Naked force has settled more issues in history than any other factor. The contrary opinion 'violence never solves anything' is wishful thinking at its worst. People who forget that always pay...They pay with their lives and their freedom. -- Starship Troopers
Q&A Friday #45: How Does The War In The Middle-East Impact Democracy In The Region?
Question: "Do you see the current situation in the Middle East as ultimately a good thing in the sense that it may galvanize the world into a decisive (albeing probably very destructive) global struggle the termination of which will lead to the irrevocable ascendency of liberal Democracy throughout the entire world, but particularly throughout the Muslim world? Or is the situation an auger of ominous times and possibly the end of the world as we know it?" -- huckupchuck
Answer: To begin with, it's certainly not the end of the world as we know it. In fact, it's not even all that out of the ordinary for the region. Ever so often, there's a big brouhaha over there and the Muslims try to murder all the Jews or the Israelis have to pound their genocidal neighbors to keep them in line. It's just what they do.
Now on to the democracy, such as it is, in Southern Lebanon and in the Palestinian territory. To tell you the truth, it's hard to even call what the Palestinians have a "Democracy." The people have a choice of picking between two terrorist gangs. It would be like if everyone in California either had to vote for someone in the Crips or Bloods, and everybody else who tries to run gets shot. Is that Democracy? In my book, not really.
In Southern Lebanon, you essentially have half of the country that's run from afar in Syria and Iran. Again, if the Democratically elected leaders of a country are just puppets who take orders from foreign masters, is that really a Democracy in a meaningful sense? That makes the democracy in Lebanon a little off kilter, too.
But in any case, the real test of the democratic process will be after all this fighting dies down. You see, for the moment, things seem to be following the old template. The terrorists pick a fight with Israel. Israel squashes them. Eventually the fighting dies down and then everybody starts getting prepared for the next round.
But this time around, Hezbollah and Hamas will both be significantly weaker and their political foes will be comparatively stronger. Moreover, tremendous damage will have been done in both countries. When they were just terrorist groups, both Hamas and Hezbollah could just shrug their shoulders and let someone else clean up their mess. Now, since they're both in politics, they're going to have constituents to deal with.
"When is the bridge getting fixed? When will the power be back on? How are we going to pay for all this? What exactly did we, the people who voted for you, get out of this attack?"
Hamas was already having major problems with their cashflow before this and these attacks will only exacerbate the problem. Furthermore, lots of Hamas officials will be dead or in prison, and there will be lots of infrastructure damage. What will they do about it? If they want to get foreign cash flowing into the Palestinian territories again, they're going to have to recognize Israel's right to exist and stop launching attacks at them.
In Lebanon, my guess is that you'll see the United States and Europe funneling in lots of money to clean up the damage, but they'll take care to keep the money out of Hezbollah's hands. Moreover, although the people will be furious with Israel (after all, they have been bombing them), Hezbollah will also get their share of the blame for baiting the Israelis into attacking, especially during tourist season.
That's why, long term, these Israeli attacks have the potential to majorly weaken Hamas and Hezbollah while strengthening Democracy in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Even if they don't aid Democracy, at least terrorists are being killed and their supporters are being made miserable. That's always a big plus.
So the terrorists are being killed, Hezbollah and Hamas are being weakened, a threat is being removed from Israel's Northern border, Arab nations are actually condemning Hezbollah, and democracy has the potential to become stronger in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Does that mean this is a good thing? Well, war is never a good thing, even if it is a necessary thing. There have been Israelis killed and terrorized and there could be other negative consequences. The government in Lebanon could collapse. Syria could invade Lebanon. You could have Israel and Iran launching attacks at each other over Iraq. Yet and still, I think Israel made the right decision and is handling this whole conflict very well so far.
Q&A Friday #45: What If The Middle-East Had No Oil?
Question: "How would the U.S.'s relationship with the Arab world be different if there was no oil in those countries?" -- D-Vega
Answer: Aside from Israel, if there were no oil in the Middle-East, it probably wouldn't be much different than a more Islamic version of Africa. So, we'd treat them about the same way we treat Africa today: we'd throw them a few bucks here and there and ignore them as much as possible.
Question: "Dumb question here, but do you get money just for us clicking on the ad links or do we actually have to buy stuff for you to get paid?" -- James_in_Watauga
Answer: None of these ads are pay per click and I don't make a dime less or more if people buy things on the websites. I get paid just for running the ads.
Still, the more eyeballs I put on the ads, the better the advertisers like it, and the more likely they are to come back. I tend to have a lot of repeat customers for these ads and a big part of the reason why is because of these Friday advertising promos.
Q&A Friday #45: When Should Israel Consider Using Nuclear Weapons?
Question: "At what point (if ever) does Israel consider a nuclear weapon (ala WW II) to take out a city and force unconditional surrender from (pick one) terrorist country bent on wiping Israel off the map?" -- Arbiter
Answer: In my opinion, there are 4 situations in which Israel should consider putting nukes in play. Note that I did not say they should necessarily use nukes in all these situations (although the first two are no brainers).
#1) Of course, if a nuclear weapon were ever fired at/or detonated in Israel.
#2) If Israel's enemies were ever able to defeat them and overrun the country, Israel should launch nuclear weapons at all the population centers of the participating nations. Yes, they might be able to run the Jews into the sea, but the price they'd pay would be the destruction of their own countries.
#3) If a serious, chemical or biological attack occurred in Israel.
#4) As a last resort, if nothing else works, Israel should consider a first strike against Iran to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. After all, Iran's leaders and officials have publicly said, numerous times, that they intend to destroy Israel and under no circumstances should the Israelis ever allow them to actually possess the means to do so.
Q&A Friday #45: Are You Going To See 'World Trade Center?'
Question: "John, will you see the new Oliver Stone movie World Trade Center when it comes out?" -- karensp9
Answer: Early on, I didn't think there could be a worse choice for a director of a 9/11 movie than Oliver Stone. I figured it would include conspiracy theories, have a very left-wing slant, be tacky....but it doesn't sound like that's the case.
"I have a long list of favorite patriotic movies, including "Victory at Sea," "Yankee Doodle Dandy" and "Sands of Iwo Jima," but Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" is right up there with the best of them. It is one of the greatest pro-American, pro-family, pro-faith, pro-male, flag-waving, God Bless America films you will ever see.
What? Oliver Stone, who hangs out with and praises Fidel Castro? Oliver Stone, who indulges in conspiracy theories and is a dues-paying member of the Hollywood left? Yes, THAT Oliver Stone.
"World Trade Center" is the story of five men who volunteered to enter the twin towers on Sept. 11, 2001 in their role as officers of the Port Authority Police Department (PAPD). Three of them died and two, Will Jimeno (played persuasively by Michael Pena) and Sergeant John McLoughlin (played magnificently by Nicolas Cage), were buried in the rubble. These are real men who love their wives and children and are not afraid to say so. They are religious men who pray without shame or reserve. In fact, Jesus makes an appearance in Jimeno's hallucination, carrying a bottle of water to quench his thirst). Treating faith as genuine and with respect has only recently made a comeback among filmmakers."
Q&A Friday #45: If You Could Have A Super Power, What Would It Be?
Question: "If you had your choice of any super human power (super strength, flight, telekinesis, teleportation, invulnerability, to name a few), what would you choose for yourself and why? To what purpose would you use said ability?" -- Good_Ol_Boy
Answer: I always thought the Highlander style, "You never age and you only die if someone cuts off your head," way of living was pretty neat for obvious reasons.
"Charles Xavier is a mutant with the power of telepathy. He is able to read thoughts, communicate with others psionically on a global (and sometimes galactic) level. Professor Xavier can erase, create, and manipulate thoughts and memories, control the actions of others, mentally induce pain, paralysis, unconsciousness, and even death in other people. He can completely shut down the mind and body of others."
Now you might say, why not go for the obvious? Why not have the powers of Superman or the Molecule Man? It's because Professor X would be the most powerful person on earth, by far, and yet no one would ever know he was doing anything.
Imagine the possibilities. You could know and manipulate the intentions of world leaders ("Today, President Ahmadinejad declared that he absolutely loves Jews"), psychically locate and kill terrorists (Bin Laden), find out what's really going on ("How many women has Bill Clinton slept with since he married Hillary?"), and even pull off the old Jedi mind trick at will ("Hillary Clinton, you feel compelled to tell the truth.")
Meanwhile, you'd be one of those "unknown unknowns" that Donald Rumsfeld once made reference to. No one would know anything about the impact you were having or be able to counter you, because no one would realize you were having an impact in the first place. It would all just be chalked up to coincidence.
Q&A Friday #45: What's The Worst Movie You Ever Made It All The Way Through?
Question: I've asked this one before, Mr. Hawkins, but here goes: What's the absolute worst movie you've ever sat at the way through?" -- Good_Ol_Boy
Answer: Steel Magnolias. I only made it through the whole film because I was on a date and couldn't just walk out. It's also worth noting that it was our last date and the fight we had afterwards about the sheer awfulness of that movie was a contributing factor.
Q&A Friday #45: Are The Minutemen Handling Their Money Properly?
Question: "Is Chris Simcox really abusing donations sent in to the minutemen or is this a sleazy trick by the WSJ to blackguard Simcox. Despite all the time and treasure they've spent, the editorial board at the WSJ hasn't changed anyone's mind that our country will collapse next week without a diaspora of tens of millions of uneducated, unskilled folk in our midst. Since they can't win the argument on its merits, are they or their confederates making an ad hominem attack on Simcox instead?
Personally, I'm tired of listening to Tamar Jacobi panting with excitement how America will cease to be America if we don't grant a non-amnesty amnesty to people who have no regard for our country's laws." -- Cartman
Answer: I'm a big fan of the Minutemen and think they've been doing great work.
That being said, when you're dealing with public donations, your game has to be very tight and there are some indications that something may be wrong with the way that the Minutemen are handling their money.
“This movement is much too important to be lost over a question of finances,” Gary Cole, the Minutemen’s former national director of operations, told The Washington Times. “We can’t demand that the government be held accountable for failing to control the border if we can’t hold ourselves accountable for the people’s money.”
The organization has not released any financial statements or fund-raising records since it was created. Several of the group’s top lieutenants have either quit or threatened to do so, saying requests to the group’s president, Chris Simcox, for financial accountability have been ignored, The Times reported.
Mr. Cole said he personally collected “tens of thousands of dollars” in donations during the Minutemen’s 30-day April 2005 border vigil in Arizona. But he said that despite numerous requests, he was never told where the money went.
Mr. Cole said Mr. Simcox removed him as a national director of the border campaign “for asking too many questions about the money.”
...In an interview with The Times, Mr. Simcox estimated that about $1.6 million in donations had been collected. He said in a statement that an auditor had begun an accounting of income and expenses and that a final audit would be delivered to the Internal Revenue Service by Nov. 15."
The letter came in response to a report yesterday in The Washington Times that a growing number of MCDC leaders and volunteers had questions concerning the whereabouts of money contributed to the organization over the past 15 months and its ties to Declaration Alliance, a Virginia-based charity headed by conservative Alan Keyes.
They said they had no idea how much money had been collected as part of its effort to stop illegal entry along the U.S.-Mexico border or on what it had been spent. Several top officials have quit or are threatening to do so. Others questioned whether MCDC volunteers received the equipment they needed for their border vigils.
MCDC has not made any financial records public despite concern within the organization and requests by The Times dating back to October.
Saying "tabloid-style gossip of this nature drives readership," the MCDC letter defended Declaration Alliance.
"The Declaration Alliance and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps organizational entities are both in full compliance with IRS regulatory statutes and filing obligations," the statement said, adding that financial disclosure forms will be submitted by Nov. 15.
The Minutemen have responded to this, basically, by calling all the people making allegations racists, anti-semites, and creeps, but Chris Simcox did add this in a long response at their page:
"All of our financial operations are overseen by professionals including a caging agency, banking institutions, a professional accountant, a professional auditor, a non-profits specialty attorney, etc. All checks, credit card and any other cash donations received go directly into designated bank accounts, overseen by these professionals. Yes, professionals we have hired (that means donations go to pay them for services) to ensure fiduciary integrity of the funds donated to the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. Everyone must realize that by hiring responsible and respected professionals we ensure the integrity of the operation and keep funds separated from the volunteer national leadership directors.
...Our national leadership team does have their travel expenses covered when engaged in official Minuteman Civil Defense Corps business. My travel expenses are covered by donations, but only when I am traveling for official Minuteman Civil Defense Corps business. Most of my travel expenses are covered by organizations that request my presence at meetings, conferences and other speaking engagements. When I am compensated to speak by a hosting organization, not only do I have the opportunity to travel around the country to educate people about the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps mission and the crisis at the border, but I also have the opportunity to recruit volunteers and solicit for donations to MCDC. Only four of the dozens of trips that I have made in the last year have been paid for out of Minuteman Civil Defense Corps funds. Those trips were to Washington D.C. to work with cooperative organizations and to talk to Congress—the total cost of those four tris comes to less than $3,000.
Our last two, month long border-watch operations cost around $80,000 each, and each 3-day monthly muster costs us at least $1,000 per state, not including travel expenses.
Each of our satellite chapters around the country has received start up funding and continues to be supported by the national organization. Each new chapter receives approximately $1,000 in start up capital to cover expenses. We have a rapidly expanding national organization that needs the support of aggressive national fundraising efforts—it costs money to raise money, but I assure you every penny is accounted for as federal law requires, and is utilized appropriately.
At this time we have a fully accredited, independent auditor undertaking a full accounting of the past years’ income and expenses. We are completing federally mandated accounting and filing of our financial activity for the past year. (Those conspiracy theorists out there forget that the #1 oversight committee on groups like ours is the IRS, aka the federal government, who would be the first to shut us down if there were any improprieties involved with our finances.) We are required to submit our Form 990 filing to the IRS on November 15, 2006.
Once completed, our financial reports will be made available to the public, as required by law, and on the same timetable as all other non-profit organizations."
That sounds good! Now, where's the rest of the basic info? Where's the basic breakdown of how much is being spent on fences, equipment for people in the field, etc. vs. how much is being spent on staff salaries and other backend expenses? Why aren't they giving out a basic breakdown of where the money is going? $x is going for trips, $y is going for radios, $z is going for staff? Why won't they open their books? If they want the public to continue to give them money, they need to give out more basic information to insure people that it's being well spent, especially since serious questions have now been raised about it.
So, are they handling their money properly? It's hard to say at this point because Simcox is withholding a lot of key info and saying, "Trust us, not the people making allegations." But, since the Minutemen are taking in money from the public, it seems to me that the onus is on them, not their critics, to prove that they're being careful with the money they've received and as of yet, they haven't met the challenge.
So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV. Then tomorrow, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.
Federal Funds Shouldn't Go To Embryonic Stem Cell Research And Not Just For Moral Reasons
Yesterday, George Bush used his first veto to block government money from being used to fund embryonic stem cell research. Although, I'd have preferred for him to use that big first veto, that will get so much attention, to block a pork barrel spending bill, I support his decision.
That being said, the debate over whether using embryonic stem cells is moral, which has been what almost everyone has been focusing on, is more than a little bit premature given that currently there's no area where embryonic stem cells show more promise than adult stem cells.
"Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) receive tremendous media attention, with oft-repeated claims that they have the potential to cure virtually every disease known. Yet there are spoilsports, self included, who point out that they have yet to even make it into a human clinical trial. This is even as alternatives – adult stem cells (ASCs) from numerous places in the body as well as umbilical cord blood and placenta – are curing diseases here and now and have been doing so for decades. And that makes ESC advocates very, very angry.
How many diseases ASCs can treat or cure is debatable, with one website claiming almost 80 for umbilical cord blood alone. Dr. David Prentice of the Family Research Council, using stricter standards of evidence, has constituted a list of 72 for all types of ASCs. But now three ESC advocates have directly challenged Prentice’s list. They’ve published a letter in Science magazine, released ahead of publication obviously to influence Pres. Bush’s promise to veto legislation that would open wide the federal funding spigot for ESC research. The letter claims ASC “treatments fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S Food and Drug Administration are available to treat only nine of the conditions” on his list.
Well! One answer to that is that it’s nine more than can be claimed for ESCs. Further, there are 1175 clinical trials for ASCs, including those no longer recruiting patients, with zero for ESCs."
"...(T)he embryonic stem-cell researchers have produced nothing. They have treated nothing. They have not even begun one human clinical trial. They've successfully treated a few rodents, but they are running into two problems. First, the cells tend to be rejected by the immune system. Second, they tend to cause malignancies called teratomas -- meaning "monster tumors." The idea that stem cells are on the verge of curing anything is absurd. It's possible embryonic stem-cell research could find a cure for Alzheimer's disease someday only in the sense that it possible that a biologist's toenail clippings could be used to find a cure for Alzheimer's someday."
And read this last excerpt from Steven Milloy and you'll begin to understand why there has been such a push for Federal funding of embryonic stem cells over the last few years:
"The reason that embryonic stem cell researchers are agitating for taxpayer money is that their private funding has dried up. Private investors and venture capitalists are not investing in embryonic stem cell research because they perceive it to be a pipe dream unlikely to produce any progress and, hence, investment returns, in any reasonable time frame.
Researchers aspiring to be on the dole and investors whose money is mired in floundering stem cell research firms are looking to federal funds for relief. Such groups already hoodwinked California voters for $3 billion last year with Proposition 71 — a sum that pales in comparison with what Congress could slop in their troughs.
The bottom line is that if embryonic stem cell research had real promise, private investment would be overflowing into biotech companies. But it's not."
Since this is the case, why are we even having this debate? It's because of a brilliant bit of rhetorical jujitsu on the part of embryonic stem cell researchers. Because the debate has been over morality, people mistakenly assume that embryonic stem cells must be superior to adult stem cells or else, the debate never would have gotten this far.
The truth is that if we're going to spend taxpayer money on stem cells, that money should be spent on adult stem cell research, because it clearly has a much better chance of producing results.
A week into the renewed violence between Israel and Lebanon triggered by the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, 56% of Americans say that Lebanon-based terrorist group Hezbollah is to blame for the conflict. Just 18% place the blame on the government of Lebanon and 12% say Israel."
When the American people think Israel is not the party to blame for the fighting by a more than 6 to 1 margin and they are killing terrorists with American blood on their hands, it's not exactly a tough political call for an American politician to support Israel right now.
Let's hope Bush sees that, keeps Condi out of there, and gives the Israelis a green light to do whatever they need to do, for as long as they need to do it. The more damage they do to Hezbollah, Hamas, and their backers in Syria and Iran, the better.
Excerpt Of The Day: Nancy Pelosi Thanks God The Courts Can Stop Us From Saying God
"The House voted Wednesday to bar federal courts from ruling on the constitutional validity of the Pledge of Allegiance.
The legislation passed 260-167. It now goes to the Senate where its future is uncertain.
... "We are making an all-out assault on the Constitution . . . which, thank God, will fail," said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)"
Update #1: I haven't been able to find this online, but here's more from Nancy Pelosi's floor speech today:
"It is absolutely wrong, and Justice O'Connor said recently on this subject that this was brought up at the time of desegregation. They tried to use it then. Thank God, thank God, thank you, God, they failed. Thank God they failed.
In other words, "Thank God, thank God, thank you, God, they failed. Thank God they failed," to keep the Supreme Court from being able to tell people they can't say, "God."
The New York Times has an article on the so-called "Ghetto Tax:"
"Drivers from low-income neighborhoods of New York, Hartford and Baltimore, insuring identical cars and with the same driving records as those from middle-class neighborhoods, paid $400 more on average for a year’s insurance.
Those were just two examples among several cited in a report Tuesday showing that poor urban residents frequently pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars a year in extra costs for everyday necessities. The study said some of the disparities were due to real differences in the cost of doing business in poor areas, some to predatory financial practices and some to consumer ignorance.
...Citing other examples of the ghetto tax, the report found that nationally, 4.5 million low-income customers, defined as families making less than $30,000 a year, paid an average of two percentage points more for car loans than did middle-class buyers. And the common use of storefront check-cashing services by poor people, it said, comes at a steep price that varies with local regulations; in 12 cities studied, the fee for cashing a $500 check ranged from $5 to $50.
Part of the problem, the study found, is a discrepancy between the poor and the middle class in consumer skills and mobility: people who comparison-shop, especially on the Internet, tend to pay hundreds less for the identical car than those who walk onto a city lot and buy."
You want to know why there's a "ghetto tax?" It's just the market at work.
Take the car insurance example. Why would people living in middle-class neighborhoods get cheaper car insurance than people in poor neighborhoods? Crime would probably explain a lot of it. The chances of getting a car stolen or broken into in a poor neighborhood are much higher.
Then there are the check cashing services. Why would someone have to use a check cashing service? Because there's not enough money there for a bank to set up shop and because the bank may not want to put its employees at risk in a high crime area.
The same goes for grocery stores. A middle class area may have two big chains nearby competing for the business of the people in that neighborhood. A small neighborhood may only have a small, expensive, local grocery store run by a guy who jacks prices up even more because he knows that most of the people in the area don't have cars and therefore, will have trouble going cross town to a competing store.
Some of these problems are endemic to poor neighborhoods and are going to be impossible to fix via regulation or tax breaks without exorbitant costs that far outweigh the benefits given. However, there is one thing that could and should be done that would make a big difference: that's cracking down on crime.
No American should ever have to live in a neighborhood where they see drug dealers on the corner or worry about being killed by gang bangers every time they walk out of their apartment. For that reason, we should be willing to spend more tax dollars on the police and prisons.
Moreover, beyond that, cutting down on crime will cut down on the costs for Americans living in bad neighborhoods. Insurance costs will drop, less money will have to be paid out of pocket to fix damage caused by crooks, more competing businesses will be willing to move into the area -- it'll make life better for people in poor neighborhoods in a myriad of ways....unless they're criminals.
"In the Connecticut U.S. Senate race, Ned Lamont (D) has surged ahead of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and now holds a razor-thin 51% to 47% lead among likely Democratic primary voters, according to a new Quinnipiac poll.
In possible general election matchups:
...Running as an independent, Lieberman gets 51%, to 27% for Lamont and 9% for Schlesinger."
On the one hand, it's not looking good for Joe to win as a Democrat in the August primary. On the other hand, he has a 24 point lead over Lamont in the general election with the Republican, Schlesinger, fading and likely to send more votes over to Joe.
So, if Joe loses as a Democrat, but wins as an independent with lots of Republican and Independent support, what does that mean?
Well hopefully, it'll mean that the "Harry Truman Democrats" will realize that if they're serious about defending America, they're in the wrong party. Could it mean that some Jews, who vote Democrat 2 to 1, might get the message that they're in the wrong party? Sure. Could we see Joe Lieberman become a true centrist in the Senate in order to better represent his much more Republican and independent base? Sure.
And all the while, Kos and Company would be crowing about the huge "victory" they've won. It sounds like a real Pyrrhic victory to me.
Yesterday, I got together with Mimi Miyagi, a former porn star running for Governor of Nevada as a Republican. Her campaign is quite a ways back in the polls at the moment, but I thought she'd still be a fun interview -- and she was! What you'll find below is an edited transcript of our conversation. Enjoy!
John Hawkins: When did you start getting into politics and what drew you to the Republican Party?
Mimi Miyagi: I am an avid supporter of bearing arms since 2001....I love the people in the (Republican Party). I have been to some of the Democratic parties here and there, but the positivity, the upbeat attitude of the Republicans was more for me.
John Hawkins: So, you kind of thought the Democrats were pessimistic and negative?
Mimi Miyagi: ...I don't like all the mudslinging and a lot of the things they say about the Republicans really (aren't) true. The Republican Party is about individualism, it's about freedom, it's about lowering taxes. That is something I truly believe in.
John Hawkins: In your interview with Philippine news online, you said that, "The Republican Party has embraced me. I've been involved with them since 2004, you know, in the grassroots campaign for Bush."
Have you gone to Republican Party events and if so, what kind of reaction do you get there?
Mimi Miyagi: Well, when I was going to them in 2004, nobody knew what I did as a profession. I didn't want to make it a hindrance to the campaign...and I didn't want people to act differently towards me. I felt that I was there for a purpose, ...to help out as a volunteer, so I needed to stay on the outskirts. ...I just didn't reveal it, it didn't make sense to...
John Hawkins: ...Well, it's out in the open now and I noticed on your page, you said you're getting a lot of support from the Clark County Republican Party.
Mimi Miyagi: Actually, they threw me my first fundraiser last Friday night...It really, truly shows the support of the Republican officials that came to my party and the other candidates that were there to support me. I am going to support them, too.
John Hawkins: Now, what made you decide to run for governor of Nevada?
Mimi Miyagi: Originally, I wanted to run for a local office, which was mayor. ...Many of my friends and my advisers encouraged me...to shoot for the stars and run for governor.
John Hawkins: I know you're a little behind in the polls for governor. If you don't win election as Governor, does that mean you may try to run as mayor in a later election?
Mimi Miyagi: Yes! I truly enjoy the whole political arena. It is so much fun and people have given me such an upbeat response to my campaign...
John Hawkins: Mary Carey, another porn star who ran for governor of California, was also a Republican. Is that common in the porn industry? Are a lot of porn stars Republicans?
Mimi Miyagi: ...The Republican Party is about individualism and people who support free speech...it only makes sense to fall into that Party.
...The adult industry is a growing enterprise on its own and the GOP, ...they state that free enterprise is something that they support.
John Hawkins: Yeah, that makes sense...so there are a lot of other Republican porn stars or maybe they're not all that into politics one way or the other?
Mimi Miyagi: There are a few, (but) I think a lot of them don't get too involved with politics because they're so busy shooting, making movies, and whatnot. There (are) a few of us that are highly political activists...
John Hawkins: What lessons did you learn doing porn and stripping that you've applied to politics or think that other politicians could apply to politics?
Mimi Miyagi: ...The adult industry relies heavily on technology. Going forward from magazines to the internet...and (politicians) can certainly take a lot of lessons from the entertainment field by...technologically advancing their campaigns.
John Hawkins: One last question: tell me who'd you'd like to see as president in 2008?
Mimi Miyagi: Giuliani! I love Rudi. You know, that man has changed New York City so dramatically and I applaud him...for that. Being able to transform an area that was so high in crime to what it is today, is amazing.
John Hawkins: Well, that's it. I really appreciate your time!
"By 2010, the integration of Mexico, Canada and the U.S. will be almost complete. Congress and the media will not know what happened. Americans will be as clueless as ever; thanks to the complicity of the brain-dead media, the triumph of a bloodless bureaucratic elitist coup will become a reality, or close to it." -- Diane Alden
"President Bush signed a formal agreement that will end the United States as we know it, and he took the step without approval from either the U.S. Congress or the people of the United States." --Lou Dobbs Tonight
"President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy....Why doesn't President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union." -- Jerome Corsi
Judging by the three hysterical quotes you've just read, you'd think that the United States was about to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into some sort of merger with Canada and Mexico.
However, that's not exactly true. As a matter of fact, to be completely accurate, it's not true at all. But, since claims of this sort are spreading like wildfire on the right, it seemed like a good idea to take the time to tear out the underpinnings of this conspiracy theory.
So, let's explore some of the pieces of "evidence" that support the North American Union conspiracy theory and see how well they bear up under scrutiny.
Claim #1: There a Council of Foreign Relations report called, "Building A North American Community," that's being used as the "blueprint" for a merger of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.
Back in 2005, a task force sponsored by the Council of Foreign Relations put out a report called, "Building A North American Community." I recently spoke to Lee Feinstein, Executive Director of the Task Force Program at the Council of Foreign Relations -- and he told me the report calls for improving security between the borders, steps to grow the American economy, and improving trade.
When I asked him if the report favors merging the United States, Canada, and Mexico, his reply was, "It doesn't favor anything of the kind." Indeed, if you read through the report (.pdf file), you will find that it doesn't call for the creation of a superstate.
Moreover, Mr. Feinstein said he would be flattered if people in the Bush Administration were reading and paying attention to the report, but he denied that it was being used as any sort of "blueprint" and said, "Realistically, anyone outside the government has to be modest about the impact that they have on government policy because the government has its own ideas of what it wants to do."
Claim #2:"Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S..." --Jerome Corsi
To be honest, this one has always been a little hard to figure out. After all, Canada and Mexico are our two biggest trading partners. Therefore, it's difficult to understand why some people are so adamantly opposed to improving the highways running between those nations, and into the US, or why they believe a road is part of some monstrous conspiracy. But nevertheless, since this issue has been widely discussed, I took the time to dig into this claim.
First of all, the group behind the "NAFTA Super Highway" is called NASCO. They're not a government entity and they're not advocating building "four football field-wide" roads or even new roads at all. They just support the expansion of existing roads to better serve business interests in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.
Yesterday, Tiffany Melvin, the Executive director of NASCO was kind enough to take the time to discuss the North American Union conspiracy theory with me. Here's what she had to say:
"NASCO is a non-profit organization that has been around for 12 years. We have no secret meetings with the Bush administration and we're not part of a conspiracy. We're a business organization trying to promote the NASCO Corridor and the connecting highways in Canada and Mexico as an efficient, secure transportation system that will attract companies to use our corridor for their business."
NASCO has gotten so tired of the conspiracy theories swirling around them that they've actually put up a "NASCO Myths Debunked (.PDF File)" section on their website to try to kill some of these rumors. People who believe they're involved in creating some sort of "North American Union" should take a look at that article. It'll quickly ease their concerns.
Claim #3: A customs facility in Kansas City is going to become Mexican territory!
What this refers to is the KC Smartport, which is, at least in my humble opinion, a brilliant idea. The idea is to set up an area in Kansas City, with Mexican and American customs officials there who can examine outgoing vehicles away from the long lines generated at the borders. You heard that right by the way; this facility will only handle outbound freight headed to Mexico, not Mexican vehicles headed into the United States.
So, is the area the KC Smartport sits on going to be leased or owned by Mexico? No. So, where did the idea come from? I asked Tasha Hammes, the Media Relations & Marketing Manager for the KC Smartport project, about that and she said it was an idea that was kicked around via email in something akin to an online brainstorming session at one point. However, as she confirmed to me in a follow-up email, the idea was not something that the KC SmartPort project chose to pursue:
"Kansas City, Mo., is leasing the facility to KC SmartPort. It will NOT be leased to any Mexican government agency or be sovereign territory of Mexico."
Claim #4: The United States, Mexico, and Canada are going to merge their currencies into something called an Amero.
It's always difficult to reason people out of something that they weren't reasoned into in the first place and therefore, it'll be very difficult to convince people who believe in this claim that it's not going to happen.
That being said, George Bush has never advocated merging our currency with that of another country and neither has anyone in his cabinet. Furthermore, no one has presented any proof whatsoever that anyone in the United States government is working on this idea. At least one of the North American Union conspiracy theorists has speculated that the Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America may be working on such a proposal. However, I spoke with David Bohigian over at the Commerce Department yesterday and he issued a flat denial that the SPP was working on merging America currency with that of our neighbors.
So, if people want to insist that we're creating some sort of unified currency based on the fact that a few professors think it's a good idea, that's fine -- but as of yet, there has not been one, single, solitary shred of evidence presented that the Bush administration supports, advocates, or is working on this idea.
Claim #5: The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America is the government entity that's working on merging the United States, Canada, and Mexico!
The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America is a group that was launched in 2005 and it works under the aegis of the Commerce Department. The SPP was created to help increase cooperation between the U.S. and its neighbors to the North and South.
As I mentioned earlier, yesterday I spoke to David Bohigian over at the Commerce Department about the SPP. He confirmed that the SPP is not using the, "Building A North American Community," report from the CFR task force as any sort of a "blueprint" and he added the following:
"This is not a treaty and not an agreement. It's like a discussion you'd have with your neighbors. Nobody is looking to merge our currency, or our borders, or do any sort of union like the EU. The United States is working cooperatively with its neighbors to enhance security and prosperity of our countries."
Summary: Folks, as you can see from reading this column, there is no "North American Union" in the works. If you don't believe me when I tell you that, then maybe you'll believe Tony Snow who had this to say when he was, "asked if the president would categorically deny any interest in building a European Union-style superstate in North America,"
"Of course, no. We're not interested. There is not going to be an EU in the U.S."
If you don't believe me and you don't believe Tony Snow, then believe your own knowledge of how the U.S. Government works. To merge the United States into a North American Union would obviously require a whole host of Constitutional Amendments. In fact, so many would be necessary that the only possible way to accomplish it would be through a Constitutional Convention, an event that hasn't occurred in over 200 years and that would require the support of 34 state legislatures to be possible. So, even if George Bush or any other U.S. President were so inclined to create a North American superstate, he would be powerless to do so unless he were able to rally 2/3 of America's state legislatures to his side.
Since that is the case, there's simply no need for people to try to turn run-of-the-mill attempts to improve cooperation with Canada and Mexico into some sort of vast conspiracy to create a North American Union. The reality is that since Mexico and Canada are our neighbors and our biggest trading partners, there are plenty of reasons for the government and private industry to try to streamline and improve our relationship with them on security, trade, and other issues. So, let's worry about real problems instead of non-existent conspiracy theories that melt like snow in the middle of a Texas summer the moment you take a hard look at them.
Gallup has a new poll out comparing the Democratic and Republican 2008 candidates on an "acceptable/not acceptable" basis. You can take a look at the numbers here.
A few things of note from the poll:
-- First place among Republicans is Rudi, with 73% acceptable rating and only 23% calling him unacceptable. Those are nice numbers that have a lot to do with his charisma, leadership, and the well deserved tough guy rep he gained by cleaning up New York. But, can an adulterer who supports gay marriage, gun control, and abortion come out on top in a Republican primary? It seems highly unlikely.
-- Condi came in 2nd place with a 68 percent acceptable, 29% not acceptable rating. It's funny: the Democrats will tell you that Republicans are racists, yet a black woman who's probably not even going to run is the 2nd most preferred candidate of Republicans. Compare that to how Al Sharpton did in the 2004 Democratic primaries.
-- McCain was in 3rd, but his numbers weren't so hot. 55% acceptable and 41% unacceptable. Wait until the blogosphere and talk radio spend a few months beating him up the way that the lefties are pounding Joe Lieberman now and those numbers will look even worse.
-- Newt finished at 45% acceptable and 50% unacceptable. Unfortunately, he just has too much baggage to be a serious contender despite the fact that he's probably the best man for the job.
-- Jeb Bush did slightly worse than Newt. 44% acceptable. 52% unacceptable. I think people have had enough members of the Bush clan in the White House for a while.
-- Cheney, who has said he isn't running and has heart troubles, was at 34% acceptable and 61% unacceptable. Not surprising given the situation.
As far as the other Republican candidates go, if you look at how the numbers broke out, you can tell that a lot of people chose "not acceptable" for candidates they didn't know a lot about instead of "no opinion". At this early point in the race, before those candidates have had a chance to introduce themselves to the voters, that doesn't mean much except that they need to try to up their name recognition.
On the Democratic side, surprise, surprise, John Edwards beat Hillary!
Edwards was at 71% acceptable and 25% unacceptable while Hill was at 69% acceptable and 29% unacceptable. Al Gore was just a touch behind both of them at 68% acceptable and 31% unacceptable.
Then there was Kerry at 59% acceptable and 40% unacceptable. So, is it fair to call John Kerry a 2nd tier candidate yet? Maybe not. The gap between Kerry and the three candidates on top is smaller than between Kerry and the other candidates.
Howard Dean is at 40% acceptable and 54% unacceptable and Wesley Clark is at 42% acceptable and 49% unacceptable. You could put Tom Daschle, who's at 35% acceptable and 50% unacceptable into this category.
The other candidates don't have the name recognition to really get an accurate reading of their popularity. It's too bad they left out Barrack Obama. It would have been interesting to see what his numbers were.
So, what can we learn from this poll? Condi could be a legit contender if she ran, McCain is strongly disliked, Allen needs to get his name recognition up a lot, Edwards and Gore look to be about as popular as Hillary, Kerry isn't one of the top 3 candidates right now, and a lot of Democrats really don't seem to like Howard Dean a lot.
The primaries are still looking like they're going to be a lot of fun!
Americans wiped away tears, hugged relatives and grumbled about evacuation delays Wednesday before boarding a luxury ship that was to carry them from war-torn Lebanon.
Crew members of the Orient Queen welcomed aboard parents pushing strollers and clutching their children.
Many expressed frustration that it had taken the U.S. government so long to get them out of Lebanon while Europeans and Lebanese with foreign passports already have fled by the thousands.
"I can't believe the Americans," Danni Atiyeh, a 39-year-old civil engineer from Kansas City, Mo., said as he stood with his pregnant wife and sons Ali, 10, and Adrian, 6, while waiting for buses that were taking them to the ship. "Everybody else has gone home ... We're still here."
The State Department said Tuesday it had dropped a plan to make Americans reimburse the government for the trip, but Atiyeh said he and others were asked to sign promissory notes to pay for the trip before they could leave.
It wasn't clear what time the ship would leave port. An estimated 8,000 of the 25,000 Americans in Lebanon want to leave the country.
...Six chartered passenger ships were to be in position off the coast of Lebanon on Wednesday to begin evacuating up to 30,000 Canadians. Authorities intend to evacuate some 4,500 a day, ferrying them to Cyprus.
Asian officials across the Asia-Pacific region also struggled to evacuate more than 30,000 citizens."
First of all, I have a lot of sympathy for Americans that are stuck in Lebanon. Here they are going to visit family or on vacation and suddenly there's a war and they can't leave. You have Israel blowing things up, you never know if Hezbollah might take hostages -- it's certainly a scary situation.
But, this carping and complaining is a little much.
First of all, there was a Travel Warning in effect for Lebanon that was full of warnings about how dangerous it is:
"The Department of State urges U.S. citizens to carefully weigh the necessity of their travel to Lebanon in light of the risks noted below. U.S. citizens in Lebanon are encouraged to register with the U.S. Embassy in Beirut where they may also obtain updated information on travel and security in Lebanon.
...Historically, Americans have been the targets of numerous terrorist attacks in Lebanon. The perpetrators of many of these attacks are still present and retain the ability to act. American citizens should thus keep a low profile, varying times and routes for all required travel. Americans should also pay close attention to their personal security at locations where Westerners are generally known to congregate, and should avoid demonstrations and large gatherings.
...The U.S. Government considers the potential threat to U.S. Government personnel assigned to Beirut sufficiently serious to require them to live and work under a strict security regime. This limits, and may occasionally prevent, the movement of U.S. Embassy officials in certain areas of the country. These factors, plus limited staffing, may hinder timely assistance to Americans in Lebanon. Unofficial travel to Lebanon by U.S. Government employees and their family members requires prior approval by the Department of State."
But, all these people decided to go to Lebanon anyway.
Fine.
Then war breaks out and Israel blockades the ports and shuts down air traffic out of the country. Relatively soon thereafter, there are complaints that the US government hasn't ferried all these people out of a country half way across the world. Never mind the fact that the government advised them not to go in the first place and that there are other people from all over the world still waiting to go home. They're unhappy because they haven't been rescued quickly enough.
Fine.
But, they're not being asked to pay for the trip back to the US? Why not? Wouldn't they have had to pay for their trip back anyway if the government didn't pick them up? Moreover, it's not as if they were kidnapped. Of their own free will, they chose to go to an extremely dangerous locale, and so they should be asked to pay for their ride back home. Why should other Americans have to spend their tax dollars to give these people a free ride back to the US? They shouldn't. Let these people pay their own way back and maybe it'll help encourage them to pay more attention the next time the US Government puts out a travel advisory.
Excerpts Of The Day: Tony Snow Spars With Helen Thomas Over Israel
Helen Thomas: The United States is not that helpless. It could have stopped the bombardment of Lebanon. We have that much control with the Israelis.
MR. SNOW: I don't think so, Helen.
Helen Thomas: We have gone for collective punishment against all of Lebanon and Palestine.
MR. SNOW: What's interesting, Helen --
Helen Thomas: And this is what's happening, and that's the perception of the United States.
MR. SNOW: Well, thank you for the Hezbollah view, but I would encourage you
...
Helen Thomas: Why aren't we proposing a truce, no matter who is to blame? At least stop the killing.
MR. SNOW: Because it wouldn't stop the killing. What it would do is it would say to the killers, you win.
Helen Thomas: Might save lives.
MR. SNOW: No, I don't think so. And I'm glad you raised this. You do not want to engage in a cease-fire that has a practical -- when you say to the Israelis, you guys just stop firing, when you have Hezbollah saying, we're going to wage total war, because Hezbollah would read that as vindication of its tactics, and the idea that if you get the right sort of videos on television, and you get the right things going on, you can allow them to behave with impunity. Even though they are weakening the sovereign government of Lebanon, they are acting independently; even though they have...
Helen Thomas: And bombarding Lebanon --
MR. SNOW: Even though they have received --
Helen Thomas: -- wipes out infrastructure.
MR. SNOW: All right, this is hectoring now." -- Press Briefing: July 18, 2006
George Allen: A reliably conservative Reagan Republican. We could use another 60-70 Senators just like him in the Senate.
Tom Coburn: The man who's always on point against government spending in the Senate.
Jim DeMint: He's conservative, pugnacious, and looks particularly impressive beside of the other Republican Senator from his state, Lindsey Graham.
Jack Kingston: Nobody on the Hill has done more to promote the blogosphere than Kingston. As a blogger, I appreciate that.
Jeb Hensarling: A conservative congressman who is tough on spending.
Mike Pence: Despite the fact that he's offering up an amnesty bill under his name, nobody in the House has fought harder to cut spending than Mike Pence.
Rick Santorum: He does stick his foot in his mouth now and again, but he's conservative and he never hesitates to stand up for Republicans and social conservatism.
Jeff Sessions: The leader of the fight against illegal immigration in the Senate.
Tom Tancredo: Tanc is a one-man-gang in the battle against illegal immigration and he was fighting the good fight years before most other politicians got involved.
Dana Rohrabacher: We're talking about a former Reagan administration official who actually went to Afghanistan and hooked up with the Mujahedin in hopes of fighting the Soviet Union. Now that's a guy with brass you-know-whats and plus, he 's one of the staunchest opponents of illegal immigration in the House.
Today, I was fortunate enough to get in on a Human Events / Heritage Foundation listen-in on a conference with Newt Gingrich. Newt, who came across very well, mainly focused on the war on terror, which he did again refer to as World War 3. He had a lot of interesting things to say and I found it to be noteworthy that he took several pokes at the Bush Administration, from the right, on terrorism related issues.
Here are some notes I took while I listened to Newt. Do keep in mind what you're going to read below reflects my scribbling down the gist of what Newt said, not actual quotations from Newt, except where it's specifically indicated.
-- People in our country just don't understand how dangerous nuclear or biological weapons are and, therefore, they don't understand quite how important it is to stop them from being used against us.
-- Hezbollah intends to destroy Israel, they openly tell people that, and they shouldn't be believed if they say anything contrary to that. The FBI says we caught a Hezbollah team trying to cross the border into the US.
-- He said that what Kim Jung-Il was saying by firing those missiles is that, (the US is) "cowardly, weak, and timid and we can do whatever we want." He doesn't think the administration understands the level of contempt we are held in by these little tinpot dictators. The Chinese are lying to us about trying to deal with the Norks. They could cut the power off in North Korea in an hour if they wanted to and force them to comply.
-- "The correct answer to Hezbollah is to destroy it." Anything less than destroying Hezbollah is a defeat for Israel at this point. They should be in the business of defeating Hezbollah, not accommodating them.
-- Even though Reagan won the Cold War, he didn't do it with military power. He was very careful about the application of military power. However, he actively supported nascent democratic movements all across the world, which is something the Bush Administration is not doing well enough.
-- Newt suggested blockading Syria and perhaps sending our special forces in with the Lebanese army and kill Hezbollah. He also said, contrary to what you might hear, we're not bogged down in Iraq. We're the most powerful nation on the planet and we're capable of doing more if need be.
-- The degree to which we undermine our own power with our politics is greatly underestimated by Americans. Leaders of countries like Lebanon are reluctant to trust America because of the things said by people like John Murtha and Howard Dean.
-- We should send 6 B2's over Syria in broad daylight to kind of say, "Hi, here we are." Do you really want to cross us? We treat Syria and Iran like they're equals, but they're not our equals and they're not that strong. He would not allow the Iranians to stay in South Lebanon and he wouldn't allow Syria to interfere with what the Israelis are doing.
-- Bush says there is an Axis of Evil, but he was one country short. He should have added Syria. But, what has he done about the Axis? We're better off without Saddam in power. But, Iran is closer to a nuke. North Korea is still probably making a couple of nukes. Hezbollah probably has more missiles.
-- The Europeans get away without having to be accountable for their passivity. Reagan favored accomplishments over process. Europeans tend to favor process over achievements.
-- All the people who tell you all the intelligence is wrong, now tell you we have all the intelligence about Iran's nukes? When we found out about it, we were shocked at how far along Iraq was on nuclear weapons before Israel bombed Osirak.
-- Just because the Norks have the fissile material for 8-12 bombs doesn't necessarily mean they have to put them in a missile. What if they put that in a ship and send it to a US port and, say, pull out of South Korea or we set it off? What are these pacifist Democrats going to do then? We're up against vicious, intelligent enemies, who are going to do everything they can to kill us and they don't understand that.
-- We don't have competent intelligence in Iran and we need to do more in that area. We also need to be more open about telling the people of Syria, Iran, and North Korea that we support them and want them to run their own countries.
-- When you talk to people who served in Iraq, they're disgusted with the American press. It's a scandal how far the American press has gone to denigrate our country and soldiers.
Chuck Schumer is complaining that the Democratic Party can't explain what they stand for to the American people.
"We don't have 80 words" to sum up the Democratic agenda. We don't have eight."
Conservatives generally have no problem explaining what they want to do, although Republicans often fall short of their ideals once they get into office. The reason Democrats have problems doing the same thing is because they're just not honest about what they believe. It's actually pretty easy to explain the Democratic agenda:
Cut and run in Iraq, impeach Bush, raise taxes, amnesty for illegal aliens, create more government programs, and support gay marriage.
See? It wasn't hard at all to sum up all the Democrats' major priorities in just 21 words.
But since the Democrats continuously try to run on fake agendas they either don't care about or don't believe in, they've taken something that should be extremely simple for any politician to do and made it hard. The fix is to either run on their actual agenda -- and lose in most of the country -- or change the agenda to remain competitive.
But as long as they're still fumbling around in public when they're asked to take a stand, you'll know they're still being dishonest.
Update #1: After giving it a bit of thought, I decided to add amnesty for illegal aliens to the list since it's an important part of their agenda at the moment.
Excerpt Of The Day: Explaining How The Democratic Party Became Hostile To Christians
"Just as the Republican Party pays obeisance to the demands of the 37% of its base that is white evangelical Christian, the Democrats feel they must not offend the 22% of their core voters who claim no religious affiliation. Why not? Because although they make up less than one-quarter of the coalition, these secular Democrats are much more likely than others to be high-level party activists.
That was not always the case. Some scholars point to the Democratic National Convention of 1972 as not only the moment Democrats edged toward secularism but the event that created the religious rift in American politics. Before 1972, both major parties were essentially indistinguishable in their approach to religion. The activist cores of both were dominated by members of mainstream religious groups: the GOP by mainline Protestants and the Democratic Party by Catholics and Jews.
But the Democratic delegation that nominated South Dakota Sen. George McGovern for president at the '72 convention represented a profound shift from what had been the cultural consensus in American politics. Whereas only 5% of Americans could be considered secular in 1972, fully 24% of first-time Democratic delegates that year were self-identified agnostics, atheists or people who rarely, if ever, set foot in a house of worship. This new activist base encouraged a growing number of Democratic politicians to tone down their appeal to religious voters and to seek a higher wall separating church and state. With little regard for the traditionalist sensitivities of religious people within or outside of the party, the Democrats also embraced progressive stances on feminism and homosexuality that the public had never openly debated.
Meanwhile, the Republican delegation — and by extension the party platform — remained unchanged, and the GOP essentially became the party of tradition and religion by default. "The partisan differences that emerged in 1972," writes University of Maryland political scientist Geoffrey Layman, "were not caused by any sudden increase in the religious and cultural traditionalism of the Republican activists but by the pervasive secularism and cultural liberalism of the Democratic supporters of George McGovern." -- Gregory Rodriquez in the LA Times
However, there is one problem: it's always extremely difficult to do good satire about liberals because they've gotten so outrageously silly, pacifistic, and consumed by moral equivalence that it can be hard to come up with realistic sounding things that some lefties wouldn't do if they had a chance.
Here's a perfect example of it. Frank J., over at IMAO, wrote a piece of satire called, "We Could Have Peace in the Middle East If Only a Few More People Would Condemn Israel." Here's an excerpt from the post:
"Israel has had a long history of responding to attacks on its people, and what do they have to show for it? More attacks! Israel seems to have missed an essential fact about the area in which they live: It's full of Muslims. Grass is green, the sky is blue, and Muslims live in corrupt dictatorships and murder people. That's just how things are. Does Israel really think they can solve that with violent attacks against the violent? That's madness. Israel should have known that, by their location, they were essentially agreeing to get murdered every so often; anything else is cultural ignorance. But, by joining our voices in a cry of condemnation, maybe we can wake Israel up to the fact. We'll have to shout loud for them to hear us over Hezbollah's bombs, but they have to hear us now.
...Israel is at war and surrounded by millions of people who want them dead, so what they need most right now is our criticism. Let's remind them who were the ones who decided to be Jews where they are not wanted so maybe they'll realize their folly and stop the aggression. Then we will finally have peace in the Middle East (as long as you don't count Muslim violence – but who does?)."
Now, here's liberal columnist Richard Cohen in the Washington Post today:
"The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.
This is why the Israeli-Arab war, now transformed into the Israeli-Muslim war (Iran is not an Arab state), persists and widens. It is why the conflict mutates and festers. It is why Israel is now fighting an organization, Hezbollah, that did not exist 30 years ago and why Hezbollah is being supported by a nation, Iran, that was once a tacit ally of Israel's. The underlying, subterranean hatred of the Jewish state in the Islamic world just keeps bubbling to the surface. The leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and some other Arab countries may condemn Hezbollah, but I doubt the proverbial man in their street shares that view.
...Another gifted British historian, Tony Judt, wraps up his recent book "Postwar" with an epilogue on how the sine qua non of the modern civilized state is recognition of the Holocaust. Much of the Islamic world, notably Iran under its Holocaust-denying president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stands outside that circle, refusing to make even a little space for the Jews of Europe and, later, those from the Islamic world. They see Israel not as a mistake but as a crime. Until they change their view, the longest war of the 20th century will persist deep into the 21st. It is best for Israel to hunker down."
They could have mixed and matched things from these two columns and no one would have noticed.
"Israel should have known that, by their location, they were essentially agreeing to get murdered every so often," and so, "(i)t is best for Israel to hunker down."
Maybe they can just replace Cohen with Frank J., Liberal Larry, Scott Ott, or Iowahawk. The conservatives would think it was funny, the liberals would have trouble telling the difference, and the bloggers would probably work much cheaper than columnists like Cohen.
Excerpts From The Speech By Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert To The Knesset On July 17, 2006
...Over the past few weeks, our enemies have challenged thesovereignty of the State of Israel and the safety of its residents - first in the southern sector, then on the northern border, and deeper into the home front.
Israel did not seek these confrontations. On the contrary. We have done a lot to prevent them. We returned to the borders of the State of Israel, recognized by the entire international community. There were those who misconstrued our desire for peace - for us and our neighbors - as a sign of frailty. Our enemies misinterpreted our willingness to exercise restraint as a sign of weakness.
They were wrong!
...The campaign we are engaged in these days is against the terror organizations operating from Lebanon and Gaza. These organizations are nothing but "sub-contractors" operating under the inspiration, permission, instigation and financing of the terror-sponsoring and peace-rejecting regimes, on the Axis of Evil which stretches from Tehran to Damascus.
Lebanon has suffered heavily in the past, when it allowed foreign powers to gamble on its fate.
Iran and Syria still continue to meddle, from afar, in the affairs of Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority, through Hizballah and the Hamas.
Even if last Wednesday's criminal attack against an IDF patrol was carried out without the consent of the Lebanese government and without the assistance of its military, this does not absolve it of full responsibility for the attack which emanated from its sovereign territory. Just as the fact that the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority opposes terrorism against Israel does not relieve him and the Palestinian Authority of their responsibility for the attack carried out from their territory against our soldiers in Kerem Shalom. They are both fully responsible for the safety of our soldiers who were taken hostage.
...And in Lebanon, we will insist on compliance with the terms stipulated long ago by the international community, as unequivocally expressed only yesterday in the resolution of the 8 leading countries of the world:
- The return of the hostages, Ehud (Udi) Goldwasser and Eldad Regev.
- A complete cease fire.
- Deployment of the Lebanese army in all of Southern Lebanon.
-Expulsion of Hizballah from the area, and fulfillment of United Nations Resolution 1559.
We will not suspend our actions.
On both fronts we are exercising self-defense in the most basic and essential sense. In both cases, it is a matter whose importance and significance go far beyond the size of the military units involved.
We are at a national moment of truth. Will we consent to living under the threat of this Axis of Evil or will we mobilize our inner strength and show determination and equanimity?
Our answer is clear to every Israeli, and it echoes today throughout the entire region.
We will search every compound, target every terrorist who assists in attacking the citizens of Israel, and destroy every terrorist infrastructure, everywhere. We will persist until Hizballah and Hamas comply with those basic and decent things required of them by every civilized person. Israel will not agree to live in the shadow of missiles or rockets against its residents.
Citizens of Israel, there are moments in the life of a nation, when it is compelled to look directly into the face of reality and say: no more!
And I say to everyone: no more! Israel will not be held hostage - not by terror gangs or by a terrorist authority or by any sovereign state.
In the life of a nation there are moments of transcendence, of purification, when political and sectarian disputes which separate us are replaced by a sense of mutual responsibility. I highly value and appreciate the way the Opposition has been conducting itself in the Knesset these days. The human competition and personal rivalries are dissolved and instead our feeling of mutual responsibility arises, our sense of partnership, and primarily, our eternal love for our people and our land.
This is such a moment!
All of us - Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze and Circassians now stand as one person, as one nation, subject together to the same hatred and malice, and fighting against it in consensus and partnership. When missiles are launched at our residents and cities, our answer will be war with all the strength, determination, valor, sacrifice and dedication which characterize this nation.
There is nothing we want more than peace and good neighborly relations - in the east, north and south. We seek peace, we pursue peace and we yearn for peace. At the same time, there is nothing we reject more than an attempt to harm us and make us give up our right to live here, in our land, in security and peace.
On behalf of the people of Israel, on behalf of all the residents of the country, I came here today, Madam Speaker, to announce to the world: we seek neither war nor direct confrontation, but we will not be deterred from them when the need arises. Only a nation that can defend its freedom truly deserves it. We are entitled to our freedom, and when necessary, we know how to fight for it and defend it.
...I wish to read from the "Prayer for the Welfare of Soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces". Millions of Jews - in Israel and the world - pray for the safety and success of those who defend our nation, from the Lebanese border to the desert, and from the Great Sea unto the approach of the Arava, on the land, in the air and on the sea.
"May the Almighty cause the enemies who rise up against us to be struck down before them.
May the Holy One, blessed be He, preserve and rescue our fighters from every trouble and distress and from every plague and illness, and may He send blessing and success in their every endeavor.
May He lead our enemies under our soldiers' sway and may He grant them salvation and crown them with victory".
The strength of a nation is measured not only by its military capabilities. The strength of a nation is measured by its welfare and morality, its strong and solid economy, its modern and developing market, its export of technologies and products for the most advanced world markets and its ground-breaking academic research. In all these, each and every one of us has good reason to be proud.
But above all, the strength of a nation is measured in times of trial, when the home front becomes the front, when the citizens of the country show admirable fortitude, patience and stamina and allow it to operate against its enemies.
I had the privilege of witnessing these inner strengths in the years when I was Mayor of Jerusalem. For years, our capital was subject to the most murderous terror attacks. The resilience, patience and restraint of the residents of Jerusalem and the entire citizens of Israel are exemplary.
I recall a conversation with Rudy Giuliani, who was Mayor of New York during the terror attacks of September 2001. I called to offer encouragement to him and the residents of New York following the collapse of the Twin Towers, and he replied: "Ehud, if the New Yorkers can withstand it like the Jerusalemites do, then we will defeat terrorism".
...Thanks to you, our enemies come up against a united nation, which fights together, shoulder to shoulder. We do not surrender and we do not panic. We believe in the justice of our cause, because there is no battle more just or moral than ours - a battle for the right to a peaceful and normal life, like any other human being, any other nation and any other state.
We fight for the right of children like Omer Pisachov, may his memory be blessed, a 7-year-old from Nahariya, who wanted to visit his grandmother Yehudit Itzkovich, may her memory be blessed, and enjoy the Sabbath dinner she prepared.
We fight for the right of citizens like Shmuel Ben-Shimon, may his memory be blessed, a 41-year old from Yokne'am who left every morning for work in the railway garage in Haifa to support his wife Natalie and their small children.
We fight for the right of citizens like Monica Lerer, may her memory be blessed, a 50-year old from Nahariya, to drink coffee on the terrace in the country to which she immigrated from Argentina.
We fight for the right of girls like Ella Abukasis, may her memory be blessed, a 13-year old from Sderot, to play the flute and read books, as Ella enjoyed doing.
We fight for everything that everyone in the enlightened world takes for granted and never imagined that they would have to fight for -- the right to a normal life.
Yesterday, I got together with Mimi Miyagi, a former porn star running for Governor of Nevada as a Republican. Her campaign is quite a ways back in the polls at the moment, but I thought she'd still be a fun interview -- and she was! What you'll find below is an edited transcript of our conversation. Enjoy!