 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
What They Thought October 30, 2005 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
||||||
Making the rounds of the opinion editorial pages of various US dailies, Prof. Allen J. Zerkin, has been urging the United States to begin opening channels to al Qaeda for the purpose of seeking “a truce…no matter how much that galls us.”' Prof. Zerkin is a research fellow at New York University’s Center for Catastrophic Preparedness and Response, and an adjunct professor at its Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. These would appear to be rather impressive credentials, but should we really listen to someone who thinks al Qaeda has “limited and specific goals”? According to Osama bin Laden “The United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors.” That’s what he was saying back in 1998. It is useful to keep in mind that bin Laden is worth millions thanks to his family connections in Saudi Arabia where he grew up. His father, Muhammad bin Laden, was a billionaire construction magnate in Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden received an excellent education before experiencing some kind of Wahabi epiphany when he put aside a life of wealth and ease in favor of joining the war against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. When that was over, he returned home to Saudi Arabia expressing an antipathy for the royal family that earned him an invitation to leave. He went to the Sudan and, in time, his Saudi passport was revoked. The Saudis, who live by the strictest Islamic codes of behavior, were not strict enough for Osama. Prof. Zerkin, though, worries that al Qaeda will be able to attack the US with a biological or nuclear weapon. Who doesn’t worry about this? And just as surely, who doesn’t know that there are dozens of other Islamic terrorist organizations that dream of doing it? Prof. Zerkin found a grain of hope in a recent message by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s second in command. In that message, Zawahri referred to bin Laden’s April 2004 offer of a truce to any European country that made a commitment to stop ‘attacking Muslims or intervening in their affairs.” This is a truce that sets in motion the end of Europe as the birthplace of Western civilization and the establishment of an Islamic caliphate there. Anyone who has paid even the most casual attention to the news of late knows that al Qaeda’s thugs have themselves been busy attacking Muslims, indiscriminately killing them in Iraq to thwart the birth of a democratic, modern nation. Afghanistan, which just held another successful election, is still a battleground. And, of course, there was the recent terrorist attack in London against “infidels” in its subways and on its buses. There has since been another attack in Bali. The bloodlust that distinguishes al Qaeda operations is hardly a platform for back channel or any other negotiations. Prof. Zerkin acknowledges this noting that terrorist attacks leave little to discuss and the greater goal of destroying Western, i.e., Judeo-Christian civilization, is non-negotiable. He even concedes it is widely believed that “bin Laden and company will not act in good faith.” If the professor would read the Koran, he would find this supposition confirmed in the Islamic holy book. History is replete with lessons that teach the futility of negotiating with people who want to kill you. The English, the French, the Soviets, and others discovered that no treaty with the Nazis was worth the paper upon which it was written. Famously, Neville Chamberlain, the then-Prime Minister of England, did not return from Berlin having achieved “peace in our time.” The dregs of Islam have been gathered together by bin Laden under the banner of al Qaeda. They are led by men with an utterly bizarre view of the world and the same casual indifference to human life with which they recruit “youths who love death as you love life.” In the end, Prof. Zerkin says, “I am not suggesting that we engage in direct meetings with al Qaeda or that we stop pursuing those who commit or support acts of terror. But, through back channels, we should seek to determine if bin Laden would withdraw his ‘fatwa’ against Americans in exchange for certain policy changes, if al Qaeda would settle for less than its maximum demands and if its far-flung followers would honor a truce.” Prof. Zerkin thinks there is “inconclusive” proof that bin Laden might be willing to do a deal. So (1) why is he even suggesting negotiations and (2) why is any daily newspaper actually printing his recommendation as if it had a shred of merit? He needs to visit the former Nazi concentration camps or any of the camps of the former Soviet Union’s Ghulag Archipelago. He needs a reminder of the prisons and mass graves that dot the landscape of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. He needs to gain a greater insight into the Arab mind. He needs to visit Ground Zero in lower Manhattan. When he does, he will no longer be penning hopeful nonsense about negotiating with the criminally and theologically insane. There is only one course of action for the West. It must destroy its Islamist enemies or, failing that, it must surrender. |
||||||
Yes maybe it wasn’t very nice hyphenating his name, but to me it seems to be honest. Some media types describe him as being apolitical. I think he’s totally political and, as many supposed centrists as described by the media, he’s as left as they get. In his Op-Ed for the NYT he talked about sipping mint tea and visiting with those who worked for the Nigerian government at the time of the supposed sale of yellow cake uranium to Iraq. They told him they hadn’t sold uranium to Saddam Hussein. I wonder what Hitler would have said about those camps. He came back and told everyone no sale took place and walked away. I had a little trouble with one of his comments in there about what the people were wearing and about them walking across John F. Kennedy bridge. That seemed so metro-sexual and not really part of what he was supposed to be talking about. It made me think he was a leftist. But there was much more that made me think leftist as well. He talked about the need for rigorously ensuring that Saddam wasn’t pursuing his weapons program again. He also said it was important that the threat of invasion was there to make him toe the line. His problem was that we actually backed our words with deeds. Leftist. He said in his commentary that it was important that we didn’t selectively use intelligence to justify the war. His real problem is that he is selectively using his own report as the baseline for determining that there was no uranium sold to Iraq. He is forgetting something very important; his report wasn’t the only one that they looked at. We may never see the reports they looked at for that matter. He is forgetting that just because he came up empty handed doesn’t mean there was nothing going on. It only means he didn’t find what they were looking for. However none of that matters now that he has done what he wanted to do. I see something else behind all of this though. Let’s not forget to notice that Libby’s indictment says nothing at all about outing a secret agent, but rather it is about Libby not being clear on a few things. If we look at the kind of job Libby holds we’ll see a person that handles phone call after phone call. There is a question as to whether he was at the head of a series of phone calls or at the end. We’ll see when the dust settles. That is what court is all about. I suspect that he will get off Scot-free because they were asking him questions about phone conversations held two years before. Two years ago when your power company called you was it before or after the insurance company? If Libby did lie then he deserves to get into serious trouble. After reading the indictments I didn’t see anywhere in which Libby tried to redefine words in our language like Clinton did. We’re talking about a conservative here so he is going to have to be handled as we’ve all learned a conservative has to be handled. If he lied he’s in trouble. Nobody expects liberals to tell the truth and we’ve learned over the years their version of truth matches the Communist version of the truth: “What ever moves the cause forward is the truth.” It didn’t take long before Fitzgerald asked if he could go beyond the original intent of the investigation because it is very difficult to prove the original allegations. What we’re seeing here is typical for the party that isn’t in power though. The losing party acts like…well…losers. Bush should have told Wilson where he could put his allegations and moved on. This all came about because Joe Wilson-Plame thinks the world revolves around him. I’m still wondering how Novak stayed out of trouble. He’s the one who supposedly outed Plame in the first place. Never mind the fact that she was polishing a chair in DC and not in the field. That may be why Fitzgerald had to move on to other things so quickly. But I see something else here. This administration has been smeared with a scandal that will still be in full swing during the next set of elections. As I’ve said before I doubt there is anything to these allegations. But the smear is the point. It is a tactic. One might be likely to think that I’m blaming the Democrats in general. I’m not. Last week Sheehan railed against Hillary the warmonger. She is now a political tool that makes Hillary look conservative. Wilson may have smeared this administration with a scandal but I suspect that it will be the radical Dean arm of the Democratic Party that ends up with egg on their faces. Why do I think that’s the case? Because of the silence on the part of the Clintons. It could be argued that they don’t want to remind everyone of how much trouble they had. During the last election I suspected Bill Clinton when he began backing Kerry. I knew he was aware of an Achilles heel. It turns out he was aware of the then future swift boat mess and Kerry’s discharge problem with the military. I wonder what they know now. As scary as they are to watch, it sure is fun to watch them. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
I decided to call this article “Ten Things I Hate About Halloween.” I’m not going to belabor the point with a long, drawn-out opening paragraph. On with the reasons: 10. Halloween greeting cards. Yeah, that’s right. They sell Halloween greeting cards now. Apparently we’re so incapable of interpersonal communication in this country that we need Hallmark to pump out a steady stream of year-round greetings just to help us keep in touch with our loved ones. America, you should hate yourself for living in a nation that allows this insanity. What could you possibly have to say to someone on Halloween that you need a card for? You can’t just pick up the phone? It’s 2005. Get with the program. 9. People who get creative with the candy they hand out. Listen: If you’re going to hand out candy, stick to the essentials, okay? Twix. Snickers. Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups. The occasional Mounds or Almond Joy. Butterfingers. Stuff like that. Kit Kats, I’m cool with. Hershey Nuggets, too. But some people feel the need to do something “different,” and it never works out in the end. This includes the nice ladies who tie Kleenex tissues to Charms Blow Pops and pretend they’re Halloween ghosts. But more importantly, it includes anyone who hands out non-chocolate candies—especially the kind with red and yellow wrappers. Listen to me, because I am only going to say this once. Don’t hand out this kind of candy anymore. Mary Janes. Bit-O-Honeys. Nobody eats this stuff. It just ends up at the bottom of the candy basket, where it sits for several months until someone comes home from work desperate for candy, opens it, and cracks a tooth because it’s stale. If this is the candy you’re going to give out, save your money, all right? And while I’m on the subject, don’t hand out pennies anymore, either. It’s pathetic. They start selling Halloween candy during the summer nowadays. You mean to tell me you didn’t have a chance to get to the store any time between mid August and October 31st? That’s ridiculous. Spare me your sympathy. If you’re gonna hand out pennies, turn off the lights and pretend you’re not home. 8. Racism. Halloween perpetuates the stereotype that black cats are bad luck, which, as a black cat owner, I can tell you is patently untrue. You know who’s bad luck? Women and white basketball players. There, I said it. Stick that in your Freddy mask and smoke it. 7. Fun uses of the word “ghoul." This includes “boys and ghouls,” “Ghoul-Aid,” and any football reference that ends with the term, “over the ghoul line.” Anyone old enough to spell the word “ghoul” should no longer find this stuff even mildly amusing. 6. The Halloween store that opens up in the mall two months before Halloween, then becomes a Christmas store until New Year’s, then vanishes altogether until two months before the following Halloween. This store frustrates me. Where does it disappear to after December? How does being open four months a year constitute a viable business model? I take five days off all year long. These people sell vampire teeth and mistletoe for twelve weeks and spend the next eight months on vacation. This makes me so angry. 5. People who try to guilt you into getting dressed for Halloween, as if there’s something noble about partying with a room full of “witches,” “cats,” and grown men dressed like grown women. Every year it’s the same thing. Just when I think I’m in the clear, someone invites me to a costume party. I never have a costume ready, so I end up throwing something together—which means I end up looking just as dumb as I feel. I hate this. “Come on, it’s fun,” people tell me. No. Writing my name in the snow with my urine is fun. Partying with sixteen variations of “Satan” is horrific. Any other time of year, people would kick this guy out of their house. On Halloween, they welcome him in for a cup of spiked punch and tortilla chips covered in some girl’s crappy batch of runny guacamole. Enough is enough already. Just once I’d like to see one of these Halloween Satans put his hands on the stove and keep them there the entire evening. That would be fun for me. 4. Anything that’s supposed to scare me. This includes plastic spiders, the word “haunted,” and the decidedly real-looking dead children posed on your front lawn. I’m sorry, but none of this stuff scares me. Not even the decidedly real-looking dead children. If you really want to spook me, try throwing a party where everyone comes dressed like a government program. 3. People who leave a bowl of candy on their front porch with a note asking neighborhood kids not to take more than one piece of candy each. Their faith in mankind offends me. 2. Anyone who knows the whole story behind Halloween. Oh, there’s a know-it-all in every bunch, isn’t there? Someone who’s so cool because they know the word “Celtic” is pronounced “kell-tick,” not “sell-tick”? Hey, good for you, lady. Maybe next you can paint your face white and sing a Fiona Apple album for us. Quit yapping already. And keep your damn TP and shaving cream away from my car. 1. People who say Halloween is their “favorite holiday." If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard this, I’d have enough money to buy a gun and shoot these people just for saying something so stupid. Do you realize how spiritually empty you’d have to be to pick Halloween as your “favorite holiday”? Just think about all the other holidays you passed over. Christmas and Easter. Chanukah. Yom Kippur. Kwanzaa. Super Bowl Sunday. Groundhog Day. Black History Month. Hell, you even passed over Passover. We celebrate 690 different holidays in this country. We have more holidays than we can fit in a calendar year. And you picked the day where you dress like a moron and collect free cavities from your neighbors? That’s it? That’s your favorite holiday? That’s like having a testicle that you “wouldn’t mind losing.” Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
Bob Sigman, Opinion Editor of The Johnson County Sun (KS), has a problem with the idea that, “State-financed vouchers could be used by students to attend the school of their choice, public or private.” 1 He believes that, “This would open the way to state support of private schools, breaking down the traditional barrier between church and state.” 2 What Mr. Sigman and all the other anti school choice advocates should know is that the Supreme Court ruled in 2002, “that a neutral program that neither favors nor disfavors religion, vouchers directed by the private, independent choices of parents do not constitute state support or endorsement of religion.” 3 Unfortunately, this myth and many others influenced Congressional policy makers to vote down the Family Education Reimbursement Act (FERA) proposal – sponsored by Chairman John Boehner (R-OH) and Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-LA). This proposal would have provided needed relief and parental choice options for the 372,000 students displaced by hurricane Katrina by allowing them to enroll in a school of their parents choice for the 2005-06 school year. The Wall Street Journal considered FERA the best proposal because it would have circumvented the education bureaucracy that makes it difficult to provide immediate relief to families in need.4 Perhaps the fiscal conservatives that voted down the measure weren’t aware that, “Because of bureaucracy, two of every five tax dollars raised for schools do not even make it to the classroom.” 5 Legislators should be reminded that private schools are operated more cheaply than public schools. Just compare the average private school tuition, $4,689.00 to the average cost of educating a student in public school at $8,830.00. Each child educated outside the public school system saves the state $3,535.00. When the money follows the child it saves tax payer dollars.6 The idea that families would have been allowed to choose the best school – public, private, or charter –assuredly raised the hackles of those who fear the program’s success would serve as a catalyst for more school choice advocates to demand school choice be made available to all families who might be interested in private school options. The reality is that tax payers finance vouchers just as they do public schools. Some taxpayers would rather see their children attend private schools. Why should they have to pay twice? Vouchers create competition among public and private schools. Public schools would be forced to improve or they would lose enrollment. Studies done in Florida, Wisconsin, Texas, Maine & Vermont provide evidence that school choice does help public schools perform better. 7 Another myth perpetuated by Mr. Sigman, that true comparisons between public and private school cannot be made until the playing field is leveled is simply not accurate. He relies on the argument that, “Private schools do not have to provide special education services.” 8 Yet, as reported in the June 2005 School Choice Advocate, parents of children diagnosed with learning disabilities do send their children to private schools in order to take advantage of smaller, more focused learning environments which can improve academic performance and self confidence. Utah just passed a voucher bill specifically aimed at “special needs” children which will allow them to take advantage of private schools with specialized curriculum that meets the needs of those with particular learning disabilities.9 Sigman bemoans the fact that, “Public schools must negotiate employment contracts with teachers, private schools do not. That can result in higher costs for salaries and other benefits.” 10 The FERA proposal simply tried to work around the education establishment by disposing of the layers upon layers of education bureaucracy that drives costs up and instead suggested working with an independent contractor to expediently and cost efficiently meet the demands of displaced families and the schools which accommodate their educational needs. 11 Although private schools are not required to be accredited by the state, most have stringent curriculum standards. If a private school does not perform it will fail because students are not compelled to attend an underperforming school. This means that teachers must be highly qualified and exert the effort required for success. Lower salaries do not deter all good teachers from working in private school environments because there are less behavioral issues and more administrative supports. Students are expected to meet the curriculum demands which make them eligible for admission to four year colleges. “If the state starts funding private schools through vouchers, Vratil warns [in Sigman’s OpEd], "there will be strings attached… Inevitably, the state will impose education requirements on private schools similar to those that govern public schools.” 12 Walberg and Bast say that this doesn’t have to happen if language included as part of a constitutional amendment establishes, “that the autonomy of private schools is in the public interest and that all regulations affecting private schools are “frozen” at their pre-voucher levels.” 13 Regulatory bodies will need to have their “membership equally balanced between government and private school interests.”15 They suggest other ways to combat this possibility, as well. It is fiscally irresponsible to allow myths and irrational fears to influence the decisions made by those elected to represent us. We the people need to express our dissatisfaction with the status quo educational practices that leave some children behind and embrace the power of the free market to drive the quality of education up. 5, 13, 14
Bast, Joseph, and Walberg, Herbert. Ten Principles of School Choice.
Chicago: The Heartland Institute, 2004. 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 Friday, October 28, 2005 9:47 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
||||||
