Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Free Speech in France -- Not!
Here's an excerpt from John Derbyshire's column at National Review Online:
This is Orwellian -- if you can't talk about something, you can't do anything about it. Political paralysis on the issue of Islamization is guaranteed. If this is true, France, and probably Europe, will be governed by Shari'a within a generation. More timely, if this is true, why should we consider France to be an ally against Islamofascist terrorism, or at all?
(0) comments
France outlaws discussion of Islam. At least we can still talk about Islam. An e-acquaintance who lives in France tells me that over there things are now at the point where you can get into trouble just for mentioning the fact that Muslims are ever any kind of a problem. Synagogue burnings — a pretty regular occurrence in France — are routinely blamed on "right wing neo-Nazi white males," he tells me. In fact the perpetrators are extremist Muslim Algerian Arabs. French people all know this, but have to pretend not to.
Then he writes:
On the TV news of Wednesday night, they presented a conference about 'hate speech' on the Internet. They took as example the police in action against a 'hate web site.' The only thing I could read on the web page they were showing was "...against the Islamization of Europe..." Indeed, according to the law, to be against the Islamization of Europe is racism... and forbidden. France not only doesn't recognize there is a war, it forbids by law to say there is a war...(emphasis added)
This is Orwellian -- if you can't talk about something, you can't do anything about it. Political paralysis on the issue of Islamization is guaranteed. If this is true, France, and probably Europe, will be governed by Shari'a within a generation. More timely, if this is true, why should we consider France to be an ally against Islamofascist terrorism, or at all?
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Why I Won't Vote for Kerry
I've held off posting this because, frankly, I got tired of bashing Kerry. But he's so bashable.
A few weeks ago I was treated to a comment comparing Bush's and and Kerry's service during the Vietnam era, to the effect that at least Kerry was there (in Vietnam). This is the substance of my reply:
Yep, he was there for all of 4 months to get his resume bullet point. And as soon as he got off active duty he spent the next 3 or 4 years dissing his comrades in arms, and tearing down the United States.
Kerry has campaigned for two years on his Vietnam service -- he can't utter two sentences in public without referring to it. As short as his Vietnam tour was, nobody in the Administration or in the Republican Party hierarchy has described his service as anything but honorable (if you have evidence to the contrary, post the quote, including who said it, when and in what publication or video it appeared). But Kerry doesn't want to talk about his much longer association with the VVAW and his other antiwar activities after he left the Navy. Seems to me that if Kerry's Vietnam service should inform the voters as to his qualifications to be the Commander in Chief, then so should everything that he's done since. It's disingenuous to tout the one and claim that the other (and more recent) is irrelevant due to the passage of time.
Lately, Kerry has been making noises to the effect that he'd be as tough on terrorists as Bush -- maybe tougher. I don't believe him. There's nothing in his public record that gives me any confidence that the man has any foundational principles. He's been on both sides of so many issues that he can say "I voted for it" to any imaginable audience on almost any issue. But at the end of the day, in the final votes when it really counts, Kerry has always voted with the most liberal members of his party. If elected he will be under unbelievable pressure from the MoveOn wing of the Democratic party to cut and run from Iraq and return to a purely defensive posture against the terrorists, and that's what I think he'll do. I believe he'd return the fight against Islamofascist terrorists to the level of, and using the tactics of, the Clinton administration: Send in the lawyers! If he does that, we will all soon see that September 11 was merely a warm-up for the main event. There's no such thing as an impregnable defense.
Job #1 for the President is to defend the United States. I won't vote for Kerry because there's nothing in his public record that indicates to me that he'd effectively do that, and there's nothing he or anyone else can say that will convince me otherwise. I'm not usually a one-issue voter, but when the United States is fighting a war against fanatics with a religious mission to destroy us and all we stand for, and who have no use for the rules of war or any rules other than their own hypermilitant interpretation of the Koran, then that issue trumps all the others.
If you believe Kerry would be a good President, by all means vote for him. But in choosing the man who gets your vote, my advice is to determine which one Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would want to occupy the White House, and then vote for the other guy.
I'm done now.
(0) comments
A few weeks ago I was treated to a comment comparing Bush's and and Kerry's service during the Vietnam era, to the effect that at least Kerry was there (in Vietnam). This is the substance of my reply:
Yep, he was there for all of 4 months to get his resume bullet point. And as soon as he got off active duty he spent the next 3 or 4 years dissing his comrades in arms, and tearing down the United States.
Kerry has campaigned for two years on his Vietnam service -- he can't utter two sentences in public without referring to it. As short as his Vietnam tour was, nobody in the Administration or in the Republican Party hierarchy has described his service as anything but honorable (if you have evidence to the contrary, post the quote, including who said it, when and in what publication or video it appeared). But Kerry doesn't want to talk about his much longer association with the VVAW and his other antiwar activities after he left the Navy. Seems to me that if Kerry's Vietnam service should inform the voters as to his qualifications to be the Commander in Chief, then so should everything that he's done since. It's disingenuous to tout the one and claim that the other (and more recent) is irrelevant due to the passage of time.
Lately, Kerry has been making noises to the effect that he'd be as tough on terrorists as Bush -- maybe tougher. I don't believe him. There's nothing in his public record that gives me any confidence that the man has any foundational principles. He's been on both sides of so many issues that he can say "I voted for it" to any imaginable audience on almost any issue. But at the end of the day, in the final votes when it really counts, Kerry has always voted with the most liberal members of his party. If elected he will be under unbelievable pressure from the MoveOn wing of the Democratic party to cut and run from Iraq and return to a purely defensive posture against the terrorists, and that's what I think he'll do. I believe he'd return the fight against Islamofascist terrorists to the level of, and using the tactics of, the Clinton administration: Send in the lawyers! If he does that, we will all soon see that September 11 was merely a warm-up for the main event. There's no such thing as an impregnable defense.
Job #1 for the President is to defend the United States. I won't vote for Kerry because there's nothing in his public record that indicates to me that he'd effectively do that, and there's nothing he or anyone else can say that will convince me otherwise. I'm not usually a one-issue voter, but when the United States is fighting a war against fanatics with a religious mission to destroy us and all we stand for, and who have no use for the rules of war or any rules other than their own hypermilitant interpretation of the Koran, then that issue trumps all the others.
If you believe Kerry would be a good President, by all means vote for him. But in choosing the man who gets your vote, my advice is to determine which one Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would want to occupy the White House, and then vote for the other guy.
I'm done now.
Friday, June 25, 2004
Gore's Role -- Crazy Like a Fox?
Like many others, I believed that Al Gore had lost it after his "Bush betrayed us" speech. But now, after what, four(?) blistering anti-Bush speeches in the last few weeks, I am coming to believe that Gore has assumed the attack dog role (or has been assigned it by the DNC). By raving like the mad newsman Howard Beale in the 1976 movie "Network", Gore can make Kerry's pronouncements seem sane and even prudent by comparison.
Let's face it -- Gore's political career has nowhere to go but down, and he knows it. With Hillary in the wings and attractive young Dems like John Edwards gaining visibility, Gore has no chance of scoring another Presidential bid. But he still hates Bush -- he still believes the Supreme Court stole the election from him. So Gore probably figures he has nothing to lose and by making over-the-top attacks he can gain personal revenge against Bush while helping his party regain the White House. Maybe he hopes Kerry will reward him with a Cabinet post -- perhaps Interior since Gore's such an environmentalist -- or at least an ambassadorship or something similar that will confer the mantle of respected elder statesman, so he can end his career with some dignity.
I don't think Gore's rantings will win any votes for Kerry that aren't already there, but they might keep the red-meat crowd engaged -- perhaps engaged enough that they won't vote for Nader.
(0) comments
Let's face it -- Gore's political career has nowhere to go but down, and he knows it. With Hillary in the wings and attractive young Dems like John Edwards gaining visibility, Gore has no chance of scoring another Presidential bid. But he still hates Bush -- he still believes the Supreme Court stole the election from him. So Gore probably figures he has nothing to lose and by making over-the-top attacks he can gain personal revenge against Bush while helping his party regain the White House. Maybe he hopes Kerry will reward him with a Cabinet post -- perhaps Interior since Gore's such an environmentalist -- or at least an ambassadorship or something similar that will confer the mantle of respected elder statesman, so he can end his career with some dignity.
I don't think Gore's rantings will win any votes for Kerry that aren't already there, but they might keep the red-meat crowd engaged -- perhaps engaged enough that they won't vote for Nader.
Friday, June 18, 2004
Paul Johnson Jr., R.I.P.
First, I offer my prayers for the soul of Mr. Johnson and for his family. Like so many other victims of the Islamofascist terrorists, his only offense was being an American. May God receive him in heaven.
Second, anybody who sees moral equivalence between what happened to Paul Johnson and what happened to a handful of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib should be tarred, feathered and pilloried. Not to excuse the maltreatment of prisoners, but there's an obvious difference between humiliation and beheading. Those who can't see it are sick, and should be shunned by all civilized people as being morally no better than those who murdered Johnson.
(0) comments
Second, anybody who sees moral equivalence between what happened to Paul Johnson and what happened to a handful of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib should be tarred, feathered and pilloried. Not to excuse the maltreatment of prisoners, but there's an obvious difference between humiliation and beheading. Those who can't see it are sick, and should be shunned by all civilized people as being morally no better than those who murdered Johnson.
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Why Iraq? Answer from One Who Was There
Little Green Footballs has an essay by Maj. Stan Coerr, USMCR, about the real reason we attacked Saddam. It's a must-read. Go there. Now.
(0) comments
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Earthquake!
I was sitting at the computer at 3:30 PM PDT and suddenly the house moved. I was on a chair with casters and it felt like the floor moved about an inch or so under the chair, in a north-south direction. There was no rolling motion, and it was over in a couple seconds. The house creaked a bit, and the ceiling lights swayed, but other than that it was no big deal. No report of tsunami.
After about 10 minutes the USGS California Earthquake site posted report that the epicenter of a 4.3 event was near Edwards AFB. About 10 minutes after that, the Mojave location disappeared and the map showed a 5.1 event in the ocean about 45 miles off Rosarita Beach in Baja. Then they modified the report again and it is now described as a 5.2 magnitude event about 10 miles north of the first ocean location. It was interesting to see how the reporting of the quake evolved as (presumably) more information became available.
(0) comments
After about 10 minutes the USGS California Earthquake site posted report that the epicenter of a 4.3 event was near Edwards AFB. About 10 minutes after that, the Mojave location disappeared and the map showed a 5.1 event in the ocean about 45 miles off Rosarita Beach in Baja. Then they modified the report again and it is now described as a 5.2 magnitude event about 10 miles north of the first ocean location. It was interesting to see how the reporting of the quake evolved as (presumably) more information became available.
