just thinking out loud
I haven’t been blogging much yet this election cycle. The things that get me fired up to write are usually the lies and distortions by those on the left, so the sniping by the various GOP primary candidates doesn’t do much for me.
About all I can say is that I go back and forth between dreading a Romney win and being resigned to it. I have been interested in the others at various times, but they all disappoint. Continue reading →
h/t The Jawa Report
NOTE: Clicking the photo will bring up the full size version in this window, which is VERY LARGE (in Firefox; may open a new window in IE) – to close it, scroll to the lower right corner of the picture and click the ‘x.’
(Originally posted this day last year (9/11/09).)
BUMPED (9/10/11)
At least until it becomes unfashionable for pseudo-intellectuals to care more about their country and their fellow citizens than shoddy moral equivalence and trendy anti-Americanism.
Whether or not a person thinks 9/11 should be remembered and commemorated makes a pretty good litmus test I think — not of a person’s politics, but of their character. If someone spouts some variation on the theme that we should ‘put it behind us,’ then I can be pretty sure that person is shallow and self-centered, unable or unwilling to accept that life and reality are bigger than any one person or poisonous, delusional notion of universal peace and brotherhood.
Bad things happen, and they happen to good people.
Bad people are out there — genuinely bad, not just ‘misunderstood.’
Evil exists.
On this day more than any other, for Americans, it is impossible to both be honest and to embrace moral equivalence. The people that are annoyed by the remembrances and want to ‘move on’ should look deep inside themselves and ask themselves why.
—
As an aside, but not unrelated, I highly recommend this look back at that day by New Yorker Allahpundit, now writing for Hot Air, as compiled from his Twitter stream by Andy Levy.
UPDATE (9/11/2010): Sticky for the day.
BUMPED (9/10/11; originally posted 9/11/09)
There is a lot of sound and fury about Rick Perry’s off-the-cuff remarks yesterday that, “printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history, is almost treacherous, or treasonous, in my opinion.”
Was this a wise thing to say? Probably not, but primarily because of all the fuss and bother that the media is using to try to focus negative attention on Perry.
The bias and hypocrisy of the media in hyperventilating over rhetoric that is, at worst, comparable to all of the “terrorist,” “hostage taker,” etc. from Democrats is . . . well, expected. But there is a key distinction that I have not seen anyone make yet. All of the Democrat rhetoric aimed at the Tea Party and House Republicans was about being thuggish and violent. Perry’s statements, even taken literally, focus on someone working against the interests of the U.S. It may not be a meaningful distinction in the broader scope of things, but in my opinion shows a much different set of priorities.
A large majority of the public, 73%, is opposed to our continued aid to Pakistan. However, since we need Pakistan as a resupply route into Afghanistan it isn’t as simple as just turning off the spigot. Treating them as hostile, and effectively invading to control our supply routes isn’t an option either. Even occasional and half-assed cooperation from their military and intelligence forces is better than outright hostility.
However, if our politicians and diplomats had steel in their spines, the aid would be made contingent on genuine cooperation. Don’t cut them off, but dial it back to get their attention. Explain that they will only get, say, half until or unless they get serious about dealing with the terrorist sympathizers in official positions. If they make progress, some of the aid is restored. If they fail to do enough, it is dialed back even further. Right now there is little incentive for the secular authorities to do much because they know that in spite of any condemnations or hot air we will keep playing ball. The prospect of losing billions of dollars ought to serve as a wake up call.
And if that isn’t enough to get them to act, then we know nothing will.
If they decide that attacking a few convoys (or letting it happen) when the money slows down will make us think again . . . well, that’s where the steel comes in. We don’t want to be at war with Pakistan, but if we aren’t willing to back up our words then we need to just shut up and stop griping about what they do with our money. It’s extortion, and the only way to beat it is to be willing to call their bluff. And it is a bluff, because as much as we want to avoid outright war they want it even more. The Islamists may want to fight us on general principle, but the rest know it would be national suicide.
The carrot-and-stick approach may be a cliche, but it’s been around long enough to become one precisely because it works. And it is clear that a carrot-only approach is not working.
I’m not sure why this just now came to me, but here’s a question for those who conflate anti-Islamism with being anti-Islam.
Which of these is bigotry: (1) condemning the loonies of Westboro Baptist Church, or (2) painting all Christians as holding those hateful beliefs?
Because number 2 is the same as what you are doing if you claim that being against murderous, repressive Islamists is “Islamophobic” or otherwise bigoted toward Muslims in general.
