Saturday, March 01, 2003


A "grave robbing cunt"? DenBeste responds:

See, I thought that the fact that it was my nation which was attacked, and my fellow citizens who died, was enough. But, of course, that just won't do. Such things as national pride and feelings of loyalty and solidarity with fellow citizens are jingoistic atavisms. Nations are pass?; they're obsolete artifacts of the europatriarchal system which must be deconstructed. Patriotism is politically incorrect and proves lack of sophistication (and quite possibly brain damage). We're not supposed to feel any kind of loyalty to our nations; it's vitally important that we instead adhere to our formal groups, which transcend national borders and which will eventually replace nations as the true source of political power. (My group is white middle-aged upper-middle-class professional males who speak English, otherwise known as the vile scum of the earth who are totally responsible for every evil act which has ever taken place in the history of the world. My officially-designated job in the new world order is to apologize and make reparations, and to be last in line for everything to make up for all the evil that my group has done, so that all the victims will have someone to stand in front of.)

In my insensitivity and ignorance, I thought that the sheer brutality of the attack, and the awesomely evil way in which it was carried out was enough to justify horror and outrage in any moral person no matter where they lived. I even felt that kind of outrage about the Bali attack, and that wasn't even aimed at America.

But I have now discovered that this is not the case. According to the Official Rules of Victimology, I have to have actually known someone directly who was affected. Otherwise I'm out of line. What I did is an example of "appropriation of tragedies in the self-serving interests of people with a political agenda." It's the ethical equivalent of "grave robbing". Since the rules don't permit me to feel what I thought I felt, it means that my arguments are invalid and can be dismissed without further examination. Since I don't occupy the moral high ground of victimhood, I'm automatically wrong. (Of course, as a member of the white middle-aged upper-middle-class professional males who speak English group I'm automatically wrong anyway.)

According to Daniel Davies, who has kindly offered me his most generous guidance in this matter, I am a "grave-robbing cunt". Well, I just hadn't known about any of that. I promise that I'll start abiding by the Official Rules of Victimology.

When Hell freezes over.

I don't believe that 9/11 was "payback for America's sins". I am proud...yes proud damn you...to be an American. I'll not go into the reasons why we are better than the alternative right now - just think of all the reasons why the Islamists hate us and you'll have a good start on the list. I love my country and I love my fellow countrymen (whether they agree with me or not politically).

Like Steven, I refuse to apologize for my anger over 9/11. I refuse to apologize for identifying the enemy and advocating his systematic destruction.

I am an American - and the death of any American to terrorist attack is my loss.

Friday, February 28, 2003


Someone e-mailed me this "joke" today:

"One night, George W. Bush was awakened in the White House by the
ghost of George Washington.
George W. asked the ghost, "Mr. Washington, sir, what is the best
thing I can do to help the American people?"
"Set an honest and honorable example, George W., just as I did."

The following evening, the ghost of Thomas Jefferson appeared before
Bush in the dark bedroom.
"Mr. Jefferson, sir," George W. asked, "what is the best thing I can
do to help the American people?"
"Preserve the land for future generations and stay out of foreign

Bush wasn't sleeping well the next night, and saw yet another figure
moving in the shadows. It was the ghost of Abraham Lincoln. "Mr.
Lincoln, sir, what is the best thing I can do to help the American
people?" George W. asked.

"Go see a play."

Perhaps I'm losing my sense of humor but I didn't find anything funny about the suggestion that the American people would be better off if President Bush is assassinated.

I replied to this e-mail telling the person who sent it that I didn't find it even "remotely funny" and letting her know that I would really appreciate it if she didn't send things like this to me in the future. She took offense. It appears that, in her mind, this is similar to making a joke about Bill Clinton and cigars. It isn't.

Look, I appreciate a good joke as much as the next person. I also understand that political satire is just a part of the game - making fun of Bush as a dummy or Clinton as a sex-fiend or Gore as a robot or Gerry Ford as clumsy, that's all harmless enough. But making jokes about assassination of a president, much like comparing Bush to Hitler, goes way over the line into the territory of Unbelievably Bad Taste.

Dennis Miller commented about this on Donahue tonight. He said that he started to turn toward the Republican party when he noticed that liberals he knew kept making comparisons between Bush or Ashcroft with Hitler. I mean here are two guys who are devout Christians, who acknowledge praying every day and they get compared to Adolf Hitler, mass murdering dictator? For what? Because some idiots in Broward County don't know how to follow instructions?

We've got to get back to a point in this country where we can disagree about public policy without demonizing the other side.

Thursday, February 27, 2003


I saw the Fox interview with Janeane Garafalo this morning - poor Janeane is a little confused.

She kept repeating that the inspectors were professionals and "very good at what they do" - why does she believe this? Is there any proof that the UN inspectors are "good at what they do"? On the contrary, there is a huge pile of evidence to suggest that the inspections teams are NOT very good at finding things that Saddam does not want found. There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that the inspectors misunderstand their mission - that they believe that part of what they are doing is to prevent war from happening.

The inspection teams are in Iraq to document the existence of Iraqi weapons and to verify their destruction. Any reports they give should be strictly factual; talk about "hopeful signs" should be avoided.

Janeane also claimed that UNSCOM inspectors were kicked out of Iraq after it was proven that some of the inspectors were "spies", implying that this was a valid excuse for Saddam to remove them. Say what? How do you gain intellegence about the location of weapons that an enemy has agreed to destroy but in reality is hiding from you without "spying"? Of course there were intellegence agents among the inspectors, you idiot. Saddam gets NO say about the make-up of the teams. In order to save his skin at the end of the Gulf War he agreed to destroy his WMD and long range missle programs. He agreed to this as a defeated country in a war which HE started. If Germany had started up V-2 factories after the end of the WWII, would you have supported "inspectors" and begged the Germans to comply with their surrender agreements or do you think it would have been more effective to move troops in, crushing any resistance, and remove the government that violated its agreement? What do you think Truman's reaction would have been, airhead?

Amazingly, she also recommended lifting sanctions against Iraq. I guess her theory is that if we lift sanctions and remove the threat of military action, Saddam will start to like us and we can all just be friends - as long as we look the other way while he develops nuclear weapons; as long as we stay silent while he rapes, tortures and murders his political opponents; as long as we don't get in the way of his take-over of the majority of Gulf oil supplies; as long as we sell-out the Israelis. No thanks.

It's not surprising that Garafalo's views on the situation are so divorced from reality. After all, she sees the American founders as a bunch of white slaveowners who fill her with shame about her heritage. What is surprising is that anyone gives a shit about what she thinks about the matter. Her opinion is certainly not what you would call well-informed.

Sunday, February 23, 2003


I've been pretty hard on the French and frankly the backstabbing SOB's deserve it. But should French and German policy in this matter suprise us? I don't think so.

What should be suprising is that an alliance of the British, French, Americans and Germans lasted for almost sixty years. Although today we tend to look at the NATO countries and assume a natural alliance, this is only a recent occurance. The British and French carried their battles all across the globe in the 18th and 19th centuries, frequently involving other European states in their struggles. It took a surging Germany to unite them in the early 20th century and a nuclear USSR to unite them in in the second half of the century.

Now that neither of those common threats exists it isn't suprising to see the French veer away from the US and UK.

What is striking in contrast is the attitude of the rest of Europe. The Central and Eastern European countries, having only recently thown off the yoke of Soviet domination and the economic stagnation of socialism, are not eager to see a Europe divorced from America and dominated by France. Furthermore, they, being more recently familiar with the results of appeasing bloody dicators, are steadfast in their support of confronting problems head on in lieu of endless negotiation and back-tracking.

Negotiations are not always won by the stronger party. More frequently the party most willing to end negotiations will prevail. If your opponent understands that you value peace, as the French do, more than justice then he will push you past the edge because the value of a human life has little meaning to him. Saddam still doesn't really believe that the Americans and British will force the world community to make good on their threat of "serious consequences" for non-compliance with resolution 1441 - so he waits while the French and Germans attempt to stir up world opinion against Bush and Blair.

How does this benefit the French? I can't see a scenario where it does in the short term. American retaliation for their treachery is bound to have a negative impact on their economy. Chirac's arrogant treatment of EU opposition (and the opposition of EU hopefuls) is doing serious damage to the potential of an Franco-German dominated EU. I can't believe that the French are banking on a drastically weakened America anytime soon. The decline of American military and economic power will happen eventually - but not in Chirac's lifetime (or mine).

Is he trying to assemble a power block outside of Europe? It must scare the hell out of the Eastern Europeans to see Chirac cozying up with Putin. They, of course, still remember hollow French promises as well as American Cold War resolve.

Some wars are unavoidable. This one is. We can't allow a WMD manufacturing facility to pump out arms to supply terrorists sworn to our destruction which is what will happen if we walk away from Iraq and leave Saddam in power. Saddam IS a terrorist (wouldn't you call Scud missles lobbed into cities of a non-combatant terrorism?, how about chemical weapons attacks on his own population). Why is it so difficult for some people to accept the terrible danger of leaving him in power?

September 11, 2001 was the start of this war people. Just because the bombs came in the form of hijacked airliners doesn't mean that Iraq (and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and North Korea) aren't allied with the people who did it.

We are NOT at peace now - there is a WAR going on. It's doesn't LOOK like the kind of war that we've seen in the past so a lot of people think that it isn't that bad. It is. When we get to the other side of this thing (not just the Battle for Iraq - the end of the War) there is going to be a whole lot of destruction, desolation and death. Unlike past World Wars some of the death and destruction will be in American cities. This will happen whether we take the fight to our enemies or sit back and pretend we are at peace (after all we are all for peace).

I'd rather die on my feet, fighting for my freedom, than live on my knees. Apparently the French Government (and their allies in Germany and Hollyweird) feel differently.

Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=