doctrine. “Doctrine” is defined as a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions. On Sept. 10, 2001, we had a standard doctrine about response to aircraft hijackings.
The passengers and crew should be compliant, not confront the hijackers, minimize exposure to violence and get the plane onto the ground, where negotiations or intervention would resolve the issue."
As Danziger points out, the doctrine has now changed:
"No passenger airplane will be hijacked again anytime soon except by multiple hijackers with guns — and possibly not even then."
Its an interesting point. I for one would like to think I'd be willing to go down fighting. But its easy to be an arm-chair quarterback. Who knows how any of us would react to such a horrible situation.
Bobby and Spidey at Talladega
Bobby Labonte brings the Cheerio's/Betty Crocker Dodge to Talledaga this weekend.
Bobby's coming off a year's best 8th place finish at Phoenix last week. He and his crew are very excited to get to NASCAR's biggest super-speedway for the Aaron's 499. The 2.66 mile Alabama track is the fastest on the NASCAR circuit. This weekend, Bobby is hoping to keep moving up in the Nextel Cup Chase points standings.
He'll be getting some help from an unlikely source, Spiderman. The 43 will be specially dressed up in connection with the debut of the Spiderman III movie, coming out soon.
Bobby's coming off a year's best 8th place finish at Phoenix last week. He and his crew are very excited to get to NASCAR's biggest super-speedway for the Aaron's 499. The 2.66 mile Alabama track is the fastest on the NASCAR circuit. This weekend, Bobby is hoping to keep moving up in the Nextel Cup Chase points standings.
He'll be getting some help from an unlikely source, Spiderman. The 43 will be specially dressed up in connection with the debut of the Spiderman III movie, coming out soon.
Good luck Bobby!
Its There, If We Want To See It
Tony Blankley, writing in the Washington Times (and reprinted at Real Clear Politics) asks if there is "handwriting on the wall" when it comes to the threat posed by Islamic radicals. He points out that our society has broken into two camps on this issue:
"It would appear that the great divide in both public opinion and between politicians is not Republican-Democrat, liberal-conservative, pro or anti-Bush, or even pro or anti-war (or, in Europe: pro-or anti-American). Rather, the great divide is between those, such as me, who believe that the rise of radical Islam poses an existential threat to Western Civilization; and those who believe it is a nuisance, if, episodically, a very dangerous nuisance."
Blankley goes on to state that the views of each group have hardened into immutable beliefs which are beyond persuasion and that reasonable debate on these issues has become difficult, if not impossible:
"To those who disagree with our view of reality, we are quite ready to impute anything from ignorance, to willful ignorance, to moral cowardice to treason. Those who disagree with us find our alarmism as noxious as we find their willful blindness to reality."
His ultimate conclusion is that only time will tell:
"Thus, while others and I will continue to make our case in public, it seems probably inevitable that the correctness or incorrectness of our views will only become persuasive to the multitude when history teaches its cruel, unavoidable lessons. It was ever thus, which is why history is strewed with broken nations and civilizations that couldn't read the writing on the wall. Of course, it is also strewed with sad hulks of false predictors of doom."
I think he has really hit on something that explains the stridency of the disagreements on these issues. Obviously, I am firmly in Blankley's camp, believing that we must confront, rather than parley with Islamic radicals. In any event, it is well worth the read.
"It would appear that the great divide in both public opinion and between politicians is not Republican-Democrat, liberal-conservative, pro or anti-Bush, or even pro or anti-war (or, in Europe: pro-or anti-American). Rather, the great divide is between those, such as me, who believe that the rise of radical Islam poses an existential threat to Western Civilization; and those who believe it is a nuisance, if, episodically, a very dangerous nuisance."
Blankley goes on to state that the views of each group have hardened into immutable beliefs which are beyond persuasion and that reasonable debate on these issues has become difficult, if not impossible:
"To those who disagree with our view of reality, we are quite ready to impute anything from ignorance, to willful ignorance, to moral cowardice to treason. Those who disagree with us find our alarmism as noxious as we find their willful blindness to reality."
His ultimate conclusion is that only time will tell:
"Thus, while others and I will continue to make our case in public, it seems probably inevitable that the correctness or incorrectness of our views will only become persuasive to the multitude when history teaches its cruel, unavoidable lessons. It was ever thus, which is why history is strewed with broken nations and civilizations that couldn't read the writing on the wall. Of course, it is also strewed with sad hulks of false predictors of doom."
I think he has really hit on something that explains the stridency of the disagreements on these issues. Obviously, I am firmly in Blankley's camp, believing that we must confront, rather than parley with Islamic radicals. In any event, it is well worth the read.
Dictionary of Poltical Correctness
Bill Otis of the ACRU Blog has begun a Dictionary wherein he "defines" politically correct" (or, incorrect, depending upon your perspective) words and phrases. Its quite funny and worth looking at all the early entries. Otis indicates that he will continue to add "definitions" and invited readers to make submissions.
Here are a couple of the initial "definitions":
Diversity - Diversity is an outcome that (1) can't be defended on its own merit and (2) therefore has to be glommed together with a bunch of other things so that people won't notice fact (1). Thus, when an academically less qualified minority group member is given a slot in the entering class over a non-minority group member with demonstrably better academic skills, this is "justified" because, "taken as a whole," it gives the incoming class "diversity."
Multiculturalism - Multiculturalism is a big word meaning, "The West stinks." The shorthand version is, "America stinks." Under multiculturalism, George Washington, a slave-owning white male with no accomplishments of note, is out, and Che Guevara, an anti-imperialist leader, is in.
Go to the Blog for a few more. The site is interesting in its own right.
(Hat-tip to PowerLine)
Here are a couple of the initial "definitions":
Diversity - Diversity is an outcome that (1) can't be defended on its own merit and (2) therefore has to be glommed together with a bunch of other things so that people won't notice fact (1). Thus, when an academically less qualified minority group member is given a slot in the entering class over a non-minority group member with demonstrably better academic skills, this is "justified" because, "taken as a whole," it gives the incoming class "diversity."
Multiculturalism - Multiculturalism is a big word meaning, "The West stinks." The shorthand version is, "America stinks." Under multiculturalism, George Washington, a slave-owning white male with no accomplishments of note, is out, and Che Guevara, an anti-imperialist leader, is in.
Go to the Blog for a few more. The site is interesting in its own right.
(Hat-tip to PowerLine)
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Unintended(?) Consequenses
A corollary to the previous post deals with the specific issue of the personal use of town vehicles.
The Democrat and Chronicle story on this topic was mainly intended as part of its metro government agenda. But inasmuch as I am a cynic when it comes to these things, I can't help but wonder if there wasn't something more to it.
First, the story only really dealt with cars used by Supervisors in three towns, Gates, Greece, and Webster. Why not throw in Brighton and Irondequoit? Both of those towns, like the three mentioned in the story, have police departments. The supervisors of those towns both have town vehicles for personal use. Is is possible that they were not mentioned because those towns have Democrat supervisors?
UPDATE: 4/26/07
I owe the D&C an apology on this point. I learned that the Supervisors in Brighton and Irondequoit gave up their cars. Ms. Frankel apparently made refusing the car a campaign promise; Ms. Heyman gave hers up after a few months in office. So there was no mystery. Mea Culpa.
Further, the Democrats in Gates have tried to exploit the fact that Supervisor Esposito has a town vehicle, for political purposes. Up to now, the issue hasn't had much traction, being seen by most for what it is, a cheap political ploy intended to create ill will against Esposito in the public. Now, however, in light of this article, personal use of a town vehicle is being viewed as an unnecessary "perk".
I happen to view this as an unfortunate development. Rather than looking at an elected official's car as part of his or her overall compensation, we are led to look at the car in a vacuum and think of it as an inappropriate "benny". Has anyone looked at the Supervisor's overall compensation relative to other Supervisors of large towns in Monroe County? Is Ralph's salary and non-monetary compensation (health insurance, disability, town vehicle cost, etc.) excessive relative to those others or to public officials in the county generally? G-C School Superintendent Stein gets a car as part of his compensation, as do most school superintendents (to go along with their six-figure salaries). Will we ask them all to give up their cars, too?
The Democrats in Gates have tried to get voters to focus on a number of bogus issues so that they don't get the true picture. They have focused on tax rates rather than average taxes, in an effort to suggest that Gates' government is inefficient. Democrat Treasurer Ross likes to say that a taxpayer in Brighton pays less taxes on a $100,000 house than a Gates taxpayer does because our tax rate is higher. He never explains how this is possible given the fact that the Town of Brighton spends millions more than the Town of Gates and raises millions more from its tax levy. His example ignores the fact that in Brighton the taxes paid by owners of much more valuable real estate subsidize the $100,000 homeowner, while Gates must make do with much lower assessed valuation.
The car issue is the same; a red herring intended to rile people up so they won't notice that Ralph Esposito is one of the lowest paid full-time Supervisors in the county, despite his years of experience in government. Rather than looking at the car cost in a vacuum, the people of Gates should consider it as part of Ralph's total compensation, and then compare total compensation for Supervisors, before chastising him for having a town vehicle. In fact, a close look at municipal salaries will reveal that the employees of the Town of Gates are modestly compensated relative to their counterparts in other Towns. This is information that I hope will be brought to the voters to counter the D&C's anti-town agenda and the Democrats' political opportunism.
That brings me back to my original point. I don't want to go "tin-foil hat" here, but it almost seems like there is coordination between the D&C and our Democrat opponents. The Gates Blogger had stories on tax rates and town vehicles within 24 hours of each story appearing in the print D&C. His take on both stories is very sympathetic to the Gates Dems positions. Hmmm...... I wonder...... nah, it can't be. Or can it?
The Democrat and Chronicle story on this topic was mainly intended as part of its metro government agenda. But inasmuch as I am a cynic when it comes to these things, I can't help but wonder if there wasn't something more to it.
First, the story only really dealt with cars used by Supervisors in three towns, Gates, Greece, and Webster. Why not throw in Brighton and Irondequoit? Both of those towns, like the three mentioned in the story, have police departments. The supervisors of those towns both have town vehicles for personal use. Is is possible that they were not mentioned because those towns have Democrat supervisors?
UPDATE: 4/26/07
I owe the D&C an apology on this point. I learned that the Supervisors in Brighton and Irondequoit gave up their cars. Ms. Frankel apparently made refusing the car a campaign promise; Ms. Heyman gave hers up after a few months in office. So there was no mystery. Mea Culpa.
Further, the Democrats in Gates have tried to exploit the fact that Supervisor Esposito has a town vehicle, for political purposes. Up to now, the issue hasn't had much traction, being seen by most for what it is, a cheap political ploy intended to create ill will against Esposito in the public. Now, however, in light of this article, personal use of a town vehicle is being viewed as an unnecessary "perk".
I happen to view this as an unfortunate development. Rather than looking at an elected official's car as part of his or her overall compensation, we are led to look at the car in a vacuum and think of it as an inappropriate "benny". Has anyone looked at the Supervisor's overall compensation relative to other Supervisors of large towns in Monroe County? Is Ralph's salary and non-monetary compensation (health insurance, disability, town vehicle cost, etc.) excessive relative to those others or to public officials in the county generally? G-C School Superintendent Stein gets a car as part of his compensation, as do most school superintendents (to go along with their six-figure salaries). Will we ask them all to give up their cars, too?
The Democrats in Gates have tried to get voters to focus on a number of bogus issues so that they don't get the true picture. They have focused on tax rates rather than average taxes, in an effort to suggest that Gates' government is inefficient. Democrat Treasurer Ross likes to say that a taxpayer in Brighton pays less taxes on a $100,000 house than a Gates taxpayer does because our tax rate is higher. He never explains how this is possible given the fact that the Town of Brighton spends millions more than the Town of Gates and raises millions more from its tax levy. His example ignores the fact that in Brighton the taxes paid by owners of much more valuable real estate subsidize the $100,000 homeowner, while Gates must make do with much lower assessed valuation.
The car issue is the same; a red herring intended to rile people up so they won't notice that Ralph Esposito is one of the lowest paid full-time Supervisors in the county, despite his years of experience in government. Rather than looking at the car cost in a vacuum, the people of Gates should consider it as part of Ralph's total compensation, and then compare total compensation for Supervisors, before chastising him for having a town vehicle. In fact, a close look at municipal salaries will reveal that the employees of the Town of Gates are modestly compensated relative to their counterparts in other Towns. This is information that I hope will be brought to the voters to counter the D&C's anti-town agenda and the Democrats' political opportunism.
That brings me back to my original point. I don't want to go "tin-foil hat" here, but it almost seems like there is coordination between the D&C and our Democrat opponents. The Gates Blogger had stories on tax rates and town vehicles within 24 hours of each story appearing in the print D&C. His take on both stories is very sympathetic to the Gates Dems positions. Hmmm...... I wonder...... nah, it can't be. Or can it?
Metro Redux
The Democrat and Chronicle is in full agenda mode. As I wrote in a March post, the D&C is on a mission to resurrect Metro government as part of its campaign to damage Maggie Brooks and "save" the City of Rochester.
We have seen a parade of articles on the wasteful, duplicative, and costly nature of local governments. First the article on tax rates, then the attacks on special districts, especially fire districts. Now we have the article on Town auto fleets and "take-home" cars. The purpose of all of these articles is the same; to convince us that we should give up our nostalgic but out-dated affinity for local government.
I am sure that reasonable people would agree that consolidation of some local government services makes sense. There are a number of examples of this type of inter-municipal cooperation in Monroe County. But the D&C and their "expert" friends at the Center for Governmental Research are suggesting something much more far-reaching. They want to eliminate Towns entirely in favor of Metro government. This is their big solution to our problem of over-taxation in New York.
The problem with this theory is simple. The main cause of over-taxation in New York emanates from our State government in Albany, not our local governments. It is clear to anyone paying attention that the State Government is dysfunctional and out-of-control. It is certainly beyond the control of average citizens like us. The State Legislature has gerrymandered itself into fiefdoms making incumbency a virtual guaranty of victory in November. These entrenched politicos have no need to restrain themselves from voting to spend as much as possible to try to further ensure their re-election.
But, do we read a series of articles critical of the State government. No, instead we have a sustained effort to convince us that the one level of government we do control should be done away with. It stands logic on its head!
Can most of us name more than a handful of State programs which we really want or we believe are efficient and beneficial? On the other hand, we all know the specific services provided by our local governments as well as the costs of those services. We have all been to Town meetings where this or that program or issue was debated. The will of the people carries the day most of the time in that setting. Can we say the same for our State government? Is it a good idea to eliminate local government in favor of a larger, more distant, less personal, regional or metro government? I certainly don't think so.
So why, then, does the D&C push the metro agenda? There appear to be three reasons.
First, the editorial board of the D&C is a basically liberal group. Liberals always support bigger government. Bigger government can "take care" of all of our problems (at least in liberals' minds).
Second, the D&C knows that the City of Rochester is broken, perhaps beyond repair. The only way to save the City is to bring in new resources of people and tax revenue. Since the efforts to bring new residents into the city have failed, the D&C's solution is to "take the city to the people". A metro government would, by necessity, be a City focused government, drawing resources out of the former suburbs into the central city where years of mis-management and neglect have left vast and largely intractable problems.
Finally, there is the political aspect. A metro government would break down the City-suburb political barriers. This would allow the Democrats to take control of the entire County of Monroe. I hope I'm not surprising you readers by suggesting that the D&C favors Democrats!
Thirty-odd years ago, the voters of Monroe County rejected the first try at metro government by voting down a metro police plan. The D&C has been firing the opening salvos of the next metro battle. I can only hope that people see through the agenda and vote to keep the government they want.
We have seen a parade of articles on the wasteful, duplicative, and costly nature of local governments. First the article on tax rates, then the attacks on special districts, especially fire districts. Now we have the article on Town auto fleets and "take-home" cars. The purpose of all of these articles is the same; to convince us that we should give up our nostalgic but out-dated affinity for local government.
I am sure that reasonable people would agree that consolidation of some local government services makes sense. There are a number of examples of this type of inter-municipal cooperation in Monroe County. But the D&C and their "expert" friends at the Center for Governmental Research are suggesting something much more far-reaching. They want to eliminate Towns entirely in favor of Metro government. This is their big solution to our problem of over-taxation in New York.
The problem with this theory is simple. The main cause of over-taxation in New York emanates from our State government in Albany, not our local governments. It is clear to anyone paying attention that the State Government is dysfunctional and out-of-control. It is certainly beyond the control of average citizens like us. The State Legislature has gerrymandered itself into fiefdoms making incumbency a virtual guaranty of victory in November. These entrenched politicos have no need to restrain themselves from voting to spend as much as possible to try to further ensure their re-election.
But, do we read a series of articles critical of the State government. No, instead we have a sustained effort to convince us that the one level of government we do control should be done away with. It stands logic on its head!
Can most of us name more than a handful of State programs which we really want or we believe are efficient and beneficial? On the other hand, we all know the specific services provided by our local governments as well as the costs of those services. We have all been to Town meetings where this or that program or issue was debated. The will of the people carries the day most of the time in that setting. Can we say the same for our State government? Is it a good idea to eliminate local government in favor of a larger, more distant, less personal, regional or metro government? I certainly don't think so.
So why, then, does the D&C push the metro agenda? There appear to be three reasons.
First, the editorial board of the D&C is a basically liberal group. Liberals always support bigger government. Bigger government can "take care" of all of our problems (at least in liberals' minds).
Second, the D&C knows that the City of Rochester is broken, perhaps beyond repair. The only way to save the City is to bring in new resources of people and tax revenue. Since the efforts to bring new residents into the city have failed, the D&C's solution is to "take the city to the people". A metro government would, by necessity, be a City focused government, drawing resources out of the former suburbs into the central city where years of mis-management and neglect have left vast and largely intractable problems.
Finally, there is the political aspect. A metro government would break down the City-suburb political barriers. This would allow the Democrats to take control of the entire County of Monroe. I hope I'm not surprising you readers by suggesting that the D&C favors Democrats!
Thirty-odd years ago, the voters of Monroe County rejected the first try at metro government by voting down a metro police plan. The D&C has been firing the opening salvos of the next metro battle. I can only hope that people see through the agenda and vote to keep the government they want.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Win, Lose, or Draw
The Democrats and their continuing investment in defeat in Iraq, along with GOP support of the surge, were showcased in a story on remarks by Sen. Harry Reid reported in the New York Times. Reid continued the "no chance for victory" theme that has become the Democrats' mantra. The Times also reported the outrage felt by some Republicans in Congress who believe the Democrats are hurting troop morale.
Victor Davis Hanson chimed in on the topic with a short post in National Review Online. Hanson simply can't understand how Reid and the Democrats can declare the surge a failure when the full surge has not yet been implemented.
I guess he simply can't bring himself to accept the obvious: the Democrats would prefer a political victory over George Bush and the GOP to a military victory over al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Victor Davis Hanson chimed in on the topic with a short post in National Review Online. Hanson simply can't understand how Reid and the Democrats can declare the surge a failure when the full surge has not yet been implemented.
I guess he simply can't bring himself to accept the obvious: the Democrats would prefer a political victory over George Bush and the GOP to a military victory over al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Peace in Our Time (if they can get the votes)
I was just about to call it a night when I came across this item from tigerhawk.
The Democrats in Congress have introduced a bill to create a Federal Department of Peace. So that's how they're going to get everyone to get along. They are simply going to legislate peace. Gosh! It's so simple. Why didn't anybody think of this before?
The end note on the post says it all: "you can't make this up".
The Democrats in Congress have introduced a bill to create a Federal Department of Peace. So that's how they're going to get everyone to get along. They are simply going to legislate peace. Gosh! It's so simple. Why didn't anybody think of this before?
The end note on the post says it all: "you can't make this up".
The West That Was
Victor Davis Hanson relates his dream of the reaction of the Western world to al-Qaida, Iran, and radical Islam. Like so many others, he awakens to the reality that the decadence of our current society will be its undoing. Read his dream passage; here is his waking conclusion:
"And then I woke up, remembering that the West of old lives only in dreams. Yes, the new religion of the post-Westerner is neither the Enlightenment nor Christianity, but the gospel of the Path of Least Resistance — one that must lead inevitably to gratification rather than sacrifice."
"Once one understands this new creed, then all the surreal present at last makes sense: life in the contemporary West is so good, so free, so undemanding, that we will pay, say, and suffer almost anything to enjoy its uninterrupted continuance — and accordingly avoid almost any principled act that might endanger it."
"And then I woke up, remembering that the West of old lives only in dreams. Yes, the new religion of the post-Westerner is neither the Enlightenment nor Christianity, but the gospel of the Path of Least Resistance — one that must lead inevitably to gratification rather than sacrifice."
"Once one understands this new creed, then all the surreal present at last makes sense: life in the contemporary West is so good, so free, so undemanding, that we will pay, say, and suffer almost anything to enjoy its uninterrupted continuance — and accordingly avoid almost any principled act that might endanger it."
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Better Dhimmi Than Dead?
In the 50's and 60's there was a slogan that went something like "better red than dead". It was a saying used by many campus radicals , communists, and 'fellow travellers', meaning we would be better off if the communists took over than being killed in a nuclear holocaust trying to fight them.
Today we seem to be heading in a similar direction. It seems that we have had enough of the War in Iraq and the whole War on Terror for that matter. Speaker Pelosi's trip to the Mideast along with the seizure of British service people appear to have dotted the "i" on the issue. It is clearly deemed better to talk than to fight, to negotiate rather than to confront.I wonder though: Is there any foreign leader or regime that is too evil to negotiate with? Is there any point or thing worth fighting for or dying for? Apparently, Adolph Hitler was such a leader and the Nazi government of Germany such a regime. In 1938, Neville Chamberlain declared Hitler a "reasonable" fellow and one whom "we can talk to". By 1939, it had become clear that no words or treaties would be enough to constrain his bad behavior. The world came to the conclusion (very briefly, it now appears) that Saddam, the Taliban, Bin Laden and al-Qaida were also beyond talk.
So, what about Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Mullahs? Assad? Kim Jong Ill? Sadr? Hamas? Hezbollah? Can we talk with them? Can we negotiate with them? Should we? Can we trust that they are not simply using talk to sap our will to fight them while we are strong and they are weak? Oh, look at Iran, you say. See how negotiations got the British sailors back. Sure, Iran seizes 15 Britons, holds them hostage for a week or so and then lets them go, without explanation or apology. A brazen act of piracy on the high seas and no penalty imposed. This from the non-nuclear Iran. What can we expect after they get their nukes? Iran now knows that NATO and the EU are impotent, a lesson it already learned about the UN. Only the US stands in its way now and the US not for long.
Our citizens have become tired of this war. We just want out. We don't want to spend any more of our money and our soldiers lives on this "futile" cause. After all, there were no WMD and Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. If we just get out of Iraq, we can just go back to the way things were. Can't we? And, what about Afghanistan; remember, that's the place with the "legitimate" war. I'm sure the Islamic terrorists understand the distinction between that war and our mistaken "occupation" of Iraq.
Is it realistic to believe that the Islamic terrorists will let us alone if we get out of Iraq? What if we throw in having Israel return the Golan Heights to Syria? Do Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the other defeatist Democrats in Congress believe that? No, we all know better. But, we can't take the heat anymore. We can't suffer losses. We can't do anything that's hard. The Democrats in Congress have decided to ignore their responsibilities to protect the country for political gain by pandering to the public's loss of will to fight for what is right. It seems incredible that the example of Neville Chamberlain and the pre-WWII appeasers has been forgotten.
By the way, I do not excuse George W. Bush in this matter. He is most responsible for our situation. He understood the stakes and laid out the strategic vision in his speeches immediately after 9/11. For reasons I cannot comprehend, however, he failed to execute his strategy in a way that would ensure victory. First, he did not really explain the case for the broad war against the Islamic radicals and he did not do enough to ready the American public to accept the long-term commitment of our military and our treasury. Worse, he failed to fight the war fiercely and decisively, which against this enemy was the height of folly. The fact that Moqta al-Sadr still walks the planet is enough proof of this. I supported President Bush all the way on Iraq and the War on Terror; sadly history will judge him harshly for knowing what needed doing but failing to do it.
It now appears to me that the West is well on its way to acceptance of Dhimmitude. This is the situation of the non-believer who lives in the Moslem dominated world. Islamic Sharia law will be in force and the non-moslem (inferior) must abide by it on the pain of death. But, if you accept the premises of the left, fighting and dying are worse than anything else, so acceptance of Dhimmitude makes perfect sense.
I'm going too far, you think? Look at Europe today. The Brits never considered fighting to get their sailors back. In France, Moslem youths go on periodic rampages without reprisal. Al-Qaida in North Africa has announced its plans for a campaign to reclaim lost Islamic lands in Spain. Danish cartoonists and Dutch film-makers were threatened or killed for producing works "offensive to the Prophet". Even in the US, calls for "tolerance" of Islamic customs have Minneapolis cab drivers refusing to take passengers with alcohol in their luggage and check-out clerks refusing to ring up items containing pork.
Better Dhimmi Than Dead. For the left, blinded by hatred of George Bush and disdain for capitalism and even our American way-of-life, that slogan has a ring to it. Personally, I'll stick with "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death".
Today we seem to be heading in a similar direction. It seems that we have had enough of the War in Iraq and the whole War on Terror for that matter. Speaker Pelosi's trip to the Mideast along with the seizure of British service people appear to have dotted the "i" on the issue. It is clearly deemed better to talk than to fight, to negotiate rather than to confront.I wonder though: Is there any foreign leader or regime that is too evil to negotiate with? Is there any point or thing worth fighting for or dying for? Apparently, Adolph Hitler was such a leader and the Nazi government of Germany such a regime. In 1938, Neville Chamberlain declared Hitler a "reasonable" fellow and one whom "we can talk to". By 1939, it had become clear that no words or treaties would be enough to constrain his bad behavior. The world came to the conclusion (very briefly, it now appears) that Saddam, the Taliban, Bin Laden and al-Qaida were also beyond talk.
So, what about Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Mullahs? Assad? Kim Jong Ill? Sadr? Hamas? Hezbollah? Can we talk with them? Can we negotiate with them? Should we? Can we trust that they are not simply using talk to sap our will to fight them while we are strong and they are weak? Oh, look at Iran, you say. See how negotiations got the British sailors back. Sure, Iran seizes 15 Britons, holds them hostage for a week or so and then lets them go, without explanation or apology. A brazen act of piracy on the high seas and no penalty imposed. This from the non-nuclear Iran. What can we expect after they get their nukes? Iran now knows that NATO and the EU are impotent, a lesson it already learned about the UN. Only the US stands in its way now and the US not for long.
Our citizens have become tired of this war. We just want out. We don't want to spend any more of our money and our soldiers lives on this "futile" cause. After all, there were no WMD and Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. If we just get out of Iraq, we can just go back to the way things were. Can't we? And, what about Afghanistan; remember, that's the place with the "legitimate" war. I'm sure the Islamic terrorists understand the distinction between that war and our mistaken "occupation" of Iraq.
Is it realistic to believe that the Islamic terrorists will let us alone if we get out of Iraq? What if we throw in having Israel return the Golan Heights to Syria? Do Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the other defeatist Democrats in Congress believe that? No, we all know better. But, we can't take the heat anymore. We can't suffer losses. We can't do anything that's hard. The Democrats in Congress have decided to ignore their responsibilities to protect the country for political gain by pandering to the public's loss of will to fight for what is right. It seems incredible that the example of Neville Chamberlain and the pre-WWII appeasers has been forgotten.
By the way, I do not excuse George W. Bush in this matter. He is most responsible for our situation. He understood the stakes and laid out the strategic vision in his speeches immediately after 9/11. For reasons I cannot comprehend, however, he failed to execute his strategy in a way that would ensure victory. First, he did not really explain the case for the broad war against the Islamic radicals and he did not do enough to ready the American public to accept the long-term commitment of our military and our treasury. Worse, he failed to fight the war fiercely and decisively, which against this enemy was the height of folly. The fact that Moqta al-Sadr still walks the planet is enough proof of this. I supported President Bush all the way on Iraq and the War on Terror; sadly history will judge him harshly for knowing what needed doing but failing to do it.
It now appears to me that the West is well on its way to acceptance of Dhimmitude. This is the situation of the non-believer who lives in the Moslem dominated world. Islamic Sharia law will be in force and the non-moslem (inferior) must abide by it on the pain of death. But, if you accept the premises of the left, fighting and dying are worse than anything else, so acceptance of Dhimmitude makes perfect sense.
I'm going too far, you think? Look at Europe today. The Brits never considered fighting to get their sailors back. In France, Moslem youths go on periodic rampages without reprisal. Al-Qaida in North Africa has announced its plans for a campaign to reclaim lost Islamic lands in Spain. Danish cartoonists and Dutch film-makers were threatened or killed for producing works "offensive to the Prophet". Even in the US, calls for "tolerance" of Islamic customs have Minneapolis cab drivers refusing to take passengers with alcohol in their luggage and check-out clerks refusing to ring up items containing pork.
Better Dhimmi Than Dead. For the left, blinded by hatred of George Bush and disdain for capitalism and even our American way-of-life, that slogan has a ring to it. Personally, I'll stick with "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death".
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Rue Britannia
This "Time" cover that should have been, says it all about the decline of Great (formerly) Britain. The photoshop credit goes to Derek Brigham at Freedom Dogs.
As an aside, I see today that the British government reversed itself and has now ruled that the 15 service members taken hostage cannot sell their stories. Apparently, the stories of un-coerced collaboration were simply causing too much outrage and embarrassment in the country. So much for the stiff upper lip.
Monday, April 9, 2007
I Feel a Warm Wind Blowin'
Scott Ott hits another home-run in Scrappleface with his post on genteel blogs providing "civility offsets" to nasty bloggers.
I sure hope Al Gore doesn't hear about this!
I sure hope Al Gore doesn't hear about this!
Friday, April 6, 2007
Giuliani's Latest Campaign Trail Gaffe
It would seem a good thing that Rudy Giuliani supports gun control since he has shot himself in the foot for the second time in two weeks.
First, he told Barbara Walters that he would feel "very comfortable" having his wife, Judith Nathan sit in on and participate in Cabinet meetings. This quickly brought to mind Hillary Clinton "helping" her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, with national health care. Rudy's campaign was forced to help him "clarify" his statement, indicating that he did not mean to say his wife would have any official policy role.
That would have been seen as an isolated and minor blunder until yesterday's major gaffe. While interviewing Rudy, Dana Bash of CNN, reminded him of a statement he made in support of public funding of abortion. The original statement was made years ago. Incredibly, when asked if he still held those views, Rudy said, in sum and substance, that he did. And if that wasn't bad enough, he went on to state that abortion is a constitutional right.
His campaign rushed in to bandage the other foot, and Rudy effectively recanted, as noted in the National Review Online. But the damage has been done. I have seen quite a bit of conservative comment going very negative towards him. Let's face it; abortion is an issue of great power for many Christian Conservatives. Many of them have been willing to give Rudy the benefit of the doubt. This statement will reinforce their fears about him.
As you know, I am a strong Giuliani supporter, but these slip-ups have left me puzzled. I can't believe that Rudy doesn't already have an answer for any question that is likely to be raised on the abortion issue or any of the other "values" issues that he has been called to task about. I assume that he is serious about being President, but if so, he had better figure out that he has to be prepared to answer certain questions. I don't expect (or want) him to hide his views, but he has to have answers that put those views in the best possible light.
First, he told Barbara Walters that he would feel "very comfortable" having his wife, Judith Nathan sit in on and participate in Cabinet meetings. This quickly brought to mind Hillary Clinton "helping" her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, with national health care. Rudy's campaign was forced to help him "clarify" his statement, indicating that he did not mean to say his wife would have any official policy role.
That would have been seen as an isolated and minor blunder until yesterday's major gaffe. While interviewing Rudy, Dana Bash of CNN, reminded him of a statement he made in support of public funding of abortion. The original statement was made years ago. Incredibly, when asked if he still held those views, Rudy said, in sum and substance, that he did. And if that wasn't bad enough, he went on to state that abortion is a constitutional right.
His campaign rushed in to bandage the other foot, and Rudy effectively recanted, as noted in the National Review Online. But the damage has been done. I have seen quite a bit of conservative comment going very negative towards him. Let's face it; abortion is an issue of great power for many Christian Conservatives. Many of them have been willing to give Rudy the benefit of the doubt. This statement will reinforce their fears about him.
As you know, I am a strong Giuliani supporter, but these slip-ups have left me puzzled. I can't believe that Rudy doesn't already have an answer for any question that is likely to be raised on the abortion issue or any of the other "values" issues that he has been called to task about. I assume that he is serious about being President, but if so, he had better figure out that he has to be prepared to answer certain questions. I don't expect (or want) him to hide his views, but he has to have answers that put those views in the best possible light.
Gates GOP Picks '07 Slate
The Gates (NY) Republican Committee selected its slate of candidates for town offices in the November election.
Leading the ticket is our estimable Supervisor, Ralph Esposito, who is seeking his tenth term as Supervisor of Gates. Ralph is one of the most able and experienced government officials in Monroe County, if not New York State. His many roles in government have included FBI agent, Gates Town Attorney, Monroe County Legislator, Deputy County Executive, and, of course, Gates Town Supervisor. He is undoubtedly the most capable and savvy government official I have ever had the pleasure to work with.
Joining Ralph on the ticket, seeking seats on the Town Board, are Greg Hart and Chris DiPonzio. Greg is an incumbent seeking re-election to a seat that he has held since 1993. He also has a great deal of experience in government, both with the Town of Gates and the County of Monroe. Greg's father, Jack Hart, was a long time Supervisor of Gates.
Chris DiPonzio is making his first run for public office, although he has been very active in Republican politics in Gates since his youth. He brings his experience as a business owner to the ticket and he has an excellent GOP pedigree as the son of Betty DiPonzio, one of the most effective and popular council members in the modern history of the town.
Last, but not least, Town Justice John Pisaturo, is seeking re-election for a fifth term. He has served Gates as Town Attorney and Town Justice for 25 years. He is a well-respected attorney as well as a highly-regarded town justice.
As Gates GOP leader, I am particularly pleased with our '07 ticket. It has seasoned incumbents with a great deal of expertise as well as a first-time candidate bringing new energy and ideas to the team. We intend to run an aggressive campaign and get our good government message out to the people of Gates. We will run both on our record of accomplishments as well as the fact that the GOP team is far and away best qualified to continue the growth and progress of the town.
Leading the ticket is our estimable Supervisor, Ralph Esposito, who is seeking his tenth term as Supervisor of Gates. Ralph is one of the most able and experienced government officials in Monroe County, if not New York State. His many roles in government have included FBI agent, Gates Town Attorney, Monroe County Legislator, Deputy County Executive, and, of course, Gates Town Supervisor. He is undoubtedly the most capable and savvy government official I have ever had the pleasure to work with.
Joining Ralph on the ticket, seeking seats on the Town Board, are Greg Hart and Chris DiPonzio. Greg is an incumbent seeking re-election to a seat that he has held since 1993. He also has a great deal of experience in government, both with the Town of Gates and the County of Monroe. Greg's father, Jack Hart, was a long time Supervisor of Gates.
Chris DiPonzio is making his first run for public office, although he has been very active in Republican politics in Gates since his youth. He brings his experience as a business owner to the ticket and he has an excellent GOP pedigree as the son of Betty DiPonzio, one of the most effective and popular council members in the modern history of the town.
Last, but not least, Town Justice John Pisaturo, is seeking re-election for a fifth term. He has served Gates as Town Attorney and Town Justice for 25 years. He is a well-respected attorney as well as a highly-regarded town justice.
As Gates GOP leader, I am particularly pleased with our '07 ticket. It has seasoned incumbents with a great deal of expertise as well as a first-time candidate bringing new energy and ideas to the team. We intend to run an aggressive campaign and get our good government message out to the people of Gates. We will run both on our record of accomplishments as well as the fact that the GOP team is far and away best qualified to continue the growth and progress of the town.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Storm Clouds Gathering Again
There are a number of columns lamenting the feeble response of the British to the Iranian seizure of its sailors and marines.
Mark Steyn, writing in the Chicago Sun-Times, mirrors V.D. Hanson's view that the European Union and The United Nations are toothless institutions, which, having failed to learn the lesson of the futility of appeasement, are doomed to face the ever-increasing demands of the "appeased". Investors Business Daily titled its editorial on the subject, Rue Britannia and wondered "if the British Lion now keeps its teeth in a jar?".
The IBD editorial closed with a striking quote from Winston Churchill, which was originally uttered 70 years ago to chastise those who would not take a firm stand against a growing threat to Western Democracy, but which is chillingly timely in light of similar dithering by many in Europe and the U.S. in the face of the Islamist threat to the West:
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
The West waited until the eleventh hour to confront the evils of fascism and paid the price in blood. We can only hope that we will not now shrink from strongly opposing radical Islam.
Mark Steyn, writing in the Chicago Sun-Times, mirrors V.D. Hanson's view that the European Union and The United Nations are toothless institutions, which, having failed to learn the lesson of the futility of appeasement, are doomed to face the ever-increasing demands of the "appeased". Investors Business Daily titled its editorial on the subject, Rue Britannia and wondered "if the British Lion now keeps its teeth in a jar?".
The IBD editorial closed with a striking quote from Winston Churchill, which was originally uttered 70 years ago to chastise those who would not take a firm stand against a growing threat to Western Democracy, but which is chillingly timely in light of similar dithering by many in Europe and the U.S. in the face of the Islamist threat to the West:
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
The West waited until the eleventh hour to confront the evils of fascism and paid the price in blood. We can only hope that we will not now shrink from strongly opposing radical Islam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
