![]() |
|
|
ResurrectionSong
Thursday, March 06, 2008Bad Day for NewsI just dropped by FoxNews to see what’s going on in the world today and was faced with a grim, depressing, brutal reality: today’s news sucks.
And that’s the news that I see today--almost all of it some unsubtle shade of bad. Tonight would be a good night to drink a beer or five, I think. Monday, January 21, 2008Big Win for Women (But Not for Katie Holmes)In Saudi Arabia, women can now stay in hotels and furnished apartments without express written consent (and chaperonage) of a male guardian. But if they do, then they’re really asking for it, if you know what I mean. It’s a brave, new day in Saudi Arabia for the fairer, and more easily subjugated, sex. None of which makes the wacky Tom Cruise any closer to being a modern day Joseph Goebbels than he is to being a freakin’ rocket scientist. The comparison is idiotic. I saw an interview with Katie Holmes recently and remarked that her brain and personality seem to have been sucked out forcibly with a special vacuum cleaner attachment. That doesn’t do much to make Cruise a shill for a genocidal lunatic, though, he’s really just kind of creepy. Wednesday, January 09, 2008National Holiday in Iran as Global Warming Comes to the Middle EastOkay, I can’t laugh at the deaths and the general destruction, but it, as wacky weather goes, this is definitely some of the wackiest.
Maybe the Iranians are cranky this week because the weather is bad. I mean, it’s just started snowing outside my office, and I’m feeling a tad cranky. In case you were wondering. Friday, December 28, 2007On Benzir Bhutto’s AssassinationBenazir Bhutto’s assassination is undeniably a cause for worry for the West. Our tenuous partnership with Pakistan--in political partnership that acknowledges the reality of a Pakistani populace that is in large part opposed to their country’s ties with the West--is complicated by Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and its practical importance in the fight against al Qaeda. Precisely what the result of the assassination will be is pure speculation at this point.
Will it kill off democracy? WIll it galvanize fragmented opposition groups into one meaningful opposition voice for change? Most people seem to be fearing the former; Arab News is calling for the latter.
Finding the group responsible for the attacks is important, but I hope that the people of Pakistan realize that what is more important is asserting the rights of a civilian populace to define their own government. Demanding that right to self-determination is vital to combating the terrorists who would bully these people into accepting a slave’s chains. My prayer for the people of Pakistan would be that this brutal murder would bring them together in demanding a voice in their government and in combating the terrorists and murderers who are our common enemies. Monday, December 03, 2007Harry Reid (And Then Some)![]()
Thursday, November 15, 2007Harry Reid’s Amazing Devotion to Failure (Updated)![]() Thank you, Senator Reid. Your devotion to losing is something that we all marvel at.
Read the rest from one of our country’s most important leaders. Nope. No improvement. Not a word about improving situations. Everything seems to be getting worse. Without your will to succumb to our enemies, Senator Reid, I might have mistakenly gotten the impression that a little stiffening of the backbone might be in order. So, yeah, let’s get to losing. Thank God that Senator Reid is here to show us the way to a proper defeat.
Update: No. Nothing good to see here. Move along.
Thursday, November 08, 2007Lose by Any Means PossibleI think that we are seeing demonstrable, often positive changes in Iraq--changes that came from Iraqis weary of war and the excesses of thuggish “insurgents”, the creative leadership of General Petraeus, more troops, the the aggressive tactics of the surge. Iraq isn’t won, but these changes do seem to be creating an environment where the political victory can incubate. A real victory seems more possible now than it did less than a year ago; nothing is guaranteed, I realize, but if we continue to let the military do its job we can give the diplomats and politicians the time to do theirs.
Which is why I am surprised by this from Nancy Pelosi--a move that seems calculated to toss some red meat to the Kossacks and progressives, but which might just confound the general public.
I’ll be curious to see what support she gets from the Democrat candidates for the presidency--obviously Kucinich will like the legislation, but what will Edwards, Clinton, and Obama say publicly? This does seem to confirm that ensuring defeat is the policy of at least some of the Democrats’ leadership. Announcing to the world that we are no longer willing to support our troops or our mission will send a message of abandonment to our friends and encouragement to our enemies. Brilliant. And, no, I’m not an absolutist. There is a time when a nation must face up to defeat and failure. You can’t fight a war forever. It’s just better to make that choice when you’re actually losing. Wednesday, October 24, 2007The New Republic Needs New EmployeesOr at least, The New Republic should need new employees. There is much in these transcripts concerning Scott Beauchamp that calls TNR’s leadership into question. They are a political magazine, so the leftward slant is understandable. What is discouraging is the dishonesty (insisting that the military was keeping Beauchamp away from the media while discouraging him from giving interviews that he had already scheduled) and slimy (using a note from his wife to try to keep the soldier from recanting). Politically, I’m about as far away from TNR as I have ever been, but I had stayed away from much of this controversy because I felt that TNR’s leadership was misguided instead of acting in bad faith. An error is not a lie. The transcripts show something worse than I had imagined--and Scoblic doesn’t come across well at all. I won’t be thinking of TNR as a serious publication until they find a way to address the issue. I haven’t subscribed in some years, so I realize that my disapproval is hardly a huge issue for them. I’m guessing that I’m representative of a lot of moderate conservatives right now, though. This isn’t just me. Tuesday, August 14, 2007From Der Spiegel to Instapundit to the World. Hopefully.It isn’t all puppies and lollipops, but this article from Der Spiegel seems well balanced.
As the title--"Hope and Despair in Iraq"--indicates, the job is hardly finished and not all has gone well, but there is hope. Fully realizing that I’ve been a supporter of the effort from the beginning, I’m sure that y’all will find yourself a grain of salt when I say that reading the article did leave me with hope and a sense that those who have recently switched sides on this particular debate might have abandoned the ship too soon. The question for me isn’t whether the military can win a reasonable peace--I believe that they’ve shown the initiative and adaptability to do so. The question is whether the citizens of the US will have the strength of will to carry us through more difficulties. Our troops have been in Iraq for what feels like an awfully long time, and many families have suffered horrible losses where husbands, children, wives, and parents won’t be coming home. From where I sit, Iraq still matters in a larger sense than some people seem to understand; if it was worth doing, it is still worth completing. There have been a number of times where I let my enthusiasm lead me to believe that we were closer to that complete victory than we turned out to be; but the gradual change that has come from putting General Patreus in charge, clarifying the mission, and changing strategies seems much more solid than those previous moments of exuberance. I still have great hope for a relatively liberal, representative government in Iraq and for a lasting, close relationship between Iraq and the United States that benefits our friends as much as it does us. Whatever your views on the subject--and chances are they differ from mine significantly--you’ll find the Spiegel article to be a good, long read. It’s worth the time and it’s hard to come up with anything other than respect for so many of the men and women serving in Iraq. These are people I would be proud to call friends, co-workers, and neighbors. H/T Instapundit. Monday, August 06, 2007Pardon the Language (Updated)Pardon my language, but Scott Thomas Beauchamp fucked The New Republic. Although it would be easy to argue that TNR put themselves in this situation by failing to properly vet stories that were going to attract a whole lot of skepticism. It’s a good argument, and it carries some truth, but it doesn’t change the fact that Beauchamp fucked TNR. See, they trusted him when they ran the stories (because, yes, it made good copy and it reinforced their beliefs about the war in Iraq), and they supported him when he came under scrutiny, and they issued statements supporting the details of his writing while he continued to ensure them that, yes, it was all the truth. Pretty much. Then Beauchamp (which, is that pronounced “Beechum"--and does anyone else know why I’m asking that question?) turned around and stabbed them in their literary heart by admitting to having falsified the stories. Has anyone found the first story claiming that he was forced or that his newly sworn statement was coerced in some way? This whole tale is just begging for a conspiracy theory ending. You know who else Beauchamp fucked? His fellow soldiers, all the soldiers who have served with honor, and all the people who believed his BS. Now, here’s where I vent. Beauchamp pisses me off like you wouldn’t believe. This is on the same level of dishonor as false accusations of rape, child abuse, and racism. There is enough bad in the world that you shouldn’t have to make up horrors in hopes of aggrandizing yourself or building a new writing career. And when you throw fellow troops under the bus --inventing stories that make them look like bloodthirsty assholes--to make a few bucks, you’re screwing a group of people that has already managed to shoulder more than their share of bad PR, poor pay, and shitty working conditions. Not, of course, to mention the grave potential of extreme bodily harm, the family sacrifices that our troops make, and those damned glasses they issue in basic training. So, if all this talk of recanting pretty much the totality of those stories turns out to be true, here’s hoping that Beauchamp pays a steep price for his lies.
As Cadilac Tight points out, I’d be surprised if there wasn’t more of a price to pay, too.
And, lastly, Jeff G has thoughts on the subject along with a lot of great links. And Michelle Malkin has great graphics. Baldilocks has a ton of responses to this news. And she’s kind enough to clean up my language for me a bit. Or a lot. Sorry about that. Thursday, July 19, 2007How Can You Tell the Difference Between a Fairy Tale and War Story?One begins with “Once upon a time” and the other usually starts with “This ain’t no bullshit...” Monday, June 04, 2007No Problem w/ Cultural EducationI’m a little surprised by the uproar that a little cultural education brings.
I’ve quoted the same section of the article that one of the detractors, Kim Priestap from Wizbang, quoted just to make sure we’re working from the same context. Here’s what she had to say:
Actually, I wouldn’t mind at all if my seventh grader was given an opportunity to participate in this kind of a school activity. In fact, I would embrace the opportunity that it gave me to talk to my kid about Islam and the Middle East. I would enjoy that they were being introduced to new ideas and experiences, even though those ideas and experiences were probably watered down versions of the reality. We might be involved in a war with radical Islamists, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t appreciate the beauty of Arab culture. Nor is it a bad thing to learn about another person’s culture and traditions--and I sure as hell don’t see how the school doing this translates into a recruitment drive for al Quaeda or Islam. That strikes me as bordering on the paranoid (and no few steps from xenophobia). Quick story time: the g-phrase, as many know, is a school teacher. Some time ago, some of the teachers at her school were teaching the Pledge of Allegiance in Spanish. The parents were given an opportunity to have their kids opt out, but at least one parent wouldn’t let it go at that: he called the school, he ranted, he raved, and he angrily said that the exercise--part of a larger unit teaching about hispanic culture--shouldn’t even be taught in the school. While we could argue the merits of teaching kids to say the Pledge in Spanish, what bugged me most was that this man was saying that his belief that it was wrong should trump all the teachers and parents who believed that it was, at worst, a harmless teaching exercise. It wasn’t enough that he could excuse his kid; he wanted to limit the opportunities of everyone else’s children. My hunch--and it’s a very strong hunch--is that the parents of the children doing the Bedouin tent community night were aware of (and had given permission for their kids to participate in) the school activity. I would be shocked if the parents hadn’t had the opportunity to keep their kids out of the assignment. So, what’s the problem? Don’t completely misunderstand: as I said, I would take the opportunity to talk to my son or daughter about Islam and Arab cultures. I would explain why I felt that, ordinarily, the wearing of the hidjab is a greater sign of how women are treated in most Islamic communities, about how homosexuality and apostasy are punished, and why our culture and political systems are clashing with some of the more radical and strict adherents of Islam. Talk about an opportunity to teach your kids. Not only would it be a chance to explain my view of the Middle East (both the good and the bad), but it would be an opportunity to talk about what I think is great and what is flawed about America. I live for this shit. I understand that a parent wouldn’t want their child to participate. So speak against it, keep your kids out of it, and then take a moment to respect the fact that some of us hold a very different view and it isn’t because we want to capitulate to the demands of the terrorists. For some of us, it is an opportunity to open up a much larger conversation. Sunday, April 01, 2007For Some People…It’s okay to make fun of the British sailors who were taken prisoner by a belligerent Iran. Strangely, I don’t consider that funny. But, hey, maybe I just don’t have an evolved sense of humor. Here are some more jokes that might get the “at least Iran is better than the US” crowd giggling some more.
Maybe the ladies and gentlemen over at Americablog would think that Iran’s jailing, torture, and execution of gay men is funny, too.
Perhaps they’ll bust a gut over the jailing of peaceful protesters demanding rights for women in Iran.
‘Cause, you know, that shit is probably pretty funny to one of the enlightened masses at Americablog.
And, let’s be honest, we can all find it funny when an uppity blogger is beaten for reporting on the violent tactics uses by the government against its citizens.
Funniest of all these great jokes is the arrest and torment of student activists for daring to suggest that their own country needs to change.
Hilarious stuff, that. So, Iran acts to provoke Western powers again and Terry Jones takes the opportunity to take shots at American and British governments. Brilliant. What is terrifying is to try to imagine what precisely Iran thinks it can gain out of this kind of brinksmanship. But, for some, it’s easier to make glib jokes (like this from a comment on Americablog: “My heart goes out to that poor woman—if wearing that scarf doesn’t give her PTSD* I don’t know what would. *Post Traumatic Scarf Disorder") than to accept that the UK and the US are actually on the right side of this particular issue. Thursday, March 22, 2007Appeal for CourageFor anyone opposing retreat, defunding, or otherwise giving up on Iraq, click here. Sunday, December 31, 2006XRLQ: Garnering the Elusive IndeedehehI’ll let the post stand for itself:
It’s nerve like his that deserves the extra-special Dave’s Indeedeheh. Tuesday, November 28, 2006Another Look at RussiaFrom Mario Loyola over in The Corner:
Which is kind of the point I was trying to make a couple days ago. It is simply becoming more obvious with each passing week that not only can we not trust the Russians to back us in our foreign policy endeavors, even as they relate to the war on terror, but we can expect them to work quietly against us. Which, if we’re going to be getting all Cold War up in this joint, we might want to have the right musical accompaniment. (Warning: This a link to a semi-largish mp3 of Sting at his Cold Un-Warrior best.) Friday, November 24, 2006Some Days Still Feel Like the EightiesOkay, so it doesn’t really feel like the 80s. I’m a few decades removed from my teens, for one thing, and maps of Eastern Europe are far more jig-sawier than they used to be, for another.
But Russia is working hard to bring back that loving feeling.
A report like this would have been shrug-worthy in 80s: the Soviet Union was constantly arming our enemies in that tug-of-war for global political-cultural dominance. Proxy wars and regional manipulations are, of course, safer than a face-down that would have eventually compelled one side or the other to resort to a devastating nuclear option. What is so confounding now, though, is the question of precisely what the Russians hope to achieve. Arming Iran is a bad thing for everyone and doesn’t just act as a way to indirectly confront American interests in the Middle East. Arming Iran is a kind of vote for destabilization in the region and an inducement for more American involvement. Iran is openly hostile to the state of Israel and an Iran with a new, robust air defense technology might be tempted to act even more aggressively to destroy Israel and to solidify its regional dominance. The US could not stand that and would be drawn into a much wider, bloodier war than we saw in Iraq. Coupled with the likelihood of Iran having nuclear weapons capabilities, an Iran-Israel war that pulls in US and perhaps Syrian involvement could be devastating--not directly devastating to the US since it would prove no existential threat to us, but devastating to life and the economic structures of the world. I would still consider the Iran-Israel war to be unlikely, but the air defense system delivered by the Russians to Iran and the (likely false) sense of security that the system provides, makes it just a little more possible. Why would Russia want this? This way lies oil-production disruption. It could just be the profit motive, of course. At almost three quarters of a billion dollars, the arms deal is just one of a continuing series of big money deals between the Russians and Iran. This has been a lucrative relationship for the Russians. A little conspiracy-theory thinking, though, may provide a different explanation. Russia may no longer seek global political dominance in any direct sense, but the desire for economic dominance and greater political influence still exists. They may have lost the Cold War, but they haven’t retired from global politics. Oil production in Russia is bigger than you might have thought. With recoverable reserves or perhaps 150 billion barrels and its recent ascension to being the biggest oil producer in the world (a position previously held by Saudi Arabia), Russia’s energy security is ensured. If oil prices continue to rise, Russia stands to see monumental monetary gain at the expense of its two biggest rivals: China and the United States. Any move to destabilize the Middle East, then, becomes a way to greater profit for the Russians and economic pain for her enemies. I would hesitate to say that Russian wants to see a war break out between Iran and Israel, but I would like to point out that another war would engage yet another chunk of America’s military capacity and continue testing our citizens’ capacity to accept lengthy military commitments. The urge to isolationism would be powerful. The Soviet Union may be gone, but the Russians still aren’t our friends. This just comes as a reminder of the adversarial relationship. Monday, September 18, 2006“Angry Muslims, Please Don’t Burn My House Down”The title of this excellent, short piece from the Telegraph is “Islam, like Christianity, is not above criticism.” It sounds obvious, doesn’t it?
Here’s the thing: the “war on terror” is really an extension of just this conversation. This is what happens when cultural expectations that we have (a sense of tolerance for opposing ideas, a sense that diverse religious and political concepts aren’t immediately cause for violence, and the belief that our societies afford us protection when we criticize the beliefs and ideas of others) bump painfully up against a culture with a very different idea of societal behavioral norms. It’s not so bad when those differences are merely aesthetic in nature--questions of art, music, and poetry are much easier to deal with than issues like free speech, free press, equality for citizens under secular rule of law, democracy, and terrorism. It is important that the conversation about religious violence is taken up right now: our cultures are rubbing up closer as the world continues to, metaphorically, shrink. It would be best if the conversation could happen without war and demonstrations in the street, but that’s the core of the problem, isn’t it? The simplest criticisms are met with threats of death, the burning of churches, and the killing of nuns--it makes it hard to keep up a steady conversation. “Angry Muslims, please don’t burn down my house.” It isn’t just a joking plea; it’s an honest concern. The post title is a reference to one of Macomber’s masterpieces. Update: Kindly linked by Kris at New Every Morning. Thursday, September 07, 2006The UN Sucks at Standup Comedy![]() I can only imagine that the members of the United Nations are joking when they, essentially, say that Iran has violated the international body’s dictates in one of the world’s most pressing security issues, but, gee, they shouldn’t actually be punished or forced into compliance.
See, this is funny stuff--if by funny you mean not something that’s bound to make me life in this lifetime. And it makes me think that the UN should get entirely out of the stand up comedy business. On this wildly important issue, the major world powers all agree on two things: first, that Iran should not have access to nuclear weapons, and, second, that Iran is doing everything possible to gain the technology to begin manufacturing of nuclear weapons. Then, after agreeing on these two very important facts, these powers have tacitly agreed to dance around the subject, make all the right diplomatic noises, and accomplish precisely nothing while waiting for what would then seem to be inevitable: a nuclear Iran. The powers that are stonewalling even basic sanctions against Iran are, in a very real sense, complicit in Iran’s growing nuclear potential. Why is this a big deal? Consider that the non-nuclear Iran is already funding the insurgency in Iraq. The non-nuclear Iran is funding and supplying terrorists in Lebanon. A non-nuclear Iran is already a force destabilizing the region; now imagine the kinds of acts that their government would carry out if they had nuclear weapons on their side. A nuclear Iran would accomplish two things: it would make a shooting war more likely by pushing the United States into a war to protect vital national security interests and it would practically guaranty our failure in Iraq. An emboldened nuclear Iran would first strike out at Iraq and, at very least, continue pushing to start a civil war; the efforts would just be more overt and aggressive in nature. It would also be emboldened to provide groups like Hezbollah with even more in the way of aid and equipment. The idea of Iran slipping a little nuclear weapon into a terrorist’s hands in hopes that the weapon would be used against either an Israeli or American target is terrifying. If you believe the Middle East is a mess right now, imagine what it would look like if a nuclear weapon hit an American Embassy in North Africa or somewhere in Jerusalem. Or London or Madrid or New York, for that matter. The prospect of a broad and bloody war--something that would make Iraq look like a playful romp in the sand by comparison--would grow tremendously with a nuclear Iran. And the further that Iran would push its influence, even without the storm of a nuclear terrorist attack on a major target, the more likely the United States or Israel will find it to react aggressively. The best way to avoid something truly horrific would be to ensure that Iran doesn’t reach nuclear capability. It’s an unstable country with an irrational government; the idea of a nuclear Iran should make anyone uneasy, especially given the United States’ current commitments in the region. Wednesday, August 23, 2006Just an ObservationAm I the only one that has been watching developments with Iran who has started to think that Iran wants to provoke a war with the United States? Seriously. I can’t understand actually wanting to start a war with the United States, but it really does seem to be the path that Iran has taken.
So, in the spirit of diplomacy and wanting to avoid the bloodshed that would come, I offer a few bits of advice to the citizens of Iran in hopes of avoiding what seems to be nearly inevitable.
Just a little advice between friends. Update: More about Iran. And Kevin Drum’s take is predictably different. While I have a bad feeling about the next pair of elections (at least in reference to national security issues), the left’s continued inability to face up to the very real threats of the world continues to encourage the belief that they will find a way to destroy their opportunity to play a little catch up. Let’s be honest, it’s what they do. To clarify: I’m not kidding about not wanting to see bombs falling on Iran. The world will be (as Dorkafork points out in the comments) a much more dangerous place, though, if Iran manages to produce nuclear weapons. Anyone who believes that American security interests in the Middle East will be well served by an aggressive, arrogant Iran has a distinctly different view or our interests than I do. Anyone who fails to understand that a nuclear Iran will be even more open and vicious in destabilizing neighboring Iraq is simply blind. People like Kevin Drum, though, really don’t seem to think there’s any urgency to the issue. |
MembersArchives
Zombyboy's LinksJerry's LinksDon O's Links |
© 2005 by the authors of ResurrectionSong. All
rights reserved. Powered by ExpressionEngine |