If you need further proof of the aburd alliance between progressive social policy and radical Islam, here it is. Nutty Florida Pastor Terry Jones made good on his plan to burn the Koran. Mullahs in Afghanistan fired up their followers over the incident, prompting an attack in which twelve United nations workers were murdered. The consensus among progressives is the murders are the fault of Jones, not the Muslims who committed them. Because no one who is offended based on race, gender or any religion other than Christianity has to take has to take responsibility for his actions.
I do not support Jones’ burning of the Koran, but lay blame where the blame should be laid. If one is so screwed up by radical Islamic culture that the burning of the Koran by strangers on another continent leads one to murder a dozen people who are there to help, then the Koran burning is not the issue we need to be worrying about. It is the cultural rot that creates the mindset. It does not help that our own progressive cultural rot makes it politically incorrect to note this.
It sounds astoundingly logical to me: it is far worse to murder a dozen people because some marginal people who do not believe in your holy book in the first place burn it in protest. There cannot be a sensible debate over the issue. Murdering people is worse than burning books. The mindset that allows one to kill over perceived blasphemy is worse than burning a book to condemn its ideas. The unfortunately ironic part is that Jones has inadvertently--and tragically--confirmed the problem he has with radical Islam.
We could debate the merits of Islam, scant though they may be, but that is not the real issue here. This incident should be a wake up call to what progressive apologists are willing to excuse in the name of their social agenda. The death threats that came after the Mohammed cartoon’s publication should have proven to the world the insane rage of radical Islamists. Progressive Van Jones leading cheers for the 9/11 attackers the day after should have proven the left is ready, willing, and able to excuse any Muslim behavior perceived to be a lashing out over their ’oppression.” The murder of the Un workers over an obscure pastor’s unwise actions and the subsequent excusing of said murders because of the pastor’s actions ought to be enough to prove we are not being reasonable in placing responsibility for evil acts or even weighing them correctly when determining their morality.
Showing posts with label International. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International. Show all posts
Friday, April 1, 2011
Coddling Islamic Radicals Who Murder Innocents
If you need further proof of the aburd alliance between progressive social policy and radical Islam, here it is. Nutty Florida Pastor Terry Jones made good on his plan to burn the Koran. Mullahs in Afghanistan fired up their followers over the incident, prompting an attack in which twelve United nations workers were murdered. The consensus among progressives is the murders are the fault of Jones, not the Muslims who committed them. Because no one who is offended based on race, gender or any religion other than Christianity has to take has to take responsibility for his actions.
I do not support Jones’ burning of the Koran, but lay blame where the blame should be laid. If one is so screwed up by radical Islamic culture that the burning of the Koran by strangers on another continent leads one to murder a dozen people who are there to help, then the Koran burning is not the issue we need to be worrying about. It is the cultural rot that creates the mindset. It does not help that our own progressive cultural rot makes it politically incorrect to note this.
It sounds astoundingly logical to me: it is far worse to murder a dozen people because some marginal people who do not believe in your holy book in the first place burn it in protest. There cannot be a sensible debate over the issue. Murdering people is worse than burning books. The mindset that allows one to kill over perceived blasphemy is worse than burning a book to condemn its ideas. The unfortunately ironic part is that Jones has inadvertently--and tragically--confirmed the problem he has with radical Islam.
We could debate the merits of Islam, scant though they may be, but that is not the real issue here. This incident should be a wake up call to what progressive apologists are willing to excuse in the name of their social agenda. The death threats that came after the Mohammed cartoon’s publication should have proven to the world the insane rage of radical Islamists. Progressive Van Jones leading cheers for the 9/11 attackers the day after should have proven the left is ready, willing, and able to excuse any Muslim behavior perceived to be a lashing out over their ’oppression.” The murder of the Un workers over an obscure pastor’s unwise actions and the subsequent excusing of said murders because of the pastor’s actions ought to be enough to prove we are not being reasonable in placing responsibility for evil acts or even weighing them correctly when determining their morality.
I do not support Jones’ burning of the Koran, but lay blame where the blame should be laid. If one is so screwed up by radical Islamic culture that the burning of the Koran by strangers on another continent leads one to murder a dozen people who are there to help, then the Koran burning is not the issue we need to be worrying about. It is the cultural rot that creates the mindset. It does not help that our own progressive cultural rot makes it politically incorrect to note this.
It sounds astoundingly logical to me: it is far worse to murder a dozen people because some marginal people who do not believe in your holy book in the first place burn it in protest. There cannot be a sensible debate over the issue. Murdering people is worse than burning books. The mindset that allows one to kill over perceived blasphemy is worse than burning a book to condemn its ideas. The unfortunately ironic part is that Jones has inadvertently--and tragically--confirmed the problem he has with radical Islam.
We could debate the merits of Islam, scant though they may be, but that is not the real issue here. This incident should be a wake up call to what progressive apologists are willing to excuse in the name of their social agenda. The death threats that came after the Mohammed cartoon’s publication should have proven to the world the insane rage of radical Islamists. Progressive Van Jones leading cheers for the 9/11 attackers the day after should have proven the left is ready, willing, and able to excuse any Muslim behavior perceived to be a lashing out over their ’oppression.” The murder of the Un workers over an obscure pastor’s unwise actions and the subsequent excusing of said murders because of the pastor’s actions ought to be enough to prove we are not being reasonable in placing responsibility for evil acts or even weighing them correctly when determining their morality.
Ready for the Sarcophagus
SUBHEAD: The developed industrial nations providing help to bury Fukushima Dai Ichi Nuclear Plant.By Staff on 31 April 2011 for MSNBC News - (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42359020/ns/world_news-asiapacific)Image above: A truck carrying a cement pump that can extend nearly 200 feet is loaded onto an Antonov 124 plane in Stuttgart, Germany headed for Japan. From original article.Some of the world's
Ready for the Sarcophagus
SUBHEAD: The developed industrial nations providing help to bury Fukushima Dai Ichi Nuclear Plant.By Staff on 31 April 2011 for MSNBC News - (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42359020/ns/world_news-asiapacific)Image above: A truck carrying a cement pump that can extend nearly 200 feet is loaded onto an Antonov 124 plane in Stuttgart, Germany headed for Japan. From original article.Some of the world's
Monday, March 28, 2011
The Case for War in Libya: Nine Days Late and a Case for War Short
I skipped over Barack Obama's actual speech because I had a hamburger with my name on it waiting in the dining room, but I have since read the text. One safely assumes I have the substance down, but if I have missed anything by not watching Obam-uh live, blame the hamburger. It was tasty.
The main thing I notice is how similar the argument for Obama’s fighting Muammar Qaddafi are to Bush 43’s mission to oust Saddam Hussein, save for Obama’s false comparison that we are not going it alone in Libya like Iraq. Progressives have repeated that “going it alone” line about Iraq so often, they genuinely believe it. The coalition for libya is smaller than that of Operation Iraqi Freedom with no clear leadership. Obama essentially said in his speech that America was leading by following. At least we have finally settled on following the Canadians into war.
There are a few other differences with Libya besides a smaller coalition and a game of hot potato for which country is going to take responsibility. Most notably, there was not months of lead up to convince the American people the war was a good idea, Congress was not consulted before the attack, and Obama fumbled around for nine days before addressing the nation in this lackluster, clear as mud speech.
Oh, and Europe is far more heavily dependent on Libyan oil than the United States, so this really is a war for oil--on behalf of European people who are protesting war mongering Americans for fighting it. As an added bonus, many of the Libyan rebels are al Qaeda operatives, so at least European peacenikds can take some solace we have found common cause with the enemy, even if it is due to Obama’s profound lack of leadership skills and savvy in international affairs. Maybe he is creating another junior year abroad for radical Muslim freedom fighters like Afghanistan in the ‘80’s. That eventually worked out swell for us, did it not?
The administration cannot even decide if there are American interests at stake. Clinton says there are; Gates retorts no, there are not. You can debate whether the free flow of oil from Libya to Europe is in America’s best interest as adamantly as you can debate whether france blowing up tanks ought to be part of a no fly zone mission. What you cannot debate is Obama’s one track mind. In his speech, he used the word ’hope” four times and “change’ a whopping nine. You see how well that turned out for the united States. Maybe Libya will fare better with it.
Let us not even get started on what kind of regime may replace Qaddafi when he is finally dislodged. Since Obama has set forth no discernable goals for the kinetic military action which looks suspiciously like a war to force regime change, much less a timeline to achieve said goals, I think we are playing this one by ear. Or waiting for the Canadians to come up with something. I am not really sure.
The sad bottom line here is that elitist progressives, generally deadest against military campaigns and incompetent in how to either sell or fight them, start them, anyway. No leadership. No clue objectives. No interest in the American peopled approval. Really no interest in fighting it at all. What is this, then? You cannot be a real president, even the most progressive one in history, without launching a war of your own? Hope and change for Libya, indeed.
The main thing I notice is how similar the argument for Obama’s fighting Muammar Qaddafi are to Bush 43’s mission to oust Saddam Hussein, save for Obama’s false comparison that we are not going it alone in Libya like Iraq. Progressives have repeated that “going it alone” line about Iraq so often, they genuinely believe it. The coalition for libya is smaller than that of Operation Iraqi Freedom with no clear leadership. Obama essentially said in his speech that America was leading by following. At least we have finally settled on following the Canadians into war.
There are a few other differences with Libya besides a smaller coalition and a game of hot potato for which country is going to take responsibility. Most notably, there was not months of lead up to convince the American people the war was a good idea, Congress was not consulted before the attack, and Obama fumbled around for nine days before addressing the nation in this lackluster, clear as mud speech.
Oh, and Europe is far more heavily dependent on Libyan oil than the United States, so this really is a war for oil--on behalf of European people who are protesting war mongering Americans for fighting it. As an added bonus, many of the Libyan rebels are al Qaeda operatives, so at least European peacenikds can take some solace we have found common cause with the enemy, even if it is due to Obama’s profound lack of leadership skills and savvy in international affairs. Maybe he is creating another junior year abroad for radical Muslim freedom fighters like Afghanistan in the ‘80’s. That eventually worked out swell for us, did it not?
The administration cannot even decide if there are American interests at stake. Clinton says there are; Gates retorts no, there are not. You can debate whether the free flow of oil from Libya to Europe is in America’s best interest as adamantly as you can debate whether france blowing up tanks ought to be part of a no fly zone mission. What you cannot debate is Obama’s one track mind. In his speech, he used the word ’hope” four times and “change’ a whopping nine. You see how well that turned out for the united States. Maybe Libya will fare better with it.
Let us not even get started on what kind of regime may replace Qaddafi when he is finally dislodged. Since Obama has set forth no discernable goals for the kinetic military action which looks suspiciously like a war to force regime change, much less a timeline to achieve said goals, I think we are playing this one by ear. Or waiting for the Canadians to come up with something. I am not really sure.
The sad bottom line here is that elitist progressives, generally deadest against military campaigns and incompetent in how to either sell or fight them, start them, anyway. No leadership. No clue objectives. No interest in the American peopled approval. Really no interest in fighting it at all. What is this, then? You cannot be a real president, even the most progressive one in history, without launching a war of your own? Hope and change for Libya, indeed.
The Case for War in Libya: Nine Days Late and a Case for War Short
I skipped over Barack Obama's actual speech because I had a hamburger with my name on it waiting in the dining room, but I have since read the text. One safely assumes I have the substance down, but if I have missed anything by not watching Obam-uh live, blame the hamburger. It was tasty.
The main thing I notice is how similar the argument for Obama’s fighting Muammar Qaddafi are to Bush 43’s mission to oust Saddam Hussein, save for Obama’s false comparison that we are not going it alone in Libya like Iraq. Progressives have repeated that “going it alone” line about Iraq so often, they genuinely believe it. The coalition for libya is smaller than that of Operation Iraqi Freedom with no clear leadership. Obama essentially said in his speech that America was leading by following. At least we have finally settled on following the Canadians into war.
There are a few other differences with Libya besides a smaller coalition and a game of hot potato for which country is going to take responsibility. Most notably, there was not months of lead up to convince the American people the war was a good idea, Congress was not consulted before the attack, and Obama fumbled around for nine days before addressing the nation in this lackluster, clear as mud speech.
Oh, and Europe is far more heavily dependent on Libyan oil than the United States, so this really is a war for oil--on behalf of European people who are protesting war mongering Americans for fighting it. As an added bonus, many of the Libyan rebels are al Qaeda operatives, so at least European peacenikds can take some solace we have found common cause with the enemy, even if it is due to Obama’s profound lack of leadership skills and savvy in international affairs. Maybe he is creating another junior year abroad for radical Muslim freedom fighters like Afghanistan in the ‘80’s. That eventually worked out swell for us, did it not?
The administration cannot even decide if there are American interests at stake. Clinton says there are; Gates retorts no, there are not. You can debate whether the free flow of oil from Libya to Europe is in America’s best interest as adamantly as you can debate whether france blowing up tanks ought to be part of a no fly zone mission. What you cannot debate is Obama’s one track mind. In his speech, he used the word ’hope” four times and “change’ a whopping nine. You see how well that turned out for the united States. Maybe Libya will fare better with it.
Let us not even get started on what kind of regime may replace Qaddafi when he is finally dislodged. Since Obama has set forth no discernable goals for the kinetic military action which looks suspiciously like a war to force regime change, much less a timeline to achieve said goals, I think we are playing this one by ear. Or waiting for the Canadians to come up with something. I am not really sure.
The sad bottom line here is that elitist progressives, generally deadest against military campaigns and incompetent in how to either sell or fight them, start them, anyway. No leadership. No clue objectives. No interest in the American peopled approval. Really no interest in fighting it at all. What is this, then? You cannot be a real president, even the most progressive one in history, without launching a war of your own? Hope and change for Libya, indeed.
The main thing I notice is how similar the argument for Obama’s fighting Muammar Qaddafi are to Bush 43’s mission to oust Saddam Hussein, save for Obama’s false comparison that we are not going it alone in Libya like Iraq. Progressives have repeated that “going it alone” line about Iraq so often, they genuinely believe it. The coalition for libya is smaller than that of Operation Iraqi Freedom with no clear leadership. Obama essentially said in his speech that America was leading by following. At least we have finally settled on following the Canadians into war.
There are a few other differences with Libya besides a smaller coalition and a game of hot potato for which country is going to take responsibility. Most notably, there was not months of lead up to convince the American people the war was a good idea, Congress was not consulted before the attack, and Obama fumbled around for nine days before addressing the nation in this lackluster, clear as mud speech.
Oh, and Europe is far more heavily dependent on Libyan oil than the United States, so this really is a war for oil--on behalf of European people who are protesting war mongering Americans for fighting it. As an added bonus, many of the Libyan rebels are al Qaeda operatives, so at least European peacenikds can take some solace we have found common cause with the enemy, even if it is due to Obama’s profound lack of leadership skills and savvy in international affairs. Maybe he is creating another junior year abroad for radical Muslim freedom fighters like Afghanistan in the ‘80’s. That eventually worked out swell for us, did it not?
The administration cannot even decide if there are American interests at stake. Clinton says there are; Gates retorts no, there are not. You can debate whether the free flow of oil from Libya to Europe is in America’s best interest as adamantly as you can debate whether france blowing up tanks ought to be part of a no fly zone mission. What you cannot debate is Obama’s one track mind. In his speech, he used the word ’hope” four times and “change’ a whopping nine. You see how well that turned out for the united States. Maybe Libya will fare better with it.
Let us not even get started on what kind of regime may replace Qaddafi when he is finally dislodged. Since Obama has set forth no discernable goals for the kinetic military action which looks suspiciously like a war to force regime change, much less a timeline to achieve said goals, I think we are playing this one by ear. Or waiting for the Canadians to come up with something. I am not really sure.
The sad bottom line here is that elitist progressives, generally deadest against military campaigns and incompetent in how to either sell or fight them, start them, anyway. No leadership. No clue objectives. No interest in the American peopled approval. Really no interest in fighting it at all. What is this, then? You cannot be a real president, even the most progressive one in history, without launching a war of your own? Hope and change for Libya, indeed.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Odyssey Dawn: Imperialism, Fiasco, or Have You Seen the President's NCAA Bracket?
I do not know exactly how I feel about the current military operation in Libya is a good idea. My reluctance to blog about the matter is twofold. One, cannot do anything to suit me. I criticize his inaction on important matters, then I do not like what he decides to do once he quits dragging his feet. So what is the point of me saying anything/ The other reason may irritate some readers, but I am wary of neocons and their grandiose schemes for Pax Americana. I agree with Pat Buchanan that engaging in small, perpetual conflicts without clear national interests at stake marches the united States towards its decline. Look at the fall of the united Kingdom over the last century or so as proof. But I have been amused by a few points of interest.
First, Muammar Qadhafi 9no, I do not know how to spell it properly, either, but I am consistent. There is something to be said for that.) is responsible for the bombing of a German disco and pan Am flight 103, killing some 200 Americans. That is more than enough justification to remove him from the Earth, much less power. Why does that argument take as much of a backseat as the gassing of the Kurds or the assassination attempt on George Bush during the build up to the Iraq War? Is it the progressive notion imperialist Americans deserve what they get? The current attacks on Libya have been called imperialist by the far left.
Second, I will bet part of the reason Michelle Obama said she was never proud of her country is because of its perceived imperialism. I wonder how she personally feels about bombing Libya/ considering her actual statement is she was never proud of her country until Obama looked like a shoo in to take power, I suspect the Queen Michelle persona has usurped Black Liberation Theology Michelle, so it is probably all right.
Third, speaking of blacks, you would think Obama would be more sensitive to the anti-war left considering how progressives have taken the black vote for granted for decades. How many times has he heard the sentiment, ‘Who else ya gonna vote for, suckers? Republicans?” But no, he know knows the Code Pink types have no one else to vote for, so they have to accept whatever he does. He is kind of like an abused kid who grew up to act out the past abuse on others now that he has the power to do so.
Fourth,, I am not thrilled, no matter what the conflict, to hear the president say someone else needs to take the leadership role. He has always been quick to pass the blame for failure, potential and realized, onto someone else. I suspect the operation in libya is too little, too late, but does he have to announce he is going to lay the responsibility for failure on our allies while the mission is still in its beginnings?
Finally, I am also not thrilled with reinforcing the notion the international community has to approve of our foreign policy pursuits. Granted, I am not certain we ought to care a whole lot about a Libyan civil war. But if we are going to go for it, the notion that Europe needs to rubber stamp policy is bunk. I am all for like-minded allies battling evil tyrants together, but that is not what this is. This is a committee of nations conducting target practice while trying to decide what their mission is. While the leader of the freed world crows over his successful NCAA bracket in Rio. You what the bottom line comes to there? Why should we as americans care when the people running the show do not?
First, Muammar Qadhafi 9no, I do not know how to spell it properly, either, but I am consistent. There is something to be said for that.) is responsible for the bombing of a German disco and pan Am flight 103, killing some 200 Americans. That is more than enough justification to remove him from the Earth, much less power. Why does that argument take as much of a backseat as the gassing of the Kurds or the assassination attempt on George Bush during the build up to the Iraq War? Is it the progressive notion imperialist Americans deserve what they get? The current attacks on Libya have been called imperialist by the far left.
Second, I will bet part of the reason Michelle Obama said she was never proud of her country is because of its perceived imperialism. I wonder how she personally feels about bombing Libya/ considering her actual statement is she was never proud of her country until Obama looked like a shoo in to take power, I suspect the Queen Michelle persona has usurped Black Liberation Theology Michelle, so it is probably all right.
Third, speaking of blacks, you would think Obama would be more sensitive to the anti-war left considering how progressives have taken the black vote for granted for decades. How many times has he heard the sentiment, ‘Who else ya gonna vote for, suckers? Republicans?” But no, he know knows the Code Pink types have no one else to vote for, so they have to accept whatever he does. He is kind of like an abused kid who grew up to act out the past abuse on others now that he has the power to do so.
Fourth,, I am not thrilled, no matter what the conflict, to hear the president say someone else needs to take the leadership role. He has always been quick to pass the blame for failure, potential and realized, onto someone else. I suspect the operation in libya is too little, too late, but does he have to announce he is going to lay the responsibility for failure on our allies while the mission is still in its beginnings?
Finally, I am also not thrilled with reinforcing the notion the international community has to approve of our foreign policy pursuits. Granted, I am not certain we ought to care a whole lot about a Libyan civil war. But if we are going to go for it, the notion that Europe needs to rubber stamp policy is bunk. I am all for like-minded allies battling evil tyrants together, but that is not what this is. This is a committee of nations conducting target practice while trying to decide what their mission is. While the leader of the freed world crows over his successful NCAA bracket in Rio. You what the bottom line comes to there? Why should we as americans care when the people running the show do not?
Odyssey Dawn: Imperialism, Fiasco, or Have You Seen the President's NCAA Bracket?
I do not know exactly how I feel about the current military operation in Libya is a good idea. My reluctance to blog about the matter is twofold. One, cannot do anything to suit me. I criticize his inaction on important matters, then I do not like what he decides to do once he quits dragging his feet. So what is the point of me saying anything/ The other reason may irritate some readers, but I am wary of neocons and their grandiose schemes for Pax Americana. I agree with Pat Buchanan that engaging in small, perpetual conflicts without clear national interests at stake marches the united States towards its decline. Look at the fall of the united Kingdom over the last century or so as proof. But I have been amused by a few points of interest.
First, Muammar Qadhafi 9no, I do not know how to spell it properly, either, but I am consistent. There is something to be said for that.) is responsible for the bombing of a German disco and pan Am flight 103, killing some 200 Americans. That is more than enough justification to remove him from the Earth, much less power. Why does that argument take as much of a backseat as the gassing of the Kurds or the assassination attempt on George Bush during the build up to the Iraq War? Is it the progressive notion imperialist Americans deserve what they get? The current attacks on Libya have been called imperialist by the far left.
Second, I will bet part of the reason Michelle Obama said she was never proud of her country is because of its perceived imperialism. I wonder how she personally feels about bombing Libya/ considering her actual statement is she was never proud of her country until Obama looked like a shoo in to take power, I suspect the Queen Michelle persona has usurped Black Liberation Theology Michelle, so it is probably all right.
Third, speaking of blacks, you would think Obama would be more sensitive to the anti-war left considering how progressives have taken the black vote for granted for decades. How many times has he heard the sentiment, ‘Who else ya gonna vote for, suckers? Republicans?” But no, he know knows the Code Pink types have no one else to vote for, so they have to accept whatever he does. He is kind of like an abused kid who grew up to act out the past abuse on others now that he has the power to do so.
Fourth,, I am not thrilled, no matter what the conflict, to hear the president say someone else needs to take the leadership role. He has always been quick to pass the blame for failure, potential and realized, onto someone else. I suspect the operation in libya is too little, too late, but does he have to announce he is going to lay the responsibility for failure on our allies while the mission is still in its beginnings?
Finally, I am also not thrilled with reinforcing the notion the international community has to approve of our foreign policy pursuits. Granted, I am not certain we ought to care a whole lot about a Libyan civil war. But if we are going to go for it, the notion that Europe needs to rubber stamp policy is bunk. I am all for like-minded allies battling evil tyrants together, but that is not what this is. This is a committee of nations conducting target practice while trying to decide what their mission is. While the leader of the freed world crows over his successful NCAA bracket in Rio. You what the bottom line comes to there? Why should we as americans care when the people running the show do not?
First, Muammar Qadhafi 9no, I do not know how to spell it properly, either, but I am consistent. There is something to be said for that.) is responsible for the bombing of a German disco and pan Am flight 103, killing some 200 Americans. That is more than enough justification to remove him from the Earth, much less power. Why does that argument take as much of a backseat as the gassing of the Kurds or the assassination attempt on George Bush during the build up to the Iraq War? Is it the progressive notion imperialist Americans deserve what they get? The current attacks on Libya have been called imperialist by the far left.
Second, I will bet part of the reason Michelle Obama said she was never proud of her country is because of its perceived imperialism. I wonder how she personally feels about bombing Libya/ considering her actual statement is she was never proud of her country until Obama looked like a shoo in to take power, I suspect the Queen Michelle persona has usurped Black Liberation Theology Michelle, so it is probably all right.
Third, speaking of blacks, you would think Obama would be more sensitive to the anti-war left considering how progressives have taken the black vote for granted for decades. How many times has he heard the sentiment, ‘Who else ya gonna vote for, suckers? Republicans?” But no, he know knows the Code Pink types have no one else to vote for, so they have to accept whatever he does. He is kind of like an abused kid who grew up to act out the past abuse on others now that he has the power to do so.
Fourth,, I am not thrilled, no matter what the conflict, to hear the president say someone else needs to take the leadership role. He has always been quick to pass the blame for failure, potential and realized, onto someone else. I suspect the operation in libya is too little, too late, but does he have to announce he is going to lay the responsibility for failure on our allies while the mission is still in its beginnings?
Finally, I am also not thrilled with reinforcing the notion the international community has to approve of our foreign policy pursuits. Granted, I am not certain we ought to care a whole lot about a Libyan civil war. But if we are going to go for it, the notion that Europe needs to rubber stamp policy is bunk. I am all for like-minded allies battling evil tyrants together, but that is not what this is. This is a committee of nations conducting target practice while trying to decide what their mission is. While the leader of the freed world crows over his successful NCAA bracket in Rio. You what the bottom line comes to there? Why should we as americans care when the people running the show do not?
Friday, March 18, 2011
Only Panic When the Hawaiians Start to Glow
Regarding radiation plumes from Japan:
(Via: View from the Porch)
“Remember back in ’50s and early ’60s, when we set off something like 900 atomic bombs in Nevada? And how we just let the fallout blow wherever and it landed all over the eastern US? And how it wiped out life as we know it and all that was left from Colorado to the Atlantic were six-legged rats battling two-headed cockroaches in the glowing ruins?"So why do we not just simmer down a bit, all right?
(Via: View from the Porch)
Only Panic When the Hawaiians Start to Glow
Regarding radiation plumes from Japan:
(Via: View from the Porch)
“Remember back in ’50s and early ’60s, when we set off something like 900 atomic bombs in Nevada? And how we just let the fallout blow wherever and it landed all over the eastern US? And how it wiped out life as we know it and all that was left from Colorado to the Atlantic were six-legged rats battling two-headed cockroaches in the glowing ruins?"So why do we not just simmer down a bit, all right?
(Via: View from the Porch)
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Jay Carney: "Japan is Like, Way Over There and Stuff."
White House Press Secretary jay Carney dismissed a question from ABC's Jake Tapper about the latest developments in the Japanese nuclear plant crisis by snapping tapper should ask his own reporters on the ground. carney attempted to clean up his statement by then directing tapper to several government agencies who ought to be on top of the issue, but the revelation is clear--this White House is not engaged in foreign affairs.
It is ironic on the surface. One of the rationales for electing Barack Obama president was to repair the alleged damaged done by George W. Bush’s battle against western Civilization destroying militant Islam. Since his election, Obama has smacked our allies at every turn, coddled our enemies, and generally demeaned his own country across the planet.
This is, I am afraid, what progressives mean by improving American image overseas. Historically speaking, American isolationism has been characterized as the belief America is too good for the rest of the world. These days, isolationism has shifted to the idea the world is too good for America. The philosophy has been fully embraced by the (self-appointed?) intellectual left.
Do not believe it? Obama has specifically bowed before the Japanese emperor and set in church while rev. Jeremiah Wright specifically said God should damn America for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He is more than happy to humble himself and the united states before Japan, either in recognizing their superiority or in atoning for past “sins,” but not to engage with the Japanese as a longtime ally.
I suspect the bottom line to Obama’s behavior towards japan, cowering in the past and disinterest now, is the fear of American arrogance in dealing with other countries. Obama certainly has no belief in American exceptionalism. But it looks like he has no belief in America having anything valuable to offer whatsoever period.
As I am not inclined to believe Hillary Clinton will run for president again, I suspect her decision to not serve a second term as Secretary of State is motivated by the tepid foreign policy she has been forced to promote. Say what you will about her being progressive, both she and her husband have a better grip on how the united states should conduct itself internationally. She is going to can what is most certainly the pinnacle of her political career so she does not have to be a part of Obama’s foreign policy. Now if the rest of us could opt out of it.
UPDATE: Obama will have a statement on Japan at 3;30 PM. I bet he will say, "Present."
UPDATE II: It only took 31 days for the United States to go, hat in hand, to the United Nations for authorization to use force against genocidal acts in Libya. How is that NCAA bracket turning out, Mr. President?
UPDATE III: Confirmation on Clinton fustration: foot dragging on Libya prompted her to not seek second stint at State.
UPDATE IV: Five Ways the US is Better Prepared for a Nuclear Disaster. We have expertise to offer.
It is ironic on the surface. One of the rationales for electing Barack Obama president was to repair the alleged damaged done by George W. Bush’s battle against western Civilization destroying militant Islam. Since his election, Obama has smacked our allies at every turn, coddled our enemies, and generally demeaned his own country across the planet.
This is, I am afraid, what progressives mean by improving American image overseas. Historically speaking, American isolationism has been characterized as the belief America is too good for the rest of the world. These days, isolationism has shifted to the idea the world is too good for America. The philosophy has been fully embraced by the (self-appointed?) intellectual left.
Do not believe it? Obama has specifically bowed before the Japanese emperor and set in church while rev. Jeremiah Wright specifically said God should damn America for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He is more than happy to humble himself and the united states before Japan, either in recognizing their superiority or in atoning for past “sins,” but not to engage with the Japanese as a longtime ally.
I suspect the bottom line to Obama’s behavior towards japan, cowering in the past and disinterest now, is the fear of American arrogance in dealing with other countries. Obama certainly has no belief in American exceptionalism. But it looks like he has no belief in America having anything valuable to offer whatsoever period.
As I am not inclined to believe Hillary Clinton will run for president again, I suspect her decision to not serve a second term as Secretary of State is motivated by the tepid foreign policy she has been forced to promote. Say what you will about her being progressive, both she and her husband have a better grip on how the united states should conduct itself internationally. She is going to can what is most certainly the pinnacle of her political career so she does not have to be a part of Obama’s foreign policy. Now if the rest of us could opt out of it.
UPDATE: Obama will have a statement on Japan at 3;30 PM. I bet he will say, "Present."
UPDATE II: It only took 31 days for the United States to go, hat in hand, to the United Nations for authorization to use force against genocidal acts in Libya. How is that NCAA bracket turning out, Mr. President?
UPDATE III: Confirmation on Clinton fustration: foot dragging on Libya prompted her to not seek second stint at State.
UPDATE IV: Five Ways the US is Better Prepared for a Nuclear Disaster. We have expertise to offer.
Jay Carney: "Japan is Like, Way Over There and Stuff."
White House Press Secretary jay Carney dismissed a question from ABC's Jake Tapper about the latest developments in the Japanese nuclear plant crisis by snapping tapper should ask his own reporters on the ground. carney attempted to clean up his statement by then directing tapper to several government agencies who ought to be on top of the issue, but the revelation is clear--this White House is not engaged in foreign affairs.
It is ironic on the surface. One of the rationales for electing Barack Obama president was to repair the alleged damaged done by George W. Bush’s battle against western Civilization destroying militant Islam. Since his election, Obama has smacked our allies at every turn, coddled our enemies, and generally demeaned his own country across the planet.
This is, I am afraid, what progressives mean by improving American image overseas. Historically speaking, American isolationism has been characterized as the belief America is too good for the rest of the world. These days, isolationism has shifted to the idea the world is too good for America. The philosophy has been fully embraced by the (self-appointed?) intellectual left.
Do not believe it? Obama has specifically bowed before the Japanese emperor and set in church while rev. Jeremiah Wright specifically said God should damn America for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He is more than happy to humble himself and the united states before Japan, either in recognizing their superiority or in atoning for past “sins,” but not to engage with the Japanese as a longtime ally.
I suspect the bottom line to Obama’s behavior towards japan, cowering in the past and disinterest now, is the fear of American arrogance in dealing with other countries. Obama certainly has no belief in American exceptionalism. But it looks like he has no belief in America having anything valuable to offer whatsoever period.
As I am not inclined to believe Hillary Clinton will run for president again, I suspect her decision to not serve a second term as Secretary of State is motivated by the tepid foreign policy she has been forced to promote. Say what you will about her being progressive, both she and her husband have a better grip on how the united states should conduct itself internationally. She is going to can what is most certainly the pinnacle of her political career so she does not have to be a part of Obama’s foreign policy. Now if the rest of us could opt out of it.
UPDATE: Obama will have a statement on Japan at 3;30 PM. I bet he will say, "Present."
UPDATE II: It only took 31 days for the United States to go, hat in hand, to the United Nations for authorization to use force against genocidal acts in Libya. How is that NCAA bracket turning out, Mr. President?
UPDATE III: Confirmation on Clinton fustration: foot dragging on Libya prompted her to not seek second stint at State.
UPDATE IV: Five Ways the US is Better Prepared for a Nuclear Disaster. We have expertise to offer.
It is ironic on the surface. One of the rationales for electing Barack Obama president was to repair the alleged damaged done by George W. Bush’s battle against western Civilization destroying militant Islam. Since his election, Obama has smacked our allies at every turn, coddled our enemies, and generally demeaned his own country across the planet.
This is, I am afraid, what progressives mean by improving American image overseas. Historically speaking, American isolationism has been characterized as the belief America is too good for the rest of the world. These days, isolationism has shifted to the idea the world is too good for America. The philosophy has been fully embraced by the (self-appointed?) intellectual left.
Do not believe it? Obama has specifically bowed before the Japanese emperor and set in church while rev. Jeremiah Wright specifically said God should damn America for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He is more than happy to humble himself and the united states before Japan, either in recognizing their superiority or in atoning for past “sins,” but not to engage with the Japanese as a longtime ally.
I suspect the bottom line to Obama’s behavior towards japan, cowering in the past and disinterest now, is the fear of American arrogance in dealing with other countries. Obama certainly has no belief in American exceptionalism. But it looks like he has no belief in America having anything valuable to offer whatsoever period.
As I am not inclined to believe Hillary Clinton will run for president again, I suspect her decision to not serve a second term as Secretary of State is motivated by the tepid foreign policy she has been forced to promote. Say what you will about her being progressive, both she and her husband have a better grip on how the united states should conduct itself internationally. She is going to can what is most certainly the pinnacle of her political career so she does not have to be a part of Obama’s foreign policy. Now if the rest of us could opt out of it.
UPDATE: Obama will have a statement on Japan at 3;30 PM. I bet he will say, "Present."
UPDATE II: It only took 31 days for the United States to go, hat in hand, to the United Nations for authorization to use force against genocidal acts in Libya. How is that NCAA bracket turning out, Mr. President?
UPDATE III: Confirmation on Clinton fustration: foot dragging on Libya prompted her to not seek second stint at State.
UPDATE IV: Five Ways the US is Better Prepared for a Nuclear Disaster. We have expertise to offer.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Formspring Question # 76--Pyramid Schemes Edition
Are you going to comment on Egypt at all?I do not think I have anything of particular value to say about Egypt. I have made some snaky comments about the alleged revolution on Twitter, but those are not meant to be taken seriously. As much as I arrogantly shoot my mouth off here, I keep quiet when I know I am ignorant on a subject.
Here is the problem--I am not idealistic when it comes to foreign policy. There is a romantic notion that democracy is a fantastic concept that ought to spread across the planet. To that, I say poppycock. If the Arab street--the ones who think the united states is secretly ruled from Tel Aviv--is going to vote the Muslim Brotherhood into power, then let them stew under an undemocratic stooge who is at least somewhat responsive to the United States because he needs the foreign aid.
Something like that is the most likely scenario to happen, anyway. The Egyptian army, lead by Lt. Gen. Sami Enan, has so far refused to use violence against the anti-Hosni Mubarak protestors because Enan wants to be the next president. The next president will have to have the backing of the military and the acceptance of the masses currently marching in order to hold onto power. Does anyone really think if he wins election in September--assuming Mubarak does not renege on his promise to step aside for elections--he will not fall into the same role Mubarak has enjoyed for decades?
For people who have been oppressed for so long, freedom is just as paralyzing as dictatorship. They make bad choices and are still susceptible to brutal rule.
I am calling this a no win scenario. Either Mubarak stays in people, crushing the will of the people, or Enan comes into people, in which case it is meet the new boos same as the old, or the Egyptian people really get their way and the country becomes a near fundamentalist theocracy. Which of those three outcomes do you prefer? Yeah, I have no idea who to root for, either.
If anyone cares to weigh in on how I am wrong here, feel free. Like I said, I do not know enough to intelligently take a position.
Formspring Question # 76--Pyramid Schemes Edition
Are you going to comment on Egypt at all?I do not think I have anything of particular value to say about Egypt. I have made some snaky comments about the alleged revolution on Twitter, but those are not meant to be taken seriously. As much as I arrogantly shoot my mouth off here, I keep quiet when I know I am ignorant on a subject.
Here is the problem--I am not idealistic when it comes to foreign policy. There is a romantic notion that democracy is a fantastic concept that ought to spread across the planet. To that, I say poppycock. If the Arab street--the ones who think the united states is secretly ruled from Tel Aviv--is going to vote the Muslim Brotherhood into power, then let them stew under an undemocratic stooge who is at least somewhat responsive to the United States because he needs the foreign aid.
Something like that is the most likely scenario to happen, anyway. The Egyptian army, lead by Lt. Gen. Sami Enan, has so far refused to use violence against the anti-Hosni Mubarak protestors because Enan wants to be the next president. The next president will have to have the backing of the military and the acceptance of the masses currently marching in order to hold onto power. Does anyone really think if he wins election in September--assuming Mubarak does not renege on his promise to step aside for elections--he will not fall into the same role Mubarak has enjoyed for decades?
For people who have been oppressed for so long, freedom is just as paralyzing as dictatorship. They make bad choices and are still susceptible to brutal rule.
I am calling this a no win scenario. Either Mubarak stays in people, crushing the will of the people, or Enan comes into people, in which case it is meet the new boos same as the old, or the Egyptian people really get their way and the country becomes a near fundamentalist theocracy. Which of those three outcomes do you prefer? Yeah, I have no idea who to root for, either.
If anyone cares to weigh in on how I am wrong here, feel free. Like I said, I do not know enough to intelligently take a position.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Julian Assange on 60 Minutes
I just watched the Julian Assange interview on 60 Minutes. beforehand, I knew very little about him other than the general word he was a weird information anarchist. From this interview, I think amoral egotist ought to be added to his description. Assange is flippant about the damage Wkileaks has caused because he values his own sense of chaotic freedom over any other principle.
The best example is his response to the charge the Taliban hunted down and killed informants who were working with the United States military in Afghanistan because field reports made public by Wikileaks revealed their names. He acknowledges, matter of factly, people died because of the revelations. He sjows no emotion about it, however. His freedom of the press trumps the liberation of the Afhan people. If a few have to die for the exercise of free press as Assange sees it, they are the broken eggs for an omelet. Ironic, considering he goes on later to express pride Wikileaks revelation of unreported civilian deaths in Iraq is a check on United states power.
He also hangs Bradley Manning out to dry, expressing sympathy Manning’s traitorous actions have made him a political prisoner, but that is the sum total of what he has to say. Volunteers who may be considering leaking documents onto the Wikileaks site should take note of Assange’s attitude towards you. Your fate mighrt be unfortunate, but Assange will not do much much than sympathize while you enrich him.
Make no mistake, he is being enriched. The background information on the interview stated Wikileaks drew in over $ 1 million in donations last year with only $ 500,000 in expenses. Where is the bulk of the money going/ Assange’s pocket would be my only guess.
He is getting an emotional kick out of the power he has acquired for himself to watch countries, corporations, and other major entities squirm under what he might reveal next. He is a little man who enjoys being big. For years, he was satisfied playing cloak and dagger games by running from country to country, changing his appearance constantly to avoid, as he says, kidnappers and assassins, all while displaying his hacker kung fu. It is all a clear ego trop for him. Whoever gets hurt along the way is irrelevant. While he is claiming those who are hurt are martyrs to freedom of the press, they are really martyrs to his egomania.
I have been inclined to say the guy ought to be prosecuted for espionage. I still do, but now I am convinced he is a far more dangerous man than just a top secret information leaker. He honestly believes whatever damage he causes is perfectly fine because it further the egomania of Julian Assange.
The best example is his response to the charge the Taliban hunted down and killed informants who were working with the United States military in Afghanistan because field reports made public by Wikileaks revealed their names. He acknowledges, matter of factly, people died because of the revelations. He sjows no emotion about it, however. His freedom of the press trumps the liberation of the Afhan people. If a few have to die for the exercise of free press as Assange sees it, they are the broken eggs for an omelet. Ironic, considering he goes on later to express pride Wikileaks revelation of unreported civilian deaths in Iraq is a check on United states power.
He also hangs Bradley Manning out to dry, expressing sympathy Manning’s traitorous actions have made him a political prisoner, but that is the sum total of what he has to say. Volunteers who may be considering leaking documents onto the Wikileaks site should take note of Assange’s attitude towards you. Your fate mighrt be unfortunate, but Assange will not do much much than sympathize while you enrich him.
Make no mistake, he is being enriched. The background information on the interview stated Wikileaks drew in over $ 1 million in donations last year with only $ 500,000 in expenses. Where is the bulk of the money going/ Assange’s pocket would be my only guess.
He is getting an emotional kick out of the power he has acquired for himself to watch countries, corporations, and other major entities squirm under what he might reveal next. He is a little man who enjoys being big. For years, he was satisfied playing cloak and dagger games by running from country to country, changing his appearance constantly to avoid, as he says, kidnappers and assassins, all while displaying his hacker kung fu. It is all a clear ego trop for him. Whoever gets hurt along the way is irrelevant. While he is claiming those who are hurt are martyrs to freedom of the press, they are really martyrs to his egomania.
I have been inclined to say the guy ought to be prosecuted for espionage. I still do, but now I am convinced he is a far more dangerous man than just a top secret information leaker. He honestly believes whatever damage he causes is perfectly fine because it further the egomania of Julian Assange.
Julian Assange on 60 Minutes
I just watched the Julian Assange interview on 60 Minutes. beforehand, I knew very little about him other than the general word he was a weird information anarchist. From this interview, I think amoral egotist ought to be added to his description. Assange is flippant about the damage Wkileaks has caused because he values his own sense of chaotic freedom over any other principle.
The best example is his response to the charge the Taliban hunted down and killed informants who were working with the United States military in Afghanistan because field reports made public by Wikileaks revealed their names. He acknowledges, matter of factly, people died because of the revelations. He sjows no emotion about it, however. His freedom of the press trumps the liberation of the Afhan people. If a few have to die for the exercise of free press as Assange sees it, they are the broken eggs for an omelet. Ironic, considering he goes on later to express pride Wikileaks revelation of unreported civilian deaths in Iraq is a check on United states power.
He also hangs Bradley Manning out to dry, expressing sympathy Manning’s traitorous actions have made him a political prisoner, but that is the sum total of what he has to say. Volunteers who may be considering leaking documents onto the Wikileaks site should take note of Assange’s attitude towards you. Your fate mighrt be unfortunate, but Assange will not do much much than sympathize while you enrich him.
Make no mistake, he is being enriched. The background information on the interview stated Wikileaks drew in over $ 1 million in donations last year with only $ 500,000 in expenses. Where is the bulk of the money going/ Assange’s pocket would be my only guess.
He is getting an emotional kick out of the power he has acquired for himself to watch countries, corporations, and other major entities squirm under what he might reveal next. He is a little man who enjoys being big. For years, he was satisfied playing cloak and dagger games by running from country to country, changing his appearance constantly to avoid, as he says, kidnappers and assassins, all while displaying his hacker kung fu. It is all a clear ego trop for him. Whoever gets hurt along the way is irrelevant. While he is claiming those who are hurt are martyrs to freedom of the press, they are really martyrs to his egomania.
I have been inclined to say the guy ought to be prosecuted for espionage. I still do, but now I am convinced he is a far more dangerous man than just a top secret information leaker. He honestly believes whatever damage he causes is perfectly fine because it further the egomania of Julian Assange.
The best example is his response to the charge the Taliban hunted down and killed informants who were working with the United States military in Afghanistan because field reports made public by Wikileaks revealed their names. He acknowledges, matter of factly, people died because of the revelations. He sjows no emotion about it, however. His freedom of the press trumps the liberation of the Afhan people. If a few have to die for the exercise of free press as Assange sees it, they are the broken eggs for an omelet. Ironic, considering he goes on later to express pride Wikileaks revelation of unreported civilian deaths in Iraq is a check on United states power.
He also hangs Bradley Manning out to dry, expressing sympathy Manning’s traitorous actions have made him a political prisoner, but that is the sum total of what he has to say. Volunteers who may be considering leaking documents onto the Wikileaks site should take note of Assange’s attitude towards you. Your fate mighrt be unfortunate, but Assange will not do much much than sympathize while you enrich him.
Make no mistake, he is being enriched. The background information on the interview stated Wikileaks drew in over $ 1 million in donations last year with only $ 500,000 in expenses. Where is the bulk of the money going/ Assange’s pocket would be my only guess.
He is getting an emotional kick out of the power he has acquired for himself to watch countries, corporations, and other major entities squirm under what he might reveal next. He is a little man who enjoys being big. For years, he was satisfied playing cloak and dagger games by running from country to country, changing his appearance constantly to avoid, as he says, kidnappers and assassins, all while displaying his hacker kung fu. It is all a clear ego trop for him. Whoever gets hurt along the way is irrelevant. While he is claiming those who are hurt are martyrs to freedom of the press, they are really martyrs to his egomania.
I have been inclined to say the guy ought to be prosecuted for espionage. I still do, but now I am convinced he is a far more dangerous man than just a top secret information leaker. He honestly believes whatever damage he causes is perfectly fine because it further the egomania of Julian Assange.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)