 |
What They've Thought
|
||||
|
|
||||
What They Thought April 23, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
|||||
An ignorance of history can leave an entire generation vulnerable to threats they may otherwise dismiss as bombast. Most who lived during the 1930s rise of the Nazi’s Third Reich are dead and all that’s left are the images on the History Channel. That’s why the sight of goose-stepping Iranian soldiers is eerily redolent of goose-stepping German storm troopers. An even more bizarre reflection of the German regime that emerged in the 1930s is the obsessive rhetoric blaming the Jews for the troubles of the Middle East and the threats to wipe Israel off the map. In the midst of WWII, the Nazis diverted important resources to round up and kill six million European Jews, along with five million Christians, Gypsies, homosexuals, and others they deemed “sub-human” or political enemies. We know that in America, Spain and England, being an “infidel” is sufficient to get you killed as you commute to work or prepare for another day in the office. We know that Europe hesitated to confront Adolf Hitler and paid a terrible price for it. We know, too, that those Jews who fled Europe were the fortunate few survivors and those who immigrated to Israel after the war had no place else to go. Would you want to go “home” to live next door to a neighbor who betrayed you to the death camps? Barely one percent of the entire landmass of the Middle East and surrounded by twenty-two nations that still daily deplore its existence, Israel remains the victim of terrorist bombings of its civilian population, along with the rockets and mortars of the Palestinians to the north and south of its borders. Rather than invading Gaza, Israel has withdrawn from it. Rather than remaining in southern Lebanon, it has withdrawn from it. Rather than retain sections of the West Bank, it plans to withdraw from parts of it. This is not the picture of a militant, occupying force intent on retaining its gains in the 1967 war waged against it. This is a people who have opted to build a long, high wall to fence itself off from a totally toxic population on the other side. The Palestinians are people who use boys to penetrate the wall in order to murder Israelis with an act of suicide. At some point, the Israelis are going to want their leaders to do unto the Iranians that which the Iranians are threatening to do to them, only first. Unless, of course, the United States decides that diplomacy is inadequate to the job of dealing with homicidal ayatollahs and their henchmen. History reveals that the desperate diplomacy of the 1930s was merely a prelude to World War II. It is likely to be the same for WW III if everyone waits around for the new Iranian Hitler’s to fulfill their threats. Few paid attention to Winston Churchill, out of power in England, when he raised warnings about the intentions of the Nazi government. Comparable warnings being raised today regarding the Iranians are also being ignored. Worse, Americans who have grown weary of the struggle in Iraq are in no mood to consider an extended field of battle that would include Iran. There are, however, some stubborn facts that cannot be ignored. The Iranian leadership has spent twenty years and billions of dollars to achieve nuclear parity with the world. While President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was celebrating the enriching of uranium at Nathanz, the real threat was at Neyshabour in Khorassan, a place guarded day and night by the Revolutionary Guard Corps, the elite Ansar al-Mahdi unit. This site will have three times the capacity of Nathanz to enrich the material the Iranians need to build nuclear bombs. You can thank the Russians for making that happen. Little wonder the Pentagon has pulled the maps of Iran off the shelf and begun to upgrade plans for invasion or, at the very least, a deterrent bombing of nuclear facilities. You may think the year is 2006 and it is, but the year is also any one of those leading up to 1939 when the Nazis invaded Poland. They felt safe in doing so. After all, they had signed a secret non-aggression pact with the Russians. And the Russians believed them. Right up to the day and hour when the Germans invaded Russia. Then, for the duration of WW II, the Russians became our allies. When WW II ended, they went right back to their own mad dreams of imposing communism on the world. Iran is hardly isolated. There are the Russians and Chinese who are reluctant to permit the United Nations to impose any sanctions. It has friends in Turkey, a formerly secular nation that is embracing its own Islamic revolution, reversing decades of democracy. It has friends in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. Goose-stepping Iranians are on the march. Ignoring them will not change their minds. Threatening them will not change their minds. History has a nasty way of repeating itself and it is doing so now in the Middle East. |
|||||
How is it that we still have China as our "Most Favored Nation" trading partner? A lot of people asked that question when they were granted that status a few years ago. It is a legitimate question because in the long run any nation’s economy is controlled by the well being of its people. The well being of a people is also determined by the safety of those people. China has one of the worst records with the U.S. and the world regarding not only human rights, but also just good old-fashioned integrity. By that I mean the western version of integrity. China has integrity, but it is not the kind of integrity that matters if you want to be able to trust. I’m sure that some of my readers are going to be thinking that I don’t trust China. This is not the case. I have an understanding with them. It is the same kind of understanding that I have with our media. I know beyond a shadow of doubt that what comes out of their mouths is meaningless. It is part of the credo by which they live. To them they are speaking the truth when they say anything that supports their cause or purpose. When they offered condolences for the 9/11 attacks I smiled. I knew they weren’t telling our truth; they were telling their truth. It wasn’t but a few months later that they were out selling videos cheering the Mid-Eastern terrorist movement responsible for the attacks. Several years before that they were slapped on the wrist for COSCO’s attempted smuggling of AK’s to American gangs on the west coast. Now they’ve been caught again attempting to smuggle in two hundred shoulder-fired missiles that can take down commercial aircraft. Fortunately they were selling them to an undercover FBI agent. I didn’t find many articles on this and I know I won’t see many commentaries or news stories on television that will deal with this issue because it is an issue they shy away from with reason. It is the same reason they didn’t talk about the Panama Canal being handed over to the Chinese. It is the same reason they never talk about the largest cargo container handling facility in the world being in Freeport, Bahamas being built and owned by China. It is the same reason that China doesn’t get a lot of coverage for their human rights violations. I see the media here as being owned by them out of respect for having the same kind of ideologies and that ideology believes that the end always justifies the means. Of the incidents mentioned above only one occurred during this administration. The rest of them were during the Clinton administration. There was a reason the Chinese called Clinton their man in the White House. Clinton is one of those rare idiots that tend to think that the world would be at peace if nobody were ahead of anyone else; if only we were equal then we could be buddies. How is it that one who abused his power in so many ways can’t see others who do it? Of course the reason for that is that he doesn’t view himself as having abused his power; what he did was okay because his ideology was okay. The ends justify the means in all things to them. People like that are incapable of viewing the reality of what they are because then they would have to deal with certain issues that they would rather see buried so deep that they can even forget that they forgot about them. That is the primary reason people like that, as well as nations like that, tend to accuse everyone else of exactly what they themselves are doing; it diverts the attention of others away from them and it even serves to divert their own attention away from themselves. This is the reason for the endless avalanche of accusations from the Mid-east, China and Russia on any number of things. It is also the reason why the most rabid of liberal ideologues is what they are. Many seek to see a grand conspiracy in all of this. The greatest conspiracy I see is the conspiracy of silence and redirection by those who feel rather than think. That applies to even the tin-foil beanie set here in this country. They will debate for hours on who it was that pushed Humpty Dumpty off of the wall, and then move on to a lively discussion of who knew and who was an accomplice through silence or any other means. In short they’re no different than the rest of the people who are on the other side except for the fact that they aren’t involved directly. I used to view many of these people as a bunch of inept boobs. I’ve changed my mind though - they’re ept boobs; the absolute best in the world too! I’m impressed to be sure. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
We’ve all seen the Dateline specials. We all know there are child molesters living amongst us. We’ve all watched Fox News or CNN during an Amber Alert. And we all know there are kidnappers living amongst us, too. Any of us who have ever watched the news know there are rapists and murderers living amongst us. And drug addicts. And crack dealers. And immigrants. And terrorists. Crooked businessmen not only live but work amongst us. As do crooked officials, lawyers, accountants, and even Kansas City Royals fans. The list of threats Americans face nowadays is quite long — and growing. You will see this if you watch the news, but you don’t need the news to know this. You can feel the many threats we’re facing. You can sense them. They’re in our hearts and in our minds, and in the discussions we have with coworkers and friends. You would be forgiven, in this day and age, for investing in a burglar alarm for your home, or a Club for your car, or even a leash for your kid. This is the era of metal detectors in schools and sports stadiums — the era of being “on the safe side” and doing things “just to be safe.” You would be forgiven for shielding yourself, or even for staying home altogether, in this era. But none of this would protect you from the greatest threat America is facing. And nor should any of us be forgiven for closing our eyes to the fact that this threat exists. It’s a threat not from without or within, but from another realm entirely. I am talking, of course, about ghosts. I realize this statement will probably come as a surprise to most Americans. And for various reasons, most Americans will likely reject it. Some because they’re devoted to the urgency of the other threats I’ve listed. Others because they don’t believe in ghosts or can’t imagine the ghost threat being much worse than Ghost with Patrick Swayze. The rejection of my threat assessment is certainly understandable. And believe me, even a Patrick Swayze contained by Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights and ten years of career futility remains a potent, credible threat. But the kinds of ghosts you’re probably thinking of — the kind that conjure up images of Charlie Brown and Linus in bed sheets — aren’t the kind I’m talking about here. I’m talking about the kind we all acknowledge — the kind we believe in, by second nature. Figments of our brains’ creation. Ideas. Invisible infidels. Things that don’t really exist. No issue gets to the point of what I am saying better than illegal immigration. Not because illegal immigrants are ghosts (though perhaps in a legal sense they may be), but because ghosts are what the illegal immigration debate is ultimately about. You see, it’s not about national security, job security, or even Social Security. It’s not about racism. And it’s not even about the rule of law. In truth, it’s about all of these things. And yet it’s about none of them all at once. Because when you get right down to it, any border that requires a massive, publicly subsidized fence isn’t really a border. It’s a long, thin ghost in the desert. An imaginary line. Which is fine, in and of itself, of course. Geographical regions are abstract concepts. Every town I’ve ever lived in was defined with all the rigidity of a six-year-old saying, “Anything past that dead bird in the grass is a homerun.” But many Americans would like to militarize our ghost of a border right now. And just think about what that would mean. We would essentially be creating our own prison here. Just like that Creed song. America would be like one giant ghost of a prison with Creed music blaring through the speakers all day, just to keep Mexicans from coming here and mowing our lawns on two dollars, a pat on the back, and a pocket of string an hour. This is the kind of country in which we want to live? If, as many point out, illegal immigrants are a strain on our public services, what does that say about our public services? It says they’re involuntary. It says anyone within the confines of our borders is subjected to them. You can’t opt-in. And you can’t opt-out. And this speaks volumes for our entire political system. In a sensible world, illegal immigrants could come here, and we wouldn’t have to give them a single, solitary thing. But, unfortunately, that’s not the world we’re living in. This is ghost world now. Things are all-or-nothing here. This is what really ought to be haunting us in modern America. Not the relative insecurity of some fake, phantom border, but the freedom to move and do business within it. I don’t think many Americans realize how much this freedom is perpetually at risk. But it is, and it always will be. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
As the drumbeat for military action against Iran grows louder, some members of Congress are calling to expand the longstanding U.S. trade ban that bars American companies from investing in that nation. In fact, many war hawks in Washington are pushing for a comprehensive international embargo against Iran. The international response has been lukewarm, however, because the world needs Iranian oil. But we cannot underestimate the irrational, almost manic desire of some neoconservatives to attack Iran one way or another, even if it means crippling a major source of oil and destabilizing the worldwide economy. Make no mistake about it: Economic sanctions are acts of aggression. Sanctions increase poverty and misery among the very poorest inhabitants of targeted nations, and they breed tremendous resentment against those imposing them. But they rarely hurt the political and economic elites responsible for angering American leaders in the first place. In fact, few government policies are as destructive to our economy as the embargo. While embargoes sound like strong, punitive action, in reality they represent a failed policy that four decades of experience prove doesn't work. Conversely, economic engagement is perhaps the single most effective tool in tearing down dictatorships and spreading the message of liberty. It is important to note that economic engagement is not the same thing as foreign aid. Foreign aid, which should be abolished immediately, involves the US government spending American tax dollars to prop up other nations. Embargoes only hurt the innocent of a targeted country. While it may be difficult for the leader of an embargoed nation to get a box of American-grown rice, he will get it one way or another. For the poor peasant in the remote section of his country, however, the food will be unavailable. It is difficult to understand how denying access to food, medicine, and other products benefits anyone. Embargo advocates claim that denying people access to our products somehow creates opposition to the despised leader. The reality, though, is that hostilities are more firmly directed at America. Father Robert Sirico, a Paulist priest, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that trade relations "strengthen people's loyalties to each other and weaken government power." To imagine that we somehow can spread the message of liberty to an oppressed nation by denying them access to our people and the bounty of our prosperity is contorted at best. For more than thirty years we have embargoed Cuba in an attempt to drive Fidel Castro from power. Yet he remains in power. By contrast look at the Soviet Union, a nation we allowed our producers to engage economically. Of course the Soviet Union has collapsed. Embargoes greatly harm our citizens. As the American agricultural industry continues to develop new technology to reduce costs and increase yields, it becomes more important for farmers and ranchers to find markets outside the United States to sell their goods so they can make ends meet. By preventing our farmers and ranchers from competing in the world market, we deny them very profitable opportunities. Government meddling is always destructive to the free market; people inevitably will make wiser decisions about how to spend their money, with whom, and when, than politicians in Washington. Embargoes simply do not accomplish the ends advocates claim to desire, and are extremely harmful to the well-being of Americans. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
|||||
I was amused, as I’m sure are many others, to read about a group of education researchers involved in what is being called“The Think Tank Review Project”. Driving my laughter was the discovery that the funding for this endeavor comes from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The Board of Directors for this organization reads like a “who’s who” of NEA and Midwest Education Association executives. Evidently, the Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado will be joining forces with “Think Twice” which has already begun monitoring the Buckeye Institute, Ohio; Center of the American Experiment, Minnesota; Heartland Institute, Chicago; Wisconsin Policy Research Institute; the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Michigan; the CATO Institute; Manhattan Institute; Heritage Foundation; and others. Interestingly, topics garnering their attention are findings which support privatization in education, the very ones which the NEA fights tooth and nail to discredit publicly in the media. These include: Charter Schools and Public School Choice; Vouchers and Tuition Tax Credits; Deprofessionalization of Teaching; NCLB and Accountability/Testing; Sorting and Stratification of Opportunities; Privatization and EMOs; Education of English Language Learners; Virtual/online learning; School Funding; and Home Schooling. Because of the source of their funding and the objects of their interest, one would have to be suspicious of this group’s motivation. Furthermore, sowing the idea that traditional think tanks have little credibility among academic researchers hoists another red flag about whose interests are being served by this project. Any person who visits a think tank on the web can read the “about us” section to know what ideological agenda is being served, be it conservative or liberal. Although think tanks advance agendas, they certainly do not disguise their “ideological arguments” as research, as is suggested by co-director Kevin Welner, who, because he heads the Education and Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has his own agenda. It is laughable that Welner criticizes "think tanks" for an ideological bias, while his group accepts money from the NEA to discredit the very think tanks which discredit the education monopoly which serves the union. It is hard to believe his statement that, “The project's reviewers are independent scholars who probably do not know the source of the project's funding and are not pressured by the Great Lakes Center.” The grand unveiling of this project is so transparently disingenuous; it should be dismissed at a blink of an eye. One can only hope there are no public funds going toward this blatantly special interest endeavor…but with bridges being built to nowhere, what are the chances of that? Reference Link: Nancy
Salvato
Web Site Contact
Back to Top
|
|||||
©2004-2006 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, April 26, 2006 9:56 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
|||||
