Obama "lite" was all about messianic change - equality, fraternity and perpetual hope for all of America's citizens and non-citizens.
Now - courtesy of the financial crisis - we are getting a large dose of Obama "heavy:" bigger government and increased taxes for the wealthy. A perfect ploy to rustle up votes amongst the masses. Could Obama have been (re-)skimming through Karl Marx on his sojourn from sunny Hawaii to Chicago's South Side?
Obama seems to sincerely want to improve the lot of America's poor and its middle class. In doing so, he will not be able to prevent spreading the government's largesse to those who prefer laziness or stasis to hard work and dynamism, who prefer handouts to sweating up the success ladder like the many immigrant minorities that pass by America's poor with remarkable speed. What's more, he cannot prevent illegal immigrants and incarcerated criminals from sharing in the booty as well.
Obama clearly thrives on the adulation of the crowd, the endless accolades of the majority. Eva Peron did, as does Chavez - this seems to be the essential commonality among populist power brokers, particularly those of the left.
Obama believes, it seems, that America's capitalistic pot is static in size and structure. Tax the wealthy, spread those riches amongst the poor and voila, equality is born again. And the magician gets roses strewn in his every path for his magnificent sleight of hand.
Except that much of this fungible cash, these gifts from the god(s), will be used for TVs, for consumer items and ephemeral pleasures. They will ultimately end up in the coffers of many Chinese exporters and Asian factories, with governments who compete aggressively with us and - in the case of the Chinese - who wish us ill.
Moreover, the wealthy will transfer much of their remaining wealth to lower tax havens and countries (most of the rest of the world by now); they will be less able or motivated to open factories, invest in new projects and build American enterprises. Jobs will be lost rather than gained; salaries too will be compromised. It is a law of simple economic gravity - reduce the economic pot at the top end and this reduction will flow downwards, in a very democratic fashion.
And so the opportunities of advancement, of increased wages, bonuses and jobs for the poor and the middle classes will be substantially reduced, replaced by big government handouts, given even to those 40% of Americans who do not pay income taxes. [By contrast, it is often thought - in non-socialist circles, at least - that the most effective way to engineer responsible and participatory citizenship of all America's peoples would be to tax these 40 percent by a token amount, from 5 to 7.5%. Increased pensions, unemployment and medical insurance could be the state's side of the quid pro quo.]
Initially, Obama's popularity will soar: most people, like politicians, are short-term actors: they evaluate based only on their next week or month, not their next year or decade. And yet America's culture of entrepreneurship, her hard won individuality and success will suffer. We will become more like Old and Eastern Europe just as they both race to become like the America of old - a place where small government facilitated big individuals, where the welfare state was supplanted by democratic opportunity and capitalistic inventiveness. This was the New World where hard work could win anybody a stake in the American dream.
Obama knows better than anyone how to appeal to the masses, how to promise nirvana, how to spin an enticing web of popularity. He is a political master, a genius in grassroots motivation and organizational base building. He is the ultimate populist.
I fear though, that in spite of his inordinate intelligence, he does not yet get "Economics 101." I fear he denies the inevitable and harsh differences between all of us, including - perhaps most dangerously - the difference between America and those countries and dictators who would love to see the end of our freedoms and the demise of our greatness.
I fear we will become more like Old Europe - passive, socialist, recessive and cowardly. Ironically, large swaths of Old Europe and Eastern Europe are now trying to be more like us. They are reducing taxes, controlling big government, inspiring hard work and entrepreneurship. The Eastern Europeans in particular have learnt well history's harsh lessons of socialism, curtailment of freedoms and economic decay.
They get it; Obama does not.
Published on SlantRight
Published on The Absurd Report
Friday, October 31, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
Hunter to Hunted
As Saturday Night Live and Tina Fey have most humorously confirmed, Sarah Palin looked out every morning from her Alaskan home and could see Russia. What they failed to conversely postulate was that Obama likely looked out every morning of his remarkably well planned career and instead saw the White House, clearly illuminated and in perfect focus. Saturday Night Live has thus elucidated for the American voter a simple choice; and one they did not quite intend.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Modern Solution for Ancient Lands – Regeneration of the Biblical Dead Sea
Amid the constant turmoil and angst boiling over in Israel and the West Bank, at the center of the Middle East, lies the Dead Sea. [3] This salt-laden desert sea is rapidly diminishing in size as its source, the Jordan River, dries up: the Syrians (via the Yarmuk, a source for the Jordan), Israelis and Jordanians all draw an ever-increasing amount of water from this biblical tributary. [1]
We think of the Dead Sea as a tourist haven for spa treatments and beauty products, as a relief for psoriasis sufferers; we know about its amazing buoyancy and the factories mining its esoteric salts (its salt concentration is about 33%, compared to 3% in the Mediterranean).
What we don’t know is that this area of dangerously diminishing returns may very well provide a synergistic solution to the region’s major political, economic and environmental problems. A number of large-scale infrastructure projects - including the construction of a canal and nuclear power and desalinization plants - have the potential to transform this “dead” area into a source of life and an inspiration to all mankind. Though daunting, big problems generally require big solutions.
Cutting a 112 mile-long canal north from the Red Sea - starting at Israel’s and Jordan’s southernmost ports - to the Dead Sea, the lowest place on earth, has long been cast as a fanciful project, considered either too expensive or too fraught with insurmountable political barriers. Yet it is in reality eminently practical, feasible and cost effective, and there is plenty of private and governmental financing around if the will of decision-makers in both Jordan and Israel can be joined. [2] [5]
Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, formalized the idea of a hydropower canal connecting the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea in his 1920 book The Old New Land (Altneuland), writing already then that the 1300 foot drop would generate critical hydroelectric power. [4]
The Red Sea canal is a decades-old idea that has been recently reinvigorated by one of the world’s richest people, Israeli real estate mogul Yitzhak Tshuva, the current owner of New York’s Plaza Hotel. He describes a strip of blue water flowing 100 miles through the desert, alongside high speed trains, with waterfalls surrounded by parks and luxury hotels, bringing Israelis and Arabs together in a thriving free-trade zone. If built, this “Valley of Peace” will be the most dramatic single change ever made to the landscape of the Holy Land, employing hundreds of thousands on both sides of the border, in the bargain. [7]
The introduction of substantial quantities of (albeit salt) water into this arid area would allow additional water to percolate slowly down into its depleted aquifers, losing much of its salinity in the process. Ground water resources for the West Bank, Jordan and Israel would be crucially replenished, as well as substantial quantities of fresh water for agriculture, a source of much argument and bickering between the parties. What’s more, the diminishing Dead Sea would refill, sustaining its healing powers and its natural bounty.
The height difference between the Red and the Dead Seas could be utilized hydrostatically to further desalinate the incoming seawater as well as creating enough hydroelectric power not only to drive all the pumping stations needed for the project, but also to supply electricity to the surrounding urban and industrial areas.
As an essential complement to this project, nuclear power plants should be built as a joint-venture between Jordan and Israel, including multiple concrete and steel shells sufficiently hardened to withstand any missiles, rockets or targeted bombs. The technology exists to build just such a safe and impermeable facility, which could draw on ample supplies of saltwater for its cooling requirements.
Based far from major population centers, modern nuclear power could safely supply enough electricity to cover much of the power needs of Jordan, the West Bank, and Israel, thereby ensuring the region’s strong and permanent commitment to this project’s enduring success. With such a powerful asset on hand, mutual self-interest would cut through politics and promote the safety, security and longevity of the project. No-one apart from renegade terrorists would attempt to kill the goose that lays these golden eggs. And Israel and Jordan are both well capable of cooperatively securing the area.
Finally, huge desalinization plants for fresh water should be built on the shores of the then-full Dead Sea, drawing on cheap excess electricity (especially at night) from the nuclear power plants. The primary water resources of the region - namely The Sea of Galilee and the Yarmuk and Jordan Rivers - are mostly depleted, and the area is desperately short of water for its growing urban populations, its industries and its agriculture. Fish ponds, recreational areas, luxury hotels and artificial lakes would be developed. With shared Israeli technology, the desert could bloom again, uplifting the whole region and improving dramatically the standard of living for all its peoples, ushering in peace, stability and an economic miracle as all parties develop an irrefutable stake in and support for the success of this project. [8]
This is the glue that will bind these warring and antagonistic parties. This is the stuff our dreams should be made of: water, electricity and tourism will replace suicide bombers and hate-filled propaganda. French President Nicolas Sarkozy lauded this so called “Peace Canal” idea during his recent trip to Israel, as did Saudi Prince bin-Talal. King Abdullah, the leader of Jordan, already supports a different version of the plan. [6]
With peace and common interests thereby initiated, tourism would thrive, from Jordan’s unrivaled ruins of Petra to Bethlehem on the West Bank, from Jerusalem’s Via Dolorosa to the church at Capernaum, where Jesus preached and fed his disciples on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. A new renaissance would be ushered in as tens of million of tourists who annually visit the Eiffel Tower and the Coliseum drift eastwards across the Mediterranean to this unique and biblical land, the historical crossroads of the world’s major religions and its divided cultures, and the center, seemingly, of its current problems.
And now also, clearly, at the core of its potential solution.
We think of the Dead Sea as a tourist haven for spa treatments and beauty products, as a relief for psoriasis sufferers; we know about its amazing buoyancy and the factories mining its esoteric salts (its salt concentration is about 33%, compared to 3% in the Mediterranean).
What we don’t know is that this area of dangerously diminishing returns may very well provide a synergistic solution to the region’s major political, economic and environmental problems. A number of large-scale infrastructure projects - including the construction of a canal and nuclear power and desalinization plants - have the potential to transform this “dead” area into a source of life and an inspiration to all mankind. Though daunting, big problems generally require big solutions.
Cutting a 112 mile-long canal north from the Red Sea - starting at Israel’s and Jordan’s southernmost ports - to the Dead Sea, the lowest place on earth, has long been cast as a fanciful project, considered either too expensive or too fraught with insurmountable political barriers. Yet it is in reality eminently practical, feasible and cost effective, and there is plenty of private and governmental financing around if the will of decision-makers in both Jordan and Israel can be joined. [2] [5]
Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, formalized the idea of a hydropower canal connecting the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea in his 1920 book The Old New Land (Altneuland), writing already then that the 1300 foot drop would generate critical hydroelectric power. [4]
The Red Sea canal is a decades-old idea that has been recently reinvigorated by one of the world’s richest people, Israeli real estate mogul Yitzhak Tshuva, the current owner of New York’s Plaza Hotel. He describes a strip of blue water flowing 100 miles through the desert, alongside high speed trains, with waterfalls surrounded by parks and luxury hotels, bringing Israelis and Arabs together in a thriving free-trade zone. If built, this “Valley of Peace” will be the most dramatic single change ever made to the landscape of the Holy Land, employing hundreds of thousands on both sides of the border, in the bargain. [7]
The introduction of substantial quantities of (albeit salt) water into this arid area would allow additional water to percolate slowly down into its depleted aquifers, losing much of its salinity in the process. Ground water resources for the West Bank, Jordan and Israel would be crucially replenished, as well as substantial quantities of fresh water for agriculture, a source of much argument and bickering between the parties. What’s more, the diminishing Dead Sea would refill, sustaining its healing powers and its natural bounty.
The height difference between the Red and the Dead Seas could be utilized hydrostatically to further desalinate the incoming seawater as well as creating enough hydroelectric power not only to drive all the pumping stations needed for the project, but also to supply electricity to the surrounding urban and industrial areas.
As an essential complement to this project, nuclear power plants should be built as a joint-venture between Jordan and Israel, including multiple concrete and steel shells sufficiently hardened to withstand any missiles, rockets or targeted bombs. The technology exists to build just such a safe and impermeable facility, which could draw on ample supplies of saltwater for its cooling requirements.
Based far from major population centers, modern nuclear power could safely supply enough electricity to cover much of the power needs of Jordan, the West Bank, and Israel, thereby ensuring the region’s strong and permanent commitment to this project’s enduring success. With such a powerful asset on hand, mutual self-interest would cut through politics and promote the safety, security and longevity of the project. No-one apart from renegade terrorists would attempt to kill the goose that lays these golden eggs. And Israel and Jordan are both well capable of cooperatively securing the area.
Finally, huge desalinization plants for fresh water should be built on the shores of the then-full Dead Sea, drawing on cheap excess electricity (especially at night) from the nuclear power plants. The primary water resources of the region - namely The Sea of Galilee and the Yarmuk and Jordan Rivers - are mostly depleted, and the area is desperately short of water for its growing urban populations, its industries and its agriculture. Fish ponds, recreational areas, luxury hotels and artificial lakes would be developed. With shared Israeli technology, the desert could bloom again, uplifting the whole region and improving dramatically the standard of living for all its peoples, ushering in peace, stability and an economic miracle as all parties develop an irrefutable stake in and support for the success of this project. [8]
This is the glue that will bind these warring and antagonistic parties. This is the stuff our dreams should be made of: water, electricity and tourism will replace suicide bombers and hate-filled propaganda. French President Nicolas Sarkozy lauded this so called “Peace Canal” idea during his recent trip to Israel, as did Saudi Prince bin-Talal. King Abdullah, the leader of Jordan, already supports a different version of the plan. [6]
With peace and common interests thereby initiated, tourism would thrive, from Jordan’s unrivaled ruins of Petra to Bethlehem on the West Bank, from Jerusalem’s Via Dolorosa to the church at Capernaum, where Jesus preached and fed his disciples on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. A new renaissance would be ushered in as tens of million of tourists who annually visit the Eiffel Tower and the Coliseum drift eastwards across the Mediterranean to this unique and biblical land, the historical crossroads of the world’s major religions and its divided cultures, and the center, seemingly, of its current problems.
And now also, clearly, at the core of its potential solution.
VALLEY OF PEACE
Footnotes:
[1] In the 1930s the inflow of fresh water from the Jordan River (about 1300 million cubic meters per year) equaled the rate of evaporation. Today the inflow is less than a third of that due to upstream diversion. Dead Sea Canal.
The Friends of the Earth Middle East talk of the Jordan River as becoming “little more than an open sewage channel.” In what seems to be a particular exaggeration they claim only 5% of the Jordan’s flow reaches the Dead Sea. Red Sea Canal plan "threat"
The Dead Sea’s water level has dropped some 82 feet over the past century, reducing its surface area considerably at the same time. Sink holes have started to appear in the area.
Diverting Red Sea to Save Dead Sea Could Create Environmental Crisis.
[2] Earlier this year, the World Bank finished a series of public hearings on a Red Sea Canal plan. The say the cost would be U.S. $5 billion, but are concerned with two threats: first, earthquakes may flood the valley with seawater, thus polluting the groundwater as well; and second, mixing of the Dead and Red Sea waters may produce unknown results. They are projected to be starting a U.S. $15 million feasibility study this month.
Red Sea Canal plan "threat"
Diverting Red Sea to Save Dead Sea Could Create Environmental Crisis
William Allen proposed in 1855 a canal-waterway that would connect the three bodies of water bordering the Holy Land, namely the Mediterranean, the Dead and the Red Seas. He believed at the time that it would be cheaper than the projected Suez Canal.
The Red Sea and the Mediterranean Dead Sea Canals Project
[3] A million years ago or so a major earthquake created the Syrian-African Rift Valley stretching through the Red Sea on into Africa and its lakes in Kenya, Tanzania and Malawi. The Dead Sea sank deep into the valley and was deprived of its natural outflow to the sea. Dead Sea Canal
[4] The 1300-foot drop would also be suitable for reverse osmosis desalination, a process that uses the force of the drop to push seawater through an artificial membrane creating even more fresh water.
Dead Sea Canal
[5] Others have postulated a canal between the Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Galilee, whereby the “potential difference” in height between these two seas would be converted to energy by means of a hydroelectric station. The energy this produced would be further used to desalinate the seawater. Building the Wrong Canal
[6] Jordan is mulling over a cheaper alternative to the Red Sea – Dead Sea Canal. They are considering building a desalination plant in Aqaba, on the Red Sea shore and pumping the water through pipes to Amman, the capital. An Alternative to the Red-Dead Canal. Furthermore, if the canal were to be realized they prefer it to be located on their side of the border with Israel, which is sure to be a “political football.” Jordan mulling cheaper alternative to Red Sea-Dead Sea canal
[7] Tshuva said he and other leading Israel financiers could foot the entire bill for the canal, desalination plants and hydroelectric installations (he does not talk of nuclear power plants). He talked of a cost of some $3.3 billion, which by some counts seems too conservative. The total project, according to Tshuva, could create as many as 200,000 hotel rooms and a million much needed jobs. Israeli billionaire pushes for Red Sea-Dead Sea canal
http://mideastpeace.meetup.com/33/messages/boards/thread/4726385
[8] An alternative to the Red-Dead Sea Canal has been proposed. Called the “Peace Canal”, this is an international project for conveying water from Turkey via Syria and the Golan Heights, providing fresh water solutions for Syria, Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). The plan would bring 2-3 billion cubic meters of water per annum, more than that which Israel and the PNA currently use every year. The energy generated by the fall in height down to the northern Jordan River (that feeds into the Sea of Galilee) would be used to transport the water along the 450-mile route. The overflow not needed by the participants would be used to refill the Dead Sea. Apart from reviving the Jordan River, the Israelis would restock the mountain and coastal aquifers underlying both Israel and the PNA. The battle over water resources is one of the main impediments to resolving the Middle East conflict and may now potentially be a primary solution. The economic benefits will also reduce the chances of another failed peace agreement, bringing the intractable Syrians on board as well. Israeli Paper Reports Israel-Syria "Peace Canal" Proposal on Water Issue.
Posted on The Absurd Report: http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2008/modern-solution-for-ancient-lands-%E2%80%93-regeneration-of-the-biblical-dead-sea-by-leslie-j-sacks/
Posted on NeoConservative Christian Right: http://nccr.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5F8571F504717D9D!2083.entry
Posted on Theta Healing DNA: http://thetahealingdna.com/2008/10/10/modern-solution-for-ancient-lands-%E2%80%93-regeneration-of-the-biblical-dead-sea-by-leslie-j-sacks/
Footnotes:
[1] In the 1930s the inflow of fresh water from the Jordan River (about 1300 million cubic meters per year) equaled the rate of evaporation. Today the inflow is less than a third of that due to upstream diversion. Dead Sea Canal.
The Friends of the Earth Middle East talk of the Jordan River as becoming “little more than an open sewage channel.” In what seems to be a particular exaggeration they claim only 5% of the Jordan’s flow reaches the Dead Sea. Red Sea Canal plan "threat"
The Dead Sea’s water level has dropped some 82 feet over the past century, reducing its surface area considerably at the same time. Sink holes have started to appear in the area.
Diverting Red Sea to Save Dead Sea Could Create Environmental Crisis.
[2] Earlier this year, the World Bank finished a series of public hearings on a Red Sea Canal plan. The say the cost would be U.S. $5 billion, but are concerned with two threats: first, earthquakes may flood the valley with seawater, thus polluting the groundwater as well; and second, mixing of the Dead and Red Sea waters may produce unknown results. They are projected to be starting a U.S. $15 million feasibility study this month.
Red Sea Canal plan "threat"
Diverting Red Sea to Save Dead Sea Could Create Environmental Crisis
William Allen proposed in 1855 a canal-waterway that would connect the three bodies of water bordering the Holy Land, namely the Mediterranean, the Dead and the Red Seas. He believed at the time that it would be cheaper than the projected Suez Canal.
The Red Sea and the Mediterranean Dead Sea Canals Project
[3] A million years ago or so a major earthquake created the Syrian-African Rift Valley stretching through the Red Sea on into Africa and its lakes in Kenya, Tanzania and Malawi. The Dead Sea sank deep into the valley and was deprived of its natural outflow to the sea. Dead Sea Canal
[4] The 1300-foot drop would also be suitable for reverse osmosis desalination, a process that uses the force of the drop to push seawater through an artificial membrane creating even more fresh water.
Dead Sea Canal
[5] Others have postulated a canal between the Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Galilee, whereby the “potential difference” in height between these two seas would be converted to energy by means of a hydroelectric station. The energy this produced would be further used to desalinate the seawater. Building the Wrong Canal
[6] Jordan is mulling over a cheaper alternative to the Red Sea – Dead Sea Canal. They are considering building a desalination plant in Aqaba, on the Red Sea shore and pumping the water through pipes to Amman, the capital. An Alternative to the Red-Dead Canal. Furthermore, if the canal were to be realized they prefer it to be located on their side of the border with Israel, which is sure to be a “political football.” Jordan mulling cheaper alternative to Red Sea-Dead Sea canal
[7] Tshuva said he and other leading Israel financiers could foot the entire bill for the canal, desalination plants and hydroelectric installations (he does not talk of nuclear power plants). He talked of a cost of some $3.3 billion, which by some counts seems too conservative. The total project, according to Tshuva, could create as many as 200,000 hotel rooms and a million much needed jobs. Israeli billionaire pushes for Red Sea-Dead Sea canal
http://mideastpeace.meetup.com/33/messages/boards/thread/4726385
[8] An alternative to the Red-Dead Sea Canal has been proposed. Called the “Peace Canal”, this is an international project for conveying water from Turkey via Syria and the Golan Heights, providing fresh water solutions for Syria, Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). The plan would bring 2-3 billion cubic meters of water per annum, more than that which Israel and the PNA currently use every year. The energy generated by the fall in height down to the northern Jordan River (that feeds into the Sea of Galilee) would be used to transport the water along the 450-mile route. The overflow not needed by the participants would be used to refill the Dead Sea. Apart from reviving the Jordan River, the Israelis would restock the mountain and coastal aquifers underlying both Israel and the PNA. The battle over water resources is one of the main impediments to resolving the Middle East conflict and may now potentially be a primary solution. The economic benefits will also reduce the chances of another failed peace agreement, bringing the intractable Syrians on board as well. Israeli Paper Reports Israel-Syria "Peace Canal" Proposal on Water Issue.
Posted on The Absurd Report: http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2008/modern-solution-for-ancient-lands-%E2%80%93-regeneration-of-the-biblical-dead-sea-by-leslie-j-sacks/
Posted on NeoConservative Christian Right: http://nccr.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5F8571F504717D9D!2083.entry
Posted on Theta Healing DNA: http://thetahealingdna.com/2008/10/10/modern-solution-for-ancient-lands-%E2%80%93-regeneration-of-the-biblical-dead-sea-by-leslie-j-sacks/
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Obama and Palin – A Match (Almost) Made in Heaven
Barack Obama is perfectly suited in the running for president. He has the ability to both energize and grow the grassroots base, to motivate voters with his superb eloquence and confidence. As a result, he has broken for all time the racial glass ceiling on viable presidential candidates, an accomplishment for which America should be grateful. He will, based on many current polls, quite likely succeed in his quest for the presidency.
On the other hand, Obama, according to a good portion of the country, is not yet experienced enough, and does not yet have the depth of judgment, to be president. Either way, perhaps the best argument for a McCain presidency is the (consummately American) end of divided government. Given the Democrats’ control of both houses of Congress, a Republican president will provide a semblance of proportional representation and help ensure the checks and balances that are so central to our vigorous democracy.
Interestingly, Sarah Palin--the focus of much of Obama’s current defensive attention--is an unusual case for America’s feminists. Ms. Palin has singlehandedly, in a matter of weeks, made the feminist movement largely defunct. Before then, much of the feminist movement was rooted in the left-wing: pro-abortion and anti-Republican, often animated by an anti-male, anti-religious fervor.
Palin is the opposite: simple, patriotic, both gun-toting and feminine (horrors!). She is from a small town, an outdoorswoman, with a union-card holding husband. She is committed to religion, family values and independence. She is certainly not the Dolce Gabbana-pants wearing, urbane intellectual from Greenwich Village or San Francisco, steeped in all-is-relative Harvard political correctness.
And yet, she has captured the media’s imagination and broken the (other) glass ceiling more effectively than any other woman to date. She has done so from primitive Alaska, small town Wasilla, with a family of five, happily married with conservative values – in short, she is an anathema to traditional feminists. That is why they hate and despise her. She stands for everything they are not and yet she has achieved everything they could not. And they will never forgive her for making them irrelevant, passé, an odd historical footnote.
Women have arrived – they are equal, they can and may indeed be Vice-President, lipstick and all. And who knows, maybe one day (God willing!) even president.
Posted on SlantRight.com: http://www.slantright.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1398
Posted on The Absurd Report: http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2008/obama-and-palin-%E2%80%93-a-match-almost-made-in-heaven-by-leslie-j-sacks/
On the other hand, Obama, according to a good portion of the country, is not yet experienced enough, and does not yet have the depth of judgment, to be president. Either way, perhaps the best argument for a McCain presidency is the (consummately American) end of divided government. Given the Democrats’ control of both houses of Congress, a Republican president will provide a semblance of proportional representation and help ensure the checks and balances that are so central to our vigorous democracy.
Interestingly, Sarah Palin--the focus of much of Obama’s current defensive attention--is an unusual case for America’s feminists. Ms. Palin has singlehandedly, in a matter of weeks, made the feminist movement largely defunct. Before then, much of the feminist movement was rooted in the left-wing: pro-abortion and anti-Republican, often animated by an anti-male, anti-religious fervor.
Palin is the opposite: simple, patriotic, both gun-toting and feminine (horrors!). She is from a small town, an outdoorswoman, with a union-card holding husband. She is committed to religion, family values and independence. She is certainly not the Dolce Gabbana-pants wearing, urbane intellectual from Greenwich Village or San Francisco, steeped in all-is-relative Harvard political correctness.
And yet, she has captured the media’s imagination and broken the (other) glass ceiling more effectively than any other woman to date. She has done so from primitive Alaska, small town Wasilla, with a family of five, happily married with conservative values – in short, she is an anathema to traditional feminists. That is why they hate and despise her. She stands for everything they are not and yet she has achieved everything they could not. And they will never forgive her for making them irrelevant, passé, an odd historical footnote.
Women have arrived – they are equal, they can and may indeed be Vice-President, lipstick and all. And who knows, maybe one day (God willing!) even president.
Posted on SlantRight.com: http://www.slantright.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1398
Posted on The Absurd Report: http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2008/obama-and-palin-%E2%80%93-a-match-almost-made-in-heaven-by-leslie-j-sacks/
Monday, August 25, 2008
Forcing the Oil Price Lower
As even American consumers are learning, oil is money; less well known is how this money feeds Saudi Arabia and its worldwide network of Madrasses, those fundamentalist schools propagating Islamic Radicalism. Oil money also underpins the Iranian regime and its active support of terrorism via Hamas and Hezbollah.
Paying five dollars per gallon versus four dollars per gallon channels an extra $100 billion of disposable income to these radical Islamist regimes, keeping them awash in even more petro-dollars for their many nefarious schemes.
Why don’t we pay ourselves that extra dollar, that extra 100 billion?
If we add a $1 tax for every gallon dispensed in the USA, then, counter-intuitively, the ultimate price of gas would in fact be forced to drop: First, the U.S. government would have an extra $150 billion with which to increase alternative energy funding, expand safe and environmentally-friendly oil and gas exploration, as well as nuclear and hydroelectric power stations; all crucial contributors to our vital energy independence. This windfall could further fund Social Security and Medicare and reduce income taxes and our national debt, thus endearing this revolutionary tax to Democrat and Republican consumers alike. Even with a $1 tax hike we would still be paying a third less per gallon than all of Europe. It’s the fairest of all taxes as one pays only for what one uses.
Alternatively, and perhaps more palatably for the American consumer, this gas tax could directly reduce sales or property taxes. Thus we would tax that which is detrimental to the environment and our society and give relief where it counts.
Second - and most importantly - this tax would discourage and depress domestic oil consumption substantially. The shock and size of the tax would likely produce a modest glut of oil worldwide, reducing the price of oil in world markets. This consequential fall in the price of oil would critically reduce by tens (and possibly hundreds) of billions of dollars the blood monies flowing to terrorist-supporting states; American coffers, on the other hand, would be filled instead. Ironically, then, some or all of the tax would effectively be paid by Iran and Saudi Arabia, by Venezuela and the OPEC cartel. The American consumer will thus be actively financing freedom instead of terror.
There has been little public discussion of this eminently rational project, truly an honest and elegant solution to arguably our nation’s most pressing concern. The myriad negative externalities associated with oil consumption, terror financing, higher military spending, environmental degradation, among others, should realistically be factored into the price of a gallon of gasoline. While difficult, it should not be impossible to sell this concept to the American public if the consumer understands that when the cost of terror is applied to the price of oil in the form of a transparent tax, billions of dollars will be removed from terror states and to be reinvested in our economy, our country and our energy independence. We will thereby reduce the ability of our enemies to blackmail us, to influence Washington and peddle their agendas worldwide. Call it a “redemption tax.”
Madrassas and terror organizations will run short of funds. Decreasing gasoline consumption with a concomitant increase in alternative energy production will further depress the price of oil, perhaps back to $3/gallon where we started, or even lower.
When gasoline is burnt it emits pollutants. Higher gas taxes as part of a broader carbon tax are the most direct and honest policy to address our environmental concerns. Moreover, the tax would reduce road congestion, gridlock and the inordinate waste of time most of us spend on the highways, quite possibly now costing us another 50 billion dollars or more in decreased productivity. Substantial reductions in road rage and frustration therapy would, I’m sure, be much appreciated by our psychological fraternity.
Consumption taxes are always better than income taxes; the latter discourage savings and investment. This direct tax, by common consensus, would be more favorable to economic growth, encouraging the search for gasoline substitutes and fuel-efficient cars, and more research and development spending on alternative fuels.
Alan Greenspan, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has called for higher gas taxes, noting, in one of his more lucid moments, “It’s a national security issue.” The gas tax is an efficient economic policy that is also an effective foreign policy. It will give America more clout as falling gas prices will tilt power and influence back toward the world’s democracies and away from the oil producing autocracies. Higher gas taxes may not be attractive. However, the alternatives are certainly far worse.
Finally we need to set a fixed floor price for gas - perhaps at say $100 per barrel - that guarantees to all gas as well as alternative fuel investors, researchers and developers that this minimum floor price can be relied upon to ensure energy competitiveness over the long term. Any drop in the oil price below that floor level can be taxed to make up the difference, the revenue thus generated perhaps being allocated to reducing our exploding national debt. Many venture capitalists and developers of new oil fields and alternative energy are reticent to invest what it takes to bring vast new energy resources to fruition for fear that a collapsing oil price will destroy their viability. The floor cap does away with all these impediments and guarantees price stability (on the downside) for all levels in the energy cycle.
We need to plan ahead. To phase in the gas tax would be the softer political approach but would dilute the “shock value” which ultimately will cause the price at the pump to drop by more than the tax increase itself. Instead of us subsidizing world terrorism and its associated anti-American hate-fest, this tax will indirectly ensure our energy independence, a brighter economic future, and ultimately the strengthening of our freedoms. Instead of economic collapse driven by ever increasing gas prices (as predicted by our salivating enemies, including Osama bin Laden), we will be initiating our rebirth as a great and independent nation and a light unto the world.
Posted on SlantRight.com
Time to Change our Oil Policy by Bernard Munk
Raise the Gas Tax - N. Gregory Mankiw (WSJ)
Paying five dollars per gallon versus four dollars per gallon channels an extra $100 billion of disposable income to these radical Islamist regimes, keeping them awash in even more petro-dollars for their many nefarious schemes.
Why don’t we pay ourselves that extra dollar, that extra 100 billion?
If we add a $1 tax for every gallon dispensed in the USA, then, counter-intuitively, the ultimate price of gas would in fact be forced to drop: First, the U.S. government would have an extra $150 billion with which to increase alternative energy funding, expand safe and environmentally-friendly oil and gas exploration, as well as nuclear and hydroelectric power stations; all crucial contributors to our vital energy independence. This windfall could further fund Social Security and Medicare and reduce income taxes and our national debt, thus endearing this revolutionary tax to Democrat and Republican consumers alike. Even with a $1 tax hike we would still be paying a third less per gallon than all of Europe. It’s the fairest of all taxes as one pays only for what one uses.
Alternatively, and perhaps more palatably for the American consumer, this gas tax could directly reduce sales or property taxes. Thus we would tax that which is detrimental to the environment and our society and give relief where it counts.
Second - and most importantly - this tax would discourage and depress domestic oil consumption substantially. The shock and size of the tax would likely produce a modest glut of oil worldwide, reducing the price of oil in world markets. This consequential fall in the price of oil would critically reduce by tens (and possibly hundreds) of billions of dollars the blood monies flowing to terrorist-supporting states; American coffers, on the other hand, would be filled instead. Ironically, then, some or all of the tax would effectively be paid by Iran and Saudi Arabia, by Venezuela and the OPEC cartel. The American consumer will thus be actively financing freedom instead of terror.
There has been little public discussion of this eminently rational project, truly an honest and elegant solution to arguably our nation’s most pressing concern. The myriad negative externalities associated with oil consumption, terror financing, higher military spending, environmental degradation, among others, should realistically be factored into the price of a gallon of gasoline. While difficult, it should not be impossible to sell this concept to the American public if the consumer understands that when the cost of terror is applied to the price of oil in the form of a transparent tax, billions of dollars will be removed from terror states and to be reinvested in our economy, our country and our energy independence. We will thereby reduce the ability of our enemies to blackmail us, to influence Washington and peddle their agendas worldwide. Call it a “redemption tax.”
Madrassas and terror organizations will run short of funds. Decreasing gasoline consumption with a concomitant increase in alternative energy production will further depress the price of oil, perhaps back to $3/gallon where we started, or even lower.
When gasoline is burnt it emits pollutants. Higher gas taxes as part of a broader carbon tax are the most direct and honest policy to address our environmental concerns. Moreover, the tax would reduce road congestion, gridlock and the inordinate waste of time most of us spend on the highways, quite possibly now costing us another 50 billion dollars or more in decreased productivity. Substantial reductions in road rage and frustration therapy would, I’m sure, be much appreciated by our psychological fraternity.
Consumption taxes are always better than income taxes; the latter discourage savings and investment. This direct tax, by common consensus, would be more favorable to economic growth, encouraging the search for gasoline substitutes and fuel-efficient cars, and more research and development spending on alternative fuels.
Alan Greenspan, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has called for higher gas taxes, noting, in one of his more lucid moments, “It’s a national security issue.” The gas tax is an efficient economic policy that is also an effective foreign policy. It will give America more clout as falling gas prices will tilt power and influence back toward the world’s democracies and away from the oil producing autocracies. Higher gas taxes may not be attractive. However, the alternatives are certainly far worse.
Finally we need to set a fixed floor price for gas - perhaps at say $100 per barrel - that guarantees to all gas as well as alternative fuel investors, researchers and developers that this minimum floor price can be relied upon to ensure energy competitiveness over the long term. Any drop in the oil price below that floor level can be taxed to make up the difference, the revenue thus generated perhaps being allocated to reducing our exploding national debt. Many venture capitalists and developers of new oil fields and alternative energy are reticent to invest what it takes to bring vast new energy resources to fruition for fear that a collapsing oil price will destroy their viability. The floor cap does away with all these impediments and guarantees price stability (on the downside) for all levels in the energy cycle.
We need to plan ahead. To phase in the gas tax would be the softer political approach but would dilute the “shock value” which ultimately will cause the price at the pump to drop by more than the tax increase itself. Instead of us subsidizing world terrorism and its associated anti-American hate-fest, this tax will indirectly ensure our energy independence, a brighter economic future, and ultimately the strengthening of our freedoms. Instead of economic collapse driven by ever increasing gas prices (as predicted by our salivating enemies, including Osama bin Laden), we will be initiating our rebirth as a great and independent nation and a light unto the world.
Posted on SlantRight.com
Time to Change our Oil Policy by Bernard Munk
Raise the Gas Tax - N. Gregory Mankiw (WSJ)
Monday, August 18, 2008
Lest We Forget - Bush as the Consummate Democrat!
Long before Bush Junior was the apple of the Republican Party’s eye, for Bill Clinton and his supporters Saddam Hussein was a priority. They waxed eloquent over both the moral turpitude of this nefarious dictator as well as the international community’s obligation to end his rule and diffuse his threats.
Clinton stated unequivocally in early November 1998 that “Iraqis deserve and desire freedom.” He then signed the Iraq Liberation Act authorizing Saddam’s overthrow. This initiative was supported unanimously in the Senate and by a similarly noteworthy majority of 360 to 38 in the House.
On December 16th, 1998, Clinton--a man liberals revered almost as much as they hate Bush (after all, “Bush lied and our soldiers died”)--presented a powerful plea to the world and the American people. Confirming a four day bombing campaign over Iraq, Clinton argued:
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons. . . . Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
Vice President Al Gore stated during an interview with CNN’s Larry King:
You allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons. How many people is he going to kill with such weapons? . . . We are not going to allow him to succeed
Nor did Democratic opposition to Saddam’s Iraq stop at the White House door. A significant group of U.S. Senators including notable Democrat Carl Levin, Tom Daschle and John Kerry wrote to Clinton pressuring him to “respond effectively” to the “threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its WMD programs.”
The subsequent 4-day Operation Desert Fox failed to dissuade Saddam from his WMD program. Meanwhile, Saddam sized the opportunity to renew his crackdown on any opposition within Iraq. The U.N.’s Oil-for-Food program was also an ongoing failure: Iraqis continued to starve while Saddam built ever more palaces. Saddam skimmed off over 20 billion dollars from the program, much of which found its way into the pockets of his French, German and Russian suppliers. (Small wonder these countries were loathe to confront Saddam in the run-up to the current Iraq War.)
In the mid 1990’s then Joint Chiefs of Staff head Colin Powell developed a plan for a ground invasion of Iraq. In early 1999, the Clinton administration studied a variety of plans to overthrow Saddam’s regime. Saddam’s refusal to re-admit the U.N. weapons inspectors provoked U.N. Resolution 1284, which demanded a new inspection regime and set the U.N. (and, by practical implication, the US and Great Britain) on a collision course with Saddam.
It is often overlooked that when Bush took office in January 2001 the United States had already been at war with Iraq for over 10 years, since the first Gulf War. The United Nations had already approved the military and diplomatic framework to locate and destroy WMD remaining in Iraq, to prevent Saddam from secretly developing further WMD and to protect the Kurds in the North and the Shias in the South from his genocidal dictatorship.
By this time Saddam had killed (by conservative estimates) more than one million of his citizens, brutalizing many more in the process; by using chemical weapons during the horrific Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988, he helped cause the death of even more Iranians. He also used chemical weapons against Iraq’s Kurdish population to obliterate any remaining resistance in the north. In the south, Saddam dealt with a restive (and majority) Shia population by diverting tributaries in the estuaries and marshlands of the unique Shatt Al-Arab delta system, devastating the economic life and traditions of the Shia who had lived there for centuries.
Despite Saddam’s well-known crimes, the tipping point for most of America’s political class was September 11, 2001. In an interview with Dan Rather two days after 9/11, Hillary Clinton presented a determined stance:
“Every nation has to be either for us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.”
When Bush, strangely slow in rising to the challenge, later repeated Hillary Clinton’s words and sentiments, he was castigated by the world as a warmonger.
Along with Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, Saddam’s Iraq had been clearly identified as a Class-A supporter of terrorism. The Clinton administration had often cited Saddam’s ties to terrorist groups, including Hamas, the PLO, Black September, Arafat’s personal guard (Force 17) and Islamic Jihad. For many years, Saddam had provided a substantial reward for every family of a Palestinian suicide bomber. The CIA confirmed in late 2002 (in their report “Iraqi Support for Terrorism”) that:
“Iraq continues to be a safe haven, transit point, or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States. Saddam’s intelligence service supported financially Ansar al-Islam whose members were being trained in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.” (New Yorker, March 2002)
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of al-Qaeda’s top operators found safe harbor in Iraq.
One must remember that over the prior two decades Saddam had not only invaded Iran, but had also occupied the oil rich country of Kuwait, devastating its financial and cultural institutions (not to mention its citizens). Saddam’s reign of terror was the most effective killing machine the Middle East has ever known.
United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) had already detailed Saddam’s extensive biological weapons program in 1995. Thereafter Iraq claimed to have destroyed its substantial stockpile. Yet this was never independently confirmed. The French, German, British and Japanese intelligence services all believed in the high likelihood of remaining WMD stockpiles and mothballed programs that could be re-instigated at will.
We now know these fears were exaggerated, in part by Saddam’s own extensive evasions and bravado, in part by activist Iraqi exiles and opposition leaders. Bush’s inference, it reasonably seems, reflected a consensus of local and international assessments on Iraqi WMD, including numerous Senators and spokespeople from the Democratic Party.
In September of 2002, Democrat Charles Schumer convincingly stated:
“Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations . . . make him a terrible danger to the people of the United States.”
Hillary Clinton too waxed eloquent:
“My position is very clear. The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s WMD’s.”
So did John Edwards:
“Every day [Saddam] gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.”
And even the irascible Howard Dean:
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the U.S. and our allies.”
A majority of democratic Senators (including John Kerry) and 81 democratic Congressmen authorized Bush “to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.”
Joseph Biden (Democrat) summarized the Party’s consensus at the time when he said,
“Saddam is in material breach. . . . The legitimacy of the Security Council is at stake, (and if) the Security Council does not call for the use of force, I think we have little option but to act with a larger group of willing nations, if possible, and alone if we must.”
Later claims of Bush’s trickery and lies ignore the fact-based position Bush took in reinforcing prior Clintonian affirmations on the subject of Saddam’s threat and the necessity of his removal. In a House debate from October 2002, Nancy Pelosi categorically stated:
“Yes… (Saddam) has chemical weapons. He has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons.”
There was really very little that the “warmongers” Bush or Cheney could add.
To remind the Democrats of their pronouncements on the subject of Saddam Hussein would be, to use Al Gore’s inimitable sound bite, “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Operation Iraqi Freedom started on March 21, 2003. The WMD stockpiles were nowhere to be found. However, David Kay, the director of the Iraqi Survey Group, confirmed finding dozens of WMD–related program activities and significant amounts of equipment previously concealed from UNSCOM inspectors. There are some who to this day believe some stockpiles were moved to Syria prior to the outbreak of hostilities.
Kay claimed with conviction that “the world is far safer with the….removal of Saddam.” He furthermore concluded that Saddam and his cohorts were willing to sell WMD know-how to the highest bidder once sanctions were removed and that Saddam viewed WMD as the key to his future power.
Those who are bitter about Bush’s decision to remove Saddam do not generally concern themselves with the likely consequences of leaving this brutal dictator in place. All other options had, to that point, failed. One just has to imagine what Saddam’s resources would have become with today’s runaway oil prices. Bush may ultimately have had little alternative than to go to war, considering the groundswell of pressure all around him, including a majority of the Democratic Party.
George Bush said to Bob Woodward in 2004: “My job is to secure America.” President Clinton had stated with appropriate insight six years earlier:
Let’s imagine the future. What if [Saddam] refuses to comply, and we fail to act,...Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.
It does seem, in conclusion then, that George Bush was merely extending the Clintonian philosophy. And if Bush was not in power, in September 2001, then indeed, most likely, it is reasonable to assume the leading Democrat in power would have gone to war, a war that may or may not have been prosecuted more efficiently. But war it would have been.
Published on The Absurd Report: http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2008/lest-we-forget-bush-as-the-consummate-democrat-by-leslie-j-sacks/
New Yorker article The Great Terror: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/03/25/020325fa_FACT1?printable=true
Clinton stated unequivocally in early November 1998 that “Iraqis deserve and desire freedom.” He then signed the Iraq Liberation Act authorizing Saddam’s overthrow. This initiative was supported unanimously in the Senate and by a similarly noteworthy majority of 360 to 38 in the House.
On December 16th, 1998, Clinton--a man liberals revered almost as much as they hate Bush (after all, “Bush lied and our soldiers died”)--presented a powerful plea to the world and the American people. Confirming a four day bombing campaign over Iraq, Clinton argued:
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons. . . . Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
Vice President Al Gore stated during an interview with CNN’s Larry King:
You allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons. How many people is he going to kill with such weapons? . . . We are not going to allow him to succeed
Nor did Democratic opposition to Saddam’s Iraq stop at the White House door. A significant group of U.S. Senators including notable Democrat Carl Levin, Tom Daschle and John Kerry wrote to Clinton pressuring him to “respond effectively” to the “threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its WMD programs.”
The subsequent 4-day Operation Desert Fox failed to dissuade Saddam from his WMD program. Meanwhile, Saddam sized the opportunity to renew his crackdown on any opposition within Iraq. The U.N.’s Oil-for-Food program was also an ongoing failure: Iraqis continued to starve while Saddam built ever more palaces. Saddam skimmed off over 20 billion dollars from the program, much of which found its way into the pockets of his French, German and Russian suppliers. (Small wonder these countries were loathe to confront Saddam in the run-up to the current Iraq War.)
In the mid 1990’s then Joint Chiefs of Staff head Colin Powell developed a plan for a ground invasion of Iraq. In early 1999, the Clinton administration studied a variety of plans to overthrow Saddam’s regime. Saddam’s refusal to re-admit the U.N. weapons inspectors provoked U.N. Resolution 1284, which demanded a new inspection regime and set the U.N. (and, by practical implication, the US and Great Britain) on a collision course with Saddam.
It is often overlooked that when Bush took office in January 2001 the United States had already been at war with Iraq for over 10 years, since the first Gulf War. The United Nations had already approved the military and diplomatic framework to locate and destroy WMD remaining in Iraq, to prevent Saddam from secretly developing further WMD and to protect the Kurds in the North and the Shias in the South from his genocidal dictatorship.
By this time Saddam had killed (by conservative estimates) more than one million of his citizens, brutalizing many more in the process; by using chemical weapons during the horrific Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988, he helped cause the death of even more Iranians. He also used chemical weapons against Iraq’s Kurdish population to obliterate any remaining resistance in the north. In the south, Saddam dealt with a restive (and majority) Shia population by diverting tributaries in the estuaries and marshlands of the unique Shatt Al-Arab delta system, devastating the economic life and traditions of the Shia who had lived there for centuries.
Despite Saddam’s well-known crimes, the tipping point for most of America’s political class was September 11, 2001. In an interview with Dan Rather two days after 9/11, Hillary Clinton presented a determined stance:
“Every nation has to be either for us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.”
When Bush, strangely slow in rising to the challenge, later repeated Hillary Clinton’s words and sentiments, he was castigated by the world as a warmonger.
Along with Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, Saddam’s Iraq had been clearly identified as a Class-A supporter of terrorism. The Clinton administration had often cited Saddam’s ties to terrorist groups, including Hamas, the PLO, Black September, Arafat’s personal guard (Force 17) and Islamic Jihad. For many years, Saddam had provided a substantial reward for every family of a Palestinian suicide bomber. The CIA confirmed in late 2002 (in their report “Iraqi Support for Terrorism”) that:
“Iraq continues to be a safe haven, transit point, or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States. Saddam’s intelligence service supported financially Ansar al-Islam whose members were being trained in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.” (New Yorker, March 2002)
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of al-Qaeda’s top operators found safe harbor in Iraq.
One must remember that over the prior two decades Saddam had not only invaded Iran, but had also occupied the oil rich country of Kuwait, devastating its financial and cultural institutions (not to mention its citizens). Saddam’s reign of terror was the most effective killing machine the Middle East has ever known.
United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) had already detailed Saddam’s extensive biological weapons program in 1995. Thereafter Iraq claimed to have destroyed its substantial stockpile. Yet this was never independently confirmed. The French, German, British and Japanese intelligence services all believed in the high likelihood of remaining WMD stockpiles and mothballed programs that could be re-instigated at will.
We now know these fears were exaggerated, in part by Saddam’s own extensive evasions and bravado, in part by activist Iraqi exiles and opposition leaders. Bush’s inference, it reasonably seems, reflected a consensus of local and international assessments on Iraqi WMD, including numerous Senators and spokespeople from the Democratic Party.
In September of 2002, Democrat Charles Schumer convincingly stated:
“Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations . . . make him a terrible danger to the people of the United States.”
Hillary Clinton too waxed eloquent:
“My position is very clear. The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s WMD’s.”
So did John Edwards:
“Every day [Saddam] gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.”
And even the irascible Howard Dean:
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the U.S. and our allies.”
A majority of democratic Senators (including John Kerry) and 81 democratic Congressmen authorized Bush “to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.”
Joseph Biden (Democrat) summarized the Party’s consensus at the time when he said,
“Saddam is in material breach. . . . The legitimacy of the Security Council is at stake, (and if) the Security Council does not call for the use of force, I think we have little option but to act with a larger group of willing nations, if possible, and alone if we must.”
Later claims of Bush’s trickery and lies ignore the fact-based position Bush took in reinforcing prior Clintonian affirmations on the subject of Saddam’s threat and the necessity of his removal. In a House debate from October 2002, Nancy Pelosi categorically stated:
“Yes… (Saddam) has chemical weapons. He has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons.”
There was really very little that the “warmongers” Bush or Cheney could add.
To remind the Democrats of their pronouncements on the subject of Saddam Hussein would be, to use Al Gore’s inimitable sound bite, “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Operation Iraqi Freedom started on March 21, 2003. The WMD stockpiles were nowhere to be found. However, David Kay, the director of the Iraqi Survey Group, confirmed finding dozens of WMD–related program activities and significant amounts of equipment previously concealed from UNSCOM inspectors. There are some who to this day believe some stockpiles were moved to Syria prior to the outbreak of hostilities.
Kay claimed with conviction that “the world is far safer with the….removal of Saddam.” He furthermore concluded that Saddam and his cohorts were willing to sell WMD know-how to the highest bidder once sanctions were removed and that Saddam viewed WMD as the key to his future power.
Those who are bitter about Bush’s decision to remove Saddam do not generally concern themselves with the likely consequences of leaving this brutal dictator in place. All other options had, to that point, failed. One just has to imagine what Saddam’s resources would have become with today’s runaway oil prices. Bush may ultimately have had little alternative than to go to war, considering the groundswell of pressure all around him, including a majority of the Democratic Party.
George Bush said to Bob Woodward in 2004: “My job is to secure America.” President Clinton had stated with appropriate insight six years earlier:
Let’s imagine the future. What if [Saddam] refuses to comply, and we fail to act,...Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.
It does seem, in conclusion then, that George Bush was merely extending the Clintonian philosophy. And if Bush was not in power, in September 2001, then indeed, most likely, it is reasonable to assume the leading Democrat in power would have gone to war, a war that may or may not have been prosecuted more efficiently. But war it would have been.
Published on The Absurd Report: http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2008/lest-we-forget-bush-as-the-consummate-democrat-by-leslie-j-sacks/
New Yorker article The Great Terror: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/03/25/020325fa_FACT1?printable=true
Friday, August 8, 2008
Incredulous U.N.
The Human Rights Council at the United Nations has now banned any criticism regarding Sharia Law and human rights in the Islamic World. According to President Doru Romulus Costea - and following the efforts of delegates from Egypt, Pakistan and Iran - the Council will no longer tolerate criticism of either Sharia or specific fatwas in the name of human rights.
In many parts of the Islamic world, it is becomingly increasing clear not only that the Quran (the written record of the original oral transmissions of Muhammad’s life teachings) and the Hadith (the later delineations of those teachings) are considered sacrosanct in their perfection, but also the various implementations of these teachings, known as Sharia Law. No evolution or refinements are required. No matter that nearly every multitudinous Muslim sect or group has a differing interpretation of this God-given Sharia Law. Nor that the stoning to death of women, beheading of men, and all the 6th century niceties of feudal Arabia are still part and parcel of the immovable Islamic tradition. Never mind that Sunni will decimate Shia--and vice versa--over differences of interpretations far more modest than those between (modern) Catholics and Protestants, between Hindus and Buddhists. Islamic sect can war on Islamic sect, Arab can criticize Arab.
Because Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and all other religions are imperfect, they are fair game for any and all attacks. Since Israel, Zionism, America and the Western World were created and developed outside the Islamic World and its divine perfection, they are likewise subject to criticism.
Now, not only has the Islamic God forbidden outside criticism of the Sharia Law, but the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) is its enjoined messenger on earth.
Of course, observers of the HRC should not be surprised. The ostensibly prestigious body has become a revolving door for countries with an ambivalent (or even well nigh invisible) relationship with freedom and democracy. In the two years following its replacement of the equally dictatorship-friendly Human Rights Commission, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia have all been elected to the Council. As a majority of the Council’s resolutions are concerned with Israel, it would effectively cease functioning were it not for its compulsive focus on the Jewish state.
Due to this resolution the Council - and thus, perversely, the UN - is endorsing a worldview in which human interpretation and understanding has been placed beyond the pale of critical thinking and investigation as long as it’s part of Sharia Law or the Islamic tradition. Perhaps we should rename the United Nations and call it the “Nations of Islam - United in Unique and Ineffable Perfection.” Sounds appropriate.
Published on Family Security Matters: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/authors/id.91/author_detail.asp
Published on Stand Up America: http://www.standupamericausa.com/?p=1599
Published on Muslims Against Sharia: http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/08/incredulous-un-bans-criticism-of-islam.html
Published on The Absurd Report: http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2008/incredulous-un-by-leslie-j-sacks/
Published on Europe News: http://europenews.dk/en/node/13092
Wall Street Journal Article "Sounds of Silence": http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121382874218086413.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Posted on Keep Tony Blair blog: http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/islams-war-on-freedom-free-speech-un-hi-jacked/
Posted on Chabad Talk: http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=9622
Discussed on LorMarie.com: http://lormarie.com/2008/08/19/disturbing-emaili-hope-its-fake/
In many parts of the Islamic world, it is becomingly increasing clear not only that the Quran (the written record of the original oral transmissions of Muhammad’s life teachings) and the Hadith (the later delineations of those teachings) are considered sacrosanct in their perfection, but also the various implementations of these teachings, known as Sharia Law. No evolution or refinements are required. No matter that nearly every multitudinous Muslim sect or group has a differing interpretation of this God-given Sharia Law. Nor that the stoning to death of women, beheading of men, and all the 6th century niceties of feudal Arabia are still part and parcel of the immovable Islamic tradition. Never mind that Sunni will decimate Shia--and vice versa--over differences of interpretations far more modest than those between (modern) Catholics and Protestants, between Hindus and Buddhists. Islamic sect can war on Islamic sect, Arab can criticize Arab.
Because Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and all other religions are imperfect, they are fair game for any and all attacks. Since Israel, Zionism, America and the Western World were created and developed outside the Islamic World and its divine perfection, they are likewise subject to criticism.
Now, not only has the Islamic God forbidden outside criticism of the Sharia Law, but the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) is its enjoined messenger on earth.
Of course, observers of the HRC should not be surprised. The ostensibly prestigious body has become a revolving door for countries with an ambivalent (or even well nigh invisible) relationship with freedom and democracy. In the two years following its replacement of the equally dictatorship-friendly Human Rights Commission, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia have all been elected to the Council. As a majority of the Council’s resolutions are concerned with Israel, it would effectively cease functioning were it not for its compulsive focus on the Jewish state.
Due to this resolution the Council - and thus, perversely, the UN - is endorsing a worldview in which human interpretation and understanding has been placed beyond the pale of critical thinking and investigation as long as it’s part of Sharia Law or the Islamic tradition. Perhaps we should rename the United Nations and call it the “Nations of Islam - United in Unique and Ineffable Perfection.” Sounds appropriate.
Published on Family Security Matters: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/authors/id.91/author_detail.asp
Published on Stand Up America: http://www.standupamericausa.com/?p=1599
Published on Muslims Against Sharia: http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/08/incredulous-un-bans-criticism-of-islam.html
Published on The Absurd Report: http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2008/incredulous-un-by-leslie-j-sacks/
Published on Europe News: http://europenews.dk/en/node/13092
Wall Street Journal Article "Sounds of Silence": http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121382874218086413.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Posted on Keep Tony Blair blog: http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/islams-war-on-freedom-free-speech-un-hi-jacked/
Posted on Chabad Talk: http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=9622
Discussed on LorMarie.com: http://lormarie.com/2008/08/19/disturbing-emaili-hope-its-fake/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
