 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
What They Thought October 16, 2005 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
||||||
“We must repeat what we mentioned previously, that the majority of Muslims don’t comprehend this and possibly could not even imagine it. For that reason, many of your Muslim admirers amongst the common folk are wondering about your attacks on the Shia. The sharpness of this questioning increases when the attacks are on one of their mosques…this matter won’t be acceptable to the Muslim populace.” Ayman al-Zawahiri is Osama bin Laden’s closest adviser. On July 9 he penned a 13-page letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, known to his admirers as “the sheik of slaughters” for his penchant to behead infidels and Muslims alike. It is al-Zarqawi who is directing the “insurgency” against American and coalition forces in Iraq. “Among the things which the feelings of the Muslim populace who love and support you will never find palatable are the scenes of slaughtering the hostages,” warned al-Zawahiri. Most of us don’t
have the time to read the entire letter as I did, so let me share some
insights that might have been only briefly alluded to in the mainstream
press. It is impossible to understand the full, true importance of this
letter on that basis alone. The primary intent of the letter, however, is al-Zawahiri’s belief that al Qaeda and its Iraq campaign is in trouble. At one point al-Zawahiri asks for a hundred thousand dollars because operational funds were not available. This suggests that the war America is leading is experiencing some success. Al-Zawahiri points out early in the letter that “the real danger comes from the agent Pakistani army that is carrying out operations in the tribal areas looking for mujahedeen.” All this is good news, but we must never lose sight of the ultimate objective of al Qaeda. Al-Zawahiri makes it quite clear that “the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet in the heart of the Islamic world, specifically in the Levant (Syria, Lebanon), Egypt, and the neighboring states of the Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) and Iraq; however, the center would be in the Levant and Egypt.”' The purpose of the Islamic Revolution has always been total control over the Middle East and, from there, to launch a campaign to dominate the rest of the world. For this, the Middle East must be rid of all secular leadership, i.e., its “elected” dictators such as Egypt’s Mubarak or the monarchs such as those who rule Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. The primary obstacle to this goal is the United States. This is why we were attacked on September 11, 2001. Secondarily, Muslims view the existence of Israel as undermining their assertion of being the final, ultimate expression of God’s will that Islam rule the world. The very existence of Israel has always been regarded as a threat to Islam. The subjugation of Jews and Christians has always been an essential tenet of Islam. Another theme of al-Zawahiri’s letter is the perfidy of the Shia or Shiite community. The rivalry between the Sunnis and Shiites goes far back in Islamic history, beginning not long after the death of Muhammad. “Their prior history in cooperating with the enemies of Islam is consistent with their current reality of connivance with the Crusaders.” One suspects al Qaeda’s enmity has not gone unnoticed by Shiites everywhere. Al-Zawahiri is not unmindful of this, warning that “this matter won’t be acceptable to the Muslim populace…” “And can the mujahedeen kill all of the Shia in Iraq?” asks al-Zawahiri. “Has any Islamic state in history ever tried that? And why kill ordinary Shia considering that they are forgiven because of their ignorance?” In short, it’s bad for the short-term goals of the insurgency. There is, therefore, considerable irony that al-Zawahiri is ultimately worried about Muslim perceptions of al Qaeda’s goals. “I say to you that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle for the hearts and minds of our Umma (the Muslim people). And that however far our capabilities reach, they will never be equal to one thousandth of the capabilities of the kingdom of Satan that is waging war on us…we don’t need this.” Al-Zawahiri has kindly spelled out some important truths. Al Qaeda is on the run and having problems funding its operations despite the occasional suicide bombing in places like London and Bali. Iraq, as President Bush has repeatedly said, is the battlefield on which al Qaeda and the Islamic Revolution must be defeated. And, finally, this is a battle, too, between two major Islamic factions in which the Sunnis are seeking victory. The only way al Qaeda and its Iranian counterparts can win is if the forces of appeasement and surrender in Western nations abandon the battlefield, i.e., the world, to them. Don’t take my word for it; take the word of Ayman al-Zawahiri. Al Qaeda announced on Thursday, Oct. 13, that the al-Zawahiri letter was a fabrication. In war, the first victim is the truth, so what we know is that al Qaeda has acknowledged the success of the letter, whether real or not, in revealing its known goals. |
||||||
I just spent the entire morning racking my brain and searching the Internet for a situation that occurred early in our country’s history. I never could locate the specific incident so I’ll wing it on memory. I’ve no doubt that many will be inspired to tell me who it was later on (if only to show me up). The story from way back when goes something like this: One of our Founding Fathers was out riding as he often did and he came upon a very angry voter. The man looked up at him and told him he would never vote for him again. Our Founding Father asked him what he had done that had angered him so much and his answer was one that we’re hearing today. It went something like this: “You introduced a bill into Congress to replace so and so’s barn that burnt down a week ago. That happens to many people but nobody sends a bill to Congress to replace it with other people’s money taken in the form of taxes. But because so many of you know this person you’re moved by your feelings to make the rest of us replace it with tax dollars. That is against the very tenets upon which this new government was created, that you yourself have helped to create. You have forgotten what you once stood for.” Or something like that. The sentiment is what matters and it still applies these days. We now have a similar situation in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast. The rest of the country is a little ticked that Bush wants to rebuild New Orleans and a lot of other areas. Where is all of that money supposed to come from? It shouldn’t come from strictly tax money. The insurance companies are going to be hard pressed to pay for all of this and they will do their level best to get out of as many of these debts as they can. The only place that tax dollars should be spent is in the return of basic, and I mean the most basic, infrastructure that affects the rest of the economy. That should only be in the form of a little help in the form of loans. Since the oil companies like to set prices based on what the market will bear they should get to pay the lions share to replace their infrastructure since they have continued to raise the price of fuel. If only the infrastructure is replaced everything else will come back in time on its own. What I’m trying to say is this: It is normal for people to see someone’s plight and want to rush to fix it for them. It is even easier when one has a lot of money to do it with. But even our Founding Fathers missed the point sometimes. Even they forgot what they had created and it is an easy thing to do. But easy isn’t always right and it seldom leads to a long-term solution. If the government rushes in and rebuilds everything for everybody they will have created a bunch of takers who expect other people to fix their problems. That is not the premise upon which our country was created in the first place. Bush needs to understand that you don’t fix problems with socialist or collectivist solutions and get anything out of the other end that remotely resembles conservative ideas or beliefs. He’s treading some dangerous ground here and I wonder sometimes if he sees the real problem. Maybe he should read what Anne Rice had to say not too long ago in a NYT column. My father sent a Jim Geraughty response to her article. I shamelessly took her quote and use it here to prove a point. Here is what she said. “To my country I want to say this: During this crisis you failed us. You looked down on us; you dismissed our victims; you dismissed us. You want our Jazz Fest, you want our Mardi Gras, you want our cooking and our music. Then when you saw us in real trouble, when you saw a tiny minority preying on the weak among us, you called us "Sin City," and turned your backs." - novelist and New Orleans resident Anne Rice. He pointed out the fact that there was so much violence the rescuers couldn’t get to the people. He also questioned the wisdom of building a port city below sea level. He pointed out that the local politicians had for years done nothing to improve the levees to the standards they needed to be at to survive the storm that just hit. They always found other things to do with the money. Before Bush decides to respond with a socialist solution to this problem because of what she and others have said, he might want to consider that she makes her living writing about characters that survive by sucking the life out of their victims. He’ll only make more of them and we’re running short on oak stakes after this last storm. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
Paul Provenza: Hi there and welcome to Kid’s Court, Nickelodeon’s short-lived late ‘80s court program, where kids sue their best friends and siblings over trivial childhood matters, inspiring a whole generation of hot coffee cups and frivolous lawsuits. I’m your host, Paul Provenza. Like you, I was surprised by the brevity of my IMDb bio when I looked myself up after reading this column because I thought my name sounded familiar. I could’ve sworn I starred in Mad About You, but it turns out that was Paul Reiser. Anyway, this week on Kid’s Court, it’s the Case of the Stolen Supreme Court Nomination. First, let’s meet our plaintiff, Just About Anyone Anywhere In America, who claims to be the rightful owner of the open Court seat, which George Bush recently handed to Harriet Miers. Just About Anyone Anywhere In America: Hi Paul. Thanks for hearing my case. I loved you in 1997’s Plump Fiction. Provenza: Was I in that? And now let’s meet our defendant, the current Supreme Court nominee, Ms. Harriet Miers. Harriet Miers: [Looks around.] Provenza: Ms. Miers? Miers: Me? I’m sorry. I’m such an unknown entity, even I don’t know who I am sometimes. Say, now that I’ve got me, though, can I ask myself a question? How do I pronounce my last name? The TV says it’s “Myers,” but to me it looks like “Meers.” Provenza: Splendid. Moving right along, here’s how Kid’s Court works. The plaintiff and defendant will state their case and call a witness. Afterwards, we’ll roll out a robot called the Honorable Judge O’Meter, which will measure the audience’s applause to determine who won. Basically, it’s a popularity contest, which is eerie since Kid’s Court went off the air in ‘89, which was several years before O.J. kicked off the era of popular people getting away with murder. Trust me, folks, there was no way Nickelodeon could’ve predicted this. One time, I hijacked the Back to the Future DeLorean at Universal Studios, but the only place it took me was to theme park security, where I was soundly beaten with a nightstick and sodomized with a Ghostbusters II mug. Anyway, Mr. Plaintiff, how about getting us started with your opening statements? Anyone: Thanks, Paul. Hi. I’m Just About Anyone Anywhere In America. Technically, I’m a metaphor. I’m the answer to the question, “Who would’ve made a better nominee than Harriet Miers?” “Just about anyone anywhere in America.” I represent 300 million equally unqualified people, including immigrants, crippled gay soldiers, and the kids from Good Morning, Miss Bliss who were replaced when it became Saved by the Bell. Just because I’m a metaphor doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be a Supreme Court justice. You’ve got a black judge, a woman—why not an abstract grammatical concept? The only reason Bush nominated Harriet Miers is because she’s a friend of his. I think that’s unfair. I could be his friend, too. I could be anyone’s friend. I wish people would give me a chance. They’re gonna be sorry when they see me at my high school reunion. [Audience applauds.] Provenza: And now the defendant? Miers: Thanks, Paul. People worry because they don’t know a lot about me. They wonder about my stance on abortion. Well, I’m here to assure you I don’t know a lot about me, either. I’ve only met myself once, and that was briefly—in a truck stop bathroom. As for my stance on abortion, my stance is that I have no stance, because I don’t even know what an abortion is. Where can I get one? Will they be hard to come by in toy stores this Christmas? I remember shopping for a Cabbage Patch Kid twenty years ago. What a madhouse. When I’m elected Supreme Court justice, there will be a car on every plate and a Cabbage Patch in every garage. Guaranteed. Or my name isn’t Paul Provenza. Provenza: But your name isn’t Paul Provenza. Miers: My point exactly. Free abortions for everyone. [Audience applauds.] Provenza: Okay, well, moving right along, let’s bring out the plaintiff’s witness, former Texas Ranger and Baltimore Oriole Rafael Palmeiro. Rafael Palmeiro: [Taking a seat at the witness stand.] Hi. I’m former Texas Ranger and Baltimore Oriole Rafael Palmeiro. Anyone: Mr. Palmeiro, is it true that, like Ms. Miers, you are a close, personal friend of George Walker Bush? Palmeiro: Yes. I used to play for his baseball team. Anyone: Is it true that the president brought steroids into the public consciousness during the State of the Union a couple of years ago, but when you were busted for juicing this summer, he shrugged it off and believed you were innocent—even after you wagged your finger and furrowed your brow in front of Congress? Palmeiro: Yes. I used to play for his baseball team. Anyone: No further questions. As a metaphor for all of America, it’s clear to me that George Bush is using Harriet Miers, Hurricane Katrina, and the Iraq war to divert my attention from the real issue of this presidency—namely, Rafael Palmeiro. You had it all, and you blew it, Raffy. Three thousand hits. Five hundred homers. A porno mustache. But you just had to throw it away by using steroids, didn’t you? And sullying Major League Baseball’s good name? Say it ain’t so, Raffy. Palmeiro: It ain’t so, Raffy. Anyone: I don’t believe you. You’re gonna be sorry when you see me at my high school reunion. Provenza: All right. And, finally, Ms. Miers, would you care to call your witness? Miers: Yes, Paul. I call Harriet Miers to the stand. Harriet Miers: [Taking a seat at the witness stand.] Hi. I’m Harriet Miers, Supreme Court nominee. Miers: Ms. Miers, is it true that your name is Harriet Miers? Miers: Yes. Miers: And why do you feel that qualifies you to be a Supreme Court justice? Miers: Well, because the president said Harriet Miers was qualified, and that’s me—I’m Harriet Miers. Quite frankly, that’s the only gag the guy writing this transcript has to go on. Miers: Well, there you have it. No further questions. Vote for us for Supreme Court justice, and you’ll get two judges for the price of one. Beat that, David Souter. Provenza: Okay. Well, finally, we come to the part of the show where you, the audience, get to decide who won this thing. We dusted off the Honorable Judge O’Meter to measure your applause, but it doesn’t seem to be working. We tried blowing on it and everything—which usually worked for Duck Hunt and Gyromite. But no such luck. So, today, the role of the Honorable Judge O’Meter will be played by fellow robot John Kerry. [Crew rolls out John Kerry.] Provenza: By a round of applause, who here thinks Rafael Palmeiro belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame? [Audience fails to applaud.] Provenza: And by a round of applause, who here thinks Harriet Miers belongs on the United States Supreme Court? [Someone in the audience coughs.] John Kerry: [Leaning towards the coughing audience member.] We have a winner. Ding-ding-ding. I’m John Kerry, and I approve this measurement. Miers: Yes! I’d just like to thank all the little people—George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and anyone else who died to ensure me a trial by a jury of my Meers. Provenza: Well, there you have it, folks. A verdict of not guilty in the Case of the Stolen Supreme Court Nomination. Between Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court and Rafael Palmeiro in the Hall of Fame, Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court seems preferable to Just About Anyone Anywhere In America. For Nickelodeon, David the Gnome, and the roomful of chimps that we call an audience, I’m Paul Provenza saying don’t do drugs and thanks for watching Kid’s Court. Tune in next week for the Case of the People vs. Who Stole a Cookie from the Cookie Jar. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
I am writing today in response to an article written by Charles Murray, called The Inequality Taboo, published in The Wall Street Journal’s Oct 12, 2005 Opinion Journal. I find it unbelievable that in 2005 I have to respond to such incredible blather about the differences between blacks and whites. This one is a “no-brainer” because the differences are clearly environmental and cultural. To begin, any class in child development will include information about the Romanian orphans who were left in their cribs receiving no stimulation from caregivers. Not surprisingly, this had extremely negative effects on their brain growth compared to babies that had lots of caring human interaction. In addition, their ability to interact was severely stunted. The brain is growing rapidly in the early childhood years. Children that receive inadequate interaction, stimulation, nurturing, and exposure to activities which create the foundation for learning in the schoolroom, will enter school an average of 2 years behind their peers. No question. This is not because of genetics, but is the result of poor environment. Many of the children in this country who are facing the most adversity (economically, socially) simply do not have as much cognitive stimulation. It is very hard to make up that lost time unless a school systematically builds in additional hours for remediation. How many actually do? Very few provide interventions that are adequate to the task. It is not surprising then, those subgroups such as blacks are not able to outperform other subgroups on measures like IQ tests. The brain, like any other muscle responds to exercise. Disadvantaged youth do not display as large vocabularies as kids coming from more advantaged environments. For them, school becomes more and more difficult. The gaps in ability widen. Many disadvantaged kids give up. It is precisely
this which No Child Left Behind is trying to eradicate. Every child
is capable of success. Unfortunately, too many enter the school system
way behind. These are the children whose families need interventions,
who need high quality preschool, and who need large amounts of explicit
instruction in the classroom. This is why so much emphasis has been put on reading in the primary grades. Reading ability is the true indicator for school success. Our brain grows just like the rest of our body. It is critical for underprivileged children to receive additional stimulation from caregivers outside the family in order to stimulate their brain growth and allow them to catch up with their peers. They need lots of instruction to make up for lost time. The younger a child is, the easier it will be to absorb the reading skills that are the foundation for academic success. That is not to say children cannot make up for lost time in the later grades. It is just harder because there is more to remediate. They must learn to read and master academic content. I’ve read that it is easier for kids to learn languages, skating, riding a bike at a young age. Their muscles are more limber and perhaps they don’t think too hard about the “what ifs”. These skills become second nature for them. I learned to skate as an adult. It was much harder and I don’t believe I will ever know what my true potential as a skater would have been if I had learned as a kid. I do know my children can skate circles around me. But I’ve been reading for many years and I never get anxious when I pick up a book. No one should have to worry about that. Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
|
No column this week.
|
||||||
©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 Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:46 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
||||||
