The short answer is "yes," and the longer answer is "yes, but."
At the end of World War II many survivors of The Holocaust and other Jews came to the land then known as Palestine which had been under British rule since the end of World War I in 1918. The land was largely populated by Arabs, specifically those called Palestinians. There also were minority Jewish and Christian elements of the population. The new Jewish immigrants displaced a large number of the indiginous Arabs. Radicals in both the Arab and Jewish communities fought for domination of the area. Both wanted the British out. Both indulged in terrorism. In the end the Jewish forces prevailed with the result that tens of thousands of Arabs ended up in "refugee camps" in Lebanon and Jordan. These camps existed for more than forty years after the 1947 founding of the state of Israel until the displaced Palestinians were forced out of Jordan and the Israelis destroyed the camps in Lebanon.
Long story short, the Palestinians have a good case to make for their land having been stolen, much like we stole the land of the Native Americans. That's what happens in war. Parts of pre-WWII Germany are now part of Poland. Huge hunks of historic Mexico are part of the USA. Call it conquest or call it theft, the result is the same. The land is lost and populations are displaced. Historically these situations have been adjusted to by the vanquished. Most Germans fled Prussia and Pomerania. The ancient capitol of Prussia, Konigsberg, is a Russian island to the west of The Baltic States. Mexicans, prior to the flood of refugees of the last couple of decades, either fled or submitted to their Norte Americano conquerors after the Mexican American War. The choice was to flee and start life over again elsewhere or to submit and adjust to life with the conquerors.
But the Palestinians, for the most part, have chosen neither course described above. They want their historic land back and are settling for nothing less. For sixty years they have, to their own misfortune, held to this position. In pursuit of this goal, they have been aided, abetted and enabled by the other Arab states, notably Egypt, Jordan and Syria who have seen, not without reason, the creation of the Jewish state as the return of the Christian Crusades by proxy, ergo Isreal being "the little Satan." They also did not want to have the Palestinians, who were for the most part more educated and urbane than their populations, among them.
So, yes, the Palestinians have a case to make.
They also have a choice to make. They can adjust to reality, i.e. Israel is here to stay, or they can continue to fight that reality. Clearly their leaders have chosen the latter approach.
And herein lies the "yes, but."
Yes they have an argument, but they have made disasterous choices for the last six decades. In fact, their decision making process appears to border on the insane. No matter how much the Palestinians wish it were otherwise, Israel is not going away. They can continue to beat their heads against the wall of that reality or they can make another choice.
Israel continues to offer them a way out. Israel, like a good lawyer in negotiation, continues to try to "split the baby" offering their opponnets a part of a loaf. But the Palestinians in their righteousness continue to demand the whole loaf. It was their loaf to start with and they want it back.
Someone needs to change their mind. The Israeli's either need to fold their tents and go away, or the Palestinians need to come to accept the part of the loaf they are being offered or something close to it. Short of that, the war between these two people will never end.
Yes, the Palestinians have a valid moral argument. That is all well and good. Now, what are they going to DO?
Friday, July 28, 2006
The short answer is "yes," and the longer answer is "yes, but."
Apparently, I'm a fascist and my extermist neo-conservative brethren are one gay-rights ruling away from going all Medieval on the "reality based community." At least, that's what I get from this entry at Kos:
A common characteristic among tribal groups is ethnocentrism, the belief that one's own ethnic group is superior and the standard by which to judge all others. In more extreme cases, ethnocentrism is intertwined with local supernatural mythology and ideology to produce the basis for intolerance. In these groups, the leader[s] is looked upon as someone who is magical, chosen by deities and/or endowed with decision making instincts that transcend tradition or reason. If this sounds familiar, it should; add a few more ingredients, an enemy or enemies with which to rally the members of the group and perhaps a cult-like following of believers impervious to reason, and it begins to resemble fascism.
Two examples of leaders of what some call proto-fascist subgroups within larger populations; Left: Mohammed Omar, reclusive leader of the Taliban. The Taliban is a violent subculture within a much broader, mostly peaceful Islamic population. Right courtesy Crooks and Liars: Ann Coulter is a member of the extremist neoconservative faction which exists within a larger mostly peaceful North American conservative population. Although members of either group would intensely dislike the comparison, components in both the Taliban and the neo-conservative religious right utilize similar propaganda tactics to spread a comparable ideology of authoritarian cultism, religious fundamentalism, violence, and hatred.
The opposing neoconservative faction within the larger Republican caucus views us and everyone else not as an alternative political party or a group holding a different world view. They see us and pretty much everyone as something far more dangerous, we are Them, we are The Enemy. This is the defining characteristic of a special type of tribe or gang: The Hate Group.
Our founding fathers were aware of this phenomena, and they crafted documents like the Constitution to sap these dangerous movements of the social inertia they need to gain a foothold. That might explain why there is a war against the Constitution by the neo-right; they sense either consciously or unconsciously that it prevents their movement from blossoming into full blown authoritarianism.
The phenomena emerged in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union, it cropped up in Rwanda in the mid 90s. It has stalked humanity in both mind and world since before the dawn of civilization. We may have thought we were immune to the influence of hate groups. But one very powerful gang of hate has gained a foothold on our own shores. Yes, the Tribal Hatred has finally come out, again, proud Fascist debutantes, clawing out of our collective Id, tumbling unwelcome out of the GOP closet. This mob is eager to foist their hatred on the rest of us through deception, raw power, thuggery, or the barrel of a gun. We are all at risk; atheist, Jew, homosexual, black and other minorities, media, Muslim, the ACLU, women, etc.
From the standpoint of cultural anthropology, it might be said there is a form of violent tribalism, alternatively called neoconservatism or the religious right, loose in America. So try to keep in mind, when you hear someone from the right parroting talking points that climate change is invalid or that Iraq is going swell, it's not so much an argument made from ignorance that can be corrected with information: it is a tribal chant.
I love how Darksyde gets into the very language and perspective that he assumes the right has of the Left. His discussion of the right frames us as "The Other", "the enemy", etc.
Of course, he has little evidence to support his "reality based" conclusions. I don't recall any mass, Rwandan-style genocide when the SCOTUS made their Hamdan ruling... or any other ruling for that matter. I don't seem to recall Ann pushing for the extermination of the unbelievers and the dissenters here in the US. (For those not familiar with this blog, I've got my issues with Coulter, so don't think I'm one of her cheerleaders.)
And I love the reference to the "tribal chant"... from the epicenter of tribal chants within the Moonbatosphere.
And this paragraph is just great:
Yes, the Tribal Hatred has finally come out, again, proud Fascist debutantes, clawing out of our collective Id, tumbling unwelcome out of the GOP closet. This mob is eager to foist their hatred on the rest of us through deception, raw power, thuggery, or the barrel of a gun. We are all at risk; atheist, Jew, homosexual, black and other minorities, media, Muslim, the ACLU, women, etc.Yes... That damn GOP and their immense numbers of stormtroopers, armed to the teeth. Just like that Taliban, aren't they? And yes, Coulter and those of us on the right are fascists - except for all the fascist policies to which we object. I suspect that Darksyde knows very little about true fascism - or its offshoot, National Socialism, but I won't mark that down as an incorrect argument that can be resolved through information - rather, I'll just assume it's a tribal chant.
ARC: St Wendeler
Some things are almost too depressing for words, such is the hanging of a sixteen year old girl two years ago in a public square in Iran for "crimes against chastity." I must have been asleep at the switch as I do not recall hearing or reading about this atrocity before now.
It appears the folks at the BBC (really) have produced a program about this atrocity. I agree with Michelle Malkin this should be aired in this country.
Many readers across the pond are sending good reviews of a BBC program that aired this week about Atefah Sahaaleh, a 16-year-old girl hanged in a public square in the Iranian city of Neka. Her death sentence was imposed by Islamic mullahs for "crimes against chastity." I hope there's an American station out there that will air the program here. I'm sure that feminists will join me in pressuring our media to help spread the word about this sharia-mandated barbarism.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
will be their attempt to block John Bolton's nomination process for Ambassador to the UN. Here's Christy" I'm a Moonbat and I'm okay" Hardin Smith on the subject:
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be holding hearing(s) beginning today on the formal confirmation process for John Bolton to be the US Ambassador to the UN.
What, you say? Isn’t he already our UN Ambassador? Well yes, at the moment, via a recess appointment by George Bush when the Foreign Relations Committee pretty much threw up their hands in disgust at Bolton and Bush the last time around.
But this time, the Bush Administration is counting on the mess they have made of foreign policy, the nasty conflagration between Israel and Lebanon, the Kim Jong Il North Korea get a UN Post for Free card, and a whole host of other "look over there, something shiny" issues to slip Bolton in under the radar. Mainly, I think they are just hoping that no one is watching and that they’ve worn Congress down.
Well, they would be wrong. A LOT of bloggers have been working their butts off on this issue, and I wanted to bring a round-up of some of the latest information from people who are much more experts on this subject than I am, so we can all be more informed this morning before Bolton’s testimony begins.
– StopBolton.org is a good place to start on why the Bolton nomination should be…erm..stopped.
– Steve Clemons has a great round-up post on HuffPo with lots and lots of useful links. Steve also has a piece on how the Bush Administration is pushing Jewish groups to support Bolton "with the arm-twisting innuendo that in this time of crisis in the Middle East, American Jews need to line up behind the guy Jesse Helms said ‘is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon, if it should be my lot to be on hand for what is forecast to be the final battle between good and evil in this world.’" (Am I the only one that finds it creepy to phrase things in this over-the-top-evangelical-revival-tent style to American Jewish groups?)
– Sen. Chris Dodd is promising a "bruising battle" over the Bolton nomination. (And the Bolton photo on the MSNBC website is particularly amusing as well.) Sen. Russ Feingold is also not happy with Bolton, and has raised the word filibuster, or so I hear.
When I was in college, I worked for an NGO at the UN. I’ve been in the General Assembly Hall, the Security Council Chambers and all over the building, and I’ve met a number of the people who have dedicated their lives to striving toward peaceful solutions first, a commitment to human rights for all people around our globe, and a compassion for those who are caught in the crossfire on conflict and global disaster. I have personally met two US Ambassadors to the UN, one in the George H.W. Bush years, and one in the Clinton years — and both were thoughtful, considerate, accomplished and diplomatic. (I don’t say this is a boost to me, but by way of comparison to Bolton, whose demanding and gruff personality makes Jean Kirkpatrick look cuddly.)
They've got no clue about how to pick their battles, do they?
I mean, Ambassador to the UN is about the most meaningless job in the world - and for good reason. (Unless you're a jihadist under fire, I guess...)
And if they think that the body politic in the US is going to get concerned over the fact that Bolton is a straight-shooter who doesn't pay homage to the bullshit machinations at the UN, they'll find out how wrong they are... Most voters have been clamoring for someone like Bolton in that slot for some time. If only we had someone like him there in the '90s, perhaps Saddam wouldn't have been able to starve his people and enrich himself and the French at the same time.
A couple of points about Christy. It's interesting that she actually worked for an NGO at the UN. (I'd be curious to find out which NGO, but I doubt she'll disclose that). I think it's interesting in that when she was in college and wanted to "change the world," she decided the UN would be the best place. Is she that daft?
Second, in this post she mentions her admiration for Cox & Forkum (on our blogroll since ARC's inception). I find this hard to believe, since the authors of Cox & Forkum subscribe to the political philosophy of Objectivism (aka Ayn Rand). Their editorial cartoons are great, I agree with Christy on that. But they are more often than not slamming the UN, the Dhimmitude of the Left, and liberals in particular. Yes, they often take their shots at social conservatives, but much of it is deserved.
For example, does she think this cartoon is funny?
Or this one? this?
I mean, does she not "get" these cartoons? Or does she just like laughing at the idiocy of the Left's positions?
ARC: St Wendeler
H/T to ProteinWisdom and the rabbit hole that I followed.
I mean, what is going on in this video?
It looks to me like the UN ambulances, spotting some "militant" activity in Gaza decided to patrol the area, in case they were needed. Then, when all hell breaks loose, the UN vans give the jihadists a lift.
I could understand if the guys were injured and everything, but is the UN supposed to be providing logistical support to "militants" in combat? I mean, they're jumping into the ambulance with their #@%$#ing AK-47s!
This isn't a sign that they've given up the fight and are trying to avoid casualties as they retreat from the battlefield - they're taking advantage of their buddies in the UN to redeploy them.
Just curious, but I don't think that's in the UN charter or any resolution....
ARC: St Wendeler
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Apparently Karl Rove's strategery to win the 2006 mid-terms is starting to play out. See, Karl thought it'd be a good idea to get every failed Democratic Presidential candidate to make idiotic statements in the press as the mid-terms approach, just to remind the voters why they should vote for the GOP. So, first in the lineup is Dukakis (Mondale wanted to hold off until just prior to the mid-terms, so he could have a bigger impact. Karl's actually trying to get him to run for Congress again to guarantee the defeat, like he did in '02).
H/T to Tom Maguire at JustOneMinute.
Wait a minute.... what's the unemployment rate again? We don't have a problem of people not being able to find good paying jobs. We have a problem of not having enough labor to satisy demand - which means that most jobs go for much higher than the minimum and (unethical) employers take advantage of illegals at lower wages.
If we are really serious about turning back the tide of illegal immigration, we should start by raising the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to something closer to $8. The Massachusetts legislature recently voted to raise the state minimum to $8 and California may soon set its minimum even higher. Once the minimum wage has been significantly increased, we can begin vigorously enforcing the wage law and other basic labor standards.
Millions of illegal immigrants work for minimum and even sub-minimum wages in workplaces that don’t come close to meeting health and safety standards. It is nonsense to say, as President Bush did recently, that these jobs are filled by illegal immigrants because Americans won’t do them. Before we had mass illegal immigration in this country, hotel beds were made, office floors were cleaned, restaurant dishes were washed and crops were picked — by Americans.
But if we want to reduce illegal immigration, it makes sense to reduce the abundance of extremely low-paying jobs that fuels it. If we raise the minimum wage, it’s possible some low-end jobs may be lost; but more Americans would also be willing to work in such jobs, thereby denying them to people who aren’t supposed to be here in the first place. And tough enforcement of wage rules would curtail the growth of an underground economy in which both illegal immigration and employer abuses thrive.
Raising the minimum wage and increasing enforcement would prove far more effective and less costly than either proposal currently under consideration in Congress. If Congress would only remove its blinders about the minimum wage, it may see a plan to deal effectively with illegal immigration, too.
Dukakis is a tool... If he thinks we have an illegal immigration problem when they're being paid less than the min wage, does he think they'll be less likely to come to the US for even higher wages? Or does he think that employers will be less likely to seek out illegal immigrants so they can take advantage of their status and pay them something less than $8/hr?
A guest worker program would resolve the issue, but must be combined with border security. I approach the issue purely from an economic and national security perspective and my libertarian leanings start to emerge. I realize that I part company with much of the conservative base on this issue, but damnit... it's what Karl has told me to do.
ARC: St Wendeler
Not much I can add to this other than a picture of her bust, but Blogger is having one of its periodic hissy fit, so I will have to add it later.
Thanks to The Corner at NRO:
Wednesday, July 26, 2006Hillary, Busted [Kathryn Jean
Believe me, I would not ever make this up:
Clinton’s Presidential Bust To Be Unveiled at the Museum of Sex
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-
New York, NY- July, 26 2006—- A presidential bust of Hillary Clinton is set to
be unveiled at the Museum of Sex on August 9, 2006 at 10 am. Accentuating her
sexual power and bolstered by the presidential seal, The Presidential Bust of
Hillary Rodham Clinton: The First Woman President of the United States of
America will be officially open for public viewing on August 9 for a limited six
Artist Daniel Edwards describes this new sculpture as capturing
Clinton “with her head held high, a youthful spirit and a face matured by
wisdom. Presented in a low cut gown, her cleavage is on display prominently
portraying sexual power which some people still consider too
threatening.”...Edwards’ inspiration for the piece was derived from
actress Sharon Stone’s controversial quote earlier in the year about challenges
that would most likely be encountered should the Junior Senator from New York
run on the ’08 ticket. “I think Hillary Clinton is fantastic,” Stone said. “But
I think it is too soon for her to run. This may sound odd but a woman should be
past her sexuality when she runs. Hillary still has sexual power and I don’t
think people will accept that. It’s too threatening.”
“Displaying a sculpture to encourage discourse about the sexual power debate surrounding the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency is very much in line with our mission as a museum,” noted Daniel Gluck, Executive Director. “We are wholly dedicated to the exploration of the history, evolution and cultural significance of human sexuality. Historically, leaders are often expected to possess an exceptional amount of virility or fertility with displays of that sexual power often tied to their success. The artist’s portrayal of Hillary Clinton as a president who also
happens to be a sexual being conveys the message that a woman need not squelch her sexuality in order to succeed as leader of the free world.”
Posted at 12:32 PM
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Sorry for not contributing as much as my colleagues in the past few weeks. Been getting ready for a trip with the plane to the best fly-in/airshow/gathering in the world.
EAA Airventure Oshkosh 2006!
I'm bringing my laptop, so if Internet access can be found someplace on the show grounds, or in the dorms, I'll be posting as much as my tired body, and limited battery life will allow.
For those following along....
Flight plan reads like this
IFR 1H0 STL SPI PIA BDF PLL RFD KRFD
VFR KRFD RIPON FISK KOSH
Monday, July 24, 2006
I understand that Wexler, like most political geeks, isn't up to speed on popular culture and The Colbert Report in particular, but he should know better:
[...]And I'm not criticizing Wexler for doing the show.... that's a great decision, since it'll reach an audience that probably doesn't know him. But to repeat the cocaine & prostitute statements just shows that Rep Wexler isn't all that bright.
Throughout the taping, Wexler — like all of Colbert's subjects — was forced into the role of straight man. Asked about the show Friday, the normally exuberant Wexler seemed a bit subdued after watching it Thursday night.
"I had never seen the show," he said. "Many of the people in the office love the show, and they said it would be fantastic."
His verdict? "Not my cup of tea."
Which really is the point of Colbert's recurring segment on congressional districts — making a member of Congress uncomfortable. When Orlando Republican John Mica appeared, Colbert asked whether he had trouble getting his rumored toupee through airport security. Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank, who is gay, reportedly was seething after Colbert asked him what it was like to be "an openly left-handed" American.
So as Wexler sat watching the show with his 17-year-old daughter and 13-year-old son, he cringed. At one point, Colbert asked Wexler about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Colbert: "Should we drill in ANWR?"
Wexler: "No, no."
C: "So caribou are more important than my SUV?"
W: "No, no."
C: "That's what you just said."
W: "What's most important is that your SUV be required to have better efficiency in the future."
C: "What if I could make it run on caribou meat? Would you be in favor of that?"
W: "On caribou meat?"
C: "Or hide — it doesn't matter — or bone?"
W: "Probably not."
Then, because Wexler has no opponent this year, Colbert — saying "this is just kidding" — egged him on to "say a few things that would really lose the election for you if you were contested." Colbert neatly hemmed him in by telling him to complete this sentence: "I enjoy cocaine because... "
And for Comedy Central, here's the money shot: Wexler squirming but looking straight ahead and playing along by saying, "I enjoy cocaine because it's a fun thing to do." Followed by, again at Colbert's suggestion: "I enjoy the company of prostitutes for the following reasons because it's a fun thing to do. If you combine the two together, it's probably even more fun."
Colbert wrapped up soon after, joking "there is no amount of damage control" that Wexler would be able to do now.
What a dork...
ARC: St Wendeler
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Is apparently a core feature regardless of the situation or geography. The latest example comes from Israel, where the Left is calling for negotiations with Hamas and Hizbollah (I kid you not):
Tel Aviv: Thousands rally against war
Thousands march in Tel Aviv to protest Lebanon fighting, call on soldiers to refuse taking part in war. Clashes with passersby erupt during event, activists called 'traitors'
Thousands of left-wing activists, including many Arab citizens, marched Saturday evening from the Rabin Square to the Cinematheque plaza in Tel Aviv in protest of the fighting in Lebanon. The protestors held up signs with slogans against the war and called for an immediate ceasefire.
According to the demonstrators, a prisoner exchange deal with Hizbullah must be struck, as well as a similar deal with Hamas. Marchers also urged IDF soldiers not to take part in the Lebanon operation, chanting: "Listen up, soldier – it's your duty to refuse." Other slogans recited by the participants were: "The occupation is a disaster, leave Lebanon now," "Olmert and Bush have struck a deal – to carry on with the occupation," and "Children in Beirut and Haifa want to go on living."
Anti-war march in Tel Aviv. Soldiers called on to refuse (Photo: Eli Elgarat)
The activists, among them Knesset Member Mohammad Barakeh (Hadash) and other Arab MKs, waved a Palestinian flag as well as red flags adorned with the communist hammer and sickle symbol. Signs with the motto "Peace Now" were also raised in the rally, but the organization stressed it did not take part in the event.
I can't wait until the Jewish population in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran voices their opinions about stopping the violence to their respective governments... oh, wait...
But, what is it about the statist/communist Left worldwide that is willing to submit to the violence of their enemies, as long as they get increased public funding for education and healthcare?
For more examples of this dhimmitude, check out Gateway Pundit's coverage of protests in New York (where I'll be heading this evening, oh boy!!) and London (where George Galloway said: "Hizbollah is not a terrorist group and I am here to glorify the Lebanese resistance movement."
(I seem to recall Christopher Hitchens warning the crowd during his debate with Galloway that (paraprhasing) "you have no idea who you're cheering for and in 10 years you will regret doing so."
Meanwhile, the Israeli military is activating its reserves (against the cries of the Israeli (Jewish & Arab) Left) and preparing for what may be the final blow against Hezbollah.
ARC: St Wendeler