A Count Floyd Classic with a Pennsylvania reference at the end.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Charen Checks Out Romney
Mona and Mitt, sitting in a tree....
Read it here.
She concludes: He is just the sort of candidate people complain that they never get.
Amen!!!
Romney has been masterful in everything he has attempted. It is not insignificant that this cum laude JD/MBA graduate of Harvard guided Bain Capital to become a hugely successful private equity investment firm and rescued Bain & Company from financial collapse. Romney was brought in to save the 2002 Winter Olympics when the games were mired in scandal and $379 million in debt. Romney was able to turn the situation around completely so that the games actually turned a $100 million profit instead. (He also gave back his salary.) That’s not slick, that’s substance.
When Mitt Romney took office as governor of Massachusetts, the state had a $1.2 billion deficit. Four years later it was in surplus. He boasts that fourth and eighth graders in Massachusetts achieved the highest scores in the nation in reading and math, though they were doing so before he became governor as well. But his program of assessment, merit pay for good teachers, English immersion and a focus on math and science may have helped keep them at the top.
It is difficult to find any significant weakness in Romney. He is refreshingly articulate, exceedingly well prepared and self-disciplined, clearly an excellent manager with both private and government experience, happily married with a large, supportive family, and well within the mainstream of conservatism on every major issue. His nomination would not divide the base.
Read it here.
She concludes: He is just the sort of candidate people complain that they never get.
Amen!!!
Belated Happy Birthday to the Pride of Wyomissing
I'm a couple of hours late on this, but reading Tony Phyrillas blog reminded me. This is Taylor Swift's birthday. Happy Birthday kid.
Who is Taylor Swift? Why, she's the best thing to come out of Wyomissing, PA [since Updike, and he's really from Shillington], not far from where I have lived for much of my life.
Here's an example of her work. Nice!
Another Baltimore Hate Crime
Another Baltimore Bus Beating:
From WBAL:
Read the whole thing here.
Things are getting tense here in Charm City. "She" is worried. That bus goes right past our front door.
Michelle Malkin has more here.
From WBAL:
Maryland Transit Administration officials are investigating a second reported assault on a bus in the last week.
Patrick Green and Robert Rothe told WBAL TV 11 News that they were antagonized and attacked after boarding the No. 64 bus late Monday night in south Baltimore.
The men, who are white, said the attackers yelled racial slurs and that no one on board, including the driver, stepped in to stop the attack. MTA surveillance cameras captured four men boarding the bus at the Hanover Street stop Monday night, moments before Green and Rothe got on.
Green and Rothe said they believe other passengers were afraid to help and that the driver refused to call for help.
"We were saying the whole time to the driver, 'You need to help us, call the police,'" Green told 11 News reporter Kerry Cavanaugh. "He said, 'I can't. I'll get in trouble.'"
Read the whole thing here.
Things are getting tense here in Charm City. "She" is worried. That bus goes right past our front door.
Michelle Malkin has more here.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
VDH on Iran
Victor Davis Hanson notes that tremendous changes have taken place in the Middle East and Europe in the past two years.
In 2005 one could plausibly argue that the invasion of Iraq had vastly benefited Iran by removing its greatest rival in the region. Moreover, by employing surrogates like Hamas, Hizbullah, and the Shiite majority in Iraq, Iran could keep Israel and the United States bogged down while it expanded its influence throughout the region. And the disunity of the western powers and strong anti-American sentiment meant that European states would give Iran a free pass for its activities.
Today things have changed dramatically. The West is now united as pro-American governments have taken power in France and Germany. Moreover Europe is now roused to the threat that Iranian missiles might pose if ever equipped with nuclear warheads. Israeli strikes have seriously disrupted Hizbullah. Iraq is quieting down and the Shiite majority there is refusing to act at the behest of Iran. Sunni regimes throughout the region are lining up against Iran and are looking to the US for protection. Finally, the Iranian economy is tanking, largely due to the huge amounts of money it spent subsidizing terror activities in Iraq and elsewhere.
Read it here.
With each month that passes American influence in the region increases and that of Iran diminishes. In part this is due to the over-reaching of the Iranian regime and the rhetorical excesses of its President, but some credit must also be allocated to the Bush administration and the increasing effectiveness of America's military.
Things are looking up.
In 2005 one could plausibly argue that the invasion of Iraq had vastly benefited Iran by removing its greatest rival in the region. Moreover, by employing surrogates like Hamas, Hizbullah, and the Shiite majority in Iraq, Iran could keep Israel and the United States bogged down while it expanded its influence throughout the region. And the disunity of the western powers and strong anti-American sentiment meant that European states would give Iran a free pass for its activities.
Today things have changed dramatically. The West is now united as pro-American governments have taken power in France and Germany. Moreover Europe is now roused to the threat that Iranian missiles might pose if ever equipped with nuclear warheads. Israeli strikes have seriously disrupted Hizbullah. Iraq is quieting down and the Shiite majority there is refusing to act at the behest of Iran. Sunni regimes throughout the region are lining up against Iran and are looking to the US for protection. Finally, the Iranian economy is tanking, largely due to the huge amounts of money it spent subsidizing terror activities in Iraq and elsewhere.
Read it here.
With each month that passes American influence in the region increases and that of Iran diminishes. In part this is due to the over-reaching of the Iranian regime and the rhetorical excesses of its President, but some credit must also be allocated to the Bush administration and the increasing effectiveness of America's military.
Things are looking up.
The Democrats on Display
Watched the Democrat debate this afternoon. It wasn't as hostile as the previous Republican one -- the terrible moderator wasn't quite as unreasonable (not hard to see where her sympathies lie) the insane candidates were barred from the stage, and so things went rather smoothly. Unfortunately there was very little substance on display, basically because there was little on which the three major candidates disagreed. The Democrats, unlike the Republicans, have their talking points in order.
Edwards delivered his standard anti-corporation rant while the others nodded approval; Obama was calm and articulate and "concerned" while the others nodded approval; Hillary cackled too much. They all agreed that Bush is worse than Satan and the nation is going to have to crawl back from the depths of Gehenna where he has cast us. Dodd and Biden and Richardson might as well have not shown up -- they barely registered except as a slightly annoying background buzz. According to the audience Obama and Edwards were fine, Hillary wasn't. She gives the impression that she is fading fast. Now is when we will see just how good the legendary Clinton machine is because the candidate isn't getting the job done and the organization is going to have to carry her. The trouble is that the Clintons specialize in the politics of personal destruction and every time they have used it against Obama it has rebounded back on them. It's going to be a tough haul.
Watching the two debates back to back convinces me that the real grown-up in this whole thing is Romney. Nobody in either party is nearly as impressive. The question, though, is whether he can be elected. The Democrats are hungry and ruthless and filled with ravenous hatred, indulging themselves in horrid paranoid fantasies while the Republicans are flittering off in all directions. Romney may be a good man trapped in a terrible year.
Can he win through to the Presidency? I sure hope so. On the basis of what I have seen none of the Democrats deserves the job and none of the other Republicans measures up. I wish him well.
Stay tuned. Things are starting to shake out and the big game is still ahead.
Edwards delivered his standard anti-corporation rant while the others nodded approval; Obama was calm and articulate and "concerned" while the others nodded approval; Hillary cackled too much. They all agreed that Bush is worse than Satan and the nation is going to have to crawl back from the depths of Gehenna where he has cast us. Dodd and Biden and Richardson might as well have not shown up -- they barely registered except as a slightly annoying background buzz. According to the audience Obama and Edwards were fine, Hillary wasn't. She gives the impression that she is fading fast. Now is when we will see just how good the legendary Clinton machine is because the candidate isn't getting the job done and the organization is going to have to carry her. The trouble is that the Clintons specialize in the politics of personal destruction and every time they have used it against Obama it has rebounded back on them. It's going to be a tough haul.
Watching the two debates back to back convinces me that the real grown-up in this whole thing is Romney. Nobody in either party is nearly as impressive. The question, though, is whether he can be elected. The Democrats are hungry and ruthless and filled with ravenous hatred, indulging themselves in horrid paranoid fantasies while the Republicans are flittering off in all directions. Romney may be a good man trapped in a terrible year.
Can he win through to the Presidency? I sure hope so. On the basis of what I have seen none of the Democrats deserves the job and none of the other Republicans measures up. I wish him well.
Stay tuned. Things are starting to shake out and the big game is still ahead.
The Evolution of Jazz
Francis Davis has a nice piece in the latest Atlantic on the revival of jazz standards by a new generation of singers [here]. The mid-century greats died off in the Seventies and Eighties and through the Nineties Jazz was almost completely submerged by pop. But now in the new millenium a new generation of singers has emerged to carry on the tradition. So far Diana Krall (Mrs. Elvis Costello) and Jane Monheit have been the most widely recognized and, as Davis asserts, both have problems (although I still maintain that Monheit has enormous potential). But there are a lot of others lurking just beyond the ken of public acclaim.
One of the best of the new generation is Dianne Reeves. She started in pop but has grown immensely over time and recently broke through to stardom with the release of the latest George Clooney movie for which she provided the soundtrack. Today she is one of the most interesting singers out there. Here she is singing "How High the Moon".
To note just how far jazz has traveled in its long years in the wilderness, here is Ella singing the same song in 1966.
It's been a long, strange journey hasn't it?
One of the best of the new generation is Dianne Reeves. She started in pop but has grown immensely over time and recently broke through to stardom with the release of the latest George Clooney movie for which she provided the soundtrack. Today she is one of the most interesting singers out there. Here she is singing "How High the Moon".
To note just how far jazz has traveled in its long years in the wilderness, here is Ella singing the same song in 1966.
It's been a long, strange journey hasn't it?
Horrible and Heartless
Meet a dead girl. Her name is Aqsa Parvez. She was strangled to death by her loving father because she refused to dress in conformity with the dictates of Sharia law.
Michelle Malkin has a long, and excellent posting on the case. The key points are that this horrific crime took place in Toronto, not in some isolated region of South Asia, and that the Canadian and US press are whitewashing the incident in the interests of protecting cultural diversity.
Read the whole thing here.
Read Mark Steyn's comments here.
It really is horrifying just how many of our essential rights the left is willing, even eager, to jettison in order to satisfy the demands of political correctness. Steyn puts it this way:
"Horrible and Heartless" indeed.
"Honor killings" were something we assumed took place on the fringes of the map - the Pakistani tribal lands, Yemen, Jordan. They now happen in the heart of western cities, and western feminist groups are silent, and western media rush to excuse it as just one of those things, couldda happened to anybody. The underlying message the press coverage communicates is horrible and heartless: the murder of Aqsa Parvez is an acceptable price to pay for cultural diversity.
The Debate
Watched most of the Republican debate in Iowa this afternoon, caught the rest of it tonight on replay. My conclusions:
The moderator was an ass. She exemplified the arrogance and insensitivity of the PBS/print media crowd.
Romney looked really, really good. Very presidential!!! Fully in command of his facts, confident, articulate. He is the only candidate from either party who is fully credible in the role of President.
McCain just looks tired. He should drop out.
Huckabee lost me completely when he started off on that environmental stewardship stuff. I like him, think he is a terrific campaigner, would like to see him in second spot on a ticket because he is such an able hit man, but keep him out of the Oval Office.
Thompson stole the show by bitch-slapping that horrible woman who called for a show of hands on global warming. Here's the moment.
It was great TV. If you look closely at the video you will note that when Thompson challenged the moderator Giuliani and McCain already have their hands way up in the air. That tells us something interesting about them.
Finally, this is two strong performances in a row for Romney. I don't know if he will be able to move the polls, but he should. Here's hoping.
UPDATE:
Well, the post-debate commentary ignores Romney's performance and focuses on the awfulness of the moderator. I see three reasons for this:
Thompson called attention to her awfulness and that fed a narrative of the revolt of the candidates against the local media. Note the commentary in the big city bi-coastal MSM emphasizes the image of Iowa as a second-rate fly-over media market served by incompetents.
Republicans who did not perform well at the debate need an excuse for their failure to meet expectations -- yeah, I'm talkin' bout you, Rudy and John. Their supporters are glad to shift attention to the awfulness of the moderator.
Democrats want to soften up the setting for their upcoming Iowa debate. They hope that the local media will be cowed into niceness. Of course this sets up a situation where the Republicans will be able to scream about media bias.
A final observation -- I'm starting to like the debates -- if only for the fact that the leading candidates and MSM hate them so much. Over the course of ten debates we the public have begun to get some general idea of the personal qualities of the candidates and are far better able to judge them now than we were at the beginning of the process. And shifting judgments are changing the whole process. McCain once looked like a plausible candidate -- he no longer does. Hillary once looked inevitable -- now she doesn't. Obama and Huckabee have both added important dimensions to our national political discourse. The long grueling process may be messy and nasty and inefficient, but that's the nature of democracy.
The moderator was an ass. She exemplified the arrogance and insensitivity of the PBS/print media crowd.
Romney looked really, really good. Very presidential!!! Fully in command of his facts, confident, articulate. He is the only candidate from either party who is fully credible in the role of President.
McCain just looks tired. He should drop out.
Huckabee lost me completely when he started off on that environmental stewardship stuff. I like him, think he is a terrific campaigner, would like to see him in second spot on a ticket because he is such an able hit man, but keep him out of the Oval Office.
Thompson stole the show by bitch-slapping that horrible woman who called for a show of hands on global warming. Here's the moment.
It was great TV. If you look closely at the video you will note that when Thompson challenged the moderator Giuliani and McCain already have their hands way up in the air. That tells us something interesting about them.
Finally, this is two strong performances in a row for Romney. I don't know if he will be able to move the polls, but he should. Here's hoping.
UPDATE:
Well, the post-debate commentary ignores Romney's performance and focuses on the awfulness of the moderator. I see three reasons for this:
Thompson called attention to her awfulness and that fed a narrative of the revolt of the candidates against the local media. Note the commentary in the big city bi-coastal MSM emphasizes the image of Iowa as a second-rate fly-over media market served by incompetents.
Republicans who did not perform well at the debate need an excuse for their failure to meet expectations -- yeah, I'm talkin' bout you, Rudy and John. Their supporters are glad to shift attention to the awfulness of the moderator.
Democrats want to soften up the setting for their upcoming Iowa debate. They hope that the local media will be cowed into niceness. Of course this sets up a situation where the Republicans will be able to scream about media bias.
A final observation -- I'm starting to like the debates -- if only for the fact that the leading candidates and MSM hate them so much. Over the course of ten debates we the public have begun to get some general idea of the personal qualities of the candidates and are far better able to judge them now than we were at the beginning of the process. And shifting judgments are changing the whole process. McCain once looked like a plausible candidate -- he no longer does. Hillary once looked inevitable -- now she doesn't. Obama and Huckabee have both added important dimensions to our national political discourse. The long grueling process may be messy and nasty and inefficient, but that's the nature of democracy.
Rachmaninoff Revisited
Many years ago I went through a mad Rachmaninoff phase -- who doesn't? -- and decided to learn to play the "Prelude in C Sharp Minor". At the time (I was a teenager) I had no idea just how clumsy and bombastic my interpretation of this wonderful piece was. Here's how it is supposed to be played -- a performance by the composer himself. The beginning, which I had always thought was dark and ominous [I sort of imagined Boris Karloff playing it] is actually rather light and delicate. Who knew? I sure didn't.
Here you go -- Rachmaninoff plays Rachmaninoff.
Here you go -- Rachmaninoff plays Rachmaninoff.
The End of Western Civilization
Everyone by now knows about Europe's demographic crisis -- an aging population, too few children being born, mass immigration, that sort of thing. Well, if David Levy has anything to do about it, the situation will get much, much worse.
Der Spiegel reports:
Andy, whose measurements are 101-56-86 centimeters (40-22-34 inches), has what many men want in a woman: "unlimited patience." At least that's what the manufacturer, a company called First Androids based in Neumarkt near the southern German city of Nürnberg, promises. Andy also comes with options, including a "b***j** system, with adjustable levels," a "tangible pulse," "rotating hip motion" and a "heating system with adjustable controls" to raise the body temperature.
"Except in the feet -- they remain cold, just like in real life," says David Levy. The British scientist's interest in Andy is purely academic, he insists. For Levy, his high-tech sex doll is nothing less than a harbinger of a new world order.
The technical term is "robophilia". I don't know about you, but Levy scares the hell out of me, especially when he says things like this:
"Nowadays, it is relatively commonplace for people to develop strong emotional attachments to their virtual pets, including robot pets.... So why should anyone be surprised if and when people form similarly strong attachments to virtual people, to robot people?"Read the whole thing here.....
When it comes to sex, robots could soon supplant the original flesh-and-blood human experience, says Levy.
Yes, I know that this sort of thing is a hoary cliche in science fiction, but it's one thing to read or see stories about some alternate society in which replicants or Stepford wives are possible and something quite different to confront the technology in the here and now.
I can't help but think of Clifford Simak's "City" and Webster the robot waiting endlessly for the now extinct humans to return.
A commentator reminds me that a better reference might be the ending of Spielberg's "AI". Maybe.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Abolish the CIA?
Last Sunday I asked whether it was time to shut down the CIA -- Christopher Hitchens says it is.
Read Hitchens' piece here.
The system is worse than useless—it's a positive menace. We need to shut the whole thing down and start again.And while we're at it there are a lot of other agencies that need a good house-cleaning. The "professionals" in government must be brought to heel and made to understand that their role is to execute policy, not to make it.
Read Hitchens' piece here.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Brits Diss the NIE
First Israeli intelligence, then French and German, and now the Brits disbelieve the latest NIE.
From the Telegraph:
Some on the left are characterizing the NIE as the CIA's "declaration of independence" from the administration. [here] This is a dangerous perspective -- we cannot afford to have rogue agencies -- and raises the question again as to whether the CIA has outlived its usefulness. Maybe the whole rotten structure should be shut down.
From the Telegraph:
Read it here.
British spy chiefs have grave doubts that Iran has mothballed its nuclear weapons programme, as a US intelligence report claimed last week, and believe the CIA has been hoodwinked by Teheran.
The timing of the CIA report has also provoked fury in the British Government, where officials believe it has undermined efforts to impose tough new sanctions on Iran and made an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities more likely.
Some on the left are characterizing the NIE as the CIA's "declaration of independence" from the administration. [here] This is a dangerous perspective -- we cannot afford to have rogue agencies -- and raises the question again as to whether the CIA has outlived its usefulness. Maybe the whole rotten structure should be shut down.
Predictable
Releasing an anti-Christian film in the Christmas season is the height of lunacy, but they did it with predictable results.
Reuters reports:
Read the whole thing here.
Reuters reports:
"The Golden Compass," a costly fantasy starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig, got off to a slow start at the North American box office and will likely fall short of opening-weekend expectations.
Read the whole thing here.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Halloween at Happy Valley
Gee, what shall we do this year for Halloween? I know..., let's dress up as Virginia Tech shooting victims. That'll make an impression!
It sure did.
Read about it here.
Oprah/Obama -- Dream Anew
The Oprah-Obama happening just happened, and it was spectacular [video here]. The size of the event was staggering, Oprah was amazing -- far more political than I expected -- she has Hillary in her cross-hairs and isn't shooting blanks. And Obama now has a potent slogan -- "Dream Anew". What does that mean? Why, it can mean anything and everything you can imagine -- that's why it is so potent.
Before today I doubted that Obama could defeat the Clinton machine, but now I'm not so sure. We could be seeing a real phenomenon here. The Obama people were quite smart in turning this into a volunteer recruitment event that should continue to have effects for months to come. There's no doubting the energy and idealism of these people, but can it be sustained into the coming year..., we shall see.
All of which is not good for the Republic.
The key to Obama's appeal is simply this -- people want to vote for him because they can feel good about themselves and make a statement to the effect that they are not racists. He's a genuine superstar in our celebrity-driven culture, but beyond that, there's no there there. I sense that he would be an unmitigated disaster as President.
Hillary, despite the fact that she makes my skin crawl, is a competent political pro who has the chops to be an effective head of the executive branch. I have always held to the belief that a genuinely evil person will do less damage in the long run than a well-intentioned fool. One thing about the Hildebeast, she may be evil, but she is no fool.
I never thought I would be rooting for Senator Clinton, but what I'm seeing in the Obama campaign -- the mindless emotionalism, the total lack of substance -- scares the Hell out of me.
Read about it here.
Criticizing the Critics of Islamism
The standard left-wing/Islamist response to Western critics is on full display in today's Guardian. Pankaj Mishra targets Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Martin Amis, and Mark Steyn for raising alarm about increasing Islamist influence in Europe using ammunition provided by the late Edward Said, the author of "Orientalism" and the malevolent genius behind Columbia's Middle East Studies program [more accurately understood as the Anti-American Studies Program].
Mishra's first bolt, straight from Said's quiver, is the charge of "essentialism" -- arguing that Western critics ignore the rich diversity of Islamic culture, reducing it to a few "essential" characteristics. She writes:
Her second charge, again borrowed from Said, is that criticism of Islamism is irrational and obsessive, an expression of "Islamophobia." She writes:
In response to this we can note that Western societies for more than a generation now have been wallowing in self-mortification and that this institutionalized self-loathing created a fertile field in which anti-American scholars like Said could flourish. [here]
More generally it can be noted that this sort of guilt-tripping can in no way justify or excuse the atrocities committed by Jihadis, nor do they mitigate the kinds of horror visited on women in Islamic societies that have formed the core of Ali's critique. By changing the subject to Western sins of the past and ignoring the sins of Islamists Mishra is indulging in the same kind of selective blindness she accuses her opponents of doing.
I might also note that American military actions in Muslim countries in no way represents an irrational, "paranoid" response to a series of escalating attacks against the US and other Western societies committed by militant jihadis. Striking back at our enemies is not an irrational act. Nor is seeking to topple two of the most brutally repressive regimes in the modern world -- those of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Labeling these actions as "Islamophobic" and ascribing them to some "primordial anxiety" regarding "otherness" is simple, mindless name-calling and no more.
Her third shot is to attack liberal democracy as a sham. She argues that truly free people would never have elected men like George Bush or Tony Blair, that most Brits and Americans are ignorant of the major tenets of liberalism and what goodness they exhibit owes nothing to liberal ideology, and that the manifest injustices of the British and American systems fully explain the existence in both societies of large, disaffected minorities that occasionally, as in the case of the subway bombers, are driven to violence. Such hypocritical, unjust regimes are, in her view, hardly preferable to the Islamic government liberals criticize. Rather than opposing the Jihadi's, Mishra suggests, Western societies should be working to cure themselves. She holds up as a model the British schoolteacher who was recently incarcerated by Sudan authorities but who refuses to denounce her oppressors.
Certainly there are things to criticize in Western societies, and a vigorous critical dialog dominates our mass media, but to say that we fail to live up fully to utopian ideals is a far cry from saying that our system is inferior to those of the contemporary Middle East. Most Muslims, it would seem, prefer our systems. Certainly enough of them are migrating West in order to participate in them.
Read Mishra's article here.
Mishra's first bolt, straight from Said's quiver, is the charge of "essentialism" -- arguing that Western critics ignore the rich diversity of Islamic culture, reducing it to a few "essential" characteristics. She writes:
Each one of the national realities Muslims inhabit is prodigiously complex and ceaselessly evolving, shaped as much by geopolitics - imperial conquest, the cold war, the war on terror - as by internal conflicts of class, religion and ethnicity. Closely examined, Muslim societies briskly dissolve our complacent, parochial notions about religion, democracy, secularism and capitalism. They expose, too, the notion of a monolithic Islam pressing down uniformly on all believers everywhere as a crude caricature.Of course, as many critics of Said's work have noted, this sort of criticism of Western attitudes is in itself essentialist and fails to appreciate the enormous complexity of Western thought. Moreover, complacency and parochialism are by no means unique to Western cultures. It is certainly arguable that Westerners have at least as good a grasp of reality as do the Jihadis.
Her second charge, again borrowed from Said, is that criticism of Islamism is irrational and obsessive, an expression of "Islamophobia." She writes:
The most recent paranoid obsession with Muslims, which has a long history in Europe, dates back to 2001, when the violence once unleashed on places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan on behalf of the "free world" began to penetrate even the highly protected societies of the west.In other words 9/11 was simply payback for the numerous sins of the past and we should humbly accept it as that. Westerners, instead of criticizing the Jihadis, should be paying penance for their own imperialist and colonialist histories.
In response to this we can note that Western societies for more than a generation now have been wallowing in self-mortification and that this institutionalized self-loathing created a fertile field in which anti-American scholars like Said could flourish. [here]
More generally it can be noted that this sort of guilt-tripping can in no way justify or excuse the atrocities committed by Jihadis, nor do they mitigate the kinds of horror visited on women in Islamic societies that have formed the core of Ali's critique. By changing the subject to Western sins of the past and ignoring the sins of Islamists Mishra is indulging in the same kind of selective blindness she accuses her opponents of doing.
I might also note that American military actions in Muslim countries in no way represents an irrational, "paranoid" response to a series of escalating attacks against the US and other Western societies committed by militant jihadis. Striking back at our enemies is not an irrational act. Nor is seeking to topple two of the most brutally repressive regimes in the modern world -- those of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Labeling these actions as "Islamophobic" and ascribing them to some "primordial anxiety" regarding "otherness" is simple, mindless name-calling and no more.
Her third shot is to attack liberal democracy as a sham. She argues that truly free people would never have elected men like George Bush or Tony Blair, that most Brits and Americans are ignorant of the major tenets of liberalism and what goodness they exhibit owes nothing to liberal ideology, and that the manifest injustices of the British and American systems fully explain the existence in both societies of large, disaffected minorities that occasionally, as in the case of the subway bombers, are driven to violence. Such hypocritical, unjust regimes are, in her view, hardly preferable to the Islamic government liberals criticize. Rather than opposing the Jihadi's, Mishra suggests, Western societies should be working to cure themselves. She holds up as a model the British schoolteacher who was recently incarcerated by Sudan authorities but who refuses to denounce her oppressors.
Certainly there are things to criticize in Western societies, and a vigorous critical dialog dominates our mass media, but to say that we fail to live up fully to utopian ideals is a far cry from saying that our system is inferior to those of the contemporary Middle East. Most Muslims, it would seem, prefer our systems. Certainly enough of them are migrating West in order to participate in them.
Read Mishra's article here.
Once Again Bush is Right, His Critics Wrong
Those Bush-bashers who are hastening to embrace the NIE report, assembled by three former State Department officials who had long oppposed Bush, and to see it as a repudiation of the administration's position on Iran would do well to heed this assessment by left-wing analysts.
The LA Times reports that Ray Takeyh takes note of the fact that the Iranian uranium enrichment program, which it continues, is a vital part of the process of making nuclear weapons.
Gary Samore, a former Clinton administration official,agrees, too. He feels that the NIE and the way it is being portrayed in the MSM and by irresponsible critics of the administration has hurt our efforts to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
All agree that Bush's efforts to secure agreement among major nations to apply economic and diplomatic pressures on Iran to force suspension of its enrichment program and acceptance of the international nuclear weapons regime have been seriously hurt.
Read the whole thing here.
UPDATE: the latest Rasmussen Poll [here] shows that more than 80% of the American public agrees with Bush on this matter.
The LA Times reports that Ray Takeyh takes note of the fact that the Iranian uranium enrichment program, which it continues, is a vital part of the process of making nuclear weapons.
[A]lthough his own politics are left of the president's, Takeyh agrees with Bush that Iran's nuclear program is a continuing threat.Similarly, Sharon Squissoni of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace notes that, although Iran did suspend its development of nuclear arms in 2003 and subsequently allowed weapons inspectors access to some of its facilitiess, it reversed both actions in 2006. She, too, agrees with President Bush that the Iranian program still poses a danger.
"The position I take is that President Bush is right on this," said Takeyh, now at the Council on Foreign Relations.
....
Takeyh, who has long argued for engaging Iran in diplomacy, said the intelligence report was too easy on Tehran by not objecting to the uranium enrichment program, which many Western governments have alleged is meant to build the knowledge base to eventually develop nuclear weapons. The American intelligence agencies, in effect, accepted Iran's contention that the enrichment is for peaceful purposes, Takeyh said.
Gary Samore, a former Clinton administration official,agrees, too. He feels that the NIE and the way it is being portrayed in the MSM and by irresponsible critics of the administration has hurt our efforts to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
All agree that Bush's efforts to secure agreement among major nations to apply economic and diplomatic pressures on Iran to force suspension of its enrichment program and acceptance of the international nuclear weapons regime have been seriously hurt.
Read the whole thing here.
UPDATE: the latest Rasmussen Poll [here] shows that more than 80% of the American public agrees with Bush on this matter.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Ayaan Hirsi Ali Update
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is back, this time with a NYT editorial:
She asks where are all the Muslim moderates? Why have they not denounced the horrific sentences dealt out by Sharia courts in recent weeks?
She asks where are all the Muslim moderates? Why have they not denounced the horrific sentences dealt out by Sharia courts in recent weeks?
It is often said that Islam has been “hijacked” by a small extremist group of radical fundamentalists. The vast majority of Muslims are said to be moderates.
But where are the moderates? Where are the Muslim voices raised over the terrible injustice of incidents like these? How many Muslims are willing to stand up and say, in the case of the girl from Qatif [who was sentenced to 200 lashes for being abducted and raped], that this manner of justice is appalling, brutal and bigoted — and that no matter who said it was the right thing to do, and how long ago it was said, this should no longer be done?
....
If moderate Muslims believe there should be no compassion shown to the girl from Qatif, then what exactly makes them so moderate?
When a “moderate” Muslim’s sense of compassion and conscience collides with matters prescribed by Allah, he should choose compassion. Unless that happens much more widely, a moderate Islam will remain wishful thinking.
Read it here.
The Bush Economic Miracle Rolls On
From the AP:
Employers added a solid 94,000 jobs to their payrolls in November, the unemployment rate held steady at 4.7 percent and wages grew briskly, encouraging signs the nation's employment climate is holding up in the face of turbulence in the housing and credit markets.
he fresh snapshot of the labor market, released by the Labor Department on Friday, showed that hiring was brisk in education and health services, retail, professional services, the government and elsewhere. That helped to offset job losses in construction, manufacturing and financial services -- casualties of the housing slump and credit crunch.The 94,000 new jobs in November came after a surprisingly strong payroll gain of 170,000 in October. The unemployment rate stayed at a relatively low 4.7 percent for the third straight month.
And of course:
The performance was better than economists were expecting.Isn't it always?
Will Bush get credit for shepherding the economy through three major crises?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)