Pomposity on Parade

Donald Rumsfeld has hit a nerve on the left – and not a small one.

While many were outraged by the SecDef’s comments, Keith Olberman’s response is arguably the most representative of the pseudo-intellectual anti-war left in this particular case. Therefore, his verbal lashing of the SecDef last night deserves especial attention.

(It is nothing short of depressing that I, or anyone, should have to take the time to counter the rantings of a moderately talented comedian.)

Though his rhetoric was at times high-flying, it was nothing new. Basically, he proudly marched into the leftist armory, broke out the shop-worn cudgels of McCarthyism and then equipped an army of straw men with them.

What Mr. Olberman no doubt considers high moral dudgeon and righteous indignation, is also arrant hypocrisy.

First, Mr. Olberman is appalled that Mr. Rumsfeld is criticizing those who disagree with the war and insinuating that they are morally deficient. Excuse me, but, is it not the case that the Mr. Olberman makes his living by calling the administration wrong and their actions unethical - every night? What is good for the goose, Mr. Olberman, is good for the gander.

Mr. Olberman’s eloquent venom is spent decrying the sheer, unmitigated gall of an administration that dares to reply in kind to its critics when said administration has gutted civil liberties in this country, muzzled its opponents, embarked on an unjustified war of imperial conquest, attempted to kill the poor blacks of New Orleans, etc. etc.

Mr. Olberman’s chronicling of abuses would be stirring if it weren’t for the tiny fact that none of his statements are true.

You may not like the Patriot act, but if you believe that the government is listening in to Joe Sixpack and Sally Housecoat’s phone conversations, you’re WRONG, period – end of story.

You may think our excursion to Iraq was a mistake, but don’t fool yourself that Iraq wasn’t - or couldn’t have become - a festering Islamic fever-swamp like Afghanistan.

While he missed this particular one, one of the “ironies” that Mr. Olberman likes so much is that the hated, demonized Senator Joseph McCarthy - was right. He was a grandstanding, self-aggrandizing blowhard – but he was right. There were Communists in our government and we were right to have been looking for them. The lesson we should take from McCarthyism is that it’s not what you say, but how you say it that determines whether you succeed or not.

At the end of the day, Mr. Olberman and those like him are outraged because they KNOW they’re right and how dare anyone contradict them.

If we value the right to free speech and thus the right to criticize the government, then we cannot complain when they criticize us back.

Mr. Olberman, I’ll make you a deal: if the FBI or the Secret Service shows up at your door and takes you away for criticizing the government, I’ll be one of the first to storm the Bastille to get you out. But, we both know that the picture you paint is not a landscape, but a dreamscape.

Or, maybe it's me. Maybe your rant was a masterpiece of sublimely ironic and facetious wit.

Nah.

Funny if it weren't sad

I believe that one, if not the greatest, benefit of our efforts in Iraq is that it has almost completely diverted the attention of the fifth column, er, I mean, fourth estate in this country away from our activities in Afghanistan. I regret that I have to report that I firmly believe that if we were not in Iraq, our efforts in Afghanistan would have been severely hampered by the reflexive negativity of the main stream media. Perhaps, the media would have managed to turn the people against our Afghanistan effort as they have done with Iraq. As it is, however, I can thankfully report that we have done more to improve the lives of Afghanis in five years than has been done for them in the last 150.

Katrina's true legacy

What has the last year shown us? It has shown us that when people are indoctrinated to believe that ONLY the government can fix their problems, nothing gets done.

Bureaucracy kills. It killed people a year ago and today it kills initiative, ideas and the hope of a renewed New Orleans.

Picky, picky, picky...

Not much use in pointing this out I suppose. And I know that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, or so says Mr. Emerson, but I think it does bear demonstrating that the same people who laugh when a conservative says that allowing "Plan 'B'" contraceptives to be sold over the counter will increase promiscuity among teens - will scream and cry that the availability of guns causes crime.

If knowledge of - and tools necessary for - a behavior causes more of a behavior, then it ought matter not what the behavior is.

You cannot have it both ways.

Global Warming

I just want to see if I can understand this issue without getting into the finer points of computer modeling and statisitical analysis:

1. Is Global Warming happening?

Probably. Temperatures have risen over the last hundred years more than has been the historical norm.

2. Have we caused it?

We don't know. We don't know enough about how the Earth "works" to know what is actually happening. There are simply no atmospheric/climate models complex enough to accurately state the causes or predict the end result of this phenomenon.

3. Could this be "Bad"?

Maybe. It is also possible that increased CO2 will cause more plant life and we'll end with a greener Earth that produces more oxygen.

4. If it could be "Bad", shouldn't we take precautions?

Reducing pollution is always a good idea. But, some advocate a radical re-ordering of society to stop the emission of "greenhouse gasses". To take steps that could literally destroy the world economy when we don't have adequate knowledge about the causes and potential ramifications of "Global Warming" is nothing short of irrational. The Kyoto Protocol that was heralded as a necessary step, would have done virtually nothing to even slow down the rate of increase of the Earth's temperature. What it would have done, however, is cripple the economies of many nations. Even those governments that signed the accord, have found it impossible to meet its requirements without curtailing economic growth.

What is a good idea, for a multitude of reasons, however is to devote ourselves to the development of a "post fossil fuel" world economy. If we did not need oil, we could quickly disengage from the Middle East. If we did not need oil, we could stop arguing about pollution risks from drilling and refining of petroleum products.

Some in the scientific community, because they've concluded it contributes to global warming, advocate labeling CO2 as a pollutant. Fine, let's call it a pollutant and admit that it contributes to global warming. Should we severely restrict our global industrial output to minimize emissions of CO2? To answer this question, consider this: in 1992, during the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines, the Earth herself spewed more CO2 into our atmosphere than all of mankind's activities, since we climbed down out of the trees...combined. Now, what benefit, exactly, is going to accrue to us from our minimization of CO2 emissions? The more important question is: how do we go about reining in the earth's own dangerous and heedless activities?

The bottom line seems to be this:

The idea that we can positively and meaningfully impact forces that we have no substantial understanding of is the height of both anthropocentric arrogance and sheer, unadulterated stupidity.

No measures we take, no matter how drastic, are GUARANTEED to fix the problem (if we even understand the problem, which we really don't) - and in fact may serve only to plunge BILLIONS of people into misery and deprivation for no good reason.

Let's all put down the Kool-Aid and step away from the edge of reason.

Just like Daddy told me...

When I was a boy helping with the landscaping, Dad told me that if I wanted to make sure a weed didn't come back, I had to pull out all of the roots, not just the portion I could see.

With that in mind, I was struck by the following observations which may clarify some of what is going on around us today:

At least as far back as 1900 Western civilization - in its highest form: liberal democracy - has been in a non-stop, life-and-death struggle against:

Sectarianism
Nationalism
Militarism
Authoritarianism

Out of which flow:

Monarchism (which is comprised of: authoritarianism,
nationalism)

Colonialism (nationalism, militarism, authoritarianism)

Socialism (Authoritarianism)

Totalitarianism (Authoritarianism)

Communism (Nationalism, Totalitarianism, Militarism,
Socialism) [As embodied in Soviet and Chinese versions]

Fascism (See 'Communism')

Islamism (sectarianism, fascism, totalitarianism)


If we take a look at the location of the five (5) gravest threats to peace and security in the world today:

1. Iran
2. North Korea
3. Iraq
4. Syria
5. Taiwan (versus China)

We find in each case that at least one of the above four major social disorders is at its root:

1. Iran – Islamism (with its component diseases of
sectarianism, socialism, nationalism and
totalitarianism)

2. North Korea – All of the above

3. Iraq – Sectarianism

4. Syria – Authoritarianism

5. Taiwan – Nationalism, Militarism, Authoritarianism

The first world war ended monarchism and colonialism. The second world war ended militarism and nationalism, the third world war (aka the cold war) ended most of authoritarianism. Today we are engaged in the fourth world war which will, I hope, put the final nails in the coffin of authoritarianism and if not destroy, then seriously weaken sectarianism.

Of all of our battles, sectarianism is the longest running and will be the most difficult to dispense with because it will require a new ordering of human society and a new conception and practice of religion. In other words, we need to evolve societally before we destroy ourselves.

There is no option for civilization. Either we move forward or we retreat into medievalism. If we are to progress, the struggle must be seen for what it is. We must fight and we must win.

Just so you know.