Anyone watching it? Michelle Markin has a good rundown.
Here too is a reminder of what 9/11 was like.
Denmark cartoon row…
108 thoughts on “Denmark cartoon row…”
Comments are closed.
Anyone watching it? Michelle Markin has a good rundown.
Here too is a reminder of what 9/11 was like.
Comments are closed.
American foreign policy experts have been split into two camps, the “Realists” and the “neoconservatives”. While the Realists prefer to deal with the rest of the world as it is, the neoconservatives are infused with a sense of national mission, or messianism, to spread democracy. During the late nineties the neoconservatives scoffed at the timidty of the Realists who sought to contain, but not remove, Saddam Hussein. The Realists for their part saw the neoconservatives naively interfering with forces they did not understand and opening up a Pandora’s Box of troubles as result
Francis Fukayama, articualting a Realist point of view writes:
“We need in the first instance to understand that promoting democracy and modernization in the Middle East is not a solution to the problem of jihadist terrorism; in all likelihood it will make the short-term problem worse, as we have seen in the case of the Palestinian election bringing Hamas to power. Radical Islamism is a byproduct of modernization itself, arising from the loss of identity that accompanies the transition to a modern, pluralist society. It is no accident that so many recent terrorists, from Sept. 11’s Mohamed Atta to the murderer of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh to the London subway bombers, were radicalized in democratic Europe and intimately familiar with all of democracy’s blessings. More democracy will mean more alienation, radicalization and — yes, unfortunately — terrorism.”
“After Neoconservatism”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/magazine/neo.html?pagewanted=6&incamp=article_popular_2
In 1098 as the armies of the First Crusades were journeying through Byzantium on their way to the Holy Land to make war on the Saracens, the Byzantines shared the same sense of foreboding as that our modern day foreign policy Realists. Just as the Realists nervously watched the neoconservative project to spread democracy to Iraq unfold, the Orthodox Christian Greeks were unsure as to what impact the militant approach of the Roman Catholic Crusaders might have.
In “Holy War: The Crusades and their Impact on Today”s World”, Karen Armstrong writes:
“In Constantinope the Crusaders entered a different world and they gazed in astonishment at its palaces, churches and gardens, for there was as yet nothing as sophisticated and advanced in Europe. ..But they (the Crusaders) must also have felt jealous and resentful of the Greeks, who id not seem worthy of this spiritual treasure.
The warlike Franks simply could not understand a people who thought war was unchristian and preferred to make treaties with the Muslims and seek a diplomatic solution rather than shed unnecessary blood. Nor could they respect Alexius, Emperor of Byzantium, who had let himself be trounced by the Turks. They lacked the political dimension to understand the skillful way in which the Byzantines had held Islam at bay for centuries, and could only see that policy as cowardly and dishonorable. For their part the Greeks were horrified by the Franks and their talk of the holiness of war.”
There are lessons to be learned here. The Crusades both inflamed Islamic religious fervor and weakened the Byzantine Empire. The invasion of Iraq has also stoked Islamic fundamentalism, and has reduced American credibility and influence in the region, and has put Iraq’s Christian minority at greater risk than they have experienced in centuries.
Dean, Crusades may have bought time.
The history of the Crusades is complex and I acknowledge that Christendom suffered from bad policy, ban planning, horrible blunders and disgraceful conduct unbecoming a Christian Army. However, the Crusaders may have “bought time” in the Muslim expansion.
Muslim imperialism is its own cause, it doesn’t need the acitivities of others to stimulate it. It was set in motion by ol’ Mo and it continues to this day. If you check out a few photos on the WEb you can see Muslim demonstrators in London with signs that say “Islam will dominate.” This is not an assertion of the right to self-defense. It is an assertion of will to power over all.
Missourian writes: “The Democrats have lost people who revere their families, their faith and their country, hence you lose elections.”
Nice change of topic. The topic was whether the liberals are responsible for all the gaps in U.S. security that you mentioned — that ‘the left” had “hamstrung” the administration. Clearly they have not, and since the Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House it is appropriate to understand who is responsible for the current situation.
As far as Democrats losing the family vote, I think the Republicans have been very effective in using such issues against the Democrats. Many people have noted that it is the genius of Republicans to get people to vote against their own economic interests.
So all these nice family people you’re talking about — what’s happening to them is that their jobs are being offshored, outsourced, and contracted out. Very few of them are covered by unions any more, which means that they can be let go for virtually any reason. Health insurance, typically coming through employment, is also lost when the job is lost, unless, without income, you can afford to pay $800 a month for COBRA benefits. Companies can lay off their most senior people with impunity, and that’s not considered to be age discrimination.
Over the years college assistance has been changed from mostly grants to mostly loans, and many students now have to take out huge loans just to get a BA degreee. But once you get out of college, are there even any jobs available?
Here are some selections from conservative author Paul Craig Roberts on the job situation:
“Job growth over the last five years is the weakest on record. The US economy came up more than 7 million jobs short of keeping up with population growth. . . . Over the past five years the US economy experienced a net job loss in goods producing activities. The entire job growth was in service-providing activities–primarily credit intermediation, health care and social assistance, waiters, waitresses and bartenders, and state and local government.
“US manufacturing lost 2.9 million jobs, almost 17% of the manufacturing work force. The wipeout is across the board. Not a single manufacturing payroll classification created a single new job. [I think he means here that no manufacturing payroll classification generated a net increase in jobs.]
“The declines in some manufacturing sectors have more in common with a country undergoing saturation bombing during war than with a super-economy that is ‘the envy of the world.’
“In five years the US economy only created 70,000 jobs in architecture and engineering, many of which are clerical. Little wonder engineering enrollments are shrinking. There are no jobs for graduates. The talk about engineering shortages is absolute ignorance. There are several hundred thousand American engineers who are unemployed and have been for years. No student wants a degree that is nothing but a ticket to a soup line. Many engineers have written to me that they cannot even get Wal-Mart jobs because their education makes them over-qualified.
“Offshore outsourcing and offshore production have left the US awash with unemployment among the highly educated. . . . Unemployment benefits were intended to help people over the down time in the cycle when workers were laid off. Today the unemployment is permanent as entire occupations and industries are wiped out by labor arbitrage as corporations replace their American employees with foreign ones. . . . . There are now hundreds of thousands of Americans who will never recover their investment in their university education.”
Now this isn’t Hillary, or Teddy, or Howard, or Noam talking. This is a conservative perspective on the situation by a former Reagan official and contributor to the WSJ and the National Review.
So when these nice family people you’re talking about lose their jobs, their health insurance, and their homes — when their children can’t afford to go to college — of if they go to college they end up working at Hollywood Video — these family and church folks can take great comfort in the fact that Bush loves Jesus and opposes gay marriage, and hopefully that one thing will make up for everything they have lost.
Jim, After 103 posts who knows what the topic is?
Danish cartoons I think.
Anyway, it is your task to think long and hard and figure out why a quintessentially Democrat community such as Independence, Missouri is consistingly voting Republican. YOUR PUZZLE not mine. You can go on and on about the alleged economic injury suffered by these people BUT they are voting Republican. As I said, YOUR PUZZLE not mine.
Also, remember that the Republican party inclues people other than Bush. Bush is not running for re-election and the power wielded by Republicans is the result of elections all over the country for the House, the Senate, State Capitols, State Legislatures. It isn’t JUST the federal government that has slipped out of the Dems grip, it is state houses also.
Jim, the American people believe in God and love their families. The face of the Democrat party is now: a) gay activists who live lives far away from mainstream America, b) the Code Pink anti-American socialists, and c) the rabid pro-abortion activists. The Democrats have fringe activists leading it, the Republicans have some fringe activists but more real people.
This quote from Flemming Rose, cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, gets back to the point. It is a good reminder for me that submission to bullies does not deter them from bullying. It also reminds me that I’m glad I don’t live in a theocracy of any sort, and I hope my descendents will not, either.
Jim, your last post relies on a number of assumptions to be valid. I frankly don’t know if the assumptions are correct or not, at the very least they are debatable, in whole or in part. I am not really questioning your opinion as such, I do however question the certainty with which you express it as it seems to rely on a complete acceptance of these assumptions without question.
Assumption #1: The Federal government is responsible for, and ought to be responsible for, the economy of the United States.
Assumption #2 (a subset of #1): The Federal government is, and ought to be responsible for, the pay-checks, health insurance, and retirement of every single worker in the United States.
Assumption #3: Unions are a good thing, management a bad thing. By extension, any act that a business manager makes to help insure the continuance and competitiveness of the business for which he is responsible is bad if it impacts “workers” in any way—the assumption being that if you are in a decision making capacity, you cease being a worker
Assumption #4: We somehow exist in an economic vacuum that would allow businesses in the United States to pay wages and benefits far beyond what is being paid elsewhere in the world for manufacturing jobs and still have a business.
Assumption #5: The Republicans or Conservatives are wholly responsible for all of the negatives you cite.
While I don’t doubt the statistics in the report you cite, I do feel that the interpretation you give them, based in large part on the above assumptions is not necessarily accurate. There are large economic, historic, political, and cultural factors that are missing entirely from your analysis. While I do not dismiss all of your conclusions, I do think the assumptions upon which you base them ought to be discussed more fully.
At the very least you seem to be engaging in the broad generalizations for which you have been so critical lately of Missourian.
When I have more time, I’ll take a stab at some alternative ways of looking at the situation that will try to avoid the Democrat/Republican dichotomy diatribe. As preview: No economic system can be supported whole-heartedly by Christians;
Politicians almost always take the course of action they deem will get them re-elected; freedom is better than slavery, even when the freedom is uncomfortable, dangerous, and uncertain and the slavery seems reasonably comfortable and secure. Competition is often brutal and does not necessarily bring out the best, but most of us tend to respond in a competitive situation with actions that we perceive will help us or allow us to win.
Most of the people who post here have good minds and active consciences. Allowing the trap of the false dichotomy to rule our discourse produces only mindless rants, not productive or interesting dialog.
Michael,
I won’t speak for Jim, but I read Paul Craig Roberts on a regular basis. He is a supply-sider. The passage quoted is him diagnosing what’s wrong with the U.S. economy.
His solution, however, to restore American competiveness in manufacturing would not either statis or collectivist. He would favor greater tax cuts, including the repeal of the corporate income tax. This would free up more capital for business and job creation. He would favor scrapping a lot of red tape and regulation that drives up the costs of production in the U.S.
The ‘hollowing-out’ of the U.S. economy did not start under Bush. In fact, he is not primarily even responsible for it. However, he is doing nothing about the government policies which help drive it.
The government can do precious little to really create jobs. However, it is whiz-bang at destroying them through burdensome taxation, over regulation, and by encouraging rent-seeking behavior that ruins the competitive environment.
But Bush and his supporters aren’t facing up these facts. Instead, Bush is busy trying to convince everyone that plenty and joy aboud. That keeps our eyes off what is needed.
Michael writes: “Jim, your last post relies on a number of assumptions to be valid.”
My main reason for the last post was to show that concern over the current administration is not the exclusive concern of the “liberals,” nor can such concern be easily dismissed as “liberal.”
Michael: “I frankly don’t know if the assumptions are correct or not, at the very least they are debatable, in whole or in part.”
I agree completely. But let me respond to a few of your points.
Michael: “Assumption #1: The Federal government is responsible for, and ought to be responsible for, the economy of the United States.”
My views on this topic have been formed in the business world through my interest in quality control. One of the principles of quality control is that the people who manage the system are responsible for the outcomes of the system. While it is abundantly clear that many economic variables are not under the direct control of the federal government, there are certainly things that the federal government can do in response.
I remember several years ago when the Fed raised interest rates in response to falling unemployment. The fear was that a tight employment market would stimulate inflation, and that an increase in interest rates would “cool off” the economy. The largely-unstated corollary to that move was that unemployment would increase, thus decreasing inflationary pressure. The practical effect “on the ground” was that more people would be unemployed. In that case, it seemed reasonable to me that the federal government would be obligated to provide assistance to those people, having directly contributed to their situation in the first place.
Michael: “Assumption #2 (a subset of #1): The Federal government is, and ought to be responsible for, the pay-checks, health insurance, and retirement of every single worker in the United States.”
I think that overstates the case. With respect to the issues you mention, the federal government should at least do what it reasonably can. I understand the term “federal government” to mean the collective ability and resources of the citizens who are not unemployed, disabled, etc.
Michael: “Assumption #3: Unions are a good thing, management a bad thing.”
I would have to disagree with your interpretation here. Unions are not necessarily a good thing. Unions can make bad decisions, just as any organization can. But in general, I think union-represented employees have a better experience of the workplace than people who are not represented.
Without a union an employer — or the supervisor representing an employer — can terminate an employee for virtually any reason. Here’s a recent real-world example. A friend of my wife was employed as an aide at a nursing home. She had worked there 12 years. One day last month she was sick. She called in sick, giving the employer plenty of notice. A supervisor expressed doubt that she was sick enough to stay home, and told her to come in so they could take her temperature. (I’m not exaggerating; this actually happened.) A friend gave her a ride to work, and the supervisor said that her temperature, though elevated, was not high enough to stay home, and that if she didn’t come to work she would be fired. She did not come to work and was in fact fired.
Again, I’m not exaggerating here. This is what happened. And without a union, this is what can and does happen.
Michael: “Assumption #4: We somehow exist in an economic vacuum that would allow businesses in the United States to pay wages and benefits far beyond what is being paid elsewhere in the world for manufacturing jobs and still have a business.”
Well, I don’t know what to say here. I can’t imagine that there is any job in the U.S. that can’t be done cheaper by someone else somewhere in the world. I suppose all Orthodox priests in the U.S. could be laid off and replaced by Orthodox priests in other parts of the world who would be willing to work for half the salary.
But where does this end? At the point where we’ve offshored the last job, what is left here? After the rest of us disposable people are out of work, who can even buy the products that foreign countries want to import? Why spend four years in a university if you can’t get a decent job in your field? What is the plan? We all end up working at Starbucks and Hollywood Video? Is all of this simply not a concern of the government?
Michael: “Assumption #5: The Republicans or Conservatives are wholly responsible for all of the negatives you cite.”
Remember, I’m responding to an opinion (usually Missourian) that implies that the “liberals” are responsible for all of this. But I think there’s plenty of blame to go around, and for the last several years, it isn’t the liberals who have been in power.
Another thing to remember is that the Bush administration is not conservative. I don’t know what they are, but they are not conservative. Perhaps we don’t even have a term to describe them. This isn’t a liberal vs. conservative argument. It’s a Bush administration vs. everyone else argument.
I have a friend who by anyone’s definition is a liberal. However you conceive of a liberal, this guy is it. But in email conversations, here’s what he says:
“I have a growing respect for true paleos.” [paleo-Conservatives]
“I would give anything to have an old time conservative to work with any day.”
This is from a liberal — a guy who meets every definition of a liberal. Everything has changed, and the old categories don’t mean much any more.