newcity
The newspapers have been abuzz recently with polls citing a small majority of Americans against gay marriage (something like 55%). I'm amazed that, with the relentless persecution and pillorying of gays that many Christian churches engage it that it's not higher. The Catholic Church regards it as an unfortunate occurrence that the people of Iraq are free. But, God FORBID that gays should marry. That's 'evil' you understand.
Protestants are little better. Some of the most vile vituperation is directed at gays. Some Episcopal church's' assertion that homophobia is biblical sends one scrambling to remind the august church fathers that so is slavery. Amazing how they forgot their scriptures sanctioned the most evil practice in history, and now use those same scriptures against another group. You can almost hear the church fathers screaming "BRING US BARRABAS!"
I love the resolute hard headedness of the far left to be wrong. Day after day, year after year, nothing phases the far left. Collapse of the USSR? A minor detail. Stalin's purges? Gee...what's on TV tonite.
And so it is with today's editorial in the British "Guardian". Here we read, regarding the recent Libyan decision to renounce WMD's(http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/comment/0,11538,1111575,00.html):
"This was not achieved by military power, by invasion, by shredding inter national law, by enforced regime change or by large-scale bloodshed. Nor, in fact, despite Mr Bush's eagerness for plaudits, was it primarily achieved by his administration at all. It was achieved by discussion - by endless talk, mostly in London, latterly in Libya, and finally in a London gentlemen's club.
It could yet produce results in Syria, another low-grade WMD state, and in North Korea, if only senior US officials would stop threatening them."
One wonders if the beknighted boffins at the "Guardian" have forgotten who was president when N. Korea decided to cheat on its programs. It was Bill Clinton. Clinton DID try diplomacy, DID try talking to the N. Koreans, DID try incentives, and didn't threaten. The N. Koreans, amazingly enough, took the money and ran.
But, I guess if you're a "Guardian" editorial writer, it's more fun to be fashionable than it is to be right.
France's attitude on reconstruction contracts reminds me of an old joke. It's the one, and I'll paraphrase, about a guy who goes up to a woman in a bar and asks for her phone number. She says no. He asks again. She says no. He asks a third time. She says no.
He then takes out a wad of money to buy a drink. She sees the money and starts talking to him. He makes an advance, but she says 'what kind of girl do you think I am?". He says "We already know that, now we're just haggling about price."
And so it is with France. They said no to Iraqi liberation at every opportunity. They stonewalled us and stymied our efforts. Now that the money is out, they're making cooing noises.
And now we now what kind of nation France is. It's become a matter of haggling about price.
Boy, conservatives are really letting the Vatican have it over its stance on the liberation of Iraq. The Vatican, always ready to protect its ass at the expense of the weak and defenseless, opposed the liberation.
After Reuters reported that Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's Justice and Peace department, expressed 'pity' for Hussein,
(http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=423385§ion=news),
and that "The news conference was called for Martino to present the World Day of Peace message, in which Pope John Paul took a swipe at the United States for invading Iraq without the backing of the United Nations."
National Review's K-J Lopez said (http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp):
"Sounds like the Vatican's Cardinal Martino could use another just-war talk."
Funny, she ignored the Pope's comments....
Instapundit weighed in with (http://www.instapundit.com/):
"MORE LACK OF MORAL SERIOUSNESS FROM THE VATICAN: Robert Tagorda is more respectful of this stuff than I would be. I'll just note that they're showing more concern for Saddam Hussein than they probably would for Joanne Webb."
and:
"I thought that Lauryn Hill's remarks were grandstanding when she made them. But now I think she can claim a bit of vindication.
MORE: Damian Penny: "I should apologize to my Catholic readers for saying this, but compared to the way the Vatican has coddled the criminals within its ranks, then yes, I must admit Saddam is being treated pretty roughly.""
Funny how right wingers think the Vatican can do no wrong when it speaks on sex, but they get a wedgie when it spews forth pro-fascist nonsense.
I hope they remember this when the Vatican comes out with its next solemn pronouncement on the evils of being gay, or how womens' bodies should be state property.
One argument anti-liberation demagogues use against the US is that we should hold 'free' elections immediately. They complain the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) is an American puppet, and that elections should be hosted by the UN. There is only one problem with that: the UN is against elections being held immediately in Iraq.
According to a report in Reuters (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20031216/wl_nm/iraq_un_dc):
"Annan appeared to have turned down a suggestion by Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the top Shi'ite Muslim cleric for direct elections instead of caucuses to choose the provisional assembly next spring. The ayatollah has said the United Nations should rule on which process was feasible.
"While there may not be time to organize free, fair and credible elections for this purpose, it is essential that the process leading to the formation of a provisional government is fully inclusive and transparent," Annan said in the council."
This was after Iraq's Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, blasted the UN for its inaction when Hussein was murdering his people for 35 years.
And, he issued an appeal:
Appealing for unity, Zebari said, "Settling scores with the United States should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people."
It is a structural problem with the primary/general election nature of the American electoral process that it tends to promote extremism. To get elected through the primary, a candidate has to appeal to the most extreme positions in the party, then moderate that position during the general election.
And so it is with Dr. Dean. I'm a liberal Democrat. I can't stand the religious right. They are a bunch of unprincipled thugs who would have no problem turning America into a latter day Afghanistan.
BUT...Dean seems to be unaware of the penalty we would pay if we instituted his foreign policy. Giving up Iraq to the UN, his complaining about the capture of Hussein, really makes me question if he's Presidential material.
The choice to be made in next November's election is forcing me into a position I don't want to be in. I never voted Republican for President. But if Dean is elected, the choice is too awful to contemplate. Dean may be a threat to national security. That trumps all other issues; health care, abortion, etc.
At this point I'm hoping the Party will see Dean for the danger he is. But, again, pandering to the extremes in both parties is what primaries are for. Maybe, just maybe, he'll moderate his position. Here's hoping for the best.
Capturing Hussein was a blow to fascist terror across the world. Its effects are, for many, more personal, from the spontaneous outburst of the Iraqi journalists when Bremer announced "We GOT him!", to this post on the 4th Infantry Division's website (http://pub20.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=1709173813&msgid=258823&mode=):
"from a 9-11 Survivor/Firefighter Widow I am a 9-11 survivor and a firefighter widow so the news of Saddam's capture brings tears of joy to my heart as the final piece of the puzzle is in place.
THank you thank you thank you!
YOu got the *******!
-Becca Bullock"
Those of us who were in NY after the start of the war know that sentiment very well.
It is the mark of a civilized society that it looks forward to the end of war. And it is the mark of a savage culture that it looks forward to the start of war. This capture may, in some way, hasten the end of the pathological culture that Hussein lived in.
From Al Jazeera website:
Saddam Hussein captured
Sunday 14 December 2003, 15:19 Makka Time, 12:19 GMT
Saddam Hussein has been captured alive near his home town of Tikrit in a major coup for the beleaguered US-led occupation forces in Iraq
GREAT NEWS! The supreme killer of Iraq, the man who gave hope to psychopaths, fascists, islamists, and die hard marxists throughout the world, is in US CUSTODY!!!
GOOD JOB GUYS!! BRAVO ZULU!
Regarding the construction contracts that the US is paying for in Iraq, and excluding opponents of Iraqi liberation....
There is a lot of screaming going on. Some Europeans are shouting that it's UNFAIR that they don't have access to contracts paid for by American taxpayers. After all, they scream, they opposed us, but now that we're talking MONEY, that's a different situation.
The solution was given to me by the Russians. Their Foreign Minister said it was unfair to exclude any country from participating in rebuilding Iraq. My answer to that is: We're not. The Russians are free to bring their money, and their construction firms. If they want to PAY to rebuild, by all means, let them help.
But what they're REALLY saying is that they, those who opposed us at every turn, and would have enslaved the Iraqi people, now have a RIGHT to American money, even though they're not sharing American RISK. And that is plainly wrong. If they though Iraq was a bad deal, they should put their money, so to speak, where their mouth is. Let them pass on these contracts. They DON'T want to get their pure, pacifist hands sullied by 'blood money' paid by US imperialists.
But, just as it was BEFORE liberation, the Russians and French are willing to put aside their deep moral convictions where the almighty dollar is concerned. When Iraq was a gulag under Hussein, the Russians and French were all OVER Iraq, signing contracts. That's a shame...for them.
The "loyal opposition". A rather elegant phrase that doesn't get much use nowadays. Politics has degenerated into a 'my shark can eat your shark' mentality that crushes all voices of moderation. And so it is with Presidential politics.
Reading the far left, one gets visions of the US collapsing under the jackboot. Everyone who dares utter a phrase not approved by the VRWC (vast right wing conspiracy) is immediately tossed, without due process, into one of the thousands of (invisible) prison camps Bush has established throughout the country. And law itself has been replaced, according to the left, by a rapacious globalization effort, led by Halliburton and Bechtel, solely to enrich Dick Cheney. Wow. Life sure is simple when you've got it figured out.
The right, on the other hand, doesn't need to do anything. They've won. America is fairly right wing, there's no doubt about it. Conservatives control both houses of Congress, the Presidency and most governorships. Democrats are reduced to having their machine crank out clones of drab, grey politicians who argue over drug benefits while the US goes to war. So the right doesn't have to do a damn thing right, they just have to avoid doing anything wrong.
And that's where the 'loyal opposition' comes in. I'm a liberal. Other than the war, Bush and I agree on nothing. Religion, science, feminism....he and I are opposites.
The day after Reagan was elected, I put an 'impeach Reagan' bumpersticker on my car. Reagan was (and is), in my mind, more of a demagogue than either Bush was. The Bushes wanted to be President. Reagan wanted to be Pope.
But there is more. We are at war. This is a dangerous time for the US, and for the west in general. Bush may not be the best man for the job (at this point I will not vote for him next year). But, when the country is in peril, as it is at this moment, it is honorable to commit oneself to the spirit of the country, and not create vindictive dissension. Saying that Bush is wrong on abortion is fine, but saying that he wants to enslave women as part of the VRWC is another.
We in the loyal opposition have a duty to make ourselves heard and to continue striving to make the country a better place. We have the right to try and defeat far right politicians like PA's own Senator Santorum. But it only gives aid and comfort to the enemy to deny the nature of the US itself; to imply that the US is corrupt or for sale to the highest bidder.
And that's a lesson those on the far left have yet to learn.
Well the Bush administration has decided to stick it to the French, Russians and Germans by excluding them from Iraqi re-construction projects financed by American taxpayers. This is the latest in a memo from Paul Wolfowitz to the Pentagon. Gee. What a surprise.
The French were especially egregious in their efforts to block liberation of Iraq. They refused to countenance the use of force, or to threaten its use, under any circumstances. They refused to set deadlines for compliance. In short, if the French had their way, US troops would still be on the border in Saudi Arabia, and Hussein would be thumbing his nose at the international community...all the while French oil companies were raking in the cash from Iraq. Some gambit.
But, they lost. They gambled like the shady poker players they are, and they lost. So now it's time to ask "what's in it for us?". If the French, inter alia, want to be players, what are they offering? Reconstruction aid? Troops? What's in it for the American taxpayer to allow the French govt. to play both sides of the fence?
There's a good argument for allowing these countries to play. We do, at some point, have to start mending fences, and rebuilding the alliance. But no one said it had to be FREE. It's got to cost them something; something substantial. Otherwise the French and their dachshunds, the Germans, will always find it easier to play the spoiler.
Every once in awhile....not very often, but occasionally and with great pain, conservatives discover a principle that liberals have known all along. The most recent example is the cost of being 'tough on crime'. Remember that? Dukakis lost the Presidency on that when Bush Sr. brought out the Willy Horton race baiting ad. A black guy rapes a white woman after being released on parole. Red meat because Bush rode that to the White House. And no politician ever lost a race by being 'tough' on crime. Death penalty? War on drugs...longer sentences, no treatment, etc etc.
Well, the chickens that have come home to roost are now presenting their bills, so to speak, and, MIRABILE DICTU, conservatives are discovering that! For example, the right wing goon, Cal Thomas, writes (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas111303.asp):
"After two decades of being "tough on crime" by "locking them up and throwing away the key" - to recall two of the effective political slogans of the past - the bill has come due. Many states have become incapable or unwilling to pay the cost of housing record numbers of inmates. Twenty-five states have already passed laws easing or eliminating the minimum sentencing requirements that were politically popular in the 1980s and '90s. They are also considering early parole for nonviolent, non-dangerous offenders to ease overcrowding and the cost of warehousing so many convicts....
If locking up everyone now committing crimes would eliminate crime, I'd be all for it, but new criminals are born, or made, every day. Something is wrong with the system.
If the objective of criminal laws is to reduce crime, the laws currently on the books are clearly not achieving it"
He recognizes an immutable fact conservatives ignore: it costs precisely nothing to create a criminal. But they're damn expensive to maintain.
Conservatives always like the most inefficient way of getting things done. Crime? Instead of drug treatment, conservatives love punishment. Health insurance? Well, the unemployed have no one to blame but themselves, so they get nothing. The unemployed, refusing to play the game, head for the most expensive health care imaginable: the hospital emergency room.
And, as Cal Thomas is recognizing, the conservative 'solution' neither works, nor is cost effective. The 'war on crime' has been going on for 20 years. Skyrocketing prison rates, prison after prison being built, while schools go lacking, that's the result of conservative politics and 'moral values'. But conservatives, generally, won't admit that they caused the problem, and forced the taxpayer to fund it.
