Well Eason Jordan is gone and now the search for the perps begins. For the MSM, that means those (we) nasty bloggers. You know who you are, you red state, bible thumping knuckle draggers. All you wild eyed conservatives who insist on the truth. Unlike our dear departed brother Mr. Jordan who made that off-hand comment about our servicmen being muderers. Yeah that one.
Michelle Malkin neatly exposes the plan of attack by the MSM purveyors of "all the news that's FIT to print."
Monday, February 14, 2005
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
COWARDS IN EUROPE?
As something of a student of history, I have always felt there was a critical distinction between how Americans (the "New World") and Europeans (the "Old World") approach things. As much as I admired the history of past European empires (Greece, Rome, Britain, etc.), it always seemed that America was the true heir to those great civilizations. Modern Europe lost its cajones somewhere after Napeolean arrived. Europeans always seem to seek accomodation rather than stand up for principle. Perhaps this is unexpected, as you can't keep killing each other for 5,000 years and not see some weakening of the gene pool.
In any event, it remained a pet theory of mine but one which seems valid. But now it has found voice from a prominent European business leader. BSPOLITIX.BLOG reports that Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of German publisher Axel Springer AG recently wrote a peice in DIE WELT, Germany's largest daily newspaper, critical of the appeasement mentality pervading Europe. Here is a key section:
As BSPOLITIX.BLOG says, at least one German gets it.
In any event, it remained a pet theory of mine but one which seems valid. But now it has found voice from a prominent European business leader. BSPOLITIX.BLOG reports that Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of German publisher Axel Springer AG recently wrote a peice in DIE WELT, Germany's largest daily newspaper, critical of the appeasement mentality pervading Europe. Here is a key section:
Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.
His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.
In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.
On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.
As BSPOLITIX.BLOG says, at least one German gets it.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
MODERN CONSERVATISM
David Gelernter has a great peice in the Weekly Standard on Disraeli and his role in forming modern conservatism. It is a must read no matter your political persuasion.
Key point relative to our politics:
Key point relative to our politics:
Two of Disraeli's central interests, patriotism and democracy, were important to George Bush's 2004 victory. In this nation the people and not the courts are meant to lay out the moral and social foundations of society, subject only to constitutional absolutes. When anti-democratic judges and elected officials decide to update America's moral code on their own authority, the people get upset. Democracy in America has been hurt badly where it counts most. Disraeli knew well and said often: Nothing counts more than society's moral foundations. Next to that, all other issues are small change.
Patriotism favors Republicans on a deeper level than many of them seem to realize. No one questions the personal patriotism of Democratic leaders. The real question is different: Where do you rank patriotism as a public virtue? Anyone who has looked at young people nowadays (in the Blue States especially) knows that, since we no longer teach them to be patriotic, many of these Blue State Specials no longer are. No country has the luxury of not speaking up for itself to its own children in its own schools. For a generation and more, we in the wealthy, influential, profoundly self-important Blue Regions have run our schools as if we were too sophisticated for any such low-brow, cornball drivel as teaching children to love their country. If this nation is serious about defeating terrorism, we must teach our children why we fight. From where I stand, we are not doing it--at least, not in Connecticut. The conservative party should be the national party, Disraeli said, and he knew what he was talking about.
Friday, February 04, 2005
WHY DO THEY HATE US
Mark Noonan of GOPBloggers has a great piece on a subject I have been thinking a lot about recently.
He points out the disparity of thought between those who "do" (i.e. - the creators of wealth, stuff, society, life, etc.) and the idle classes (i.e. - those who analyze and criticize).
I agree although I have been thinking of it in terms of those who understand risk and reward trade-offs and those who seek a "guarantee" in life. That's why business people, entrepreneurs, farmers and anyone else who seeks to rely on their own initiative tend to be Republicans. Those who seek a risk free environment, like MSM reporters, university professors, public employees, unions, the retired, minorities, etc. tend to vote Democratic.
Naturally, we are all intrigued by guarantees. It's secure and comforting. It's a wonderful fairy tale. So nobody begrudges the elderly not being willing to take the chances as a 25 year old. Thus the basis for the recent varied opinions regarding Social Security.
However, it is craven pandering for Democratic politicians to imply they can deliver rewards without risks. If it sounds too good to be true, it always is. That is why every Democratic soak the rich, spread the wealth scheme ultimately fails. Somebody's pocket has to get picked. There is no free lunch.
It is also why they cannot appreciate the desire by the Iraqi people for freedom. They cannot fathom how anyone would take the risk! The elections will fail, there is no security and all the other bleating nonsense reveals a basic truth. They would never take the chance so why would anyone else. They will always trade freedom for bread.
These are not American thoughts. These are not the sentiments of a people who wish to extend the flame of liberty. Life takes courage. But in our P.C. world, schools don't teach these values. They pander to every group of self-proclaimed victims and undercut the very foundation of the freedoms they demand. They are the attitudes of people too willing to surrender all for a promise of safety. Unfortunately, as history has always shown, those unwilling to take a risk for freedom are destined to lose it.
He points out the disparity of thought between those who "do" (i.e. - the creators of wealth, stuff, society, life, etc.) and the idle classes (i.e. - those who analyze and criticize).
I agree although I have been thinking of it in terms of those who understand risk and reward trade-offs and those who seek a "guarantee" in life. That's why business people, entrepreneurs, farmers and anyone else who seeks to rely on their own initiative tend to be Republicans. Those who seek a risk free environment, like MSM reporters, university professors, public employees, unions, the retired, minorities, etc. tend to vote Democratic.
Naturally, we are all intrigued by guarantees. It's secure and comforting. It's a wonderful fairy tale. So nobody begrudges the elderly not being willing to take the chances as a 25 year old. Thus the basis for the recent varied opinions regarding Social Security.
However, it is craven pandering for Democratic politicians to imply they can deliver rewards without risks. If it sounds too good to be true, it always is. That is why every Democratic soak the rich, spread the wealth scheme ultimately fails. Somebody's pocket has to get picked. There is no free lunch.
It is also why they cannot appreciate the desire by the Iraqi people for freedom. They cannot fathom how anyone would take the risk! The elections will fail, there is no security and all the other bleating nonsense reveals a basic truth. They would never take the chance so why would anyone else. They will always trade freedom for bread.
These are not American thoughts. These are not the sentiments of a people who wish to extend the flame of liberty. Life takes courage. But in our P.C. world, schools don't teach these values. They pander to every group of self-proclaimed victims and undercut the very foundation of the freedoms they demand. They are the attitudes of people too willing to surrender all for a promise of safety. Unfortunately, as history has always shown, those unwilling to take a risk for freedom are destined to lose it.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
NAVEL LINT AND RON JR.
Can ANYone tell me why Ron Reagan Jr. has any face time on TV? Who determined that this ungrateful son of a great man, this failed dancer, this smirking boy has anything to say of value?
Mr R. questioned the authenticity of the hug between Safia Taleb al-Suhail, who recently voted in the Iraqi elections, and Janet Norwood, mother of a Marine who died in Iraq. Discussing the most moving moment of the speech last night on MSNBC, the boy genius proffered the opinion that the hug had been pre-arranged by the PR people. He was egged on by the mouth that never stops, Chris Mathews.
How craven are these people? Do they think everyone is like them? That everything is for effect? They could no more imagine this was an honest expression of gratitude and pride than they could understand the reason behind Sgt. Norwood's sacrifice.
They have spent too much time in the toxic environs of DC. They need to get out into the real world where real people live and die and strive and sacrifice. They need to reconnect with their own country and what it stands for. And they need to get off the tube.
Mr R. questioned the authenticity of the hug between Safia Taleb al-Suhail, who recently voted in the Iraqi elections, and Janet Norwood, mother of a Marine who died in Iraq. Discussing the most moving moment of the speech last night on MSNBC, the boy genius proffered the opinion that the hug had been pre-arranged by the PR people. He was egged on by the mouth that never stops, Chris Mathews.
How craven are these people? Do they think everyone is like them? That everything is for effect? They could no more imagine this was an honest expression of gratitude and pride than they could understand the reason behind Sgt. Norwood's sacrifice.
They have spent too much time in the toxic environs of DC. They need to get out into the real world where real people live and die and strive and sacrifice. They need to reconnect with their own country and what it stands for. And they need to get off the tube.
SOTU
President Bush gave a great speech last night. This is one gutsy guy.
He clearly laid his domestic and foreign policy visions. Social security is broken: let's fix it. Syria and Iran are threats: reform. Iraq is developing into the first true mid-east democracy: we will stay as long as needed.
Compare that to the whining Democrats who followed. Reid and Pelosi offered nothing but no, no no,...
They have no plans, no counter arguments, no philosophical foundation. Just no. They looked pathetic. The D party could not have picked two better spokesmen for the Rs. Unless of course, you consider Teddy "One more for the road" Kennedy and John "I really was in Cambodia, before I wasn't" Kerry.
The gulf between the parties has become a political Grand Canyon. One is serious, sober, resolute and patriotic. The other is ridiculous, phony, treasonous and lame. Calling them simply pathetic is charitable.
It is fascinating to watch the disintegration of a major American institution. As someone who has keen love of history it is sad. As a republican, it's all good.
He clearly laid his domestic and foreign policy visions. Social security is broken: let's fix it. Syria and Iran are threats: reform. Iraq is developing into the first true mid-east democracy: we will stay as long as needed.
Compare that to the whining Democrats who followed. Reid and Pelosi offered nothing but no, no no,...
They have no plans, no counter arguments, no philosophical foundation. Just no. They looked pathetic. The D party could not have picked two better spokesmen for the Rs. Unless of course, you consider Teddy "One more for the road" Kennedy and John "I really was in Cambodia, before I wasn't" Kerry.
The gulf between the parties has become a political Grand Canyon. One is serious, sober, resolute and patriotic. The other is ridiculous, phony, treasonous and lame. Calling them simply pathetic is charitable.
It is fascinating to watch the disintegration of a major American institution. As someone who has keen love of history it is sad. As a republican, it's all good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)