Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/14/2003 09:56:00 AM (Archive Link)
"Why Don't the Husseins Call Anymore?"

We got 'im!

Osama... where are you?!

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/12/2003 12:34:00 AM (Archive Link)
You Don’t Like My Art? Fine! Just Give Me Your Money And I’ll Go!

Artist Charles Bowden has decided that he’s upset his prize was taken away. You see, a drawing of his won second place in a Eureka, CA, art contest which meant that Bowden in turn was to receive a $300 gift certificate. The business owner sponsoring said prize, however, withdrew the award. The reason: Bowden’s art drawing in question, “The Tactics of Tyrants Are Always Transparent,” featured a “crown and halo-topped Bush stand[ing] on a grave, his hand dripping with blood as bodies fall to the ground from the World Trade Center towers in the distance.” In other words, it supported the vicious and deplorable theory that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand and did nothing, or even worse, was himself involved. The proprietor who withdrew the award, Paul Bareis, doesn’t agree with such views and refused to support them. Seems fair enough so far, but let’s see Bowden’s side.

“They shouldn't call it [the art show] `open to art. They should call it, ‘open to Republican art’ or ‘open to closed-minded art.’… For local business owners to try to stagnate artistic expression according to their political interpretation of how life should be is not such a good idea.”

Ah yes… the old canard about free speech and free expression. People should be able to say whatever they want and never experience ANY negative consequences from it. Artists should be able to produce whatever they want, declare it “art,” and never be subject to any real criticism about the content, quality, or actuality of said art, with the possible exception of the truly informed professional critic. (Although, nowadays the professional modern art critic tends to use the following as his or her criteria: A) if it’s so confusing or bizarre that neither I nor any normal person can possibly glean any meaning from it beyond what I’ve made up or what the artist told me in his notes, then it’s really, really good, B) if it’s shocking, disgusting, outrageous and violates a variety of social norms, mores, morals, religious values, and common decency, then it’s great, and C) if it possesses the qualities of both A and B, then it’s a frickin’ masterpiece.) Back to the point, though, normal people aren’t allowed to question art, especially from moral, religious, or political perspectives. To do so is to repress artistic freedom or to stagnate it, etc., as if we’re always one step away from the hoi polloi stoning artists. That and artists are part of some sort of protected class as if their brilliance somehow transcends the knowledge and understanding of the rest of us mere mortals. Bowden obviously feels that Bareis should have coughed up his money and kept his mouth shut about the sort of art he was rewarding/funding. However, as Mr. Bareis said, “Freedom of speech is not a one-way street. A person has a right to paint what they want, and I have the right to not fund hate speech. I didn't want my business associated with someone's political thought.” That gets to the heart of the matter. Just because Bowden produces something and calls it art, it doesn’t make him immune to criticism or from the consequences of said art. Mr. Bareis, being a private entity, is well within his rights not to fund something he finds offensive. That’s not limiting Bowden’s right to free speech… he’s still free to produce whatever images he wants. It just means he won’t be getting Bareis’s money when he does it and that’s Bareis’s free speech in action. And quite honestly, one gets the feeling that Bareis’s free speech in the form of money is more important to Bowden than Bowden’s free speech in form of bad art is to Bareis.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/12/2003 12:33:00 AM (Archive Link)
The Artful Blader

The above reminds me of a time in Austin, TX, almost six years ago. I was walking down the main street with all the book stores and such across from UT-Austin when this odd-looking on rollerblades rolled right up to me, gave me a small magazine with pictures of all sorts of modern art-ish looking thing and proceeded to discuss art with me. She was representing an art commune on the outskirts of the city (yes, this is in Texas… Austin is a very strange city and probably the least “Texan” of the many places I’ve visited in the state) and they were having a public show the following weekend. She rattled on about how significant the pieces were and how they all made points because in her view all art had to make a point, whether it be political, moral, or what have you. No art for art’s sake here. I was polite and engaged her in a little conversation, declined the invitation since I wasn’t going to be in town at the time of the show (not that I would have gone anyway), but wished her luck all the same. Then she asked for $5 for the magazine. This took me by surprise since it appeared the paper itself was more valuable than its content. I refused and handed it back to her at which point her demeanor became considerably less friendly and she rolled on. Perhaps she blamed me for repressing artistic expression, but my monetary expression simply wasn’t interested.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/07/2003 10:59:00 PM (Archive Link)
The Circle Of PeTA Life

This article helps describe why PETA is at best a fringe group. It discusses a billboard they erected in Rhode Island (which has the highest percentage of Catholics in the nation) that has the Virgin Mary holding a dead chicken with the words, “Go Vegetarian. It’s an Immaculate Conception.” In fact, you can also currently see it on their website’s main page. Just in time for Christmas!

They’re always up to fun little tricks and comparison like this. Not too long ago, they compared factory animal farms to the Holocaust. Of course, the comparisons are always invalid and specious and almost always deeply offensive. The point of these campaigns, though, isn’t to convert large numbers of the public over to their philosophy or even to create sympathy; it’s hard to appeal to large segments of the population when said segments are disgusted by your message. No, the main purpose is to turn those who already lean their way into ardent believers, or even better, activists. Because each time they pull one of these stunts, the public outrage inevitably results in free publicity in the form of media coverage. Then their message reaches a wide audience and in that audience is a very small percentage who see the ads and think, “Yeah… livestock farms and slaughterhouses are exactly like the Holocaust! It makes perfect sense!”

You see, while PETA’s comparisons are invalid to normal people, they’re not to the extreme PETA folk who create them. And so the end result of their ad campaigns is to attract other extremists who also believe in the invalid comparisons. So while PETA may claim that they want to make a big impact on society’s attitudes towards animals, it doesn’t really happen. Since the organization is largely made up of fanatics (have you ever heard of the moderate wing of PETA or moderate PETA tactics?), they create fanatical ideas and ads that only succeed in bringing other fellow fanatics into their fold. Thus the circle completes itself and continues on.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/07/2003 10:57:00 PM (Archive Link)
All the Non-News That's Fit to Print

This article is a little old, but interesting nonetheless. Reuters reported last November that 26 House members were introducing a resolution urging President Bush to fire Rumsfeld. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) trumpeted that he had 25 co-sponsors for the bill and the reporting makes it seem like this is a big deal. However, keep in mind that there are 435 members in the House of Representatives. 26 members make up just 6% of the total which is pretty minuscule. Add this to the fact that the resolution in question will never come up for a vote and even if it had, obviously wouldn’t have passed, and what we have here is a time-wasting non-story about a non-event. There is no significance at all to this proposed resolution. It’s just another way for a few disgruntled liberals to remind everybody how little they like Bush and Cabinet. It’s nice of Reuters, though, to report on this meaningless minutiae and give Rangel a little bit of publicity since that’s all he was looking for anyway.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/04/2003 09:25:00 PM (Archive Link)
A few days ago in Cincinnati, a 350 pound black man who had various weight-related ailments and who was high on cocaine and PCP at the time died after a brief but violent struggle with police. During the altercation, Nathaniel Jones attempted to grab the nightsticks and pistols of the six officers (five of whom were white, one black) wrestling with him. After pummeling the drug-strength-enhanced Jones (who, keep in mind, possessed one third the weight of the other six men combined) with their nightsticks, the police were finally able to subdue him. The combination of his enlarged heart, the drugs, and the exertion, however, soon caused cardiac failure and he died. This is all on videotape.

Predictably, the civil rights community is all a twitter about how an African-American died in police custody and how the police attacked him with nightsticks, etc., etc. Here are the facts: Jones was severely obese and weighed almost as much as two normal men combined; his weight problems led to health issues such as his enlarged heart; he was high on illegal narcotics at the time, one of which was PCP which gives the user unusual strength—my wife once witnessed an incident where a scrawny 150 lbs PCP using perp had to be wrestled to the ground by seven officers; he attacked the first two officers at the scene and the next four that arrived and attempted to grab the officers’ weapons; the officers acted in self-defense and the coroner’s report specifically indicated that no blows landed around Jones’s head and no force was transferred to his internal organs; he died because the exertion exacerbated his health problems.

Now this man is not Martin Luther King, he is not Medgar Evers, he is not Emmett Till. However, you certainly wouldn’t know it by listening to some folks. There was a community meeting about it, the family is demanding an independent investigation, community leaders are calling for the Cincinnati police chief to resign, the FBI and Justice Department are looking into it, and you can be sure that it’s only a matter of time before Jesse Jackson and/or Al Sharpton make their obligatory photo op appearance. This is a running irritation. The civil rights community has a very bad habit of choosing very bad people as their poster boys of racial injustice. Instead of maybe using a worthwhile case, if there is one, they pick up on a drug-addled fat man whose heart gave out after the police used justified and judicious self-defense. It was a year or two ago that they rallied around a man killed in a police shootout after carjacking a vehicle, leading police on a high-speed chase and shooting at them. Before that, Jesse Jackson championed the cause of black youths up north who were expelled from school after getting in a fight and a variety of other offenses. It’s a case of learning to pick your battles and these ain’t them. These examples attract the support only of those who perceive racism all around them and who buy into the self-destructive and self-defeating ideology Jackson’s ilk has been peddling for years. Everybody else looks at the incidents and shrugs. The tend to sympathize more with the fellow , not the criminals who prey on them.

The problem, though, is that truly worthy instances of such injustice with truly worthy victims are hard to come by nowadays. You don’t have many Rodney Kings or Emmett Tills or James Byrds, so the civil rights leaders must grab at whatever they can find in order to keep up the perpetual image of society holding down and punishing the black man. And so they come to support men like Nathaniel Jones. And every time they do so, though they may succeed in blackmailing government concessions, they only weaken their moral cause in the public eye and look all the more foolish for it. Shame on them, woe to those who follow them, and pity those who don’t but are involuntarily spoken for by them anyway.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/17/2003 05:02:00 PM (Archive Link)
You probably knew that, Al Franken, that terribly clever guy, came out with his book, “Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them – A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right,” a couple of months ago. But did you know that it had comics in it as well? Yes, for the semi-literate in Al’s constituency or for those readers who can’t stomach a book without pictures, there are short comic strips in the book. You can find one of them here; it’s the story of Supply Side Jesus. It argues several different things. Among them that supply side theory is wrong (not that it doesn’t do what it claims to, but that it’s immoral; see pages 1-4), that conservatives are against helping the poor and sick (pages 4-6), that work ethic is wrong (pages 4 and 6), and that Christian evangelists and Christians in general are money-grubbing hypocrites (page 7). So let’s look at these one by one.

Interestingly, even though the strip repeatedly criticizes supply side theory that putting more money in the hands of consumers instead of the government increases the overall economy and betters everybody’s financial situation, it never says anything that would lead you to believe it doesn’t work. In fact, it pretty much admits that it does indeed work. Through consumer spending, people in the comic got jobs, average income went up, and social mobility increased. And the only thing Franken can say against this is that supply siders are “hucksters.” Uh-huh… great retort. It’s a little difficult to be a mere huckster when such easily measurable improvements are actually borne out by the theory. And if supply-siders are just selling snake oil, how can you criticize them when the snake oil is working and doing exactly what it was claimed to do?

Franken also portrays conservatives as not wanting the help the sick and poor. Supply Side Jesus refuses to feed the lepers because that would make them lazy and he refuses to heal them because that would exonerate them from their own personal responsibility. This also relates to the Christian hypocrisy claim. Nobody ever claimed there isn’t a place for helping the less fortunate in society. However, the government shouldn’t be involved in it. And that’s the big disconnect here. Franken wants the government to dole out all the money in a more socialized system. Conservatives think welfare should be in the realm of private charities that are far more responsive to the poor’s needs and are vastly more efficient than government bureaucracies.

The point that a good work ethic is bad is probably the most surprising. Franken again alludes that the rich are just hucksters. Never mind that they likely put in a great deal of honest effort to get where they are. No, instead everybody should be entitled to the exact same stuff. It doesn’t exactly work out that way and nor should it.

The last criticism about some Christian evangelists is probably the only one that has a little bit of truth to it. And when I use that term, I’m referring to a few select ministers of gigantic churches. They actually do have policies where those who donate a lot of money to their ministries get special treatment and special access to the preacher himself. That’s wrong in many different ways and can unfairly color what may be an otherwise upstanding organization. You get no special treatment from God for having more money and a church should be equally blind to it.

Now as for Christians in general, they should adhere to a gospel of good works, compassion, and generosity. Again, though, this is a matter for private entities to engage, not the government. Liberals like to use this as a guilt trip against Christians if they oppose a growing welfare state. They’re criticized for not wanting to help the poor when this is what Jesus commanded. Now me, I’m all for helping the poor and downtrodden and that’s exactly why I don’t want the government involved. Under the current system, my money is involuntarily taken away from me and used to fund programs that are unresponsive, ineffective, and eye-poppingly inefficient. Scant little of what I put into the system actually makes it to the people who need it. Since modern welfare is run by the government, then it’s a bureaucratic monopolistic colossus that faces no competition, no threat of being dissolved, and is guaranteed an almost unlimited supply of income whenever it needs it. Under those conditions, the majority of the money it receives is eaten up in administrative overhead. I’d far prefer to take that same money and give it to organizations that will use it wisely and efficiently. Yes, absolutely, the poor should be helped, but Jesus said give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and give unto God what it God’s. Under the liberal notion, we should give everything to Caesar and let him sort it out.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/18/2003 12:11:00 AM (Archive Link)
Slaying Hydra, Diverting Rivers, Punching Holes in Paper and Other Feats of Hercules

So the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals out in beautiful San Francisco has decided that the recall should be postponed because up to 40,000 voters could be disenfranchised. More specifically, 40,000 minority voters may not be properly counted because of the whole punch card ballot issue. This has got to be one of the most patronizing things ever. Right now, pick up a pen, pencil, or some other similarly shaped item. Now hold said item in your hand with the pointy end away from you and slowly yet purposely thrust it away from you as if you were gently poking somebody with it. The ACLU is essentially saying minority voters are unable to sufficiently carry out this motion when it comes to punch card ballots. If I were a California minority, I’d be fairly insulted.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/18/2003 12:10:00 AM (Archive Link)
Clinton Speaks!

We haven’t had a Clinton item in a while (or any other item), so let’s lead off with that. He was speaking at Tom Harkin’s annual steak fry in Iowa this past weekend (whaddya wanna bet they also had veggie burgers?). The article doesn’t give his entire speech but it does provide some juicy quotes.

Among them: “Don't tell me about class warfare. I'm all for wealth and business. I just think we all ought to go up together.” Funny… the median income has been on the rise for a long time. Doesn’t that mean we are going up together? Likely what he means is that we’re not all going up at the same rate. There’s that whole meaningless rich-poor gap… the rich are getting richer at a faster pace than the poor are getting richer. Who cares? The poor’s standard of living is still going up all the time. That reminds me of a story that Dinesh D’Souza relates in his book, What’s So Great About America (it’s a statement, not a question). Back in the 80’s, CBS aired a program that was meant as a smear on President Reagan and his economic policies. It visited all these lower class folks and showed the tough times they were having. The Soviets picked up on this and decided to broadcast the program in Russia as their own smear on Reagan and America. Problem is, it backfired. All these people who were destitute under the Soviet regime watched the show and were amazed by it… even some of America’s poorest people had refrigerators, microwaves, color TV’s, their own cars! If the smear program were to be redone today (and it just might be), you could probably include computers and mobile phones on that list. How truly awful. Sure, there are less fortunate people in the U.S. Always will be. The point is that they’re a helluva lot more fortunate than people elsewhere and are becoming more fortunate all the time. Just because they don’t have wide-screen plasma TV’s doesn’t mean we need drastic government intervention.

“I never had a nickel until I left the White House.” Poor Bill. It must have been rough living off of taxpayers for 20 years. What with the chauffeurs, and the helicopters, and the mansions, and the staff that takes care of all your wants and needs… some staff members providing for different needs and wants, of course. The true heart bleeds for him.

“What's the sacrifice that's being asked of people who make more than $1 million a year? It's the energy they have to expend opening the envelopes containing their tax cuts.” That and that they’re still in the highest tax bracket and are providing for the bulk of the federal budget every year. This quote also makes it seems like millionaires are the only people who benefited from the tax cuts. Here are some figures for you. The top 10% of America’s earners pay 62.4% of the taxes. In order to qualify for the top 10%, you need to have a yearly income of just $75,000 to $80,000. A nice income, yes, but most wouldn’t call such people “rich.” If you do want to talk about just the “rich,” though, how’s this: the top 1% pay 32% of the taxes. 32%! That’s an incredibly disproportionate figure. Seems to me they’re still being asked to sacrifice a lot more than envelope-opening energy. [source: Paul Craig Roberts, “Declining Power of Truth,” Investor’s Business Daily (March 15, 1999)]

“Instead of uniting the world, we alienated it. Instead of uniting the country, he [Bush] alienated it.” To a degree, yes. However, that doesn’t mean we were wrong in alienating some Europeans. Perhaps, the Frenchies were wrong for being put out by our desire to not get unexpectedly bombed. As for the country, the folks who are alienated would have been alienated if Bush had become Clinton II. Just the fact that he’s a Republican is off-putting to them.

“The American people, not 5 percent of them know they gave me a tax cut and then kicked children out of after-school programs. They are not putting those things together. All we have to do is make it clear what our differences are.” Nobody got kicked out of anything because of the tax cuts. Unfortunately, spending drastically needs to be cut in Washington. The problem with creating any new agency, or program, or any new line of funding within a government or bureaucracy is that once it’s created, it’s almost impossible to reduce or especially eliminate. The big reason for that is once it’s created, the main mission of its supporters or directors is not to carry out the mission for which it’s intended. Instead, the main mission is self-perpetuation despite problems with effectiveness or efficiency. The other issue with this Clinton-quote is that he says most Americans just don’t understand the seriousness of the cuts, therefore it’s up to Democrats “to make it clear what our differences are.” This is surely selling Americans short. We’re too stupid to get it so we need the Dems to ‘splain it to us. Gosh, thanks Bill. Could it be that we, the majority, simply don’t agree with the Democrat line of thinking? That we agree with tax cuts and think they’re a good thing? That we think government should cut useless spending to bring down deficits as opposed to raising taxes to pay for said useless spending? Nah, that couldn’t be it.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/18/2003 12:10:00 AM (Archive Link)
10 Questions for Madeline Albright

Time magazine often has a piece in which they ask a notable ten questions… not nine, not eleven, but ten. Ten often silly questions with no follow-up. Maddy was no different. First read the actual article and then come back here and let me you give you the real meat of what her answers were.

Question 1: About the score settling.
Answer: I’d rather settle scores with the Bush administration.

Question 2: Did Clinton neglect the Al Qaeda threat?
Answer: No. Ok, kinda. Alright, yes. I mean, we just threw a few missiles around. Bush hasn’t found bin Laden with 8,000 troops, so we sure as heckfire didn’t come close.

Question 3: Should we have invaded Iraq?
Answer: Yes, we really should have. Did I say that? Uhhh… maybe we shouldn’t have. Hold on a second.
C:\>defaultanswer.exe
I’d have to give the default answer that the whole thing has been mishandled.
C:\>

Question 4: Has the war made terrorism better or worse?
Answer: I’m going to lie and say the administration immediately tied Saddam to 9/11 even though every single official has taken great pains never to make such a claim. Ties to terrorism and Al Qaeda, yes, but not to 9/11 specifically. Aside from that, they said Iraq was a hotbed of terrorism. That’s not the way I saw it but I don’t feel compelled to tell you why. Now it really is a breeding ground for terrorists since that swell Saddam is gone. [Breeding ground, no. Bug zapper, yes]

Question 5: What should the U.S. do next?
Answer: Frankly, if there were a President Gore, we wouldn’t be in this particular mess. We’d be in a wholly different and far worse mess bordering on being screwed. But now that we’re here, we can’t fail. Let’s stay in control in Iraq but let the UN mess things up through leeching the country and through bureaucratic mismanagement.

Question 6: Bush started out as “Anything But Clinton” but now is closer to your approach because he wants the UN’s help administering aid in Iraq. That’s it. So everything is so Clinton. Do you ever gloat?
Answer: No, I’m much too kind and generous a person. Tee-hee. Wink, wink.

Question 7: Has Bush been right to sideline Arafat?
Answer: Arafat’s a bad man. He’s not a force for good which means that he must be a force for evil. So Bush was obviously wrong to sideline a bad man who’s a force for evil when it comes to peace settlements.

Question 8: Is Sharon a big obstacle to peace?
Answer: Yes. Really, though, it’s all up to the U.S. to make sure everything happens properly in Israel. It’s all our responsibility. Since things aren’t happening properly, that means it’s our fault. No, it’s the administration’s fault. Hey, look at me! I was able to get in another dig on Bush.

Question 9: What was it like being a female Sec. of State?
Answer: I made a lot of friends. Summer camp at the UN was great. Oh, and I brought up women’s issues. Didn’t really accomplish anything, though.

Question 10: What about those pins, Maddy?!
Answer: Thanks for a question for a question that has even more fluff than the last one! I gots lots. We traded them at the UN summer camp.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/08/2003 12:27:00 PM (Archive Link)
This is a complete and utter aside from the usual, but I found it extremely funny. My cat is having digestive troubles so I put a search into Google. This was one of the results. Note item number 1. I guess you really can find anything on eBay.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/30/2003 07:06:00 PM (Archive Link)
This past Tuesday, Hillary Clinton chastised the EPA for, as she claims, declaring the air around New York ok after September 11th when it really wasn't. Furthermore, she says that the supposed lie was the result of a coverup that came straight from the White House. To quote, "I know a little bit about how White Houses work. I know somebody picked up a phone, somebody got on a computer, somebody sent an e-mail, somebody called for a meeting, somebody in that White House probably under instructions from somebody further up the chain told the E.P.A.: 'Don't tell the people of New York the truth.' And I want to know who that is." The interesting thing to keep in mind is that she doesn't actually know how White Houses, plural, work. She knows how one White House worked. And if this is what she assumes happened after 9/11, then we now have a pretty good idea of how the Clinton White House did, in fact, operate.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/27/2003 06:23:00 PM (Archive Link)
Once upon a time, there was a boy who wasn’t really a boy. Oh sure, he looked like a boy on the outside, but on the inside he was really a girl. So he asked his fairy godmother to change him and it was so. Now he’s a she, people talk about her not him, and everything that was his is now hers (well… not EVERYTHING). Such is the story of James/Jennifer Boylan.

I have some definite qualms about the whole concept of “gender reassignment.” It seems like one of those areas where man just wasn’t meant to meddle. Even the term sounds arrogant. Nature assigned one gender but obviously got it wrong, so it’s now up to us to reassign it. Aside from that issue, though, the other troubling aspect is the effect it has on the gender-confused’s loved ones. They have to deal with some very difficult issues brought on by one person’s selfish desire to be something or have something they currently are not or have not. It follows along the same lines as men leaving their families to “find themselves,” to pursue other women, to pursue other men, or to pursue some idiotic single lifestyle that properly belongs in the fantasies of 20-year-olds. So that Boylan could feel fulfilled, he created a strange new reality for those around him. He has 7 and 9 year old sons who are reportedly dealing with the situation just fine. That likely belies the truth and does little to convey how things will go as their childhood progresses and they have to explain to other kids why their father has breasts.

Our culture has gone off the deep end in making sure that everybody is true to themselves and achieves a transcendental state of doing whatever they think is their pure purpose in life. Should people pursue such things? Sure, but only to whatever extent their current circumstances allow. If you can’t do what you seem to feel is your higher purpose in life because you’re married with kids, you don’t get a divorce and leave the children. You made other decisions earlier in life and those decisions have consequences. One of the best descriptions of being an adult is doing what you don’t want to do. It means that you have commitments and obligations to honor that supercede your own personal desires. It means looking beyond your self.

Finally, if you do decide to buck what you are supposed to be doing in order to do what you would rather be doing, at least don’t make the new set of circumstances you’ve created into something neutral. Referring to himself and his wife, Boylan says, “We're two pretty average people thrown into remarkable circumstances and we're just making it up as we go along, trying to do the best we can.” It’s as if he was walking down the street, a piano fell on him, and when he crawled out from under the wreckage, he was miraculously a woman. They were not thrown into remarkable circumstances by circumstance itself, they were thrust there by Boylan’s decision to change his whole persona. Try to be accountable for your actions.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/27/2003 06:22:00 PM (Archive Link)
I hesitate to bring this up, but if you’ve never heard or seen the Star Wars Kid, you should look him up. The poor portly guy was caught on tape doing what just about every male adolescent has surreptitiously done since Star Wars came out in 1977… he was imitating a light saber battle. More specifically, he was pretending to be Darth Maul from Episode I. He’s the ugly guy with the double light saber staff thing. Our good SWK, though, was using a golf ball retriever and, well, when you see his skills, it’s obvious that the Force is not strong in this one.

When you watch the original video, it’s funny but you also kinda feel sorry for him. He is, in fact, suing the kids who found his tape and uploaded it the web. However, when you look at the editing that people have done with him, it’s just the funniest thing out there. You can find some of the clips here and here. I think the Dork Clones edit is my favorite.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/19/2003 11:12:00 PM (Archive Link)
Not surprisingly, Iraq has become a hotbed of activity for Al Qaeda terrorists. They’re flowing into the country from other places in the region because, well, that’s where the Americans are. Most people will see this as a very bad thing because it may mean more American military casualties and in this respect they are right. However, it’s also very advantageous for us. Whereas these terrorists were previously spread all over the Middle East (and possibly beyond) they are now predominately located in one place. Instead of us having to go to a number of different countries, which would not have been practical for a number of reasons, to root out the slime, they have conveniently come to us in a place where we have the best resources available for eliminating them. And despite recent appearances, they do not have the upper hand.

Though in the last several days the terrorists have perpetrated a number of attacks on waterlines, oil pipelines, and bombing attacks on embassies and the UN headquarters in Iraq, this will eventually work against them. These militants are able to stay and thrive in Iraq only under the good graces of its inhabitants. The problem with committing terrorist attacks against American targets abroad is that they always wind up killing far more natives than Americans and they do more damage to the native infrastructure, economy, psyche, etc. In the case of Iraq, they’re hurting the very folks on whom they depend. Before long, these very same folks are going to get fed up with the jihadists disrupting their lives and stalling improvements. It is difficult to blame American occupiers for a burst waterline when you were the one who blew the dang thing up. So the good, hard-working Iraqis will start turning on the terrorists in their midst either directly by doing some undercover snuffing or indirectly by ratting them out to American forces. Al Qaeda is making a grave error by sabotaging Iraq itself.

So it is really rather ironic that these terrorists have come to Iraq in order to hunt Americans when they will very quickly become the hunted. It is also ironic that in seeking to further their almighty jihad against America, they will in effect weaken it by coming to the best place for us to combat them. It’s quite likely that American planners and policy-makers realized this sort of thing would happen and are now maneuvering to take advantage of the situation. Let’s hope they do.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/12/2003 11:28:00 PM (Archive Link)
Thankfully, there are those in the black community who are working against the extortion racket run by Jesse Jackson. This is sorely needed. There are plenty of folks who have seen past Jesse's mafia mentality, but a scant few of them have been prominent black leaders. Since they're the only people who have any credibility in arguing against Jackson, that's a shame.

Here's the good part, though:

"'Balking at the word “shakedown,' Walters said, 'This goes all the way back to the civil rights movement -- it’s an exchange we are talking about. You invest in our community and we will continue to see you as a partner.'"

This is, of course, quite different, from saying, "You invest in our organization and we will continue to protect your store."

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/12/2003 10:51:00 PM (Archive Link)
One has to wonder why Fox News ever decided to sue Al Franken over the title of his book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. Granted, Fox has a right to sue over it. However, nothing short of the pope's personal endorsement could have given this book better publicity. This likely lame tome was sure to suffer in relative obscurity or at least to bad sales. Now everybody knows about it and the folks who think Franken produces intelligent and/or humorous comentary (he does neither) will buy it up. Good move, Murdoch.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/09/2003 01:10:00 AM (Archive Link)
I’m a little backed up so this article is actually from a while ago. It concerns John Kerry’s views on whom he would support as a Supreme Court nominee… or any other judicial spot, for that matter. While he says he doesn’t “believe in litmus tests,” he also says he’ll filibuster any nominee who is anti-abortion. Uh-huh. Maybe somebody should fill him in on what the term, “litmus test” means, politically speaking.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/09/2003 01:09:00 AM (Archive Link)
This article is from early July. You have to get about 2/3 of the way down before you get to the really entertaining part. There’s a big brouhaha going on right now in Texas politics. The legislature is supposed to redraw the Congressional district map based upon the latest census data, but it isn’t going so well. The Democrats are up in arms about the map that the Republican ted congress has come up with. They’re accusing the Republicans of gerrymandering when really they’re just upset that the new map would eliminate the gerrymandering they committed after the 1990 census when they had control of congress. In Texas, all the statewide offices are held by Republicans, yet Democrats hold a disproportionate share of the U.S. Congressional seats. It makes sense that’s something’s amiss.

The whole mess has resulted in some truly childish behavior on the part of the Democrats. First, the Democratic representatives in the House skipped town… skipped the entire state… and hung out in Oklahoma so that they could prevent a quorum. Eventually they came back to their jobs. Ok, here’s that entertaining part. It occurred when the map’s sponsor, Rep. Phil King took the floor.

“As King began his argument for the new congressional boundaries Monday afternoon, about 30 Democrats in the gallery donned white socks as hand puppets to mock King. Every time he spoke, the little white mouths flapped.”

Good heavens. These are grown men and women. s. Elected representatives. Officials of the state. Supposedly mature and responsible individuals. And here they are, mocking a man with sock puppets. Ms. Lambchop Goes To Washington? Or Austin, as the case may be? Honestly… this just goes beyond absurd. These people should be impeached just for being colossal idiots. Of course, if that were a qualification for impeachment, we wouldn’t have much of a government left.

The Democrats’ games don’t stop there, however. Currently, the Senate Democrats are AWOL in Albuquerque, New Mexico, playing the same tricks as their twits-in-arms in the House. They don’t want to act on the new district map so they’ve just decided to leave and not do their jobs. I wish I could do that

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/09/2003 01:04:00 AM (Archive Link)
If you’ve never heard of the Flat Earth Society, do take a look. I still haven’t figured out if this is a big put-on of if there really are folks out there who believe in it. I’m pretty sure it’s the former. Nevertheless, it’s still very funny. The absolute best part is this from their FAQ:

“20. Does Idaho exist?
No. The existence of Idaho is a lie, fabricated by a conspiracy of cartographers, as is England (see question 10).

21. What about North Dakota?
That doesn't exist either.”

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/09/2003 01:03:00 AM (Archive Link)
You have to check out this article in Middle Eastern Quarterly. It’s written by a former “peace” activist who was part of a group that opposed the war in Iraq. It’s fascinating reading as he recounts how blissfully ignorant are the people in the anti-war movement and how they suppressed any details of Iraqi misdeeds in order to preserve their access to the country. The account is long, but definitely worth it

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/09/2003 01:02:00 AM (Archive Link)
You gotta love North Korean saber rattling. They recently warned the U.S. to keep their little nuclear issue away from the UN. Specifically, they said, “The U.S. intention to bring up the nuclear issue on the peninsula for the discussion at the U.N. at any cost is a grave criminal act to hamstring all the efforts of [North Korea] for dialogue and escalate the tensions on the peninsula. Any move to discuss the nuclear issue at the UNSC is little short of a prelude to war.” Of course, taking this to the UN would be no reasonable call for war. However, NK wants to keep the UN out of the picture and so it threatens the U.S. with war.

You would need a calculator to keep track of how many times Kim Jong-Il’s folks have threatened us with war for some reason or another. They always do it because it’s the one and only card they have. They have zero political and economic leverage on the U.S. The only thing they can do to get our attention is to use that one bargaining piece, the threat of war. It’s starting to get ridiculous, though. It brings up images of a crotchety old man laying in bed with a shotgun. He can’t do anything reasonable to anybody who annoys him so he threatens anyone who comes into the room with his shotgun. Extreme, but it’s all he can do.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/09/2003 12:59:00 AM (Archive Link)
While Al Gore has repeatedly stated that he’s not running for president in 2004, it isn’t stopping Mario Cuomo from trying to push Al into the race anyway. Cuomo’s reasons for doing so are… well… bad. He says, “Right now, the Democratic voice is not a single voice. It is not a chorus. It is a babble.” He wants Gore to join the race because there’s no single voice for the Democrats to rally around. People… it’s August of 2003. The primaries aren’t until late January and the general election isn’t until next November. That’s six and fourteen months away, respectively. Of course there’s no single candidate to rally around. Of course there’s a lot of babble. That’s what happens when you have multiple candidates vying for one spot. It’s natural. By late February, though, it will be pretty apparent who the Democratic nominee will be and that person will be your guy to rally around. So stop whining.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/09/2003 12:57:00 AM (Archive Link)
For some truly frightening judicial activism, look to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She openly admits that the Supremes are looking more at international law and the laws of other countries and taking them into consideration when forming their opinions. Since when do the laws of England, Belgium, or Luxembourg have any bearing on what is law in the United States? The Supreme Court is supposed to base its rulings upon the Constitution and American law. To think that the thoughts and moods of the French are influencing how Ginsberg decides cases is shudder-inducing. The Supreme Court needs judges, not self-appointed legislators.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/06/2003 12:13:00 AM (Archive Link)
I have been on the summer vacation, haven't I? So many good stories I could have commented on... lost. Oh well, I'll be back soon with some good stuff. Keep an eye out.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 6/19/2003 08:49:00 AM (Archive Link)
Yesterday, I discussed some of the uproar surrounding the recent tax cut and how people who don’t pay taxes didn’t get it (at least at first). I forgot to mention this item from the Media Research Center. It concerns media coverage of a protest against House Majority Leader Tom Delay. This particular protest involved mothers pushing strollers as an illustration of the 12 million children that they say will be hurt by Republican cruelty. Leaving aside the fact that the protest only had about two dozen participants but it was covered by all the major networks, let’s look at one of the protestors. Colleen McCrystal, a lawyer from a D.C. suburb said, “It seems like everything we have done for tax breaks in the last year or two is about the wealthiest top percent and, frankly, people probably like me, who really don't need it, and to keep taking from the folks who we're supposed to be here to help. The government, that's what it's supposed to be about, is helping those who have a whole lot less.” She’s protesting and she doesn’t even need the tax cut. Instead, she’s out there for the people who they’re supposed to be there to help. In other words, the poor, dumb folk need the rich, smart ones to tell them what they want and what they need. This is a keystone of liberal philosophy. The downtrodden are uneducated and they need intelligent, yet benevolent, overseers to lead the way for them; they need leaders to tell them what’s best for them since the poor are too stupid and oppressed to know for themselves. Ah, the poor proletariat. See a theme here?

Posted by Dan Ewert : 6/19/2003 08:44:00 AM (Archive Link)
You may have come across this already. It’s a little Flash cartoon on the official website of the Democratic National Committee called Bush-enstein. In it, George Bush plays the mad scientist creating the ultimate extremist Supreme Court Justice. The monster judge then proceeds to destroy the Supreme Court building while declaring, “Civil Liberties Bad!” It’s really quite hilarious but not for the reasons most liberals think it is. It does more to illustrate how the Democrats view prospective Bush nominees and how scared they are of them. They know there’s an ideological fine line in the Court and that any new conservative justice can make quite the difference in future cases. So they’re doing everything they can to try and dull the conservativeness of nominees and make sure said nominee is more to their liking.

They’re even trying to put the onus on Bush. Tom Daschle recently warned Bush to consult with him about any nominees because he “believe[s] that it is not necessary to have a divisive fight over a Supreme Court appointment.” By this, he’s trying to make it seem that any fight would be Bush’s fault. Note that it’s the Democrats who have been filibustering appeals courts nominees. Any divisive fight would be their fault, not Bush’s. The President has a Constitutional right to appoint judges to the federal bench. While the Senate approves the judges, the role is meant to be sure that the nominee isn’t some crony who has serious mental, moral, or qualification issues, it’s not meant to test ideology. It’s the President’s prerogative to appoint who he wants and the Senate Democrats are trying to usurp that prerogative. Sen. Charles Schumer even helpfully provided Bush with a list of possible nominees that he finds acceptable. These actions are also unproductive for them in the long term. Someday, hopefully far in the future, there will be another Democratic president. And when he tries to appoint judges, the Republicans will not have forgotten the Democrats’ current actions.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 6/19/2003 08:42:00 AM (Archive Link)
Could it be Condi vs. Hilary in 2008? I myself have wondered about such a match up and apparently there is some speculation about it. Condoleezza Rice is by far the superior potential candidate. Her academic, personal, and professional résumés are sterling. Hilary’s, by comparison, or maybe purely on their merit, are covered with mud. Riding your husband’s coattails to a carpet bagging Senate seat is not exactly a good qualification for President. As a side-note to this, can you imagine a worse nightmare for the Democrats whose entire existence is based on race-baiting, gender-baiting, and class warfare than that the first female president and the first black president be a Republican? Better poetic justice can only be found in stories.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 6/18/2003 12:13:00 AM (Archive Link)
You may already be familiar with the row that occurred recently over the child tax credit. As part of the overall tax cut package, the Republicans increased the credit for having kids by $400 per child. However, at the last moment, they decided to make this not apply to people who don’t pay taxes in the first place… families with incomes between $10,500-$26,625. If you have kids and fall into this income bracket, you already don’t pay income taxes and if you do, it sure ain’t much. This makes sense. If you don’t pay taxes, what is there to cut? You especially don’t want the cut to act so that the non-payers get refunded the money. In other words, so that even if you don’t pay taxes, you get a $400 refund check anyway. Since the purpose of tax cuts is that the government is allowing you to keep more of your money, this methodology would mean that other people are getting to keep more of your money. More than that, it acts as a form of welfare. It’s absurd! And yet, it’s exactly what the Left wants to do. And sadly, it's also exactly what’s happening. After the political uproar, the Republicans caved because of the bad publicity. So let’s look at some of that uproar.

Check out this editorial from Time’s Joe Klein. He himself admits that the people cut out of the original Senate tax cut package don’t pay taxes… but they should get money anyway! To quote, “So the Republicans decided that the working poor, who pay little or no income taxes — families with incomes from $10,500 to $26,625--should not receive the expanded child tax credit. Almost 12 million children were effectively denied stipends of up to $400.” That 12 million children figure was also pulled out of thin air. I’d like to see the supporting math for it. But, of course, when you want to make a point, make sure you can make it look like kids will be hurt and the more, the better. Klein continues, “Indeed, it was ironic, and fairly nauseating, to hear spokesman Ari Fleischer argue last week that this was a matter of principle: the money should go to people who actually pay income taxes.” Well, yeah. Grass is green, the sky is blue, and tax cuts go to people who pay taxes. Klein says that Ari’s comment was nauseating because Bush campaigned so hard in favor of the poor and as he says, “The Republicans have never been defenders of the poor.”

This brings us to another issue. Do Democrats really defend the poor or just use them? To the Left, defending the poor means throwing money at them. More generally, it means throwing government money at the problem of poverty. People are poor and that’s bad, so what we need is a lot of dollars from Uncle Sam to “solve” it. Klein also wants to guilt people into taking care of the poor:

“In 1997 Wehner — a devout Evangelical — wrote a courageous Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post that began with a question: ‘During His ministry, Christ spoke out most often about (a) the evils of homosexuality, (b) the merits of democracy, (c) family-friendly tax cuts or (d) the danger of riches? It turns out Christ said nothing about the first three and a lot about the last one. But you would never know it based on the rhetoric of many modern-day Christians — particularly politically active ones.’ Wehner recounted some of the most famous New Testament parables in which Jesus castigates the wealthy, and he concluded, ‘It's unwise for Christians to keep averting our gaze from warnings that Christ placed in bright neon lights.’”

This is all true. The problem, though, is that according to the Left, the federal government must take money from people and then apply it to Welfare programs. When Jesus spoke about giving money to the poor, it was in the sense that you had to make the choice to give it. There’s not much spiritual point in being forced to be charitable. Jesus also said to give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to give unto God what is God’s. The viewpoint Klein is taking here is that you should give everything to Caesar and then he’ll figure out what to give to God. That doesn’t exactly roll down to the individual so that it counts in the big book’s “good deed” column. Also, in the case of the U.S. government, Caesar is terribly inefficient. For every dollar that’s paid into welfare, about 60% of it is eaten up in administrative costs. That mean that only 40 cents on the dollar is actually getting to the people it’s supposed to help. Contrast this with a private charity like the Salvation Army which has overhead of just 20%. That means 80 cents of every dollar paid in is put to use in serving the poor and needy. And government welfare programs are notoriously bad at getting people off welfare. In some states, you can actually have a higher income by taking money from Uncle Sam than you can from working a full-time minimum wage job. That’s hardly an incentive to be a productive member of society.

I could go on about how welfare does far more to hurt the poor to help. However, given that and the fact that the government handles cash in a typically inefficient bureaucratic way, we’d be far better off just getting rid of public welfare programs (in which the federal government doesn’t have any business being involved anyway) and relying on private charities. They existed long before national welfare and were the social safety net. They’re efficient and have personal commitments to the people they help. They endeavor to help people out of poverty instead of just forking over cash and allowing the poor to stay that way. Americans have always been a charitable people, more so than any other culture, past or present, and would increase giving when they have more of their own money to give.

Another note on Klein’s Christ-based appeal is how he notes Jesus’ extensive preaching about the danger of riches. Klein apparently believes that it is the government’s responsibility to save us from this potential sin by taking our riches from us. Again, that policy is hardly saving anybody’s soul. And given what government welfare has done to keep down the poor, it looks far more likely that it can only hurt our chances for the Pearly Gates.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 6/16/2003 11:18:00 PM (Archive Link)
I’m a little behind in my blogging. In fact, there was a Washington Post story I was going to comment on but you now have to pay to access it. It concerned Bill Clinton’s continued influence in the Democratic party and how their various candidates are getting constant advice from Bill. As I recall, one of my favorite parts was a quote from one of the folks complimenting Clinton on his many successes as president. He cited North Korea as one of them. That’s like saying you had great success at disciplining your child by grounding him to his room filled with toys, a computer, a tv, and a Playstation. Considering what an unmitigated failure the NK agreement has turned out to be, it’s really quite amazing that some (prominent) Democrats believe it otherwise. It’s also frightening. Bribery of dictators has never really worked too well.

A few of the candidates also complimented Clinton’s handling of the economy. This is similar to how Hilary Clinton, in the Barbara Walters’ interview, said that it broke her heart what Bush had done to the Clinton economy… the economy that Bill had “turned around.” This is an old canard. Can anybody give me specific examples of how Bill Clinton’s policies were responsible for the economic boom of the 90’s? Anybody? Or was the boom… could it be?... the result of market forces related to technology and the internet? Also, let’s not forget that the economy had already started to turn at the end of 1992 before Clinton had a chance to do squat and that it solidly started on its downturn during 2000 when he was still prez. This is an aspect that Clinton has unfairly appropriated. However, since the good economy is the only real positive thing that occurred during his two terms (even if he was in no way responsible for it), he’s desperate to take credit for it. Then he can delude himself into thinking that a century from now, he’ll be remembered as something more than that president who got impeached for lying about an improper ual relationship and who passed the buck on terrorism so that we wound up with 9/11.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 6/02/2003 10:49:00 PM (Archive Link)
So France (or is it Freedom?) is trying to improve its image in the United States. All the jokes, food name changes, and vitriol has gotten to them. So who do they hire as their PR man? Woody Allen. You’re already getting the urge for some Dom Perignon, aren’t you? In one of the new ads, he says the following, “I don’t want to freedom kiss my wife, I want to French kiss her.” This would be well and good, except his wife is Soon-Yi Previn, his former step-daughter. You remember that whole fiasco, right? In this light, his pro-French joke just sounds… qu’est-ce que c’est?… icky. Was Jerry Lewis too busy?

French ambassador Jean-David Levitte also had this to say, “It's my job to remind that these funny little jokes are not so funny, because they are taken seriously on the other side of the Atlantic. We may differ on very serious issues — war and peace, pre-emptive war, international law, but is it a good reason to have this campaign of French-bashing? It goes beyond calls for French products. When you insult the French people, simply because they are French, then it's a kind of racist campaign.” So all the jokes and comments were part of a “racist campaign” against… the French. Hopefully, Levitte has already notified Jesse Jackson. He could be right but it’s hard to tell since the government doesn’t keep record of American-on-French hate crimes. Where’s the NAAFP when you need it? Really, the whole concept just invites a whole new round of jokes. Could it be that all the mocking and the boycotts are the result of American irritation at France’s pointed opposition to the United States? That it has openly declared its intention to be a “counterbalance,” i.e. opposition force, to the U.S.? That in the run-up to the Iraq war, it aggressively pursued a course intended only to thwart and embarrass the U.S.? That it may have shared intelligence with Saddam Hussein and helped leading Baathist officials escape Iraq under French visas? That for all its noble talk, it had significant financial interests in the Hussein regime? That in spite of its condemnation of unilateral action, France itself has acted unilaterally in Africa on a great number of occasions? Could any of those be possible reasons for why a lot of Americans don’t much like the French right now? Nah… this is America, after all. It’s gotta be racism! Let's get the French some reparations! Oh wait... we already did that. At the time, it was called "The Marshall Plan."

Posted by Dan Ewert : 6/02/2003 10:49:00 PM (Archive Link)
Check out this piece by Mark Steyn. He toured around Iraq and has come to the conclusion that things aren’t that bad. In fact, he found that the locals are more worried about NGOs (non-governmental organizations) than they are about Americans. And well they should be. These groups include Oxfam, World Food Program and others. They are essentially welfare organizations that go around “discovering” problems no matter how small or non-existent they may be. The problem with any sort of welfare group, though, is they think they must save the world. That’s noble enough, except they also think the goal must and can only be accomplished with money. So they’ll start throwing money at Iraq, start giving away things and they’ll be the ones who will make the country a slave state incapable of self-sufficiency, not America, though America will surely get the blame. If you get a people used to receiving things for free and for which they put forth no effort to attain, they’ll have little incentive to do things on their own. Not only do you corrupt a populace but you also disrupt the natural capitalist dynamics which further suppress growth.

It’s interesting how Steyn refers to the NGOs as the “new imperial class.” He explains it thus, “Like many imperialists, they're well-meaning: they see their charges as helpless and dependent, which happy condition has the benefit of justifying an ever-growing aid bureaucracy in perpetuity.” You’ll, of course, remember how Bush was supposed to be the imperialist. The American position is no secret, however. We want to set up a new, friendly, and self-sufficient government in Iraq. The NGO agenda, though, is far more nebulous. At any rate, the attitude of these organizations is patently racist and screams cultural arrogance (again, isn’t it the U.S. that’s supposed to be guilty of this?). These liberal groups believe the Iraqis unable to support themselves and incapable of taking care of their own basic needs. The sad thing is that once they start meddling, they’ll only prove the theory correct without ever realizing that they were the ones that caused it.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 5/28/2003 12:30:00 AM (Archive Link)
I know I said that I'd be posting new stuff this week. However, due to the sudden and tragic loss of my good friend, Claire Reynolds, that will be pushed off until next week. She was a great friend and an even better person. She will be missed.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 5/23/2003 02:09:00 PM (Archive Link)
My apologies for the lack of posts recently. It's been almost three weeks! I've got plenty of stuff on tap, but unfortunately I won't be able to get to it until next week. It's Memorial Day weekend afterall... I shouldn't be blogging and you shouldn't be reading! Go to the lake or beach and visit family both living and deceased. For the latter, be sure to bring some flowers to lay down and flags to plant. Remember... it's Memorial Day.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 5/04/2003 08:57:00 PM (Archive Link)
It has recently been revealed that Bill Bennett, the Republican big-wig and author of The Book of Virutes actually partakes in a vice himself. He gambles. Not overly shocking. Certainly there are worse things to do. Bennett also says that he’s never bet “the milk money” and that he is perfectly solvent. How much money he actually wagers isn’t quite known, but it appears to be a great deal, possibly in the millions. While he may never have bet his bottom dollar, this behavior isn’t excusable. The scale of gambling to which is indulging is hardly insignificant and smacks of addiction. For a man of his stature and reputation to engage in it is disappointing at best. What’s really unfortunate, though, is how many conservative commentators have been coming to his defense. Most claim that it’s a private matter, he hasn’t gone broke, and gambling, where he did it, is a legal activity. This is all true, but it doesn’t excuse the man of virtues for so heavily participating in a vice that has ruined many a man and many a family. As such, his behavior shouldn’t be reflexively condoned or defended by conservatives just because he himself is a popular conservative. He deserves to be condemned and chastised. Should he be driven out of public life? No. While morally questionable, he didn’t break any laws, violate the public trust, or bet the homestead. However, conservatives should never refuse to hold one of their own to some sort of moral code. As such, it should be made clear to Bennett how many people are clearly unhappy with him. Then, if and when he apologizes for his behavior, he can be welcomed back.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 5/04/2003 08:56:00 PM (Archive Link)
Jacques Chirac and company are quite clearly aiming for a new cold war. It’s really rather stunning. Says Chirac, “Quite naturally a multi-polar world is being created, whether one likes it or not. It's inevitable. For balance to exist, there will have to be a strong Europe. Relations between the European Union and the United States will have to be a partnership between equals.” If Europe doesn’t want to follow America’s lead on everything, that’s perfectly alright and it’s unlikely you’ll hear many people complaining. Chirac, however, is very purposely trying to set up Europe as a counter-weight to the U.S. Counter-weights oppose each other. The last big counter-weight to American power was the Soviet Union. Is that the sort of relationship he’s aiming for?

While Chirac has already enacted his plans of actively opposing the United States diplomatically, he is moving on to bigger, more concrete methods of opposition. He discovered that blustering in the UN didn’t stop America from taking on Iraq and he now wants to improve Europe’s military (first by forming an actual European military) to the point that it could actually cause the U.S. to think twice before taking actions it thinks are appropriate. This can only end badly. On the plus side, only France, German, Belgium, and Luxembourg are buying into the concept.

Even if more join, however, it remains to be seen just how effective the European Army can be. For the past 50 years, western Europe has primarily relied on the U.S. for its protection. This allowed the countries (other than the UK) to spend relatively little on national defense. As the socialist mentality took a greater hold over Europe, though, they started using the extra money to create nanny states with cradle to grave welfare, increasingly shorter work weeks, and a variety of other programs that consume tax money. Now that these policies are in place, they can hardly be cut down or cut altogether. No decent bureaucratic government program, especially one relating to public welfare (no matter how tenuously) can ever be done away with once it’s created. Because so much money is put towards these many projects, there’s simply not much left over for defense spending. This means that Europe as a whole will never be able to produce an appreciable military that is comparable to that of the United States, especially not to the point that it would be a viable challenger to the U.S. If the EU under France’s leadership was really interested in developing world-class armed forces, they’d have to stop expending so much of their resources on farm subsidies… and that’s not likely to happen too soon.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/30/2003 11:57:00 PM (Archive Link)
A favorite recurring theme: Bill Clinton. The occasion for this post is a speech he gave at a meeting of the Conference Board of New York on April 15th. The Weekly Standard provides an excerpt of the Most Empathetic One (more on it here). In the first part, he claims that a journalist honcho, who is unnamed and, frankly, questionable in existence, called up Bill and said he warned us about Islamism during his presidency. I don’t recall him mentioning it all that much. To whatever extent he did, it was meaningless since he didn’t do anything about militant Islamists… oh yeah, with the exception of firing off a few cruise missiles at a pharmaceuticals plant. Will the man never stop trying to polish his record? I guarantee you… absolutely guarantee you, he has already decided, after much thought, what his dying words will be if he’s given the chance to say them. No doubt it will be something poetic yet strangely devoid of meaningfulness and said with one last lip-bite.

The next part is a perfect illustration of why Clinton was such a lousy president. He simply doesn’t understand the fact that the U.S. has self-interests in foreign policy that must be followed in spite of the world. Bill makes it clear that if it were up to him, the UN would be charge. At one point, he says that it was wrong of us to set the timetable for attacking Iraq instead of letting Hans Blix set it! Amazing! A huge foreign policy move by the most powerful country astride the earth should be decided by a Swiss professor who has made it clear in the past month that he’s a complete anti-American pacifist who would never have clearly called Iraq in non-compliance anyway. Along those lines, there’s likely a Finnish accountant out there who would be delighted to be Secretary of the Treasury.

Bill sums it up with the line, “So yeah, I’m still pretty much for the UN.” This is in contrast to the preceding paragraph in which he disdains the attitude in the current administration that since “something terrible happened to us on September 11th[,] it gave us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us, and if they don’t they can go straight to hell.” Well, yeah. Given the choice between another September 11th and Chirac being miffed at us, I’ll go with a disgruntled Chirac. That’s what governments are supposed to do. They’re supposed to pursue the interests and safety first and foremost. Too bad Clinton spent his time working on his ego and other self-interests of his own.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/28/2003 12:02:00 AM (Archive Link)
You really need to read this speech given by Tim Robbins at a National Press Club luncheon on April 15th. It’s mostly the usual woe-is-me whining we’ve been hearing so much from the left. In it, he mentions how many folks have come out and criticized him and how his relatives, including children, are getting cold shoulders from adults and teachers. Make no mistake, children shouldn’t be drawn into this sort of fray. Robbins, though, is using it as an example of dangerous intimidation that demonstrates some sort of new McCarthyism in America.

Here’s the problem. Speech doesn’t exist in a vacuum; Speech has consequences. As I’ve stated elsewhere in this blog, if you say something that you know will be controversial and that some people won’t like, don’t be surprised and get bent out of shape when it causes controversy and people don’t like it. Robbins and many other liberals, though, seem to think that they should be able to say whatever they like and get a free pass on it. They think nobody should criticize them and nobody should look at them askance. The fact that just the opposite happens is taken by them as an indication that the First Amendment is crashing down around us… First Amendment Chicken Littles. Well, first of all, that amendment to the Constitution is meant to be a limit on governmental power. In fact, if you look at the Bill of Rights (of which few people know more than the first two amendments) all 10 of the amendments are restrictions on federal power. Anyway, the first one holds back the government, not private speech. Therefore, if I say Robbins is a raging idiot, that’s not being anti-free speech… that’s utilizing free speech and the utilization necessarily means I’m pro-free speech. So keep in mind, speech has consequences. They may be good, they be bad, and most often they’ll be both. Free speech may receive further free speech in return. Get used to it.

There are other parts of the speech that are positively amusing. Especially this section concerning the aftermath of 9/11:

“I imagined our leaders going on television, telling the citizens that although we all want to be at Ground Zero we can't. But there is work that is needed to be done all over America. Our help is needed at community centers, to tutor children, to teach them to read, our work is needed at old age homes to visit the lonely and infirmed, in gutted neighborhoods to rebuild housing and clean up parks, and convert abandoned lots into baseball fields. I imagined leadership that would take this incredible energy, this generosity of spirit, and create a new unity in America born out of the chaos and tragedy of 9-11. A new unity that would send a message to terrorists everywhere: If you attack us we will become stronger, cleaner, better educated, more unified. You will strengthen our commitment to justice and democracy by your inhumane attacks on us. Like a phoenix out of the fire we will be re-born.”

“This incredible energy?” Where are the moon crystals, daddy-o? This is why Robbins shouldn’t be in charge of foreign or domestic policy. It’s doubtful that bin Laden would have felt outdone had we taunted him with the fact that while he may have bombed our embassies, our Marine barracks, a U.S. warship, the Pentagon, and destroyed the World Trade Center, we have new baseball fields and cleaner streets. “Well, I tried my best at destroying the Great Satan, but their tutor rates are at all time highs. I guess I should just call off this whole jihad thing.” Right. With Robbins’s plan, we would have had to do that phoenix out of the fire routine many times. That’s a lot of ashes for Americans to deal with.

Here’s another fun part:

“And here in Washington, Helen Thomas finds herself banished to the back of the room and uncalled on after asking Ari Fleisher whether our showing prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay on television violated the Geneva Convention.”

Helen Thomas stopped getting questions because she’s been increasingly turning into a wild-eyed loonball who doesn’t ask a leading question until issuing commentary that illustrates her leftist views. Also, considering that she’s gotten at least one question in every press conference of the past 30 years or so, it’s hard to feel bad for her.

How about some twisted logic? In one paragraph, Robbins put forth the theory that teenage violence is not the result of Hollywood movies, but actually stems from real wars that the U.S. perpetrates. In the next paragraph, however, he complains that U.S. news media sanitizes war images and doesn’t show the real gore involved. So… war coverage is sanitized and this somehow leads to Columbine. Wouldn’t this argument work better if war images were bloody? Actually Robbins’s idea is that the gore would give us pause in committing to war. No word on whether it would stop teenage violence. It seems doubtful since movie gore doesn’t seem to have done it. If images of real violence would stop war and teenage malfeasance, wouldn’t it follow that the realistic images of simulated violence in movies should have accomplished the same thing?

The conclusion to the speech gets to the nitty-gritty of what Robbins wants to say to the media. He essentially wants them to be more liberal and advises them to work against the horrible intimidation of the Bush Administration like the brutal suppression of Helen Thomas’s questions. This leads to an extremely aggravating point. Robbins says, “A bully can be stopped. So can a mob. It takes one person with the courage and a resolute voice.” He makes it seem as if it takes a great deal of bravery to speak out. No! You’re perfectly free to speak out. People may criticize you, but you’ll never have government agents at your door ready to haul you to jail. You’ll never have the soles of your feet caned like in Iraq. You’ll never be sent to a gulag like in the USSR. You’ll never be convicted to years in prison on trumped-up charges like what has just recently happened in Cuba. If the worst the Bush folks can think of to punish Helen Thomas is to not call on her, I’d say we’re in good shape. The liberals who think they’re showing unusual courage in condemning the government’s actions are sheer idiots and are far below those brave dissidents throughout history who really have risked everything, including their lives, just by speaking.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/28/2003 12:01:00 AM (Archive Link)
Speaking of Cuba, you’ve probably read about how Fidel Castro took the opportunity to arrest and imprison 75 dissidents while the world was distracted with Iraq. Whose fault is it, though? According to Fidel, the U.S., of course! He says we’re stirring up trouble for him. That’s probably true. We were trying to promote democracy, human-rights, and free-speech on the island. So now all the folks that disapproved of Castro are languishing in a prison somewhere. Good thing they weren’t in America criticizing Bush, though. Somebody may have called them unpatriotic and written a negative editorial about them. Now that’s really harsh!

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/28/2003 12:01:00 AM (Archive Link)
Ah, good ole Al Sharpton. Despite the fact that he is by all appearances a presidential candidate and that he stated just that on multiple occasions, he is refusing to file a campaign finance report as mandated by law. He claims he’s just testing the waters, right now. The reports list who has contributed how much to the campaign. His balking can only be interpreted as there’s something shady in his accounting and/or his sources. The Rev has something up his sleeve.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/28/2003 12:00:00 AM (Archive Link)
The National Organization for Women’s Morris County chapter decided to get involved in the Laci Peterson murder case. It seems they didn’t like how murder charges were being filed on behalf on an unborn baby since they’re afraid such precedents could later be applied to late-term abortions. This is just another case of a group picking a really bad horse to get behind. Whether or not they valid concerns here is irrelevant. It was just stupid to pick such a public and emotionally charged case to get involved in. That’s probably why the national headquarters decided to distance themselves from the Morris County chapter.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/16/2003 11:39:00 PM (Archive Link)
The war is starting to wind down somewhat and with the predictable victory of the United States. The big questions now involve what happens to Iraq: how will it be rebuilt; who will be in charge, etc. The U.S. and the UK are actively putting together an intermediate military government that will give way to an Iraqi civilian government once the details and politics get worked out. It’s that intermediate time, though, that’s giving everybody heartburn, especially France, Germany, and Russia. The leaders of those countries have already gotten together to discuss the situation. They all did a considerable amount of business with the Saddam regime and they can see it all slipping away in the post-war situation. They simply don’t want all the business and all the politics to revolve around Anglo-American interests. As such, they are crying out that the rebuilding of Iraq must be an international effort… in other words, a UN effort. The venerable Jacques Chirac has already laid down this edict, “We are no longer in an era where one or two countries can control the fate of another country. Therefore the political, economic, humanitarian and administrative reconstruction of Iraq is a matter for the United Nations and for it alone.” He’s making subtle accusations of colonialism, about which France knows a great deal and still practices somewhat, and draws on its past record for why the U.S. and UK alone should not be responsible for reconstruction. Instead, he says that everybody must be involved and this is certainly worse.

The problem with Chirac’s assertion is that the UN’s interests aren’t those of Iraq any more than America’s. Rather, they more run counter to Iraqi interests. The U.S. isn’t interested in keeping and perpetuating control in Iraq, despite what some may say. It’s expensive, counterproductive, and a poor, demoralizing use of the military. It’s in U.S. interests to set up a favorable government in Iraq, but not to be the government in Iraq. The UN, however, is a pure bureaucratic entity that would delight in running the place with every international entity juicing whatever it could. It’s style is also such that it wants to accommodate everybody and everything and so an effective government would never be successfully established. Additionally, the UN’s track record in helping state protectorates is hardly glowing. Having the UN involved is a sure route to inefficiency, slow timetables, and cost overruns. Besides all that, it’s not as if the UN would present a united front as to how it should handle Iraq. The Security Council itself would have competing visions about what should be done and whatever administrators are in Iraq would ultimately obey their own country’s perspective. So, no, the UN is not the way to go in rebuilding Iraq. Chirac, Schroder, and Putin will just have to face the consequences of their past actions and suck it up.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/16/2003 11:38:00 PM (Archive Link)
The big news as of late was the looting occurring in Baghdad. It was all over the networks and liberal pundits came out of the corners in which they had been sulking to criticize the military for it. They decried how we had liberated them so they could steal. These are many of the same people who have been longtime apologists for the L.A. riots following the verdicts in the Rodney King trial. In those riots, the claim is that the looters animosity and theft was understandable because it was a release for the years of horrible oppression at the hands of civil law enforcement. Now, though, crowds of people who really have been brutally oppressed, e.g. kidnapping, torture, murder, hostage-taking, for years suddenly have an all-out ransacking of the government buildings where the oppressors operated and it’s so very bad of them. Worse, it’s our fault for letting it happen. It’s wrong, yes, but somehow you have to think that a man who had both his sons executed by Hussein’s thugs deserves an office chair. And while the looting did hit some private entities, it was mostly isolated to government buildings. This is in contrast to L.A. where pawn shops and electronic stores seemed to suddenly represent the Man and became legitimate targets. So apologize for both or condemn both. But if you want to do a little bit of apologizing and condemning, at least look to see who has the better grievances.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/16/2003 11:37:00 PM (Archive Link)
On a more personal note, a couple of weeks ago, I had a discussion with my father-in-law about what the perceptions of the Iraqi people would be after the war. My contention was that the Iraqis would see us as liberators and like us. He disagreed and said this wasn’t the case, that they wouldn’t see their attackers as liberators. Furthermore, he stated that the bulk of a population doesn’t much care who is ruling them as long as they may continue about their usual daily lives without hindrance and interruption. This gave me cause to think because the man is a decorated Vietnam combat veteran and saw first-hand what war’s effect is on civilians and their attitudes. From an empirical standpoint, he knows more than I do about this sort of thing and I had to take some time to mull it over. So after giving it some, I’ve decided that he’s mostly correct, but perhaps too cynical. Here’s what I mean by that… the daily lives of normal individuals are decidedly important and they won’t tolerate too great a disruption. Thus far in Iraq, though, we haven’t seen much blow back in this regard and have been well received by most civilians. I’ve read several reports of people who had lost loved ones or were sitting by their relative’s hospital bed and they admitted they didn’t blame the U.S. for the deaths or injuries despite the fact that American munitions were directly responsible. Instead, they blamed the Hussein regime for it coming to that through its bellicosity and through its dirty fighting techniques. They genuinely understood that American forces were not out to hurt civilians. So given that and the joyous responses we have received, I think it’s safe to say that we are being positively perceived as liberators.

This would not have been the case, however, if the conflict had dragged on. If the country were in a state of a constant long-term war, then civilians would start looking favorably on Hussein. He may be an SOB but at least there wasn’t all this fighting perpetually disrupting everything. I think this is where my father-in-law’s experiences come into play. Vietnam had been in a state of war for many years and most of the populace was tired of it all and didn’t much care who was in power. They just yearned for normalcy. This could have happened in Iraq as well were it not for the swift resolution.

We still face the possibility of a restless people, though. What remains now is how quickly we can establish control in Iraq and set up a civil administration and then a civil government. In other words, how quickly can we reestablish normalcy for the Iraqis so that they may go about their daily lives. We currently have their good will since we overthrew the tyrant who had been oppressing them. Such good will, though, can be short-lived if we are unable to prove in the aftermath of the war that their lives really are better off without Hussein. The euphoria of freedom can be short-lived if basic needs can’t be met and if normal governmental civil functions cannot be performed. As such, it’s tremendously important to bring order to Iraq and then self-governance and let them realize just how much better their lives can be.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/09/2003 11:38:00 PM (Archive Link)
I'll try to post more on Thursday or Friday, but one comment now.

Considering what we saw in Baghdad today... well... it's that sort of thing that just makes you proud to be an American.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/01/2003 11:45:00 PM (Archive Link)
In case you ever forget about how misplaced the Palestinian Authority’s priorities, just refer to this story about the main square in Jenin. The PA saw fit to rename the square after the taxi bomber who killed 4 Marines in Iraq. Yeah, Arafat is a real man of peace.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/01/2003 11:43:00 PM (Archive Link)
Remember how Jesse Jackson is trying to get into the battle zone around Iraq in order to check up on POW’s? Well, he’s also trying to find some missing reporters at their families’ behest. Just some more headline grabbing. Granted he’s had success in the past at securing the release of hostages, usually because the evil regimes enjoyed playing it up for big PR points, but what’s annoying is how Jesse saw fit to announce his new endeavor. What with looking for missing journalists, visiting POW’s, and having tea with Kofi Annan, it’s a wonder he has any time to advance civil rights or to cover up his role in helping the Chicago nightclub fire to occur.

Update! The reporters crossed into Jordan from Iraq today. No word yet on what role Jesse must have played in their release.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/01/2003 11:41:00 PM (Archive Link)
Not surprisingly, Madonna has decided to pull her new video, “American Life,” from the American market. She debuted it in Germany instead. Considering that it features transvestite soldiers, scenes of bombers and the flag interspersed with Madonna on the toilet, and her throwing a grenade into George Bush’s lap, you can see why she’s want to keep this in Europe where it will be lapped up and fawned over. It seems she doesn’t have the guts to air it in America and let her primary fan base know how she really feels about the country.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/01/2003 11:40:00 PM (Archive Link)
Speaking of music stars, the Dixie Chicks got props from none other than Al Gore himself. This falls under the category of “Don’t Do Me No Favors,” as Gore’s endorsement is unlikely to help the Chicks’ image with country music fans. Concerning lead singer Natalie Maines’s comment during a London concert that she’s ashamed Bush is from Texas, Gore had this to say:

“They were made to feel un-American and risked economic retaliation because of what was said. Our democracy has taken a hit. Our best protection is free and open debate.”

This is another example of how “can’t” and “shouldn’t” get mixed up in the liberal mind. Not a soul has said that Maines can’t say what she wants or can’t be ashamed of the president’s Texas roots. As far as anybody is concerned, she can yell it all over the country. However, she probably shouldn’t say it for economic reasons. The “economic retaliation” Al speaks of is nothing more than the Chicks’ fan base talking with their pocketbooks and telling Maines to stick it. It’s about as democratic as you can get when the individual common citizen is able voice their displeasure. If you’re going to say something controversial or something that people won’t like, don’t get all surprised and upset when there’s controversy and people don’t like it. Actions have consequences and if you aren’t prepared to accept those consequences, then don’t commit the act.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/01/2003 11:35:00 PM (Archive Link)
Peruse this article on Editor and Publisher concerning the media coverage of the Iraq War. Generally, it compares the present conflict to Vietnam. The best part of the piece is this: “Of course, it is absurd, on one level, to compare a war of less than two weeks with one that lasted decades. But still, many hear echoes, faint or strong, of Vietnam.” So, on just what level is it not absurd to compare a war of less than two weeks with one that lasted decades?

Every time there’s an armed conflict anywhere in which America is involved, the media simply chomps at the bit to compare it to Vietnam. Much as many boomers look back at the sixties and seventies as a period of glory, so does the media look at the time as some kind of mythic era to be resurrected. For them, war coverage didn’t start until then. While the journalists drool over Cronkite and Rather and complain about the objectivity of embedded reporters, they forget about the likes of Ernie Pyle, the WWII correspondent who risked and lost his life while covering the war in various army units. Generations of battlefield journalists were concerned with the nitty-gritty of wars and the men who fought them. It wasn’t about sensationalism and trying to catch government spokesmen off guard, it was eye-level reality. Perhaps the change is because of the 24 hour news-cycle and the need to fill the television with images as opposed to daily newspapers with words. At any rate, Vietnam is not the root of war journalism and it was no golden age. Modern reporters should stop looking to it as a model.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/01/2003 11:32:00 PM (Archive Link)
You may recall a post here from last week decrying the influence of the Wahhabi sect on the Islamic religion as a whole. The good folks at the New York Daily News reviewed several common textbooks used in private Islamic schools in New York City and found the books contained many vile references to Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims. To get a fuller accounting of what they say, make sure to read the article. I will, however, reiterate what I said last week. It is imperative that moderate Muslims combat the extremist teachings coming out of and funded by the Saudi Wahhabi’s. They should not allow these militants to hijack their religion and damage it internally. Instead of spending their time and effort presenting a shell to the world of what is Islam is supposed to be, the moderates must stop the rotting that’s occurring inside of it.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/01/2003 11:29:00 PM (Archive Link)
You may recall hearing about the Columbia University professor who stated his wish that a million Mogadishu’s be visited upon American troops in Iraq. He’s taken a lot of heat for it, but has written a letter to the editor of the school newspaper in which he states that his comments were taken out of context. From his letter, it appears that the context was that the U.S. is an imperialistic, racist threat. Within that context, then, Iraq is fighting an anti-colonialist war and “[s]uch an anti-colonial struggle for self-determination might involve a million Mogadishus now but would ultimately have to become something more like another Vietnam. Vietnam was a stunning defeat for U.S. imperialism; as such, it was also a victory for the cause of human self-determination.” Right, well, that makes the whole Mogadishu comment sound so much better. He hopes that the U.S. will suffer mightily because he dislikes potential U.S. hegemony.

He also defends himself against the accusation that his remark stands against all that is American by saying that “America” refers to all of North and South America and not just the United States, “as imperial chauvinism would have it.” A truly weak dodge, and not one that is well backed-up. In his own egalitarian mind where the only bad guy is the U.S., America refers to all the Americas. However, if you go dang near anywhere else in the world and say you’re American, there won’t be much confusion as to whether you’re referring to the U.S. or Chile. The common usage the world-over for “American” pertains to the 50 states. So his dodge isn’t only weak, it’s ridiculous. What it all comes down to is that Dr. De Genova is another academic who fears all the wrong people.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/01/2003 11:26:00 PM (Archive Link)
Speaking of the academic world, make sure to check out the results of the 6th Annual Polly Awards. The awards “are given each year to universities to remind the public that political correctness, curricular decay, and violations of academic freedom and free speech remain an unfortunate reality throughout much of higher education.” They’re also fun to read about.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/01/2003 11:25:00 PM (Archive Link)
One more thing, go and look at Lone Dissenter’s blog site. It’s written by a young woman attending high school in the Bay Area and is about her very interesting and amusing accounts of the liberalism she encounters.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/31/2003 10:53:00 PM (Archive Link)
I’ve been considering lately what it is that makes people stick to a particular point of view so doggedly that they refuse to acknowledge facts, produce untenable arguments, concoct wild conspiracy theories, and go against normal ethics and values. You see such things all the time: anti-war protestors say it’s all about oil and that the CEO of Exxon is orchestrating events, the same folks say Bush is a new Hitler, PETA compares the Holocaust to skinny cows on factory farms, etc. Now certainly, you can’t count out sincere belief. But that doesn’t explain why PETA would petition Yassar Arafat to not blow up donkeys but refuse to take a similar position about blowing up people (it’s not their place to get involved in political matters, they said) or for Jesse Jackson to say Jeb Bush was visiting the Holocaust on Florida Jews “once again” during the 2000 election conflict. After some thought, I have a theory that such behavior is a sort of manifestation of the Stockholm Syndrome.

The Syndrome, of course, got plenty of mentions during coverage of Elizabeth Smart’s rescue from her lunatic kidnapper. It’s the notion that in a hostage situation, the captives will come to love and defend their captors, even beyond reasonable logic when confronted with it. Something like that could be at play with many causes’ supporters. There may actually be an existing term for this sort of thing, but it wasn’t immediately available. Just as people are held hostage by captors and the hostages come to love them, so do people become hostage to certain beliefs. These beliefs or causes take such primacy in the lives of their supporters, all else is secondary. Worse than that, the cause becomes an almighty, righteous end that is never wrong. What results is that anything that runs counter to the cause, resists the cause, threatens the cause, or fails to advance the cause is necessarily incorrect and must be quashed. The supporters become so committed to their narrow, focused belief in animal rights, environmental protection, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, or any number of causes, that the advancement of that particular belief supercedes any other considerations, even common decency or ethics. That’s why their opposition will be attacked with the most vile slander and invective. That’s why the breaking of laws, the destruction of property, and the endangering of lives is allowed and encouraged; whatever furthers the cause and/or hurts the cause’s opposition is holy. Supporters come to love their causes so much and base so much of their lives around them that nothing else may penetrate.

Perhaps the Stockholm Syndrome isn’t the best was of looking at this. It’s really more cultish behavior in a way… it certainly brings up thoughts of Scientology (that’s a fascinating subject of its own and I’ll probably blog about it at some point… look at www.xenu.net if you would like more info.)

Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/28/2003 02:32:00 AM (Archive Link)
One of the things I keep reading from the anti-war crowd is that their demonstrations are patriotic. Barbra Streisand loves to crow about how her dissent is just that. Problem is… I don’t think it is patriotic. Most definitions I’ve come across define patriotism as a love of one’s country or a feeling inspired by the same. In that sense, then sure, you could maybe describe some dissent as patriotic. It’s rarely put in those terms, though. Instead, the act of dissent itself is supposed to be patriotic which is absurd. The exercise of a legal right doesn’t equal patriotism. Some guy could start a communist newspaper that denounced everything American and called for everything short of armed rebellion but The New York Times is still in print. Ha, ha… joke! The point is is that such a paper would be perfectly legal in the U.S. and would be exercising its First Amendment right, but you’d be hard pressed to find somebody who would describe it as patriotic. Back in my hometown of Topeka, KS, there’s a raving lunatic named Fred Phelps (if you want to see how nutty he really is, gird yourself and go here) who says all sort of outlandish things about America, but nobody would consider him patriotic. In fact, the loonball would probably be insulted if you did. Anyway, the exercising of rights is not patriotic. If it were, then I’m patriotic for going to church, owning a gun, not owning a slave, voting, and paying my taxes as enumerated in various constitutional amendments. So no, dissent is not necessarily patriotism.

Given that, most of the current dissent we’re witnessing in the country is not patriotic either. Seeing as how most of the demonstrators view American power (political, economic, and military) and American leaders as evil, love of country doesn’t seem to be their primary motivation. Doing or saying anything that would be complementary to America, even generally, would be tantamount to similar adoration of its hated institutions, policies, and even the blessed rights they are exercising. So to good ol’ Babs, let the message go out… dissent? Sure, go for it! Just stop calling yourself a patriot when you’re doing something unremarkable which is protected by law.