Wiffle Ball John Kerry stands halfway to home plate and throws one into the dirt.
|
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
And So On. And So On. And Scooby Dooby Doo Bee.
I tuned into the Democratic Convention two times on CSPAN last night and each time silver-haired conventioneers were swaying and dancing to some of the most putrid music of the last 40 years.
First I saw a perfect demographic tableau of people – black, white, red, yellow, a glorious mosaic -- all mouthing the infantile words of Sly and the Family Stone’s “Everyday People.”
That sparked a little flashback to the Forced Joy era of the early seventies when the revolution became institutionalized, when men wore big fat neckties printed with earth-toned op-art octagons and women smoked foul little cigarettes and dressed in Marimekko tarps. The days when everything was brown, yellow or avocado. The world of housing projects, 20s nostalgia, busing, caucus rooms, plaid everything, syrup rock, Free to Be You and Me mind control, AMC Pacers, Brezhnev, Roger Moore, macramé, Attica, Squeeky Fromme, the Mayaquez Crisis.
Whoa! Am I the only person who doesn’t have a visceral reaction to that misery?
I didn’t just switch the channel. I flipped the main electrical switch in the house just to be safe. After a few hours to ensure that all the wattage had leaked out of the wires I turned on the television again.
This time the old fogies were holding hands and singing Blowin’ in the Wind.
Christ! We’re at war with religious fanatics who cut peoples’ heads off with steak knives and then have their children act out the murder as if it were a school play and our fellow Americans are singing the anthem of boneheaded fatalist submission.
I’m all for banning cannon balls at some point, but first let’s fire everything we’ve got at the Islamofascists and throw in a few daisy cutters topped in napalm.
There will always people who choose to sing about peace instead of doing what’s necessary to secure the peace . . . that’s fine. But no one is ever going to trust them with the keys to national security any more than you would count on solar energy to power your iron lung.
This was apparently part of the intro to Jimmy Carter’s speech about restoring respect for America around the world and standing forcefully against our enemies. This of course is exactly like Gloria Steinem bragging about her relationship with Dale Earnhardt Jr or Konstantin Chernenko pumping up the crowd with his infectious enthusiasm.
So far the Democrats are making a great case for ignoring the present, deferring the future and all walking hand in hand back to the warm comfort of the past.
I don’t blame them. The future is uncertain, dangerous and challenging. It's particularly challenging to all the unquestionable beliefs that have encrusted the Democratic Party over the past forty years – multiculturalism, agnosticism, moral relativism, pacifism, socialism.
These dogmas are the only lasting remnants of that post-sixties Golden Age (well, more like an orange and chestnut brown age) when all the political left fought for appeared to come true – the Vietnam War was over, the race riots were over, Nixon was humiliated, women could wear pants.
Today those victories are under direct attack by medieval holy warriors who hate women, homosexuals, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, most Muslims, and just about everyone else and are eager to martyr themselves in order to cleanse the earth of all non-believers.
What’s blowin’ in the wind? How about the smell of 3,000+ charred and pulverized innocent people who showed up for work one Tuesday morning.
How would the Democrats protect the rest of us from attack by Islamic suicide bombers? With more funding for Head Start? With more women in mid-level positions at the EPA?
With a deeper understanding of the concerns of Muslim fanatics?
Sadly, the dogma of the sixties has nothing to tell us about countering violent religious hatred. That can be a frightening and certainly disorienting realization. Too frightening for most of the delegates at the Democrat Convention who would rather dream about the past than confront the future.
Sad to say, but George Bush may be the only person who can make the world safe for Kumbaya jamborees.
I tuned into the Democratic Convention two times on CSPAN last night and each time silver-haired conventioneers were swaying and dancing to some of the most putrid music of the last 40 years.
First I saw a perfect demographic tableau of people – black, white, red, yellow, a glorious mosaic -- all mouthing the infantile words of Sly and the Family Stone’s “Everyday People.”
And so on. And so on
And scooby dooby doo bee.
Different strokes for different folks.
That sparked a little flashback to the Forced Joy era of the early seventies when the revolution became institutionalized, when men wore big fat neckties printed with earth-toned op-art octagons and women smoked foul little cigarettes and dressed in Marimekko tarps. The days when everything was brown, yellow or avocado. The world of housing projects, 20s nostalgia, busing, caucus rooms, plaid everything, syrup rock, Free to Be You and Me mind control, AMC Pacers, Brezhnev, Roger Moore, macramé, Attica, Squeeky Fromme, the Mayaquez Crisis.
Whoa! Am I the only person who doesn’t have a visceral reaction to that misery?
I didn’t just switch the channel. I flipped the main electrical switch in the house just to be safe. After a few hours to ensure that all the wattage had leaked out of the wires I turned on the television again.
This time the old fogies were holding hands and singing Blowin’ in the Wind.
Yes 'n' how many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes 'n' how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they're forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
Christ! We’re at war with religious fanatics who cut peoples’ heads off with steak knives and then have their children act out the murder as if it were a school play and our fellow Americans are singing the anthem of boneheaded fatalist submission.
I’m all for banning cannon balls at some point, but first let’s fire everything we’ve got at the Islamofascists and throw in a few daisy cutters topped in napalm.
There will always people who choose to sing about peace instead of doing what’s necessary to secure the peace . . . that’s fine. But no one is ever going to trust them with the keys to national security any more than you would count on solar energy to power your iron lung.
This was apparently part of the intro to Jimmy Carter’s speech about restoring respect for America around the world and standing forcefully against our enemies. This of course is exactly like Gloria Steinem bragging about her relationship with Dale Earnhardt Jr or Konstantin Chernenko pumping up the crowd with his infectious enthusiasm.
So far the Democrats are making a great case for ignoring the present, deferring the future and all walking hand in hand back to the warm comfort of the past.
I don’t blame them. The future is uncertain, dangerous and challenging. It's particularly challenging to all the unquestionable beliefs that have encrusted the Democratic Party over the past forty years – multiculturalism, agnosticism, moral relativism, pacifism, socialism.
These dogmas are the only lasting remnants of that post-sixties Golden Age (well, more like an orange and chestnut brown age) when all the political left fought for appeared to come true – the Vietnam War was over, the race riots were over, Nixon was humiliated, women could wear pants.
Today those victories are under direct attack by medieval holy warriors who hate women, homosexuals, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, most Muslims, and just about everyone else and are eager to martyr themselves in order to cleanse the earth of all non-believers.
What’s blowin’ in the wind? How about the smell of 3,000+ charred and pulverized innocent people who showed up for work one Tuesday morning.
How would the Democrats protect the rest of us from attack by Islamic suicide bombers? With more funding for Head Start? With more women in mid-level positions at the EPA?
With a deeper understanding of the concerns of Muslim fanatics?
Sadly, the dogma of the sixties has nothing to tell us about countering violent religious hatred. That can be a frightening and certainly disorienting realization. Too frightening for most of the delegates at the Democrat Convention who would rather dream about the past than confront the future.
Sad to say, but George Bush may be the only person who can make the world safe for Kumbaya jamborees.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Jews and Frenchmen
|
In the interest of world peace may I offer an explanation?
Jews should leave France because Jews willnever be considered French no matter how long they live there. The same applies to Muslims, and Germans, and Anglo-Saxons, and just about anyone else who is not already French.
Unlike the thriving and vital societies in the English speaking world, continental Europe in general and France in particular are societies in retreat, unable to assimilate newcomers, more concerned about dividing up finite pieces of a shrinking pie than opening up to new possibilities and expanding the pie.
Proof? He are Chirac's own words as found on the website of the Council on American-Islamic Relations:
"We are in a time where undoubtedly, we are witnessing racist events involving our Jewish and Muslim compatriots and others, too. Sometimes just simple Frenchmen are attacked because they do not belong to such or such community. This is unacceptable.
Yes, racist violence is unacceptable particularly when ordinary French people are caught in the crossfire.
Not welcome in Paris? Sharon didn't need Chirac to tell him that.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Clinton Foreign Policy Team
The Clinton Foreign Policy Team This photo is getting more and more embarrassing with time.
As far as I'm concerned, any classified documents that Sandy Berger stuffed into his pants are from now on officially "For Your Eyes Only," buddy. Pre-September 11. Seeing no evil |
|
You're No Good
It seems Linda Ronstadt was escorted off stage and out of town by an irate Vegas audience who paid good money to see her sing but were forced to endured babbling Left Coast culturesmog instead.
Perhaps even more perplexing than her admiration for Michael Moore is her appearance before a Las Vegas crowd. Who would actually pay to see Linda Ronstadt perform in 2004 anyway?
Ronstadt was a pop star from the darkest seventies. But unlike the rest of us, she actually looks far worse today. She doesn't seem to have learned much in the ensuing decades either.
Sad.
It seems Linda Ronstadt was escorted off stage and out of town by an irate Vegas audience who paid good money to see her sing but were forced to endured babbling Left Coast culturesmog instead.
Perhaps even more perplexing than her admiration for Michael Moore is her appearance before a Las Vegas crowd. Who would actually pay to see Linda Ronstadt perform in 2004 anyway?
Ronstadt was a pop star from the darkest seventies. But unlike the rest of us, she actually looks far worse today. She doesn't seem to have learned much in the ensuing decades either.
Sad.
And here she is now after being ravaged by years of BushHate®. "It's a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Republican or fundamental Christian. It can cloud my enjoyment. I'd rather not know," Ronstadt tells the San Diego Union Tribune. See how easy and acceptable blind hatred of people you don't know has become for the Religious Left. Why just the presence of such, how do you say . . . vermin? Just the presence of these subhumans clouds her enjoyment. | 
|
Monday, July 19, 2004
Kerry Suffering from Severe Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome
During his recent tour through the Midwest where he "connected" with "working families" and "average Americans," John Kerry was asked for some bona fides by a reporter from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal:
Now, I don't know much about deer hunting but I'm pretty sure no one goes crawling around on their belly with a shotgun trying to outsmart deer. Certainly no one who expects to bag a deer.
First of all, deer hunters sit all day in stands usually high up in trees. Second of all, they use rifles with telescopic sights because you can't get very close to a deer. Third of all, deer are skittish and fast. They tend to notice six-foot-four Senators crawling through dead leaves and over tree stumps with heavy equipment including, maps, shotguns, and presumably a full-size decoy deer. The smell of the Aramis alone would likely send them running.
For this approach to be successful, Kerry would have to crawl within a few feet of the deer (with a gale force wind blowing in the opposite direction), plant the barrel of his shotgun against the deer's temple and pull the trigger.
Doesn't sound all that sporting to me.
I think Kerry, who is a Vietnam veteran (it was a traumatic experience and he doesn't like to talk about it) is confusing deer hunting with The Deer Hunter, unless one of the games he uses to outsmart his prey is Russian Roulette.
You would think that Kerry would be sensitive to the charge that he is a Swiss-boarding school educated billionaire opportunist and strive not to validate it each time he speaks.
Then again, maybe he's just outsmarting me.
A condescending, elitist, dillitante? That's exactly what he wants me to believe.
During his recent tour through the Midwest where he "connected" with "working families" and "average Americans," John Kerry was asked for some bona fides by a reporter from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal:
He was asked in the interview Sunday what kind of hunting he preferred.
"Probably I'd have to say deer. It's tough, depending on where you are," said Kerry."I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl around on my stomach. I track and move and decoy and play games and try to outsmart them. You know, you kind of play the wind. That's hunting," said Kerry.
Now, I don't know much about deer hunting but I'm pretty sure no one goes crawling around on their belly with a shotgun trying to outsmart deer. Certainly no one who expects to bag a deer.
First of all, deer hunters sit all day in stands usually high up in trees. Second of all, they use rifles with telescopic sights because you can't get very close to a deer. Third of all, deer are skittish and fast. They tend to notice six-foot-four Senators crawling through dead leaves and over tree stumps with heavy equipment including, maps, shotguns, and presumably a full-size decoy deer. The smell of the Aramis alone would likely send them running.
For this approach to be successful, Kerry would have to crawl within a few feet of the deer (with a gale force wind blowing in the opposite direction), plant the barrel of his shotgun against the deer's temple and pull the trigger.
Doesn't sound all that sporting to me.
I think Kerry, who is a Vietnam veteran (it was a traumatic experience and he doesn't like to talk about it) is confusing deer hunting with The Deer Hunter, unless one of the games he uses to outsmart his prey is Russian Roulette.
You would think that Kerry would be sensitive to the charge that he is a Swiss-boarding school educated billionaire opportunist and strive not to validate it each time he speaks.
Then again, maybe he's just outsmarting me.
A condescending, elitist, dillitante? That's exactly what he wants me to believe.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Whoever Laughs Last Wins
Many people in Europe and the United States feel that confronting Islamic fascism is wrong and that we should rather explore the roots of Muslim rage and better understand the views and aspirations of their passionate adherents.
In the spirit of greater understanding among peoples, here are the views and aspirations of Omar Bakri Muhammad, a suspected al Qaeda terrorist, (unjustly suspected no doubt) in an interview in the Portuguese newspaper Publico reprinted in the July issue of Harper's
Among the enemies these brave and high-stylin' jihadis recently killed is Afik Zehavi, who threatened the Muslim world by walking to kindergarten with his Dad yesterday morning.
Many people in Europe and the United States feel that confronting Islamic fascism is wrong and that we should rather explore the roots of Muslim rage and better understand the views and aspirations of their passionate adherents.
In the spirit of greater understanding among peoples, here are the views and aspirations of Omar Bakri Muhammad, a suspected al Qaeda terrorist, (unjustly suspected no doubt) in an interview in the Portuguese newspaper Publico reprinted in the July issue of Harper's
"We don't make a distinction between civilians and noncivilians, innocents and noninnocents. Only between Muslims and nonbelievers. And the life of a nonbeliever has no value. There's no sanctity in it. ...
"We are not hypocrites. We don't say: 'I'm sorry, it was a mistake.' We say: 'You deserved it.' We assume the purpose is to kill as many people as possible, to spread the terror, so that people in the West think: 'Look what happened to us!' ...
"Terror is the language of the 21st century. If I want something, I terrorize you to achieve it. ...
"The word 'terrorism' is not new among Muslims. Muhammad said: 'I am the prophet who laughs when he's killing the enemy.' It is not only a question of killing. It's laughing while we are killing."
Among the enemies these brave and high-stylin' jihadis recently killed is Afik Zehavi, who threatened the Muslim world by walking to kindergarten with his Dad yesterday morning.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
We Can't We All Just Get Along?
Little Green Footballs has a link to an Islamofascist web forum in Sweden on which you can find a charming video of Muslim children reenacting the beheading of Nick Berg.
You can find it here.
Perhaps even more disturbing than the film itself is the unfolding of events leading up to it. These children must have seen the gruesome original. They appear not to be disturbed by it. And some adult supervision must have been involved.
What sort of adults would devote time to this sort of after school activity? Adjectives such as primitive, hate-filled, ignorant, brutal, and unthinking come to mind.
Sure, they’ll always be some people who instinctively grasp for equivalents. “There are teenagers in Texas acting out an Abu Gharib prison fantasy right now,” they’ll reason.
This is a comforting thought only to those who have too much invested in the moral equivalence of cultures. Western notions of superiority are merely arrogance and conceit because, well, that’s what we learned in college.
Yet, I never saw a man beheaded in college nor, until today, had I ever seen children gleefully re-enact the most vivid and disturbing act of violence imaginable.
There is new information coming in and some people unwilling to accept it.
We are under attack from an inferior culture . . . one that has little to offer the world but backwardness and brutality.
Moreover, this culture employs asymmetrical savagery in order to shock us and advance its political agenda. That agenda includes the subjugation of women, the genocide of Jews, religious intolerance, and coercive violence.
That was the agenda on September 11, 2001. It was also the agenda on February 26, 1993 when the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim extremists aided by the Iraqi government.
The agenda is not a closely held secret. It is public. It has been public for years. And it’s been ignored for years.
Those in Europe and the United States who have tried to raise the issue to the level of public discourse have been fired from their jobs, like Robert Kilroy-Silk or shot dead like Pim Fortuyn.
Yet, the conflict is engaged no matter how much people want to hope that it’s an illusion . . . that it’s some sort of misunderstanding, that with compromise and good will from all sides we can all find a way to live in peace.
Take a look at one culture’s image of a peaceful future.
Little Green Footballs has a link to an Islamofascist web forum in Sweden on which you can find a charming video of Muslim children reenacting the beheading of Nick Berg.
You can find it here.
Perhaps even more disturbing than the film itself is the unfolding of events leading up to it. These children must have seen the gruesome original. They appear not to be disturbed by it. And some adult supervision must have been involved.
What sort of adults would devote time to this sort of after school activity? Adjectives such as primitive, hate-filled, ignorant, brutal, and unthinking come to mind.
Sure, they’ll always be some people who instinctively grasp for equivalents. “There are teenagers in Texas acting out an Abu Gharib prison fantasy right now,” they’ll reason.
This is a comforting thought only to those who have too much invested in the moral equivalence of cultures. Western notions of superiority are merely arrogance and conceit because, well, that’s what we learned in college.
Yet, I never saw a man beheaded in college nor, until today, had I ever seen children gleefully re-enact the most vivid and disturbing act of violence imaginable.
There is new information coming in and some people unwilling to accept it.
We are under attack from an inferior culture . . . one that has little to offer the world but backwardness and brutality.
Moreover, this culture employs asymmetrical savagery in order to shock us and advance its political agenda. That agenda includes the subjugation of women, the genocide of Jews, religious intolerance, and coercive violence.
That was the agenda on September 11, 2001. It was also the agenda on February 26, 1993 when the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim extremists aided by the Iraqi government.
The agenda is not a closely held secret. It is public. It has been public for years. And it’s been ignored for years.
Those in Europe and the United States who have tried to raise the issue to the level of public discourse have been fired from their jobs, like Robert Kilroy-Silk or shot dead like Pim Fortuyn.
Yet, the conflict is engaged no matter how much people want to hope that it’s an illusion . . . that it’s some sort of misunderstanding, that with compromise and good will from all sides we can all find a way to live in peace.
Take a look at one culture’s image of a peaceful future.
Saturday, June 05, 2004
What If They Had A War And No One Came (around)?
Are we at war or not? Seems like a simple question.
The United States suffered enormous casualties during an unprovoked surprise attack. The President dispatched our most advanced military forces to change the foreign regime that trained and supported the attackers. And for good measure, he also directed the armed forces to work with our last remaining willing allies, namely the British and Australians, to overthrown a brutal fascist dictator who -- through intention and past action -- posed a threat to a strategic region of the world even though he was not directly responsible for the attack that provoked the U.S. response in the first place.
Sounds like a war to me. In fact, that would be World War II.
yet for some reason the clarity of a war against fascism in the 20th century seems lost on people frenzied by BushHate® in the 21st. One such fevered dissenter is Brant Thomas of Brooklyn who writes in today's New York Times letter section:
No doubt Brant will be relieved to know that we declared war on Germany and even Italy although those countries never actually attacked us. You might even say Roosevelt acted preemptively since, after Pearl Harbor, he preferred not to wait and find out if we were vulnerable to another attack.
Didn't President Bush do the same thing? In fact, aren't the stakes even higher now? After all, Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military installation thousands of miles from the United States while Sept. 11th was an attack on civilians in downtown Manhattan resulting in twice as many casualties as Dec 7th. And wasn't Saddam a lot closer to building a nuclear weapon in 1993 than Hitler was in 1945?
Public radio also seems confused about the "war" as they would say it if you could hear scare quotes. Listen to this report on a young high school graduate who -- get this -- actually wants to join the army! While there's fighting going on!!
Jeff Tyler of "Marketplace" can barely contain his astonishment. Young educated people are volunteering to to join the "war" in droves. "You heard right," Tyler says, "the army is turning people away!"
"Don't assume they (stupid rednecks) are joining because they can't find better prospects," Tyler counsels. Some are even enlisting after they've completed college foregoing the tuition assistance that is the only possible motivation for military service in the mind of a Blue Stater.
The voice of reason in this story is the high school guidence counsellor Judy Campbell who tries to dissaude graduates from serving their country. If they are "determined" to enlist she advises them to join ROTC instead.
Tyler says, "it's tempting to assume that they join in spite of the war, in fact, many enlist because of it."
It barely registers that there are people who believe we are at war and that they feel a duty to participate and help the United States succeed.
Unstated, of course, is that such misplaced patriotism will only get you shot, or worse, get Bush re-elected.
You see, to the partisans in the Blue States, we are at war. And the enemy is Bush.
Are we at war or not? Seems like a simple question.
The United States suffered enormous casualties during an unprovoked surprise attack. The President dispatched our most advanced military forces to change the foreign regime that trained and supported the attackers. And for good measure, he also directed the armed forces to work with our last remaining willing allies, namely the British and Australians, to overthrown a brutal fascist dictator who -- through intention and past action -- posed a threat to a strategic region of the world even though he was not directly responsible for the attack that provoked the U.S. response in the first place.
Sounds like a war to me. In fact, that would be World War II.
yet for some reason the clarity of a war against fascism in the 20th century seems lost on people frenzied by BushHate® in the 21st. One such fevered dissenter is Brant Thomas of Brooklyn who writes in today's New York Times letter section:
"I would be fine with the president's citing parallels between World War II and the war on terrorism except that in the case of this war, Iraq did not attack us, and in World War II, Japan did!"
No doubt Brant will be relieved to know that we declared war on Germany and even Italy although those countries never actually attacked us. You might even say Roosevelt acted preemptively since, after Pearl Harbor, he preferred not to wait and find out if we were vulnerable to another attack.
Didn't President Bush do the same thing? In fact, aren't the stakes even higher now? After all, Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military installation thousands of miles from the United States while Sept. 11th was an attack on civilians in downtown Manhattan resulting in twice as many casualties as Dec 7th. And wasn't Saddam a lot closer to building a nuclear weapon in 1993 than Hitler was in 1945?
Public radio also seems confused about the "war" as they would say it if you could hear scare quotes. Listen to this report on a young high school graduate who -- get this -- actually wants to join the army! While there's fighting going on!!
Jeff Tyler of "Marketplace" can barely contain his astonishment. Young educated people are volunteering to to join the "war" in droves. "You heard right," Tyler says, "the army is turning people away!"
"Don't assume they (stupid rednecks) are joining because they can't find better prospects," Tyler counsels. Some are even enlisting after they've completed college foregoing the tuition assistance that is the only possible motivation for military service in the mind of a Blue Stater.
The voice of reason in this story is the high school guidence counsellor Judy Campbell who tries to dissaude graduates from serving their country. If they are "determined" to enlist she advises them to join ROTC instead.
Tyler says, "it's tempting to assume that they join in spite of the war, in fact, many enlist because of it."
It barely registers that there are people who believe we are at war and that they feel a duty to participate and help the United States succeed.
Unstated, of course, is that such misplaced patriotism will only get you shot, or worse, get Bush re-elected.
You see, to the partisans in the Blue States, we are at war. And the enemy is Bush.
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
How Did the USA Become a Warmonger?
Europeans have disliked Bush from the very beginning. Since his election they've spent an enormous amount of time thinking about what they hate about him.
The accepted wisdom, useful when waiting on line to see an old Michael Moore movie, is that Bush is a moron who is way out of his depth in the White House.
Of course, now events are catching up with him and the weight of the burden is beginning to show.
Europeans like to think that they experienced elders to Americans. They are calm and reasoned pacifists because they know first-hand the horrors of war. They believe that some day the Americans will have to come around to the European way.
Europeans also believe the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror that began when Islamofascists attacked the United States on September 11.
To listen to them you'd think that it was all part of an effort, designed by neoconservatives, to distract American voters from the dire condition of their economy.
And now that the war is going badly, which even America's one-sided and superficial news media cannot conceal, the people confused and beginning to ask troubling questions.
Eurpoeans saw this one coming. They spotted Bush as a problem early on and now they have nothing but contempt for the slow-witted American electorate.
Of course, I'm not quoting Gerhard Schroeder, Jacques Chirac, or Romano Prodi.
These are excerpts from "Amerika als Zerrbild europischer Lebensordnung," published by Der Reichsorganisationsleitung der NSDAP in 1942.
Basically, all I did was substitute the word "Bush" for "Roosevelt."
Scary how some things never change.
Europeans have disliked Bush from the very beginning. Since his election they've spent an enormous amount of time thinking about what they hate about him.
The accepted wisdom, useful when waiting on line to see an old Michael Moore movie, is that Bush is a moron who is way out of his depth in the White House.
"Bush's first problem is to deal with the problems that are coming at him from every side. He had never been able to take the long view of things, rather has always made his plans from one day to the next. That is not possible in a war.
He is the worst sort of amateur. Politically clever, but otherwise weak."
Of course, now events are catching up with him and the weight of the burden is beginning to show.
"To see Bush on television and hear him over the radio, he is no longer an arrogant president, rather a broken man with a flat voice who was no longer master of the situation he had brought about."
Europeans like to think that they experienced elders to Americans. They are calm and reasoned pacifists because they know first-hand the horrors of war. They believe that some day the Americans will have to come around to the European way.
"Americans who believed that they would never even know a war was going on now have to start thinking like Europeans. They will have to pay taxes like we do.
We began by noting that Bush's government had presided over a catastrophic economy. When he took office his predecessor had left a balanced budget. He immediately began to spend money. He promised that his policies would restore economic and social health. In fact, however, the Bush policies threw billions of dollars out the window."
Europeans also believe the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror that began when Islamofascists attacked the United States on September 11.
To listen to them you'd think that it was all part of an effort, designed by neoconservatives, to distract American voters from the dire condition of their economy.
"Bush's election promises forced him to introduce new economic policies to stimulate the economy. Driven by his advisers he wasted countless billions in stimulating the economy, but could not end the crisis. Instead, the crisis in the United States intensified.
Once again driven by his Jewish advisers, the only remaining way for Bush to deal with the economic situation was to become a world warmonger. To prevent a domestic catastrophe, he created a world-wide catastrophe."
And now that the war is going badly, which even America's one-sided and superficial news media cannot conceal, the people confused and beginning to ask troubling questions.
"The natural result is that the war is not as popular as the American government would like it to be. The invasion of Iraq was greeted in the United States with remarkable indifference.
In the weeks and months thereafter, the American press tried to build enthusiasm for the war through every possible method. But the average American could not understand that he was in a war that was a matter of life and death. The press and government try daily to fight popular attitudes.
Although they do not understand what they are supposed to be fighting for, it is gradually dawning on them that they face years of sacrifice."
Eurpoeans saw this one coming. They spotted Bush as a problem early on and now they have nothing but contempt for the slow-witted American electorate.
"That is how naive the Americans are. They are like children playing with fire, who do not think they might be burned.
Their complete political immaturity is the only explanation as to why a sick man was elected president even though there was no doubt as to the dangers of his policies."
Of course, I'm not quoting Gerhard Schroeder, Jacques Chirac, or Romano Prodi.
These are excerpts from "Amerika als Zerrbild europischer Lebensordnung," published by Der Reichsorganisationsleitung der NSDAP in 1942.
Basically, all I did was substitute the word "Bush" for "Roosevelt."
Scary how some things never change.
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Islamic Public Relations Coup
You have to hand it to the Islamofascists. Just when we begin to question whether we in the West have sunk to their level of barbarity, they remind us what true barbarity looks like.
Since the news media is suddenly squeamish about publishing disturbing images that might provoke American outrage at Muslim terrorists, I have posted a link to the video of the beheading of Nicholas Berg here. And still photos are here. Interestingly, you won't seem them in the European press.
Beware, these sounds and images will stay with you for a very long time. The video was produced by our enemies. Next time someone says George Bush is the enemy, remind them that to our real enemies your head is the same as Nick Berg’s. Regardless of what the United States does or doesn’t do, these people would murder you just as enthusiastically as they did Mr. Berg.
The New York Times, which restrained itself from publishing a picture of the Berg beheading above the fold or from even describing it in anything but the most antiseptic terms, ran a long story today about a prisoner of the Americans who was mistreated in captivity. He was humiliated, deprived of sleep, he may have even been forced to wear women’s underwear – an unspeakable torture for a proud and stylin' jihadist.
Yet, as of the interview, he was alive. His head was firmly attached to his body. In fact, we wasn't even in prison anymore.
A double standard? Thankfully, yes.
You have to hand it to the Islamofascists. Just when we begin to question whether we in the West have sunk to their level of barbarity, they remind us what true barbarity looks like.
Since the news media is suddenly squeamish about publishing disturbing images that might provoke American outrage at Muslim terrorists, I have posted a link to the video of the beheading of Nicholas Berg here. And still photos are here. Interestingly, you won't seem them in the European press.
Beware, these sounds and images will stay with you for a very long time. The video was produced by our enemies. Next time someone says George Bush is the enemy, remind them that to our real enemies your head is the same as Nick Berg’s. Regardless of what the United States does or doesn’t do, these people would murder you just as enthusiastically as they did Mr. Berg.
The New York Times, which restrained itself from publishing a picture of the Berg beheading above the fold or from even describing it in anything but the most antiseptic terms, ran a long story today about a prisoner of the Americans who was mistreated in captivity. He was humiliated, deprived of sleep, he may have even been forced to wear women’s underwear – an unspeakable torture for a proud and stylin' jihadist.
Yet, as of the interview, he was alive. His head was firmly attached to his body. In fact, we wasn't even in prison anymore.
A double standard? Thankfully, yes.
With Support Like This Who Needs Opposition
The New York Times has make a science of the "faint praise" approach to journalism. In its coverage of the Bush and Kerry campaigns the Kerry camp definitely gets the short end of the stick.
President Bush sweeps into a rally of 10,000 supporters and Kerry rouses about 500 of his folks with incoherent lines like "(Bush) doesn't have a record to run away from" . . . Whatever that means.
One African-American Kerry support who admits he doesn't much like his candidate is sitting at a table inconveniently marked "white ticket holders only."
Kerry supporters. When not conflicted, sound downright confused.
Bush is like Abraham Lincoln . . . and that's bad.
George Bush may be a vulnerable candidate but I'm still glad I'm not a Kerry supporter.
The New York Times has make a science of the "faint praise" approach to journalism. In its coverage of the Bush and Kerry campaigns the Kerry camp definitely gets the short end of the stick.
President Bush sweeps into a rally of 10,000 supporters and Kerry rouses about 500 of his folks with incoherent lines like "(Bush) doesn't have a record to run away from" . . . Whatever that means.
One African-American Kerry support who admits he doesn't much like his candidate is sitting at a table inconveniently marked "white ticket holders only."
Kerry supporters. When not conflicted, sound downright confused.
His wife, Terri Forrest Reed, nodded from beneath a straw sun hat. "I'm a Republican," Ms. Reed whispered. "Don't tell anybody."
Not only that, she said, but as president of Thomas Jefferson Butler Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, she is tired of the Bush administration claiming it stands for Southern values.
In fact, Ms. Reed said, Mr. Bush reminds her of no one so much as a president who she said once betrayed the Constitution.
"That's right," she said. "Abraham Lincoln."
Bush is like Abraham Lincoln . . . and that's bad.
George Bush may be a vulnerable candidate but I'm still glad I'm not a Kerry supporter.
Why We Must "Lose" in Iraq
David Brooks makes an excellent point this morning. For the Bush Administration’s visionary policy for implanting democracy in the parched heart of the Middle East to succeed, the United States will have to be defeated.
Confident nations need a compelling birth legend. For the United States it is a ragtag band of citizen-Minutemen rising up to defeat the most powerful military power on earth. For France it is the people taking to the barricades to unseat the dynastic monarchy. In Switzerland it is three fiercely independent cantons joining together in confederation.
No nation can create an enduring birth legend based on outside assistance. The American Revolution legend tends to ignore the pivotal role played by the French Navy. The French legend filters out allied invasion and elevates the resistance fighter. The Swiss almost never mention the important role played by Japanese cavalry officers in overcoming the recalcitrant Appenzallers.
The Iraqis need a birth legend.
To date the defeat of fascism, the gunning down of the happy-go-lucky Hussein brothers, and the capture of Saddam all occurred because of the United States. This is unacceptable.
To lay the foundation of The Iraqi Birth Legend, the United States must be defeated in some symbolic way. The Iraqis must be able to say that they were in control of their destiny. A bitterly contested election might do the trick.
Would the Bush Administration be willing to risk even symbolic defeat in Iraq. Yes, if it meant the successful closure if the Iraqi theatre of the War on Terror.
Would that make it more difficult to address other failed states such as Syria, Iran or North Korea? No. If anything, Iraqi Freedom proved that the United Nations and the Coalition of the Unwilling, no matter how vocal in their opposition, are largely impotent and inconsequential.
The Kims and Osamas of the world are the audience. And the prospect of an independent and confident Iraq would be undeniable loss of them regardless of the legend.
David Brooks makes an excellent point this morning. For the Bush Administration’s visionary policy for implanting democracy in the parched heart of the Middle East to succeed, the United States will have to be defeated.
Confident nations need a compelling birth legend. For the United States it is a ragtag band of citizen-Minutemen rising up to defeat the most powerful military power on earth. For France it is the people taking to the barricades to unseat the dynastic monarchy. In Switzerland it is three fiercely independent cantons joining together in confederation.
No nation can create an enduring birth legend based on outside assistance. The American Revolution legend tends to ignore the pivotal role played by the French Navy. The French legend filters out allied invasion and elevates the resistance fighter. The Swiss almost never mention the important role played by Japanese cavalry officers in overcoming the recalcitrant Appenzallers.
The Iraqis need a birth legend.
To date the defeat of fascism, the gunning down of the happy-go-lucky Hussein brothers, and the capture of Saddam all occurred because of the United States. This is unacceptable.
To lay the foundation of The Iraqi Birth Legend, the United States must be defeated in some symbolic way. The Iraqis must be able to say that they were in control of their destiny. A bitterly contested election might do the trick.
Would the Bush Administration be willing to risk even symbolic defeat in Iraq. Yes, if it meant the successful closure if the Iraqi theatre of the War on Terror.
Would that make it more difficult to address other failed states such as Syria, Iran or North Korea? No. If anything, Iraqi Freedom proved that the United Nations and the Coalition of the Unwilling, no matter how vocal in their opposition, are largely impotent and inconsequential.
The Kims and Osamas of the world are the audience. And the prospect of an independent and confident Iraq would be undeniable loss of them regardless of the legend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
