Appeasers

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,
hoping it will eat him last."


Sir Winston Churchill

Pacifists Prevent Peace?

" "Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war.

Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent."

Read Pacifists versus Peace by Thomas Sowell

Liberals: Born to Run

"Most Americans have been glued to their TV sets, transfixed by Israel's show of power, wondering, "Gee, why can't we do that?"

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean says that "what's going on in the Middle East today" wouldn't be happening if the Democrats were in power. Yes, if the Democrats were running things, our cities would be ash heaps and the state of Israel would have been wiped off the map by now.

But according to Dean, the Democrats would have the "moral authority that Bill Clinton had" — no wait! keep reading — "when he brought together the Israelis and Palestinians." Clinton really brokered a Peace in Our Time with that deal — "our time" being a reference to that five-minute span during which he announced it. Yasser Arafat immediately backed out on all his promises and launched the second intifada. "

Read Liberals: Born to Run by Ann Coulter

Patience is Wearing Thin

"Yet for all their threats, what the Islamists -- from Hezbollah in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley to the Iranian government in Tehran to the jihadists in Iraq's Sunni Triangle -- don't understand is that they are slowly pushing tired Westerners into a corner. If diplomacy, or aid, or support for democracy, or multiculturalism, or withdrawal from contested lands, does not satisfy radical Islamists, what would?

Perhaps nothing."

Read Patience is Wearing Thin by Victor Davis Hansen

Global Warming? Please!

I thought about seeing An Inconvenient Truth but I'm choosing to avoid propaganda this year, no matter how skillfully presented. From what I've seen and read the film uses the same tactics as Michael Moore's so-called "documentaries".

Gore's assertion that there is a "consensus" in the scientific community that humans are causing warming is a joke, unless he has a unique definition of consensus. Gore has been talking up global warming since the 1980s, when the environmental loons switched their tune from a "coming Ice Age" to the warming theory. He ignores any scientific evidence that challenges his position and insists that virtually all scientists support the theory.

What most of the climate community has agreed on since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998. Gore's approach is to ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. (see JunkScience.com for a technical and humorous presentation on the realities of carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect)

And before you get worked up about Who Killed The Electric Car, I'll assert that the electric car got killed because it was expensive, ugly and impractical. I'm all for developing something other than our current internal combustion-driven cars, but one has to be realistic. That "something" will have to be practical and sexy, or people won't buy it.

Diplomacy, Not.

In order for there to be any diplomatic solution to a conflict each side has to want something that can be gained through negotiation. Therefore, calls for diplomatic efforts in the Middle East by Sen. Biden and others are laughable and tragically naive. What is it they believe Hamas, Hezbollah and those of their ilk want from us? What can we offer them in exchange for the quiet respectful coexistence we desire?

Muslims who are committed to the destruction of Israel and the USA want nothing that we can provide, except our own mass suicide. They don't desire to have better roads, a college education for their children, big screen televisions or a Wal-Mart. They have no interest in acquiring property through negotiated settlements and then building an economy for themselves. Living peacefully with their infidel neighbors is not their goal. Their driving ambition is the destruction of Israel and the USA, and pretty much anyone one else that they disapprove of.

The only thing these people, including the likes of North Korea, ever negotiate for is time. The end result of any agreement we make with them is that they get time to plot against us while we stupidly think giving them some economic aid or territorial concessions has gained something else that we wanted. Ask yourself this: when has any negotiated peace or cease-fire ever worked with the Muslims? Off the top of my head, I can't think of one.

Israel pulled out of Gaza and Southern Lebanon and their enemies used the opportunity to build up stores of weapons with which to continue attacking Jews. They did not see the concessions made by Israel as a gesture toward peace, but rather a sign of weakness and an opening for them to launch further assaults.

If the world sits by and attempts to negotiate too long, Iran will develop nuclear weapons and I believe they will use them. This is what they live for, to kill and be killed in the name of Allah. We should make an effort to fulfill the second part of that equation, while avoiding the first.

- Alan

Democracy won't work in Muslim dominated countries.

It is my opinion that democracy probably won't work in countries dominated by Muslim thinking, Arab or Persian or otherwise. Islam in general favors the notion that those who disagree with you should be killed or enslaved in the name of Allah... even other Muslims.

Democracy is more than simply a majority electing leadership. Our founders realized that in a pure democracy the "majority" could seriously abuse the "minority", so they promptly tacked a Bill of Rights onto the US Constitution. Without the understanding of, and respect for, fundamental individual rights, democracy is little better than any other form of rule. Various branches of Islam all bent on destroying other Muslims, as well as all "non-believers", with Allah's blessing will not embrace democracy as we know it. - Alan

---

"A new phenomenon called 'Arab democracy' was born - that is, a democracy in which the militias are part of the government and in which the government is too weak to control the militias."

IS "ARAB DEMOCRACY" WORTH ALL THIS CHAOS? By Shmuel Rosner

"Thank you Jesus" lands man in jail.

Junior Stowers raised his hands and exclaimed, "Thank you, Jesus!" in court last month when he was acquitted by a jury of abusing his son.

But his joy was short-lived when Circuit Judge Patrick Border held him in contempt of court for the "outburst" and threw him in jail.
story

First off, it seems a person acquitted of a serious crime might be allowed a little moment celebration. Secondly, if he had cried out "Allah be praised", would the judge have put him in jail for that?

From back in January - On Media BIAS

The recent flak over the President's listening in on international calls involving suspected or potential terrorists, and the Abramoff scandal clearly illustrate media bias and the danger it represents to Americans.

If you casually read headlines and listen to news reports from most media outlets today, you will get two impressions: 1) President Bush has been illegally and indiscriminately bugging domestic calls between American citizens and 2) Jack Abramoff's illegal activities are tied almost exclusively to Republicans. Neither impression would be even remotely accurate. You have to pay only slight attention to see how it is done.

Regarding the NSA eavesdropping story, apparently our agents discovered a cache of phone numbers in a computer and some cell phones captured from Al Qaeda operatives overseas. They then secretly tapped those numbers for obvious reasons. There may have been other numbers as well, but so far it appears they were only listening to international calls involving suspicious person. The program has lead to arrests and terror plots foiled. All this seems to be reasonable in times like these. So, how does the American liberal media see the story? Not only does the media discount the value of such a program, but they support the criminal act of revealing the classified program, and they repeatedly "convict" Bush of doing something illegal when there is considerable evidence to support the legality of the Presidents actions. These reporters were aghast at the leaking of an unimportant non-covert CIA employee's name (Plame), claiming such an revelation could endanger the security of the USA and the lives of agents; now they seem okay with the leaking of a program clearly aimed at trapping terrorists and preventing wholesale murder of Americans around the world. They also ignored at least one related story, covered widely in the world press, regarding the administrations successful capture of terrorists in Italy. Those guys were planning to kill lots of Americans in America, but if that story were reported accurately it would support Bush's methods of uncovering these plots. This kind of dishonest, politically motivated reporting and non-reporting is irresponsible at best and seemingly treasonous at worst. It is pretty clear that any story that hurts Bush has to be reported aggressively and any story that might support Bush
has to be ignored or buried on page 17. This should not be tolerated, regardless of your political affiliation.

Related.

Related.

I read the front page story on the Abramoff indictment in USA Today on Wednesday. The writer stated that politicians tied to Abramoff were "almost two-thirds Republicans". This would mean over one-third were Democrats, but they failed to name a single Democrat in the "news" piece, while naming several Republicans. Since Democratic Senators of no less stature than Minority Leader Harry Reid and potential Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton are among the more than 33% of those currently tied to Abramoff's money, you think an honest reporter might have at least mentioned their names. The page-two story in the same paper concluded that Republicans "appear" to be more tainted with scandal, citing a poll where 47% of those polled thought Republicans were dishonest, while only 44% felt the same about Democrats. Since the margin of error is plus or minus 3%, that makes the poll results pretty much dead even on that issue. In that piece they once again do not name a single Democrat connected to Abramoff while naming several prominent Republicans.

I watched about 15 minutes of Hardball last night to see how Matthews would treat the Abramoff story. He referred to Abramoff as a "Republican lobbyist". I'm not sure what makes a lobbyist as Republican or a Democrat, but that statement gives one the impression that Abramoff worked the Republican side of the isle. They had a text crawl on the lower third of the screen listing politicians tied to Abramoff and the amount of money involved. In the first ten minutes or so, only one Democrat was listed, while some Republican names appeared more than once. It was some 12 minutes into the show, about the time most people would have stopped reading the crawl, before the names of several Dems, including Clinton and Reid, showed up. I was hoping they would list them alphabetically to be fair, but they decided to weight the front-end with Republicans. This sort of thing seldom happens by accident.

Of course, lobbyists work any angle to serve the interests of their clients.
Related.


Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives should not be willing to sit still for this kind of bias in the media when so many Americans go uninformed, and base their opinions on slanted and incomplete information. I am all-for hanging every politician who did anything illegal in either case, and I won't allow my personal political leanings to cause me to turn a blind eye to their wrong doings, or to the way these stories are manipulated in the press. Unless more Americans start doing a little critical thinking when forming opinions, our democracy and way-of-life is in some peril.

Where's the balance?

I am running out of level headed friends on the left who can discuss or debate any subject without being subjected to a totally back-and-white, frothing at the mouth assault on everything conservative. For most people it seems if you lean left you have to go all the way, and there is zero tolerance for any suggestion that a conservative position might have merit, or that a Republican politician might have decent motives. I don't keep conservative friends who are equally extreme, but I seldom run into a conservative who is so committed to the right or the Republican Party they cannot entertain reasonable dissent.

It is disappointing because I'm not always right and I look for reasonable opposition to help discover something close to the truth, or to gain insight into an opposing position. But when the mere suggestion that global warming might not be directly President Bush's fault, or that he did not personally engineer the 9/11 attacks brands you a right-wing-nut-case, it is hard to find middle ground. It is one thing to be unhappy about the conflict we are engaged in, but it is another to totally vilify one person or group of people and hold them entirely responsible for it.

I can live with the fact that I praise Clinton for some of the things he did as President and also fault him for some of his behavior. I disapprove of Bush's handling of the Iraq situation and his ineffective handling of the illegal immigration matter, but at the same time believe tax cuts have worked well for the economy, fighting back "over there" was the best response to 9/11 and that the President is probably a decent man trying to do a very difficult job. I am very unhappy with the Congressional spending under the Republican majority, but I don't necessarily believe that the Democrats would lead any better. This kind of thinking brands me a right wing extremist because I don't subscribe to the "one side is all good and the other is all bad" line of thought.

Trying to stand in the middle is not easy because it forces you to revaluate your position constantly. It would be easier to put on the face paint and just blindly root for my "team"; however, I can't make myself give up the notion that there is good and bad, right and wrong on both sides. It does not bode well for our future if we lose the ability to have civil debate and respectful disagreement.

What then shall we do?

The radical left in America thinks it is okay for government employees to reveal secret programs administered by the government, if they happen to oppose the administration or the specific program. They think it is okay for newspapers to publish this information which can weaken our defenses.

According to the New York Times it is improper for the government to have computers scanning patterns of phone calls to and from suspected supporters of terrorists. Now it appears they also disapprove of the government looking at large financial transactions between parties where one or more might be a terror organization or supporter. The recent arrest of seven real people, making real plans to kills thousands of actual Americans was immediately met with derision by Times editorialist Maureen Dowd. She said, in part, "You'd think Michael Chertoff would have something more important to do....These guys were so lame they asked an informant for boots, radios, binoculars, uniforms and cash, believing he was Al Qaeda ..." So I guess her idea is that we should wait till they get farther along with their plans to see if they are actually worthy of arrest.

So what is left for us to do? We can't try to spot the plans and the planners through phone and banks records because we fear our own government more than people sworn to kill us in vast numbers? When we do actually catch a group planning to blow up buildings and kill Americans that action is deemed worthy of ridicule? Can any sane person actually be on the side of people who think like this?

Is it not clear that the extreme and even moderate left in America is so absorbed with Bush hatred they cannot think straight? I'm all for watching for government to over-reach or unreasonably invade our privacy, but you don't have to shoot down every reasonable effort to protect us.

It has gone largely unreported that we are currently enjoying the longest period of time without an attack on US interests at home or abroad since 1979. I suspect to actually report that would somehow give Bush and crew some credit for doing something right, so the NY Times and others won't mention it.

Describing the 'new age'

"Reason will be replaced by Revelation. Instead of Rational Law, objective truths perceptible to any who will undergo the necessary intellectual discipline, Knowledge will degenerate into a riot of subjective visions … Whole cosmogonies will be created out of some forgotten personal resentment, complete epics written in private languages, the daubs of schoolchildren ranked above the greatest masterpieces. Idealism will be replaced by Materialism. Life after death will be an eternal dinner party where all the guests are 20 years old … Justice will be replaced by Pity as the cardinal human virtue, and all fear of retribution will vanish … The New Aristocracy will consist exclusively of hermits, bums and permanent invalids. The Rough Diamond, the Consumptive Whore, the bandit who is good to his mother, the epileptic girl who has a way with animals will be the heroes and heroines of the New Age, when the general, the statesman, and the philosopher have become the butt of every farce and satire."

- W. H. Auden, “For the Time Being,”

Vote for me and...

Apparently Howard Dean has studied the Napoleon Dynamite film and decided that Pedro's election plan was a good one. Napoleon advised Pedro to simply say "vote for me and your wildest dreams will come true".

Having previously assured America that once Democrats take charge in DC, we'll catch Bin Laden in a few weeks time, Dean now claims that none of the present strife in Middle East would be occurring if only Democrats had been in charge of America the last six years. Fifty-eight years of hostilities handled neatly by simply electing a Democrat to the White House... Democrats must be the cure for just about every major problem in the world.

Soon we'll find that electing Democrats is also a cure for hemorrhoids, sexual dysfunction and Lyme disease. If only we had known earlier. Expect to see Democratic candidates doing some real funky dance moves in October.