"JunkYard BLOG" Dept.
(A
Rerum Novarum Twenty-One Part Salute)
The
JunkYard BLOG long form commentary threads on this weblog have become more infrequent and longer in the past eight months. In light of this circumstance, it seems prudent to the present writer to focus on returning this feature to the monthly (or bimonthly) regularity that it had for approximately the first year of this weblog's existence. How many installments each one would have with that frequent a posting depends on what time your host will have for putting such threads together. Nonetheless, that will not stop
this update thread from being a rather lengthy one of course ;-) Indeed, the thread you have before you is the one
spoken of earlier and without further ado, let Us get to it now starting with the Koran/Gitmo subject...
THE SPECTACLE
of watching Pentagon brass and a big-shot spokesman conduct a press conference over the finer points of how to handle the Koran is really too much. Just too much.
But that's what just happened. I caught it on Fox.
There was General Jay Hood or something like that along with that Pentagon guy that looks like he might have been an extra on Perfect Strangers, taking serious questions from the press corp about who did and didn't do what to the Koran at Gitmo. Like. It. Matters. There was the press asking those serious questions in serious tones, as though it ought to matter whether or not a US military guard ever did anything to offend a terrorist in a cage. Who was caught on a battlefield in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Shooting at our troops. When he wasn't planning to kill our civilians. Or capture contractors and behead them. Violating the laws of war and the standards of basic humanity at every turn of the sod's miserable waste of a life.
We get accused of mishandling a book. They actually cut people's heads off while they scream. Pardon me if I can't get worked up much about the former, m'kay?
Well stated Bryan!!! The idiocies of people who appear more concerned about US soldiers mishandling the Koran or detaining children{1} than with Islamofascists who murder children and cut the heads off of people{2} is inexcusable. For Our part, it is a mystery to Us how such people can sleep at night with a clear conscience but that is a subject for another time perhaps.
As far as the approach being taken towards these prisoners, the present writer is reminded of an audio post he recorded last July on the problems with
humanizing formal enemies and unfortunately the United States Military is doing just that (much as the MSM has been). This problem was later discussed in a bit more detail (and a slightly broader scope) by Us in a
two part thread of
audiomusings from September of 2004. It suffices at the moment to note that in those treatments, your host was highly critical (and with good reason) about the very same kind of coverage we are seeing with this entire Koran/Gitmo situation: it does not bode well for our overall success in the war on terror and that is the bottom line.
The general said something about being extry crispy careful to tread lightly around the religious sensitivities of caged nutcases. The press asked a snarky follow-up. Ad nauseum from now until the war ends.
We are freaking nuts. We are going around and around about this Newsweek story that was based on hearsay generated in all likelihood by some terrorist because his training manuals command him to generate controversy about the military. That Newsweek story should never have seen the light of day because it was nothing but hot air. They had no facts. They had nothin'. That story didn't meet the basic standards for the homeroom newsletter at Paducah Junior High. Yet our entire nation and indeed the entire dumb world has been wrapped around it for weeks.
But Newsweek reported it anyway, and hilarity--if you think deadly riots involving millions of people are hilarious--ensued. And the press keeps circling around this story, as if it was based on any facts. And now we fly in the commanding general all the way from Gitmo to treat the press as if the story would matter even if it were true, never mind it was based on nothing. And to treat the press as if it wasn't populated by well-paid know-nothings who have apparently never set one toe into the real world. Never mind that the injured feelings of terrorists shouldn't matter more than the lives of innocent civilians, but apparently those feelings do matter a great hairy deal.
Sigh. My outrage meter broke sometime last October and I've never gotten around to put it in the shop. Now I don't think I'll bother. I'd just break it again...[Continued...]
None of this is surprising when you consider the depths to which the journalism profession has sunk. As this writer noted recently in some musings on the Deep Throat situation:
The depravity to which the journalistic profession has fallen since the days of Watergate can be to some extent pinned on Woodward and Bernstein...not as much them personally as what they ushered in in the aftermath of the Nixon resignation. [...] The journalistic profession has become one where you "make it" by finding someone whose reputation you can destroy. Ethics are often not a factor, indeed morals and ethics often get the screw from journalists who are trying to "make it" and then (for those who "make it") the same tactics are utilized to try and stay "on top." The same is the case with the legal profession and the political profession: oftentimes those who "make it" do so by screwing other people. So the parallel to prostitution is an apt one. The only difference of course is that prostitutes are somewhat honest about it. But enough on that subject for now.
...Woodward and Bernstein by their approach to "Deep Throat" ushered in a new era of journalism which is rotten to the core. It is comprised of people who seek to create news and who are interested in spinning the facts to advance an agenda rather than report on what is happening and letting the readers draw their own conclusions. The ethics in this field are abysmal and a strong reason why the MSM is slowly becoming more and more irrelevant in this new age of alternative media is because they are no longer a monopoly. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 1, 2005)]
That encapsulates the problem in a nutshell. As for the rest of the article, it is worth reading too -particularly what Bryan notes about the ACLU and their handling of the Gitmo situation as well as the Mexican border situation with the Minutemen. Bryan is right, the ACLU should be tried for treason if not for
sedition. But enough on that subject as there is a lot left to to cover.
GEORGE GALLOWAY, SADDAMITE SYMP--AND LIAR?
Clinton Watson Taylor distills the evidence pointing to the possibility that British MP George Galloway lied under oath before the US Senate.
So when Mr. Galloway told Senator Coleman that Zureikat...
"donated money to our campaign, which we publicly brandished on all of our literature, along with the other donors to the campaign."
...Mr. Galloway was not telling the truth, at least about his website. This was no mere oversight, because on April 2, 2001, the Mariam Appeal site already had "emblazoned" Mr. Zureikat's involvement as a representative, but not as a donor. A visitor to the site would infer that Zureikat was actually a beneficiary of the Miriam Appeal's books and donations, rather than a £375,000 donor.
Actually, Mr. Zureikat was more than just a contact person for Mariam Appeal. And he was more than just a major donor. In "late 2000 or early 2001," according to Mr. Galloway's testimony, Mr. Zureikat became Mariam Appeal's chairman. Funny, isn't it, how that doesn't show up on the site?
Zureikat is neck-deep in Oil-For-Food shenanigans. His relationship to Galloway, disguised on Galloway's old website and now apparently distorted by Galloway in his testimony before the Senate, may link Britian's most blustery Saddam supporter to the massive UN scandal as well. [LINK]
As one who tends to be
naturally suspicious of those whom the MSM lauds, this revelation is not surprising to your host. And if it is true, it points out yet another vocal opponent of the military intervention in Iraq who posed as all morally righteous while (in reality) they were out to protect their own selfish interests. From one example of hypocrisy to another, we get the following gem...
MINUTEMAN APPEARANCE: PROTESTORS TURN VIOLENT
From the LA Times:
The demonstrators had gathered at the Women's Civic Club of Garden Grove on Chapman Avenue about 7:30 p.m. to protest an appearance by James Gilchrist, charging that he and his group were racist.
Gilchrist has denied those claims and insists the group is stopping only illegal immigration. His talk was sponsored by Citizens for Action Now, an anti-illegal immigration group.
The motorist had attended Gilchrist's speech and was leaving when protesters began hitting his van with placards and other objects, said Garden Grove Police Lt. David Kivler. The driver, who was not identified but spoke to a KCAL-TV Channel 9 reporter, said he gunned his car engine to get away from the crowd. The man was arrested.
Authorities said the incident occurred when 100 listeners attempted to leave through the crowd of demonstrators. Kivler said protesters gathered around one of their cars.
"They surrounded it and started beating on it," Kivler said. Then, a second car tried to get through the crowd as well.
"As he was doing so he hit at least three people," Kivler said. All three were transported to a local hospital. None had major injuries, he said.
So apparently these protestors, quick to call anyone who disagrees with their open border stance a "racists," are also quick to try and intimidate and threaten anyone who so much as attends a speech delivered by someone who disagrees with them. That's thuggery. I'm having a hard time blaming the guy in the car here, considering what these mobs are capable of doing. [LINK]
The original link in Bryan's thread was expired and after a bit of perusing the archives, your host found the story. Go
HERE for details. As Bryan has a solid trackrecord for citing his sources correctly, your host has no reason whatsoever to doubt him on this matter. But that is neither here nor there.
Remember dear readers, these abusive sorts are the
same ones who claim to be "more 'tolerant' than thou." This is why the double standard bears noting: because it shows the
blatant hypocrisy of the so-called "progressivists" who claim they are more "tolerant", more "loving", and more "inclusive" than thou. In truth, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus
aptly summarized their view in noting that
[a]llegiance to the left, however variously defined, was a religion, and dissent was punished by excommunication. And what these so-called "protesters" did was exactly that: seek to utilize a form of "public discourse excommunication" of those who disagree with them from the arena of ideas. So much for their vaunted slogans of
"tolerance", "inclusion", and all that other jibberish that they commonly espouse. Aaah but the hypocrisy continues...
DISBAR THE BURGLAR
Sandy Bergler is facing action to disbar him:
WASHINGTON – Sandy Berger, the former national security adviser who pleaded guilty to charges of stealing classified material from the National Archives and lying to federal investigators, now faces an effort to disbar him in the nation's capital.
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates corruption in government, said today it has filed a formal bar complaint against Berger with the Office of Bar Counsel for the District of Columbia Bar.
Berger knowingly took classified documents, smuggled them out of the National Archives and then destroyed them. Disbarment should be the least of his worries. [LINK]
Precisely. For those who are interested, your host mused on this subject
last July in an audiopost. For the record, the
minimum that Berger deserves is life in prison for this charade. For that reason, disbarmant should be (as Bryan noted) the least of his worries. Your host should point out that if this was a Republican security head sneaking confidential documents out of the National Archives and shredding them, the MSM would be trumpeting this as a "travesty" and probably refer to it as "Trousergate." But because Berger was a Clinton man, he gets a benign mention at best on the matter; ergo continuing the blatant hypocrisy of the supposedly "non-partisan" MSM. But the hypocrisy continues...
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?
A rightwing Republican Congressman has introduced a bill in the House demanding respectful treatment of the Bible. Get yer torches and pitchforks, people, and make sure to ring up the press.
But...
Before you do all of that, I need to clarify a couple of details.
The Congressman isn't a rightwing Republican. He's a leftwing Democrat. And it's not the Bible's respectful treatment he is trying to be made law of the land. It's the Koran.
Where did all the pitchforks go? And where's the ACLU to decry this encroachment on the separation of church and state? Hmmm? [Continued...]
This is a common complaint of sorts from people who identify themselves as "conservative" but it is certainly one with plenty of merit to it. For readers who question this assertion, there is
certainly no
shortage of
evidences that
could be
brought forward to
substantiate the
proposition that
there are
countless examples of
media double
standards. What Bryan notes above is only the latest installment in that long saga...approximately "part mcmlxxxiv" if we put it in Roman numerals.
IF YOU BAN KITCHEN KNIVES...
...pretty soon only criminals will be able to dice an onion. Somebody must have taken an extra dose of stupid pills today to come up with this:
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.
They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.
The research is published in the British Medical Journal.
The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.
This nonsense actually has a history, starting unsurprisingly in France... [Continued...]
Once again, rather than focus on people's
behaviour and ways of influencing that, the focus is instead on the inanimate object involved in the bad behaviour. The
root and matrix of the problem is one of extreme liberalism being a mental disorder -in this case the disorder of
solipsism.
If these people actually sought to look at the subject in question logically, they would hopefully realize that weapons bans do not affect the access of criminals to those banned items. The reason should be obvious: criminals do not play by the rules. That is why the crime rate is
as a rule higher in places with strict gun control laws and lower
as a rule where such restrictions are minimal if existent at all.
Your host predicts that
the British -who have the same kinds of problems with knives that we do with guns in America -will discover this the hard way when crimes with these kinds of knives increase rather than decrease with this new policy. One would have thought they would have realized this by taking note of
the significant failure of their gun control policies to curb gun-related violence but then again, that would require a normal intact functioning brain capable of utilizing such tools as reason and logic. With extreme liberalism being the mental disorder it is (and not a political philosophy) their failure to recognize this does not surprise Us. Moving on though, there is the subject of Linda Foley...
LINDA FOLEY CAN'T HIDE FOREVER
But she's trying. But a reporter and member of the Newspaper Guild union is trying to flush her out:
Up to now, your efforts at clarification have merely muddied the waters. I declare myself confused, and I'm not happy about it. I want to be clear about where my union's president stands on this issue.
I therefore call upon you to state clearly and unambiguously whether you believe that any branch of the US military or government has adopted a deliberate policy of targeting journalists in war zones. This is a simple question, easily answered. I can see no rational reason for you to hesitate about answering it.
At a time when the public's trust in the integrity of journalism is at a new low, our profession can't afford to encourage the perception that we're economical with the truth. I trust you'll put aside your hesitation and immediately explain yourself publicly, in a way that leaves no further doubt about your views on this matter.
Rtwt. Here's what I think has to happen for Foley to finally come out of the shadows and start talking. Reporters such as Hiawatha Bray, quoted above, need to not only publicly call on Foley to either put up evidence backing her claims or retract those claims and apologize. Members of the unions Foley leads need to start internal action against her. There is usually a process within these organizations to remove high officers for misconduct or other serious breaches of the union members' trust. Some reporter or preferrably groups of reporters should begin the process to remove Linda Foley. These processes usually entail some sort of investigation, and if the CWA and NP processes do, we'll get some answers. And just starting the action may in and of itself force her to come out of the jungle where she's evidently been hiding with those two 80-year-old Japanse soldiers and start talking. [LINK]
The situation with Linda Foley is yet another example of the rot that often seeks to pass itself off as "journalism" these days.{3} It bears recalling Our
musings on the subject of "Deep Throat" and the correlative ramifications thereof to understand with greater precision this dynamic. Another thread pertaining to this subject that comes to mind is one We posted
back in December on why many bloggers are more reliable than most who consider themselves "journalists" for getting their facts correct.{4} But enough on that subject and onto a bit of humour in this sequence...
"ALLIES, PART V"
For various reasons, your humble servant was derelict in using any of the previous posts in the Allies series in any JYB update threads. They are to be highly recommended for reading though after you read the above thread. The aforementioned thread summarizes well (and in a somewhat humourous fashion) the reality of the evil we are facing and why so many self-styled "peacemakers" are not taken seriously by social commentators such as Bryan Preston and your humble servant at
Rerum Novarum.
WELL, THAT'S DISMISSIVE
Instapundit's quick-take on an important new book:
IN THE MAIL: A copy of Ben Shapiro's book, Porn Generation : How Social Liberalism is Corrupting our Future.
While there's no doubt that porn is much more widespread (amusingly, there's a link to the "Paris Hilton collection" on Shapiro's Amazon page), as I've noted before, there's not much support for the idea that more-available porn (or pro-sex material generally) is doing any harm to America's children.
Yeah, that're real amusing--the fusion of the high-class hotel heiress with gutter entertainment is just a laugh riot.
The book in question is Ben Shapiro's Porn Generation : How Social Liberalism is Corrupting our Future, and here's the blurb from its Amazon page:
In Porn Generation you'll learn: · How porn producers see themselves as shaping and taking over Mainstreet U.S.A. · The real face of taxpayer-funded sex education: nine-year-olds learning about condoms; twelve-year-olds being questioned about their "sexual orientation" · The new collegiate do's (accepting "sexile") and don'ts ("dormcest") · How Hollywood and TV have mainstreamed pornography: why porn stars now turn up regularly on television and in glossy ads—and why celebrities imitate porn stars · Mamas, don't let your daughters grow up to be co-eds: why on college campuses—and throughout the porn generation—sexual relationships are as disposable as used condoms Is there any good news? Yes. A lifestyle of playing pimps and hos—even if dressed up in preppie clothing—can only last so long before disease, despair, and depression set in—and many in the porn generation are beginning to wake up to their tragedy. Ben Shapiro closes Porn Generation with a roundtable discussion that brings together the diverse perspectives of columnist and bestselling author Michelle Malkin, Dallas Morning News op-ed editor Rod Dreher, former Princeton chaplain Father C. J. McCloskey III, and columnist and bestselling author David Limbaugh to discuss how bad things have become and what the prospects are for bringing the porn generation back from the brink. Porn Generation is the book that will define this generation—and provide a warning for generations to come.
It seems to me that Shapiro's book should be at least as important to the father of young children--Reynolds is one, I am another--as Buzz Aldrin's new children's book about space travel, to which Reynolds devotes more pixels today. But that's how Reynolds deals with social issues coming from the right generally--mention them only long enough to take a swipe at them, never giving them any amount of serious consideration.
UPDATE: InstaJerk. Note to publishers: Books dealing with morality are evidently over Glenn Reynolds' head. Don't waste your time sending review copies to him. [LINK]
Those who wonder why
Rerum Novarum does not link to
Instapundit and does not mention them that often{5}, you now have your answer essentially. The subject of pornography is not a simple subject to discuss for many reasons and complex subjects are not well handled in a soundbyte fashion. For that reason, those with blogs{6} which engage in soundbyte approaches are not generally recommended by Us. Moving on from soundbyte journalism to out and out
sedition. if not treason there is this bit on the ACLU...
IF YOU FIND THIS SURPRISING, YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION
The western left and radical Islam have the same enemy--namely, you and me, Average American--and thus are making common cause.
That's why the ACLU is busy trying to tear down Gitmo and free the terrorists there.
That's why Amnesty International chirps at North Korea once in a while but regularly and absurdly bellows at America, calling a legitimate war-time prison for 530 illegal combatants "the gulag of our time."
That's why the legacy media, dominated by leftists, trashes the successes in Iraq and plays up the setbacks.
That's why the NY Times goes way out of its way to out the CIA's ability to move terrorists around, making it that much easier for enemies and hostile governments to track the secret sides of the war.
That's why Newsweek ran the flush story, and why they sat on retracting it for so long, and why many in the press continue to defend it--though it's more than clear by now that there was nothing to the story.
Common cause. [LINK]
The present writer has long felt that the ACLU was a seditious organization that should be put out of business. This is not a mere hunch on Our part but instead a realization (after years of observation and research) that
every single group that has sought to assert their own pet pseudo-"rights" to the detriment of the common good of society and society's just public order has had the backing of the ACLU in the process!!! We have long noted what constitute actual rights and what are not so constituted -indeed there are about fifty threads or more in the archives of this very weblog discussing these subjects at sundry times and in divers manners. For the sake of providing a few examples, one will be noted from each year this weblog has been in existence; ergo one from
2002, one from
2003, one from
2004, and one from
2005.
Those who are limited in their time to read all the threads provided can focus on the one from 2004 which was posted in the months prior to the election.{7} That suffices to deal with this matter except to note that this writer concurs with Michael Savage's prescription for dealing with the ACLU by trying them under RICO statutes and (if found guilty), shut down the ACLU, liquidate all their assets, and put their leaders in jail. But as there is more to cover, let Us move on...
DEEP THROAT
So...does this mean that the FBI participated in a plot to bring down a president?
HMMM:
Woodward said Felt helped The Post at a time of tense relations between the White House and much of the FBI hierarchy. He said the Watergate break-in came shortly after the death of legendary FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, Felt's mentor, and that Felt and other bureau officials wanted to see an FBI veteran promoted to succeed Hoover.
Felt himself had hopes that he would be the next FBI director, but Nixon instead appointed an administration insider, assistant attorney general L. Patrick Gray, to the post.
Didn't get that coveted promotion, so he backstabbed the boss? [LINK]
This writer already covered that aspect of it in the larger thread of
musings on the subject of "Deep Throat" and the correlative ramifications thereof. The long and short of it is that there was an honourable way and a dishonourable way of seeking to achieve the same end result. Mr. Felt chose the dishonourable way for reasons noted in the thread above...some of which Bryan touched on in his post on this subject.
I DON'T BELIEVE FOR A SECOND
that anyone writing on this left-of-center (and verrrry slow-loading, at least on my DSL) group blog really has anything interesting or important to contribute on the subject of WMD anti-proliferation strategies. I just don't think they're serious.
Take a look at the post I linked, for instance. It's an Ed Kilgore post on why Democrats should oppose John Bolton's nomination to become US ambassador to the UN. Kilgore cites as one reason to oppose Bolton that he "has done a dangerously crappy job in his current position as U.S. non-proliferation chief, in protecting Americans from rogue-state development of nukes, and from nuclear terrorism. Blinded as he is by ideology, and distracted as he is by personal ambition, Bolton has blown many opportunities to build a better international system for containing nuclear acquisition efforts by both states and terrorist groups."
But he never, ever mentions the Proliferation Security Initiative. Long-time readers know I've been hitting upon the PSI for a long, long time as one scrap of evidence that counters two major Democrat critiques of the Bush administration's approaches to the world. They say he is a unilateralist; PSI includes 16 of the world's most powerful countries in terms of economics and military (as well as France, well, just because). PSI is probably the most significant new anti-WMD initiative in the past 20 years, and its construction was the work of one John Bolton. So the above slam about Bolton's blown opportunities to build better organizations is just flat-out wrong. But by never mentioning PSI, readers at that blog will never know that there are facts to counter the argument.
The second major Democrat critique of the Bush administration is that it has no strategy for dealing with North Korea's nuclear program. Two answers flow from this critique. First, yes the administration does, and it's called PSI. The organization was specifically constructed to put North Korea in a shipping box to interdict ships suspected of participating in Pyongyang's illicit WMD trade. Criticizing the strategy itself for any reason is legitimate, but to never mention it at all and just hope your readers never find out about it is dishonest...[Continued...]
Bryan Preston of the
JunkYard BLOG believes (as those of Us at
Rerum Novarum do) that PSI is an important strategic initiative and that the MSM's failure to even mention its existence is shameful. But there is more on PSI to go over...
SPEAKING OF THE ANTI-PROLIFERATION INITIATIVE THAT DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME
See Dubya, guest blogging over at Patterico, has a major post full of good information about how the PSI has worked to contain Iran's nuclear program. The gist is that PSI has stopped 11 shipments in the past nine months, including a recent shipment of ballistic missile parts.
See Dubya goes on to describe in detail what PSI is and what it does, subjects covered at this blog--and apparently only this blog--for the past couple of years. Still, go read his post in its entirety and you'll be up to speed on PSI. You'll therefore be up to speed on why I support John Bolton's move to the UN so strongly--he is the architect of PSI, the one and only proven alternative to the Non-Proliferation Treaty that actually does some good. He is also the architect of PSI's sister activitiy, Caspian Guard, which is specifically aimed at halting WMD traffic on the Capsian Sea. Find yourself a map of that body of water and it will be all too clear what CG is all about.
MORE: More background on PSI and Caspian Guard here. [LINK]
This writer is somewhat familiar with the PSI subject. However, he did not know that John Bolton was a major architect of PSI. If that is true, then Our support for his nomination moves from fairly strong to an easy slamdunk.
WHAT?
Patterico says the Commissar has lost it. I have to agree. Regarding the Senate "compromise" that now seems deader than Latin, Commissar calls into question the judgement, the honesty, indeed the patriotism of everyone who doesn't agree with him:
The Main Stream Bloggers have wholly failed us on the filibuster deal. They are a disgrace. Malkin, Kos, Krempasky, Josh Marshall, Captain Ed, Atrios, Hewitt, Kevin Drum, Powerline, and the rest have reduced themselves to narrow, knee-jerk partisan rantings. They predictably stake out a position precisely skewed one standard deviation to the left or right of their respective Official Party Line on every single issue.
They are incapable of original thought. They are unsuccessful 21st Century Turing machines, imitating human imagination, but not quite achieving it.
---
As we, the so-called "United" States of America, confront those issues, do we want our leaders to spend any time on them at all? Or do we prefer they negotiate judgeships 24x7? And, if they DO manage to squeeze in a few minutes to deal with issues of national security, the economy, or the future, do we want them to do that from the narrowest, most partisan, most divisive posture possible?
These questions are fair; and the answers are obvious. Nor are these questiond the exclusive province of Moonbats and squishy-soft liberals. Anyone with an ounce of patriotism, anyone who aspires to the smallest thought-leadership role, any responsible person with any audience whatsoever, should be able to figure out what position to take on this issue.
The filibuster deal is a good thing; it may not be the "salvation of the Republic" as the Senatorial blowhards claimed last night, but it is a positive thing.
That, sir, is nuts.
The compromise left in place a minority's ability to thwart the will both of the President and the Senate majority--to overturn the last two elections, in essence. The compromise left in place a mechanism whereby the perpetually petulant can gum up the judiciary. The compromise empowered the very same political elements who spend much of their time demonizing their countrymen and very little of their time actually thinking about dealing with real threats. The compromise was and is a sad joke.
And I came by that position quite easily. I thought about it. I looked at what the Constitution has to say about confirming presidential appointments. And I looked at what the deal would actually do. I found it unacceptable.
For that, some guy questions my patriotism. I'm sorry, but that's just dumb. [LINK]
Of course since
Rerum Novarum is not a mainstream blog, your host dodges this attempt by
the Commissar to shoot at all the ducks on the pond in the hopes of trying to hit one or two of them. The subject of the filibustering is not the minor matter that
the Commissar thinks it is. This is why your host wrote on this matter
last month and outlined not only the lack of Constitutional grounding for this action but also why this so-called "compromise" actually gives the Democrats the right to filibuster anyone they see fit except the three agreed upon nominees. And since those nominees were being appointed to lower court positions, that also (if we want to get technical about it)
does not rule out the possibility that the Democrats would filibuster them if they were to be appointed by President Bush to the Supreme Court!!!
Nonetheless, We point you to Our previously written material on this matter (under the heading
"The Stupid Party Strikes Back" Dept.) and also to
an earlier thread from the Framers Know Best series which dispatches with the attempts of the Democrats to appeal to any kind of Constitutional precedent for this action. We also covered this in an
earlier audiopost on filibusters but for the sake of espediency, the latter threads are connected to the "Stupid Party" thread for a convenient "one-stop" surfing for you the reader.
GOOGLING AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Publius Pundit has the formerly well regarded human rights organization dead to rights. And I mean dead to rights--Amnesty International is bashing the United States, a model of human rights and liberty for the world, while nary laying a glove on Castro, one of the world's foremost political prison landlords.
But why is Amnesty selling its credibility for a short-lived cheap shot at the US?
I think Amnesty's turn is a reflection of two things. First and most obvious, knee-jerk left-wing politics nowadays nearly always point the finger of doom at the west and most often at the United States, as though any western country has ever had the abusive human rights record of, say, China or any old Soviet bloc state. Amnesty being a creature of the left, it will likewise villify the west and the US. You will not find, for instance, Amnesty making much of a stink about anything al Qaeda does or announces it will do. But you will constantly find Amnesty harping on the US, even begging other countries to arrest our duly elected leadership when they set foot on foreign soil.
Treasonous? If Amnesty's president--more on her later--were an American, you betcha. Since she isn't, it's just moonbattery as an extreme sport. There is no excuse for it. But there is a reason for it.
That reason is the second thing and to me it is more interesting. And it's related to the first. The fact is pressure groups can get a response from open western-style democracies. Letter writing campaigns, internet pressure drives, press conferences--all of these tools and more are effective against governments that are accountable to voters who can withdraw their support at any time. Groups like Amnesty know that they can call a press conference or issue a press release and just like that they'll have the President of the United States or his spokesman trotting out to refute the charge or offer up some kind of explanation. Amnesty knows the western media will give its charges against the US major play, even if to refute them, no matter how absurd the charge itself is. Amnesty also knows from long experience that it can expect no such response from true tyrannies. Saddam Hussein had probably had a good laugh or two as Amnesty reps skulked out the door of one of his many palaces. And I'm sure the ChiComs just read Amnesty's letters, chuckle, and then shred them. Or maybe they keep them and use them as kleenexes or something. Whatever, tyrants won't trot out to answer Amnesty's charges. They don't give a fig what their own people think--why would they care what at bunch of whiny western leftists think? They don't and they won't...[Continued...]
Extreme liberalism (or so-called "progressivism") is not a political philosophy but is instead a mental disorder. Period.
Indeed, the very
methods such people
use amply
attest to this
without ambiguity.{8} But there is more on
Amnesty International to touch on in this thread so let Us get to it...
TRAVESTY INTERNATIONAL
Shocking news: Amnesty's top officials are in the tank for the left.
The top leadership of Amnesty International USA, which unleashed a blistering attack last week on the Bush administration's handling of war detainees, contributed the maximum $2,000 to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.
Federal Election Commission records show that William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty USA, contributed $2,000 to Mr. Kerry's campaign last year. Mr. Schulz also has contributed $1,000 to the 2006 campaign of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.
Also, Joe W. "Chip" Pitts III, board chairman of Amnesty International USA, gave the maximum $2,000 allowed by federal law to John Kerry for President. Mr. Pitts is a lawyer and entrepreneur who advises the American Civil Liberties Union.
Amnesty stands by its "gulag" nonsense. What I want to know is how can officials working for a charity afford to give in the thousands to any political cause? Whatever happened to suffering for the sake of justice? Amnesty is led by nothing more than latte liberals now. [LINK]
It is
not difficult to highlight the
reasons why groups with the outlook of
Amnesty International act as
illogical as
they do.
Indeed,
tomes of
type could be
spilled covering
various facets
of this
rather ample subject. For that reason, it suffices to note these things in a few brief bits -along with the latest manifestation of idiocy from
Amnesty International- before moving on to the subject of North Korea. North Korea is (of course) a country whose goverment's treatment of innocent citizens makes any minor inconveniences of US policy (towards suspected or actual terrorists) look like Sunday school by comparison. However, you would not know this to listen to the drivel of
Amnesty International (more correctly called
Travesty International as Bryan noted) on the matter...
TARGET: NORTH KOREA
Clinton W. Taylor sends in a link to this WSJ story about US efforts to deal with North Korea. North Korea is a bit like a hydra in terms of the threats it poses; on the one hand, it is constructing a nuclear weapons program and selling technonogy derived from and used in that program to willing buyers including some of America's most dangerous enemies. On the other hand, NK also deals heavily in narcotics, illegal pharmaceuticals, even fake Viagra and counterfeit cigarrettes, on black markets. NK is also one of the world's leading currency counterfeiters. The latter two illegal trades bring in hard currency which Pyongyang badly needs to shore up its pathetic economy and to purchase technology needed to keep its army viable and its other weapons programs operational. Essentially, North Korea exports nothing but evil and its various illicit industries feed each other and keep the Kim cult in power. And the profits ultimately end up in North Korean reactor facilities funding Kim's nukes.
The linked article goes into much more detail; I am summarizing to get to the point, which is that contrary to assertions from the left the Bush administration is and has long been pursuing a multi-pronged and multi-lateral approach to dealing with the North Korea menace. There was no such strategy during the Clinton years, but there is now.
Correction Bryan, the Clinton Administration had a strategy of dealing with North Korea. It was called
appeasement.
The US approach includes the PSI, flogged frequently on this blog, as well as Caspian Guard and something I'd heard very little of before reading the article: the Illicit Activities Initiative. The IAI is the administration's chief weapon to combat North Korea's drug trade, and like the PSI it has been racking up some success even while most of the media and everyone to the left of the political divide pretends it doesn't exist.
All of these activities are being managed through something called the North Korea Working Group, which is an interagency effort to pool resources into a coherent strategy for dealing with the multidimensional North Korean threat. It's the kind of thing that we badly needed before 9-11, when thanks to the Gorelick Wall relevant agencies were forbidden from effectively communicating and sharing intelligence. The maligned Patriot Act went a long way toward tearing down that wall, and my guess is it also made the North Korea Working Group's activities possible and productive.
And it's working..[Continued...]
Which is
precisely why the MSM will not report on it.
THE LATEST GULAG POLL
Oh, this could get fun.
ck out the interesting new Gallup poll results on confidence in various American institutions. Despite the constant barrage of negative MSM coverage, confidence levels in the military, police, and organized religion are high, while confidence levels in Congress, the public schools, and the media are plunging.
Hm, why would that be? Military wins wars, kicks butt and takes names. Check. Cops round up bad guys. Check. Most of us are Christians, and Christians don't go around blowing up other people. Check.
On the other hand, Congress looks more and more like a bunch of preening narcissists. Check. Public schools descend into PC sex-crazed madness. Check. Jayson Blair, Eason Jordan, Linda Foley, Dan Rather, Newsweek and nearly every other MSM figure and outlet make a sad joke of ethics and fairness. Check.
It must be acknowledged that the MSM figures are not the
only ones to make
a sad joke of ethics and fairness.
Liberals are going to hate this poll result. Hate it hate it hate it.
:)
Links and quotes over at Michelle's place. Let the left-wing police state fear-mongering begin! [LINK]
Give them time Bryan...give them time.
Moving from the pleasing to a "grandmaster of the obvious", we come to the subject of Howard
the Duck Dean...
MAD HOWARD DEAN
just can't keep both of his feet out of his mouth.
What serious person says Republicans have never made an honest living in their lives?
The answer of course is simple: no one. That is why those
who make such assertions are not to be taken seriously by people who are actually interested in ideas rather than ideologies.
What serious person believes the Republicans really have the power to short black districts voting machines? Even in Democrat-dominated districts?
What serious person uses the name of the Lord on the way to smearing the Bush administration as eroding the core of our democracy?
What serious person does any of these things?
No serious person does any of these things. But DNC Chairman Howard Dean does all of them--in one speech! Amazing. He's a walking stereotype for everything that's wrong with the Democrats.
Some will blame Dean's foot-in-mouth disease on his "straight talking." Others will blame it on a Rovian conspiracy.
I blame Cowboy Troy. [LINK]
Those who wondered why your humble servant at
Rerum Novarum supported the nomination of Howard Dean to chair the DNC now have your answer...though Bryan's tying in Cowboy Troy to anything related to Howard
the Duck Dean is not fair to Cowboy Troy. Nonetheless...
THE WHITE, CHRISTIAN PARTY
HoDean has done it again--this time slamming the GOP as the "white, Christian party." Add it to the litany of over the top divisive remarks to escape Dean's mouth since becoming DNC chair.
Doug Payton tosses up a few stats that, if Democrats were the introspective kind, might give them pause.
But Democrats are not the introspective kind. No amount of statistical evidence, factual counterexamples or information of any kind is going to dissuade the Democrats that they are wrong about anything. Heck, as I write this the entire socialist project in Europe is unravelling before our eyes. For the past decade and more the Democrats have argued that America should become more like Europe, that we should build a healthcare system or a tax system or a legal system or you name it system on the European model. Yet Europe is now before our eyes coming unglued. If the Democrats were the introspective kind, events in Europe might give them pause. But they're not, so introspection is not going to happen.
The problem is a
weltanschauung marinated in
solipsism Bryan. There is a reason why when this writer decided to define the term
solipsism on his
Miscellaneous BLOG that it was done after several references to political situations...and in reference to
Deanings in general. But rather than write anything new, let Us revisit Our previously written observations on this matter:
[The] epistemological theory of solipsism [is one] whereby the self knows nothing but its own states and their constituent modifications if you will. This is a core philosophical flaw of modern day liberal political views...
This is why certain kinds of people of the extremist liberal mindset such as the Deanings cannot be reasoned with. You can throw all the facts in the world at them and reason until your gray hairs fall out but they will not budge because so much of what you would say does not pertain to them personally. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa February 7, 2004)]
It should not surprise astute readers that these same problems subsist with many who call themselves "peacemakers" on the war subject.
Here's what's going on. Shortly after the 2004 election there was a struggle for what's left of the soul of the Democrat Party. It was a bit like struggling for the crumbs left over from a Michael Moore Subway session--there wasn't much there--but the struggle was real and it was important.
Indeed. This writer even
posted in dialogual form a thread from a reasonably level-headed Democrat who was concerned about this very dynamic.
One side in the struggle recognized that so-called "values voters"--people who generally believe in a strong country, a strong family and a strong sense of right and wrong--voted overwhelmingly for the Republicans and for President Bush. This side of the Democrats saw the loss of the values voters as something that could be rectified with the right approach to issues and the right outreach tactics. This side of the DNC was essentially saying to the other side "Look, we can win these voters back if we stop alienating them and start listening to their concerns."
The other side of the Democrats wanted none of that. They mocked the values voters as hicks living in Jesusland. They smeared values voters as backward fools following Smirky McHilterchimp to our collective doom. This side of the DNC was all but ready even to excommunicate the other side of the DNC, and has all along blamed every single bad thing in the world either on Bush, on Christians, on Republicans or "sellout Democrats" who offer nothing but Republicanism-lite.
The struggle between these two sides played out as the fight to become the next Chairman of the Democratic (sic) National Committee. The Jesusland-mocking side's champion was Howard Dean, who during the campaign had cast himself as represting the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." The more moderate side really didn't coalesce around a single candidate, and Dean manuevered well enough to trounce all of his opponents without much of a fight.
So the anti-values voters wing--the anti-Christian wing, the anti-American wing, the anti-morality wing, the anti-everything wing--of the Democrat Party won. With them there is no accomodation for Christians, or indeed with anyone to their political right, which is about 80 percent of the country. Dean is the perfect man to lead what's left of his party right over the cliff. And he's doing a bang-up job of it...[Continued...]
Which is (again) why this writer was pleased that Dean became DNC chairman. It insures that no matter how badly the Stupid Party screws up, the Evil Party will do even worse. But enough on that matter as we have one final installment in this series before wrapping it up.
WHEN ANN COULTER
suggested shortly after 9-11 that we should invade the Arab world, kill off its leaders and convert the region's inhabitants to Christianity, hilarity ensued. If by "hilarity" you mean that she got fired from National Review, had to apologize and has had to live down the comment ever since, that is. Of course the left will never, ever let her live that one down.
But when the leader of Amnesty International suggests that foreign governments should--in a time of war, no less--arrest the leaders of our government on trumped-up claims of war crimes that amount to criminalizing policy differences, the media yawns.
See what was written above about hypocrisy and double standards...
Actually, so did the blogosphere when I blogged about it last week.
But today Captain Ed is on the case, and so is the rest of the sphere. Powerline takes a crack, and NRO links.
Finally. Glad you people decided to catch up.
Anway, for all the hyperbole, at least Coulter was suggesting doing things to the leaders of countries that had for years incubated terrorists who had just attacked us. William Schultz is suggesting doing things to the leaders of our country that would have the effect of decapitating our government in the middle of a war. Where I come from, that's treason. That he did it just to get his mug on the evening news is no excuse, either. Last time I checked, seeking publicity was no defense against a criminal charge.
So, now that the blogosphere has caught up to the JYB, let's lead again and suggest a remedy: Schultz should face charges for treason and he should be tried as an enemy agent of influence. The facts on that are plain--he tried to persuade foreign powers to cripple our government while we are engaged in hostilities. It should be a straightforward trial from that point of view. The discovery portion of the trial should focus on Amnesty's financial records, seeking proof that Schultz and his organization have been bought and paid for by some foreign power (probably via CAIR or some similar Islamist mouthpiece) or by some Soros-esque figure.
Yeah, that's a fantasy, I know. This nation doesn't take treason seriously anymore and doesn't prosecute traitors. If it did, Schultz wouldn't be the only one facing jeopardy. [LINK]
Indeed. As this writer noted earlier, the ACLU should also be tried under RICO statutes for if not treason then at least
sedition. If found guilty, they should be put out of business, their assets liquidated, and their spokesmen jailed. The same is the case for
Amnesty International and also CAIR. Lucky for those groups your host is not in a position to do any of these things or else all of them would be in deep kim chee. God-willing the Bush Administration will pull their heads out and realize this before these
termites and whores of a
political nature cause any more damage to our efforts in the war on terror.
Notes:
{1}
This writer can think of at least one so-called "progressivist" who would find it more newsworthy that the US military may have detained children in Abu Ghirab rather than focusing on truly horrific news such as the Islamofascists beheading children!!! [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 11, 2005)]
{2} A subject that We have covered twice at
Rerum Novarum. (See the threads on
Nick Berg and
Paul Johnson for more details on that subject.)
{3} Whether these be self-styled "journalists" in the MSM or self-styled "journalists" in the alternative media who claim to hate blogs yet who essentially run their own version of
Instapundit in all but name.
{4} See footnote three.
{5} By a quick count there are nine
Rerum Novarum posts where
Instapundit is mentioned. Of those nine, six of them were either JYB Update threads (five) or a
Volokh Conspiracy multipost thread (one). There are also two posts which mention Glenn Reynolds by name and one of them is the aforementioned
Volokh Conspiracy multipost thread.
{6} And sites which run a blog feature in all but name (but refuse to acknowledge this).
{7} It is about as complete an exposition insofar as this subject
can be remotely covered in its many facets in a single weblog post.
{8} Leaving aside for a moment (i) the
illogical premises from which they operate and (ii) the
the incoherence that logically results from such mental midgitry. There is also (iii) the common (and
profoundly disingenuous)
manipulation of sources which is part and parcel to their entire
weltanschauung but that is enough on the latter subject for the present time.
