Quote of the Day

...comes from a French social theorist by the name of Jacques Ellul:

I am not criticizing or rejecting other civilization of societies... The thing that I am protesting against is the silly attitude of western intellectuals in hating our own world and then illogically exalting all other civilizations. Ask yourself this question: If the Chinese have done away with binding the feet of women, and if the Moroccans, Turks, and Algerians have begun to liberate their women, whence did the impulse to these moves come from? From the West and nowhere else! Who invented the “rights of man”?

The essential, central, undeniable fact is that the West was the first civilization in history to focus attention on the individual and freedom. The West, and the West alone, is responsible for the movement that has led to the desire for freedom. Today, men point the finger of outrage at slavery and torture. Where did that type of indignation originate? What civilization or culture cried out that slavery was unacceptable and torture scandalous? Not Islam, or Buddhism, or Confucius, or Zen, or the religious or moral codes of Africa and India. The West alone has defended the inalienable rights of the human person, the dignity of the individual. The West attempted to apply in a conscious, methodical way the implications of freedom.. The West discovered what no one else had discovered: freedom and the individual. I see no other satisfactory model that can replace what the west has produced.

Of course, it is important to note that these are merely a white, male, Euro-centric interpretation of things. The Western tradition is really a cloak of hypocrisy intended to conceal, rationalize, and legitimize the power, privileges, and preferences of white, male, European elites.

Carry on.

I have a rendezvous with Death (and I’m taking some Capitalist pigs with me!)

This is what you get when you ally yourself with the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Halliburton cabal:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1978642,00.html

BREAKING NEWS!!!

December 2006:
NASA Uses Somali Terror Camp as Test Target for SDI Weapon

Man of the Year

Well, at least he was according to the wisdom of Time magazine in 1938. The article that accompanied that magazine cover is utterly priceless as a source document that offers insight into the pre-war mindset and realizations made too late. If you have never read this, I entreat you to do so now:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,760539,00.html

So then, why can't Time be honest and post Ahmadinejad today?

By the way, yesterday Ahmadinejad stated that Iran is ready to transfer nuclear technology to neighboring countries.

Media response? A yawn.

Some related thoughts: It is true that an inquiry is more about forming the right question than putting forth anything resembling a solution. I state the obvious but you have to have an accurate grasp of what you’re dealing with before you can formulate a proper response. This goes for understanding historical movements and actors as well as for inter-personal relations. Importantly, this included knowing who your friends and enemies are.

One of the fundamental problems right now is the inability of a great many people –in many cases a willful inability-- to recognize the existential question before us all: the Middle-East represents the crucible for western civilization; what is to be the extent of our role, if any at all? In an age of nuclear proliferation we do not have the luxury of reverting to a two-ocean isolationism. The worst, barbaric elements of the world will be coming for us whether we retreat to our shores voting Democrat all the way or not. I fear the understanding that the world has fundamentally changed hasn’t sufficiently sunk in yet, and I’ve already written on what I think it will take to open the eyes of the head-in-the-sand crowd. I'm not sure they would even recognize such a thing as barbarism as existing in the world among humanity; such a belief like that isn't what the multicultural contingent considers acceptable thought.

I have an unfortunate disdain –I say unfortunate because ideally I would rather be in a position not to disdain anything or anyone—for those that hold utopian views and goals but possess no realistic understanding of what it would take to achieve these goals. Maybe a lack of respect is a more apt posture. Why? Because being a good observer of the world around you and having a realistic assessment of what people are generally like are good first steps in any critical theory. Thomas Sowell says it best when he states that the underlying moral and social challenge is to make the best of possibilities given the constraints of reality, human nature, and knowledge.

For example: Marxism and Communism are berated as failed evil systems of oppression and rightfully so in my opinion given the CONSEQUENCES of these systems. But given that, these were still systems devised to bring into reality some very noble, human goals. Who doesn’t feel the romantic appeal behind the notion of a classless society with no government necessary and where all are equal and free from want, need, and conflict? I think it would be inhuman not feel some tug towards such a vision of peace and harmony on earth.

History, however, has produced examples of figures and inspired groups that felt that tug strong enough to sacrifice the lives of tens of millions at the alter of these unsustainable utopian goals. The controlling methods necessary in Marxism's attempt to bring revolution in consciousness and societal evolution are in themselves brutal, oppressive, and anti-democratic in the end. Marx did not take human nature into consideration when he created his historical theory.

Having a realistic view of the possible requires being informed by history, the record of human thought in action; therefore the study of history provides a long vista of the heights of human greatness and depths of depravity. Any policy prescriptions –on either the individual or state level-- made without a knowledge of these things is both naïve and dangerous and would relate in a way to a definition of insanity. How would one otherwise have the ability to gage what has worked and what has not?

Yet, utopian idealists who cling to the mantra of peace, love, and understanding usually lack this understanding and hold themselves morally superior to anyone that confronts reality with an idealism that’s tempered with a pragmatic approach. As if they have the right to wash their hands of the great moral issues of our times by claiming neutrality founded in a non-judgementalism?

This fake, enlightened consciousness is the height of intellectual arrogance and actually has more to do with the egotism of the proprietor than anything related with a genuine concern for a noble cause or alleviation of suffering. The elevation of non-violence as the highest virtue over other virtues and rights is perhaps the very things which will cause this civilization to wither. I would argue that it is doubtful whether now or in the near future we have the ability to make a moral defense of our values and way of life with a view towards its preservation.

And that is one of the reasons that people who should know better are willing to accept a nuclear armed Iran headed by a holocaust denying religious fanatic that calls for the wiping off the map of other democratic countries and believes in contributing to the coming apocalypse as defined by the Cult of the Hidden 12th Imam.

"Why shouldn't Iran have nukes, we do? Who are we to say who should and shouldn’t have them? You're fascist."

Our fate as a civilization rests on the resolution of conflict and reform of the middle-east. I see the potential for the erosion of the West physically (fanatical terror attacks w/ mass casualties) and spiritually (nihilism from loss of founding values). It’s hard news to take. Somebody should bring in the clowns and the eggnog please.

Sudanese-Israeli Friendship Association

Can we send money to this woman?

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1331wmv&ak=null

NYT’s front page photo

Just kidding.

Shahida

Creating heroes and role models plays an important socialization function in every society. Take a long and hard look at this photograph if you want to understand what’s so deeply disturbing and destructive about the culture of the Palestinian death cult.

"The Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades claims the martyr operation carried out by Fatima Omar Mahmud al-Najar, aged 57, in the middle of a group of Zionist soldiers," an online statement said. The mother of nine and grandmother of 41 became the oldest Palestinian suicide bomber at the age of 57."

Her daughter Fathiya said that her family received the news gladly. "It did honor to her family and to her townspeople. She liked sacrifice," Fathiya said.

Wafa Idris, who in January 2002 became the first Palestinian woman suicide terrorist, said this before she committed her act:

"I always wanted to be the first woman who sacrifices her life for Allah. My joy will be complete when my body parts fly in all directions."

Ahh. The glorification of terror never sounded so endearing.

This is my thesis: cultural relativism and moral equivalency theory of the West prevents the clear understanding of the methods and the nature of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and therefore thwarts its potential resolution.

Meanwhile, overheard earlier today:

"They are angry with our nation. But we tell them 'so be it and die from this anger'. Rest assured that if you do not respond to the divine call, you will die soon and vanish from the face of the earth."

--Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

NEVER HAD A CHANCE

Follow up to a headline from my last post. This is a picture I took of an M-5 Stuart displayed on the front lawn of the VFW hall where I park every day for work. Someone had commented on another board that they had inquired with folks at the hall as to the history of the vehicle, and were told that it was operational for parades and holidays up until a few years ago when some neighborhood kids were able to pry off the gas cap and poor in some anonymous liquid. This made the engine seize upon the next start up.

Anyways, here below the Stuart I have provided a German Tiger tank for contrast, something that was the last sight on earth for many a Stuart tanker.

I don't know: would crews inside the Tiger know they were being hit from a 37 mm Stuart round? The notion of targeting the thinly armored Stuart with the Tigers 88 mm cannon is analogous to using a shotgun to kill a fly. I imagine a complacent Tiger crew could have had the theoretical luxury of having tea while waiting for a Stuart to exhaust all it munitions, and then simply overrun and crush it without resorting to its main armament.

By the time the allies landed at Normandy after the campaigns in North Africa and Italy, the imbalance in armor was already apparent and the M-5 was prudently relegated to more of a reconnaissance role. Still, the under-armored and under-gunned Sherman was only a marginal improvement. Read here for a horrifying account of what happened when British Shermans came up against a lone, German tank commander who knew his vehicle well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Villers-Bocage

“On 8 August 1944, a single Tiger commanded by SS-Unterscharführer Willi Fey from the 1st Company of sSSPzAbt 102, engaged a British tank column, destroying some 14 out of 15 Shermans”

So then, what’s all this claptrap about how we sent our soldiers into Iraq “ill-equipped” with under-armored Humvees and not enough body armor?

There are pros and cons to every tactical decision concerning armor and mobility. When you add to one, you necessarily take away from the other. If you increase the armor on a vehicle that wasn’t originally designed as an armored vehicle, then you raise the risk of rolling the vehicle –and killing it’s occupants-- during combat maneuvering. By the same principle, when you increase the amount of body armor a GI has to wear, you decrease his agility which is a very critical thing to have when someone is shooting at you in close-quarters.

How many media stories has there been reporting on this aspect of armor vs. mobility concerns in Iraq? And what of the corresponding losses we sustained by up-armoring humvees and soldiers to avoid, in part, further political fallout from charges of negligence?


While we're at it, why don't we remember the intelligence failures over the hedgerows at Normandy, or how many GI’s were thrown into combat during the Battle of the Bulge wearing little better than summer fatigues. Did we have people in the media then calling for the resignation of President Roosevelt or Secretary of War Henry Stimson for incompetence with these and other failures of intelligence or planning? Is it perhaps partisan politics that promotes this double-standard?

Information Warfare

This is what I've been contending the whole time:

http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/news_print/index.php?relyear=2006&itemno=644

That we have a mainstream media that attempts to fashioning public opinions aligning with certain political commitments, rather than a press core that has a sense of responsibility to be politically indifferent when reporting on reality.

And here to emphasize my point is another episode (brought to you by the writers at StrategyPage) of “What If Today's Media Had Covered World War II?”

Headlines:

NAVY, WHITE HOUSE LIED ABOUT BATTLESHIPS
5, Not 2, Sunk at Pearl Harbor

HUNDREDS OF SAILORS STILL TRAPPED UNDERWATER
Victims' Families: Pearl Rescue Efforts "Disgraceful"

FDR DUMPS MACARTHUR FOR CHURCHILL
"Writing Off" Philippines, Sources Say

SECRET PAYMENT TO MACARTHUR
$500,000 from Manila Bigwigs

MIDWAY VICTORY DUE TO BROKEN JAP CODES
The Chicago Tribune did actually print this story. Fortunately, the Japanese didn't see it. Tribune owner Robert McCormick was sternly told never to let this happen again, and it never did.

FDR PLANS NORTH AFRICA INVASION
Critics Charge "Stunt" To Help Dems in '42 Elections

NORMANDY "IDEAL" INVASION SITE
Military Experts Agree This Is Where We'll Land

NEVER HAD A CHANCE (remember the picture I sent of the M-5 Stuart?)
GI’s sent into combat ill-equipped: German Tank Superiority Causes Morale Crisis

WHISTLEBLOWER REVEALS SUPERBOMB PLANS
Catholic Bishops Condemn Secret "Manhattan Project"

IKE ENRAGED
Monty to Be Fired in SHAEF Meltdown
British papers which did report, inaccurately, tensions between Ike and Monty, were stepped on hard by the British government.

"NO DEFENSE" AGAINST KAMIKAZES
Experts: Suicide Tactics May Be War-Winner – Fleet Demoralized

FDR WITH MISTRESS IN DEATH ROOM
Warm Springs Scandal – Old Flame Watches President Die
First Lady Outed As Lesbian

HITLER IN PARAGUAY
Soviets Have Proof Dictator Escaped Berlin

IWO JIMA FLAG RAISING "STAGED"
Bond Drive Collapses After Controversy

BURN BABY BURN
B-29 Crews Laugh, Take Photos as Thousands of Children Die

ATOM BOMB DROPPED TO COW SOVIETS
Sources Say Hiroshima Strike Had No Military Purpose

MACARTHUR-NIMITZ SURRENDER SHOWDOWN
Who Hosts Ceremony?
Whose Flag Flies Higher on Battleship's Mast?

Angelina Jolie romantically linked to Kim Jong Il

More at 11:00. Right now though, we need to admonish bad bad Romney, not that I have any great political affinity or animus for him. The Boston Globe has finally uncovered his naturally exploitive ways (as a landed gentry) with their brave and unbiased reporting:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles
/2006/12/01/illegal_immigrants_toiled_for_governor/

He made a mistake that reveals a great callous hypocrisy between what he says and what he actually does. You see, Romney's crime is that he didn't assume in passing, like he should have, that by the race of the employees working for his lawn service company they were all here illegally. of course, upon seeing those trouble-making brown-skins he should have immediately demanded to see residency documentation, and then bussed them off to somewhere deserving like the Texas border, or Iraq, or somewhere.

Can you imagine the field day the Globe would have with a story like that?

Instead, why aren't they chronicling how the Globe seemingly as a policy seeks to conflate legal immigration with illegal immigration? Or how the legal enforcement failures of company owner Ricardo Saenz or Congress and the INS contribute to the irresponsibility surrounding this social dilemma?

Someone should inquire with the Globe if there's ever been illegal immigrants that have worked for them in the past, and then hold them to exactly the same standards that they’re holding Romney to.

Still, they -meaning the illegal immigrants, Romney, and the Globe-- are all better off than this flying Khazatkah sister:


You too for that matter. She doesn't have so many options right now, does she? So, let's all just keep this chatter in context and have a fun evening.