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.