TEST
posted by Helenus at 2:41 AM
0 comments
Friday, April 21, 2006
Saturday, July 09, 2005
let us not be the bull in the bullfight
somehow the bull just never seems to get it. he has all the brawn but none of the brains. the matador waves that red cape and the bull charges at the wrong target again and again. he becomes more and more violently angry. and when finally the bull is exhausted, he is easily finished.
what do the terrorists really want? do they want strong and effective international justice? of course not. for in that case they would be tried and punished as the monstrous criminals they are. no, what the terrorists really want is injustice, the more the better for them. it is injustice which provides their cover. it is injustice that recruits their adherents. it is injustice that feeds their quest for jihad.
what the terrorists want is for us to wage more illegal and immoral wars. what they want is more violence. what they want is for us to oppress more innocent populations, for us to be more brutal and indiscriminate. for only then will those populations protect them. only in the depths of despair and humiliation will those populations embrace their siren song of hate and revenge. only then will those people accept the repression of the liberty and freedom the terrorists preach in the name of their religion.
so what are we to make of it when the terrorists excuse their attacks with demands for justice?
there are those who say that if we "give in" to the demands of the terrorists, then the terrorists win. how are we to respond when the terrorists demand what the vast majority of their people also want, that we get off their backs, stop murdering their people, stop occupying their lands, stop denying them their own sovereignty and destiny? how are we to respond when the terrorists demand what the increasing majority of our own people want, that we stop sacrificing our best and bravest young souls for wars based on lies, that we stop destroying the economy of our country by pumping the whole of our treasury into a desert hell hole without end? who really wins if we do the right thing, irrespective of what the terrorists demand?
in their moments of candor the terrorists admit they like the current administration policies very much. they were rooting for the current administration in the last election. it serves their purposes. it charges after the wrong targets over and over. instead of correcting the injustice which is the breeding material for terrorism, its strategy is as if to bomb cockroaches with food garbage. it is consumed with its own arrogance, anger and frustration and rallies its supporters to be the same.
our country often fancies itself as the world's policeman. but a policeman's job is to apprehend criminals where it can, not to execute them on the spot without trial. a policeman's job is not to strike out blindly, not knowing who the enemy really is, to maim and kill thousands of the innocent along with the guilty. there is a fine line between being the world's policeman and being the world's bully . . . and being the world's most feared oppressor, which is what we have become in the eyes of most of the rest of the civilized world.
what happens if we "give" the terrorists what "they," and the whole rest of the world, want? what happens if we truly stand up for international justice, and truth, and cooperation and security? do the terrorists win? no, they do not. "they" lose. then they will become pariahs in their own communities, preaching the hatred that none of their people want anything to do with. then they become isolated and vulnerable. then they will be turned in by their own people, not protected as folk heros. as it stands now, if bin laden were the starting center for the karachi jihadists basketball team, there isn't a muslim for a thousand miles who would say a word.
there are many who say we must now win in iraq, that whatever the lies that brought us there, we must now persevere on the same course. has there ever been a bull in a bullfight that has ever considered a change in strategy? if it was wrong for us to have gone into iraq the way we did, staying there just compounds the atrocity. two war crimes do not make a right. adding yet more does not change the equation.
how can we be strong in the world if we are weak at home, draining our resources in a battle that cannot be won? the iraqi people will have in the end a government of their own free choosing, and they may well have already chosen a theocracy in their defiance of us. it is their country not ours, and until we renounce all designs over their land, and their government, and their resources, they will never stop resisting, and their people will never stop supporting that resistance. the forced allies in our so-called coalition will desert us one by one, as their own people cry "enough", and their leaders tire of our hypocrisy.
if there is to be peace and security in the middle east, or anywhere else in the world, the entire world community must be engaged. that can never happen as long as we make it clear we are determined to go it alone, on our own bullheaded superpower path regardless.
we must declare in a meaningful way that we do not seek military control or undue influence over iraq and its oil. we must back up our words by setting a timetable for swift and complete withdrawal. if we do so the rest of the world will step forward again to find diplomatic and political solutions, instead of shunning us as they increasingly do now. they can't afford not to. a stable and peaceful middle east is in the interest of all. but it is our very unilateral military presence that makes that impossible. our military is not the solution. it is the problem.
some worry that if we simply withdraw that iraq will become vulnerable to invasions by other neighboring countries. what foolishness. what country would want to inherit the resistance we have done so much to create? what country would want to assume our mantle of failure?
others fret of the danger of civil war. and yet our presence is fomenting such a development as attacks increase on those seen as collaborators. if we were to begin a meaningful withdrawal, those iraqis seeking to enforce their own security would no longer be seen as the enemy of their own people. if the majority of the iraqi people will not seize on the opportunity to unite and control their own country, they are even more foolish than we. in the meantime, the situation grows worse by the day.
we do not have to control all the world's oil to ensure our own national security. with the money we have already squandered in iraq so far, we could be well on our way to developing the technology to make our country totally energy independent. and the cost may well soon double, still with no end in sight. with a small fraction of that money the government of china is proposing to buy unocal. if we were to get serious about conservation we could say to the middle east, "swim in your oil if you want to."
even the most evil of men wrap themselves in the cloak of righteousness. they claim that the evil that they do is for a righteous cause. the terrorists wave at us the red cloak of justice, pretending to be champions of it. and if we charge after that cloak, to attack it, to try to rip it to shreds, then we have become as the bull. if we continue to commit injustice and say it's because the terrorists are demanding otherwise, we can only lose. we will consume our military, our economy and our respect in the world, until all are exhausted. then and only then can the terrorists win, as the matador always does in the bullfight.
what do the terrorists really want? do they want strong and effective international justice? of course not. for in that case they would be tried and punished as the monstrous criminals they are. no, what the terrorists really want is injustice, the more the better for them. it is injustice which provides their cover. it is injustice that recruits their adherents. it is injustice that feeds their quest for jihad.
what the terrorists want is for us to wage more illegal and immoral wars. what they want is more violence. what they want is for us to oppress more innocent populations, for us to be more brutal and indiscriminate. for only then will those populations protect them. only in the depths of despair and humiliation will those populations embrace their siren song of hate and revenge. only then will those people accept the repression of the liberty and freedom the terrorists preach in the name of their religion.
so what are we to make of it when the terrorists excuse their attacks with demands for justice?
there are those who say that if we "give in" to the demands of the terrorists, then the terrorists win. how are we to respond when the terrorists demand what the vast majority of their people also want, that we get off their backs, stop murdering their people, stop occupying their lands, stop denying them their own sovereignty and destiny? how are we to respond when the terrorists demand what the increasing majority of our own people want, that we stop sacrificing our best and bravest young souls for wars based on lies, that we stop destroying the economy of our country by pumping the whole of our treasury into a desert hell hole without end? who really wins if we do the right thing, irrespective of what the terrorists demand?
in their moments of candor the terrorists admit they like the current administration policies very much. they were rooting for the current administration in the last election. it serves their purposes. it charges after the wrong targets over and over. instead of correcting the injustice which is the breeding material for terrorism, its strategy is as if to bomb cockroaches with food garbage. it is consumed with its own arrogance, anger and frustration and rallies its supporters to be the same.
our country often fancies itself as the world's policeman. but a policeman's job is to apprehend criminals where it can, not to execute them on the spot without trial. a policeman's job is not to strike out blindly, not knowing who the enemy really is, to maim and kill thousands of the innocent along with the guilty. there is a fine line between being the world's policeman and being the world's bully . . . and being the world's most feared oppressor, which is what we have become in the eyes of most of the rest of the civilized world.
what happens if we "give" the terrorists what "they," and the whole rest of the world, want? what happens if we truly stand up for international justice, and truth, and cooperation and security? do the terrorists win? no, they do not. "they" lose. then they will become pariahs in their own communities, preaching the hatred that none of their people want anything to do with. then they become isolated and vulnerable. then they will be turned in by their own people, not protected as folk heros. as it stands now, if bin laden were the starting center for the karachi jihadists basketball team, there isn't a muslim for a thousand miles who would say a word.
there are many who say we must now win in iraq, that whatever the lies that brought us there, we must now persevere on the same course. has there ever been a bull in a bullfight that has ever considered a change in strategy? if it was wrong for us to have gone into iraq the way we did, staying there just compounds the atrocity. two war crimes do not make a right. adding yet more does not change the equation.
how can we be strong in the world if we are weak at home, draining our resources in a battle that cannot be won? the iraqi people will have in the end a government of their own free choosing, and they may well have already chosen a theocracy in their defiance of us. it is their country not ours, and until we renounce all designs over their land, and their government, and their resources, they will never stop resisting, and their people will never stop supporting that resistance. the forced allies in our so-called coalition will desert us one by one, as their own people cry "enough", and their leaders tire of our hypocrisy.
if there is to be peace and security in the middle east, or anywhere else in the world, the entire world community must be engaged. that can never happen as long as we make it clear we are determined to go it alone, on our own bullheaded superpower path regardless.
we must declare in a meaningful way that we do not seek military control or undue influence over iraq and its oil. we must back up our words by setting a timetable for swift and complete withdrawal. if we do so the rest of the world will step forward again to find diplomatic and political solutions, instead of shunning us as they increasingly do now. they can't afford not to. a stable and peaceful middle east is in the interest of all. but it is our very unilateral military presence that makes that impossible. our military is not the solution. it is the problem.
some worry that if we simply withdraw that iraq will become vulnerable to invasions by other neighboring countries. what foolishness. what country would want to inherit the resistance we have done so much to create? what country would want to assume our mantle of failure?
others fret of the danger of civil war. and yet our presence is fomenting such a development as attacks increase on those seen as collaborators. if we were to begin a meaningful withdrawal, those iraqis seeking to enforce their own security would no longer be seen as the enemy of their own people. if the majority of the iraqi people will not seize on the opportunity to unite and control their own country, they are even more foolish than we. in the meantime, the situation grows worse by the day.
we do not have to control all the world's oil to ensure our own national security. with the money we have already squandered in iraq so far, we could be well on our way to developing the technology to make our country totally energy independent. and the cost may well soon double, still with no end in sight. with a small fraction of that money the government of china is proposing to buy unocal. if we were to get serious about conservation we could say to the middle east, "swim in your oil if you want to."
even the most evil of men wrap themselves in the cloak of righteousness. they claim that the evil that they do is for a righteous cause. the terrorists wave at us the red cloak of justice, pretending to be champions of it. and if we charge after that cloak, to attack it, to try to rip it to shreds, then we have become as the bull. if we continue to commit injustice and say it's because the terrorists are demanding otherwise, we can only lose. we will consume our military, our economy and our respect in the world, until all are exhausted. then and only then can the terrorists win, as the matador always does in the bullfight.
posted by Helenus at 11:48 AM
0 comments
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
we wuz raped
it's only been a little more than 24 hours since the compromise deal was announced on averting a showdown on the filibuster. it seems like so much longer than that already. extreme trauma tends to affect one's sense of the passage of time. but make no mistake, we wuz raped.
most of the official liberal political spin we've heard since then sounds like it was written by barney the dinosaur. no, the democrats did not win. they gave away the farm, starting with the farmer's daughter. there isn't enough lipstick in the world to pretty up this pig of a capitulation and an appeasement.
the seeds of this titanic disaster came from senator reid, when he first started to talk about compromise on three of the worst judicial nominees ever, some already filibustered multiple times on principle. and when that offer was made, senator frist cried hypocrite. if these judges were truly so bad, why are you offering to compromise, in essence challenging "don't you have any principles?" and he was absolutely right on that one.
that's the message that the american people will take away from this, that the republicans will fight on principle and the democrats will not, not ever. that's all the american people heard. one can say that a small group of maverick senators were to blame, but they were endorsed and encouraged in this by reid, as he abdicated his leadership by encouraging them to "bridge the differences". by contrast, frist who did not emerges as a hero unscathed. nobody on the right is condemning him.
what is the basic mental defect in those who would claim any victory on the progressive side? i'm looking at the scoreboard and it sure looks like 3-0 to me. absolutely nothing of substance was given away by the other side. listen to the words of mike dewine, one of the gang of 14, even in announcing the deal:
". . . but if an individual senator believes in the future that a filibuster is taking place under something that's not extraordinary circumstances we reserve the right to do what we could have done tomorrow which is to cast a yes vote for the constitutional option" Video Clip Here
in order words, for anyone with the political wits of a five-year-old child the democrats have gained nothing for waving through three of the worst of the worst. no promise was given of rejecting any nominees whatsoever. the democrats have unilaterally cowed themselves out of the last shred of power they had. they kept their powder so dry it all blew away.
"we saved the filibuster," you hear some say. that's like bragging you've saved your virginity while you're taking it up the rear end just because they did violate you there as well . . . yet.
if these were not extraordinary circumstances then the goal posts have been moved so far to the right it's a standard that even heinrich himmler would not offend. if the democrats even so much as think about a filibuster the nuclear trigger is right back on the table. in fact it never left the table.
they were going to show "mr. smith goes to washington" all that night in the capitol. but the whole point of that movie had nothing to do with the filibuster as an arcane procedural device. what it was about was political courage in the face of overwhelmingly adverse odds. when you shy away from a fight because of the possibility of losing that is the very definition of cowardice. you don't build a base by surrendering. you build a base by taking a stand and sticking to it, which is the fundamental reason why the republicans are where they are today.
when exactly does no mean no? the democrats are the boy who cried rape and then invited his attackers over for a naked tea party. the american people may never believe them again. for there is one thing that the american people will never vote for, and that's a coward, whatever their political stripe. and of course, there's only one color of stripe that cowards come in and that's yellow.
according to the polls, two thirds of the american people would have backed up the democrats on principle regardless of the head count in the senate. how many elections do you think you could win with 2/3 of the american people? if the democrats had only stood firm and united one of two things would have happened. 1) either enough republican senators would have come to their senses for the so-called "nuclear option" to have been discredited forever, or else 2) the backlash from the american people would have guaranteed wins on straight up and down votes from now on. and then neither would the filibuster have been there for the republicans in the future. either way there would have been an enormous shift of power in favor of the democrats. it was a win-win situation, and somehow they found a way to lose.
so if you are looking for the real culprits, try your bathroom mirror. did you speak out to your members of congress on what they should do? did you email all your friends and encourage them to do so? if you have a blog, did you have a link posted at all times on every page for people to do something about this? if you have radio show, did you constantly give out the senate phone number until your listeners had it memorized in their sleep?
some acted, but the vast majority of us did not. did you do all you could have done to tell our representatives to stand tall? or have you been sleepwalking through this political nightmare?
we wuzn't just raped. we wuz gang raped . . . and not by the other side . . . by our own side, by our inaction, by our cowardice, by our lack of mobilization, by our failure of coordination, by most of all by our own defeatism. how do you put a positive spin on gang rape? the american people know what happened. all they want now is for someone to tell them the truth.
copyright 2005 helenus
most of the official liberal political spin we've heard since then sounds like it was written by barney the dinosaur. no, the democrats did not win. they gave away the farm, starting with the farmer's daughter. there isn't enough lipstick in the world to pretty up this pig of a capitulation and an appeasement.
the seeds of this titanic disaster came from senator reid, when he first started to talk about compromise on three of the worst judicial nominees ever, some already filibustered multiple times on principle. and when that offer was made, senator frist cried hypocrite. if these judges were truly so bad, why are you offering to compromise, in essence challenging "don't you have any principles?" and he was absolutely right on that one.
that's the message that the american people will take away from this, that the republicans will fight on principle and the democrats will not, not ever. that's all the american people heard. one can say that a small group of maverick senators were to blame, but they were endorsed and encouraged in this by reid, as he abdicated his leadership by encouraging them to "bridge the differences". by contrast, frist who did not emerges as a hero unscathed. nobody on the right is condemning him.
what is the basic mental defect in those who would claim any victory on the progressive side? i'm looking at the scoreboard and it sure looks like 3-0 to me. absolutely nothing of substance was given away by the other side. listen to the words of mike dewine, one of the gang of 14, even in announcing the deal:
". . . but if an individual senator believes in the future that a filibuster is taking place under something that's not extraordinary circumstances we reserve the right to do what we could have done tomorrow which is to cast a yes vote for the constitutional option" Video Clip Here
in order words, for anyone with the political wits of a five-year-old child the democrats have gained nothing for waving through three of the worst of the worst. no promise was given of rejecting any nominees whatsoever. the democrats have unilaterally cowed themselves out of the last shred of power they had. they kept their powder so dry it all blew away.
"we saved the filibuster," you hear some say. that's like bragging you've saved your virginity while you're taking it up the rear end just because they did violate you there as well . . . yet.
if these were not extraordinary circumstances then the goal posts have been moved so far to the right it's a standard that even heinrich himmler would not offend. if the democrats even so much as think about a filibuster the nuclear trigger is right back on the table. in fact it never left the table.
they were going to show "mr. smith goes to washington" all that night in the capitol. but the whole point of that movie had nothing to do with the filibuster as an arcane procedural device. what it was about was political courage in the face of overwhelmingly adverse odds. when you shy away from a fight because of the possibility of losing that is the very definition of cowardice. you don't build a base by surrendering. you build a base by taking a stand and sticking to it, which is the fundamental reason why the republicans are where they are today.
when exactly does no mean no? the democrats are the boy who cried rape and then invited his attackers over for a naked tea party. the american people may never believe them again. for there is one thing that the american people will never vote for, and that's a coward, whatever their political stripe. and of course, there's only one color of stripe that cowards come in and that's yellow.
according to the polls, two thirds of the american people would have backed up the democrats on principle regardless of the head count in the senate. how many elections do you think you could win with 2/3 of the american people? if the democrats had only stood firm and united one of two things would have happened. 1) either enough republican senators would have come to their senses for the so-called "nuclear option" to have been discredited forever, or else 2) the backlash from the american people would have guaranteed wins on straight up and down votes from now on. and then neither would the filibuster have been there for the republicans in the future. either way there would have been an enormous shift of power in favor of the democrats. it was a win-win situation, and somehow they found a way to lose.
so if you are looking for the real culprits, try your bathroom mirror. did you speak out to your members of congress on what they should do? did you email all your friends and encourage them to do so? if you have a blog, did you have a link posted at all times on every page for people to do something about this? if you have radio show, did you constantly give out the senate phone number until your listeners had it memorized in their sleep?
some acted, but the vast majority of us did not. did you do all you could have done to tell our representatives to stand tall? or have you been sleepwalking through this political nightmare?
we wuzn't just raped. we wuz gang raped . . . and not by the other side . . . by our own side, by our inaction, by our cowardice, by our lack of mobilization, by our failure of coordination, by most of all by our own defeatism. how do you put a positive spin on gang rape? the american people know what happened. all they want now is for someone to tell them the truth.
copyright 2005 helenus
posted by Helenus at 11:51 AM
0 comments
