Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Favorite Wife's new Nokia
Well, it was time to change out Favorite Wife's cellphone. She's had a 3210 forever (5 years?) and has needed a new one for a while. Let me rephrase that - wanted a new one for a while. The word "needed" should not be used where cell phones are concerned.
Anyway, we went to our local Vodaphone.de store on the strasse, and had a lovely conversation with a very impatient young sales assistant. While she was helpful in terms of knowledge, in terms of her user friendliness and tone, well, let's just say that a younger Bedrock Guy would have engaged in a much more spirited exchange.
I received a very vivid lesson on how not to be condescending when dealing with other people (yes, I know, I needed it).
We picked up a Nokia 5410. A bit sporty, more durable casing, with a camera.
So, of course the instruction guide was "auf Deutsch" prompting me to download it from Nokia.ie. That site allowed a free download, whereas the U.S. site wanted $3. Note to Nokia.com: find another way to tick off your customers.
I downloaded the user's guide and learned how to do all the neat tricks, like operate the flashlight, the compass, and the thermometer (I'm not joking). Tonight, I hope to learn how to link to the satellite controlling the International Space Station, run the local nuclear power plant, and activate the tracking device which we embedded in Favorite Daughter last year before she departed for college.
What IS wrong with them? Our political leaders that is.
Peggy Noonan asks, “What is wrong with them? This is not a rhetorical question. I think it is unspoken question No. 1 as Americans look at so many of the individuals in our government. What is wrong with them?”
Ms. Noonan addresses the vanity of our politicians and justices in a scathing article entitled “Conceit of Government: Why are our politicians so full of themselves?”
She addresses more than just the usual suspects such as the Clintons, who shows in general, the conceit and vanity so prevalent in the public faces of these supposed leaders.
She starts by addressing the fairly well off life of Barack Obama, Democratic Senator from Illinois, who compared his life to Abraham Lincoln.
I think Ms. Noonan destroys Obama’s concept pretty well.
“This week comes the previously careful Sen. Barack Obama, flapping his wings in Time magazine and explaining that he's a lot like Abraham Lincoln, only sort of better. "In Lincoln's rise from poverty, his ultimate mastery of language and law, his capacity to overcome personal loss and remain determined in the face of repeated defeat--in all this he reminded me not just of my own struggles."
Oh. So that's what Lincoln's for. Actually Lincoln's life is a lot like Mr. Obama's. Lincoln came from a lean-to in the backwoods. His mother died when he was 9. The Lincolns had no money, no standing. Lincoln educated himself, reading law on his own, working as a field hand, a store clerk and a raft hand on the Mississippi. He also split some rails. He entered politics, knew more defeat than victory, and went on to lead the nation through its greatest trauma, the Civil War, and past its greatest sin, slavery.
Barack Obama, the son of two University of Hawaii students, went to Columbia and Harvard Law after attending a private academy that taught the children of the Hawaiian royal family. He made his name in politics as an aggressive Chicago vote hustler in Bill Clinton's first campaign for the presidency.
You see the similarities.”
Maybe Senator Obama should keep a picture on his wall of someone whom he shouldn’t be like, say, any member of the Clintons, Senator Byrd, Ted Kennedy, etc, etc.
Please don’t compare yourself to Lincoln until after you fight a war which saves the Union.
How could anyone write about conceited, self centered politicians without mentioning the Clintons. Noonan on their antics with Billy Graham.
“And there are the Clintons. There are always the Clintons. The man for whom Barack Obama worked so hard in 1992 showed up with his wife this week to take center stage at Billy Graham's last crusade in New York. Billy Graham is a great man. He bears within him deep reservoirs of sweetness, and the reservoirs often overflow. It was embarrassing to see America's two most famous political grifters plop themselves in the first row dressed in telegenic silk and allow themselves to become the focus of sweet words they knew would come.
Why did they feel it right to inject a partisan political component into a spiritual event? Why take advantage of the good nature and generosity of an old hero? Why, after spending their entire adulthoods in public life, have they not developed or at least learned to imitate simple class?”
Still, America loves these two, and will probably vote for Hillary in droves in ’08, so…I guess we should get used to it eh?
Ms. Noonan addresses the vanity of our politicians and justices in a scathing article entitled “Conceit of Government: Why are our politicians so full of themselves?”
She addresses more than just the usual suspects such as the Clintons, who shows in general, the conceit and vanity so prevalent in the public faces of these supposed leaders.
She starts by addressing the fairly well off life of Barack Obama, Democratic Senator from Illinois, who compared his life to Abraham Lincoln.
I think Ms. Noonan destroys Obama’s concept pretty well.
“This week comes the previously careful Sen. Barack Obama, flapping his wings in Time magazine and explaining that he's a lot like Abraham Lincoln, only sort of better. "In Lincoln's rise from poverty, his ultimate mastery of language and law, his capacity to overcome personal loss and remain determined in the face of repeated defeat--in all this he reminded me not just of my own struggles."
Oh. So that's what Lincoln's for. Actually Lincoln's life is a lot like Mr. Obama's. Lincoln came from a lean-to in the backwoods. His mother died when he was 9. The Lincolns had no money, no standing. Lincoln educated himself, reading law on his own, working as a field hand, a store clerk and a raft hand on the Mississippi. He also split some rails. He entered politics, knew more defeat than victory, and went on to lead the nation through its greatest trauma, the Civil War, and past its greatest sin, slavery.
Barack Obama, the son of two University of Hawaii students, went to Columbia and Harvard Law after attending a private academy that taught the children of the Hawaiian royal family. He made his name in politics as an aggressive Chicago vote hustler in Bill Clinton's first campaign for the presidency.
You see the similarities.”
Maybe Senator Obama should keep a picture on his wall of someone whom he shouldn’t be like, say, any member of the Clintons, Senator Byrd, Ted Kennedy, etc, etc.
Please don’t compare yourself to Lincoln until after you fight a war which saves the Union.
How could anyone write about conceited, self centered politicians without mentioning the Clintons. Noonan on their antics with Billy Graham.
“And there are the Clintons. There are always the Clintons. The man for whom Barack Obama worked so hard in 1992 showed up with his wife this week to take center stage at Billy Graham's last crusade in New York. Billy Graham is a great man. He bears within him deep reservoirs of sweetness, and the reservoirs often overflow. It was embarrassing to see America's two most famous political grifters plop themselves in the first row dressed in telegenic silk and allow themselves to become the focus of sweet words they knew would come.
Why did they feel it right to inject a partisan political component into a spiritual event? Why take advantage of the good nature and generosity of an old hero? Why, after spending their entire adulthoods in public life, have they not developed or at least learned to imitate simple class?”
Still, America loves these two, and will probably vote for Hillary in droves in ’08, so…I guess we should get used to it eh?
“Bellicose bloggers”?
Tom Shales reviewed how the networks and other MSM covered the President’s Fort Bragg speech.
Pretty bland article, and not overly critical of Bush, but Shales made one comment which just made me chuckle, because it really illustrated just how concerned the MSM types are about blogdom. I’ve highlighted it in red.
“In a time when some polls show the popularity of the news media to be even lower than the approval rating for Bush's conduct of the war, the managements of the networks may have feared hostile reaction if they didn't air the speech live. Political conservatives keep up a steady drumbeat of hostility against the media, something the Bush administration does nothing to discourage. Refusing to air the speech probably would have led to unpleasantness -- or at the least given the new subculture of bellicose bloggers another alleged media conspiracy to shriek about.”
It’s always a conspiracy with these MSM types, isn’t it? Call them on a few major problems inherent in the professional journalism ranks, minor things like, you know, Dan Rather and EasonGate and now, everything in blogdom is a conspiracy.
How long till a blogger uses “bellicose blogger” for the name of his/her blog?
Pretty bland article, and not overly critical of Bush, but Shales made one comment which just made me chuckle, because it really illustrated just how concerned the MSM types are about blogdom. I’ve highlighted it in red.
“In a time when some polls show the popularity of the news media to be even lower than the approval rating for Bush's conduct of the war, the managements of the networks may have feared hostile reaction if they didn't air the speech live. Political conservatives keep up a steady drumbeat of hostility against the media, something the Bush administration does nothing to discourage. Refusing to air the speech probably would have led to unpleasantness -- or at the least given the new subculture of bellicose bloggers another alleged media conspiracy to shriek about.”
It’s always a conspiracy with these MSM types, isn’t it? Call them on a few major problems inherent in the professional journalism ranks, minor things like, you know, Dan Rather and EasonGate and now, everything in blogdom is a conspiracy.
How long till a blogger uses “bellicose blogger” for the name of his/her blog?
How much longer will this country have to be subjected to this guy?
Ted Kennedy gives a nicely worded warning to anyone contemplating a run for his seat.
Please note Kennedy’s reference to “private lives.” That’s rich, coming from a Kennedy. James Taranto, who writes Best of the Web, has a way of putting any Kennedy comment in the proper perspective.
”Boston Globe columnist Brian McGrory reports Sen. Ted Kennedy is trying to dispel the idea that running against him is a good career move for Republicans:
The rationale is as follows: The affable Kennedy tends to run gentlemanly campaigns against his invariably inexperienced opponents; the Republican candidate runs and loses in a mutually respectful race; a couple of years later, the defeated Republican uses the positive publicity generated during the Kennedy campaign to win a different statewide office. . . .
Now comes Kennedy to profoundly disagree. In fact, he was on the phone last week from Washington to essentially say that the nice-guy campaigns of yesteryear are just that: history. Anyone who runs against him for the rest of his career runs at his or her own peril.
''Historically, what I've always tried to do is run for the office, not against someone," he said, an acknowledgement of what's gone on before.
Then he delivered this barely veiled threat: ''This is a difficult and challenging profession. No one should come to it lightly. As it should be. People have to be held accountable, professionally, and the public is looking at it in terms of private lives, as well. Everything is fair game."
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.”
For my younger readers, a link on the short life of Mary Kopechne, who died in 1969 in Kennedy’s car, which was upside down, in the water. The article to which I’ve linked will tell you the rest of the story, including how Kennedy acted after the accident.
One would think that Kennedy would be very hesitant to threaten anyone over their “private lives.”
Please note Kennedy’s reference to “private lives.” That’s rich, coming from a Kennedy. James Taranto, who writes Best of the Web, has a way of putting any Kennedy comment in the proper perspective.
”Boston Globe columnist Brian McGrory reports Sen. Ted Kennedy is trying to dispel the idea that running against him is a good career move for Republicans:
The rationale is as follows: The affable Kennedy tends to run gentlemanly campaigns against his invariably inexperienced opponents; the Republican candidate runs and loses in a mutually respectful race; a couple of years later, the defeated Republican uses the positive publicity generated during the Kennedy campaign to win a different statewide office. . . .
Now comes Kennedy to profoundly disagree. In fact, he was on the phone last week from Washington to essentially say that the nice-guy campaigns of yesteryear are just that: history. Anyone who runs against him for the rest of his career runs at his or her own peril.
''Historically, what I've always tried to do is run for the office, not against someone," he said, an acknowledgement of what's gone on before.
Then he delivered this barely veiled threat: ''This is a difficult and challenging profession. No one should come to it lightly. As it should be. People have to be held accountable, professionally, and the public is looking at it in terms of private lives, as well. Everything is fair game."
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.”
For my younger readers, a link on the short life of Mary Kopechne, who died in 1969 in Kennedy’s car, which was upside down, in the water. The article to which I’ve linked will tell you the rest of the story, including how Kennedy acted after the accident.
One would think that Kennedy would be very hesitant to threaten anyone over their “private lives.”
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Fit to be a Senator?
“It’s like they’re just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we’re losing in Iraq.”—Senator Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.), June 27, 2005, U.S. News & World Report.
If Hagel really said this, well, how dare he support the enemies of freedom and democracy.
How are we losing? Please explain Senator Hagel.
Jeez, you sound like a 21st Century Kennedy when you talk like that.
If Hagel really said this, well, how dare he support the enemies of freedom and democracy.
How are we losing? Please explain Senator Hagel.
Jeez, you sound like a 21st Century Kennedy when you talk like that.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Soros buying part of the Nats?
Hey Major League Baseball.
If you let a group which has left wing extremists buy the Nats, I'm done with MLB.
Done, Finished, Out of Here.
I suffered thru Ted and Jane cuz I loved baseball and the Braves. But, I was younger than and believed that politics really didn't matter.
But, politics do matter. We are at war. Guys like this potential owner do not understand this. Do we want guys like this representing baseball?
I'll be damned if I'll support any sport with has anti-American owners.
I love baseball. But, baseball is an American sport. Let guys like Soros buy a soccer team. I'm sure soccer and the countries which are "soccer oriented" share his values more so than does the U.S.
If you let a group which has left wing extremists buy the Nats, I'm done with MLB.
Done, Finished, Out of Here.
I suffered thru Ted and Jane cuz I loved baseball and the Braves. But, I was younger than and believed that politics really didn't matter.
But, politics do matter. We are at war. Guys like this potential owner do not understand this. Do we want guys like this representing baseball?
I'll be damned if I'll support any sport with has anti-American owners.
I love baseball. But, baseball is an American sport. Let guys like Soros buy a soccer team. I'm sure soccer and the countries which are "soccer oriented" share his values more so than does the U.S.
I deal with the lefties and their "nazi" comments
Wow. I've spent much too much time addressing left wing responses to my comments about the whole Republicans = Nazi schtick. I mean, do these guys really believe this concept? Amazing. Anyway, I just felt the need to respond to the left wing comments generated by this newspaper article about a left wing lawyer in Durham, NC (Go Duke!).
Apparently, Ms. Hunter wasn't too happy with something in the electoral process (you know, just like the one they have in Nazi/Communist/Iran-like countries). She likened the Republicans to Nazis on her website. "The administration is acting like the Nazis."
Well, I'd certainly want to hire her law firm.
"A candidate for North Carolina Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court has announced on her campaign's blog that she is leaving the Republican Party and denounced the Bush administration's policy on troop withdrawal from Iraq. Rachel Lea Hunter, a Republican and a candidate for Chief Justice, likens Bush's administration to the Nazis and says that all who disagree with the administration are being branded as traitors.
Hunter is an attorney in Durham, NC with the firm of Browne, Flebotte, Wilson, Horn & Webb. Hunter's web page says she offers pre-paid legal services. Hunter ran unsuccessfully in 2004 for the North Carolina Appeals Court. She recently announced her intent to run for the Supreme Court."
I responded to a few comments made by left wingers. I've listed them below. Read through the comments. The left wing extremists compliment Hunter on her Nazi comparisons.
So, I made a comment in response:
"Isn't the Nazi schtick getting old with you guys?
Wow. Another left wing extremist uses the original term "nazis" and in turn brings out the usual extremist left wingers. Amazing how you continue to compare Republicans to Nazis. I live in Germany. If you need a lessons on Nazis and the differences between Nazis and Republicans, please let me know. Thanks. Bedrock Guy"
To which some stalwart lefty replied:
"I can't speak for anyone else here, but I for one would love to hear you explain the differences between Hitler's Nazis and the Bush administration of today.Far as I can tell, they're from the same mold."
My response:
"hi anonymous. Got a name or a blog?Anyway, thanks for responding. Do I really have to explain the difference. c'mon, you can't be serious. Didn't you watch WWII movies when you were a kid? Read Speer? Army Green Books? If you had, you wouldn't make the ignorant comments like you made above. In case you haven't guessed, I'm a Republican. I'm not a Nazi. On the other hand, I'm much more tolerant and open minded than you. So...left wing extremist that you are, who is more like a Nazi? r/ Bedrock Guy :o)"
Which in turn generated this:
"Reading from your Bedrock Guy Blog, you contradict yourself here. In fact, you're doing quite a bit of Bush/Republican bashing yourself."
So, I responded:
"Wow, where to start.First, thanks for reading my blog. bedrockguy.blogspot.com.
Second, how do I "contradict myself"? Please let me know.
Third, of course I bash the current Administration, which is a great example of just how wrong you are to talk about "nazis". If the Republicans were "nazis" like you and your kind like to claim, we would come for you in the night, with that great European siren blaring, and haul your sorry butt off to the concentration camp/ gulag/gitmo or whatever you lefties are calling it this week.Really, can you be serious for one minute. How does that Taliban like diatribe you printed above tell us anything?
Finally, I'll continue to criticize this administration, and any other Republican who I feel is doing something they should not. Its refreshing. Try that with your party some time. It would show you just how free we are in America. Nazis. Jeez, I hate those guys."
One lefty said that Republicans were intolerant. Heavy sigh.
"Amazing how republicans always call anyone who disagrees with their narrow-minded, extremist views as terrorists. Me thinks the pot is calling the kettle black."
Of course, this lefty is incorrect, and I responded below:
"Uh, when have Republicans done that as a party? On the other hand, doesn't your group have a problem with stereotyping anyone who disagrees with your views as Nazi or fascist? Look in the mirror my friend. r/ Bedrock Guy"
And they wonder why their patriotism is a question?
Apparently, Ms. Hunter wasn't too happy with something in the electoral process (you know, just like the one they have in Nazi/Communist/Iran-like countries). She likened the Republicans to Nazis on her website. "The administration is acting like the Nazis."
Well, I'd certainly want to hire her law firm.
"A candidate for North Carolina Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court has announced on her campaign's blog that she is leaving the Republican Party and denounced the Bush administration's policy on troop withdrawal from Iraq. Rachel Lea Hunter, a Republican and a candidate for Chief Justice, likens Bush's administration to the Nazis and says that all who disagree with the administration are being branded as traitors.
Hunter is an attorney in Durham, NC with the firm of Browne, Flebotte, Wilson, Horn & Webb. Hunter's web page says she offers pre-paid legal services. Hunter ran unsuccessfully in 2004 for the North Carolina Appeals Court. She recently announced her intent to run for the Supreme Court."
Her website says she studies history. Really. One would think she would know the difference between Nazis and Republicans.
After you read the article, here's how to contact the law firm which lists her as an associate. http://www.browneflebotte.com/contact.htmI responded to a few comments made by left wingers. I've listed them below. Read through the comments. The left wing extremists compliment Hunter on her Nazi comparisons.
So, I made a comment in response:
"Isn't the Nazi schtick getting old with you guys?
Wow. Another left wing extremist uses the original term "nazis" and in turn brings out the usual extremist left wingers. Amazing how you continue to compare Republicans to Nazis. I live in Germany. If you need a lessons on Nazis and the differences between Nazis and Republicans, please let me know. Thanks. Bedrock Guy"
To which some stalwart lefty replied:
"I can't speak for anyone else here, but I for one would love to hear you explain the differences between Hitler's Nazis and the Bush administration of today.Far as I can tell, they're from the same mold."
My response:
"hi anonymous. Got a name or a blog?Anyway, thanks for responding. Do I really have to explain the difference. c'mon, you can't be serious. Didn't you watch WWII movies when you were a kid? Read Speer? Army Green Books? If you had, you wouldn't make the ignorant comments like you made above. In case you haven't guessed, I'm a Republican. I'm not a Nazi. On the other hand, I'm much more tolerant and open minded than you. So...left wing extremist that you are, who is more like a Nazi? r/ Bedrock Guy :o)"
Which in turn generated this:
"Reading from your Bedrock Guy Blog, you contradict yourself here. In fact, you're doing quite a bit of Bush/Republican bashing yourself."
So, I responded:
"Wow, where to start.First, thanks for reading my blog. bedrockguy.blogspot.com.
Second, how do I "contradict myself"? Please let me know.
Third, of course I bash the current Administration, which is a great example of just how wrong you are to talk about "nazis". If the Republicans were "nazis" like you and your kind like to claim, we would come for you in the night, with that great European siren blaring, and haul your sorry butt off to the concentration camp/ gulag/gitmo or whatever you lefties are calling it this week.Really, can you be serious for one minute. How does that Taliban like diatribe you printed above tell us anything?
Finally, I'll continue to criticize this administration, and any other Republican who I feel is doing something they should not. Its refreshing. Try that with your party some time. It would show you just how free we are in America. Nazis. Jeez, I hate those guys."
One lefty said that Republicans were intolerant. Heavy sigh.
"Amazing how republicans always call anyone who disagrees with their narrow-minded, extremist views as terrorists. Me thinks the pot is calling the kettle black."
Of course, this lefty is incorrect, and I responded below:
"Uh, when have Republicans done that as a party? On the other hand, doesn't your group have a problem with stereotyping anyone who disagrees with your views as Nazi or fascist? Look in the mirror my friend. r/ Bedrock Guy"
And they wonder why their patriotism is a question?
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Back from Amalfi
%20012.jpg)
%20020.jpg)
%20043.jpg)
%20111.jpg)
%20059.jpg)
Hi Everyone. Favorite Wife and I had a great trip to the Amalfi Coast in Italy. We stayed in a nice hotel in Amalfi, next to the harbor. We flew down on Ryan Air, always interesting and tiring, rented a car, and drove to the coast. Along the way we passed through the U.S. Fifth Army battlefields of 1943 and 1944.
The photos here show just a few of the highlights. We flew in right over Rome while landing at Ciampino Airport south of the city of Highway 7 (the old Appian Way). The night photo is from our room on our anniversary night after we returned from dinner in the Amalfi town square. My little Fuji has the ability to take great photos and I'm learning more about it every day. The photo of the Amalfi town square was taken at the top of the cathedral steps. We had dinner every night at the restaurant just to the right of the steps. A great location, good food, and perhaps most critical, a nice breeze off the sea. The mules? We ran into them at 0700 one morning while doing our morning walk, as we turned out of a small back alley. A construction team was using them to move debris. Shades of resupplying the U.S. Fifth Army in Italy in WWII. The final photo is the altar area in the Amalfi Cathedral.
We returned early Saturday morning after a late Friday night flight. Need to catch up on our sleep, respond to my emails, and get ready for a long work day on Monday.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Limited blogging for a few days
I'll be unable to blog for a few days. See you again on Saturday, 25 June.
I've posted 3 new entries below.
I've posted 3 new entries below.
It’s not a problem just at Zoomland
I have not blogged about the ongoing problem with religious intolerance at the Air Force Academy. I should have, because this type of problem is evident elsewhere in the military.
See this email of the day at Andrewsullivan.com concerning the Navy. We’ve read numerous accounts in the Stars and Stripes about problems in the Chaplain Corps.
I’ve had numerous experiences with fundamentalist Christians telling me I was going to hell because I did not believe in their particular interpretation of the Bible and God’s word.
Well…here’s a news flash for you buddy. Hell is going to be pretty crowded.
If your God is that intolerant and he’s so much of a niche marketer, why are you so sure you're correct? More importantly, what if you're WRONG?
See this email of the day at Andrewsullivan.com concerning the Navy. We’ve read numerous accounts in the Stars and Stripes about problems in the Chaplain Corps.
I’ve had numerous experiences with fundamentalist Christians telling me I was going to hell because I did not believe in their particular interpretation of the Bible and God’s word.
Well…here’s a news flash for you buddy. Hell is going to be pretty crowded.
If your God is that intolerant and he’s so much of a niche marketer, why are you so sure you're correct? More importantly, what if you're WRONG?
NY Times columnist calls out the left wing extremists
Tom Friedman very succinctly says exactly what they have been doing in this war: rooting for an American defeat.
"Liberals don't want to talk about Iraq because, with a few exceptions, they thought the war was wrong and deep down don't want the Bush team to succeed."
Belgravia Dispatch has more.
A short trip through some of the more "mainstream" left wing extremist sites find Friedman being described in some very uncomplimentary and profane ways. Oh well, guess the truth hurts. The left wing hates Bush and has made a number of comments indicating that the war is secondary to the defeat of Bush and the Republicans.
"Liberals don't want to talk about Iraq because, with a few exceptions, they thought the war was wrong and deep down don't want the Bush team to succeed."
Belgravia Dispatch has more.
A short trip through some of the more "mainstream" left wing extremist sites find Friedman being described in some very uncomplimentary and profane ways. Oh well, guess the truth hurts. The left wing hates Bush and has made a number of comments indicating that the war is secondary to the defeat of Bush and the Republicans.
An amazing example of hate from a German Diplomat in the U.S.
I thought I had seen a lot until I read Bret Stephens' column in Friday’s Wall Street Journal.
I was wrong.
A few highlights from this senior German diplomat to the German consulate in New York, an individual whom Stephens declines to name.
"But the diplomat had no patience for my small talk. Apropos of nothing, he said he had recently made a study of U.S. tax laws and concluded that practices here were inferior to those in Germany. Given recent rates of German economic growth, I found this comment odd. But I offered no rejoinder. I was, after all, a guest in his home.
The diplomat, however, was just getting started. Bad as U.S. economic policy was, it was as nothing next to our human-rights record. Had I read the recent Amnesty International report on Guantanamo? "You mean the one that compared it to the Soviet gulag?" Yes, that one. My host disagreed with it: The gulag was better than Gitmo, since at least the Stalinist system offered its victims a trial of sorts.
Nor was that all. Civil rights in the U.S., he said, were on a par with those of North Korea and rather behind what they had been in Europe in the Middle Ages. When I offered that, as a journalist, I had encountered no restrictions on press freedom, he cut me off. "That's because The Wall Street Journal takes its orders from the government."
By then we had sat down at the formal dining table, with our backs to Ground Zero a half-mile away and our eyes on the boats on the river below us. My wife and I made abortive attempts at ordinary conversation. We were met with non sequiturs: "The only people who appreciate American foreign policy are poodles." After further bizarre pronouncements, including a lecture on the illegality of the Holocaust under Nazi law, my wife said that she felt unwell. We gathered our things and left."
Stephens seems disappointed in himself that he did not argue more with this creep. He should have, despite the fact that this German diplomat was hosting Stephens and his wife.
Idiocy, hate, and anti-Americanism have to be confronted, directly, and forcefully.
This German diplomat is the type of guy I love to meet in the local restaurants and coffee shops. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel when you argue with them.
How dare a German diplomat equate us with North Korea.
What’s the line from Patton? “I almost pity the poor dumb bastards; by God, I do.”
But I really don't pity them. They are a contemptible lot, worthy of our scorn. What disturbs me most is that you hear this, and read this from, the educated classes in Europe. Then again, as I think about it, you hear stuff like this from the left wing and their allies in America.
I was wrong.
A few highlights from this senior German diplomat to the German consulate in New York, an individual whom Stephens declines to name.
"But the diplomat had no patience for my small talk. Apropos of nothing, he said he had recently made a study of U.S. tax laws and concluded that practices here were inferior to those in Germany. Given recent rates of German economic growth, I found this comment odd. But I offered no rejoinder. I was, after all, a guest in his home.
The diplomat, however, was just getting started. Bad as U.S. economic policy was, it was as nothing next to our human-rights record. Had I read the recent Amnesty International report on Guantanamo? "You mean the one that compared it to the Soviet gulag?" Yes, that one. My host disagreed with it: The gulag was better than Gitmo, since at least the Stalinist system offered its victims a trial of sorts.
Nor was that all. Civil rights in the U.S., he said, were on a par with those of North Korea and rather behind what they had been in Europe in the Middle Ages. When I offered that, as a journalist, I had encountered no restrictions on press freedom, he cut me off. "That's because The Wall Street Journal takes its orders from the government."
By then we had sat down at the formal dining table, with our backs to Ground Zero a half-mile away and our eyes on the boats on the river below us. My wife and I made abortive attempts at ordinary conversation. We were met with non sequiturs: "The only people who appreciate American foreign policy are poodles." After further bizarre pronouncements, including a lecture on the illegality of the Holocaust under Nazi law, my wife said that she felt unwell. We gathered our things and left."
Stephens seems disappointed in himself that he did not argue more with this creep. He should have, despite the fact that this German diplomat was hosting Stephens and his wife.
Idiocy, hate, and anti-Americanism have to be confronted, directly, and forcefully.
This German diplomat is the type of guy I love to meet in the local restaurants and coffee shops. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel when you argue with them.
How dare a German diplomat equate us with North Korea.
What’s the line from Patton? “I almost pity the poor dumb bastards; by God, I do.”
But I really don't pity them. They are a contemptible lot, worthy of our scorn. What disturbs me most is that you hear this, and read this from, the educated classes in Europe. Then again, as I think about it, you hear stuff like this from the left wing and their allies in America.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Happy Father's Day
Hope all the Dads out there are having a great day. Thank you for all you do for your kids and your families.
What do Democrats stand for?
Maybe this. I don’t know, but given what their leadership talks about, maybe this graphic is correct.
And they wonder why Dems are not trusted on national security issues.
The long term decline of Democratic representation in the Senate
No, this is not a chart of my tech stock performance from 2001-2003.
It’s a graphic showing how the Democrats have, since the Vietnam era, declined in Senate representation. The blogger, John Hawkins, extrapolates this decline into a 60 Seat Republican Senate within 10 years, but I think that’s expecting too much.
Why?
1) Republican overreach, particularly by the Christian right and other allies
2) War weariness – spreading democracy is getting hard, with more war and pain in our future. Republicans are running for the door (of course, they can’t get through the door, because the exits have been blocked by stampeding Dems - but thats another story).
3) An economic downtown for which the Republicans will be blamed.
4) The President is now running against a “do nothing”, obstructionist Democratic Party (shades of my favorite President, Harry S. Truman). What is the majority party in the Senate and House? What has Congress accomplished lately?
It’s a graphic showing how the Democrats have, since the Vietnam era, declined in Senate representation. The blogger, John Hawkins, extrapolates this decline into a 60 Seat Republican Senate within 10 years, but I think that’s expecting too much.
Why?
1) Republican overreach, particularly by the Christian right and other allies
2) War weariness – spreading democracy is getting hard, with more war and pain in our future. Republicans are running for the door (of course, they can’t get through the door, because the exits have been blocked by stampeding Dems - but thats another story).
3) An economic downtown for which the Republicans will be blamed.
4) The President is now running against a “do nothing”, obstructionist Democratic Party (shades of my favorite President, Harry S. Truman). What is the majority party in the Senate and House? What has Congress accomplished lately?
Cultural insensitivity
But what do you call the people who tried to kill the baby?
Apparently an American aid worker was nursing her baby in Ethiopia and was observed by the local women, who did not like the scene and were in fact, a “bit” outraged.
"U2 frontman BONO was horrified during a visit to Ethiopia, when he saw local women pelting a breast-feeding aid worker with stones.
The American woman was oblivious of the offence she was causing, and had to escape the angry onslaught from female Muslims who had no qualms about injuring her or her baby
Bono recalls, "I remember one vision of the people who are with WORLD VISION, which is an American aid agency.
"One of the women was breast-feeding a child on the horse. She was so comfortable. She didn't mean to be insensitive.
"But the Muslim women did not like this and came out and started throwing stones at her because she was showing her breasts."
Can’t you just imagine the conversations in the air conditioned car that BONO and his boys must have had. I mean, trying to make sense of that scene without being judgmental. God forbid they would make a judgment about a different culture.
My questions:
1) Did Bono and his team criticize the American woman for her “cultural insensitivity” because she had the audacity to breast feed her baby?
or
2) Did Bono and his team criticize the Ethiopian women for their “cultural insensitivity” in trying to KILL the woman and her baby by stoning them?
Apparently an American aid worker was nursing her baby in Ethiopia and was observed by the local women, who did not like the scene and were in fact, a “bit” outraged.
"U2 frontman BONO was horrified during a visit to Ethiopia, when he saw local women pelting a breast-feeding aid worker with stones.
The American woman was oblivious of the offence she was causing, and had to escape the angry onslaught from female Muslims who had no qualms about injuring her or her baby
Bono recalls, "I remember one vision of the people who are with WORLD VISION, which is an American aid agency.
"One of the women was breast-feeding a child on the horse. She was so comfortable. She didn't mean to be insensitive.
"But the Muslim women did not like this and came out and started throwing stones at her because she was showing her breasts."
Can’t you just imagine the conversations in the air conditioned car that BONO and his boys must have had. I mean, trying to make sense of that scene without being judgmental. God forbid they would make a judgment about a different culture.
My questions:
1) Did Bono and his team criticize the American woman for her “cultural insensitivity” because she had the audacity to breast feed her baby?
or
2) Did Bono and his team criticize the Ethiopian women for their “cultural insensitivity” in trying to KILL the woman and her baby by stoning them?
Thank you, American Catholic Bishops – now, could you work on something useful?
For example, on policing the ranks of the priesthood and removing the pedophiles and the child abusers?
I think that’s a little more important to the long term survival of our faith than your concern over the execution of criminals.
I think that’s a little more important to the long term survival of our faith than your concern over the execution of criminals.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Comments on Professor Junker's remarks at the University of Maryland - Europe Commencement
I’ve been discussing his comments at the 29 May commencement ceremony of the University of Maryland – Europe, with my friends and colleagues. Junker's remarks have been a useful vehicle for reviewing European anti-Americanism, suitable topics for college commencements, and how the U.S. and Europe work together on the world stage.
Some of my thoughts on his written remarks, which I’ve reprinted below.
I agree that Junker’s comments are fairly innocuous, but only when compared to the rabid anti-American stuff to which we have grown accustomed over the last 2+ years. Sadly, I think the fact that we can view his comments in this light shows just how much extremist commentary now passes for “moderate” anti-American or anti-Bush opinion.
First, his rudeness in his choice of venues.
Concerning how invited guests speak at commencements, I think that Junker violated a basic rule and forgot, quite simply - IT AIN'T ABOUT YOU; IT'S ABOUT THE GRADUATES. He left many people disappointed and upset. I don’t feel that’s an appropriate endstate for a commencement address. He can now, however, claim he walked into the lion’s den and told the mean, war mongering, unilateral Americans what they needed to hear. A good resume builder for Junker perhaps, but inappropriate for a commencement.
College graduates should be expected to contemplate larger issues which require them to utilize collected knowledge and information. No doubt about that. Leave the controversy, however, in the conference room and lecture hall. He was not speaking just to the graduates, but to their families and friends. Should we have expected them to check their emotions at the door and only analyze Junkers' comments in the context of their college educations? I think not.
He was invited to speak at an American commencement. He was invited into UofM's house, so to speak. He then proceeded to tell his hosts all the terrible things they are doing and how they are a unilateral, war mongering power which forfeited the moral high ground in the fight for human rights. Really? Has the United States done nothing correctly after it was attacked on 9/11? Is it possible to disagree on the strategy of how to fight back? Apparently not. In Junker's world, you are either with the Europeans, or they are against you. Hmmh. Sounds vaguely familiar, but I thought Junker was opposed to that mindset and approach to war fighting.
Junker claimed that as a historian he must take a long term perspective. Bully for him. I agree, we should. In taking said perspective, however, Junker should give more credit to America and this administration for understanding the long term and debilitating effects of what had gone on before 9/11. Failed policies, weak military responses, and a willingness to look the other way led to 9/11. Such weakness in the post Cold War era led to 9/11 and undermined the long term objectives of the United States or Europe.
One of my friends told me that Junker could have highlighted the support which as been provided by the German government, particularly in force protection and training support. I fully agree. Had he done so, essentially making mitigating comments about how the German government has supported the United States, he would have highlighted a very positive aspect of our relationship instead of coming across as yet one more European anti-American antagonist using a speaking opportunity to bash this administration and the United States.
I continue to be disturbed at how many Americans defend European hypocrisy and lack of support for the United States as it fights against the forces of darkness and illiberalism. We must take our allies and other nations into account as we conduct GWOT, but only to the extent that we must have allies for the critical campaigns of the future such as North Korea, Iran, and a resurging, nationalistic China.
Taking the concerns of our allies into account, however, should be a major factor only when we believe they have something material to contribute to the fight, and in this case, many of these allies do not, either philosophically, culturally, or militarily. Most are bankrupt in all areas when it comes to addressing long term threats to Western civilization and culture.
Taking offense against the United States because it is attempting to operate differently, particularly given the failed policies in regards to the Middle East over time, says something about the allies, and not necessarily about the United States or this administration.
It seems to have become common practice to gratuitously criticize how this administration conducts military and diplomatic operations and the impact it has in regards to our allies. While this is a legitimate topic for discussion, I do grow weary of the continuing refrains about how we should have listened to the Europeans. Listened to them about what? How to deal with Arab culture and the Arab "street"? How to foster democracy? How to fight? I'm not sure they have much to offer on any of those topics. Perhaps this administration developed a strategic plan which might be considered "unilateral" because it saw that more issues existed than a single minded focus on Al-Qaeda.
As for the comments that the United States does not listen, I must disagree. I think the U.S. listens very well. It heard exactly what the Junkers and their governments were saying, which in turn contributed to the sense that the U.S. must act decisively or else the Europeans would talk the problem to death with no appropriate outcome.
I could, right now, list 10-15 items which the U.S. has done poorly or failed to do at all to win this fight. I could list a number of such items about the U.S. effort during the Second World War. Mistakes have been made and will be made in the future. Should we quit now because it’s getting a bit tougher, or its taking longer than we want, or because it’s not falling into place as some “plan” mandated?
Those who continually and harshly criticize everything this administration and nation do during the Global War on Terror undermine their ability to influence any policy or outcome. Calling us dumb, uninformed, or unaware not only insults Americans, but also illustrates a persistent condescending attitude. Last I checked, historians and teachers believed such behavior was a detriment to learning and discussion. Listening works both ways, and I think that Junker failed to address that critical point in his address.
America is linked, culturally, politically, and historically with Europe. A weak Europe does not benefit the U.S. given the issues we face in the next 25 years. We absolutely must work to repair our relationships with Europe and improve the perception of America with Europeans and their governments. The need to do repair work, however, applies to the Europeans as well. Junker should have mentioned that, or if he did, emphasized the point that European governments and citizens are unaware of American concerns.
Why are the Americans the only ones who must work to improve the relationship? Don't Europeans have some responsibilities? Have the Europeans done nothing to damage the relationship?
Some of my thoughts on his written remarks, which I’ve reprinted below.
I agree that Junker’s comments are fairly innocuous, but only when compared to the rabid anti-American stuff to which we have grown accustomed over the last 2+ years. Sadly, I think the fact that we can view his comments in this light shows just how much extremist commentary now passes for “moderate” anti-American or anti-Bush opinion.
First, his rudeness in his choice of venues.
Concerning how invited guests speak at commencements, I think that Junker violated a basic rule and forgot, quite simply - IT AIN'T ABOUT YOU; IT'S ABOUT THE GRADUATES. He left many people disappointed and upset. I don’t feel that’s an appropriate endstate for a commencement address. He can now, however, claim he walked into the lion’s den and told the mean, war mongering, unilateral Americans what they needed to hear. A good resume builder for Junker perhaps, but inappropriate for a commencement.
College graduates should be expected to contemplate larger issues which require them to utilize collected knowledge and information. No doubt about that. Leave the controversy, however, in the conference room and lecture hall. He was not speaking just to the graduates, but to their families and friends. Should we have expected them to check their emotions at the door and only analyze Junkers' comments in the context of their college educations? I think not.
He was invited to speak at an American commencement. He was invited into UofM's house, so to speak. He then proceeded to tell his hosts all the terrible things they are doing and how they are a unilateral, war mongering power which forfeited the moral high ground in the fight for human rights. Really? Has the United States done nothing correctly after it was attacked on 9/11? Is it possible to disagree on the strategy of how to fight back? Apparently not. In Junker's world, you are either with the Europeans, or they are against you. Hmmh. Sounds vaguely familiar, but I thought Junker was opposed to that mindset and approach to war fighting.
Junker claimed that as a historian he must take a long term perspective. Bully for him. I agree, we should. In taking said perspective, however, Junker should give more credit to America and this administration for understanding the long term and debilitating effects of what had gone on before 9/11. Failed policies, weak military responses, and a willingness to look the other way led to 9/11. Such weakness in the post Cold War era led to 9/11 and undermined the long term objectives of the United States or Europe.
One of my friends told me that Junker could have highlighted the support which as been provided by the German government, particularly in force protection and training support. I fully agree. Had he done so, essentially making mitigating comments about how the German government has supported the United States, he would have highlighted a very positive aspect of our relationship instead of coming across as yet one more European anti-American antagonist using a speaking opportunity to bash this administration and the United States.
I continue to be disturbed at how many Americans defend European hypocrisy and lack of support for the United States as it fights against the forces of darkness and illiberalism. We must take our allies and other nations into account as we conduct GWOT, but only to the extent that we must have allies for the critical campaigns of the future such as North Korea, Iran, and a resurging, nationalistic China.
Taking the concerns of our allies into account, however, should be a major factor only when we believe they have something material to contribute to the fight, and in this case, many of these allies do not, either philosophically, culturally, or militarily. Most are bankrupt in all areas when it comes to addressing long term threats to Western civilization and culture.
Taking offense against the United States because it is attempting to operate differently, particularly given the failed policies in regards to the Middle East over time, says something about the allies, and not necessarily about the United States or this administration.
It seems to have become common practice to gratuitously criticize how this administration conducts military and diplomatic operations and the impact it has in regards to our allies. While this is a legitimate topic for discussion, I do grow weary of the continuing refrains about how we should have listened to the Europeans. Listened to them about what? How to deal with Arab culture and the Arab "street"? How to foster democracy? How to fight? I'm not sure they have much to offer on any of those topics. Perhaps this administration developed a strategic plan which might be considered "unilateral" because it saw that more issues existed than a single minded focus on Al-Qaeda.
As for the comments that the United States does not listen, I must disagree. I think the U.S. listens very well. It heard exactly what the Junkers and their governments were saying, which in turn contributed to the sense that the U.S. must act decisively or else the Europeans would talk the problem to death with no appropriate outcome.
I could, right now, list 10-15 items which the U.S. has done poorly or failed to do at all to win this fight. I could list a number of such items about the U.S. effort during the Second World War. Mistakes have been made and will be made in the future. Should we quit now because it’s getting a bit tougher, or its taking longer than we want, or because it’s not falling into place as some “plan” mandated?
Those who continually and harshly criticize everything this administration and nation do during the Global War on Terror undermine their ability to influence any policy or outcome. Calling us dumb, uninformed, or unaware not only insults Americans, but also illustrates a persistent condescending attitude. Last I checked, historians and teachers believed such behavior was a detriment to learning and discussion. Listening works both ways, and I think that Junker failed to address that critical point in his address.
America is linked, culturally, politically, and historically with Europe. A weak Europe does not benefit the U.S. given the issues we face in the next 25 years. We absolutely must work to repair our relationships with Europe and improve the perception of America with Europeans and their governments. The need to do repair work, however, applies to the Europeans as well. Junker should have mentioned that, or if he did, emphasized the point that European governments and citizens are unaware of American concerns.
Why are the Americans the only ones who must work to improve the relationship? Don't Europeans have some responsibilities? Have the Europeans done nothing to damage the relationship?
Transcript of Professor Junker speech at University of Maryland - Europe Commencement
The University of Maryland - Europe provided this transcript after I requested it via phone and email. I've listed it below for your review and comment.
Remember, this is the text provided by the University of Maryland. His actual remarks may have differed. UofM offers a video of the graduation, but told me it would not have all of his remarks. I am currently looking for another video source.
________________
Remember, this is the text provided by the University of Maryland. His actual remarks may have differed. UofM offers a video of the graduation, but told me it would not have all of his remarks. I am currently looking for another video source.
________________
The United States, Germany and Europe: A Historian's Perspective
Commencement Address
Commencement of the University of Maryland University College-Europe
May 29, 2005
By Detlef Junker
Regent Pevenstein, Regent Acosta, President Heeger, Director Golembe, distinguished representatives of the U.S. military community, honored guests and friends, and most of all, Members of the Class of 2005.
I am deeply moved by the distinction awarded to me by the University of Maryland, a great institution which has left its marks on every continent. I have to confess: When I heard the exciting news about the conferring of an honorary doctorate, I discovered that I am not completely free from vanity - yet.
This award is an encouragement for me to continue doing what I have done in the last thirty-five years: fostering understanding and cooperation between the United States and Germany, both as a citizen and as a scholar. I feel revitalized at a moment in world history when I am deeply concerned about the current state of American-European and American-German relations, about the growing transatlantic divide, the growing anti-Europeanism in the United States, the growing anti-Americanism in Europe and in Germany, and the almost free fall of the reputation of the U.S., especially in Old Europe documented repeatedly in public opinion polls.
The trademark of historians is the long-range perspective. Therefore, I would like to place my current concerns in a historical perspective. Only then do we understand the origin and significance of the current transatlantic drift.
Don't worry. In spite of this historical perspective I'll try to be brief because I know there's nothing more agonizing than a long speech by a German history professor.
From a geo-strategic perspective, containing the power of the German
nation-state in the center of Europe had been a leitmotif of American policy in Europe since the age of imperialism, when Kaiser Wilhelm II's Germany and an imperial America outgrew their status as regional powers to become competing world powers. Germany did not become a problem for the United States until it threatened to rise to the level of hegemonic power or oppressor of Europe.
Unlike Germany's European neighbors, the distant United States never feared the German nation-state created in 1871, but always the rival world power. That is why the United States not only fought the Germany of Wilhelm and the Nazis in two world wars, but also sought to contain and stabilize the Weimar Republic and since 1949 the Federal Republic. European stability and German containment belonged to the strategic objectives of American foreign policy in the twentieth century, from Woodrow Wilson to George Bush.
Therefore, it is no exaggeration to argue that in our massive two-volume handbook "The United States and Germany in the Era of the Cold War, 1945-1990" we documented one of the biggest success stories of U.S. foreign policy in the twentieth century and a shining example of democratic nation building. The American military has been a vital part of this success story as has been the University of Maryland University College-Europe. Including their families, about 14 million Americans were stationed in Germany from 1945-1990. This was one of the biggest military operations of this kind in history.
After 1945 the pacification and democratization of Germany was among the central goals of American foreign policy. Under the influence of the Cold War, the United States incorporated the Western part of Germany into an Atlantic community - of security, values, production, consumption, information, leisure, travel, and entertainment - under American hegemony. Berlin, which had been the headquarters of evil from 1933 to 1945, became not only a symbol of the Cold War and a divided world but also an outpost of freedom, the "city upon the hill" on which the eyes of the world were focused.
In 1989/90 the unification of Germany under Western conditions produced nearly the best possible Germany: a medium-sized democratic country in Europe with limited political influence and international economic significance, a Germany which lacked any vital conflicts of interest with the United States, was integrated into and contained by European and Atlantic institutions, incapable of and uninterested in threatening its European neighbors.
It is largely because of the United States that the citizens of the "old" Federal Republic enjoyed freedom, democracy, prosperity, consumption, modernity, and mobility like no other generation of Germans before them. On a personal level, my own privileged life would not have been possible without the United States and the many friendships with Americans. On an even more existential level, security or destruction - the physical survival of the Germans or their potential extermination in a nuclear holocaust - depended on the decisions of American presidents. Ultimately, all Germans owe their unity, on the one hand, to Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, and, on the other, to the determined and consistent support of the United States. It was these two superpowers who divided and united Germany. Its European neighbors played a considerable role in both processes, but not a decisive one.
In 1989/90 the future of American-German relations looked bright when President Bush and Chancellor Kohl proclaimed that the two nations would become "partners in leadership". Most contemporaries agreed with their optimism. In spite of growing differences and minor conflicts between the United States and a united Germany during the two administrations of President Clinton, the importance of the transatlantic alliance was still taken for granted. President Clinton and Chancellor Helmut Kohl got along quite well.
Even after 9/11, after the terrorist attacks, the European continent overflowed with spontaneous symbols of what the German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder at that time called "unconditional solidarity". Millions held vigils, rallies and prayer services. In Berlin 200,000 gathered at the site of the fallen Berlin Wall to express their grief.
Recalling President Kennedy's famous words "Ich bin ein Berliner", they shouted "We are New Yorkers". In France /Le Monde/ ran a banner headline declaring "Nous sommes tous Americains."
And then, contrary to all expectations, three years and four months ago came the turning point in transatlantic relations clearly caused, in European eyes, by the 2002 State of the Union Address of President George W. Bush.
Since January 2002, the historian of American-European and American-German relations has become a messenger of bad news. Let me, therefore, remind you of the most basic tradition in diplomacy: messengers should neither be beheaded nor hanged. I trust that I will be able to leave this room alive.
The problems with the Europeans and other parts of the world started the moment President George W. Bush opened the Pandora's Box by unilaterally and single-mindedly broadening America's mission after 9/11. In his 2002 State of the Union Address, President Bush did not focus on Al Qaeda and the work which remained to be done in Afghanistan, but rather on the so-called "Axis of Evil", singling out North Korea, Iran and Iraq.
The next step of escalation was to link the threat of weapons of mass destruction with the threat of terrorism.
When the Bush administration published its famous National Security Strategy in September 2002, it even went one step further. From the European perspective the Bush administration destroyed the very basis of International Law by openly making pre-emptive strikes - or anticipatory self-defense - the new centerpiece of its national security policy. From September 2002 to this day, the unilateral self-empowerment of the United States through the doctrine of pre-emptive strike has, perhaps more than anything else, darkened the Bush administration's reputation in Europe and the world.
A second issue closely related to the doctrine of pre-emptive strike became a bone of contention between U.S. and European governments and spilled over into a heated European debate leading to massive criticism of the U.S. in the European and German media. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction represented a "clear and present danger" to the security of the United States and that somehow Saddam Hussein was, as a part of the Al Qaeda network, co-responsible for 9/11.
Every educated American and European knew, however, that Saddam Hussein
was a secular tyrant and dictator. Therefore, cooperation with Bin Laden was extremely unlikely.
The majority of Europeans together with a majority of the U.N. Security Council demanded reasonable proof of the existence of weapons of mass destruction before they would vote for a war message against Iraq.
Of course, we now know that the Bush administration either misled or deceived the American people and its allies into this war. We now know that the Iraqi dictator had been reduced to a toothless tiger by the first Gulf War and by the United Nations weapons inspectors. Iraq's weapons programs had been shut down, Saddam had no threatening weapons stockpile. There was no "clear and present danger" to the security of the United States.
This brings me to an even more disturbing part of my address. The following reasons for the massive loss of American reputation and legitimacy of U.S. foreign affairs might indeed be labeled anti-American because they go beyond the criticism of the Bush administration and aim at the heart of what the United States represents today.
First: There is an ever increasing European concern about this uncontrollable Goliath called the United States of America. It seems that the U.S. is about to repeat the sad old story of the hubris of power. Since January 2002, the European public gradually discovered that the pre-emptive strike doctrine, the exaggeration of threats and the blatant disregard of international law were all parts and parcel of a new superpower design, based on an extreme version of U.S. unilateralism, exceptionalism and moralism; a superpower version, almost impossible to digest for Europe, not to speak of Latin America, East Asia and of the Muslim world.
A group of revolutionary conservatives persuaded the president that he not only has the power but also the mission to tell the rest of the world: either you are with us or against us; that allies are useful only insofar as they unequivocally do what the U.S. wants; indeed, that the United Nations and NATO are merely toolboxes to be used whenever the president and the Pentagon see fit to do so. Diplomats have called this attitude unilateralism.
On September 15, 2001 President Bush told his advisors in Camp David: "At some point, we may be the only ones left. That's okay with me. We are America". In the present Iraq, the U.S. is indeed almost the only one left.
Second: The almost universal criticism in Europe of President Bush also derives from the fact that the predominantly secular Europeans are simply unable to understand the values and the belief system of this President twice reborn. Only very few Europeans know that the President is the latest incarnation of America's missionary impulse, of Wilsonian universalism, of the civil religion so specific to America, of that unmistakable mixture of Christian republicanism and democratic faith which created a nation with the soul of a church.
The Europeans were baffled when Bush told the American people and the world in his 2003 State of the Union Address: "The liberty we praise is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity". Indirectly equating America's resolve to go to war against Iraq with God's will did not only anger the Pope and scores of Protestant Church leaders, but was also seen by a lot of Christians as a gross violation of the Third Commandment: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his
name in vain."
Third: The mishandling of the relationship between Freedom and Security in the United States. For the first time in American history, American citizens and non-citizens alike have been seized by the executive branch of government and put into prison without being charged with a crime, without having the right to a trial, without being able to see a lawyer, and without even being able to contact their families. These gross and unnecessary violations of human rights have severely damaged U.S. moral authority and goodwill not only in Europe, but in the entire world. In fact, these violations have undermined U.S. authority and have made U.S. efforts to continue promoting human rights around the world illegitimate. The mistreatment and torture of prisoners in U.S. installations in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq reinforces this European perspective; notwithstanding the fact that these reports are clearly instrumentalized by a number of governments to start and manipulate hate campaigns against the U.S.
Ladies and Gentlemen, to explain the current transatlantic drift fully, of course, I would have to shift the perspective around and analyze the American perspective of Europe, especially of liberal and democratic Old Europe. That would clearly transcend the time limit of my commencement address. Let me, therefore, only add on sentence: While the European criticism of the U.S. can be summed up as "Arrogance of Power", Americans criticize the Europeans as having "Arrogance without Power".
Members of the class of 2005, due to your study and stay in Europe, you have enriched your life through a transatlantic dimension, which cannot be taken for granted. Transatlantic cooperation and understanding is a precious thing and should be an option for future generations as well. I am deeply convinced that a further deterioration of the American-European relations, in general, and of the American-German relations, in particular, would be a loss of historic proportion.
I still believe that virtually no major problem in today's globalized world can be solved without a forceful cooperation between the old and the new world. We do not need a new U.S. Declaration of Independence from Europe or a European Declaration of Independence from the United States. What we need is a new transatlantic Declaration of Interdependence.
Commencement Address
Commencement of the University of Maryland University College-Europe
May 29, 2005
By Detlef Junker
Regent Pevenstein, Regent Acosta, President Heeger, Director Golembe, distinguished representatives of the U.S. military community, honored guests and friends, and most of all, Members of the Class of 2005.
I am deeply moved by the distinction awarded to me by the University of Maryland, a great institution which has left its marks on every continent. I have to confess: When I heard the exciting news about the conferring of an honorary doctorate, I discovered that I am not completely free from vanity - yet.
This award is an encouragement for me to continue doing what I have done in the last thirty-five years: fostering understanding and cooperation between the United States and Germany, both as a citizen and as a scholar. I feel revitalized at a moment in world history when I am deeply concerned about the current state of American-European and American-German relations, about the growing transatlantic divide, the growing anti-Europeanism in the United States, the growing anti-Americanism in Europe and in Germany, and the almost free fall of the reputation of the U.S., especially in Old Europe documented repeatedly in public opinion polls.
The trademark of historians is the long-range perspective. Therefore, I would like to place my current concerns in a historical perspective. Only then do we understand the origin and significance of the current transatlantic drift.
Don't worry. In spite of this historical perspective I'll try to be brief because I know there's nothing more agonizing than a long speech by a German history professor.
From a geo-strategic perspective, containing the power of the German
nation-state in the center of Europe had been a leitmotif of American policy in Europe since the age of imperialism, when Kaiser Wilhelm II's Germany and an imperial America outgrew their status as regional powers to become competing world powers. Germany did not become a problem for the United States until it threatened to rise to the level of hegemonic power or oppressor of Europe.
Unlike Germany's European neighbors, the distant United States never feared the German nation-state created in 1871, but always the rival world power. That is why the United States not only fought the Germany of Wilhelm and the Nazis in two world wars, but also sought to contain and stabilize the Weimar Republic and since 1949 the Federal Republic. European stability and German containment belonged to the strategic objectives of American foreign policy in the twentieth century, from Woodrow Wilson to George Bush.
Therefore, it is no exaggeration to argue that in our massive two-volume handbook "The United States and Germany in the Era of the Cold War, 1945-1990" we documented one of the biggest success stories of U.S. foreign policy in the twentieth century and a shining example of democratic nation building. The American military has been a vital part of this success story as has been the University of Maryland University College-Europe. Including their families, about 14 million Americans were stationed in Germany from 1945-1990. This was one of the biggest military operations of this kind in history.
After 1945 the pacification and democratization of Germany was among the central goals of American foreign policy. Under the influence of the Cold War, the United States incorporated the Western part of Germany into an Atlantic community - of security, values, production, consumption, information, leisure, travel, and entertainment - under American hegemony. Berlin, which had been the headquarters of evil from 1933 to 1945, became not only a symbol of the Cold War and a divided world but also an outpost of freedom, the "city upon the hill" on which the eyes of the world were focused.
In 1989/90 the unification of Germany under Western conditions produced nearly the best possible Germany: a medium-sized democratic country in Europe with limited political influence and international economic significance, a Germany which lacked any vital conflicts of interest with the United States, was integrated into and contained by European and Atlantic institutions, incapable of and uninterested in threatening its European neighbors.
It is largely because of the United States that the citizens of the "old" Federal Republic enjoyed freedom, democracy, prosperity, consumption, modernity, and mobility like no other generation of Germans before them. On a personal level, my own privileged life would not have been possible without the United States and the many friendships with Americans. On an even more existential level, security or destruction - the physical survival of the Germans or their potential extermination in a nuclear holocaust - depended on the decisions of American presidents. Ultimately, all Germans owe their unity, on the one hand, to Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, and, on the other, to the determined and consistent support of the United States. It was these two superpowers who divided and united Germany. Its European neighbors played a considerable role in both processes, but not a decisive one.
In 1989/90 the future of American-German relations looked bright when President Bush and Chancellor Kohl proclaimed that the two nations would become "partners in leadership". Most contemporaries agreed with their optimism. In spite of growing differences and minor conflicts between the United States and a united Germany during the two administrations of President Clinton, the importance of the transatlantic alliance was still taken for granted. President Clinton and Chancellor Helmut Kohl got along quite well.
Even after 9/11, after the terrorist attacks, the European continent overflowed with spontaneous symbols of what the German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder at that time called "unconditional solidarity". Millions held vigils, rallies and prayer services. In Berlin 200,000 gathered at the site of the fallen Berlin Wall to express their grief.
Recalling President Kennedy's famous words "Ich bin ein Berliner", they shouted "We are New Yorkers". In France /Le Monde/ ran a banner headline declaring "Nous sommes tous Americains."
And then, contrary to all expectations, three years and four months ago came the turning point in transatlantic relations clearly caused, in European eyes, by the 2002 State of the Union Address of President George W. Bush.
Since January 2002, the historian of American-European and American-German relations has become a messenger of bad news. Let me, therefore, remind you of the most basic tradition in diplomacy: messengers should neither be beheaded nor hanged. I trust that I will be able to leave this room alive.
The problems with the Europeans and other parts of the world started the moment President George W. Bush opened the Pandora's Box by unilaterally and single-mindedly broadening America's mission after 9/11. In his 2002 State of the Union Address, President Bush did not focus on Al Qaeda and the work which remained to be done in Afghanistan, but rather on the so-called "Axis of Evil", singling out North Korea, Iran and Iraq.
The next step of escalation was to link the threat of weapons of mass destruction with the threat of terrorism.
When the Bush administration published its famous National Security Strategy in September 2002, it even went one step further. From the European perspective the Bush administration destroyed the very basis of International Law by openly making pre-emptive strikes - or anticipatory self-defense - the new centerpiece of its national security policy. From September 2002 to this day, the unilateral self-empowerment of the United States through the doctrine of pre-emptive strike has, perhaps more than anything else, darkened the Bush administration's reputation in Europe and the world.
A second issue closely related to the doctrine of pre-emptive strike became a bone of contention between U.S. and European governments and spilled over into a heated European debate leading to massive criticism of the U.S. in the European and German media. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction represented a "clear and present danger" to the security of the United States and that somehow Saddam Hussein was, as a part of the Al Qaeda network, co-responsible for 9/11.
Every educated American and European knew, however, that Saddam Hussein
was a secular tyrant and dictator. Therefore, cooperation with Bin Laden was extremely unlikely.
The majority of Europeans together with a majority of the U.N. Security Council demanded reasonable proof of the existence of weapons of mass destruction before they would vote for a war message against Iraq.
Of course, we now know that the Bush administration either misled or deceived the American people and its allies into this war. We now know that the Iraqi dictator had been reduced to a toothless tiger by the first Gulf War and by the United Nations weapons inspectors. Iraq's weapons programs had been shut down, Saddam had no threatening weapons stockpile. There was no "clear and present danger" to the security of the United States.
This brings me to an even more disturbing part of my address. The following reasons for the massive loss of American reputation and legitimacy of U.S. foreign affairs might indeed be labeled anti-American because they go beyond the criticism of the Bush administration and aim at the heart of what the United States represents today.
First: There is an ever increasing European concern about this uncontrollable Goliath called the United States of America. It seems that the U.S. is about to repeat the sad old story of the hubris of power. Since January 2002, the European public gradually discovered that the pre-emptive strike doctrine, the exaggeration of threats and the blatant disregard of international law were all parts and parcel of a new superpower design, based on an extreme version of U.S. unilateralism, exceptionalism and moralism; a superpower version, almost impossible to digest for Europe, not to speak of Latin America, East Asia and of the Muslim world.
A group of revolutionary conservatives persuaded the president that he not only has the power but also the mission to tell the rest of the world: either you are with us or against us; that allies are useful only insofar as they unequivocally do what the U.S. wants; indeed, that the United Nations and NATO are merely toolboxes to be used whenever the president and the Pentagon see fit to do so. Diplomats have called this attitude unilateralism.
On September 15, 2001 President Bush told his advisors in Camp David: "At some point, we may be the only ones left. That's okay with me. We are America". In the present Iraq, the U.S. is indeed almost the only one left.
Second: The almost universal criticism in Europe of President Bush also derives from the fact that the predominantly secular Europeans are simply unable to understand the values and the belief system of this President twice reborn. Only very few Europeans know that the President is the latest incarnation of America's missionary impulse, of Wilsonian universalism, of the civil religion so specific to America, of that unmistakable mixture of Christian republicanism and democratic faith which created a nation with the soul of a church.
The Europeans were baffled when Bush told the American people and the world in his 2003 State of the Union Address: "The liberty we praise is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity". Indirectly equating America's resolve to go to war against Iraq with God's will did not only anger the Pope and scores of Protestant Church leaders, but was also seen by a lot of Christians as a gross violation of the Third Commandment: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his
name in vain."
Third: The mishandling of the relationship between Freedom and Security in the United States. For the first time in American history, American citizens and non-citizens alike have been seized by the executive branch of government and put into prison without being charged with a crime, without having the right to a trial, without being able to see a lawyer, and without even being able to contact their families. These gross and unnecessary violations of human rights have severely damaged U.S. moral authority and goodwill not only in Europe, but in the entire world. In fact, these violations have undermined U.S. authority and have made U.S. efforts to continue promoting human rights around the world illegitimate. The mistreatment and torture of prisoners in U.S. installations in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq reinforces this European perspective; notwithstanding the fact that these reports are clearly instrumentalized by a number of governments to start and manipulate hate campaigns against the U.S.
Ladies and Gentlemen, to explain the current transatlantic drift fully, of course, I would have to shift the perspective around and analyze the American perspective of Europe, especially of liberal and democratic Old Europe. That would clearly transcend the time limit of my commencement address. Let me, therefore, only add on sentence: While the European criticism of the U.S. can be summed up as "Arrogance of Power", Americans criticize the Europeans as having "Arrogance without Power".
Members of the class of 2005, due to your study and stay in Europe, you have enriched your life through a transatlantic dimension, which cannot be taken for granted. Transatlantic cooperation and understanding is a precious thing and should be an option for future generations as well. I am deeply convinced that a further deterioration of the American-European relations, in general, and of the American-German relations, in particular, would be a loss of historic proportion.
I still believe that virtually no major problem in today's globalized world can be solved without a forceful cooperation between the old and the new world. We do not need a new U.S. Declaration of Independence from Europe or a European Declaration of Independence from the United States. What we need is a new transatlantic Declaration of Interdependence.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Happy 20th Wedding Anniversary to Favorite Wife
20 years ago today, on 15 June 1985, Favorite Wife and I were married in a small ceremony in Germany. Our "church wedding" occurred one week later, on 22 June, so, in my old age I will be fortunate to be able to forget one and still be covered.
Favorite Wife came to Germany for a job opportunity and a Porsche, and left with a husband and an Oldsmobile. Interesting trade yes?
My good fortune in finding this woman to marry will never be taken for granted by me, and for good reason. I have been truly blessed to be her husband and have cherished her love, compassion, and patience. She raised a truly wonderful daughter. She's a great teacher truly respected by the students and their parents.
Thanks hon. I love you.
Favorite Wife came to Germany for a job opportunity and a Porsche, and left with a husband and an Oldsmobile. Interesting trade yes?
My good fortune in finding this woman to marry will never be taken for granted by me, and for good reason. I have been truly blessed to be her husband and have cherished her love, compassion, and patience. She raised a truly wonderful daughter. She's a great teacher truly respected by the students and their parents.
Thanks hon. I love you.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Anti-American comments at University of Maryland graduation
The European branch of the University of Maryland conducted its graduation, the last ever I believe, on May 29. According to today's Stars and Stripes, the commencement speaker ensured the focus would be on him, and not the graduates.
According to the paper, the German speaker, Professor Detlef Junker, told the graduates that American standing in Europe was at a low point thanks to the policies of President Bush.
To quote Herr Professor Junker, "After all, this if Jefferson's first principle: Americans cannot be both ignorant and free."
So, according to this supposedly pro-American professor, Americans are free and ignorant. He also told the Stars and Stripes reporter, "I wanted to tell them because they're not aware of what's going on in Europe. I'm deeply concerned about it."
Really, Herr Professor, how could we not be aware of what is going on in Europe? Daily, we are blasted by your left wing media. Over the last three years, your Chancellor has made a career out of anti-American and anti-capitalist sentiment. Your German government formed a critical part of the Axis of Weasels along with those all knowing figures of European sanity, the French.
I think we are all too aware of what's going on in Europe. European economies lack the drive and initiative to generate growth and pay for your social programs. Elitism within European governments and contempt for democratic values has become known to the electorates and they are fighting back in various forums. The best European students want to attend American universities.
People like Junker and his supporters like the American government when it does nothing to upset the status quo of talk, talk, and more talk while terrorists and enemies of freedom plan operations. People like Junker profess to be supporters of America when it is convenient for them. It's not been convenient lately because America has asked them to make some difficult choices, and people like Junker don't like it one bit.
However, in the last few years, people like Junker have had to face a hard reality: bad guys who want to kill them and destroy the liberal democracies that develop the Junkers of the world are not interested in their concessions. Americans won't roll over and play dead like so many of Junker's European friends and governments.
So, Herr Professor Junker is going to educate us about how America is upsetting the Europeans?
Finally, Junker gave what was my favorite rationalization of his behavior. He said he received some letters and email in support of his remarks, especially from the faculty.
Professor, may I offer two initial lessons for you:
1) When you are invited to an American commencement, the event is about the graduates, not the commencement speaker. IT AIN'T ABOUT YOU! Your behavior was the epitome of rudeness, as you waltzed into an event to which you had been invited and proceeded to insult the hosts.
2) When you insult a large number of Americans, many of whom have links to the military community, part of your defense should not revolve around support from academics. They have a very well deserved reputation for left wing antics and should not be viewed as a base on which to defend yourself.
I'm going to stay with this one. I've already requested a copy of Junker's speech from Stars and Stripes and I'll work on obtaining a videotape from a variety of sources.
If he makes comments of this nature to Americans in a public forum, what is he saying to his fellow Europeans in other forums?
Final thoughts - How old is American democracy? How old is German democracy? Who needs to be educated?
According to the paper, the German speaker, Professor Detlef Junker, told the graduates that American standing in Europe was at a low point thanks to the policies of President Bush.
To quote Herr Professor Junker, "After all, this if Jefferson's first principle: Americans cannot be both ignorant and free."
So, according to this supposedly pro-American professor, Americans are free and ignorant. He also told the Stars and Stripes reporter, "I wanted to tell them because they're not aware of what's going on in Europe. I'm deeply concerned about it."
Really, Herr Professor, how could we not be aware of what is going on in Europe? Daily, we are blasted by your left wing media. Over the last three years, your Chancellor has made a career out of anti-American and anti-capitalist sentiment. Your German government formed a critical part of the Axis of Weasels along with those all knowing figures of European sanity, the French.
I think we are all too aware of what's going on in Europe. European economies lack the drive and initiative to generate growth and pay for your social programs. Elitism within European governments and contempt for democratic values has become known to the electorates and they are fighting back in various forums. The best European students want to attend American universities.
People like Junker and his supporters like the American government when it does nothing to upset the status quo of talk, talk, and more talk while terrorists and enemies of freedom plan operations. People like Junker profess to be supporters of America when it is convenient for them. It's not been convenient lately because America has asked them to make some difficult choices, and people like Junker don't like it one bit.
However, in the last few years, people like Junker have had to face a hard reality: bad guys who want to kill them and destroy the liberal democracies that develop the Junkers of the world are not interested in their concessions. Americans won't roll over and play dead like so many of Junker's European friends and governments.
So, Herr Professor Junker is going to educate us about how America is upsetting the Europeans?
Finally, Junker gave what was my favorite rationalization of his behavior. He said he received some letters and email in support of his remarks, especially from the faculty.
Professor, may I offer two initial lessons for you:
1) When you are invited to an American commencement, the event is about the graduates, not the commencement speaker. IT AIN'T ABOUT YOU! Your behavior was the epitome of rudeness, as you waltzed into an event to which you had been invited and proceeded to insult the hosts.
2) When you insult a large number of Americans, many of whom have links to the military community, part of your defense should not revolve around support from academics. They have a very well deserved reputation for left wing antics and should not be viewed as a base on which to defend yourself.
I'm going to stay with this one. I've already requested a copy of Junker's speech from Stars and Stripes and I'll work on obtaining a videotape from a variety of sources.
If he makes comments of this nature to Americans in a public forum, what is he saying to his fellow Europeans in other forums?
Final thoughts - How old is American democracy? How old is German democracy? Who needs to be educated?
All I'm going to say about Michael Jackson
From the National Review Online:
"THE VERDICT [John Podhoretz]My wife put it this way: "Now that he's been acquitted, he'll have time to seek treatment to cure his pedophilia."
Well, one more thing. What were those jurors thinking? How could they vote not guilty? He lets little boys sleep with him. Were they not paying attention to some of the testimony? So what if the mother of this boy was a dirt bag. Does her being a bad parent therefore, somehow, mitigate what Jackson did? I guess, if you are a juror for this case.
OK, one more thing. The next time a person tells me about how racist the American justice system is, I'm going to look at them and say, "O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson."
UPDATE and "one more thing." Racial divisions over the verdict. After O.J., I'm not surprised about this difference of opinion.
"An overnight Gallup Poll released this morning shows that 48% of Americans disagree with the verdicts clearing pop star Michael Jackson of all charges in the molesting case and only 34% agree -- along a “major racial divide,” Gallup said.
Whites disagree by about 2-1 (54% to 28%) while nonwhites take the exact opposite view by 2-1 (56% to 26%).
This recalls the O.J. Simpson verdict in 1995, when whites disagreed with him getting off by 62% to 27% while nonwhites supported it by 67% to 24%.
A clear majority, or 62%, believe that Jackson's celebrity status was a major factor in the verdict."
"THE VERDICT [John Podhoretz]My wife put it this way: "Now that he's been acquitted, he'll have time to seek treatment to cure his pedophilia."
Well, one more thing. What were those jurors thinking? How could they vote not guilty? He lets little boys sleep with him. Were they not paying attention to some of the testimony? So what if the mother of this boy was a dirt bag. Does her being a bad parent therefore, somehow, mitigate what Jackson did? I guess, if you are a juror for this case.
OK, one more thing. The next time a person tells me about how racist the American justice system is, I'm going to look at them and say, "O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson."
UPDATE and "one more thing." Racial divisions over the verdict. After O.J., I'm not surprised about this difference of opinion.
"An overnight Gallup Poll released this morning shows that 48% of Americans disagree with the verdicts clearing pop star Michael Jackson of all charges in the molesting case and only 34% agree -- along a “major racial divide,” Gallup said.
Whites disagree by about 2-1 (54% to 28%) while nonwhites take the exact opposite view by 2-1 (56% to 26%).
This recalls the O.J. Simpson verdict in 1995, when whites disagreed with him getting off by 62% to 27% while nonwhites supported it by 67% to 24%.
A clear majority, or 62%, believe that Jackson's celebrity status was a major factor in the verdict."
Monday, June 13, 2005
So, you are worried about how we treat bad guys
James Lileks provides you another, more realistic frame of reference. In the future, when you read Time, or the WaPo, or the NYT, or even Andrew Sullivan, keep this column in mind.
Has the U.S. done some things of which we should not be to proud during the war on terror? Probably. Keep it in perspective and remember how we are beating ourselves to death over our inability to meet the perfect left wing standard which the left wing and its media allies NEVER apply to anyone else. Anyone.
Has the U.S. done some things of which we should not be to proud during the war on terror? Probably. Keep it in perspective and remember how we are beating ourselves to death over our inability to meet the perfect left wing standard which the left wing and its media allies NEVER apply to anyone else. Anyone.
Left wing math lessons
A fascinating review of how left wing ideology has crept into math problems. This blogger, very able in math and the teaching of math, decries the type of problems used. Apparently modern word problems have a bit of a left wing tinge to them.
It's a humorous look and one that will make you chuckle, but remember one thing.s. Left wingers are everywhere in the educational community. They will use EVERY method available to shape our children. The first step to fighting that left wing influence in education is recognizing it. The second is helping your kids with their homework so that you can, when the number crunching has been completed, give them the "rest of the story", thereby defeating the intent of the left wing.
Make no mistake, however, even the old black and white, straight forward world of math is now a legitimate arena for indoctrinating your kids.
It's a humorous look and one that will make you chuckle, but remember one thing.s. Left wingers are everywhere in the educational community. They will use EVERY method available to shape our children. The first step to fighting that left wing influence in education is recognizing it. The second is helping your kids with their homework so that you can, when the number crunching has been completed, give them the "rest of the story", thereby defeating the intent of the left wing.
Make no mistake, however, even the old black and white, straight forward world of math is now a legitimate arena for indoctrinating your kids.
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Does Charles Rangel have any shame?
I realize he’s “shame” challenged to begin with, given that he's a Democratic congressman, but really, Charles, comparing the war in Iraq with the Holocaust?
What is wrong with this guy?
Remember Rangel? He’s the congressman who lobbied to restart the draft. The Republicans called his bluff and brought it up for a vote and even he voted against the bill.
Left wing tomfoolery here, nothing new, keep moving folks.
Except for one problem: Rangel's comments pass for sane commentary in the Democratic Party these days. It's not good for the country to have one party so far to one extreme.
Chrenkoff explains:
“Top House Democrat Charles Rangel complained on Monday that the Bush administration's decision to concoct a "fraudulent" war in Iraq was as bad as "the Holocaust.""It's the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country," Rangel told WWRL Radio's Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter. "This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed. The whole world knew it and they were quiet about it, because it wasn't their ox that was being gored."
It's not actually quite as bad as it seems:
Asked to clarify his Holocaust comparison, Rangel told Malzberg: "I am saying that people's silence when they know terrible things are happening is the same thing as the Holocaust, where everyone would have me believe that no one knew those Jews were killed over there."”
Analysis by Chrenkoff
“Initially I though, this is not as bad as it seems; Rangel is not making a grossly offensive comparison of the liberation of 26 million people from tyranny with the killing of 6 million Jews. What a relief. He's merely making a stupid, inaccurate, and hysterical comparison of the public reactions to both events. Stupid, inaccurate, and hysterical, because after all, Iraq, in all its aspects and from all the perspectives, is the most talked about issue in the world today.”
Polipundit has more comments about Rangel and his comparisons:
“First thing, I am not shocked by the Holocaust comparison one bit. After all, Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust and Democrats have been comparing Bush to Hitler for years now. They just haven’t been quite this specific before this. Actually it would be a good thing if more were asked to clarify those embarrassing Hitler comparisons.
I wonder if it occurred to Rangel that his question about what the world knew and his comments about those remaining silent could much more appropriately be applied to those who ignored what Saddam had been doing for so many years. Did Democrats know about Saddam’s human rights abuses and his pursuit of weapons forbidden under UN resolutions? They must have, or they would never have voted to support President Clinton’s policy of regime change in 1998.
Did they know that Saddam was stealing billions from the Oil-for-Food program and was using the money to build dozens of lavish palaces? Did they know that Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers and that he was harboring terrorists? Did they know that he was imprisoning the children of those who disagreed with him? Did they know that he was ordering the torture and murder of Iraqi citizens in a systematic way in prisons and torture chambers and rape rooms using methods which included throwing them off of buildings and into shredders and into packs of hungry dogs? Did they know that under Saddam, naked prisoners had been stacked in pyramids and photographed with hoods over their heads? Oh yeah, he didn’t do that. If he had done that, maybe Democrats would have broken their silence.”
What is wrong with this guy?
Remember Rangel? He’s the congressman who lobbied to restart the draft. The Republicans called his bluff and brought it up for a vote and even he voted against the bill.
Left wing tomfoolery here, nothing new, keep moving folks.
Except for one problem: Rangel's comments pass for sane commentary in the Democratic Party these days. It's not good for the country to have one party so far to one extreme.
Chrenkoff explains:
“Top House Democrat Charles Rangel complained on Monday that the Bush administration's decision to concoct a "fraudulent" war in Iraq was as bad as "the Holocaust.""It's the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country," Rangel told WWRL Radio's Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter. "This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed. The whole world knew it and they were quiet about it, because it wasn't their ox that was being gored."
It's not actually quite as bad as it seems:
Asked to clarify his Holocaust comparison, Rangel told Malzberg: "I am saying that people's silence when they know terrible things are happening is the same thing as the Holocaust, where everyone would have me believe that no one knew those Jews were killed over there."”
Analysis by Chrenkoff
“Initially I though, this is not as bad as it seems; Rangel is not making a grossly offensive comparison of the liberation of 26 million people from tyranny with the killing of 6 million Jews. What a relief. He's merely making a stupid, inaccurate, and hysterical comparison of the public reactions to both events. Stupid, inaccurate, and hysterical, because after all, Iraq, in all its aspects and from all the perspectives, is the most talked about issue in the world today.”
Polipundit has more comments about Rangel and his comparisons:
“First thing, I am not shocked by the Holocaust comparison one bit. After all, Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust and Democrats have been comparing Bush to Hitler for years now. They just haven’t been quite this specific before this. Actually it would be a good thing if more were asked to clarify those embarrassing Hitler comparisons.
I wonder if it occurred to Rangel that his question about what the world knew and his comments about those remaining silent could much more appropriately be applied to those who ignored what Saddam had been doing for so many years. Did Democrats know about Saddam’s human rights abuses and his pursuit of weapons forbidden under UN resolutions? They must have, or they would never have voted to support President Clinton’s policy of regime change in 1998.
Did they know that Saddam was stealing billions from the Oil-for-Food program and was using the money to build dozens of lavish palaces? Did they know that Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers and that he was harboring terrorists? Did they know that he was imprisoning the children of those who disagreed with him? Did they know that he was ordering the torture and murder of Iraqi citizens in a systematic way in prisons and torture chambers and rape rooms using methods which included throwing them off of buildings and into shredders and into packs of hungry dogs? Did they know that under Saddam, naked prisoners had been stacked in pyramids and photographed with hoods over their heads? Oh yeah, he didn’t do that. If he had done that, maybe Democrats would have broken their silence.”
The new French Prime Minister must be a really smart guy
Only a member of the Axis of Weasels could talk like this:
“Let us stop drinking from the enchanted waters of Lethe, which strike with amnesia those who want to quench their thirst, and let us dare to taste those 'fresh waters that run from the Lake of Memory' -- as the words say on the golden bars of the disciples of Orpheus, that bard of metamorphosis and of ascending reincarnation.”
And the media makes light of how President Bush speaks at public events?
Thanks to Eugene Volokh for the idea on this post.
“Let us stop drinking from the enchanted waters of Lethe, which strike with amnesia those who want to quench their thirst, and let us dare to taste those 'fresh waters that run from the Lake of Memory' -- as the words say on the golden bars of the disciples of Orpheus, that bard of metamorphosis and of ascending reincarnation.”
And the media makes light of how President Bush speaks at public events?
Thanks to Eugene Volokh for the idea on this post.
White guy Democrat says Republicans are too white
Howard Dean, again, frothing at the mouth.
Republicans, according to this astute observer of American demographic trends, constitute “a white Christian party.”
So, what are the bad parts? White? Christian? Please someone help me out?
Republicans, according to this astute observer of American demographic trends, constitute “a white Christian party.”
So, what are the bad parts? White? Christian? Please someone help me out?
The bad "parts" are the hateful, racially divisive language used by a leader of an American political party.
Dean's use of divisive stereotypical language fails to address the real problems of American in a constructive fashion, and once again illustrates that for the Democrats, they continue to have problems as they appoint and elect leaders who fail to realize the problems they cause by using such language, thereby confirming stereotypes about their party.
I'm surprised Dean didn’t link Republicans to the Klu Klux Klan. Then again, we could compare membership lists with Senator Byrd, Democrat from West Virginia, on that one.
Dean said, "The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same and they all look the same. It's pretty much a white, Christian party."
Chrenkoff has more specific quotes and analysis.
“Even if Dean doesn't quite mean it like that, it still comes out that being white and/or Christian is somehow wrong. Since whites will clearly constitute majority of the American electorate for at least another few decades, and Christians indefinitely (mostly because Hispanics, who make the fastest growing section of the population are as Christian as they come), the Democrats wonder why, with this sort of attitude, they keep losing elections”.
Keep talking Howard. Hillary is just laughing all the way to the nomination. Has anyone started the pool as to which date either Bill or Hillary will attack Dean and his divisive, left wing, comments?
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Since the Democrats are SO worried about judges these days….
How did this person, with these radical views, EVER gain a seat on the Supreme Court? A superb illustration of Democratic Senate hypocrisy from Edward Whelan in National Review.
"Imagine, if you will, that a Democrat President nominated a judge whose constitutional and policy views were, by any measure, on the extreme left fringes of American society.
Let’s assume, for example, that this nominee had expressed strong sympathy for the position that there is a constitutional right to prostitution as well as a constitutional right to polygamy.
Let’s say, further, that he had attacked the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts as organizations that perpetuate stereotyped sex roles and that he had proposed abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and replacing them with a single androgynous Parent’s Day.
And, to get really absurd, let’s add that he had called for an end to single-sex prisons on the theory that if male prisoners are going to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners, prison is just the place for them to get prepared to deal with women.
Let’s further posit that this nominee had opined that a manifest imbalance in the racial composition of an employer’s work force justified court-ordered quotas even in the absence of any intentional discrimination on the part of the employer. But then, lo and behold, to make this nominee even more of a parody of an out-of-touch leftist, let’s say it was discovered that while operating his own office for over a decade in a city that was majority-black, this nominee had never had a single black person among his more than 50 hires.
Imagine, in sum, a nominee whose record is indisputably extreme and who could be expected to use his judicial role to impose those views on mainstream America. Surely such a person would never be nominated to an appellate court."
Oh, such a person exists. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Clinton nominated her. The Senate vote to confirm Ginsburg was 96-3.
Guess the Democrats at that time did not have a problem with judges outside of the mainstream. What's happened since the Ginsburg nomination?
"Imagine, if you will, that a Democrat President nominated a judge whose constitutional and policy views were, by any measure, on the extreme left fringes of American society.
Let’s assume, for example, that this nominee had expressed strong sympathy for the position that there is a constitutional right to prostitution as well as a constitutional right to polygamy.
Let’s say, further, that he had attacked the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts as organizations that perpetuate stereotyped sex roles and that he had proposed abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and replacing them with a single androgynous Parent’s Day.
And, to get really absurd, let’s add that he had called for an end to single-sex prisons on the theory that if male prisoners are going to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners, prison is just the place for them to get prepared to deal with women.
Let’s further posit that this nominee had opined that a manifest imbalance in the racial composition of an employer’s work force justified court-ordered quotas even in the absence of any intentional discrimination on the part of the employer. But then, lo and behold, to make this nominee even more of a parody of an out-of-touch leftist, let’s say it was discovered that while operating his own office for over a decade in a city that was majority-black, this nominee had never had a single black person among his more than 50 hires.
Imagine, in sum, a nominee whose record is indisputably extreme and who could be expected to use his judicial role to impose those views on mainstream America. Surely such a person would never be nominated to an appellate court."
Oh, such a person exists. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Clinton nominated her. The Senate vote to confirm Ginsburg was 96-3.
Guess the Democrats at that time did not have a problem with judges outside of the mainstream. What's happened since the Ginsburg nomination?
Why shouldn’t PBS and NPR have a bit of oversight?
On cue, the hysterics have begun over the potential nomination of gasp, “A Republican!”, to head the agency responsible for funding PBS and NPR with taxpayer money.
Finally, the objectivity of PBS is a serious, debatable topic, with oversight to match, and the left wingers do not like the scrutiny one bit. So, open the windows, turn on the lights, and watch the roaches scurry.
"A former co-chairman of the Republican National Committee is the leading candidate to take over the agency that funds public broadcasting, sparking new concerns among broadcasters about conservative influence over National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service programming.
Patricia de Stacy Harrison, a high-ranking official at the State Department, is one of two candidates for the top job at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and is the favored candidate of the CPB's chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, according to people close to the search. The CPB is a congressionally chartered agency that directs taxpayer funds to PBS, NPR and hundreds of radio and TV stations."
I'm sorry, was there ever any concern in the Washington Post about "liberal" influence over NPR? Really, that's a serious question, I'm not laughing when I write this.
PBS is an organization in which Bill Moyers, one of the more left wing journalists in history who masqueraded as objective, reigned supreme for years. Now, PBS and its left wing supporters have concerns about someone else holding them to a higher, more objective standard. Imagine that.Finally, the objectivity of PBS is a serious, debatable topic, with oversight to match, and the left wingers do not like the scrutiny one bit. So, open the windows, turn on the lights, and watch the roaches scurry.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
So we failed in WWII
Given current media standards of performance, here’s an alternative view of our success in Europe during WWII.
Today's media, no friend of democracy and freedom, would paint Europe as a disaster and tell us that America lost WWII.
Today's media, no friend of democracy and freedom, would paint Europe as a disaster and tell us that America lost WWII.
Hillary thinks Republicans smear
That’s a pretty remarkable charge, given the anti-Christian crap her party’s chairman, Howard Dean, has been saying as of late.
But then again, Hillary’s party invented the smear, and they proved in supporting her husband that it had no shame. So, is Hillary simply accusing the Republicans of the traits she knows so well within the Democratic Party?
“Mrs. Clinton, who is running for a second term in 2006 and is widely described as a possible Democratic nominee for the presidency in 2008, said that her party is hamstrung because Republicans dissemble and smear without shame and the news media has lost its investigatory zeal for exposing misdeeds.
"I know it's frustrating for many of you; it's frustrating for me: Why can't the Democrats do more to stop them?" she continued to growing applause and cheers. "I can tell you this: It's very hard to stop people who have no shame about what they're doing. It is very hard to tell people that they are making decisions that will undermine our checks and balances and constitutional system of government who don't care. It is very hard to stop people who have never been acquainted with the truth."
"The press is missing in action, with all due respect," she said. "Where are the investigative reporters today? Why aren't they asking the hard questions? It's shocking when you see how easily they fold in the media today. They don't stand their ground. If they're criticized by the White House, they just fall apart.”
But then again, Hillary’s party invented the smear, and they proved in supporting her husband that it had no shame. So, is Hillary simply accusing the Republicans of the traits she knows so well within the Democratic Party?
“Mrs. Clinton, who is running for a second term in 2006 and is widely described as a possible Democratic nominee for the presidency in 2008, said that her party is hamstrung because Republicans dissemble and smear without shame and the news media has lost its investigatory zeal for exposing misdeeds.
"I know it's frustrating for many of you; it's frustrating for me: Why can't the Democrats do more to stop them?" she continued to growing applause and cheers. "I can tell you this: It's very hard to stop people who have no shame about what they're doing. It is very hard to tell people that they are making decisions that will undermine our checks and balances and constitutional system of government who don't care. It is very hard to stop people who have never been acquainted with the truth."
"The press is missing in action, with all due respect," she said. "Where are the investigative reporters today? Why aren't they asking the hard questions? It's shocking when you see how easily they fold in the media today. They don't stand their ground. If they're criticized by the White House, they just fall apart.”
Hillary in ’08!
Monday, June 06, 2005
Happy Birthday Favorite Mom
Enjoy your day.
I'd tell everyone how old you are but then you'd be mad at me. :o)
I'd tell everyone how old you are but then you'd be mad at me. :o)
Will we remember D-Day 100 years from now?
Over Memorial Day weekend, when I toured Normandy with a number of very interesting people, one of them asked me if people would remember D-Day in the future the way we remember it now.
I told her that as long as there was an American Army, we would remember D-Day. This epic tale of courage, of great risk, of free nations risking great failure in one operation, would not be forgotten institutionally. We as a nation remember a few of the great Civil War battles, such as Antietam and Gettysburg. Few other battles, or even our wars, have much resonance with our citizens. D-Day currently does, but for how long?
We have probably gained another generation or so worth of remembrance due to the success of "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers." These memories will also fade, however, as Favorite Daughter grows old and her children continue the fight against the enemies of liberty and democracy.
Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps the sheer drama of D-Day, for the reasons I've written above, will continue to move people every 20 years or so, particularly in Europe as it drifts toward a bureaucratic entity known as the EU, and European freedoms diminish under the EU and an immigrant population which does not respect European culture and freedom.
Right now, however, D-Day means a great deal, and even the seventh graders who today did not know the significance of June 6, 1944, will one day learn it, either in class, or from a friend, or by watching the History Channel. In the end, it's enough that people know that on this day, 61 years ago, the greatest nation in the world, ably assisted by a superb ally, stood up to tyranny and oppression and expended its blood and its treasure for something greater than any one individual.
I told her that as long as there was an American Army, we would remember D-Day. This epic tale of courage, of great risk, of free nations risking great failure in one operation, would not be forgotten institutionally. We as a nation remember a few of the great Civil War battles, such as Antietam and Gettysburg. Few other battles, or even our wars, have much resonance with our citizens. D-Day currently does, but for how long?
We have probably gained another generation or so worth of remembrance due to the success of "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers." These memories will also fade, however, as Favorite Daughter grows old and her children continue the fight against the enemies of liberty and democracy.
Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps the sheer drama of D-Day, for the reasons I've written above, will continue to move people every 20 years or so, particularly in Europe as it drifts toward a bureaucratic entity known as the EU, and European freedoms diminish under the EU and an immigrant population which does not respect European culture and freedom.
Right now, however, D-Day means a great deal, and even the seventh graders who today did not know the significance of June 6, 1944, will one day learn it, either in class, or from a friend, or by watching the History Channel. In the end, it's enough that people know that on this day, 61 years ago, the greatest nation in the world, ably assisted by a superb ally, stood up to tyranny and oppression and expended its blood and its treasure for something greater than any one individual.
We understand the importance of the First Amendment Dan
We just expect, maybe we expect too much, but we just expect guys like you, Dan Rather, to tell the truth occassionally and not foist "fake but accurate" crap on us as you hide behind your political agendas.
Is that such a difficult concept to understand?
Dan Rather received some standing ovations from other ethically challenged journalists at the Investigative Reporters and Editors conference.
"Rather, who choked up several times, received standing ovations at the start and end of his 45-minute appearance. He urged the journos to take their watchdog role seriously and said his biggest worry stems from the American public's "increasing lack of understanding" of the importance of First Amendment protections of the press."
What a hero!
Is that such a difficult concept to understand?
Dan Rather received some standing ovations from other ethically challenged journalists at the Investigative Reporters and Editors conference.
"Rather, who choked up several times, received standing ovations at the start and end of his 45-minute appearance. He urged the journos to take their watchdog role seriously and said his biggest worry stems from the American public's "increasing lack of understanding" of the importance of First Amendment protections of the press."
What a hero!
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Old Europe now could be the U.S. one day if we are not careful
I think Thomas Friedman of the NY Times correctly addresses why Europeans vote against the EU, and why Europe should be concerned about the ambition and talent of those in the East (Europe and Asia). We should be concerned as well.
I’ve quoted a good deal of the article below as the Times requires registration.
"It was extremely revealing traveling from Europe to India as French voters (and now Dutch ones) were rejecting the E.U. constitution - in one giant snub to President Jacques Chirac, European integration, immigration, Turkish membership in the E.U. and all the forces of globalization eating away at Europe's welfare states. It is interesting because French voters are trying to preserve a 35-hour work week in a world where Indian engineers are ready to work a 35-hour day. Good luck.
Voters in "old Europe" - France, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy - seem to be saying to their leaders: stop the world, we want to get off; while voters in India have been telling their leaders: stop the world and build us a stepstool, we want to get on. I feel sorry for Western European blue collar workers. A world of benefits they have known for 50 years is coming apart, and their governments don't seem to have a strategy for coping.
One reason French voters turned down the E.U. constitution was rampant fears of "Polish plumbers." Rumors that low-cost immigrant plumbers from Poland were taking over the French plumbing trade became a rallying symbol for anti-E.U. constitution forces. A few weeks ago Franz Müntefering, chairman of Germany's Social Democratic Party, compared private equity firms - which buy up failing businesses, downsize them and then sell them - to a "swarm of locusts."
The fact that a top German politician has resorted to attacking capitalism to win votes tells you just how explosive the next decade in Western Europe could be, as some of these aging, inflexible economies - which have grown used to six-week vacations and unemployment insurance that is almost as good as having a job - become more intimately integrated with Eastern Europe, India and China in a flattening world.
To appreciate just how explosive, come to Bangalore, India, the outsourcing capital of the world. The dirty little secret is that India is taking work from Europe or America not simply because of low wages. It is also because Indians are ready to work harder and can do anything from answering your phone to designing your next airplane or car. They are not racing us to the bottom. They are racing us to the top."
I’ve quoted a good deal of the article below as the Times requires registration.
"It was extremely revealing traveling from Europe to India as French voters (and now Dutch ones) were rejecting the E.U. constitution - in one giant snub to President Jacques Chirac, European integration, immigration, Turkish membership in the E.U. and all the forces of globalization eating away at Europe's welfare states. It is interesting because French voters are trying to preserve a 35-hour work week in a world where Indian engineers are ready to work a 35-hour day. Good luck.
Voters in "old Europe" - France, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy - seem to be saying to their leaders: stop the world, we want to get off; while voters in India have been telling their leaders: stop the world and build us a stepstool, we want to get on. I feel sorry for Western European blue collar workers. A world of benefits they have known for 50 years is coming apart, and their governments don't seem to have a strategy for coping.
One reason French voters turned down the E.U. constitution was rampant fears of "Polish plumbers." Rumors that low-cost immigrant plumbers from Poland were taking over the French plumbing trade became a rallying symbol for anti-E.U. constitution forces. A few weeks ago Franz Müntefering, chairman of Germany's Social Democratic Party, compared private equity firms - which buy up failing businesses, downsize them and then sell them - to a "swarm of locusts."
The fact that a top German politician has resorted to attacking capitalism to win votes tells you just how explosive the next decade in Western Europe could be, as some of these aging, inflexible economies - which have grown used to six-week vacations and unemployment insurance that is almost as good as having a job - become more intimately integrated with Eastern Europe, India and China in a flattening world.
To appreciate just how explosive, come to Bangalore, India, the outsourcing capital of the world. The dirty little secret is that India is taking work from Europe or America not simply because of low wages. It is also because Indians are ready to work harder and can do anything from answering your phone to designing your next airplane or car. They are not racing us to the bottom. They are racing us to the top."
We have to maintain a quality force in the Army
Interesting article in Slate which discusses the issues facing commanders concerning substandard Soldiers in units and the administrative processes to remove them from units and the Army.
One of my policies the last few years was simiply, “I’d rather go short before I go stupid,” meaning I’d rather be in charge of an organization that was undermanned than fullup with poor quality Soldiers.
The same goes for the average commander in the field. Substandard Soldiers help no one and are a detriment in combat. A fully manned unit sounds great on paper, but if it's fully manned with Soldiers which do not meet basic standards this can lead to many obvious problems with unit performance over time.
We need good Soldiers with initiative, who stay in shape and stay away from drugs and other destructive behaviors. Our Army is full of great soldiers.
Quit mothering the substandard ones for the sake of a few Powerpoint manning charts. Throw the bad ones out and move on. We’ve a war to be won.
One of my policies the last few years was simiply, “I’d rather go short before I go stupid,” meaning I’d rather be in charge of an organization that was undermanned than fullup with poor quality Soldiers.
The same goes for the average commander in the field. Substandard Soldiers help no one and are a detriment in combat. A fully manned unit sounds great on paper, but if it's fully manned with Soldiers which do not meet basic standards this can lead to many obvious problems with unit performance over time.
We need good Soldiers with initiative, who stay in shape and stay away from drugs and other destructive behaviors. Our Army is full of great soldiers.
Quit mothering the substandard ones for the sake of a few Powerpoint manning charts. Throw the bad ones out and move on. We’ve a war to be won.
Is this problem the fault of America?
Based on this report, I propose that we inform the “developing” nations like, China, India, and the rest to cease economic development and settle for what they have at this time.
Bet this will be spun as simply a reflection of the U.S. not having ratified Kyoto (which incidentally, John Kerry also voted against).
I think it’s really the fault of President Bush.
Bet this will be spun as simply a reflection of the U.S. not having ratified Kyoto (which incidentally, John Kerry also voted against).
I think it’s really the fault of President Bush.
Who do you trust? Not the media.
A new Gallup poll indicates that Americans trust the military, and the ratings for the media, at 28%, ARE THE LOWEST EVER.
Hmmmh. Dan Rather, Eason Jordan, Linda Foley, Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, and CBS - call your offices.
"WASHINGTON, June 3, 2005 – The American public has more confidence in the military than in any other institution, according to a Gallup poll released this week.
Seventy-four percent of those surveyed in Gallup's 2005 confidence poll said they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the military - more than in a full range of other government, religious, economic, medical, business and news organizations."
And Main Stream Media numbers?
"The Gallup organization noted that public trust in television news and newspapers reached an all-time low this year, with 28 percent of responders expressing high confidence in them."
Of course, the MSM did rate higher than Congress and HMOs.
Hmmmh. Dan Rather, Eason Jordan, Linda Foley, Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, and CBS - call your offices.
"WASHINGTON, June 3, 2005 – The American public has more confidence in the military than in any other institution, according to a Gallup poll released this week.
Seventy-four percent of those surveyed in Gallup's 2005 confidence poll said they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the military - more than in a full range of other government, religious, economic, medical, business and news organizations."
And Main Stream Media numbers?
"The Gallup organization noted that public trust in television news and newspapers reached an all-time low this year, with 28 percent of responders expressing high confidence in them."
Of course, the MSM did rate higher than Congress and HMOs.
Friday, June 03, 2005
Some interesting comments about Fonda, Maher, Penn, and their supporters
Ouch. From an editorial column in the Orlando Sentinel.
Some pretty straight forward talk from a Vietnam vet. I think he’s earned the right to say whatever he wants about Jane Fonda.
So, after reading this – are you still going to see her new movie or buy her new autobiography?
Some pretty straight forward talk from a Vietnam vet. I think he’s earned the right to say whatever he wants about Jane Fonda.
So, after reading this – are you still going to see her new movie or buy her new autobiography?
The names Trudreau and Koppel won’t remind you about
I understand that these two stalwart Americans have opted to “memorialize” the warriors which this nation has lost in Iraq and Afghanistan in their own individual ways. I’m sure that Trudeau and Koppel have only the best intentions in mind and there is absolutely nothing political or anti-administration in their minds.
However, I challenge both Trudeau and Koppel to do the same for the individuals listed here. People killed at the Pentagon on 9/11.
Don Surber has more.
The Army of One remembers its casualties. Casualties of 9/11, not victims.
Trudeau and Koppel disgust me. They have no idea why we are fighting this war. It’s always going to be Vietnam to guys like this.
Newsisyphus reminds us how left wingers focus on losses and failure instead of success and the potential for greatness. It's never morning in America to them, but always 0200 and raining when the bad spot report comes in over the radio.
However, I challenge both Trudeau and Koppel to do the same for the individuals listed here. People killed at the Pentagon on 9/11.
Don Surber has more.
The Army of One remembers its casualties. Casualties of 9/11, not victims.
Trudeau and Koppel disgust me. They have no idea why we are fighting this war. It’s always going to be Vietnam to guys like this.
Newsisyphus reminds us how left wingers focus on losses and failure instead of success and the potential for greatness. It's never morning in America to them, but always 0200 and raining when the bad spot report comes in over the radio.
CNN’s 25th Anniversary – the other side of the story
Ms. Malkin provides some highlights of its left wing bias over the years.
Memories.
The bogus Operation Tailwind report
CNN in bed with Saddam Hussein
CNN's Ted Turner mocks his own Catholic employees as "Jesus freaks"
CNN-n-Soros
Easongate
What are some of your favorite CNN memories?
Memories.
The bogus Operation Tailwind report
CNN in bed with Saddam Hussein
CNN's Ted Turner mocks his own Catholic employees as "Jesus freaks"
CNN-n-Soros
Easongate
What are some of your favorite CNN memories?
These guys might be even lower than ambulance chasers
American and foreign lawyers are converging on Gitmo in support of the enemies of democracy and their terrorist supporters.
A good rundown here by Michelle Malkin over the left wing and human rights hysteria over Gitmo.
She's not happy with the President's comments. "President Bush's response to a question about Guantanamo Bay at his press conference this afternoon was woefully inadequate, and not just because he flubbed the word "dissemble." While he rightfully criticized Amnesty International's hyperbolic report on alleged abuses at Gitmo as "absurd," I don't think he defended our detention policies and practices vigorously or articulately enough."
A good rundown here by Michelle Malkin over the left wing and human rights hysteria over Gitmo.
She's not happy with the President's comments. "President Bush's response to a question about Guantanamo Bay at his press conference this afternoon was woefully inadequate, and not just because he flubbed the word "dissemble." While he rightfully criticized Amnesty International's hyperbolic report on alleged abuses at Gitmo as "absurd," I don't think he defended our detention policies and practices vigorously or articulately enough."
Key member of Axis of Weasels now the new French PM
Even the BBC says he's elitist. Ouch.
"Mr de Villepin, 51, is best known abroad for expressing France's implacable opposition to the war in Iraq at the United Nations.
He is also regarded as a consensual politician and is personally loyal to Mr Chirac.
But the BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Paris says that as a career diplomat never elected to public office, he of all candidates most typifies the French elite so roundly rejected by the French people on Sunday."
This is the "gentleman" who worked overtime to disrupt our war effort in 2002-03. Hope he enjoys being the Prime Minister with Chirac.
"Mr de Villepin, 51, is best known abroad for expressing France's implacable opposition to the war in Iraq at the United Nations.
He is also regarded as a consensual politician and is personally loyal to Mr Chirac.
But the BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Paris says that as a career diplomat never elected to public office, he of all candidates most typifies the French elite so roundly rejected by the French people on Sunday."
This is the "gentleman" who worked overtime to disrupt our war effort in 2002-03. Hope he enjoys being the Prime Minister with Chirac.
Media “watchdog” not exactly objective any longer
If it ever was objective, but, if this report is correct, we can pretty much discount the possibility of any objective commentary from the Columbia Journalism Review.
David M writes on his blog, “Imagine this scenario: A supposedly unbiased publication is being run by someone with a clear political bias, and that person is not listed on the publication's masthead. It's just the type of story that media watchdog Columbia Journalism Review would love to uncover."
Given that Victor Navasky has this for a bio, which way do you think the CJR will tilt?
"Victor Navasky, editor of The Nation since 1978, became its publisher and editorial director in January 1995. In 1994, while on a year's leave of absence, he served first as a fellow at the Institute of Politics at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and then as a senior fellow at the Freedom Forum Media Studies Center at Columbia University."
David M writes on his blog, “Imagine this scenario: A supposedly unbiased publication is being run by someone with a clear political bias, and that person is not listed on the publication's masthead. It's just the type of story that media watchdog Columbia Journalism Review would love to uncover."
Given that Victor Navasky has this for a bio, which way do you think the CJR will tilt?
"Victor Navasky, editor of The Nation since 1978, became its publisher and editorial director in January 1995. In 1994, while on a year's leave of absence, he served first as a fellow at the Institute of Politics at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and then as a senior fellow at the Freedom Forum Media Studies Center at Columbia University."
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Memorial Day Weekend, 2005 – Normandy
I was privileged to spend another spectacular time in Normandy over Memorial Day weekend. I accompanied a great group of people from this area who wanted to see the battlefields of June – August 44.
We visited Bayeux, the first city liberated in the British sector (7 June), and saw the Bayeux Tapestry, a wonder in itself. On Memorial Day, we woke up about 4 kilometers from Mont Ste Michel, toured the Abbey and the rest of this wonderful site before departing for home on Monday afternoon.
What a superb way to spend Memorial Day weekend. Visiting American battlefields and reflecting on the courage, valor and sacrifice of the American Army as it fought its way ashore and from the air to drive the Hun out of France and reestablish liberty in western Europe.
Our basic itinerary was as follows:
Departed and drove all night to Normandy, watching The Longest Day ( my favorite lines - im schlectes Wetter, in Normandie!; ack-ack, over Calais; send them to hell; hold until relieved).
Friday
Breakfast with Madame Grondee at Pegasus Bridge
Arromanches – Mulberries, the artificial port
Point du Hoc – the Rangers
Omaha Beach – Vierville Draw, A/116 Infantry, BG Cota
The American Cemetery
Omaha Beach, the surf, the 5th ESB and 1st Infantry Division Monuments
Saturday
Ste. Mere Eglise and the Airborne Museum
La Fiere and the 82d Airborne landings and battles
Utah Beach – Teddy Roosevelt and the 4th Infantry Division
Carentan – the 101st Airborne battle and the linkup of the beachhead
Bayeux – the British Cemetery and the Tapestry
Sunday
Hill 192 – the 2d Infantry Division
Operation COBRA – The VII Corps Breakout
The American Cemetery in St. James, Brittany
Mortain, Hill 317, 2/120th Infantry, 30th Infantry Division
Avranches – The Third Army attacks
Monday
Mont Ste. Michel and then home
What did YOU do for Memorial Day weekend?
We visited Bayeux, the first city liberated in the British sector (7 June), and saw the Bayeux Tapestry, a wonder in itself. On Memorial Day, we woke up about 4 kilometers from Mont Ste Michel, toured the Abbey and the rest of this wonderful site before departing for home on Monday afternoon.
What a superb way to spend Memorial Day weekend. Visiting American battlefields and reflecting on the courage, valor and sacrifice of the American Army as it fought its way ashore and from the air to drive the Hun out of France and reestablish liberty in western Europe.
Our basic itinerary was as follows:
Thursday
Departed and drove all night to Normandy, watching The Longest Day ( my favorite lines - im schlectes Wetter, in Normandie!; ack-ack, over Calais; send them to hell; hold until relieved).
Friday
Breakfast with Madame Grondee at Pegasus Bridge
Arromanches – Mulberries, the artificial port
Point du Hoc – the Rangers
Omaha Beach – Vierville Draw, A/116 Infantry, BG Cota
The American Cemetery
Omaha Beach, the surf, the 5th ESB and 1st Infantry Division Monuments
Saturday
Ste. Mere Eglise and the Airborne Museum
La Fiere and the 82d Airborne landings and battles
Utah Beach – Teddy Roosevelt and the 4th Infantry Division
Carentan – the 101st Airborne battle and the linkup of the beachhead
Bayeux – the British Cemetery and the Tapestry
Sunday
Hill 192 – the 2d Infantry Division
Operation COBRA – The VII Corps Breakout
The American Cemetery in St. James, Brittany
Mortain, Hill 317, 2/120th Infantry, 30th Infantry Division
Avranches – The Third Army attacks
Monday
Mont Ste. Michel and then home
What did YOU do for Memorial Day weekend?
The bluffs above Omaha. This is the location of the famous picture showing the 2d Infantry Division moving ashore on D+1. The bunker below served as the first CP for the V Corps on the night of 6 June.
Why would the New York Times expose secrets in wartime?
The other day, the Times ran an article exposing how certain CIA functions work and their method of operations.
Why? What was the motiviation for doing so? We are in a war. And the media wonders why we don’t like them or trust them.
I’d like to see the U.S. attorney who spent so much energy trying to determine who “exposed” a CIA agent who really wasn’t undercover (see Plamme/Wilson) spend some energy talking to these reporters.
SCOTT SHANE, STEPHEN GREY and MARGOT WILLIAMS. They are all on the byline for "C.I.A. Expanding Terror Battle Under Guise of Charter Flights".
”Hugh also discussed this New York Times story about the Secret CIA Airline. I admit I am confused about the reasons for running the story; it would seem an odd thing to reveal in wartime, unless of course you didn’t believe this was wartime. Stories like this come not from the Vietnam template but the 80s template, which is much more vivid to the mind of a modern reporter. This is the sort of story you’d do when you discovered new American perfidy in Central America, a detail from a dirty distant war whose purpose and rationale was held in contempt by all - at least the right-thinking people you had drinks with after work. (I speak as someone who did four years duty in DC happy hours, thank you. It's not so much that all DC journalists are rabid Democrats - it's that they're addicted to cynicism and bemusedly contemptous of anyone who isn't in the press. Except for thier sources, of course. And their spouses who have government jobs. Everyone else is an object of pity or contempt. You think DC journalists are doctrinaire liberals? Get them talking about DC city government, and stand back lest ye be singed.) No, the CIA airllne story plugs into the general idea that the role of the press is to reveal government secrets, regardless of their nature. That the Republic is served not by men and women in offices figuring out crafty ways to confound headchoppers, but by men in parking garages who tell reporters that funds earmarked for vending machine repair are actually going to airlift terrorists out of foreign capitals without proper extradition documents. Boy! Stop the presses!
Would you have trusted these reporters to keep quiet about the fake build-up of troops that made it appear the Allies would invade Calais instead of Normandy? You can imagine a reporter pitching that story to a Perry White c. 1944 – boss, it’s a cover-up, a huge deception. Public money is at stake as well, and the people have a right to know how the war’s being conducted.
GEDDOUDDA HEAH! the editor would shout. AND I NEVER WANNA SEE YOUR JERRY-LOVIN’ ASS IN MY PAPER AGAIN!
Like I keep saying, it’s not their war. It's a war, to be observed dispassionately. And many don’t believe it’s a war at all. I can’t tell you how many emails I get accusing me of mad foamy paranoia for thinking that Iran and / or North Korea would want to slip a teeny nuke to some Islamicist cell so they could drive it up Broadway.
Well, if it occurs to me, who loves this country, I imagine it occurs to those who hate it.
Why? What was the motiviation for doing so? We are in a war. And the media wonders why we don’t like them or trust them.
I’d like to see the U.S. attorney who spent so much energy trying to determine who “exposed” a CIA agent who really wasn’t undercover (see Plamme/Wilson) spend some energy talking to these reporters.
SCOTT SHANE, STEPHEN GREY and MARGOT WILLIAMS. They are all on the byline for "C.I.A. Expanding Terror Battle Under Guise of Charter Flights".
A nicely done article, full of tactics and techniques, airport and hanger locations, and flight routes. Good intelligence work, of great use to the enemies of our nation.
So, Mr. Shane, Mr. Grey, and Ms. Williams: What the heck are you doing? Are their any grownups at the NYT with an ounce of common sense?
Anyway, Jim Lileks says it so much more eloquently than I, with a nice link to Normandy.”Hugh also discussed this New York Times story about the Secret CIA Airline. I admit I am confused about the reasons for running the story; it would seem an odd thing to reveal in wartime, unless of course you didn’t believe this was wartime. Stories like this come not from the Vietnam template but the 80s template, which is much more vivid to the mind of a modern reporter. This is the sort of story you’d do when you discovered new American perfidy in Central America, a detail from a dirty distant war whose purpose and rationale was held in contempt by all - at least the right-thinking people you had drinks with after work. (I speak as someone who did four years duty in DC happy hours, thank you. It's not so much that all DC journalists are rabid Democrats - it's that they're addicted to cynicism and bemusedly contemptous of anyone who isn't in the press. Except for thier sources, of course. And their spouses who have government jobs. Everyone else is an object of pity or contempt. You think DC journalists are doctrinaire liberals? Get them talking about DC city government, and stand back lest ye be singed.) No, the CIA airllne story plugs into the general idea that the role of the press is to reveal government secrets, regardless of their nature. That the Republic is served not by men and women in offices figuring out crafty ways to confound headchoppers, but by men in parking garages who tell reporters that funds earmarked for vending machine repair are actually going to airlift terrorists out of foreign capitals without proper extradition documents. Boy! Stop the presses!
Would you have trusted these reporters to keep quiet about the fake build-up of troops that made it appear the Allies would invade Calais instead of Normandy? You can imagine a reporter pitching that story to a Perry White c. 1944 – boss, it’s a cover-up, a huge deception. Public money is at stake as well, and the people have a right to know how the war’s being conducted.
GEDDOUDDA HEAH! the editor would shout. AND I NEVER WANNA SEE YOUR JERRY-LOVIN’ ASS IN MY PAPER AGAIN!
Like I keep saying, it’s not their war. It's a war, to be observed dispassionately. And many don’t believe it’s a war at all. I can’t tell you how many emails I get accusing me of mad foamy paranoia for thinking that Iran and / or North Korea would want to slip a teeny nuke to some Islamicist cell so they could drive it up Broadway.
Well, if it occurs to me, who loves this country, I imagine it occurs to those who hate it.
SUVs don’t kill people, people kill people
I wonder if Warren Brown, the WaPost’s auto writer, realizes the implications of what he wrote about SUV accident rates and fatalities.
Bottom line, he said blame the drivers, not the SUVs.
That’s the antithesis of the left wing angle on gun control. The left wing answer focuses on the gun, not the person who pulls the trigger.
I’m sure Mr. Brown will be counseled by his editors on how he missed the point.
From the article, reference the media. "They can start by writing more balanced headlines and placing the blame for traffic fatalities where it generally belongs -- on the drivers.
Pedestrians, for example, aren't "Killed by SUV" any more than they are killed by a car, bus, minivan or pickup truck. Deaths in such instances most often are caused by human error. It's time to start putting the responsibility where it belongs."
I would love to read his email traffic today.
Bottom line, he said blame the drivers, not the SUVs.
That’s the antithesis of the left wing angle on gun control. The left wing answer focuses on the gun, not the person who pulls the trigger.
I’m sure Mr. Brown will be counseled by his editors on how he missed the point.
From the article, reference the media. "They can start by writing more balanced headlines and placing the blame for traffic fatalities where it generally belongs -- on the drivers.
Pedestrians, for example, aren't "Killed by SUV" any more than they are killed by a car, bus, minivan or pickup truck. Deaths in such instances most often are caused by human error. It's time to start putting the responsibility where it belongs."
I would love to read his email traffic today.
Is Amnesty International objective?
What does it say about their reports on Gitmo when the leadership of Amnesty International contributes to American political campaigns?
The Washington Times reports that “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.”
By contributing to American politicians, Amnesty International leaders create the perception of favoritism and improper motives in their pursuit of human rights. AI leaders and directors have now allowed those about whom they complain to direct the debate away from the topic of treatment of enemy terrorists to a debate about the motives of AI.
Like most left wing organizations which begin with good motives, this one has evolved into a group which risks becoming irrelevant, or at least sidelined, due to its use of hysterical analysis and commentary to make points.
Hysterical accusations against the U.S. by AI must be viewed in light of Secretary Rumsfeld's comments. He stated that, “No force in the world has done more to liberate people that they have never met than the men and women of the United States military, Mr. Rumsfeld said at the Pentagon press conference. That's why the recent allegation that the U.S. military is running a gulag at Guantanamo Bay is so reprehensible. Most would define a gulag as where the Soviet Union kept millions in forced labor concentration camps. ... To compare the United States and Guantanamo Bay to such atrocities cannot be excused.”
Yet, AI compares Gitmo to the Soviet Gulag. How absurd. Can we believe anything AI says in the future about human rights given their exaggerations in this matter?
The AI website illustrates a number of issues which should be of concern to everyone. How the U.S. operates concerning enemy terrorists is indeed a legitimate topic for review and discussion in any forum. However, AI comparisons of the U.S. in 2005 with Soviet prison operations demonstrates that AI has agendas other than human rights. Anti-Republican and anti-Bush agendas for starters.
A nice analysis of the AI report which accuses the U.S. of war crimes and compares Gitmo to the Gulag, can be found here at National Review. Again, one must question the objectivity of AI and their ability in the future to discern true issues of concern regarding abuses of human rights in places like Sudan, North Korea, and nations of similar ilk.
The Washington Times reports that “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.”
By contributing to American politicians, Amnesty International leaders create the perception of favoritism and improper motives in their pursuit of human rights. AI leaders and directors have now allowed those about whom they complain to direct the debate away from the topic of treatment of enemy terrorists to a debate about the motives of AI.
Like most left wing organizations which begin with good motives, this one has evolved into a group which risks becoming irrelevant, or at least sidelined, due to its use of hysterical analysis and commentary to make points.
Hysterical accusations against the U.S. by AI must be viewed in light of Secretary Rumsfeld's comments. He stated that, “No force in the world has done more to liberate people that they have never met than the men and women of the United States military, Mr. Rumsfeld said at the Pentagon press conference. That's why the recent allegation that the U.S. military is running a gulag at Guantanamo Bay is so reprehensible. Most would define a gulag as where the Soviet Union kept millions in forced labor concentration camps. ... To compare the United States and Guantanamo Bay to such atrocities cannot be excused.”
Yet, AI compares Gitmo to the Soviet Gulag. How absurd. Can we believe anything AI says in the future about human rights given their exaggerations in this matter?
The AI website illustrates a number of issues which should be of concern to everyone. How the U.S. operates concerning enemy terrorists is indeed a legitimate topic for review and discussion in any forum. However, AI comparisons of the U.S. in 2005 with Soviet prison operations demonstrates that AI has agendas other than human rights. Anti-Republican and anti-Bush agendas for starters.
A nice analysis of the AI report which accuses the U.S. of war crimes and compares Gitmo to the Gulag, can be found here at National Review. Again, one must question the objectivity of AI and their ability in the future to discern true issues of concern regarding abuses of human rights in places like Sudan, North Korea, and nations of similar ilk.
Political Junkies for '08 - start here
Patrick Ruffini has started the 2008 Presidential Wire, which will feature news items on all potential 2008 Presidential candidates, as well as other current issues, such as the French EU constitution vote and Social Security.
It's never too early to read about Hillary!
It's never too early to read about Hillary!
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Saddam and his underwear
As disappointed as I am that some undisciplined warrior violated the rules with these pictures, I am absolutely appalled at the wailing and gnashing by the left wingers, the terror supporters, and the human rights activists over this issue.
Where were they when this scum Saddam was killing people right and left?
A few more thoughts here by Jeffrey Gedmin, via Medienkritik.
Main Stream Media – the deathwatch continues
Rather, Eason, Newsweek and Isikoff, Foley.
The continuing rage of self inflicted wounds which reveal their biases and hatred concerning America and its successes have really alerted the average citizen to the excesses of the MSM. The article from the Washington Times about Rather and Isikoff tracks common threads and indicates the MSM has not learned much at all.
"Three now-common themes appeared in each controversy:
(1) The misinformation erred predictably against the current American government. In CBS' case, anchorman Dan Rather impugned the president's past military service. The Newsweek article questioned the ethics and sense of the U.S. military.
(2) These were not minor slips. The counterfeit documents Mr. Rather circulated undercut a sitting commander-in-chief in the midst of a national election. The fraud had the potential to alter the very governance of the United States. Newsweek's wrong information incited the Middle East's lunatic elements. Rioting and death followed, complicating the U.S. military effort.
(3) Neither organization was markedly contrite when exposed. The culpable Mr. Rather refashioned himself as the maligned target of the blogosphere. Newsweek spokesmen whined that a vindictive administration was hounding their management."
In the end, however, Americans have many other vehicles through which to gain their information and analysis. Web based news sources and alternatives to MSM will grow as the business models crumple through lack of viewers and linked revenues.
Like so many other dying organizations, MSM will have the capability to launch desperate counteroffensives, utilizing its strategic reserves in futile attempts to gain time or reestablish its former dominance of information dissemination. MSM will fail in these attempts, though it will occassionally score some major news coups as it tries to bring down Republican administrations or others that oppose the left wing MSM agenda.
In the meantime, I'll just keep blogging and enjoy their demise.
The continuing rage of self inflicted wounds which reveal their biases and hatred concerning America and its successes have really alerted the average citizen to the excesses of the MSM. The article from the Washington Times about Rather and Isikoff tracks common threads and indicates the MSM has not learned much at all.
"Three now-common themes appeared in each controversy:
(1) The misinformation erred predictably against the current American government. In CBS' case, anchorman Dan Rather impugned the president's past military service. The Newsweek article questioned the ethics and sense of the U.S. military.
(2) These were not minor slips. The counterfeit documents Mr. Rather circulated undercut a sitting commander-in-chief in the midst of a national election. The fraud had the potential to alter the very governance of the United States. Newsweek's wrong information incited the Middle East's lunatic elements. Rioting and death followed, complicating the U.S. military effort.
(3) Neither organization was markedly contrite when exposed. The culpable Mr. Rather refashioned himself as the maligned target of the blogosphere. Newsweek spokesmen whined that a vindictive administration was hounding their management."
In the end, however, Americans have many other vehicles through which to gain their information and analysis. Web based news sources and alternatives to MSM will grow as the business models crumple through lack of viewers and linked revenues.
Like so many other dying organizations, MSM will have the capability to launch desperate counteroffensives, utilizing its strategic reserves in futile attempts to gain time or reestablish its former dominance of information dissemination. MSM will fail in these attempts, though it will occassionally score some major news coups as it tries to bring down Republican administrations or others that oppose the left wing MSM agenda.
In the meantime, I'll just keep blogging and enjoy their demise.
British academic bigotry overturned
Left wing anti-Semitism, always just below the surface in left wing intellectual circles within Britain, has been dealt a blow with this new vote.
This won’t end the anti-Semitism, however, nor the left wing support for terrorists.
This won’t end the anti-Semitism, however, nor the left wing support for terrorists.
