Join us for debate at our Facebook Group, Liberty Cafe!



Thursday, April 29, 2010

Famous War Quotes As Said By the UN #3: What's Victory?


 “One more victory... 
No, really. One more... 
Guys, why are you laughing?”

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

It's All Over, Man. All Over.


In the lingo of the International Monetary Fund, the future of the world hinges on "rebalancing and consolidation," antiseptic words that would not seem to raise a fuss.
Who doesn't want more balance in their life?

But the translation is a bit ruder, something on the order of: "Suck it up. The party's over."

[...]

"Rebalancing" is an idea that most everyone endorses -- including the technicians at the fund and President Obama and the leaders of the G-20 group of economically powerful nations. In broad strokes, it means curbing what has been a massive transfer of capital from nations that consume more than they produce, such as the United States, to nations that produce more than they consume, such as China.

The imbalance has been key to China's modernization: The country buys U.S. government bonds by the tens of billions to keep the dollar stronger than it would be and to keep its domestic currency -- and its exports -- cheaper. Looked at one way, the flow of U.S. debt to the People's Bank of China has acted like a giant, collective credit card, underwriting consumers across the United States and driving the business models of major retailers such as Wal-Mart.

The message from the IMF is that the card is about maxed out and that the imbalance in trade flows needs to be corrected.

How to do it? One way is for China -- or Asian exporters, more generally -- to let their currencies rise on world markets. The other way, which IMF economist Blanchard raised this week, would be to devalue the dollar, the euro and other developed-world currencies.

[...]

"Fiscal consolidation" is another idea promoted by IMF leaders. Again, the aim seems unobjectionable: The United States and other developed-world governments ran record deficits during the crisis, both to pay for stimulus programs and because tax and other receipts cratered. Across the developed world, the IMF says, government debt will rise from about 80 percent of economic output before the crisis to roughly 115 percent of output in 2014.

That's considered a dangerous trajectory, and IMF officials say that by next year, governments need to announce "credible" plans to cut their annual deficits, turn them into surpluses and start paying off what is owed.

The level of the correction needed is large, perhaps 10 percent of gross domestic product. In the United States, that would amount to roughly $1.4 trillion annually, to be cut from government programs or raised through new taxes.
Look on the bright side: if we don't change, the economy collapses and we get smaller government through lack of power. If we do change, a culture of thriftiness may return. If we raise taxes without cuts, the collapse will be quicker. If we raise taxes and cut, maybe we'll make it through without a huge financial collapse. In all these options, the government is going to shrink.

So with Iran getting nuclear power status soon and the United States shrinking eventually to the first among equals in geo-politics, we also get to enjoy the government doing its best to prop up its 60 year Ponzi scheme which will end up with us where we want to be except with bigger problems than if they'd just effing cut spending.

Yay.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

More on the Setting of History

Forgot to mention North Korea
Even under its most virulent anti-Communist leaders, South Korea has responded to past attacks, including the 1987 downing of a South Korean airliner, with palpable anger but little action. In at least one of those cases — the bombing that killed the cabinet members — a revenge attack was planned but never carried out. In others, under a liberal government, leaders reacted by trying harder to nudge the North back to the negotiating table on its nuclear program.

Those relatively mild responses were before the North effectively changed the calculus of retribution by forging ahead with a nuclear program, making what intelligence experts say is fuel for at least eight nuclear weapons, or possibly the bombs themselves.

Monday, April 26, 2010

Vox's Impeccable Insight, My Lovely Pessimism

Sad, but true.
Seeing the way in which Obama is confounding the Tea Party movement tends to remind me of the classic alternative history short story in which the Germans conquer British India and instead of facing imperial British troops, Gandhi finds himself confronting soldiers of the Wehrmacht. Needless to say, satyagraha is rather less effective in the face of a ruthless enemy that is indifferent to bloodshed.

Obama is entirely focused on his goals, not the polls. He is as indifferent to the political pressure from his left as he is to the Tea Party-led pressure from his right, in part because he has largely delegated his legislative priorities to the Congressional Democrats. And being a ruthless pragmatist who has never hesitated to discard others once they cease to prove useful to him, it is extremely unlikely that he is in any way concerned with the Democratic Party's probable loss of the House in the fall. Obama will simply keep pursuing his progressive goals while relying upon Republicans to do what they do best, namely, crumble under media pressure.
I'm hopeful that my pessimism won't come true. I'm also pessimistic my hope won't come true. Such is life at a key point in history.

Do not doubt it: this President, one term or two, is setting the stage for the next 20-50 years of domestic and geo-political history. By the end of his first term, Iran will most likely have nukes, if Israel hasn't bombed them, and if Israel does that's a regional war we can't afford to fight. The second housing bubble will have burst, most likely repaired by a third bubble. The partisan situation will be wider than the Grand Canyon (you think Republicans are "obstructionists", just wait until the Dems are in the minority protecting their second New Deal). I truly hope the next election gives us a real, honest to God bipartisan. Not a John "I can get my back scratched by both parties" McCain bipartisan, but a President who can disagree without insulting, who can get the Blue Dogs without bribes. A President who has balls.

I'm asking too much, aren't I?

Sunday, April 25, 2010

The Syrian Scud Problem

Obama and the Assads
Michael Young, the opinion editor of the Beirut Daily Star, has a fine column parsing the latest developments on Syria, Lebanon, and the Obama administration. He confirms the interpretation I made recently on this blog, that the administration is puzzled at the failure of its opening gambits and unsure of what to do next:
The problem is that Washington is of several minds over what to do about Syria…because there is no broad accord, and because the president has not provided clear guidance on resolving Mideastern problems, there is confusion in Washington. And where there is confusion there is policy bedlam, with everyone trying to fill the vacuum. That explains why the Syrians feel they can relax for now, and why the Iranians see no reason yet to fear an American riposte.

Lebanon should be worried about American uncertainty. When there is doubt in Washington, it usually means the Israelis have wide latitude to do what they see fit here. With much of the Lebanese political class openly or objectively siding with Hezbollah, rather than shaping an American approach to Lebanon that might reinforce its sovereignty, we can guess the calamitous effect of that abdication.
Young’s worry is confirmed by this remarkable report from Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin:
As for why Syria seems to be playing such an unhelpful role, “that’s the million-dollar question,” the [Obama administration] official said….”We do not understand Syrian intentions. No one does, and until we get to that question we can never get to the root of the problem,” the official said. “Until then it’s all damage control.”
This is quite simply amazing. The Assads, father and now son, have run the same foreign policy for decades. It is a very simple model, and one that gets discussed in detail on a regular basis: They are the arsonists who sell water to the fire department. The administration official should start his odyssey of discovery by reading Bret Stephens’s 2009 Commentary essay, “The Syrian Temptation — and Why Obama Must Resist It.”
As a man with family in Lebanon and a connection to the beautiful, fragile country, I'd like President Obama to take a stand, as President Bush did, against Syrian aggression. This isn't just an emotional plea. The defeat of Hezbullah and its expulsion from Lebanese politics would be a first step in allowing Lebanon, for the first time in its history, to be truly independent. An independent Lebanon with its pro-Western culture is a needed addition to Israel and Iraq.

The Law Prof on Arizona's New Law

Reason strikes again!
Nothing in the law authorizes stopping people because of their skin color. The law simply provides guidelines as to what is permissible in accordance with federal law, and the procedures that should be used.

Could the law be abused? Sure, so can any law.

Claims of "driving while black" and other racial profiling have abounded for decades. But we don't eliminate the enforcement of traffic laws just because some police racially profile; instead we educate and discipline police who use racially neutral traffic laws for racial purposes. Why should the immigration laws be any different?

If you want to argue that the law is not sound on civil liberties grounds, do so. If you want to argue that as a matter of public policy local governments should not enforce the immigration laws, then make that argument.

But the one argument which is not legitimate is that the law is racist. Because it is not.

Friday, April 23, 2010

Racists Being Racists, Again

Who knew you needed to be trained to be colorblind?
The bill would require immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and require police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally. It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.

[...]

Critics argue the new law would foster racial profiling, saying most police officers don't have enough training to look past race while investigating a person's legal status.
Is this honestly what passes for serious leftist issues with this bill? What kind of mental constipation must you have to think like that?

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Bedwetters: A Rant

Between 1941 and 1945, the United States killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, dropped nuclear weapons on two cities, summary executed hundreds (maybe thousands) of spies, probably tortured tens of thousands and imprisoned over 250 000 of our own citizens based on their race. But that was the good war. That was FDR.

Yet, it's millions of conservative Americans that'll incite terrorism. It's a legal interrogation program that destroys our image. It's the liberation of 60 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq that makes radical Islamists hate us. It's the fighting of terrorism that makes us evil.

Lincoln dissolved state legislatures, held Americans without trial, executed Americans without trial and his generals burned down American cities to win the Civil War. He's a hero.

Bush gave terrorists a place to stay, eat and relax, as well as having the most overwatched interrogation program in American history. He followed the international rules of war. He went beyond what he had to to make sure the ILLEGAL terrorist combatants (aka, not covered by Geneva) were cared for when captured. Bush is Hitler.

The far-left and pussy libertarian critics are bedwetters. Four year old, Pull-Ups wearing bedwetters. The Civil War, WWI and WWII had hundreds of thousands Americans in prison camps... BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. Yet, we're supposed to believe Bush, the CIA and the War on Terror will create tyranny by its very existence. Cheney will smile and people will be arrested and tortured.

Bullshit.

So much bullshit.

Name a single terrorist captured by the US that's been executed while in custody?

Not one.

They live in their fantasy world of rebellion and revolution where if only all of us didn't defend ourselves or want the government to do its job to defend us, we'd all live happily and free with unicorns, candy and free blow-up dolls with interchangeable sex organs.

They refuse to see how the world is, so they make it up to make themselves feel better. And many of these people are top politicians, journalists, thinkers and teachers. They are the gutter of politics, and because their ideas have become the main ideology of liberalism/progressivism, we have to go to the gutter to smack reason into these idiots.

They are children. Maybe we should treat them as such.

/rant

Friday, April 16, 2010

Not Your Average PMC Conspiracy


*PLOT SPOLIERS*
DO NOT READ IF YOU ARE PLAYING OR PLAN TO PLAY  
SPLINTER CELL: CONVICTION!






So Splinter Cell: Conviction's story is pretty short, hence the quick follow up on my post about the blood thirsty Canadian who has eyes for American contractors instead of terrorists.

I don't want to put up mega spoilers, so it'll be sufficient to say that the rouge PMC (aka, “military industrial complex” to said gamer) is just the tip of the iceberg. From what I can tell, the brains behind the plot in SCC are foreign, but that's not for sure. It is definitely not some half-assed right-wing conspiracy to make the US a corporate-fascist nation using a Blackwater clone. Not in the least. To me, it's more a one-world conspiracy by big government supporters and corporate honchos (George Soros, for instance). All of the baddies in SCC are pawns, even the top villian, so that gives you an idea of how big the conspiracy is. For now, the story is way above the stupidity of 24 season 7 and above the intelligence of the dumbass Canadian who gets the blues when taking out non-American baddies. I plan on buying the novelization of SCC to see if it has any more depth to this interesting take on the media's second-favorite military whipping boy.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Saving the World Makes Me Feel Guilty

But killing Americans in cold blood is a hoot.

Emphasis totally mine.
I’m often conflicted while playing games in Ubisoft’s Tom Clancy library. They’re fantastic fun—several entries in the Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, and Splinter Cell franchises have provided some of the most memorable moments I’ve experienced in military-themed gaming—but I’ve always had a problem with Clancy’s politics. America’s forces typically act as world police in his games, conducting overt or clandestine operations in foreign lands with little regard for local governments and citizens and usually with impunity. It makes me feel a little guilty for enjoying myself so much while playing.

And that’s what makes Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell: Conviction such a welcome change of pace. It delivers the sort of high quality and innovative action that players have come to expect from Clancy-branded games while giving us a hero who is actually rebelling against the American military industrial complex. It feels great.
So fighting terrorists and nations bent on destroying us makes this guy "feel a little guilty", but when the story involves a wayward PMC full of ex-American soldiers "[i]t feels great".

I'm a fan of Splinter Cell and Tom Clancy. I've read many of his books, Red Storm Rising being my favorite. He's had many Westerners as bad guys, and just like 24 these white male bad guys are bent on subverting the free world in some way. Yet, the only thing that gets this gamer off is killing Americans. You'd think that the video game world should be making Che games based on this idiot's preferences.

I've bought Splinter Cell: Conviction and I'll be commenting on the story once I finish the single-player campaign. It'll be interesting to see if SCC uses and intelligent evil PMC story, or if it'll go the way of 24 Season 7 and beyond ludicrous. I'm talking plaid-bad storytelling.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

The Victimhood's Whipping Boy

They can't get over it.
I don’t think this explanation can be dismissed out of hand – in particular, dismissing it out of hand as “insulting” to the South would be in instance of precisely the dynamic I’m outlining. The South does have a distinct history and culture; that culture is substantially oppositional; and the American right is dominated by the South in a way that it has not been before. Dominance of a party by an atypical and oppositional region is just a structural problem. And, if this is a problem, it is going to be a hard one for the American right to solve, because the South is now large enough and strong enough, and remains cohesive enough, that its leaders should expect to lead any coalition of which they are a member.

Monday, April 12, 2010

The Fabulous Art of Victimhood

Sexism. Racism. Ageism. Homophobia. Islamophobia. Islamohomophobia. Homoageophobia. Homoislamobamaphobiaism. If one can be accused of it, the left-wing has created a name for it and have accused conservatives, libertarians and non-unionized librarians of it. There is no end to the amount of victims that they could muster or the amount of lawsuits brought in the defense of these hapless innocents of a cruel world.

We all know that there are real victims of real crimes in our country. There are rapes, murders, frauds, beatings, kidnappings; all horrible acts done by mostly horrible people. Out of all the laws in the land, very few places have laws against hurting someone's feelings or making someone feel ostracized or saying words others think may be offensive. That's the risk you take for being a human being. People will not like you for your skin color, your accent, your beliefs, your sexual preferences; its just how humans are. We're tribal, we like our own kind, whatever kind that may be.

During the rise of the modern liberal/progressive/socialist, there were actual victims of real racism, sexism and violent attacks on homosexuals. There was a real reason to take up the cause of minorities, women and human rights. Unfortunately, for the Left, that day passed decades ago. Institutional racism, sexism, homophobia and all that jazz isn't much of a problem anymore. Of course, you'll hear that the gay marriage debate is akin to the civil rights era, that healthcare for all is part of MLK's dream, and all these connections to past events, but you never hear the Left make any attempt to put these issues in modern contexts with modern reasons for these leviathan solutions. They'll always throw back to the days when they had a reason.

This is the reason why the Left now pushes countless number of different categories for victims of society. Aside from the basic categories, there are things as heterosexism, pregnancy discrimination, Nancy Pelosi's “being a women is a pre-existing condition”, discrimination against trans-gendered children, discrimination against sex criminals and discrimination against women who wait years before bringing suit against their dead boss. As you can see, there's no bigger industry in left-wing politics than the production of victims.

Yet, the Left is happy to be as discriminatory as it wants to those it deems unworthy of protection. Mormons were blasted as intolerant, physically attacked and ceaselessly mocked after the passing of Prop 8 in California. Despite there being so little voting age Mormons in California to sway the vote, they were the target of blacklists, protests, hate mail and bomb threats in California and in Utah. This in spite the fact that a majority of blacks, Hispanics and Asians voted for Prop 8. Along with this, the term “breeder” became the new label of those straights who would not support gay marriage. “Breeder” is a derogatory term for heterosexual. Like other derogatory terms, its bad unless a protected class is saying it, then its cultural pride. No longer is the crack dealing black man a criminal, but the victim of white privilege, the CIA and the LAPD. The illegal Hispanic isn't breaking the law by crossing the border, but he's simply finding work for his oppressed family. There are back doors for every potential recruit to the left-wing ideology, except for the one minority culture everyone rags on: Southerners. It's alright to call them names, make fun of their accents, say they inbreed and say they're inferior. It's totally okay because they're white. It's okay because they're the only culture in all of America that must pay for the sin of slavery. Not the Democratic Party that defended it, not the big government ideology that promoted it, not the state Democratic Parties that prevented blacks from voting; no, it's every white southerner that believes in free markets, faith and the American way that must pay. Pay no attention to the blacks, the Hispanics and the other racial minorities who live, work and embrace Southern culture. They're just Uncle Toms like Justice Thomas. They're just traitors to their race, to the La Raza.

This victimhood industry is bad for politics and bad for culture. It breeds the idea that people aren't responsible for their mistakes, their flaws and misfortunes. It breeds the same generalized race classes that brought about slavery, government discrimination and government oppression. Promoting the victimhood of those who aren't and promoting government solutions for problems that don't exist put us in our current place of heightened political and social tension. Tension that exists not because of any actual widespread discrimination, but because politicians, parties and even entire government agencies have a vested interest in keeping alive the programs to remedy these non-existent plagues of our society.

The inability of our society to hold individuals, not cultures, accountable for the actions of individuals goes against every dream our Founders had for a free and just society. It prevents us from truly trying to end the wrongs that are there. Worst of all, it makes us stupid and blind. Do you really want your kids and grandkids growing up in a world where whatever their skin color, religious belief, cultural background, they are being judged as worthy or unworthy based upon it? Is that not the world we fought over decades to eradicate?

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Israel Needs To DIY

It looks like the President may be attempting to push his own peace plan on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Apparently, David Ignatius of the Washington Post isn’t the only recipient of White House leaks about an Obama peace plan. Helen Cooper of the New York Times chimed in with her own piece this afternoon about the president’s desire to jump into the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

According to Cooper, the trigger for this latest instance of administration hubris was a recent gathering of former national-security advisers including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, Samuel Berger, and Colin Powell, who were called in to consult with the president and his adviser General James L. Jones. The consensus (only Powell seems to have dissented) was that Obama must put forward his own scheme that would state exactly what the parameters of a peace deal would be. The idea is that peace can only be obtained by the United States imposing it on the parties. The plan is, of course, along the lines of past Israeli peace offers rejected by the Palestinians, plus extra Israeli concessions. The Palestinians give up their “right of return,” and Israel “would return to its 1967 borders,” including the one that divided Jerusalem, with only “a few negotiated settlements” as an exception. The supposed sweetener for Israel is that the United States or NATO, whose troops would be stationed along the Jordan River, would guarantee Israeli security.
This plan solves nothing other than vanity. The 1967 borders are indefensible for Israel and logistically impossible for Palestine. Israel has stated over and over it will not negotiate on Jerusalem. Hamas and Fatah are still at war. Hamas is still at war with Israel and is supported by Iran. There is so much wrong with this plan.

Israel needs to start making plans do solve this 60 year old problem itself. It has the firepower and the justification to do it. While I personally believe that Gaza should be turned over to the Israelis for a land swap involving Jordan, Israel and Palestine (fantasy, but hey, so is this plan), this conflict is rotting the state as well as providing fodder for terrorists fighting the West. 30 year of peace plans has gotten nowhere. This thing needs to end now, not in another 30.

Selective Justice

A few days ago, Wikileaks, the site dedicated to exposing secrets, let loose a video showing the deaths of two journalists in Iraq 2007. The video, named “Collateral Murder”, starts with several minutes of text fluffing the situation for the reader. When the video actually starts, the casual watcher has already been told what happens is a crime, so when the event does happen the shock and indignation has been already planted. The viewer isn't looking for weapons, suspicious behavior or even reading the context of the comment made by the soldier. All that has already been dismissed by Wikileaks, who rather you notice that the American military is evil for shooting journalists and kids and little bunnies. So very, very evil.

Alas, if you are a viewer who likes knowing the truth rather than tow a narrative, you'd notice that several men in the group are carrying weapons. You'd also notice that one of those weapons is an RPG (Russian: “ruchnoy protivotankoviy granatomyot”), not something a security detail carries. The streets are empty indicating a battle is in progress or nearby. The video itself, from an Apache helicopter, is extra proof that the situation in the area required air cover. Then there's the after action report (emphasis mine):
We remained above the engagement site while Bushmaster sent ground forces to the site. Bushmaster arrived and reported 11 x AIF KIA and found RPGs and RPG rounds at the site. We also witnessed a loaded RPG lying 2-3 blocks south of the engagement site. Bushmaster reported that the first child was wounded and pulled from the van. We were unable to determine that there were children in the vehicle and never saw any children prior to or during the engagement. After viewing the gun tape, were able to determine that both wounded children came from the van. Bushmaster immediately MEDEVAC'd both girls to FOB Loyalty for medical care.
All this points to that group of men being armed insurgents, not innocent civilians as Wikileaks wants you to think. The journalists were embedded with the enemy, without the knowledge of the military, and there was little to no way that the Apache gunner or his commanding officer who authorized the strike could of known. If the journalists hanging with the insurgents didn't want to be shot, they should of marked themselves as such with a giant “TV” taped to their vests, helmets or clothing. The same goes for the van that flew in to aid the fallen insurgents. If you want to go help folk in a war zone, you need to mark yourself as such, even if you're an insurgent sympathizer. A giant cross or crescent on your roof, or the word medical or doctor, would give the soldiers reason to hold fire. Yet, that wasn't on the van, so there was no reason to believe that the van was civilian, nor was there anyway to know the man who drove the van in had his kids in it.

The reaction of the left to this has been bloodthirsty. Condemnation as murders, trigger happy, blood crazed racists and so on. A field day on the military based on a pre-written script as instigated by Wikileaks and the left's narrative of the American military.

Now, compare this to the most recent person to be elevated to hero status on the left: Constance McMillian. The Mississippi student, a lesbian, was denied entry to her prom because of her desire to dress in a tux and because she wanted to bring her girlfriend along. The school, in my opinion, acted like a group of little vindictive school girls trying to ostricise an unwanted. The story rightly made news and the school is rightly being lambasted for its childish ways.

I have no qualms with homosexuality. I'm no expert on social justice theory or conservative social tradition or any other social things. It's not something I like to argue about. But, I cannot fathom the moral corruption of those who think Constance is the shining new hero of America while also condemning soldiers as murderers for doing the right thing. They'll support the ruling that makes prom protected under the First Amendment ("The court finds this expression and communication of her viewpoint is the type of speech that falls squarely within the purview of the First Amendment."), but they won't lift a intellectual or rhetorical finger to support those who defend that right. They won't admit that the ruling, accurate or inaccurate, says she was making a political point at a school function, but they will admit that American soldiers like the Apache crew are wrong, so wrong, for firing on armed insurgents in a war zone.

This is selective justice beyond a doubt. Constance was mistreated by the school and is being given the benefit of the doubt, as well as justice. The military was wronged by Wikileaks's bias and its vendetta, yet it is not being given any benefits whatsoever by the left. It's being given two barrels right to face with every know-nothing comment by bloggers and TV pundits despite the evidence disproving Wikileak's narrative.

Justice is for all persons not just those who fit the political agenda. Justice is for all, otherwise its just political and moral corruption.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Anti-Americanism and You!

A quick guide on how to be a rebel while reaping
the benefits of the country you hate!


Do you feel you're too patriotic? How about proud? Happy? Healthy? Does the stench of prosperity, legal equality and freedom bring you down?

Well, don't fret any longer because you, yes YOU, can be an anti-American rebel! You can be a unique snowflake of ignorance and hate along with all the other snowflakes!

First, you need to pick your ideology:

Communism
Tell people what to do!

Socialism
Tell people what to do nicely!

Progressivism/Fascism
Tell people what to do through the use of flawed moral reasoning/guns!

Left-Anarchism
Tell people what to do through horizontally organization!

Right-Anarchism
What? Did someone say money?!?

Left-Isolationist
We deserve it because we're capitalist!

Right-Isolationist
We deserve it because we're statist!

Hippie
Dude, that's so not cool!

Pussy Libertarian
I voted for Ron Paul, tyrant!

Islamist
Death to the juice!

Celebrity
I'm so rich I don't have to think!

Then you have to pick your fall back position after being soundly romped by reason and logic:

Communism
Fascist!

Socialism
Fascist!

Progressivism/Fascism
Fascist!

Left-Anarchism
Fascist!

Right-Anarchism
Fascist!

Left-Isolationist
Fascist!

Right-Isolationist
Fascist!

Hippie
Fascist!

Pussy Libertarian
George W. Bush!

Islamist
Infidel!

Celebrity
Fascist! I'm moving to Canada!

And that's it. Nothing else! Enjoy your new found rebelliousness!

P.S. This is satire, not an actual argument against any of the above ideologies... well, except celebrity.

Friday, April 2, 2010

It's Only Hate If You Do It

NRO.
The Jewish Defence League held a demonstration today in Toronto at Palestine House, one of the many jihadist front organizations without which no sophisticated multicultural western city is complete. Tomorrow night, for example, they're hosting the editor of the London newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Abd al-Bari Atwan. Mr Atwan is a celebrity eliminationist who declared on TV that "if the Iranian missiles strike Israel, by Allah, I will go to Trafalgar Square and dance with delight." Because Palestine House is government-funded, Mr Atwan's appearance to share this and other insights is effectively being underwritten by Canadian taxpayers.

At the demo, Palestine House officials were caught on tape telling Jewish protesters "You need another Holocaust" and "We love jihad... We love killing dogs... your bitches with you". As a notorious "Islamophobe", I certainly don't begrudge anybody his Judeophobia. What I don't understand is why Canadian taxpayers should subsidize it.

Yet any attempt to roll back funding for such organizations would be met by howls of protest that the government was attacking "immigrant groups" and "human rights". Lenin famously said the west would "sell us the rope by which we will hang them". He was underestimating our suicidal stupidity: We're happy to give it away.
Not only the rope, Canada has built the entire gallows and offered the radicals the first pull. Sooner or later, Canada has to stand up against the government funding people like these. This is another reason for homegrown terrorists, not our war against their kin, but cultural acceptance and government funding of their views.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

General David Petraeus is a Badass

Oh yeah. Emphasis mine.
You would not want to be at war with General David Petraeus. He plays to win, and it’s personal. Last fall it was revealed that, months earlier, he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. The general had quietly undergone two months of radiation treatment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, maintaining his full schedule throughout—“It was like it never happened,” said one of his aides. And that’s the way the general planned to leave it—as if it had never happened—until a reporter from The New York Times got a tip and asked a direct question.

So his Central Command staff in Tampa drafted a terse press release, laying out the bare facts. As with everything that comes from his office, Petraeus reviewed the statement. It disclosed the diagnosis and the successful treatment, and explained that the general had declined to announce his ailment because it was a “private matter.” But the general added a line of his own. He added one more reason for not disclosing his condition: “to avoid giving al-Qaeda hope.”

The staff balked.

“Absolutely not, sir” was the gist of the response from his public-relations advisers.

“Leave it in,” ordered the general. “End of discussion.”
But, as in all things, what's more badass than a badass general?
There was only one avenue of appeal. The staff felt strongly enough about it to send the release to the only authority in-house capable of overruling the general. Holly Petraeus returned it without comment, but with her husband’s addition deleted.
A badass general's wife.