The New York Sun has this story on Sandy "Oops" Berger stealing classified documents. Link from Powerline.
We may never know what materials he destroyed. Good guess--things reflecting unfavorably on Bubba and terrorism. Do we really want the Clintons and company back in the White House?
We may never know what materials he destroyed. Good guess--things reflecting unfavorably on Bubba and terrorism. Do we really want the Clintons and company back in the White House?
21/12: Why I am not a Socialist
I am easing my way into Farmer's challenge to articulate a coherent political philosophy by first stating what I am not and why. Earlier I wrote Why I am not a Libertarian.
My Christianity makes Socialism attractive to me. In the Old Testament one sees that the people of Israel were to have a strong sense of community, that greedy individuals who took advantage of others were condemned, and that there were regulations on economic life (e.g. no charging interest to a fellow Israelite, no harvesting the corners of the field and allowing the poor (landless) access to those corners and to glean from the whole field. In the New Testament those who heard Christ's teaching thought that communal living was the natural expression thereof--the first church in Jerusalem practiced community of goods at least to an extent. Early capitalism was opposed to numerous practices of the Church, and even the Puritans were critics of capitalism at least in its laissez-faire form. And, Christian politicians, especially in Europe, have tended toward Socialism.
So, why am I not a Socialist? Human sin. Sin makes us naturally self-centered and self-seeking. Even Christians struggle with sin. Socialism may be a great theory if everyone behaved in an altruistic manner. But, the reality is that relatively few will work for the good of all. We are better motivated by self-interest. And, many will take advantage of a socialist system by not pulling their own weight, allowing others to do their share of production. Socialism as a social/governmental system makes shipwreck on the reef of human sin.
Socialism as practiced in Europe also has tended create an unhealthy dependency upon the state government, to the detriment of individuals, families, and non-governmental organizations.
My Christianity makes Socialism attractive to me. In the Old Testament one sees that the people of Israel were to have a strong sense of community, that greedy individuals who took advantage of others were condemned, and that there were regulations on economic life (e.g. no charging interest to a fellow Israelite, no harvesting the corners of the field and allowing the poor (landless) access to those corners and to glean from the whole field. In the New Testament those who heard Christ's teaching thought that communal living was the natural expression thereof--the first church in Jerusalem practiced community of goods at least to an extent. Early capitalism was opposed to numerous practices of the Church, and even the Puritans were critics of capitalism at least in its laissez-faire form. And, Christian politicians, especially in Europe, have tended toward Socialism.
So, why am I not a Socialist? Human sin. Sin makes us naturally self-centered and self-seeking. Even Christians struggle with sin. Socialism may be a great theory if everyone behaved in an altruistic manner. But, the reality is that relatively few will work for the good of all. We are better motivated by self-interest. And, many will take advantage of a socialist system by not pulling their own weight, allowing others to do their share of production. Socialism as a social/governmental system makes shipwreck on the reef of human sin.
Socialism as practiced in Europe also has tended create an unhealthy dependency upon the state government, to the detriment of individuals, families, and non-governmental organizations.
Category: Media and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
What would happen if the President held a press conference (which, by the way, are becoming more and more regular), and he repeatedly spoke of working with the new Congress, agreed in principle to an increase in the minimum wage, admitted that his Iraq policy was not successful and committed to changing tactics through a calm and studied process?
Would the headlines read?
Bush Extends Hand Across the Aisle to Democrats in Congress.
Bush Admits Mistakes in Iraq, Listening to All Voices in Attempt to Craft Successful Policy.
Citing Strong Economy, President Agrees to Minimum Wage Increase and Commits to Tax Policy to Promote Continued Growth.
Or how about this one?
President Bush Stalwart on Iraq Despite Setbacks.
Well, he did give a press conference (transcript here) in which he did all of the things cited above. And here are the real headlines:
Washington Post: President Confronts Dissent on Troop Levels: Bush Indicates Military Won't Dictate Numbers; Top General to Retire.
Time Magazine: Bush and the Generals: A Growing Split?: In his press conference, the President said he would "listen" to his commanders. But they're starting to talk back on Iraq.
Columnist Margaret Carlson for Bloomberg News: US Losing Sleep Over Aimless Bush.
Actually, two national newspapers not known for objectivity when it comes to George Bush actually did very well in capturing the import of the moment:
LA Times: Bush acknowledges 'difficult year' in Iraq: President acknowledges sectarian violence but says victory is possible.
NYT: Bush Says Victory in Iraq Is Still Possible.
Note on NYT: the above headline and story have disappeared. The front page video story as of now: General [John Abizaid] Opposes Adding to Forces (which conforms better to the storyline of the day). Although a complete viewing of the Abizaid video yields the commanding general much more in agreement with the President's goals than the headline would suggest.
Would the headlines read?
Bush Extends Hand Across the Aisle to Democrats in Congress.
Bush Admits Mistakes in Iraq, Listening to All Voices in Attempt to Craft Successful Policy.
Citing Strong Economy, President Agrees to Minimum Wage Increase and Commits to Tax Policy to Promote Continued Growth.
Or how about this one?
President Bush Stalwart on Iraq Despite Setbacks.
Well, he did give a press conference (transcript here) in which he did all of the things cited above. And here are the real headlines:
Washington Post: President Confronts Dissent on Troop Levels: Bush Indicates Military Won't Dictate Numbers; Top General to Retire.
Time Magazine: Bush and the Generals: A Growing Split?: In his press conference, the President said he would "listen" to his commanders. But they're starting to talk back on Iraq.
Columnist Margaret Carlson for Bloomberg News: US Losing Sleep Over Aimless Bush.
Actually, two national newspapers not known for objectivity when it comes to George Bush actually did very well in capturing the import of the moment:
LA Times: Bush acknowledges 'difficult year' in Iraq: President acknowledges sectarian violence but says victory is possible.
NYT: Bush Says Victory in Iraq Is Still Possible.
Note on NYT: the above headline and story have disappeared. The front page video story as of now: General [John Abizaid] Opposes Adding to Forces (which conforms better to the storyline of the day). Although a complete viewing of the Abizaid video yields the commanding general much more in agreement with the President's goals than the headline would suggest.
19/12: Report from an Embed
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
There are alternatives to the MSM for field reporting. Bill Roggio has been emedding with troops for a while and reporting back through the internet. He depends on donations to continue his work. I recommend his reporting. A recent post is here.
I like the phrase used by some for the new possibilities made possible by electronic communication: An Army of Davids.
I like the phrase used by some for the new possibilities made possible by electronic communication: An Army of Davids.
19/12: Under-Reported News
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Under-Reported News Story of the week so far: polls in Afghanistan show strong support for Karzai government and also for allied troops. Optimism that Taliban will not return to power. Story covered by Gateway Pundit.
19/12: New Book
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
New to my Christmas wish list, Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965 by Mark Moyar on Cambridge University Press, 2006. The buzz on this book has me interested. It seems to be revisionist at several points, and interestingly, is a major history of that war (2 volumes planned) by one who did not live through that time. Maybe we are now far enough removed from Vietnam to gain good historical perspective. Anybody out there read this book yet?
19/12: Where Is the Anger?
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Here is a link to LGF that will link you to a video expressing the anger toward jihadis that we need more of. Language warning.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
To judge from CAIR press releases, one would think that Muslims were being hounded, harassed, and hung all over the US and in Europe. Not so. As I earlier pointed out, in the US it is much, much more dangerous to be a Jew.
But, is CAIR overstating the number of anti-Muslim hate-crimes in the US? Perhaps to aquire the coveted status of victim? That charge has been made in the blogosphere. Perhaps it is best to check an objective source. Here is a quote from the official FBI report on hate crimes in 2001. "A breakdown of the 2118 victims of hate crimes motivated by religious bias showed that the majority of victims were Jewish, 56.5 percent. Anti-Islamic bias accounted for 26.2 percent of victims of hate crimes motivated by religious bias, . . ." Report here . The statistics table shows 554 Muslim victims, compared with 1196 Jewish victims. For 2000 the FBI report indicates 36 Muslim victims, and 1269 Jewish. Report here. For 2002 the figures are 174 Muslim victims, and 1084 Jewish. Report here.
The same is true in Great Britain. This article from the Telegraph on persecution of Jews. A major culprit seems to be Muslims.
Jewish people are four times more likely to be attacked because of their religion than Muslims, according to figures compiled by the police. One in 400 Jews compared to one in 1,700 Muslims are likely to be victims of "faith hate" attacks every year. The figure is based on data collected over three months in police areas accounting for half the Muslim and Jewish populations of England and Wales. The crimes range from assault and verbal abuse to criminal damage at places of worship.
. . .
Rabbi Alex Chapper, 33, was the victim of a "faith-hate" crime in July last year. He was returning from a synagogue in Ilford, Essex, with three Jewish friends after conducting a service. All were wearing skull caps. Seven Asian teenagers followed them down the road shouting "Yehudi", which means Jew in Arabic. One of them shouted, "We are Pakistani, you are Jewish. We are going to kill you", before punching Rabbi Chapper in the face and hitting one of his friends over the head with a bottle.
"It was very frightening, we were all very shaken," said the rabbi. "I thought we were going to get seriously hurt but someone threatened to call the police and they ran off.
"We identified the youths and told the police but they were never prosecuted. They just did not seem interested. I feel very let down."
But, is CAIR overstating the number of anti-Muslim hate-crimes in the US? Perhaps to aquire the coveted status of victim? That charge has been made in the blogosphere. Perhaps it is best to check an objective source. Here is a quote from the official FBI report on hate crimes in 2001. "A breakdown of the 2118 victims of hate crimes motivated by religious bias showed that the majority of victims were Jewish, 56.5 percent. Anti-Islamic bias accounted for 26.2 percent of victims of hate crimes motivated by religious bias, . . ." Report here . The statistics table shows 554 Muslim victims, compared with 1196 Jewish victims. For 2000 the FBI report indicates 36 Muslim victims, and 1269 Jewish. Report here. For 2002 the figures are 174 Muslim victims, and 1084 Jewish. Report here.
The same is true in Great Britain. This article from the Telegraph on persecution of Jews. A major culprit seems to be Muslims.
Jewish people are four times more likely to be attacked because of their religion than Muslims, according to figures compiled by the police. One in 400 Jews compared to one in 1,700 Muslims are likely to be victims of "faith hate" attacks every year. The figure is based on data collected over three months in police areas accounting for half the Muslim and Jewish populations of England and Wales. The crimes range from assault and verbal abuse to criminal damage at places of worship.
. . .
Rabbi Alex Chapper, 33, was the victim of a "faith-hate" crime in July last year. He was returning from a synagogue in Ilford, Essex, with three Jewish friends after conducting a service. All were wearing skull caps. Seven Asian teenagers followed them down the road shouting "Yehudi", which means Jew in Arabic. One of them shouted, "We are Pakistani, you are Jewish. We are going to kill you", before punching Rabbi Chapper in the face and hitting one of his friends over the head with a bottle.
"It was very frightening, we were all very shaken," said the rabbi. "I thought we were going to get seriously hurt but someone threatened to call the police and they ran off.
"We identified the youths and told the police but they were never prosecuted. They just did not seem interested. I feel very let down."
18/12: Why I am not a Libertarian
A Waco Farmer has challenged us to lay out our political philosophy. I am easing into that challenge. Today: why I am not a Libertarian.
For readers of this blog, you knew already that I favor some restrictions on personal behavior. In this post I argued against legalization of prostitution (following a post arguing for legalization of marijuana).
As a pastor I work with lots of families. Over my thirty years of ministry I have seen accelerating disintegration of families. More and more children are simply growing up, not being raised.
Our culture creates a toxic environment for children. They are exposed to explicit sexuality in every imaginable form. They are exposed to violence through every medium at capitalism's disposal. There are few positive role models in entertainment, and very many poor models. Immature and violent and misogynistic messages are transmitted by MTV and rap music.
It is not enough to say that parents must monitor what their children watch or participate in. Too, too many of our children are in dysfunctional family situations. Their lives chaotic. They have no effective parental control.
And why should those raising children do so under siege? Is the production of healthy citizens a social good? Then why is society not organized to support positive child raising, instead of arrayed against it? This is not a problem that can be solved through free markets.
I am in favor of social policy that facilitates the raising of healthy citizens. That means that I am in favor of censorship. I am, therefore, not a Libertarian.
For readers of this blog, you knew already that I favor some restrictions on personal behavior. In this post I argued against legalization of prostitution (following a post arguing for legalization of marijuana).
As a pastor I work with lots of families. Over my thirty years of ministry I have seen accelerating disintegration of families. More and more children are simply growing up, not being raised.
Our culture creates a toxic environment for children. They are exposed to explicit sexuality in every imaginable form. They are exposed to violence through every medium at capitalism's disposal. There are few positive role models in entertainment, and very many poor models. Immature and violent and misogynistic messages are transmitted by MTV and rap music.
It is not enough to say that parents must monitor what their children watch or participate in. Too, too many of our children are in dysfunctional family situations. Their lives chaotic. They have no effective parental control.
And why should those raising children do so under siege? Is the production of healthy citizens a social good? Then why is society not organized to support positive child raising, instead of arrayed against it? This is not a problem that can be solved through free markets.
I am in favor of social policy that facilitates the raising of healthy citizens. That means that I am in favor of censorship. I am, therefore, not a Libertarian.
18/12: Hard Cold Facts
Last week, in a post I eventually deleted ("Project Big Rock Candy Mountain"), I weighed in on how ridiculous and cruel the world of partisan politics can be to a sitting president. I chose irony as my primary method of expression. On many levels, the piece failed.
ANOTHER TRY: hard, cold and incontrovertible facts as to why much of the criticism leveled at President Bush is the product of political myopia, partisanship and flat-out disingenuousness.
1. George Bush is not dumb. He is one of the best-educated men to hold the office of President of the United States. Every objective measure indicates that he is a man of well-above-average intelligence. Moreover, he is surrounded by the best and the brightest advisors our nation has to offer.
An aside: it should go without saying, of course, that brilliant men often conjure up plans that are not fool proof. And no one will deny that brilliant men are capable of making dumb mistakes. When this happens we should hold our leaders and decision makers accountable.
However, there is a notion that slinks around in these discussions that smart people (Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore for example) could easily solve the dilemmas that the President faces. This is a ridiculous and insidious political conceit. Those who contribute to or condone this destructive calumny should be ashamed.
ANOTHER TRY: hard, cold and incontrovertible facts as to why much of the criticism leveled at President Bush is the product of political myopia, partisanship and flat-out disingenuousness.
1. George Bush is not dumb. He is one of the best-educated men to hold the office of President of the United States. Every objective measure indicates that he is a man of well-above-average intelligence. Moreover, he is surrounded by the best and the brightest advisors our nation has to offer.
An aside: it should go without saying, of course, that brilliant men often conjure up plans that are not fool proof. And no one will deny that brilliant men are capable of making dumb mistakes. When this happens we should hold our leaders and decision makers accountable.
However, there is a notion that slinks around in these discussions that smart people (Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore for example) could easily solve the dilemmas that the President faces. This is a ridiculous and insidious political conceit. Those who contribute to or condone this destructive calumny should be ashamed.
