The Republic of Dissent

Go for it, Hillary: the necessity of Hillary's candidacy

Andrew Sullivan has what I find to be a slightly disingenuous post on Hillary Clinton advising her not to run for president and arguing that she would make a better supreme court justice or majority leader. I'm not buying it. I seem to remember that many people made the same kind of arguments when she was thinking about running for Senate in New York. Hillary Clinton should run for president precisely for the reasons, which Sullivan is advising her not to.  She should so that Americans can once and for all choose what they want to be and whether divisiveness works in politics or not. At this point, not running for Hillary would be a mistake because she would be missing a date with her destiny. I don't know if Hillary can win, but I know if she doesn't run, too many people will always wonder what would have happened if she had. Hillary has not other choice but to run because her success or her failures as a candidate will be good for America, because it will teach it something about itself. Of course, her campaign would face great obstacles and will divide democrats and the country, but at the end of it, Americans would be better for it. It is better for Hillary to run and lose rather than to chicken out and not to run at all.

Arguing against the ban of the N word

John Ridley has an op-ed in the LA Times on Jesse Jackson's attempt to ban the N. Word. Although I agree with him that the idea is ridiculous and shortsighted, I don't like the way he is choosing to defend his position by taking through the easy road and attacking Jesse Jackson when he doesn’t have to do it to make his sensible point. Money quote:

Jesse Jackson, the same cat who once referred to Jews as "hymies" and New York as "Hymietown"? […] And he wants to lecture us regarding the usage of hurtful words? I am all for having open and intelligent discourse on the word "nigger." What I am wholly against are hypocrites who sling hate in private, then smile to us while they lie, telling the rest of us that intellectual debate is closed.
Sorry, Mr. Jackson, but the America I support through paying taxes in my over-inflated bracket allows me not to bow down automatically to your linguistic fatwas. Not all of us quake and quiver before mere words.
I have no qualm about using the word. It is just a word in the English lexicon, and no amount of political correctness will remove it from reality. Trying to amputate it into the "N-word" — as if by the castration of a few letters we should then be able to conceptualize its meaning without feeling its sting — only gives the word more power. The word itself has no true effect other than the velocity and voracity the receiver ascribes to it. Deny its use, lock the word away as though you were locking away a weapon, and you increase its puissance.

This debate is bigger than Jesse Jackson, his hypocrisy, and his contradictions. It is about whether banning a word resolves issues as central and grave as racism. I don't think it does. I think that banning it puts too much emphasis on what should be acknowledge to be a slur which has come to become much more. Banning it would give the  N word the attractiveness of a forbidden fruit, of a taboo. It is for that reason that I think that the goal should be to make it irrelevant rather than to give it some potency by banning it or by refusing to focus on what is behind it. It is true that the N-word isn’t just a word and that it is very difficult to disconnect it from its hateful history, however, I think that with society evolving on the issue of race, it will slowly disappear without the enactment of a law to ban it.

The video du matin: A serious conversation about the danger of Barbie dolls

Here is a "serious" conversation about the way Barbie dolls are sexualizing kids. I wonder who won this argument.

Breeding and Mark Steyn

At first, I laughed when  I read Mark Steyn's writings and predictions about Europe because it was clear to me that he didn't know anything about Europe and his ideology was not only clouding his thinking and his perception of reality. Now, I can't laugh anymore because I've realized that too many people are actually taking Steyn seriously and making the dangerous assertion that he knows what he is talking about when it is clear that he doesn't. Steyn is to intellectualism what K-fed (the soon to be ex Mr. Spears) is to hip-hop and the following quote  just shows his inability to think and to analyze multi-faceted realities because he is focused on one thing and that is his conviction that Europe is doomed:

As I’ve said innumerable times, the native European population is split three ways: some will leave, as the Dutch (and certain French) are already doing; some will shrug and go along with the Islamization of the continent, as the ever-accelerating number of conversions suggests; and so the ones left to embrace Fascism will be a minority of an aging population. It will be bloody and messy, as I write in America Alone, but it will not alter the final outcome. If you don’t breed, you can’t influence the future. And furthermore a disinclination to breed is a good sign you don’t care much about the future. That’s why the Spaniards, who fought a brutal bloody civil war for their country in the 1930s, folded instantly after those

Madrid

bombings. When you’ve demographically checked out of the future, why fight for it?

Food for thought: the U.S. Constitution, America, Multiculturalism, and the Koran

“The U.S. Constitution is a multiculturalist document. Not in all senses, of course: It tries to forge a common national culture as well as tolerating other cultures. But it is indeed multiculturalist in important ways. We shouldn’t forget that when we’re tempted to categorically condemn supposedly multiculturalist changes to our constitutional practices. […] Much folly has been urged in the name of multiculturalism. But this is no reason to dismiss the core notion that a nation should both create a common culture and leave people with the freedom to retain important aspects of other cultures — especially religious cultures. That notion is deeply American, and expressly enshrined in our Constitution. If it is “political correctness,” it is so only in the sense that it’s a political notion, and a correct one. It has served us well, even when dealing with religious groups that were once hated and seen as incompatible with American values, such as Catholics.” Eugene Volokh, “Oh Say, Can You Swear on a Koran?”

Letting kids be kids

A Pakistani court has ruled that Molly Campbell or Misbah Rana as she wants to be called, the Scottish 12 year old girl, who ran away from home to be with her father in Pakistan, should be returned to her mother. The ruling means that a Scottish court will decide who has custody in this case and where the child should live. Many are arguing that the mother should let Molly go or rather Misbah choose where she wants to live. I disagree strongly not because she wants to live in Islamic country or because I think that her father cannot raise her well but simply because she is a kid. Let me repeat that Molly Campbell is a kid. It would not matter if the facts where different and her father was Scottish and her mother Pakistani. There is a reason why kids don't get to make such decisions and that is because they are not able to make them. Of course, the parents in this case should listen to her, and come to an agreement that will enable her to have a wonderful childhood, but she shouldn't be the one to make that decision. In a few years, she will be a young woman and then she will be able to do whatever she wants to do and to live in Pakistan happily ever after. For now, that huge decision shouldn't be hers for children are not adults.

The video du jour: America, Europe needs you to save its soul!

I don't know if this video is meant to be taken seriously, but I do tend to take people who speak with a French accent seriously even when I am distressed over the fact that they are saying stupid and outrageous things. This man's message is clear and frightening because it is based on fantasy: America, Europe needs you to save it from Islam as you saved it from Nazism and Fascism. Aren't people tired of hearing about the so-called clash of civilizations when it is obvious that "civilizations" are all fighting the same virus, which is extremism and the reject of thought, knowledge, and reason over blind faith (fanaticism), purity, and force?

Food for thought: let's keep the world divided

“Lamentably, the time is past (if it ever existed) when mere benign expressions of convivial tolerance could have any lasting, positive effect on inter-religious and inter-cultural relations. Pope Benedict well understands the current inefficacy of mere expressions of tolerance unconnected to specific, current Muslim nation practices, whatever he may or may not say on the remainder of this dangerous trip (originally intended as an outreach from the Catholic pope to the Eastern Orthodox Christian patriarch of Constantinople, before it was transformed by events into a Muslim-Christian dominated event). […] It would seem that the Pope is destined to be a bafflement to secularist because he remains true to his Christian faith, just as he will be despised by many Muslims because he remains true to his Christian faith — even as he reaches out for at least minimal standards of reciprocal respect between the religions of the world.” Tony Blankley, “Pope Benedict in the lion's den.”

Ahmadinejad's letter to America

Ahmadinejad loves to write letters, I still haven't finished reading the long, long, long letter he wrote to President last summer, but at least this new letter is shorter and less confusing. He calls on Noble Americans to withdraw from Iraq. Money quote:

Is there not a better approach to governance?

Is it not possible to put wealth and power in the service of peace, stability, prosperity and the happiness of all peoples through a commitment to justice and respect for the rights of all nations, instead of aggression and war?

We all condemn terrorism, because its victims are the innocent.

But, can terrorism be contained and eradicated through war, destruction and the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents?

If that were possible, then why has the problem not been resolved?

The sad experience of invading Iraq is before us all.

What has blind support for the Zionists by the US administration brought for the American people? It is regrettable that for the US administration, the interests of these occupiers supersedes the interests of the American people and of the other nations of the world.

What have the Zionists done for the American people that the US administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these infamous aggressors? Is it not because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors?

My reaction to this letter is that we live in a dangerous for the US when the leader of Islamic theocracy can confidently give lessons of governance to a great democracy like the United States? Has the US lost the moral high ground and if it has, how does it get back because it is imperative for it to get it back if it has indeed lost it.

Another leaked memo

The New York Times published an article based on another leaked memo on the Iraq war, which shows the fact that the Bush administration has some doubts about the Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. What is new? The Washington Post has a great article about the fact that most of the blame is increasingly been placed on the Iraqis for the failures on the ground. I guess nation building is harder than it looks.

The Kissinger Mystique

The New York magazine has a fascinating article on Henry Kissinger, on his contradictions, and on his influence in American politics. It gives the reader many insights into the persona of, undoubtedly, one of the most influential men of our times. The quote, which summarized best Henry Kissinger, is the one of Mark Danner a foreign policy writer who knows him well:

“The tragedy of Henry Kissinger is that he is a very large intellect joined to a very small man. No one is more brilliant, but in offering advice to policy-makers he invariably lets his obsession with his own access and influence corrupt what should be disinterested advice, tailoring his words to what he thinks the powerful want to hear. As a matter of character, he is more courtier than thinker.”

Calling a cat a cat

Jeff Cohen makes a good case against Glenn Beck and about the fact that CNN is letting him use his show to advocate war with Iran. I have to admit that I have never watched any of Beck's show except some disturbing excerpts on Youtube. I think that he is a complaisant ignorant who believes that culture and knowledge are less important that faith and principles and should be subservient to it. Beck reminds of Baghdad Bob in the sense that you know what he is going to say no matter what the facts are and in the sense that he can be entertaining while being wrong and dangerous. Money quote:

His name is Glenn Beck, a smiley-toothed monologist and proselytizer who is a recovering alcoholic, talk-radio host, convert to Mormonism and self-described “rodeo clown.” His crude rants would be easy to ignore, except that CNN—part of the Time Warner conglomerate—has chosen to give Beck a primetime platform which he uses day after day to cheer on a confrontation with Iran.  (Imagine what an informed foreign policy critic could do with such a nightly forum.)

In Beck’s world, he and his endless parade of like-mindedly hawkish guests are the only ones who see the danger: “It’s Iran, stupid!” Most of U.S. officialdom and media are asleep at the wheel again, Neville Chamberlain-style appeasers. [...] What’s unnerving about Beck is that he seems to be amusing himself at least—ever smiling like Pat Robertson—as he does his best to prod the country toward war and confrontation with enemy Islam.

The video du jour: Reporting the good news from Iraq

Well what can I say about this video? Nothing except just to tell you to watch it. I hope that the person who made it, Glenn Beck was trying to be funny.

Birth control, women, and politics

Carole Joffe has an excellent article at Tompain.com denouncing the politicization of birth control. She shows how the Bush administration is treating the issue of contraception not has a health issue but as a political (and in my opinion religious) religious issue by refusing to make it available to low income women by arguing that it demeans them. Money quote:

Although the 98 percent of heterosexually active women in the  United States who have used birth control would likely take issue with the above statement ("Crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality, and adverse to human health and happiness."), this is America, after all, the land of free speech. People and organizations are entitled to their opinions, however unpopular.

But the statement takes on a special meaning when we find out it appears on the website of A Woman's Concern, a fleet of so-called "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" in Boston, whose major function is discouraging women from having abortions.

Religion, conversion, and terrorism

The International Herald Tribune had a fascinating article yesterday about the case of Daveed Gartenstein-Ross who converted from Judaism to Islam and became an Islamist and from Islam to Christianity and is now helping the FBI fight terrorism. It is a fascinating article because it shows how easy it is to embrace extremism forms of religion because they offer clear answers and absolute truths in an ambiguous and complicated word. Money quote:

He said he had initially embraced a moderate version of Islam before being drawn to his job with radical Islamists in Ashland, Oregon, his hometown, seduced by the appeal of belonging to a close-knit community and the "ready answers" provided by his superiors.

Adopting Wahhabism, the Saudi rigorist interpretation of Islam, he stopped shaking hands with women, listening to music, wearing shorts, and playing computer games. He grew a full beard, endorsed the gay-bashing and conspiracy theories of his mentors, and found himself praying for the victory of mujahedeen, or Muslim holy warriors, around the world.

[...] We all grew up in homes where answers were not given to us, and we were looking for a sense of direction that we initially found within Islam," said Gartenstein-Ross.

The most important of this story isn’t that Christianity is the best faith or that Islam leads to violence, but rather that it is easy to condone, to encourage, to grow the seeds of terrorism and other forms of violence when the world becomes divided between the righteous and the sinners, between the pure and those who are scum, and more importantly between us and them. Understanding does mean appeasement, but rather recognizing that the fight against terrorism will not be won uniquely by force, but by defeating the despicable and dangerous ideology by exposing its contradictions, its inhumanity, and its uncleanness.

Taking an oath on the Koran in America

Dennis Prager is arguing that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be elected in Congress shouldn't be allowed to take his oath of office on the Koran because it undermines American civilization and makes the false point that Muslim culture is part of American culture. Money quote:

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book. Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

I disagree strongly with this Prager's arguments for one simple reason and it is that he makes the essential erroneous assumption or rather presumption that the fact that America is a Christian Nation and that Christianity therefore is the most important element of Americanism. His argument is thus America is America because it is Christian and because for since its conception elected officials have chosen to take their oath of office on the bible. However, this argument is no just in contradiction with American history, but also with the Constitution. Church and State although they have increasingly merged in recent history have always been two distinct entities and that separation is at the core of American democracy. For that reason, people of different faiths have been welcome in America and have been allowed to practice their religion in so far as it doesn't violate American laws. Sure, it is a long tradition that elected officials swear on the bible before they take office, however that tradition has lasted because elected officials have consented to it not because it is an absolute law. Traditions aren't laws and evolved with the population and with the times because again they are not created to be oppressive or restrictive, but to bond people togetherness. Thus, Keith Ellison should not just allowed to take his oath of office on the bible, but he should be encouraged to do so for this act would show that America is indeed the most open and most tolerant nation in the world. Prager's objection to this act shows that he has no understanding of what an oath of office is for after all when Ellison will take he will not swearing to protect the constitution of the United States and not to protect the Koran. Prager has confused the bible with the constitution of the United States, because to him, the constitution is only important if it is subjected to the bible. Neither the bible nor the koran are the constitution and neither one should override the laws and the principle of the US constitution.

Food for thought: creating a self-reliant Europe

“The Europeans have relied on their American allies for too long. They have to shoulder their share of the burden by making a national defence effort commensurate with their ambitions for Nato and also for the EU. This is a mark of the solidarity which links the two sides of the Atlantic. This is what France, one of the leading contributors to the alliance, is doing through its Military Estimates Act. The aim is to ensure the ongoing modernisation of its strategic force - in compliance with the principle of strict sufficiency - as well as the equipment, rapid-response capability and deployability of French conventional forces.” Jacques Chirac, President of France.

Chávez and Joe Kennedy

The Wall Street Journal is accusing Joe Kennedy of being too close for comfort with Hugo Chávez and of there enabling a dangerous enemy of America by making a deal with to provide heating oil to low-income families. Money Quote:

But Mr. Kennedy keeps on trucking. Last week in a telephone interview with the Washington Post, he defended his Chávez subsidy deal as "morally righteous," arguing that the Citgo contribution to his nonprofit is only "one-half of one percent" of Citgo oil and product sales in the U.S.

We dialed Joe-4-Oil ourselves to ask directly whether it is also "righteous" to assist an anti-American tyrant at the expense of the Venezuelan people. In between berating our reporter for daring to ask such a thing, Mr. Kennedy said that Mr. Chávez has done "so much more" for the poor than any previous government. As for democracy, he said there was "ample room for improvement in the ways that people get elected in Venezuela as well as in Florida." Mr. Chávez chose his partner well.

I wonder if the Wall Street Journal would make the same case for every person or company, which deals with ‘enemies of the United Sates,” or if its outrage is reserved to Massachusetts Democrats who dares to deal with somebody who doesn’t believe in free markets. I think that it is easy when you are not in the position of not being able to afford heating oil to argue that you must reject help if it comes from Chávez. I would of course never accept charity from dictators, but I have the luxury of saying no without my refusal affecting my family. The Wall Street Journal avoids the ethical dilemma, which this problem poses by arguing that it doesn't exist and by implying that Joe Kennedy just doesn’t love his country enough to do the right thing. I would have made the deal with Chávez, but on the other hand, in spite of my reservations, I find it difficult to condemn those who argue that fighting poverty and helping the poor is more important than anything else. After all, if we would follow the Wall Street Journal's logic, the millions of people in the world who disagree with American policies or who have anti-American feelings shouldn't buy American products and should refuse any help from Americans.

Pelosi vs. Harman: Behind the chick fight:

Glenn Gleenwald has the best post written on the media's almost obscene obsession with the so-called hateful relationship between Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman and the possibility that Alcee Hasting becomes the chairman of the House Intelligence committee. I don' t have the negative views of Harman that Gleenwald, but I believe that he is on to something. Money quote:

At first I thought that the media's obsession with smearing Pelosi was some combination of its adolescent cravings for cattle-like demonization of the unpopular, loser Democrats, combined with the surprisingly (at least to me) strong and obvious discomfort with a woman being this politically powerful in her own right, not dependent upon appointments or derivative popularity from political spouses. And there is definitely a lot of that driving this chatter.
But now I believe that what is really responsible for this amazing obsession with undermining Nancy Pelosi before she even starts -- over matters as seemingly irrelevant (in the grand scheme of things) as Steny Hoyer and Jane Harman, no less -- is that institutionalized Beltway personalities fear a repudiation of the rotten system on which they depend and of which they are such integral parts.

The video du jour: watch Romney dance to the Right

The first time I saw or rather watched Mitt Romney was during a debate against Ted Kennedy for the Senate (in 1994). I remember thinking that he was disturbingly charming meaning that he could be intolerant and radical without being threatening. This video exemplifies this disturbing charm put to use in this case to call for a ban or rather for a vote on same sex marriage. I have the feeling that Romney is going to play a minor, but important role in the Republican primaries. However, I think he is going to come up short and not become the Republican presidential candidate because he is from Massachusetts and because even though he is able to dance very well to the right, he will never really seem as a true believe as Senator Sam Brownback (Kansas) for example.

Insulting Chuck Schumer

Andrew Sullivan has a post on despicable statements about Chuck Schumer, the Senior Senator from New York made by a commenter on Hugh Hewitt's blog. Here is a short excerpt:

Schumer is a Radical Communist Jew - he is clearly in that part of the Jewish religion that supports Socialism and Communism. They claim to be secularist so they can attack all the other religions and hide their true affiliations. New York is full of these children of Communist immigrants of the early 20th century.

Wow, it is sad to see that some things just never change. I wonder what Krauthammer who was bashing Borat for exposing anti-Semitism in the United States will say about this. My guess is that he will condone by saying that Europeans are more anti-Semitic.

50 shots

The New York Times has an article this morning, which offers a theory on why the police officers fired 50 shots on Saturday night, which killed a Bridegroom and wounded two of his friends who were leaving his bachelor party. Money quote:

It is known in police parlance as “contagious shooting” — gunfire that spreads among officers who believe that they, or their colleagues, are facing a threat. It spreads like germs, like laughter, or fear. An officer fires, so his colleagues do, too. [...] Just what happened on Saturday is still being investigated. Police experts, however, suggested in interviews yesterday that contagious shooting played a role in a fatal police shooting in Queens Saturday morning. According to the police account, five officers fired 50 shots at a bridegroom who, leaving his bachelor party at a strip club, twice drove his car into a minivan carrying plainclothes police officers investigating the club.

It's always tragic when innocent people die because of police's mistake. There will be more information available in the days to come, but for now, I am not going to go along with those who argue that this tragedy was a racial incident because I think that doing so is responsible.

Food for thought: the foolishness of outlawing hate speech

“Jackson has been talking to members of Congress about prohibiting the use of hate language in mass media […]. If so, let us hope those talks don't get far. It is easy to agree with Jackson that hate speech divides society and can lead to violence, but if we let Congress decide which speech is and isn't hateful, a lot of comedy clubs would be out of business.
And that's not all. Everything offends somebody. Imagine the repercussions for TV shows like BET's "Comic View" or HBO's "Def Comedy Jam" that feature black stand-up comedians. I've heard from readers, for example, who are offended when black comics on TV poke fun at whites, Hispanics or Asians in their audiences. From the black cultural point of view, such a good-natured call-out can defuse racial tensions. But, to some white folks and others viewing at home, it's hate speech […]. Current hate-crime laws add penalties to assault and other serious crimes if the offender's speech indicates it was motivated by hate. But, if abusive speech without physical damage is grounds for a lawsuit, the biggest laughs will be coming from lawyers.” Clarence Page, “Slurs merit ire, not laws.”

The video du Dimanche: cartoons, hate, and dangerous propaganda

This cartoon worries and disgusts me because I can imagine the effect that it can have on kids watching it. I wonder if it is possible to overcome the prejudices created by one’s environment and upbringing. In other words, can a child raised in anti-American or anti-Semitic household overcome those ills?

Food for thought: Immigration, protectionism, and American jobs

“Titled "American Made: The Impact of Immigrant Entrepreneurs and Professionals on U.S. Competitiveness," the report found that "Over the past 15 years, immigrants have started 25 percent of U.S. public companies that were venture-backed." These businesses employ some 220,000 people in the U.S. and have a current market capitalization that "exceeds $500 billion, adding significant value to the American economy." The authors surveyed smaller, private venture-backed companies as well and discovered that nearly half of the founders also were immigrants. Protectionists insist that immigrants "steal" jobs from native workers, but this survey found evidence that these newcomers are more likely to expand the job pool. "Almost two-thirds (66 percent) of the immigrant founders of privately held venture-backed companies have started or intend to start more companies in the United States," according to the report.”  Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, “Immigrant Entrepreneurs, new evidence that newcomers create jobs and wealth”

The best of today: battling Anorexia

The best article I've read this early morning is "One spoonful at the Time" written by Harriet Brown on her experience with her anorexic daughter. It personifies anorexia by showing the impact that it has not only on the patient, but on the parents when the anorexic is a child. Money quote:

This was the child who was now terrified by a slice of chocolate cake.

That night, when I checked on her in bed, she mumbled, "Make it go away." I now knew what "it" was. It seemed as if she were possessed by a vicious demon she must appease or suffer the consequences. I pictured its leathery wings and yellow fangs inside her. Each crumb Kitty ate was an act of true bravery, defiance snatched from its curved talons. I've heard women joke, "I could use a little anorexia!" They have no idea.

The video du Samedi: Borat, comedy, and anti-semitism

Is Borat funny? I think he is. Is the fact that his humor exposes things that we would rather not see or that we would like to deny exist make it inappropriate? I don't think that it does. Charles Krauthammer's arguments against Borat can be summed in one sentence: you pick the wrong country to mock, fool, Europe is a lot more anti-Semitic than America. I think that Krauthammer misses the point. He refuses to see something that is true about America, which is that it is, in spite of its support for Israel, a place where anti-Semitism exists, is on the rise, and too often is condoned or ignored (it took Mel Gibson’s rant to prove the obvious and even then some blame his rant on alcohol) . It is possible to support Israel and to be anti-Semitic. There is no doubt that America is one of the most tolerant countries in the world, but there is also no doubt that increasingly, anti-Semitic feelings are increasing because people like conspiracy theories and because as always it is easy to scapegoat the Jews for all the ills of the world.

Food for thought: Bashing Borat and Europe

“Baron Cohen could easily have found what he seeks closer to home. He is, after all, from Europe, where synagogues are torched and cemeteries desecrated in a revival of anti-Semitism -- not "indifference" to but active -- unseen since the Holocaust. Where a Jew is singled out for torture and death by French-African thugs. Where a leading Norwegian intellectual -- et tu, Norway? -- mocks "God's Chosen People" ("We laugh at this people's capriciousness and weep at its misdeeds") and calls for the destruction of Israel, the "state founded . . . on the ruins of an archaic national and warlike religion."Yet, amid this gathering darkness, an alarming number of liberal Jews are seized with the notion that the real threat lurks deep in the hearts of American Protestants, most specifically Southern evangelicals. Some fear that their children are going to be converted; others, that below the surface lies a pogrom waiting to happen; still others, that the evangelicals will take power in Washington and enact their own sharia law.This is all quite crazy. America is the most welcoming, religiously tolerant, philo-Semitic country in the world. No nation since Cyrus the Great's Persia has done more for the Jews. And its reward is to be exposed as latently anti-Semitic by an itinerant Jew looking for laughs and, he solemnly assures us, for the path to the Holocaust?Look. Harry Truman used to tell derisive Jewish jokes. Richard Nixon said nasty things about Jews in government and elsewhere. Who cares? Truman and Nixon were the two greatest friends of the Jews in the entire postwar period: Truman secured them a refuge in the state of Israel, and Nixon saved it from extinction during the Yom Kippur War.

It is very hard to be a Jew today, particularly in Baron Cohen's Europe, where Jew-baiting is once again becoming acceptable. But it is a sign of the disorientation of a distressed and confused people that we should find it so difficult to distinguish our friends from our enemies.” Charles Krauthammer, “Just an Anti-Semitic Laugh? Hardly.”

The video du matin: Feminism is at the roots of all evils

Food for thought: Restoring Ted Haggard

“I have talked to him [Ted Haggard]. I was asked to serve on a three person restoration panel [that would cure Haggard from his gayness] and I originally wanted to be of help and said that I would, but I just don’t have the time to do that. And I called my board of directors, we talked about it at length and they were unanimous in asking me not to do that, because this could take four or five years and I just have too many other things going on.” James Dobson. (Hat tip: Judd at Think Progress).

Food for thought: being mean on thanksgiving

“Six imams removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix are calling on Muslims to boycott the airline. If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether. […] The idea that a Muslim boycott against US Airways would hurt the airline proves that Arabs are utterly tone-deaf. This is roughly the equivalent of Cindy Sheehan taking a vow of silence. How can we hope to deal with people with no sense of irony? The next thing you know, New York City cab drivers will be threatening to bathe.” Ann Coulter, “What Can I Do to Make Your Flight More Uncomfortable? ”

The end of the cedar revolution?

Juan Cole argues that the assassination of Pierre Gemayel is yet another example of the Bush's foreign policy and of its "dishonest rhetoric of democratization". Money quote:

The problem is that when you crush the Pushtuns of Afghanistan, who traditionally ruled the country, they have means of hitting back (ask the Canadian troops in Qandahar). When you crush the Sunni Arabs of Iraq, who had traditionally ruled they have ways of organizing a guerrilla movement and acting as spoilers of Bush's new Kurdish-Shiite axis in Baghdad. When you crush Hamas even after they won the elections in early 2006, they have means of continuing to struggle.
In Lebanon, Bush egged on the pro-Hariri movement against the Syrians and their allies. Then he egged on Israel to bomb the Shiites of southern Lebanon (and, mysteriously, the rest of Lebanon, too). So he tried to create the March 14th alliance around Hariri as the winners who take all in Lebanon.
So obviously there will be trouble about this. Everything Bush touches turns to ashes, bombings, assassinations. He doesn't know how to compromise and he doesn't know how to influence his neo-colonial possessions so that they can compromise.

I wonder if what is happening right now wasn't unavoidable given the fact that the only thing, which the Lebanon War conflict accomplish was the weakening of the Siniora Government and through it the empowerment of Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran. The problem is that there are no course of action, which can temperate the situation, which doesn't involve the eating of humble pie by the administration. However, we know from experience that humility isn't something, which this administration is good at demonstrating, especially when it still has the ability of framing the debate in absolute terms to avoid making the difficult decision of bargaining with the devil to avoid the explosion of the region.

Lieberman, Wittmann, and national ambitions?

Lieberman has a new spokesman and it would be a worthless piece of information to me unless I hadn't read its profile in the New York Times this morning, which describes him an independent and eclectic person. His name is Marshall Wittmann and here is how the times describe him:

Mr. Wittmann, meanwhile, is a Trotskyite turned Zionist turned Reaganite turned bipartisan irritant turned pretty much everything in between — including chief lobbyist for the Christian Coalition, the only Jew who has ever held that position.

The one thing that came up to my mind after reading the article was why Lieberman would hire him. Something tells me that Lieberman hasn't given up the dream of running for National Office and that he believes that his status as an Independent Democrat would either enable him to run for president given the right circumstances or again to be a good vice president choice for either a Republican or Democrat nominee. Lieberman is the realists' Barak Obama in the sense that he is the epitome of bipartisanship and therefore can embody the idea that politics should be about libels, but about pragmatism. My guess is that the hiring of Wittmann is just a further sign that Lieberman is positioning to take advantage of the opportunity to run for national office if it presents itself.

Food for thought: the West should stop thinking and just fight

“In short, while the Islamists get bolder and crazier, we become more timid and all too rational, quibbling over this terrorist's affinities and that militia's particular grievances — in hopes of cutting some magical deal with an imaginary moderate imam or nonexistent reasonable militia chief or Middle East dictator.

Well beyond us now is any overarching Churchillian vision of our enemies. We lack the practical understanding of an FDR that all of these Islamists loathe us far more than they despise each other. Their infighting, after all, is like the transitory bickering of thieves over the division of loot that always pales before their shared hatred of the targeted bank owner.” Victor Hanson, “Will the West Stumble?”

Polygamy and its contradictions

I have a difficult time viewing polygamy in a positive light, but I think that it poses interesting and pertinent questions for modern societies such as the one of individual freedom and of societal interest. The Washington Post has a fascinating article on polygamy, which focuses on the attempts made to bring it in the mainstream. Money quote:

Bonnie, along with her husband, Nat, and his first wife and their three children, are members of the Apostolic United Brethren, which says it has 7,500 members across the West and in Mexico. Bonnie's family lives in a suburban subdivision containing about 50 houses -- all inhabited by members of the sect. Bonnie's family has been polygamous since the 1860s. Nat was raised in a monogamous household but converted to Mormonism and decided to become a fundamentalist and a polygamist.

Bonnie said that what attracted her to polygamy was the chance it gave her to bond with women as well as with her husband.

"I always had an inner feeling that I'd be a plural wife," she said. "I was very excited to join his family. I had a really good feeling with his first wife."

Nat said he needed to be convinced. Far from the stereotype of the patriarch, he appears bookish and perhaps a tad meek. "Usually the women tend to be the biggest advocates of this way of life and men enter it more timidly," he said. "If you are going to do it right, it's a huge responsibility."

The guardian has an equally fascinating article on Warren Jeffs, the spiritual leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who is charged for statutory rape and shows us the derives  of Polygamy. Money quote:

Polygamy as liberation - is it really time to rewrite the annals of feminism? Not at all, says Broadbend. Her upbringing and education, what little she had of it, was all about female subservience. Even before Jeffs came on the scene she was being taught her role in life: "Girls are put on Earth to obey the man who is superior. We are here to bear children for him and to do his bidding. You do what your man says, and you certainly do not question him. If I had stayed I would have had no say at all over my own life."

My biggest issue with polygamy is it reinforces or rather promotes the idea that women are possessions that can be collected and that a man can satisfy a high number of women. I would be less disturbed about polygamy if it offered the same choice to women as it did to men, which is the one to have many husbands. However, the point would remain the same. Are human beings possessions? Should we be allowed to treat each other as collectible items? I don't think that we are. It is for this reason that polygamy is in my view an abomination and contrary to the view that human beings are different from animals and shouldn't be objectify. It is easy to use polygamy to score cheap  ideological and political points, but the issue isn't ideology, but human rights.

Food for thought II: Gadaffi, darfur, and exploitation

“Western countries and America are not busying themselves out of sympathy for the Sudanese people or for Africa but for oil and for the return of colonialism to the African continent. […] Reject any foreign intervention. […] To be occupied by the Sudanese army is better than to be occupied by U.N. forces, and the biggest disaster is if the Atlantic army came and positioned itself in Sudan. […] The West exploits tribalism, sectarianism and (skin) colour to feed war, which leads to backwardness and Western intervention in a number of countries. […] All the conflicts in Africa are caused by colonialism, which does not want the rise of the United States of Africa and works for division and interference and for military coups.” Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi talking about the Darfur crisis.

Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and political assassinations

Michael Totten has the best post on the assassination of Pierre Gemayel and its implications. Money quote:

All the assassination victims after Rafik Hariri, a Sunni, have been Christians. But the most heated sectarian tension right now is between Sunnis and Shias. The Christians aren't in a fighting mood, but many say the Sunnis are. The Syrian regime cannot restrain itself from butchering its Lebanese enemies, but it looks to me like someone in Damascus just flinched.

I wonder if the increase political instability in Lebanon and the weakness of the Siniora government isn't another proof of the weakening of the America's influence in the region. In spite of the fact, that Blair asked Syria and Iran to help in Iraq, it seems as though those two countries have decided that they are in position of strength and that they will not help the stability in the region until the Bush administration makes some concession, but the key question is whether it will or not? The recent talks about bombing Iran will cause more harm than good in my opinion because it will show that the Bush administration has changed or rather that its difficulties in Iraq haven't made its views of the region evolve.

The video du jour: Appeasement and drumbeat for war

The perverse attraction to a "chick fight"

The main reason why the media is paying so much attraction to the so-called feud between Pelosi and Harman and implying that its roots are jealousy and other personal feelings, is the same reason why guys like to see women fight, it has a sexual nature to it, it fulfills the fantasy that they are in fact fighting about them,and it always believe to be personal.  People always tend to believe that women fight over irrational issues and their feud has something to do with the fact that women envy each other and covet what one other owns. Most of the articles I have read on the dispute between Pelosi and Harman go into excruciating details on their relationship and on its evolution. One is left after reading them that the story is the usual one of girlfriends who used to like one another until they started to covet the same thing attention and power. The implication is of course that powerful women cannot get along because they need the only one in the room. Money quote:

Although they may seem similar on the surface — two wealthy and powerful Democrats from California— Pelosi and Harman are cut from different cloth. Pelosi is a people person — she recently entered a raucous room of reporters offering to shush them in her "mother-of-five voice." Harman has a more cerebral personality and revels in the minutiae of policy. [...] People who know both women say there was no single incident that soured their relationship; rather it was a series of small irritations that eventually led to estrangement. [...]  Capitol Hill staffer suggested that Pelosi also was miffed that Harman had higher visibility in the media.
Harman, using her platform as ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, landed on Sunday talk shows so regularly that she all but eclipsed Pelosi's rising star as House minority leader. An informal survey of the major talk shows over the last two years found that Harman made 18 appearances to Pelosi's six.

This feud would be less attractive if the principal were called Paul Pelosi and John Harman and that the media would dismiss it as the usual frictions, which happen between men of power. However, because there is this stereotype prevalent in the culture that women take everything personally and hold grudges, the feud between Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman is sexy precisely because of the fact they are both of the second sex. 

Forcing Britain to choose between the US and the EU

According to her foreign policy adviser Gilles Savary, Ségolène Royal would ask Britain to choose between its special relationship and the European Union if she becomes president of France next year. The plan is to ask Britain to commit finally to European integration by signing a new treaty that would bring it closer to France, Germany, and other major European countries in order to help the EU to get out the malaise and immobility it is plunged since the rejection of the European Constitution by France and the Netherlands. Money quote:

Great Britain is absolutely indispensable to the European Union. It is great nation, a global power. But the question the English have to answer is – do the English consider the English Channel to be wider than the Atlantic? We on the continent have the right to deplore the fact that Great Britain appears to consider the Channel is wider. (...) Europecan be relaunched with Germany, Italyand Spain. It is perfectly possible to have treaties within the treaty, among four nations," he said. "If other nations want to sign up, that's good. But we cannot have a Europewhere one part goes to war in Iraq, another part does not, and we all end up paying the bill.

I like the idea because I think that Britain has to play an essential role in Europe and that it must stop to use its relationship with America as an excuse to remain on the sidelines of the European Union. Britain cannot have one foot inside of Europe and outside of Europe. Although, I don't like the formulation of forcing Britain to choose between the US and the EU because it assumes that those two sides are in opposition, I think that Britain has to choose finally to become a true European country by opting in European integration and by accepting to take on the challenge of making the EU a viable and important supranational organization. The key is to allow this proposal to intensify anti-American sentiment in Europe and within the EU by choosing to view the US as an unavoidable rival rather than as partner and an ally. For those who want to read a bias and I will add ignorant take on this subject, you can read Tammy Bruce's post. My advice for her wouldn't be to start to learn French for it think that it would be too difficult for her, but actually to learn about France before writing about. By the way, Ségolène is actually 53 years old. She is moderate and modern and has some actually conservative social views. Tammy Bruce would have known these small but important facts if she valued information and culture and did not to put prejudice and ideology before everything else.

At last, Murdoch does the decent thing

I don't want to comment extensively on the whole OJ affair, because I think that there is such a thing as toxic scum, which you can't talk about without becoming sick. But I'm glad that Murdoch put an end to this masquerade even though I wonder what he allowed it to start. The only question that I have is what ever made him or whoever had this "idea" think that it would be worth it.

Food for thought: foolish connections, political correctness, the need for wars, and Sweden

“Wars are brutal and painful, but they can also be a reality check. Western Europe has been living under American military protection for so long that we have forgotten how it is to protect ourselves, and have even indulged in fantasies that wars can be banned by international law. Is it just a coincidence that the one country that has avoided war for the longest period of time, is also arguably the one Western nation where Political Correctness has reached the worst heights? The prolonged period of peace has created an environment where layers of ideological nonsense have been allowed to pile up for generations without stop.” Fjordman, “Sweden: Still Crazy After All These Years.”

The video du jour: rape in Pakistan

Here is a two part but short documentary done on Rape in Pakistan. It was done by CBC and it shows the difficult realities, which victims of rape have to face in Pakistan and will more than likely continue to face despite the changes, which the Parliament made to the law.

Colorblind society, myths and realities

John Fund has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which he accused the president of the University of Michigan, Mary Sue Coleman, of taking a George Wallace approaching to civil rights. He argues her of standing in the way of America becoming a colorblind society by continuing to support "racial preferences" in spite of the fact that Michigan has passed a law, which makes them illegal. Money quote:

We've come a long way since 1964, when the late civil rights hero Hubert Humphrey stood on the Senate floor and told his colleagues that if the civil rights bill contained "any language which provides that an employer will have to hire on the basis of percentage or quota related to color, race, religion, or national origin, I will start eating the pages one after another, because it is not in there."

Four decades later, supporters of racial preferences imposed by government agencies are blocking legal efforts to establish the color-blind society that Martin Luther King envisioned. Dr. King's dream is alive in Michigan, and in other states, but a large number of people seem interested in stirring up a nightmare of massive resistance. Such efforts are likely not only to only fail, but to harden the public's opposition to divisive racial quotas.

The problem, which I have with John Fund and others, who argue against affirmative action, is that they go too far by arguing that its supporters are like segregationists or by refusing to acknowledge that we don't live in a colorblind society and that something has to be done in order to achieve that goal. John Fund's main point is that everything that needed to be done has been done and that minorities now need to be on their own for there are no longer any obstacles in becoming functional members of society, which they cannot overcome on their own. I am willing to accept to go along with those who argue that affirmative action isn't the answer and that it has divided America more than it has helped minority. However, those making that argument shouldn't stop their examination of the role of race in America at that point and content themselves with judging means, which have been used to redress wrong and to condemn their ineffectiveness. They should propose ways to achieve a colorblind society unless of course the point of their criticism of affirmative actions is that nothing should be done for action would always be more harmful than inaction. I disagree for I think that when a goal is as noble as achieving a colorblind society or rather a colorful society where having a different skin color or being of a different ethnic won't matter society must do everything that it can to achieve it.

bombing iran and other stupid ideas

I thought that the difficulties, which we are facing in Iraq, would dissuade trigger-happy proponents of the use of force to advocate for the immediate bombing of Iran. I was wrong. In a op-ed yesterday in the LA times, Joshua Muravchik advocates for the use of force, by making the usual claims that diplomacy and negotiations are leading nowhere and that it is time for the US to bomb Iran to stop it from becoming a nuclear power. Money quote:

The only way to forestall these frightening developments is by the use of force. Not by invading Iran as we did Iraq, but by an air campaign against Tehran's nuclear facilities. We have considerable information about these facilities; by some estimates they comprise about 1,500 targets. If we hit a large fraction of them in a bombing campaign that might last from a few days to a couple of weeks, we would inflict severe damage. This would not end Iran's weapons program, but it would certainly delay it.
What should be the timing of such an attack? If we did it next year, that would give time for U.N. diplomacy to further reveal its bankruptcy yet would come before Iran will have a bomb in hand (and also before our own presidential campaign). In time, if Tehran persisted, we might have to do it again.

The logic behind this argument is so utterly devoid of sense and grounded on irrational ideology that it leaves me voiceless. I wonder in what world Muravchik lives in and whether he has noticed that all of the US’s blood and treasure are used in Iraq. Obviously, those who are now advocating force is the only way to solve the Iran issue, when a rational analysis of the situation shows that it would not solve the issue, but rather globalize it.

Food for thought: Kissinger and victory in Iraq

“If you mean, by ‘military victory,’ an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible.” Henry Kissinger.

The video du Dimanche: Blair, Iraq, and the slip

Food for thought: justifying the unjustifiable

“I had a lot of sympathy for anyone who opposed Israel, (…)I wrote letters to anyone who was tough against the Israelis - David Irving, Paul Findley, the PLO. […] I don't feel I have done anything wrong, to be honest. At the time I was of the belief he [Irving] was anti-Zionist, being smeared for nothing more then being anti-Zionist. […] The pro-Israeli lobby often accused people of anti-Semitism and smear tactics against groups and individuals is well known. I condemn anti-Semitism as strongly as I condemn Zionism (in my opinion they are both racist ideologies). I also believe that anyone who denies the Holocaust is wrong (I don't think they should be put behind bars for it though).” Asghar Bukhari, a founder member of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, a British Muslim civil rights group, defending himself after it was discovered that he sent money to  David Irving, Holocaust denier and urged others to do so.

The video du samedi: Bill Maher and truth

Food for thought: Blair, Iraq, and his slip of the tongue

“It has (agreeing that David Frost’s assertion that Iraq has been “so far been pretty much of a disaster”), but you see, what I say to people is, 'why is it difficult in Iraq?' It's not difficult because of some accident in planning, it's difficult because there's a deliberate strategy - al-Qaida with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war.” Tony Blair.