 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
What They're Thought July 17, 2005 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
||||||
I’m fairly sure that the world leaders at the G-8 meeting in England were more disappointed being overshadowed by the Islamist terror attack in London than by the fact that their priorities and solutions were so misdirected and wrong the conference can best serve as an example of gross incompetence. Let’s start with their priorities. Top of the list was the reduction of “greenhouse gases” presumably responsible for “global warming” and massive debt relief to African nations. The attack in London was a stark reminder that the first priority of the West is the defeat of Islamic fundamentalism and its proponents. One initiative of the G-8 conference was to pledge $3 billion in “economic aid” to the most committed terrorists on the face of the Earth, the Palestinians. Despite all the money they have received to date, there is not a scintilla of evidence they ever intend to cease attacking the Israelis. What parallel universe do these “leaders” live in that permits them to ignore this? As for global warming, there is no consensus among scientists that global warming is occurring and, most certainly, no scientific data to support the claim that the Earth will warm dramatically in the near future. Thompson Ayodele, Director of the Institute of Public Policy Analysis, headquartered in Lagos, Nigeria, says, “The resources needed for development in Africa can be generated within the continent,” adding that “More foreign aid will not eliminate poverty and launch African countries to productivity and growth.” The only thing that foreign aid has produced is the maintenance of corrupt governments in many African nations and the heavy debt that impedes any growth. Thus, the protestations of G-8 leaders from the seven wealthy industrial democracies and from Russia, supported by the silliness of music concerts, ignore the fact that massive foreign aid is part of the problem afflicting African nations. As Ayodele points out, “Between 1970 and 1995 aid which started at about 5% of Africa’s Gross National Incomes later peaked at 18% in 1995.” The result was that GDP growth-per-capita “nose-dived.” Millions of Africans survive on barely $1 a day. The only thing this aid succeeded in doing was to prop up dictators, encourage corruption, while contributing nothing to the need for governments that support the rule of law, the protection of property rights, and encourage indigenous entrepreneurial efforts supported by the freedom to trade. Dept relief hides the fact that 38 of the world’s poorest nations, mostly African, received $40 billion in debt relief between 1989 and 2002. At the same time, they became further indebted with $93 billion in new loans. As The Washington Times noted in a July 6 editorial, “Today, their cumulative debt burden totals $144 billion.” In Nigeria alone, in the 45 years since Britain granted it independence in 1960, “a succession of despots squandered nearly $400 billion.” The same can be said of far too many African nations that gained independence in the latter half of the last century. Africa’s problems exist on a monumental scale. Forgiving a bit of the debt they owe the West is more about public relations than about the need to address those problems. For example, as Peter Brookes, a Heritage Foundation analyst, has noted, “40 million Africans are at risk of starvation. Another 30 million have AIDS. Forty-two million children are not even enrolled in school. And civil war and ethnic violence rock the Democratic Republic of Congo (3 million dead) and Liberia (200,000 killed), among others.” Returning to my view that the primary problem facing the West these days is Islam, Brookes noted that, “The continent has become a regular home to international terrorism, including al Qaeda.” In 1998, US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed and the continent has seen a succession of comparable attacks, all initiated by the Jihad whose goal is to advance the domination of Islam throughout Africa and the world. Talk of debt relief ignores the tremendous wealth that exists in Africa. Nigeria, Angola and Gabon are among the top fifteen providers of oil to the United States. Other nations such as Algeria, Congo, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Equatorial Guinea, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Chad are also energy producers. Moreover, the restrictions African governments put on business enterprises within their nations continue to stifle any effort to create stable, productive economies. The subsidies Western nations pay their farmers also insure that African produce cannot compete in the world marketplace. Tens of billions of US oil company investment is scheduled for Africa and this represents an important hedge against dependence on Persian Gulf oil. This is a national security priority. Before we make pariahs of the oil companies who are forced to do business with corrupt African governments, let’s remember that little of this investment (or foreign aid) reaches ordinary Africans in terms of the building of roads, bridges, water and sewage facilities, and schools. Short-term, debt relief is simply testimony to the history of failure of foreign aid to Africa and will accomplish nothing. Long-term, the leaders of the G-8 nations and all others need to acknowledge that the greatest threat is Islam itself, mired in laws formulated in the seventh century AD. If they do not want to see the world plunged into chaos, they need to start now to address this threat. That stark fact seems to have been lost on the G-8 leaders who continue to say that Islam is a peaceful religion and the problem involves only a handful of fundamentalists who hold it hostage. How much better the latest conference would have been if it had announced a broad range of programs designed to punish any nation that harbors and supports the Islamic revolution. |
||||||
I ran across an interesting article by Jared Ede at CNSnews.com about yet another gala affair the left held this last week in D.C. for liberal students so they will have the tools they need to fight the conservative movement. There were several quotes in the article from Paul Begala which exemplify the absence of thought on the left. Mr. Ede added a few facts that show what I said to be true in the article Disharmonic Convergence: It really is just the same ol' thing all over again. First, here are the Paul Begala quotes:
I have a friend who was best friends with the pilot of that particular flight. My friend’s one consolation was that his friend had to be killed. He didn’t just turn the plane over to the terrorists. Begala would have been trying to reason with them rather than fighting them. The difference is typically American and French, or, if you prefer day and Be-nighted.
Mr. Be-Gala probably put a serious damper on the group with this silly notion. Unfortunately, he is addressing a group of people who were alive when his heroes — the Clintons — were destroying the military and trying to do social engineering in Haiti, Bosnia and Yugoslavia. They might even remember that one of the first things that happened when Bubba became one of the Beltway Boys was that we were given the first WTC attack. He said a lot about getting those who were responsible, but did absolutely nothing. That is their version of national defense. Nothing but words. Their failure to react to that first WTC attack brought us the second attack. Too bad they were even then at war with the Conservatives. Former Chief of Staff John Podesta told them "they can fight hard for what they believe in without breaking the law, without cheating and certainly without checking their morals at the door." Wouldn’t that be kind of like an oyster checking his wings at the door? Also present was one Thomas Frank, a left wing author who said that the Republicans were unwilling to get involved in World War II because they secretly sided with Hitler. Jared Ede was kind enough to remind everyone of something that was said by Joseph P. Kennedy, the father of John F. Kennedy who would later become America's 35th president. His oldest son, Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., wrote a letter to his father about Hitler's dislike of the Jews and said it was well founded. He added, “In every revolution, you have to expect some bloodshed. Hitler is building a spirit in his men that could be envied in this country.” John Kennedy’s father answered, “I was very pleased and gratified at your observations of the German situation, and I think your conclusions are very sound.” This does shed a little light on why they all operate and sound like Goebbels. Thomas Frank also said that Republicans didn't see Hitler as a threat to America until Pearl Harbor. He again ran with the liberal mantra about America's invasion of Iraq, adding that Hussein was as evil as they get but he wasn’t a threat to the United States. This was a slightly different view than the Democrats held regarding Yugoslavia. Of course, the reason we really went to war in Yugoslavia was to divert attention away from Bill Clinton's life and death struggle to save the constitutionally protected right of a President to lie in court and have sex with interns on company time. Everybody knows that. This tawdry event also managed to draw Bill Clinton. He was there because he needs the face time so his wife can make her run at the White House. Hillary is making the case that the military needs to be expanded by some 80,000 troops…which is about what she and Bill got rid of. I was surprised that she didn’t say 100,000 since that number was so popular with the Clinton administration. I got the feeling they were feeling a little guilty for having mangled the meaning of the word "is" and they were trying to grace our society with a new colloquialism. Instead of the Baker's Dozen, they wanted to create the Clinton One Hundred Thousand. That one just rolls off of the old shoe, doesn’t it? R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
All right, let me just get this off my chest: On Saturday, July 2, 2005, I, Jonathan David Morris, totally failed to eradicate African poverty. That’s right. Live 8 came to Philly and I stayed home. I had my reasons, of course. Parking. Restroom access. A concert line-up—Will Smith and Josh Groban, together at last—too remarkable to bear. But most importantly, I stayed home out of spite and cynicism. Live 8’s goal was to “pressure" world leaders to forgive African debts; their ambition, to end African poverty altogether. I never believed they’d be able to do this, and I don’t feel bad for thinking that way. But looking back, I do feel bad for being so realistic. It’s weird to view poverty as “not worth the trouble of going to the city.” My faith in rock music is effectively dead. Now, at this point, it’s too early to tell just how big an impact Live 8 will have on its pet issue. (It’s worth noting G8 leaders have already pledged increased debt relief and a tougher stance on African AIDS.) But I’m struck by how quickly it seems to have faded from memory. Maybe it’s the nature of the 24-hour news cycle, or maybe I’m just checking the wrong news sources, but a week after the concert, it’s as if Live 8 never happened at all. I live and work a half hour outside Philly, and I don’t know a single soul who attended. I don’t even know anyone who’s mentioned it. VH1 replays are the only thing I’ve seen to confirm that it ever took place. And as far as Fox News and its brethren are concerned, most Americans cared more about a hot blonde who disappeared in Aruba than African poverty all along. It’s as if most Americans don’t think they can solve African poverty. That’s my point. This indifference is all too… sensible. I was too young to understand the crusading nature of mainstream ‘80s music. (All I remember is having nightmares about the Ethiopians on the We Are The World record sleeve.) But the way people look back on the original Live Aid of ‘85, I guess I just always assumed it was a seminal, world-changing event—the effects of which were present and clear. Yet the way Live 8 came and went like any other social gathering, I now realize Live Aid was no such thing. I woke up last Sunday and African poverty still existed. It would’ve existed even if I, Jonathan David Morris, saw fit to attend the concert. The only thing that changed was the world now had some really sweet performances to bootleg. There’s a feeling you get sometimes when you stop knowing the words to a favorite song and start becoming them (usually when you’re a couple of beers into the evening). This feeling would have you believe you can conquer the world. Or change it. Or mold it in your image. That feeling is the essence of music. And it’s exactly what Live 8 wasn’t about. They never claimed they’d solve African poverty overnight. And that’s fine. But they never really claimed they’d do anything—period. Live 8’s mission was to send world leaders a “message,” asking them nicely to look into this African poverty thing. This reminds me of a line from a song by Ten Years After: “I’d love to change the world, but I don’t know what to do.” That just about sums things up. Live 8 tried hard not to be about money (even though money’s the main thing at stake in African poverty). For all intents and purposes, they pledged to save the world through rock and roll. But yet the whole idea behind the concert was to inspire someone else—George Bush, Tony Blair, etc.—to save the world for them. Well, it’s great if it works, but where’s the belief in rock’s redemptive powers? Haven’t whole cities been built on rock and roll? This lack of faith is a terrible letdown. I know these musicians are only human, but that’s the thing—they’re not supposed to be. My brother thought about going to Live 8 last weekend. He opted against it the morning of. “It’s no Woodstock,” he told me. He was right, I think. But that’s the problem. When you get right down to it, Woodstock was no Woodstock, either. Or at least it wasn’t the Woodstock of lore. My generation operates under the assumption that Jimi Hendrix playing the Star-Spangled Banner altered the course of the universe in the same way as Jesus when he died on the cross. A lot of my peers were turned off by Woodstock ‘94 and ‘99—not because they were rituals in senseless destruction, but because they were so commercial. People forget the original Woodstock was as much about making money—which it eventually did—as it was about peace, love, and music. I don’t know if the Woodstock generation knew this going in. Maybe they did and they just didn’t care. All I know is, for me, the cover’s been blown right off the idea of social change. First, Geraldo spent two hours opening Al Capone’s vault and failed to find something. Then, Y2K failed to detonate a single country after five years of fantastic fear. I thought it was weird when no one at work talked about the space shuttle Columbia explosion; after all, when I was in second grade, the Challenger made the world stand still. But I think I understand now. Nothing means anything anymore. Things just happen. And then, like Chandra Levy on the morning of 9/11, they simply fade away—replaced by the latest, greatest brick in the wall. All we are is dust in the wind. I would like to believe music transcends this. But who am I fooling? Music, like Darth Vader, is more machine than man now. God bless Live 8 for trying to do something, but as Ben Folds put it, they’re fighting the battle of who could care less here. I feel like Ben Seaver in that episode of Growing Pains where he barges in on his favorite rock star and sees him acting like the lowlife he is. I want to run home and tear down my posters. But I’m growing old, I’ve settled down, and my walls are white with maturity. The truth is very frustrating. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
|
No column this week. Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
Are you a supporter of the FBI? Certainly this need not be an either or question, but in today’s world of litmus tests, the room for selective approval has become marginal. Most would concede that there can be a legitimate role for a domestic investigative agency. But when one accepts this basic principle, that the central government has a justifiable function to conduct national law enforcement, the slippery slope of civil liberty abdication begins. The final culmination, when the avalanche strips the last remains of constitutional protections, is a police state. The majority recedes into the flawed belief that a reasonable balance can be reached. In theory, with good intentions and men of good will, this idea may seem sensible. However, when you compare the record to the promise, upstanding citizens come up short. In order to be aboveboard, it is wise to admit that there is an entrenched criminal culture in all societies. Human nature being what it is, only the utopian attaches pure motives to widespread conduct. Nevertheless, we are suppose to accept that the federal cops are immune from their own corruption and rally to their lawless practices in the name of national security. Do you remember the horrors of Cointelpro? "Counterintelligence" was a misnomer for the FBI programs, since the targets were American political dissidents, not foreign spies. Well, the lessons of that era, seem to be lost to the generations that didn’t live through that experience. Many of the adolescent authoritarians that supported the Johnson and Nixon regimes, back then; grew up to become the career “just following orders” fascists serving in the bureau today. Those in change are loyal only to the State. The rightful purpose of their service escapes them, that they are supposed to serve the people. The St Petersburg Times reports: Attorney General John Ashcroft announced in May 2002 that he was lifting restrictions on domestic spying by the FBI - rules that had been put in place in response to the bureau's excesses during the 1960s and '70s - he promised the sweeping new powers would be used only "for the purpose of detecting and preventing terrorism." A classified FBI intelligence memorandum has recently come to light demonstrating that the FBI is using this new authority to spy on nonviolent antiwar demonstrators. When bona fide conservatives warned that the Patriot Act was just the beginning, the NeoCons pranced out the scare scenario as the reason to surrender your natural rights. With the hijacking of the GOP and the advancement of a psychotic war on terror, the inland panic has been brought directly to your doorstep. The significance of the latest erosion of liberty is that the beneficiary of assembled fear is the originator of the instability. The linkage that is at the core of international hatred towards the United States is the underlying policy of supra dominance. The verdict has been rendered, the world jury has spoken and the sheeple that support the deranged policies of the Bush administration must create an adversary to ease the pain of self betrayal. Going well beyond the foreign militant, the easiest and most convenient group to vindicate Gestapo practices are domestic dissenters. The tradition of America is founded upon individual liberty. Imagining and manufacturing violate anarchists is the history of the FBI. The two don’t mix. The question is who is the master? Since the experiment in limited government has failed, the populace requires an excuse for their capitulation. The psychological turmoil that stirs in the minds of the few reflective citizens that keep current with this descent into oblivion, must reconcile how one can resist the insanity of public policy and still protect our mutual civil rights. As dissent of the few becomes more intense, the invasive methods of the federal g-men become more intense. The price of an unaccountable government is manifest with each new restriction imposed and with every addition to a government enemies list. Is this the formula you want for reasonable, reliable and legitimate national security concerns? As usual, critics that disagree with this assessment are unable to refute the evidence that liberty is the ultimate target for attack, coming from the real enemy of the people - the STATE. With each passing day, the forces of government consolidation grow as the resistors of tyranny are isolated and portrayed as disloyal. Get Real! Have the brain dead so populated the landscape that the trees block out ALL the light? The minutia in details on each specific intel operation is far less important than the fact that such domestic spying on our own citizens violates the essence of our country. The best test for a genuine conservative is their attitude and action on protecting and preserving civil liberties. Endorsing draconian measures won’t safeguard the public. Supporting the Justice Department, when there is no lawfulness, will never achieve security for citizens. Opposing damaging policies doesn’t make one a renegade. Praetorian goals won’t restore a republic.
|
||||||
©2004-2005 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Saturday, July 23, 2005 4:54 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
||||||
