Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/30/2002 12:40:00 AM (Archive Link)
If you've checked my site recently, you may have noticed there was a dearth of posts last week. I think I've made up for it tonight. Make sure to check all that which is new.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/30/2002 12:20:00 AM (Archive Link)
Something else I’ve noticed, and I just saw it again in my local newspaper’s editorial page, is a tendency of anti-Israel pundits, columnists, and editorialists to compare the Israelis with Nazis. The Israelis are acting like Nazis or they’re thinking like Nazis or they’re oppressing like Nazis. They all think they’re being so cute and clever by showing “similarities” between the Jewish state and the murderers who killed six million Jews in assembly line death camps. To them I say, take your cuteness and cleverness elsewhere because you disgust me. I mean you really make me sick. You use half-truths, untruths, and speculation to make this sort of comparison? Six million people. Ponder that for a moment. Think of the city you live in. Mine has about a million people in it. Imagine all those people gone… all dead. Somebody killed them. Now imagine six times that. This is what happened to the Jews. They were all summarily slaughtered for no other reason than because they were Jewish. They didn’t fight, they didn’t kill, they didn’t terrorize. The Palestinians don’t have this excuse and they know nothing of the hell the Jews in those camps experienced. A week in Auschwitz would have a Palestinian begging to be let back into Jenin. The Nazis never negotiated with the Jews, the Nazis never offered and made concessions to the Jews. The Nazis rounded them up like so much cattle and executed them with the intent of utter annihilation. There is no comparison of the Israelis to the Nazis and it is abhorrent that these writers would make it… that they would say the democratic, freedom-defending Jewish people are the same as those who killed them, as those who set out to destroy their race, as those who imprisoned and tortured some who are still living. To those editorialists, you may be entitled to whatever opinion you may form but you should feel an ever abiding sense of shame for putting these victims on the same moral level as their real-life psychopathic killers.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/30/2002 12:18:00 AM (Archive Link)
An interesting point I’ve noticed is that the Arab world cries out in support of the Palestinians and uses them and their plight as a universal rallying cry. However, from what I can tell, the Arab world also considers the Palestinians to be the armpit of their world. After the Gulf War, those staunch Palestinian supporters, the Kuwaitis, forcibly expelled some 300,000 Palestinians in an ethnic cleansing operation because of Arafat’s support for Saddam Hussein. Syria made a similar move. Before being allowed into Israel, the PLO was tossed out of several different Arab countries. At a recent conference of Islamic states, the organizers refused to air Arafat’s comments live… they taped them and showed them later. The Arab countries are the same as the American suburbanites who get choked up about the poor homeless people but still cross the street to avoid them. They think their conditions and their plight are horrible but they don’t personally want anything to do with them. As long as they stay at that homeless shelter of Palestine, the Arabs like them fine.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/30/2002 12:17:00 AM (Archive Link)
Everybody cries and cries about the Israelis’ treatment of the Palestinians… how they oppress them, look down on them, keep them in poverty, steal their lunch money, etc., etc. True, some aspects could be better, but as for the military action, it is entirely appropriate and entirely the fault of the Palestinians. When it comes down to it, the Israelis are hunting the terrorists who have been killing their civilians left and right. They don’t want to kill Palestinian civilians, they want to kill or capture those responsible for the violence. They want to destroy the organizations and infrastructure that have aided the terrorism against their country. They are doing what’s necessary but not committing massacres, atrocities, or wholesale executions. They are a democracy ruled by law. Now, change the scenario and let’s say that the Palestinians and the Arab countries in the region suddenly get the upper hand and they overtake and conquer Israel. What do you think the treatment of Israelis would be at the hands of the Arabs? You would truly learn what atrocities are in this second Holocaust. And sadly, the world would barely blink. They weren’t Palestinians. They were only Jews and the world has given that shoulder shrug before.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/30/2002 12:15:00 AM (Archive Link)
It’s also occurred to me that despite its extensive personal experience with ruthless dictators, Europe has learned very little about them. You would think they’d recognize Arafat for who he is. You would think they’d realize that his ilk are nothing but trouble for any sort of people. You would think they’d see through his lies. You would think they’d say, “We’ve heard this whole ‘All we need is a little breathing room,” ploy before.” You would think they’d remember this sort of virulent anti-Semitism and what happened because of it. You would think authoritarian dictators would be fresh in their collective memory. You would think they see the importance of democracies wherever they may be. You would think they know the dangers of leader worship. You would think they’ve changed in 55 years. However, they’ve proven themselves to be the same blind, gullible people they were in the 1930’s and 40’s… supporting those who promise peace and prosperity despite the blood dripping form their fingers and all evidence to the contrary. They deserve whatever they get. However, Americans and Israelis don’t deserve their punishment and we must do what’s right. When we do so and save the Europeans once again, the Continentals can go right ahead and continue not appreciating us in their arrogant, ignorant snobbery. That’s fine. The more they dislike us, they more we know we’re doing things right.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/30/2002 12:13:00 AM (Archive Link)
It’s occurred to me that Yassar Arafat is a classic mafia godfather. First, he rose through the ranks as a violent thug who didn’t hesitate to terrorize and to kill, thereby making himself a made man. Now, he puts on this presentable image as this great man, this great community leader who is respected by one and all and who is trying to lead his people as the president of the Palestinian Authority. The PA, however, is only his front organization. Behind the scenes, he’s dirtied his hands in all sorts of nefarious activities. Bombings, assassinations, election-fixing, intimidation, killings, weapons smuggling, random terrorism, and who knows what else. He talks of peace while holding a gun behind his back. He complains about the constant pressure from the District Attorney’s office (the Israelis) and whines about he can’t get his legitimate, honest business done because of it. The DA presents evidence of the godfather’s crimes… documents, testimony, a ship laden with 45 tons of illegal arms shipments… but the court of world opinion continues to find him innocent. He’s the new Teflon Don. So he will continue his crimes in private while the ignorant world eats up his good-guy image.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/30/2002 12:11:00 AM (Archive Link)
I often read those Israel critics who say that Israel is denying the Palestinians right to a state. I get confused when I see this complaint because I don’t know of such a right. When has a nation had the fundamental right to exist? When has a people had the fundamental right to a state of their own? Simply put, never. There is no inherent right for people to a state nor for a state to exist. A nation must be geographically cut out, must have a government, and then must be maintained. A country doesn’t exist and survive out of some divine right, it does so out of diplomacy and especially out of force. It will be constantly threatened by other predatory countries and it must therefore defend itself in order to preserve its existence. No right will do that.

Now given this, one may be tempted to turn the argument around on me and say that this is exactly what the Palestinians are trying to do, use force to create and maintain a state of their own. That may be the case, but they are going about it poorly. While war is useful is creating a nation, diplomacy can also be effective. It’s obvious the violence option isn’t working for the Palestinians. It’s time for a new tact.

The main Palestinian tactic is terrorist violence. It’s not even guerilla warfare, it’s just flat out terrorism where civilians are purposely targeted and killed. This is not the tactic of a weaker opponent against a stronger, it is a tactic of cowards. I would respect them more (very, very little more) if they had the “decency” to attack only military targets.

Second, the Palestinians have accomplished almost nothing in 50 years. Despite all of their violence, bluster, and outright terrorism, they are right where they started… nowhere. This isn’t Israel’s fault. This isn’t a case of the man keeping them down. The Palestinians have done this to themselves. They have tried bombings, they have tried suicide bombings, they have tried gunfights, they’ve tried a number of bloody options and they haven’t worked. Only honest diplomacy has worked. However, the Palestinians, and Arafat in particular, have a depressive’s personality so that just when things are looking up, they have to make life far worse for themselves. Conditions were improving after the Oslo accords and in 2000, Ehud Barak offered them the moon. Arafat rejected it and started the intifada and the wave of violence that is still going on. Instead of looking to diplomacy, he resorted to violence, his instinctive gut reaction, his native tongue. For the past 50 years or at least the past decade, Arafat and the Palestinians could have looked for ways to work with the Israelis, they could have worked on peaceful coexistence. Instead, they have inculcated Jew-hatred, they have supported violence and bombings, they have taught their children that Israelis are pigs, that holy Muslims will slay them on the Day of Judgement and that even the rocks and trees will point out the Jews hiding behind them. Arafat has consistently inflamed the passions of his people for his own gain and this is the result. Only violence has come from his efforts and, naturally, Israel has responded in kind in order to protect its citizens. The Palestinians have tried violence and anti-Semitism and it has garnered them no real gains. If they pursued peaceful methods such as those used by Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, they could accomplish more in 5 months than in 50 years. If the Israelis didn’t feel the constant Palestinian threat of violence, they’d be far likely to deal with them. Would the Palestinians get everything they want all at once? No, but the present tactics haven’t worked and peaceful movements can also create a state. It’s time for a change.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/30/2002 12:10:00 AM (Archive Link)
A word that commonly gets bandied about by many is “tolerance.” We must have tolerance for other people or for such and such group or for this type of individual. It’s been said so much and has been used as such a cure-all word that it has become a part of cultural dogma. You just believe it and don’t question it. What I find odd about this word is its base verb, tolerate. When you tolerate something, you are putting up with it even though you don’t like it. It is the lowest level of co-existence allowed before one party can no longer “tolerate” the other and works at its removal. In fact, you never hear the verb used in common speech, you only hear the noun as being possessed. For example, you will read, “We must have tolerance for our Muslim citizens,” not “We must tolerate our Muslim citizens.” The latter sentence puts the Muslim citizens in a bad light because it gives the impression that we don’t like them but will grudgingly endure their presence nonetheless. The first sentence doesn’t come off that way even though they say the exact same thing. I imagine many people would be annoyed if they realized that others were just barely putting up with them and their beliefs. They should be more annoyed with themselves for imploring others to do just that.

Really, my problem is with the word “tolerance” itself. I don’t like it. It has a negative connotation, is overused, and is carelessly misapplied. If all you want recognized are your rights to exist and to believe as you will, then by all means, ask for tolerance; ask to be merely tolerated. In some cases, such as Bosnia or Rwanda, that’s about the best you can hope for. However, if you would like something that’s a step above muted, passive hostility, ask for education, ask for understanding, or even better, ask for acceptance. Just please stop using the word as the band-aid for the world’s ills because it does nothing to heal the seething wound underneath. Something more is needed for that.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/23/2002 11:56:00 PM (Archive Link)
I read an article in my paper today that concerned Al Gore’s criticism of Bush’s environmental policy. What I find interesting is why we’re so concerned about what Al Gore thinks… more to the point, why is the media so interested? The criticisms noted in the article were made by Gore during a speech to a whopping 200 students at Vanderbilt University. This wasn’t a major policy dinner or a large public speech. This was a small gathering of people. However, it’s obvious that the news media had people there writing down every word so that they may appear in a nice nationally syndicated Associated Press article. It seems to me that the media is giving Gore a great deal of coverage lately. He says something about government and they jump on it. He says something negative about Bush and they start drooling. My guess is that they’re looking to quote just about anybody of import that so boldly criticizes Bush and Gore has been doing plenty of that lately. He’s been willing to knock just about every presidential policy except for those that concern the war on terror… and it’s probably only a matter of time before those begin. So do I think there’s some media bias towards Gore? Yes… they’re looking for an anti-Bush new angle.

There was a also a more subtle part of the article that I felt was anti-Bush. It reads as follows, “Along his brief New York nature hike, Bush walked a wooded trail and stopped along the way to help fix it up. At one point he drove a large nail through a log with the back of an ax, the sharp end coming within a few inches of his forehead with every thrust. Bush’s face reddened and he gave a deep sigh as he finished the project.” First of all, why is this even here? It has little to do with main point of the piece and is utterly out of place. I’ve noticed a similar tendency with other articles in that they’ll end with a paragraph or two that don’t fit in with the rest of the writing. This is one of those instances. I noted another example in a previous post in which the writer added a few sentences showing what a swell guy Al Gore is because of his dog troubles. Everything in the article prior to this was about Gore’s daughter running for office. My opinion is that these unrelated endings are a chance for the author to include a little bit of opinion and to leave the reader with that last image. In the Bush case noted here, the image is that of an clumsy idiot who’s flinging an axe around by his face and got exhausted after driving one nail. Of course, there’s nothing clumsy or irresponsible about it. If you’re pounding a nail with the back of an axe, the blade is going to come near your face. You don’t use an axe like a tack hammer. That’s not the point, however. The point is that this bit of information didn’t belong here in the first place and I’m going to be on the lookout for similar violations of good news writing in the future.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/18/2002 12:59:00 AM (Archive Link)
I occasionally find myself interested in what the other side (that being the left) is thinking, so I’ll visit thenation.com and read a couple of articles. I usually expect to be appalled and I’m rarely disappointed. An article I just read recently, however, certainly beats the rest. The piece in question is called “Peace and Nuclear Disarmament: A Call to Action” and it’s written by a Democratic congressman from Ohio named Dennis Kucinich. Take a moment to read the article (try and make it all the way through) and then we’ll get started.

What I find truly remarkable about this work is how it resides so far outside of reality. Repeatedly, Rep. Kucinich speaks of how man must connect with his inner peace to bring about world peace, or we must realize that all humanity is connected and thereby achieve peace, or if we work for peace in our country then it will be so and will spread throughout the world and there will be peace for all. He uses peace as if it’s a magic word that when you say it, it will be so. Like most liberal writing I read, he’s long on utopia, short on practicality. The closest he comes to action is to demand that “our nation and all nations” basically stop developing, aiming, and producing nuclear weapons, start dismantling nuclear weapons and go back in on the ABM treaty. Since this was the only useful thing he managed to say in 2,600 words of rhetorical fluff (although it’s admittedly well done rhetorical fluff and I at least have to admire his poetic writing style), I’ll dwell on it for a moment.

Rep. Kucinich is obviously very concerned about peace. His solution is the elimination of all nuclear weapons. However, this flies in the face of empirical evidence. For fifty years, our nuclear weapons have been a deterrent to those who would surely have attacked us. The Soviets were not a moral equivalent to us as Rep. Kucinich indicates nor was communism a mere hobgoblin as George McGovern says. It was and is a very real threat to the values we hold dear and thrives and expands by conquering through force. In a world that holds many more insidious and more secretive threats to our safety, we can hardly afford to take one our most powerful options and tuck it in our pocket because of the damage it can incur. That very damage is itself a dissuasion to potential attackers… especially those who are developing their own weapons of mass destruction and I guarantee you they won’t take the time to do serious soul-searching on the matter.

What Rep. Kucinich fails to understand is that America can avail itself of peace, sit down at the fire, and invite the whole world to come have a coke and sing kum bay ya, but most will not come. Some will come and join in our high-minded idealness. Others will be Jason lurking in the woods and will slaughter us because we have failed to defend ourselves. The reality is that there are people and countries in the world who do not like us for whatever reason. You may say its jealousy of our wealth and success, you may say its because they don’t share our ideologies, you may say its their own thirst for power, you may even go the liberal route and say its because of poverty and colonialism. Whatever it is, no amount of placating or concessions or money or peace-speak will eliminate their hatred of America. We are only reasonably safe from these people because they fear us. The very instant we let down our guard and show ourselves to be complacent or weak, we will be attacked. War will never be “archaic” because somebody will always be reinventing it and making it new again. Don’t get me wrong, in a perfect world, we would be at peace with everybody, the world’s population would share a decent standard of living and happiness would reign. I like that because it’s a good thing… it’s nice. However, that is not the case and it will never be the case. You may wish it and you may work at it, but evil in the world will still remain because there are evil people causing it. If America becomes a sheep, the wolves will rip it to shreds. Far better to be a lion among the wolves.

What amazes me is how may people seem to consider the values, freedoms, and rights of this country as not worth fighting for. It is through war that these things were purchased and we have repaid the price time and time again. The peace we enjoy on our secluded continent and that we have enjoyed for 140 years was through war. No country has a fundamental right to exist and thrive, it must fight to establish and maintain itself. And I can think of few things more worth fighting and dying for than this nation. For it only through its tenuous and yet mighty existence that any of us have any hope and have any peace. There is always something worth dying for. If you don’t feel that way, then you have put your own arrogant existence above all else and have declared yourself more important than everything and everybody. And through that declaration, you have proven yourself to be the most pitiful and pathetic of humans.

That seems like a good place to end this but there are still a few more points I would like to hit on.

Rep. Kucinich declares that current government policy and actions “are occurring without the consent of the American people, without public debate, without public hearings, without public votes.”

I am of the opinion that the people have given their implicit consent for whatever policies exist at a given time because they have elected those who form the policies. These people were chosen to proportionately reflect the desires of the public. If at any given time, government policy veers away from public policy, the electorate will happily vote in people who more closely share and represent their views. That’s a democratic republic in action.

It is not the government’s responsibility to foster public debate. That is the responsibility of those who oppose the government’s actions. When you are the one who has the complaint, you can’t just sit around huffing that nobody is complaining. You must be the one to speak up and make others listen. If others choose not to listen, then they obviously disagree with you. If there is a lack of public debate on these issues, it’s not because the opposition isn’t trying, it’s because the public doesn’t agree with the opposition and through their silence, they have given consent to government action.

Public hearings fall into the same category as public debates. It is the responsibility of the opposition.

Public votes… since when has there ever been a national referendum to determine national policy? Again, this has been expressed through your elected officials. Because the public at large doesn’t and is unable to vote on every issue and every bill that comes along, we depend on those who represent us to also represent our views. If they are not doing so, vote for somebody who will. That wacky democratic republic again doing what it’s made to do.

In short, what I’m driving at is that consent has obviously been granted to the government. If this were not so, we would be hearing mighty uproars across the country. Silence is consent and you have given consent through those you have elected.

Now some might say that the silence is not by choice, it has been imposed on the public. We don’t dare to say things out loud against President Bush because somebody might call us naughty, naysay us, and vigorously criticize us. Thank goodness there’s Dennis Kucinich who has the courage to speak out in a freedom-loving republic that maintains free speech as one of its highest ideals and prohibits any prevention thereof. How brave. Ask the dissenters who suffered in Soviet gulags what bravery is. Ask the dissenters who now suffer in the Middle East what bravery is. Ask the dissenters who are imprisoned in Cuba what bravery is. Ask the Palestinian dissenters in the West Bank what bravery is. Unfortunately, you can’t ask most of these people about bravery because a good many of them are dead. They were killed by states that were truly totalitarian. America is not this and will never be this despite the apocalyptic scenarios people may paint. It’s time we separated criticism from censorship. On the one hand you are told you are wrong and you shouldn’t say something. On the other is you are told you are wrong and you are unable to say it. Are liberals often criticized? Yes. Are they often told they’re wrong? Yes. Are they prevented from speaking their minds? No. Others and I may vehemently oppose you and criticize you but will never tell you can’t say what you want. There will never be men with sunglasses waiting to whisk Rep. Kucinich away for interrogation after a speech. There will never be government agents pulling him into a dark alley and beating him or worse. This is what happens to the opposition in countries that so many declare morally and culturally equal to our own and those dissenters show courage I can’t imagine. Rep. Kucinich is merely exercising his rights and has nothing to fear but negative editorials. Learn what real censorship is and what real totalitarianism is. You’ll be embarrassed you ever thought it of America.

So in conclusion, I think Rep. Kucinich is wrong. I also think he manages to say very little while still speaking at length. I also dearly hope he keeps saying what he wants so that I may respond and we will all speak our minds.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/17/2002 12:34:00 AM (Archive Link)
Occasionally, I come across reports of conservative speakers at universities being shouted down by the crowd. Other cases involve leftist groups stealing conservative newspapers that they don’t agree with for one reason or another. How ironic that liberals who purport to be the true purveyors, defenders, users, and beneficiaries of free speech would prevent it. I’ve noticed that many groups on the left tend to have a victim’s mentality. They’re eternally oppressed and put down by the right and the “power structure.” This is hardly the case. Liberal thought and ideas are very prevalent in our society. Additionally, most on the right are perfectly willing to let the left have their say. The right will vehemently oppose their views and waste no effort in criticizing them but they will never inhibit the right or ability of those people to express them. Of course, a case could be made that those shouting down the speaker are themselves using free speech. However, I’m not so sure this qualifies when it’s sole intent is to prevent another’s free speech. The left would cry bloody murder if an authority such as the government were to silence a liberal speaker. I think it’s no less an offense when an independent group of people, no matter their ideology, endeavor to do the same thing. The sins are equivalent.

The left also cries foul at what they feel is the right’s ideological dominance in current American society. They say that the current wave of patriotism and such is inhibiting their right to free speech. I think there’s often a great deal of confusion on this point… a mix-up of criticism and actual censorship. Saying you shouldn’t say something is far different from saying you shouldn’t be able to say something. The left often mutates the former into the latter. They think that because people criticize their point of view that they are trying to stifle their ability to express that point of view. This is far from the truth. Criticism is nothing more than a further exercise of free speech. People need to figure out this very important distinction and stop shouting about how they’re being repressed. They’re not being repressed, they’re merely getting the sharp end of the stick that every American citizen is allowed to wield… free speech.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/16/2002 12:50:00 AM (Archive Link)
As you may be aware, the military recently opened and closed what was derisively called the “office of disinformation,” technically known as the Office of Strategic Influence. The purpose of this new agency was to let America’s side be known to the world media in a centralized fashion. However, wild speculation started that the office also had the more sinister responsibility of creating purposely misleading information to plant in foreign newspapers or to inculcate rumors in other countries. I find such accusations typically mean-spirited, but let us assume for a moment that they’re right. Let’s say the OSI was going to be up to no-good and no-good was its main purpose. Does the left really think that the Pentagon would not continue the activities the OSI was purported to be doing? If the military thought disinformation would be such a good idea that they created a whole new agency to handle it, they wouldn’t cease such idea planting just because the office disappeared. Rather, the responsibilities would shift to other entities that are buried in the hierarchical and budget bureaucracies somewhere. Only now, it’s more difficult to figure out from where the disinformation is coming. Before, if information came from the OSI or could be traced to it, you would know it’s suspect. But now, it’s harder to figure out. Now I’m not advocating the opinion that the OSI was created with nefarious intentions in mind. I’m only pointing out that if we put ourselves in that conspiracy theory mode, the people who killed the office only made things more difficult for themselves. And I find that amusing.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/16/2002 12:23:00 AM (Archive Link)
I often hear it said that you should have no regrets. True words. However, very misused. I’ve discovered that many people take this to mean that they shouldn’t regret anything they’ve done and will do. They shouldn’t feel guilt. This is absurd. If you feel no regret, guilt, or remorse for anything you’ve done, you’re little better than a goldfish. Guilt can be destructive, yes, but most often can be constructive. It allows you to mature, it allows you to empathize with others you've wronged, it allows you to recognize past mistakes and avoid them in the future. If you have no regrets about anything, then you have removed yourself from moral accountability. You should have no regrets, but this means that you shouldn’t do things that will cause you to have regret in the first place. If you do things right the first time, you won’t have remorse to worry about.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/14/2002 08:04:00 PM (Archive Link)
I just read this article on CNN.com about Al Gore’s first real political speech since he lost the election to Bush. I don’t like Gore to put it mildly… very mildly. Read the article and then I’ll detail some reasons.

“I'm tired of this right-wing side sidewind. I've had it," Gore told supporters at the Florida Democratic Party Convention in Orlando. "America's economy is suffering unnecessarily. Important American values are being trampled. Special interests are calling the shots, and it sometimes seems as if, in the words of the poet, 'The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity.' If you agree with me, then stand up with conviction for what we believe in and fight for it."

-I have absolutely no idea how Gore intends to support the notion that the “economy is suffering,” considering that all reports show it is doing very well and pulling out of the oh-so-brief recession we had. I also don’t know how he would link Republicans to the nebulous “suffering” he referred to.

As for his poet quote, well, this is funny to me. First of all, he quoted a poet (who you may ask? William Butler Yeats in a poem called The Second Coming concerning the return of Jesus Christ). I like poetry. It sounds nice. However, you won’t find me quoting it in order to make deep points. One of my favorite anecdotes about Plato concerns the day he met Socrates. Up until this point he was a very promising young poet, but after listening to Socrates speak, he came home and threw all his poetry into the fire in complete disgust. He found poetry to be empty of true wisdom. I can’t say as that I disagree with him.

“But he took a swipe at the administration's handling of homeland security, referring to a Bush administration proposal to allow the transport of nuclear waste cross-country. ‘Waste will be trucked through 45 states," he said, adding that's “some domestic security.’”

-I got news for ya. Hazardous waste and hazardous chemicals of all sorts are routinely shipped all across this country and through every city every day. This is stuff that would make your hair stand on end. However, it’s routine and is the common workings of businesses and factories. You wouldn’t enjoy many of the items in your house without them. Limiting these shipments would severely hamper the economy for which Gore has already expressed so much concern. I don’t know the details of the plan, but I imagine that the nuclear waste would have high security, high safety precautions, and would be extremely limited. Gore makes it sound as if we’re going to be transporting tons of the stuff through all 45 states on any given day. No. Limited. And if you’re worried about this, you should also be concerned about that tanker of benzene that just cruised by on the train a couple of miles from your house.

“On the economy, Gore made his sole reference to his former boss. ‘I think Bill Clinton and I did a damn good job’ by leading the country to its longest economic expansion in history and building up a budget surplus. But ‘in just 15 months under President Bush, that surplus has all but evaporated.’”

-I am sick and tired of Clinton and Gore taking credit for America’s prosperity during the 90’s. Let’s make one thing clear: they had very little to do with it. What made the economy roar for a decade was the expert manipulation of interest rates by Alan Greenspan (who really acted more in the capacity to slow the economy down and keep it from sparking rampant inflation) and the market’s own natural forces, especially in the tech world. Clinton has been taking credit left and right for the 90’s economy, but I have never heard of one thing he did for which he should deserve such credit. Quite simply, the economy entered one of its sporadic periods of extreme growth, in this case led by the technology sector and its overhyped and overvalued stocks. If Clinton wants to take credit for the economy, fine. Let’s not forget that it was well into its slide at the end of his tenure after the tech bubble burst. Does he want to take credit for that as well?

I don’t disagree that the budget surplus has almost disappeared. However, Gore fails to mention why this is, so let me do it. The war on terror. You see, these bad men attacked the country and we have to get rid of them to prevent future attacks. Such things cost money, especially at the outset. I suppose we could have done nothing after 9/11 and kept our meaningless surplus in a nice lockbox somewhere. Surpluses are for a rainy day and a tornado hit us on September 11th.

“Gore also accused the White House of being ‘intent on raiding the Social Security trust fund’ and questioned why Bush has paid little attention in recent months -- since the market has cooled -- to his proposal to allow workers to invest Social Security funds in the stock market.”

-Social Security was raided because of the war on terror… again. And really, Social Security has been raided for years. It’s always been a convenient piggy bank to make up for shortfalls in other government entities. This is hardly a new thing. As for changing SS, I imagine that Bush has bigger things on his mind than Mr. Gore’s proposals and considering this, Bush certainly doesn’t have time to devote to such a huge domestic issue when there are far more pressing international issues at stake. And make no mistake that this would be huge. Social Security is a third rail in politics that you just don’t touch and such an adjustment as suggested would take years of wrangling.

A final observation about this speech. Gore is obviously trying to swing the public’s attention back to domestic issues and away from those international. This is extremely dangerous. We are in a war. The rest of us go about our daily lives, but this country is currently fighting a battle to guarantee us the ability to be stupidly and blissfully ignorant of the profound dangers and threats to our safety and lives. To ignore these more important and broader issues in favor of our more local problems is taking a risk I don’t want Gore to have. For ten years, we insulated ourselves from the threats to our country and sat smugly in our last-man-standing superpower status. It took a vicious attack on our own land to remind us that the preservation of democracy, freedom, life, culture, and the nation itself depends on constant vigilance and continuous defense. We fight for these things first and foremost, not Social Security because it wholly depends on their integrity. If Gore wants to ignore the dangers to our country and face inward, then he may do so, but I would rather he do it privately and not allow his attitude to infect the public. For if his misguided priorities become reality, we are a doing a very grave disservice to our values and our very lives.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/12/2002 01:03:00 AM (Archive Link)
I was intending to blog about an entirely different topic tonight, but my brother e-mailed me asking my opinion on the NRA. While I was going to put it on my list of things to consider, I couldn't help going ahead and typing a reponse. Here it is:

The NRA. I consider it a necessary evil. Strangely enough, I'm willing to lump it in the same category as the ACLU, although most conservatives would find such grouping repulsive. Really, though, they're similar warriors. The ACLU is an all-out defender of the first amendment. They will defend African Americans and the KKK with equal vigor in order to prevent free speech rights from being impeded by the government or other entities. This often leads them to defend causes that most would consider questionable if not outright offensive. They do this, however, in order to prevent the dreaded sliding effect... that one minor infringement of speech on an unpopular group leads the way for further censor on other groups until we get to the stage of a totalitarian government. It's an unlikely apocalyptic scenario that's purposely meant to frighten people, but the possibility for some rights encroachment does exist. So in this sense, while I often dislike the ACLU's tactics and the causes they support, I nevertheless find them necessary as they are an equal opportunity defender of the first amendment wherever it may be threatened. They therefore help to secure the overall right for the rest of us.

The NRA is to the second amendment as the ACLU is to the first amendment. A tireless defender of the people's right to bear arms. Not only tireless, but a complete opponent to almost any regulation whatsoever. They too paint a grim future... in this case it's a view of minor gun control eventually leading to jack booted ATF agents going door to door ceasing the citizenry's weapons. So in order to keep the absolute worst from happening, they try to prevent the least worst from happening. While I don't agree with this no regulation view since I consider some gun control appropriate, I see the organization as being important and necessary. In a country where there are many groups calling for extreme gun control, there must be a balancing factor that favors the other side. And since any concessions to the gun control lobby will easily lead to further, more serious restrictions, the all-or-nothing approach is perfectly understandable and it provides a clear agenda to follow.

Besides all this, I think the NRA is unfairly painted as a bunch of right-wing nuts. The organization has actually been around since 1871 and has always been as big a proponent of gun safety as it is of the second amendment. Many of the terrible incidents and accidents that the left has attributed to guns could probably have been avoided if more people were involved the NRA.... cases such as improper gun storage or use. People won't program their VCR without reading the instructions but think they know perfectly well how to use a deadly weapon and in what situations to use it. Personally, I think the anti-gun lobby would be better served by working with the NRA. Guns aren't going away, so you should instead vigorously promote the responsible use of them. Stigmatizing the one organization that does that doesn't help matters.

On the matter of gun control in general, I do think possessing guns is a constitutionally guaranteed right. There's always the debate about the verbiage of the second amendment and the intent of the founding fathers, but I find this irrelevant. Regardless of the original intent, the longstanding de facto meaning is that the average citizen has the right to keep and bear arms. When a law has meant one thing for so long and has been exercised so thoroughly, you can't turn around and then severely limit the scope... and do so retroactively. I do, however, favor some limited gun control. There are exceptionally powerful guns that I don't think the average joe should have... automatic weapons and the like. I also think there are some people who shouldn’t be allowed to have them such as felons and the mentally unstable. That's why there are provisions for such things and they should be fully upheld by gun sellers... including those at the largely unregulated gun shows where private dealers trade as they please. The safeguards need to be in place here too. I'd like them to be effective in all such private dealings but the logistics and ability to ensure that happens is iffy. As previously stated, I'd also like an emphasis on gun safety so that people are aware of how and when to use a firearm properly and the possible consequences for using them improperly. Guns are very dangerous weapons and while I agree with the platitude that people kill people and that if somebody is intent on harming you, they will in many cases do so by one means or another, guns do make it easier. It's a logistically simpler matter killing with a gun and it's also a very impersonal weapon that allows the killer to more easily emotionally detach himself from the victim. This is why the safeguards must be in place and enforced.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/10/2002 12:33:00 AM (Archive Link)
A realization just occurred to me concerning the earlier civil rights thread and my concerns about the leadership’s tactics to suppress dissent. In squashing opposition, the leadership goes deeper than just using epitaphs against opponents. Why are the names so effective in the first place? Here’s why, I think. There are African Americans and then there are ideas that some African Americans put forth, nurture, and maintain. The leadership, though, who support these ideas have mutated the situation so that being black means holding these ideas. They are no longer merely notions that one is free to believe or not believe and still maintain ethnic credibility, they are notions that one must believe in order to prove ethnic worth… being black means holding these ideas. If you don’t hold them, then you can’t be black. You are an “other” and then are given labels such as Uncle Tom or sellout. It’s horrible that one’s ethnicity and ethnic credibility must be contingent upon purporting certain opinions that others have devised for you. The “leaders” have put a stranglehold not only on thought but on identity as well.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/10/2002 12:30:00 AM (Archive Link)
I mentioned in the previous post that part of my dislike for Jesse Jackson stems from his affair and the child he had through it. Let me clarify. While I don’t like this, I also don’t find it overly troubling only because he confessed to it. Granted, he only did so because a tabloid was about to break the story, but at least he did come clean, ask for forgiveness, etc. He said some fine words. What really aggravated me about the situation were his actions. He told the public that he was going to take some time off from his projects and time out of the spotlight so that he could reconnect with his wife and family whom he had so terribly disgraced and sinned against. He said this on a Friday. By Sunday evening, he announced that he was going back to work because he couldn’t let his people down. Right. This just demonstrates how important his family really is. This sort of attitude probably led to the affair in the first place. I also can’t help but think about what a boost this was to his already over-inflated ego. Most likely, there were supporters calling in from all corners of the country saying how they couldn’t do it without him, about how was too integral to the civil rights effort to take a break. I’m sure he loved it. These sweet nothings whispered in his ear re-ignited his feelings of self-importance and he believed all of it. This, in combination with his own personal love of the limelight, certainly led him back to the national stage. The Machiavelli in me sometimes wonders if his announced intent to reconnect with his family was only him fishing for compliments… and boy did he haul in a great catch.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/09/2002 12:49:00 AM (Archive Link)
A previous post of mine mentioned civil rights, so I think I will expound on that. The civil rights effort (I hardly think it deserves the term "movement" anymore) is in bad shape. This is due to two factors: leadership and a lack of open-mindedness. First, though, let us establish that there is a problem. Most would agree that there has been little progress in civil rights in the past ten to fifteen years. There have been gradual changes here and there but hardly anything significant. The importance of this takes on greater dimensions when most minorities will say they are still disenfranchised, there are still problems with the “system,” there’s still racism, etc., etc. Why do these conditions persist after so many years?

Let’s begin with leadership. Many will say that the two primary leaders in the civil rights arena and African American issues more specifically are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Neither of these men are paragons of virtue. Mr. Jackson, of course, has a child with a woman with whom he had a longstanding affair. Mr. Sharpton (you may notice I refer to the gentlemen as “mister” and not “reverend.” This is because they’re both as much reverends as I’m a bicycle. And I assure you that I am not a bicycle.) has gone on the record as an anti-Semite and a race baiter. He has also contributed to such shameful acts as the Tawana Brawley incident and the murder of a Jewish store owner but is shameless enough never to admit any guilt or responsibility or remorse. What I find especially aggravating about them, though, is the same quality I dislike in Bill Clinton. They’re more concerned with themselves than with their jobs or the goals they are entrusted to pursue. In short, they’re headline chasers and love the attention. I’ve consistently watched them fly around the country to big “crises” that have developed. They show up, say sweet words, and then when the publicity slackens, they leave for the next front page story. This behavior is detrimental on several points.

First of all, they don’t get the job done. When you’re jetting around the country, you are unable to give the proper attention due to each of the situations in which you’ve inserted yourself. When a community of people have put their trust in you to help with their problems, they deserve more than a cameo, lip service, and then the meager help of underlings.

Second, they often get involved in bad causes. I remember a case last year where Mr. Jackson made a fuss over a black man being restrained a little overzealously by police. He made claims about how this was indicative of the police’s attitude towards blacks (the only reason it wasn’t indicative of whites’ attitudes is because black officers were also involved) and he trotted out the man’s father to cry to reporters about his son’s treatment. This is all well and good except for a few problems. Prior to his capture, the “victim” in question had led police on a high speed chase in a vehicle he had just carjacked, had gotten into a shootout with them, and had even injured an officer. In that light, it’s understandable that when the police were able to subdue him, they were not casual about it. The point of this is that this criminal is exactly the wrong type of person to be made into a civil rights poster boy. This was no Rosa Parks, this was a violent felon. If civil rights is to be successful, then the sympathy and support of an entire society must be engendered, not just that of a segment. In a case like this, however, the vast majority will only feel that the police officers’ actions were justified.

Third, the majority has difficulty taking Messrs. Jackson and Sharpton seriously. When it’s obvious that they spend little time dealing with individual issues before moving on to the next and when it’s obvious they hold up bad people as victims, nobody wants to support such movements. Again, a majority is needed for progress.

Bad civil rights leadership, not just that of Messrs. Jackson and Sharpton but also that of the NAACP, Cornel West, et al., also contribute to a severe lack of public debate about how civil rights should be approached. This leadership has a set agenda involving affirmative action, slave reparations, and several other points. To deviate from this is anathema. If you dare to question the agenda, the leadership, or any other standard policy, you face one of two prospects that is determined by your race. If you are white, you are automatically labeled a racist and are anti-affirmative action (strangely enough, being against affirmative action is itself a sin… see the debacle over Lawrence Summers and Cornel West). If you are black, you are automatically labeled an Uncle Tom and a self-loathing race-hater. No reasonable counter-argument to your points is made or pursued, only the label is applied and that unfortunately is enough. Few can accept such terrible and awful epitaphs and still survive in whatever policy capacity they occupy. It’s disgraceful… not only in itself but because of the limitations it puts on the civil rights effort. Any movement, any ideology must be allowed to grow and evolve. For that, honest public discourse must be allowed. However, when you preemptively quash any dissent, the movement becomes stagnant, the leadership becomes complacent, and positive results diminish. Such is the case here.

Civil rights has failed to make significant progress in recent years. The leaders can’t blame the establishment, though they will try. They can’t blame politicians, though they will try. They can’t blame other groups, though they will try. The blame lies solely with them and their failed objectives. If civil rights were a corporation, the executives would have been fired long ago for their failure to adapt to current market conditions, for their outmoded, outdated business plan, and for their inability to produce benefits for the shareholders. For progress to be made, fresh voices must be heard and fresh leaders must take control. The opportunities are there. If only somebody were to take advantage.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/07/2002 11:52:00 PM (Archive Link)
The last post briefly reminded me of the Three Stooges' venerable law firm Dewey, Cheetum & Howe.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/07/2002 11:48:00 PM (Archive Link)
Let me state that I particularly dislike insurance companies. It's an odd business to begin with since you're essentially betting against yourself. It is, however, a necessary evil. What's especially grating, though, is when you need to file a claim against another's policy for the damage they have incurred on your property. At that point, the company will close its fist tight and tell you all variety of lies in order to pay as little money as possible. I don't think anything in our society inspires quite as many breaches of ethics as the automobile. From sale to insurance to repair to tickets to injuries to outright theft, there's any number of opportunities for people to lie, cheat, and steal. And they often do.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/05/2002 01:26:00 AM (Archive Link)
Another article I found interesting on CNN.com concerns the possibility of Al Gore’s eldest daughter, Karenna Gore Schiff, running for public office. Just a brief comment on this one sentence in the news item, “Since conceding [the presidential] race, [Al] Gore has given no firm indication that he intends to run again, but Schiff said she would enthusiastically support another Gore candidacy.” Love that word, “conceded.” Bush only won the presidency because Gore graciously bowed out. Personally, I would say Gore “lost” but I wouldn’t expect to find such direct and honest verbiage in most mainstream media.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/05/2002 01:24:00 AM (Archive Link)
An article on Foxnews.com has sparked my interests. If you haven’t seen Speedy Gonzales on TV recently, there’s a reason… he’s not there. Appears the Cartoon Network which has sole broadcasting rights for the Warner Brothers cartoons refuses to air him because of the alleged Hispanic stereotypes involved. Here’s the weird part, though… Hispanics love him. Not only is he hugely popular in Latin America (where the Cartoon Network has no qualms showing Speedy’s cartoons on their Spanish station), but the country’s oldest Hispanic-American rights group, the League of Latin American United Citizens, wants him back. However, the CN spokesman, Laurie Goldberg, said it’s unlikely he’ll be back. "We're not about pushing the boundary. We're not HBO," she said. "We have a diverse audience and we have an impressionable audience." It seems to me that the diverse audience doesn’t have a problem with him.

I often think it’s strange that many white people are far more concerned about material that can be construed as offensive to minorities than the minorities themselves are. I think it’s a form of white guilt. But if a group of people you’re worried about offending aren’t offended by something, why should you feel offended for them? Not only do I think this bizarre, I think it’s rude. It’s as if the majority feels it has to look out for the minority because they’re not qualified or enlightened enough to do so on their own. It’s the “white people to rescue” mentality. I imagine there are probably plenty of white Democrats out there who think the civil rights movement was only made possible through their benevolence and transcendent righteousness. Such ideas are the most racist I can think of because they maintain the notion of the white patron who must continually help the minorities and save them from their own misguided follies. It takes away the minority’s right to self-direction.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/04/2002 12:52:00 AM (Archive Link)
Read a CNN.com article
about rudeness increasing in America. No commentary, I just wanted to point out a
particularly funny part: "One woman in Texas blamed The King. 'It was
shocking when Elvis was shaking his hips up there, but now we see whole
naked bodies,' she said. 'It started with Elvis, and that was a little
overboard, but that was the beginning of what we have today.'" Let it be
written down that the downfall of civilization began on June 5, 1956, on the stage of
The Milton Berle Show.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/02/2002 10:59:00 PM (Archive Link)
Speaking of the Arab Street earlier, I still don’t know why we’re so concerned about it. Shouldn’t they be more concerned about the American Main Street? I think we have street issues. It’s like we’re trying to keep up with the Joneses even though the Jones property is a dilapidated house with a sewage plant next door.

I just had a stunning and humorous thought. Now before I get started, I’ll warn you of an upcoming analogy. My fiancée often rolls her eyes at them, but I will continue. The Middle East is like the Beverly Hillbillies. Stay with me. Jed and Co., you will recall, lived in a run-down old shack on some wilderness property. They lived a rather simple uncomplicated life. And then one day Jed was shootin’ at some food and up through the ground come a bubblin’ crude. Oil that is. Black gold. Texas tea. With their newfound wealth, they built a fancy new mansion and enjoyed all the niceties modern life had to offer. However, they were still the fish-out-of-water. The nice big house and the new interaction with the world at large still didn’t change who they were. They continued to be the same simple, out of touch people. To (ab)use another platitude, you can take the boy out of the country but you can’t take the country out of the boy.

Well, here we are with the Middle East. The Arab and Persian societies were largely feudal and often violent. They were also very much behind the rest of the world in terms of technology and civilization. Then, however, it was discovered that the region was floating on oil. (History doesn’t record who it was that happened to accidentally shoot the ground to find it.) Suddenly, there was money. And yes, yes, most of it went to foreign oil concerns and nations who dominated the countries until they got kicked out. Let’s pretend Jed was manipulated by Exxon before he chased them off his land with a Springer rifle and a Remington shotgun. So the region was awash in new cash. With this, they took care of many longstanding problems. They improved infrastructure, housing, public works, utilities, military… basically brought the place into the modern age in the material sense. However, they were still the same people. They were still the same feudal, violent people they were before the oil and didn’t blend into the rest of the world at all. In fact, they were quite at odds with it. However, we were forced to reckon with them. Like a fawning Mr. Drysdale, we had to be nice because of the economic power they held over us.

You may be more offended at my comparison of the lovable Beverly Hillbillies to the Middle East rather than the other way around. However, picture the Hillbillies where most of them are like Granny in the hot-tempered shotgun-toting mode. Now imagine that there are neighbors next door to them who have a smaller house but are far better people (better educated, better functioning household, the rich guy in the big house downtown looks after them) and the Hillbillies are hell-bent on getting rid of the house and the neighbors. They wouldn’t be so benign then.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/02/2002 10:59:00 PM (Archive Link)
One more story that came to me when I earlier mentioned the 60’s. My future father-in-law tells a story of when he was in college and was driving through an east Texas town with some friends. At the time, he had longer, wilder hair, although he was in no way of the hippie sort. He was (and is), in fact, a proud Vietnam veteran who volunteered for service and combat duty. When he got out of the army is when he let the hair go a little. Well, he and his friends went into this little café in rural Texas and the local folk eyed them hard and primarily mumbled three different epitaphs at them: beatle, hippie, and (my favorite) beatle hippie. Try saying it with a low Texas drawl. It’s great fun.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/02/2002 10:58:00 PM (Archive Link)
There’s an article on CNN.com about the EU’s opinion on the situation in Israel. Here’s what the Spanish Foreign Minister (Spain currently holds the rotating EU presidency) Josep Pique had to say, “One thing is to fight terrorism, and another is to dismantle the Palestinian Authority’s power structure.” So where is the distinction here? Where has there ever been a distinction? The PLO has had terrorism as one of its central tenets since its inception and there’s little to show its importance has decreased. The empirical evidence would seem to say that it’s as strong as ever. And why shouldn’t it be? The PLO has been committing terrorist acts for years and they only worked in the Palestinians’ favor. More negotiations, more concessions. The sort of backlash they’re getting now has not only been long in the making, it’s also very well deserved and justified. I feel little sympathy for them.

Another quote from the article concerning Senor Pique’s statement: “An immediate ceasefire, he said, is necessary to return the troubled region to a ‘minimum normalcy.’” Minimum normalcy. Does this mean going back to suicide bombers occasionally blowing up civilians while the Arab Street smiles and the U.S. compels Israel to do nothing but sit back down at the negotiations table? The avowed and implied goal of the Palestinian and Arabist movements is the complete elimination of Israel and Jews in general. Had he lived, nobody would have suggested that Israel sit down to discussions with Hitler and I see no reason why they must do so here.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/02/2002 10:57:00 PM (Archive Link)
A friend with whom I worked recently discovered my site and said I must be a closet conservative. My credentials on the matter were questionable since I like John McCain. However, I never said I wasn’t conservative. I just don’t necessarily subscribe to the whole Republican agenda, e.g. I like campaign finance reform (well, most parts of it) even though most Republicans loathe it. Really, I have my own set of values and I’m discovering more and more just how anti-liberal they are. Well, maybe not anti-liberal, per se, since that implies they’re oriented around the opposition of the left. Rather, they’re just definitely contrary to the left. If A=liberal and B=me, then my position can summarized as B and not A as opposed to A, therefore not B.

I see it this way. There are ideals. Ideals are good. They’re the way things should be in a perfect world. Now many Democrats and liberals are idealists who see nothing but those ideals and try to make huge leaps towards them. This is bad. If you’ve been in an organization of some size, those big leaps cause more trouble than they solve because the organization is unable to fulfill the requirements due to logistical, morale-related, or ideological issues. When you try to take strides that are too long for your legs, you fall on your face. I think this sometimes stems from the notion of having a pie in the sky vision while not coming up with any practical method for getting there. For example, I read some song lyrics linked off another blogging site that equated the military with the monetary. It implored the listener to start working for peace. I was thinking to myself, “I couldn’t agree more. I want to start working for peace. What do you propose?” I imagine that would have drawn a blank or at least some 60’s inspired notion about being one with my fellow man (even though there are many men that I would rather not call my fellows).

Anyway, I favor keeping the ideal in mind and taking smaller, more manageable steps towards it while realizing that you likely will never fully realize the ultimate goal. After all, it’s an ideal and making ideals reality is fairly uncommon. The smaller steps will get you closer to where you want to be, in better time, and with better results. I think the only cases where sudden, drastic change is required are those that are moral or involve survival or self-preservation. Examples of the first are slavery, civil right, and the like. Sometimes gradual change will not complete the job (and there was a terrible lot of buildup for these) without a sudden, wrenching change. Examples of the second case are [insert war of choice here]. But other than this, I prefer to work within the bounds of what can be practically accomplished at a given moment. Trying to work outside those bounds will only draw them in tighter and you will be capable of accomplishing even less.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/02/2002 12:33:00 AM (Archive Link)
I would like to point you to this article by Victor Davis Hanson on NRO. As I try to figure out how to describe it, I can't. Nor do I think I should. Just read it. It's great.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/02/2002 12:26:00 AM (Archive Link)
Found a new site for my bookmarks: the Middle East Media Research Institute. This group translates articles and news items from Middle Eastern newspapers, magazines... media in general... into English. Some of it is quite interesting. Since Americans tend to not get very much first hand exposure to the oh-so-important and worried about "Arab Street," this is a good resource. You can read about such interesting things (read: stunning falsehoods) as how Jews use human blood to prepare holiday pastries for Purim and how Ben Franklin publicly denounced Jews during the Constiutional Convention. Nevermind that the "quote" attributed to him sounds like the anti-Semetic remarks from a Taliban pamphlet. The site is non-partisan, though. If you want to know more about it, just go to the "About Us" section from the main page.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/02/2002 12:14:00 AM (Archive Link)
Just read the Newsweek article about Clinton's life after office. There were a few parts of it I liked. "Even now, Clinton cannot admit the obvious point that the Marc Rich pardon was simply wrong, insisting heatedly in his first sit-down interview about life after the presidency that he 'got mugged on the way out the door.'" A rare moment of candidness. (See my previous post) Here's another quote, "Now the ex-president is contesting even that, insisting that the war on terrorism, while important, 'is not like World War II at all' and will eventually be seen in the context not of the Bush presidency but of Clinton’s global achievements." Oh brother. I'm sometimes stunned at just how wrapped up in himself he is. This is also considering that foreign policy was never Clinton's strong suit. I'm of the opinion that Clinton only did damage to America's global positioning during his eight years. He was always big on consensus building and getting everybody to agree. This is in contrast to leading outright and getting the rest to follow. I think it spoiled other countries and now that there's a president in office who believes in the latter stance, these countries are a little shocked at it all. Many in this country are also of the Clintonian mind of consensus building and making sure everybody is in agreement before taking action. This is… well… it’s silly. Like it or not, the United States is the most powerful country in the world in just about every sense. It has an absolute responsibility to be the world leader. Abdicating that role or bringing America down to the level of every other nation out there is a great danger to the country and the world. Doing so creates a power vacuum at best that will be filled either by a host of bickering entities that gets even less done than usual or by something or someone truly dreadful.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/01/2002 12:30:00 AM (Archive Link)
[This is a blog from several days ago that is just now being posted. My thoughts on the current situation in Israel will be forthcoming.]

Yassar Arafat. Our government continues to negotiate with him and plead with him. We persuade Israel to be nice to him and to show restraint toward him. I continually wonder why. Despite his pleas for a cease-fire, Palestinian violence has continued unabated. I think this leads to one of two obvious conclusions. Either he’s unwilling to stop the attacks against Israelis or he’s unable to. In the first case, he speaks words of peace in public but plans evil deeds in private and is a clear threat to Israeli lives. The government has shown great restraint in not eliminating him as they have several other terrorist leaders. If the circumstances are the latter and he’s simply unable to control his people, then at best he should be ignored. There are apparently other entities in control of things and he is irrelevant. What’s especially frightening about this prospect is that we don’t know who is in charge. Even worse is that there may be no one person in charge. Instead, it’s merely a number of autonomous groups acting on their own suspicions and beliefs with no regard to what Mr. Arafat or anybody else says. In either case, Arafat is clearly not a person with whom we need bother negotiating. We should marginalize him to the irrelevancy he deserves.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/01/2002 12:19:00 AM (Archive Link)
I really dislike Bill Clinton. My distaste has most recently been inflamed by an article I just read on CNN.com about Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich during the 11th hour of his Presidency. Good ole Bill said that given the chance, he wouldn’t do it again. Not because it was an improper pardon in the first place. No, no, of course not. He wouldn’t do it again because the ensuing uproar tarnished his reputation. "It was terrible politics," he said. "It wasn't worth the damage to my reputation. But that doesn't mean the attacks were true." This is terribly Clintonian. Instead of fessing up and saying the pardon should not have taken place since it was clearly wrong and ill-advised for a variety of good reasons, he merely focuses on the damage to his precious legacy. I would have been far more admiring of Clinton during his eight years (well, at least a little more) if he had stopped worrying about how the future would view him and instead just did his job. Funny thing about history… it makes up its own mind about how to perceive you. You can devote all your energy towards building up favorable encyclopedia and textbook entries, but that doesn’t mean it will happen. You will be judged based upon the current values of the times and how your actions relate to them. You’re far better off just doing the job, doing what’s right, and then letting the pieces fall where they may. Clinton was elected to advance America’s present, not his personal future. Besides, the future is the province of the living, and those who will be dead in that future need not be concerned about who has their picture on the wall for inspiration.

Anyway, two other points in the article amused me. Okay, irritated me. Well… both… amused irritation. “Since then, they have been investigated by federal prosecutors and Congress. That scrutiny, Clinton said, made him ‘just angry that after I worked so hard and after all that money had been spent proving that I never did anything wrong for money, that I'd get mugged one more time on the way out the door.’” Again, another beautiful Clintonian statement… particularly because of his word choice, “mugged.” A mugging is a vicious unwarranted attack. The criticism over the pardon wasn’t a mugging, it was appropriate, justified action over an improper last minute pardon with dubious background. However, I guess such a point of view takes away Clinton’s victim status. Sometimes I forget that he never did anything to deserve the close inspection of his affairs (pun intended).
The other quote I liked is this, “’I don't know Marc Rich and wouldn't know him if he walked in the door there,’ Clinton said. But, he added, ‘I was very sensitive to prosecutorial abuse because I had seen it. ... I don't think that's all bad for a president to be sensitive to any kind of abuse of power.’” Two points on this. First, he’s establishing a moral equivalence between himself and Rich. They’re both poor souls caught up in prosecutors’ vindictive zealousness. Neither one of them has done anything to warrant the charges that have been leveled against them. Nevermind the fact that Rich was properly indicted under federal law which meant that a grand jury found enough evidence to go forward. That pesky democratic due process from which Rich decided to excuse himself (you’ll recall he escaped to Switzerland before the trial) can be very inconvenient. My second point is that if Clinton considers himself sensitive to the abuse of power, that’s very understandable. He has plenty of on the job training in seeing what that’s like. In the performance thereof, not the suffering.

On a separate note about this article, I think it’s a fine example of liberal media bias. While I think it present, I don’t harp much harp on the subject. Still, though, I raise an eyebrow from time to time… much like one news article (mainstream news article, mind you, not a commentary) that blatantly referred to Bush’s election as “stealing.” Objectivity abounds. That was an Associated Press article, same as this one on CNN.com. After the article goes on about the Rich scandal, it ends with this paragraph, “On a lighter note, Clinton said he is getting a chocolate Labrador puppy, a descendent of his late dog, Buddy. A frisky retriever often seen at Clinton's side as he jogged, Buddy was killed in January by a car outside the former president's home in Chappaqua, New York.” If you weren’t convinced enough that Clinton’s an ok, hard luck type of guy, you should be reminded about how the poor man’s dog got run over (not by a registered Republican, much to some liberals’ conspiratorial disappointment, I’m sure). You should also be reminded how he’s a swell, beer drinkin’ everyman who’s getting a new dog. This in an article where it had absolutely no place being. Gimme a break.