Our Anonymous Moron troll whines that I don’t talk about Darfur.
Well, here’s an editorial by Ralph Peters about Darfur with which I agree, though I doubt if Anonymous Moron does:
Europe wrings its hands – as Europe always does – but declines an invitation to the dance. After all, “responsible” governments can’t play fast and loose with another state’s sovereignty. No dictator or president-for-life would be able to get a decent night’s sleep.
So Sudan’s Islamo-fascists continue to kill with impunity.
Our own left mourns theatrically for Darfur’s dead – but no one has formed a new Lincoln Brigade to take on Sudan’s Muslims fanatics. And the uncomfortable fact that Arab Muslims are slaughtering black Muslims goes ignored. It doesn’t fit the left’s comfortable worldview.
Oh, yes: Those on the left demanding that we “bring the troops home” from Iraq would be delighted to send American troops to rescue Khartoum’s victims. But our military is occupied with other cases of fanaticism and genocide in the Muslim world this holiday season.
Isn’t it curious that, when it comes to liberation, Iraq didn’t count? For the endlessly hypocritical left, there’s one magic difference between the half-million dead of Darfur and the 1.5 million people killed by Saddam in his internal massacres and neighborhood wars: Bush.
To be fair, I think that there’s another one. In the minds of many deranged leftists, Arabs can do no wrong, because they’re fighting against the evil West, capitalists and Amerikkka. And they only want us to liberate people when we have no national interest in doing so. And even then, of course, they’re not truly liberated unless they’re yoked to socialism.
By any rational measure, Castro is a much worse dictator than Pinochet ever attempted to be, but as Jonah Goldberg points out, when he dies, keep an eye out for the contrast in news coverage, and the silence from the left about his depredations against human liberty, relative to the cheering brought on by Pinochet’s death.
Jeanne Kirkpatrick has apparently died. No details.
She was eighty years old (not unusually old these days). I hadn’t heard that she was sick, but then, I hadn’t heard much about her at all in a long time, so maybe the fact that she was sick was why she wasn’t making much news.
Whenever Clinton defenders made the idiotic argument that conservatives didn’t like Hillary because they didn’t like strong women, she and Maggie Thatcher were always the two obvious rejoinders.
Like Oriana Fallaci, requiescat in pace to another fierce lioness.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Here’s a memoriam from AEI.
[Update a few minutes later]
From her speech at the 1984 Republican Convention, about the time she changed parties:
They said that saving Grenada from terror and totalitarianism was the wrong thing to do – they didn’t blame Cuba or the communists for threatening American students and murdering Grenadians – they blamed the United States instead.
But then, somehow, they always blame America first.
When our Marines, sent to Lebanon on a multinational peacekeeping mission with the consent of the United States Congress, were murdered in their sleep, the “blame America first crowd” didn’t blame the terrorists who murdered the Marines, they blamed the United States.
But then, they always blame America first.
When the Soviet Union walked out of arms control negotiations, and refused even to discuss the issues, the San Francisco Democrats didn’t blame Soviet intransigence. They blamed the United States.
But then, they always blame America first.
When Marxist dictators shoot their way to power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats don’t blame the guerrillas and their Soviet allies, they blame United States policies of 100 years ago.
But then, they always blame America first.
And over two decades later, they still do.
One of many (good) reasons that John Kerry will never be president. A letter to him from the troops:
DEAR SENATOR KERRY:
WE ARE STILL LAUGHING OVER HERE IN IRAQ AT YOUR JOKE ABOUT THE TROOPS BEING DUMB. WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT YOU ARE A LOT SMARTER THAN WE ARE BECAUSE YOU WERE ABLE TO GET OUT OF COMBAT IN THREE MONTHS. THIS IS WHY WE ARE SEEKING YOUR ADVICE. PLEASE GIVE US GUIDANCE.
1.) WHERE IS THE LEAST PAINFUL AREA ON THE BODY TO INFLICT A WOUND?
2.) DOES IT HAVE TO BLEED OR WILL A SCRATCH DO?
3.) WHERE DO YOU GET THE FORMS TO FILL OUT RECOMMENDING YOURSELF FOR A PURPLE HEART?
4.) DO YOU NEED A WITNESS? IF SO, HOW MUCH DOES THAT COST?
5.) ARE THREE PURPLE HEARTS STILL GOOD FOR A TRIP HOME?
6.) WHAT IS A REALISTIC PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH TO ACQUIRE THESE WOUNDS? LESS THAN THREE MONTHS SOUNDS A LITTLE SUSPICIOUS EVEN TO US.
THANKS FOR YOUR HELP AND KEEP THE JOKES COMING.
JUST A DUMB G.I.
P.S.–WHAT ADVICE CAN YOU GIVE ME ON HOW TO MEET REALLY RICH WOMEN?
An emailer over at The Corner suggests Zell Miller for UN ambassador, to replace the unconfirmable John Bolton.
I’ve got a better idea. How about Joe Lieberman?
If he accepted, this would give control of the Senate back to the Republicans, since the governor of Connecticut is a Republican, who would appoint his Senate replacement. It would be a great way for him to get back at his Dem “colleagues” without going back on his promise to remain a Democrat.
And can you imagine the entertainment in the confirmation hearings, as the Democrat Senators tied themselves in knots trying to explain why one of their own, and a Jew, is not fit for the job?
On the old political spectrum, socialism defined the left. That meant that the more you opposed socialism, for whatever reason, the further right you were. On the old spectrum, therefore, classical liberals were on the right, which makes us the right wing of the dynamist coalition.
It matters a lot whether we define our central challenge today as opposing socialism or as protecting dynamism. If we declare “the left” our enemies and “the right” our allies, based on anti-socialist assumptions, we will ignore the emerging left-right alliance against markets. We will miss the symbolic and practical importance of such cutting-edge issues as biotechnology, popular culture, international trade, and Internet governance. We will sacrifice whole areas of research and innovation to stay friendly with people who’ll agree to cut taxes just a little bit, and only for families with children. We will miss the chance to deepen the appreciation for market processes among people who lack the proper political pedigree. We will sacrifice the future of freedom in order to preserve the habits of the past.
A noted historian has resigned from his long-time association with the Carter Center over Jimmy Carter’s Middle East fantasies and lies:
President Carter’s book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook.
A lot of people can argue over who is the worst president, but Carter has to be the worst former President, hands down.
Most of those who argue against a libertarian-conservative coalition focus heavily on the issue of civil libeties. It is indeed the case that even most pro-limited government conservatives differ with libertarians on social issues such as censorship of pornography and gay rights. These differences are not going to go away. As a matter of philosophical principle, these differences are very grave. However, they matter less as a matter of practical politics because the ability of government to seriously constrain these kinds of freedoms in the modern world is quite limited. All the efforts of social conservatives over the last forty years have had little impact on people’s ability to consume pornography, nor have they significantly slowed what I think is the natural and inevitable evolution towards greater social and legal acceptance for homosexuals.
Brink Lindsey, on a potential alliance between Dems and libertarians.
Brink’s a smart guy, but I don’t think so. There are too many irreconcilable differences–on guns, on the role of the government, etc.–to put together a workable coalition. In addition, I continue to object to calling collectivists liberals. In many ways, they’re the exact opposite. I’m a liberal.