Wednesday, April 27, 2005
OK, But You Didn't Get This From Me
Since most here gathered don't agree with The Philosodude but kindly read him anyway, he passes this on as a sort of twisted thank you.
Pants on Fire
So Tory chief Michael Howard is OK with calling Tony Blair a liar.
This shows how low the Tories have sunk, and the fact it's helping Howard in the polls says nothing good about the electorate, either, folks.
Calling a man a liar used to land you with a pistol in your hand at dawn. I'd call the little dweeb out myself. Now it's just another word, with no consequences. (We have the same cowardly garbage here in the US, but that's another tale.)
I just don't get how wannabe leaders who act with zero class ever expect to receive respect themselves. Fortunately, they always lose.
Of all the folks from either party who have run for US President, I've never doubted they were sincere and honorable men with the best interests of the nation in mind. Blair would be at 60% in the polls now if he'd done nothing about anything, like your typical tut-tutting Eurocrat. (Oh, all those people dead, how unfortunate. That Saddam's such a murdering bastard. Someone should really DO something.)
I doubt the Tories (and half the Loud Left, if they ever stopped to think about it) really wish Saddam were still in power, filling mass graves while his lovely sons Uday and Attila throw the citizenry into paper shredders. So what's all the noise about?
After the smoke clears, we all have to live together under one leader after an election. Of what benefit to the nation are such tactics? No such thing as a Loyal Opposition anymore, just making each other miserable, forever and ever, amen.
Shame on Mr. Howard. I hope for a Conservative third-place finish and the end of his career. Things will have to get worse for the Tories before they get any better.
(Lib Dem Charles Kennedy is pulling much the same, but he's far more sneaky about it. Points for cleverness and actually being opposed to the Iraq war in principle, though.)
Addendum:The above comment about US Presidential candidates does not apply to Al Gore, who is once again acting like a freaking maniac.
This shows how low the Tories have sunk, and the fact it's helping Howard in the polls says nothing good about the electorate, either, folks.
Richard Harries, the Bishop of Oxford, delivered a sermon on the danger of cheapening the debate. "The leaders of the three main parties are all honourable men," he said.
"It is quite wrong to imply that any one of those three is somehow fundamentally dishonest, whoever it is."
He added: "I think there's a great worry about using a phrase like 'liar'. That does imply somebody has deliberately told an untruth. That's very different from whatever degree of spin there might be."
Calling a man a liar used to land you with a pistol in your hand at dawn. I'd call the little dweeb out myself. Now it's just another word, with no consequences. (We have the same cowardly garbage here in the US, but that's another tale.)
I just don't get how wannabe leaders who act with zero class ever expect to receive respect themselves. Fortunately, they always lose.
Of all the folks from either party who have run for US President, I've never doubted they were sincere and honorable men with the best interests of the nation in mind. Blair would be at 60% in the polls now if he'd done nothing about anything, like your typical tut-tutting Eurocrat. (Oh, all those people dead, how unfortunate. That Saddam's such a murdering bastard. Someone should really DO something.)
I doubt the Tories (and half the Loud Left, if they ever stopped to think about it) really wish Saddam were still in power, filling mass graves while his lovely sons Uday and Attila throw the citizenry into paper shredders. So what's all the noise about?
After the smoke clears, we all have to live together under one leader after an election. Of what benefit to the nation are such tactics? No such thing as a Loyal Opposition anymore, just making each other miserable, forever and ever, amen.
Shame on Mr. Howard. I hope for a Conservative third-place finish and the end of his career. Things will have to get worse for the Tories before they get any better.
(Lib Dem Charles Kennedy is pulling much the same, but he's far more sneaky about it. Points for cleverness and actually being opposed to the Iraq war in principle, though.)
Addendum:The above comment about US Presidential candidates does not apply to Al Gore, who is once again acting like a freaking maniac.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Consumer Tip of the Day
Thanks to everyone who stopped by this past week and found...nothing new posted here. There were some great theological concerns (see below) and computer problems. I hope to get back to more frequent gems and to being my usual snarky and shallow self.
Today's tip is this: when you're considering a purchase, go to Google, type in the product name, followed by the word "crap." My Western Digital hard drive imploded after not even a year, so I did a search to see if the fault was mine.
But googling "Western Digital" and "crap" turned up "Western Digital Eats Poo-Poo" and "their drives die left and right." If only I had known.
Next up is a Seagate hard drive. "Seagate" + "crap" = zero hits. So far, so good.
Today's tip is this: when you're considering a purchase, go to Google, type in the product name, followed by the word "crap." My Western Digital hard drive imploded after not even a year, so I did a search to see if the fault was mine.
But googling "Western Digital" and "crap" turned up "Western Digital Eats Poo-Poo" and "their drives die left and right." If only I had known.
Next up is a Seagate hard drive. "Seagate" + "crap" = zero hits. So far, so good.
Killing for Religion
One of the most troublesome things about the Bible is when God orders the Israelites to massacre the wicked Canaanites down to the last man, woman and child.
How could God order such a thing? And if He did, does that all of a sudden make an evil thing Good, just because He ordered it? This is sometimes called the Euthyphro problem, referring to Plato's Socrates asking just that question.
It's a question that's been asked for thousands of years, most recently over at Philosoraptor. (Yes, The Dude is The Raptor's illegitimate and wayward blogson.)
It's a question that cannot be answered with brute reason---if this life is all there is, then all death is bad, case closed. And since today, Christianity and Judaism don't see their mission as to go around killing the wicked, this question is then simply a theoretical and theological one, and must be seen that way.
That's the short answer.
To understand the Bible as it understands itself (a good way for us to read anything), and since few of us read the Torah deeply or understand its background (me, too---I had to hit the books on this one), it's important to note that
a) Israel didn't go through with the genocide
b) The men of the Bible questioned God's commands just the same as we do and Socrates did
c) The Canaanites were so world-class wicked that they polluted the people around them
d) The righteous were spared
e) The rest had the chance to flee---Israel was not required to hunt them down and kill them; it was nations, not individuals, that were destroyed
f) Israel got exactly the same treatment when it became wicked after Solomon's death and was cast into the Babylonian Captivity
This essay by a fellow named Glenn Miller has a pretty comprehensive scriptural reading of the issue. Those with skepticism toward God, the Scriptures, etc., etc. should hear the arguments for the defense. It's the American Way.
I had to get some backup on this Will of God stuff, so I asked Brother Levi, a friend who's a sort of Rastafarian. For those not scriptually inclined, he recommended that sneaky moralist Mark Twain's The Mysterious Stranger. Fortunately, it's here on the internet for free.
How could God order such a thing? And if He did, does that all of a sudden make an evil thing Good, just because He ordered it? This is sometimes called the Euthyphro problem, referring to Plato's Socrates asking just that question.
It's a question that's been asked for thousands of years, most recently over at Philosoraptor. (Yes, The Dude is The Raptor's illegitimate and wayward blogson.)
It's a question that cannot be answered with brute reason---if this life is all there is, then all death is bad, case closed. And since today, Christianity and Judaism don't see their mission as to go around killing the wicked, this question is then simply a theoretical and theological one, and must be seen that way.
That's the short answer.
To understand the Bible as it understands itself (a good way for us to read anything), and since few of us read the Torah deeply or understand its background (me, too---I had to hit the books on this one), it's important to note that
a) Israel didn't go through with the genocide
b) The men of the Bible questioned God's commands just the same as we do and Socrates did
c) The Canaanites were so world-class wicked that they polluted the people around them
d) The righteous were spared
e) The rest had the chance to flee---Israel was not required to hunt them down and kill them; it was nations, not individuals, that were destroyed
f) Israel got exactly the same treatment when it became wicked after Solomon's death and was cast into the Babylonian Captivity
Then Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, "This is what the LORD God Almighty, the God of Israel, says: `If you surrender to the officers of the king of Babylon, your life will be spared and this city will not be burned down; you and your family will live. But if you will not surrender to the officers of the king of Babylon, this city will be handed over to the Babylonians and they will burn it down; you yourself will not escape from their hands.'" (Jer 38.17ff)
This essay by a fellow named Glenn Miller has a pretty comprehensive scriptural reading of the issue. Those with skepticism toward God, the Scriptures, etc., etc. should hear the arguments for the defense. It's the American Way.
I had to get some backup on this Will of God stuff, so I asked Brother Levi, a friend who's a sort of Rastafarian. For those not scriptually inclined, he recommended that sneaky moralist Mark Twain's The Mysterious Stranger. Fortunately, it's here on the internet for free.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
God Re-elected
Despite the world press' advice that the next pope be hip and groovy, they went and elected a Catholic anyway.
Go figure.
Cardinal Ratzinger's words on Monday, at the opening of the Conclave:
The rest is here, with a lot of Jesus Christ stuff not of interest to the general reader.
But Pope Benedict XVI's message will be clear---that material politics and sterile reason cannot be the salvation of man, although they have great potential to be his undoing. (See my favorite book for more on this, linked over there on the right...)
Addendum: No, he's not a Nazi. Geez, that didn't take long. From
The Times (UK)---
The Anchoress has more, and better.
Go figure.
Cardinal Ratzinger's words on Monday, at the opening of the Conclave:
How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth.
Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism.
Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.
The rest is here, with a lot of Jesus Christ stuff not of interest to the general reader.
But Pope Benedict XVI's message will be clear---that material politics and sterile reason cannot be the salvation of man, although they have great potential to be his undoing. (See my favorite book for more on this, linked over there on the right...)
Addendum: No, he's not a Nazi. Geez, that didn't take long. From
The Times (UK)---
The son of a rural Bavarian police officer, Ratzinger was six when Hitler came to power in 1933. His father, also called Joseph, was an anti-Nazi whose attempts to rein in Hitler’s Brown Shirts forced the family to move home several times.
In 1937 Ratzinger’s father retired and the family moved to Traunstein, a staunchly Catholic town in Bavaria close to the Führer’s mountain retreat in Berchtesgaden. He joined the Hitler Youth aged 14, shortly after membership was made compulsory in 1941.
He quickly won a dispensation on account of his training at a seminary. “Ratzinger was only briefly a member of the Hitler Youth and not an enthusiastic one,” concluded John Allen, his biographer.
Two years later Ratzinger was enrolled in an anti-aircraft unit that protected a BMW factory making aircraft engines. The workforce included slaves from Dachau concentration camp.
Ratzinger has insisted he never took part in combat or fired a shot — adding that his gun was not even loaded — because of a badly infected finger. He was sent to Hungary, where he set up tank traps and saw Jews being herded to death camps. He deserted in April 1944 and spent a few weeks in a prisoner of war camp.
The Anchoress has more, and better.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Scotland Speaks
Our friend from the Land Downover, DKelly, offers his take on the UK election:
Yes, America is dealing with this in changing the rules of the Senate to let President Bush install judges on majority vote and bypass the "filibuster" rule, which permits a sizable minority to veto things. Then again, what goes around comes around.
So, your point is that the UK vote has a clear consensus of 60% anti-Conservative. Sounds about right.
The American system, which splits the executive branch from the legislative, deserves perhaps some respect. Knowing how to do the right thing is usually beyond the everyday concerns of mob rule, which is democracy in its purest and most nauseating form.
Although the Republicans control both the legislative and executive branches at this moment, many Americans are comfortable with split control, which is impossible in a parliamentary system.
The executive is expected to act, the legislature to frustrate. Or vice-versa, depending on the personality of the president. Not a bad system. It could accomodate Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, or Tony Blair as head of state, while allowing Clement Atlee, Michael Foote, Karl Marx, or even Lib Dem Charles Kennedy as the legislative leader.
We Yanks ain't as dumb as we look sometimes.
I believe it is be more accurate to say that this is the swing the Conservatives would need across the country to make the seat they need for a majority winable. There is actually a huge difference between this and actually requiring this percentage across the board.
That they need this result has little to do with the boundary changes, though they will not help for sure, and is far more deep seated.
There are two major problems.
The first is that the Conservatives are in exactly the same position as the one Labour faced in the 80s and early 90s, in that they have been reduced to their strongholds. At that time Labour needed a substantial margin of victory for a 1 seat majority. As an asside it should be noted that this was not assisted by the then latest boundary changes which had increased an already present advantage for the Conservatives. (History, like sprouts, has a tendency to repeat.)
Yes, America is dealing with this in changing the rules of the Senate to let President Bush install judges on majority vote and bypass the "filibuster" rule, which permits a sizable minority to veto things. Then again, what goes around comes around.
The second is the rise of tactical voting, which collapsed the vote of the third party in many marginal constituancies and even some previously fairly safe Conservative seats in the 97 election simply to get rid of the Conservatives. As the general feeling in the country is that we aren't stupid (or forgetful) enough to have Howard, the non-blue vote is still dedicated to keeping the Conservatives out. This means that they pretty much one-on-one with the second favourite party in many 'must win' places, a problem Labour are less likely to encounter until there is a similar desire to remove them from power.
In these circumstances it is not surprising that they need over 40%, maybe it is surprising that it is not over 45% and a rod the Conservatives back very much of their own making.
So, your point is that the UK vote has a clear consensus of 60% anti-Conservative. Sounds about right.
The American system, which splits the executive branch from the legislative, deserves perhaps some respect. Knowing how to do the right thing is usually beyond the everyday concerns of mob rule, which is democracy in its purest and most nauseating form.
Although the Republicans control both the legislative and executive branches at this moment, many Americans are comfortable with split control, which is impossible in a parliamentary system.
The executive is expected to act, the legislature to frustrate. Or vice-versa, depending on the personality of the president. Not a bad system. It could accomodate Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, or Tony Blair as head of state, while allowing Clement Atlee, Michael Foote, Karl Marx, or even Lib Dem Charles Kennedy as the legislative leader.
We Yanks ain't as dumb as we look sometimes.
In The Country Formerly Known as England
YahooNews has the latest update:
Well, as a committed American conservative, I think I'd still vote for Blair's party because the Tories are so pathetic. On the other hand, the article states that if Gordon Brown, the economic whiz Chancellor of the Exchequer whose views on other stuff are foggy as hell were party leader, the margin would be far greater.
The Independent just reported that Blair has agreed to hand over the PMship to Mr. Brown in (very) due time, keeping a (very) old promise.
None of the Above remains democracy's most formidable candidate, and it looks like he's about to win. I wonder what he's like. Anyone who says "things can't get any worse" has no imagination.
I wish us all a great deal of luck.
Labour is heading for a third General Election victory, according to a clutch of recently-published polls.
But the projected margin of Tony Blair's victory varied as pollsters put his lead over the Tories at anywhere between one and 10%...
An ICM poll for The Sunday Telegraph found Mr Blair was heading for another landslide victory and a majority of 158. That survey puts Labour on 40%, the Conservatives on 30% and the Lib Dems on 22%...
The Conservatives would win just one seat from Labour and end up with 155 MPs, 10 fewer than in 2001.
Well, as a committed American conservative, I think I'd still vote for Blair's party because the Tories are so pathetic. On the other hand, the article states that if Gordon Brown, the economic whiz Chancellor of the Exchequer whose views on other stuff are foggy as hell were party leader, the margin would be far greater.
The Independent just reported that Blair has agreed to hand over the PMship to Mr. Brown in (very) due time, keeping a (very) old promise.
None of the Above remains democracy's most formidable candidate, and it looks like he's about to win. I wonder what he's like. Anyone who says "things can't get any worse" has no imagination.
I wish us all a great deal of luck.
Friday, April 15, 2005
Immigration Man
¡La Migra!
Duck your head in and yell that into any Los Angeles restaurant kitchen, and you're likely to see half the staff bug out the back door.
It's slang for the immigration man, or in other words, "RAID!"
I've lived in LA for over 20 years and have been a dove on illegal immigration. Mexicans and Central Americans are legendary for never asking for handouts, only work. On freeway exit ramps, they won't be begging, they'll be selling oranges and peanuts. (Always oranges and peanuts, dunno why.)
Now our county health system has provided care of the last resort to everyone regardless of ability to pay, and proof of citizenship is not required or even asked for. (This system is never mentioned in the wail about 40 million uninsured Americans. It is indeed our medical safety net.)
But it does seem that illegal immigrants have achieved a critical mass and swamped the system. The same as above applies to our schools.
But that was true too in 1994, when California governor Pete Wilson, a Republican, got himself re-elected by riding his support for Proposition 187, which banned illegals from receiving public services. (187 was later thrown out by the courts, on some ground or another.)
But the damage was done. To save his own sorry ass, Wilson had once again attached racism to the GOP. The Latino vote, a bloc which would soon pass Blacks in size, looked to go heavily Democrat forever.
However, a Texas governor named Bush learned from Wilson's disaster, and refused to be painted in an anti-Hispanic light. He diffused the racism charges and he got around 35%-45% of the Hispanic vote in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, a surprising total that may have swung those elections his way. In doing so, he may have saved his party.
For the Republican Party or the administration to take the lead on immigration now would be suicide as long as the Democratic Party sits on the sidelines.
And everybody knows it.
If illegal immigration is indeed a threat to Joe Six-Pack, and it still fancies itself the party of the working man, the Democratic Party should take the politics out of it and this whole issue could be legislated in a few months.
The Democrats have less to lose than the Republicans by taking a stand on the immigration mess. If they don't think there's a problem, then they should say so. But as with Social Security and probably another dozen issues, America is held hostage by a party that refuses to lead or follow.
Duck your head in and yell that into any Los Angeles restaurant kitchen, and you're likely to see half the staff bug out the back door.
It's slang for the immigration man, or in other words, "RAID!"
I've lived in LA for over 20 years and have been a dove on illegal immigration. Mexicans and Central Americans are legendary for never asking for handouts, only work. On freeway exit ramps, they won't be begging, they'll be selling oranges and peanuts. (Always oranges and peanuts, dunno why.)
Now our county health system has provided care of the last resort to everyone regardless of ability to pay, and proof of citizenship is not required or even asked for. (This system is never mentioned in the wail about 40 million uninsured Americans. It is indeed our medical safety net.)
But it does seem that illegal immigrants have achieved a critical mass and swamped the system. The same as above applies to our schools.
But that was true too in 1994, when California governor Pete Wilson, a Republican, got himself re-elected by riding his support for Proposition 187, which banned illegals from receiving public services. (187 was later thrown out by the courts, on some ground or another.)
But the damage was done. To save his own sorry ass, Wilson had once again attached racism to the GOP. The Latino vote, a bloc which would soon pass Blacks in size, looked to go heavily Democrat forever.
However, a Texas governor named Bush learned from Wilson's disaster, and refused to be painted in an anti-Hispanic light. He diffused the racism charges and he got around 35%-45% of the Hispanic vote in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, a surprising total that may have swung those elections his way. In doing so, he may have saved his party.
For the Republican Party or the administration to take the lead on immigration now would be suicide as long as the Democratic Party sits on the sidelines.
And everybody knows it.
If illegal immigration is indeed a threat to Joe Six-Pack, and it still fancies itself the party of the working man, the Democratic Party should take the politics out of it and this whole issue could be legislated in a few months.
The Democrats have less to lose than the Republicans by taking a stand on the immigration mess. If they don't think there's a problem, then they should say so. But as with Social Security and probably another dozen issues, America is held hostage by a party that refuses to lead or follow.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
The Willies
Blogger.com tells your humble narrator (that's me) that your new favorite blog (that's this) got a referral and a long look from this blog.
Now I had to use the Google Spanish-English translator, but this is what it said:
I think the word's getting out. Dunno what it is, though.
Now I had to use the Google Spanish-English translator, but this is what it said:
EVERYTHING ARRIVES!!!!!
THE OLD WISE PEOPLE COUNT...
THAT The VIBORAS, CAN SWALLOW THEIR OWN POISON And WHEN THEY THROW TOO MUCH CAN BE CHOKED And BEEN ABLE TO HAVE WHOLE WEEKS OF NIGHTMARES, SPECIALLY FOR ALREADY The EXTINCT VIBORAS Of the NORTH SANTAFESINO, NIGHTMARES THAT WITH TIME ARE MADE MEAT TAKING REVENGE To ALL The VICTIMS BY The POISON.
MEMO: WITH MUCHISIMO AFFECTION, WE LOVE And WE WAITED FOR YOU To YOU HAS BEEN SLIGHT.
"THE SELECT HORDE".
I think the word's getting out. Dunno what it is, though.
The Duty to Beauty
The governor of Wisconsin is going to nix any law that would permit the hunting of feral cats, which are blamed for the deaths of 47 million to 139 million songbirds a year in that state.
It's not illegal here in California. At least I don't think it is.
I bagged this beauty with a thirty-ought-six and a 125-grain load in the Santa Monica Mountains, just outside Malibu. The taxidermy fees were a bit steep, and there's not much meat. But these buggers are a worthy adversary for the dedicated varmint hunter---clever and quick as, well, cats.
The songbirds in California are particularly beautiful; they sweeten the very air with their angelic calls and I do love them so. Both they and the Golden State are better off with "Fluffy" on my mantelpiece, where this ruthless killer can do no further harm.
I urge Gov. Doyle to reconsider his position on this vital issue of aesthetic good vs. evil.
It's not illegal here in California. At least I don't think it is.
I bagged this beauty with a thirty-ought-six and a 125-grain load in the Santa Monica Mountains, just outside Malibu. The taxidermy fees were a bit steep, and there's not much meat. But these buggers are a worthy adversary for the dedicated varmint hunter---clever and quick as, well, cats.
The songbirds in California are particularly beautiful; they sweeten the very air with their angelic calls and I do love them so. Both they and the Golden State are better off with "Fluffy" on my mantelpiece, where this ruthless killer can do no further harm.
I urge Gov. Doyle to reconsider his position on this vital issue of aesthetic good vs. evil.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
The Where Are They Now File
That's supposed to be John Kerry, not Jesus.
It seems the good senator is trolling for hard luck stories from our troops in Iraq. I'm sure it's to help them, not embarrass the administration. Heaven forbid. If he does for the Iraq vets what he did for the Vietnam vets, well...never mind.
Thing is, after 20-odd useless years as a senator, I just can't explain John Kerry's sudden interest in politics these past couple of months.
Addendum: Just ran across plenty more on this at Polipundit.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Can't Live with 'Em, Can't Kill 'Em
Or maybe you can.
My new Harper's, which remains a supremely literate American treasure (founded 1856) despite its present left-psychotic editor's attempt to pervert it, has a letter citing a study that 75% of those who get Schiavoed are female.
They say it's because females are practical. So are their husbands, I reckon.
75% of divorces are initiated by the woman. Good strategy---get rid of him before he does you in. Practical.
(Went back and tidied this one up a little.)
My new Harper's, which remains a supremely literate American treasure (founded 1856) despite its present left-psychotic editor's attempt to pervert it, has a letter citing a study that 75% of those who get Schiavoed are female.
They say it's because females are practical. So are their husbands, I reckon.
75% of divorces are initiated by the woman. Good strategy---get rid of him before he does you in. Practical.
(Went back and tidied this one up a little.)
Things Could Be Worse
The latest UK polls show Labour and the Tories in a 36%-36% tie. Still, constituency boundaries being what they are, Labour would still get a lead of 100-140 seats. The Conservative Party needs about 42% of the vote to win the PMship.
I dunno, our electoral college doesn't seem so bad.
I dunno, our electoral college doesn't seem so bad.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Africa's Future is Black
Millions butchered in Africa. Where's the outrage among Blacks?
When two million non-Muslim Africans were killed by a fundamentalist Islamic regime (well before the recent janjaweed/Darfur stuff), even the reliably far-left Black Commentator was forced to note the silence, perhaps explained by the Nation of Islam's unwillingness to criticize.
Then, re Congo, where the toll is 3 million dead and rising, I found this recent colloquy very troubling.
Me: Everybody's got a butcher's bill. You can condemn the dead or help the living. It's your choice.
My Correspondent: Long, dreadful legacy of Belgian Catholics in the Congo and Rwanda-Burundi, among other places.
Now, of course that's true. King Leopold's regime in Congo killed over four million Congolese at the turn of the past century. I continued:
The slaughter in Africa today is nothing but agenda. The African nations want no part of a "white" solution, and the Europeans don't want to be accused of neo-colonialism.
Meanwhile, both African and European nations are guarding their interests in plundering Congo's natural wealth. Make no mistake, there are no clean hands. Everybody's involved.
That said, there is no one to speak for the children of Africa. It's my opinion that the African diaspora, especially in the United States, is their best hope.
The good guys (if there are any) and the bad guys must be sorted out, and action must be taken, action that won't be easy or pretty or even purely Black.
But the body count grows every day and agendas and even legitimate historical grievances must take a back seat.
Black America has the unique power to lead both this country and the world concerning Africa, to stop the murder and save the children.
The reply: The suggestion of an outside group becoming instrumental to solving the issues in Africa, is the revival of the colonial mentality and legacy. Africans know their environment, their territory, their problems, far better than anyone else. The foreigners in Africa are mainly there for material reasons; the large caches of foreign weaponry compound the problem. There are also the partly Africanized Asians (mainly Indians) and Europeans who have been in Africa for some generations.
The average African is a humble person, much less materialistic than most people in the world, one who desires to see his/ her child grow up healthily in an atmosphere of peace and tranquility. We have had foreign "peacekeepers" in the Congo, who have turned out to be purveyors of foreign perverted sexual practices and literature, and been tricksters, stalkers, and rapists of African children.
Now of course, the facts here are largely accurate, too, except for the notion that the ancestral culture of average Africans will exempt them from the failings of the rest of humanity. I do not think this is a minority Black view, either here in the USA or in Africa. "Black Consciousness" was perhaps seen in the West as a fad, but a look at Steve Biko's Black Consciousness manifesto from the 1970s shows a decidedly non-Western philosophy underlying it. It is very real and I think it holds even greater sway today.
Just as Ronald Reagan had his 11th Commandment, thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican, similarly goes the pan-African view. There will be no real condemnation of African genocide, and interventionist solutions are unacceptable. In fact, any such effort by "the outside world" will be opposed. Africa for Africans, goes the song.
The West has never offered anything except its own brand of tyranny and murder, and it is unrealistic to expect "average" Africans to believe anything has changed. And as Vietnam and dozens of other places have taught us, a people will prefer a tyranny of its own to the tyranny of outsiders, all of which is why President Clinton's (I believe) altruistic adventure in Somalia went so horribly awry.
I usually have some clever answer for everything, but not this time. I find it terribly difficult to accept that the slaughter will and apparently must continue. I suppose Africa will solve its problems in time, but not until millions more have died.
I so very much want to be wrong about this.
When two million non-Muslim Africans were killed by a fundamentalist Islamic regime (well before the recent janjaweed/Darfur stuff), even the reliably far-left Black Commentator was forced to note the silence, perhaps explained by the Nation of Islam's unwillingness to criticize.
Then, re Congo, where the toll is 3 million dead and rising, I found this recent colloquy very troubling.
Me: Everybody's got a butcher's bill. You can condemn the dead or help the living. It's your choice.
My Correspondent: Long, dreadful legacy of Belgian Catholics in the Congo and Rwanda-Burundi, among other places.
Now, of course that's true. King Leopold's regime in Congo killed over four million Congolese at the turn of the past century. I continued:
The slaughter in Africa today is nothing but agenda. The African nations want no part of a "white" solution, and the Europeans don't want to be accused of neo-colonialism.
Meanwhile, both African and European nations are guarding their interests in plundering Congo's natural wealth. Make no mistake, there are no clean hands. Everybody's involved.
That said, there is no one to speak for the children of Africa. It's my opinion that the African diaspora, especially in the United States, is their best hope.
The good guys (if there are any) and the bad guys must be sorted out, and action must be taken, action that won't be easy or pretty or even purely Black.
But the body count grows every day and agendas and even legitimate historical grievances must take a back seat.
Black America has the unique power to lead both this country and the world concerning Africa, to stop the murder and save the children.
The reply: The suggestion of an outside group becoming instrumental to solving the issues in Africa, is the revival of the colonial mentality and legacy. Africans know their environment, their territory, their problems, far better than anyone else. The foreigners in Africa are mainly there for material reasons; the large caches of foreign weaponry compound the problem. There are also the partly Africanized Asians (mainly Indians) and Europeans who have been in Africa for some generations.
The average African is a humble person, much less materialistic than most people in the world, one who desires to see his/ her child grow up healthily in an atmosphere of peace and tranquility. We have had foreign "peacekeepers" in the Congo, who have turned out to be purveyors of foreign perverted sexual practices and literature, and been tricksters, stalkers, and rapists of African children.
Now of course, the facts here are largely accurate, too, except for the notion that the ancestral culture of average Africans will exempt them from the failings of the rest of humanity. I do not think this is a minority Black view, either here in the USA or in Africa. "Black Consciousness" was perhaps seen in the West as a fad, but a look at Steve Biko's Black Consciousness manifesto from the 1970s shows a decidedly non-Western philosophy underlying it. It is very real and I think it holds even greater sway today.
Just as Ronald Reagan had his 11th Commandment, thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican, similarly goes the pan-African view. There will be no real condemnation of African genocide, and interventionist solutions are unacceptable. In fact, any such effort by "the outside world" will be opposed. Africa for Africans, goes the song.
The West has never offered anything except its own brand of tyranny and murder, and it is unrealistic to expect "average" Africans to believe anything has changed. And as Vietnam and dozens of other places have taught us, a people will prefer a tyranny of its own to the tyranny of outsiders, all of which is why President Clinton's (I believe) altruistic adventure in Somalia went so horribly awry.
I usually have some clever answer for everything, but not this time. I find it terribly difficult to accept that the slaughter will and apparently must continue. I suppose Africa will solve its problems in time, but not until millions more have died.
I so very much want to be wrong about this.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Re-elect God
Well, the AP took a poll, and everybody pretty much agrees the Catholic Church better get with the program in electing their next pope.
I mean, how could a religious leader call abortion a sin against "non-violence to all sentient beings," condemn homosexual activity (indeed, putting one's genitals in any fun place that doesn't have to do with making babies), and expect his clergy to be celibate?
Who does he think he is, the Dalai Lama?
Well, yeah, he does.
Just a thought experiment for anti-Papists, "recovering" Catholics, progressive thinkers, and AP poll participants. I don't think many people would presume to tell the Dalai Lama what to think and believe. And when he passes on, I don't think even Bill Clinton will have the narcissistic temerity to compare himself to the Dalai Lama, and say he leaves a "mixed legacy."
I'm not troubled by the idea of a higher order that prescribes a moral code that few if any of us can live up to. If there is one, we should expect nothing less.
(Neither should we use it as an excuse to cast the first stone, but you already knew that.)
I mean, how could a religious leader call abortion a sin against "non-violence to all sentient beings," condemn homosexual activity (indeed, putting one's genitals in any fun place that doesn't have to do with making babies), and expect his clergy to be celibate?
Who does he think he is, the Dalai Lama?
Well, yeah, he does.
Just a thought experiment for anti-Papists, "recovering" Catholics, progressive thinkers, and AP poll participants. I don't think many people would presume to tell the Dalai Lama what to think and believe. And when he passes on, I don't think even Bill Clinton will have the narcissistic temerity to compare himself to the Dalai Lama, and say he leaves a "mixed legacy."
I'm not troubled by the idea of a higher order that prescribes a moral code that few if any of us can live up to. If there is one, we should expect nothing less.
(Neither should we use it as an excuse to cast the first stone, but you already knew that.)
Friday, April 01, 2005
The Usama-Saddam Connection
No, it's not what you might think. Read on, Macduff.
Friends from across the pond are still on their ear (and mine) about the Iraq war. They'd punish Tony Blair for it in the upcoming May 5 election if the Conservatives weren't so comically clueless or if the mommy party (health care, public transportation, the environment, etc., etc.), the Liberal Democrats, were ready to govern a Great Nation.
Labour looks to take 40% of the vote, the Tories 30%, and the Lib Dems as high as 25%. Still, it shows that like most of Europe, the UK leans far more heavily to port than starboard.
So needless to say, they despise George W. Bush.
From what I read of the European press, the whole story is simply not told. It's not even told much here in the US. To understand what the US (and the UK) faced after 9-11, it's helpful to look at Usama bin Laden's 1996 Declaration of War.
In it, you see al-Qaeda's two strongest recruiting points were a) the US/UK (in other words, "Christian") military presence in "The Land of Two Holy Places (Mecca and Medina)," Saudi Arabia, which were needed there to keep an eye on Saddam and enforce the "no-fly zones," and b) the deaths by starvation of a half-million innocent women and children that the "containment" sanctions on Saddam caused (more on that here).
And of course, in the largest sense, the hopelessness engendered by the Western-supported tyrannical governments of the Muslim world.
Al-Qaeda offered itself as a remedy to all those things, and could not be engaged only with force because they were essentially correct.
Bin Laden was right, but we could hardly admit that.
But removing Saddam once and for all and the subsequent "democracy initiative" answered bin Laden completely. Our troops are out of Saudi, the sanctions that cost innocent lives are a thing of the past, and freedom is on the march in the Muslim world.
Al-Qaeda has been transformed from being "the base" (its literal translation from Arabic) of a worldwide liberation movement to just another would-be tyranny among many. Bin Laden now kills more Muslims than "Crusaders," and world Islam has realized for itself that bin Laden is not their champion, but their enemy.
It was not our intention that he escape justice, but as it turns out, Usama bin Laden is more valuable to the future of peace alive than dead.
Friends from across the pond are still on their ear (and mine) about the Iraq war. They'd punish Tony Blair for it in the upcoming May 5 election if the Conservatives weren't so comically clueless or if the mommy party (health care, public transportation, the environment, etc., etc.), the Liberal Democrats, were ready to govern a Great Nation.
Labour looks to take 40% of the vote, the Tories 30%, and the Lib Dems as high as 25%. Still, it shows that like most of Europe, the UK leans far more heavily to port than starboard.
So needless to say, they despise George W. Bush.
From what I read of the European press, the whole story is simply not told. It's not even told much here in the US. To understand what the US (and the UK) faced after 9-11, it's helpful to look at Usama bin Laden's 1996 Declaration of War.
In it, you see al-Qaeda's two strongest recruiting points were a) the US/UK (in other words, "Christian") military presence in "The Land of Two Holy Places (Mecca and Medina)," Saudi Arabia, which were needed there to keep an eye on Saddam and enforce the "no-fly zones," and b) the deaths by starvation of a half-million innocent women and children that the "containment" sanctions on Saddam caused (more on that here).
And of course, in the largest sense, the hopelessness engendered by the Western-supported tyrannical governments of the Muslim world.
Al-Qaeda offered itself as a remedy to all those things, and could not be engaged only with force because they were essentially correct.
Bin Laden was right, but we could hardly admit that.
But removing Saddam once and for all and the subsequent "democracy initiative" answered bin Laden completely. Our troops are out of Saudi, the sanctions that cost innocent lives are a thing of the past, and freedom is on the march in the Muslim world.
Al-Qaeda has been transformed from being "the base" (its literal translation from Arabic) of a worldwide liberation movement to just another would-be tyranny among many. Bin Laden now kills more Muslims than "Crusaders," and world Islam has realized for itself that bin Laden is not their champion, but their enemy.
It was not our intention that he escape justice, but as it turns out, Usama bin Laden is more valuable to the future of peace alive than dead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)