So, we finally got Jambo all set up on Netflix last night. I haven't heard what the viewing choice was yet... but knowing those two, it was an all-night fun-fest that swamped the servers.
The "instant-view" choices are growing all the time, and I am especially addicted to the TV series selections... so I'm curious to see if Jambo and Leona can find something worthwhile that Ryan and I have missed.
I'm working my "Friday" today, and tomorrow I will have my second day off since the casino went live with its table games department (23 days now). The OT is nice, and we can certainly use the money, but I'm really missing my two-day weekends. Its shocking how much of a break those two days can be when you have gone without them for nearly a month.
More later...
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Lebanon...
Seems the IDF "did nothing wrong" when it returned fire against the Lebanese border guards from south of the established border (meaning on the Israeli side of the frontier). They still aren't 100% sure what happened, but the question of who shot first seems pretty clear... the Lebanese shot first.
Lebanon is an almost unique example of the rich and diverse history that the region enjoys. It is an established republic, and has a long history of open and democratic elections. It has (in the past) enjoyed a level of international interest that is almost unrivaled outside of the city of Jerusalem itself. In the 50s and 60s, Beirut was a holiday destination for much of Europe and the Middle East. It had a vibrant, Western-style economy that provided one of the highest standards of living in the region.
It is also a stunning example of the lengths that can be taken to ensure diversity in government. For example, the President of Lebanon can follow any political ideology he or she may wish... but they MUST be a Maronite Catholic. The Prime Minister MUST be a Sunni Muslim, and the Speaker of the Parliament MUST be a Shi'a Muslim. The seats of the Parliament are divided equally between Christan, Sunni and Shi'a... but proportionally among the various geographic areas of the nation. The demographics of the nation show a nearly equal division between Sunni (28%), Shi'a (27%), and Maronite (24%), with the last 19% being a mix of Druze, Orthodox, and various other denominations (including a large Palestinian population). The last twenty years of political history in Lebanon show that the majority of the population want peace and security... but the small minorities of radicals and outside influences (especially from Iran and Syria) are the factor that has contributed to the nearly constant civil warfare that the nation saw between 1975 and 1990.
Of all the states in the region, Lebanon shares its cultural and religious diversity most with Israel (and by extension, the PA). Would the time ever come when Lebanon could boast a peaceful and prosperous period of economic stability and growth, it would be a stunning example of the success that can stem from a "one state" solution even in Israel. The machines of state force the various components of the population of Lebanon to co-exist, where the institutionalized segregation implemented by both the PA and Israel make co-existence almost impossible from the start.
All this teeters on the brink of failure, however, when elements within the Lebanese military take matters into their own hands and fire on the IDF for no (apparent) reason. With the cost of the civil war still visibly at hand for all to see, the fragility of the Lebanese system must be the priority of Beirut at all times, and not the partisan and internecine squabbles that lead to "incidents" like we saw this week.
Lebanon is an almost unique example of the rich and diverse history that the region enjoys. It is an established republic, and has a long history of open and democratic elections. It has (in the past) enjoyed a level of international interest that is almost unrivaled outside of the city of Jerusalem itself. In the 50s and 60s, Beirut was a holiday destination for much of Europe and the Middle East. It had a vibrant, Western-style economy that provided one of the highest standards of living in the region.
It is also a stunning example of the lengths that can be taken to ensure diversity in government. For example, the President of Lebanon can follow any political ideology he or she may wish... but they MUST be a Maronite Catholic. The Prime Minister MUST be a Sunni Muslim, and the Speaker of the Parliament MUST be a Shi'a Muslim. The seats of the Parliament are divided equally between Christan, Sunni and Shi'a... but proportionally among the various geographic areas of the nation. The demographics of the nation show a nearly equal division between Sunni (28%), Shi'a (27%), and Maronite (24%), with the last 19% being a mix of Druze, Orthodox, and various other denominations (including a large Palestinian population). The last twenty years of political history in Lebanon show that the majority of the population want peace and security... but the small minorities of radicals and outside influences (especially from Iran and Syria) are the factor that has contributed to the nearly constant civil warfare that the nation saw between 1975 and 1990.
Of all the states in the region, Lebanon shares its cultural and religious diversity most with Israel (and by extension, the PA). Would the time ever come when Lebanon could boast a peaceful and prosperous period of economic stability and growth, it would be a stunning example of the success that can stem from a "one state" solution even in Israel. The machines of state force the various components of the population of Lebanon to co-exist, where the institutionalized segregation implemented by both the PA and Israel make co-existence almost impossible from the start.
All this teeters on the brink of failure, however, when elements within the Lebanese military take matters into their own hands and fire on the IDF for no (apparent) reason. With the cost of the civil war still visibly at hand for all to see, the fragility of the Lebanese system must be the priority of Beirut at all times, and not the partisan and internecine squabbles that lead to "incidents" like we saw this week.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
The wonder of history...
How's this for a bit of historical perspective?
Everyone by now has heard that the internet site called Wikileaks spilled the beans on 90,000+ pages of unreleased documents from the US military on the efforts of the past 6 years in Afghanistan, right? The fact that these documents were released when and how they were presents the very real possibility that both American and Afghan people are now in far greater danger because the Taliban and their allies know what they did and are doing, and where they were or will be in the future.
I'm sure there are many in the military leadership of the US Armed Forces that would love to take the people responsible for this leak and string them up for what they have done. What I found tonight was a glimpse at what past generals have felt about the "press" and how they act towards the military.
In 1864, as General Sherman was leading his Army of the West out of Chatanooga, TN towards Atlanta, GA, he was faced with the prospect of literally dozens of reporters from major newspapers mingling with his troops as they camped for the night and picking up their "scuttlebutt" talk and printing it in the week's end papers as fact. The very term "scuttlebutt" is an 18th Century naval term that stems from sailors hanging around the opened barrel of drinking water (called a butt) kept near the forward hatch leading below decks (called a scuttle) and gossiping while they drank, and this term serves to demonstrate that gossip in the military is as old and entrenched as army life itself.
Sherman wrote to his family while trying to deal with this problem...
"If I killed all these paper-scribblers in an afternoon, there'd only be fresh news from Hell before breakfast!"
There really isn't anything new under the sun, is there?
Everyone by now has heard that the internet site called Wikileaks spilled the beans on 90,000+ pages of unreleased documents from the US military on the efforts of the past 6 years in Afghanistan, right? The fact that these documents were released when and how they were presents the very real possibility that both American and Afghan people are now in far greater danger because the Taliban and their allies know what they did and are doing, and where they were or will be in the future.
I'm sure there are many in the military leadership of the US Armed Forces that would love to take the people responsible for this leak and string them up for what they have done. What I found tonight was a glimpse at what past generals have felt about the "press" and how they act towards the military.
In 1864, as General Sherman was leading his Army of the West out of Chatanooga, TN towards Atlanta, GA, he was faced with the prospect of literally dozens of reporters from major newspapers mingling with his troops as they camped for the night and picking up their "scuttlebutt" talk and printing it in the week's end papers as fact. The very term "scuttlebutt" is an 18th Century naval term that stems from sailors hanging around the opened barrel of drinking water (called a butt) kept near the forward hatch leading below decks (called a scuttle) and gossiping while they drank, and this term serves to demonstrate that gossip in the military is as old and entrenched as army life itself.
Sherman wrote to his family while trying to deal with this problem...
"If I killed all these paper-scribblers in an afternoon, there'd only be fresh news from Hell before breakfast!"
There really isn't anything new under the sun, is there?
The NEXT top five...
Reading Titus' piece on the decline of America made me think about low points in American history. Someone can look at eras, like the Great Depression, the Carter Years, the Civil War, things like that, but in THIS top five the criteria deal with threats to America and our ability/inability to stop them. There also has to be a territorial concern and or a threat to the Republic itself. I know this sounds convoluted but you'll get it through my Top Five American Low Points.
#5) December, 1941
It would seem that this would be a more date specific entry, but the Japanese attack on the Philippines happened within days of Pearl Harbor and led to the largest mass surrender of American troops in our history. Add to that the combat casualties of Pearl Harbor and the assaults on various other bases in the Pacific, countered with America's inability to project force in the region, and there you are.
Had the Japanese pressed their attack on Pearl Harbor, either by sending two more waves on 7 December or follow-up attacks on 8 December, the possibility of invasion could have manifested into a reality. I mention this because it represents a clear territorial threat, qualifying for my list.
#4) 11 September, 2001
Anyone watching the TV that morning knew American inability to deal with flying passenger plane bombs. Imagine if Bush would have needed to give the order for the F-15s to shoot down the plane that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania. American casualties were higher than Pearl Harbor. It was a clear attack on mainland America by a ghost enemy.
#3) January, 1861
The final list of states seceding from the Union is completed by the end of the month. Through drastic and illegal measures Lincoln secures Maryland for the Union, preserving Washington D.C. as the capitol. While I considered STRONGLY placing this higher on the list, the ACTUAL threat to the fabric of our nation was not as in jeopardy as you'll see.
#2) 24 August, 1814
British General Robert Ross invades and burns most the major buildings of government in Washington DC. It is the second time in our history our capitol is held by a foreign power, but the British holding Philadelphia before the War of Independence is concluded doesn't really count. This was both a grave territorial threat and a direct threat for the future of the Republic.
#1) January, 1877
In an extremely unclear and moderately corrupt election, Rutherford Hayes defeats William Tilden in the election of 1776. Several ballots were contested, causing a swing in the Electoral College. The Democrats protested vigorously, and after receiving no satisfaction, moved to filibuster the Counting of the Ballots in the House of Representatives. This would have stopped the transfer of power, crippling the Executive Branch and unraveling the Republic. (By the way, there's nothing ILLEGAL about what the Democrats of the day were doing... They had the seats in Congress to stop the Republicans from halting the filibuster.)
In my humble opinion, this moment represents the lowest point in American history, where the Republic was most threatened. One compromise from the weave of the Constitution from disintegrating.
Not to poo poo Titus' last few posts, and certainly not to stamp any type of acceptance as to what the current administration has done, but as a nation we've overcome far worse. The policies and programs in place right now can be changed with a new Congress, the damage contained and HOPEFULLY the lessons learned.
#5) December, 1941
It would seem that this would be a more date specific entry, but the Japanese attack on the Philippines happened within days of Pearl Harbor and led to the largest mass surrender of American troops in our history. Add to that the combat casualties of Pearl Harbor and the assaults on various other bases in the Pacific, countered with America's inability to project force in the region, and there you are.
Had the Japanese pressed their attack on Pearl Harbor, either by sending two more waves on 7 December or follow-up attacks on 8 December, the possibility of invasion could have manifested into a reality. I mention this because it represents a clear territorial threat, qualifying for my list.
#4) 11 September, 2001
Anyone watching the TV that morning knew American inability to deal with flying passenger plane bombs. Imagine if Bush would have needed to give the order for the F-15s to shoot down the plane that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania. American casualties were higher than Pearl Harbor. It was a clear attack on mainland America by a ghost enemy.
#3) January, 1861
The final list of states seceding from the Union is completed by the end of the month. Through drastic and illegal measures Lincoln secures Maryland for the Union, preserving Washington D.C. as the capitol. While I considered STRONGLY placing this higher on the list, the ACTUAL threat to the fabric of our nation was not as in jeopardy as you'll see.
#2) 24 August, 1814
British General Robert Ross invades and burns most the major buildings of government in Washington DC. It is the second time in our history our capitol is held by a foreign power, but the British holding Philadelphia before the War of Independence is concluded doesn't really count. This was both a grave territorial threat and a direct threat for the future of the Republic.
#1) January, 1877
In an extremely unclear and moderately corrupt election, Rutherford Hayes defeats William Tilden in the election of 1776. Several ballots were contested, causing a swing in the Electoral College. The Democrats protested vigorously, and after receiving no satisfaction, moved to filibuster the Counting of the Ballots in the House of Representatives. This would have stopped the transfer of power, crippling the Executive Branch and unraveling the Republic. (By the way, there's nothing ILLEGAL about what the Democrats of the day were doing... They had the seats in Congress to stop the Republicans from halting the filibuster.)
In my humble opinion, this moment represents the lowest point in American history, where the Republic was most threatened. One compromise from the weave of the Constitution from disintegrating.
Not to poo poo Titus' last few posts, and certainly not to stamp any type of acceptance as to what the current administration has done, but as a nation we've overcome far worse. The policies and programs in place right now can be changed with a new Congress, the damage contained and HOPEFULLY the lessons learned.
Damn, I hate being right all the time...
Found this article today, detailing the cooperation between the IDF and the Jordanian military in combating terrorism in the region. Concerns about Iranian influence don't seem to be limited to Israel and the US... it seems Amman is also worried. Several weeks ago, a Katyusha-rocket attack was launched from somewhere in the Sinai desert that hit both Israeli and Jordanian territory, and Jordan is treating the attack as a targeting of Jordan, even if it was actually intended to hit Israeli territory. Since it is unlikely that the Egyptians provided the weapons and platforms for the attack, then the responsibility must fall to either Hamas- or al Qiada-sponsored groups.
Then, in an unrelated event, rockets and bullets were flying across the northern Israeli border with Lebanon yesterday, killing two Lebanese soldiers and wounding two Israelis. If the incident was, indeed, caused by a rocket attack, then I'd say there is clear evidence that Hezbollah is stepping up its activity in an attempt to derail the proposed peace talks between the PA and Israel... again... by starting another Israeli-Lebanon war. Israel has made it clear that it is holding Lebanon responsible for keeping the rockets from falling, and if more rockets are fired in the coming days, then we can all expect to see the IDF cross the border to stop them, regardless of whether or not the Lebanese approve.
One member of the Israeli Foreign Ministry thinks this is "unlikely" to happen... but I disagree with him. He thinks that Hezbollah will do whatever it takes to keep from destabilizing their position in Lebanon, especially since they are the primary targets in the investigation of the assassination of Lebanese PM Hariri, a murder that as brought real anger and resentment from the Lebanese public. I think that Hezbollah is nothing more than a tool of the Iranian government, and Tehran will use that tool in whatever manner best suits its agenda, and their primary agenda is to take attention away from Iran's nuclear ambitions and the hostility those ambitions are drawing from the international community. If, by drawing the Israelis into a war with Lebanon, the Iranians (via Hezbollah) can ensure that international opinion against the Israelis is at an all-time low before Israel has a chance to make a first-strike attack against Iran's nuclear development facilities.
With yesterday's concerted insurgent attack on the NATO base at Kandahar, I think we can see that Iran was quite serious (and speaking literally) when it said that it would be fighting a "two-front" campaign in the coming weeks. Iran is one of the primary supporters of the Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan, and such attacks, coming on the very week that America increases its presence as the member-states of NATO withdraw from the theater (i.e. the Dutch), seem clear proof that Iran wants to see as much confusion and mayhem as possible to take attention away from their growing nuclear capability. The more the anti-war elements in the US and UK can see the cost of fighting, the less they are going to support anti-Iranian action by either power.
Then, in an unrelated event, rockets and bullets were flying across the northern Israeli border with Lebanon yesterday, killing two Lebanese soldiers and wounding two Israelis. If the incident was, indeed, caused by a rocket attack, then I'd say there is clear evidence that Hezbollah is stepping up its activity in an attempt to derail the proposed peace talks between the PA and Israel... again... by starting another Israeli-Lebanon war. Israel has made it clear that it is holding Lebanon responsible for keeping the rockets from falling, and if more rockets are fired in the coming days, then we can all expect to see the IDF cross the border to stop them, regardless of whether or not the Lebanese approve.
One member of the Israeli Foreign Ministry thinks this is "unlikely" to happen... but I disagree with him. He thinks that Hezbollah will do whatever it takes to keep from destabilizing their position in Lebanon, especially since they are the primary targets in the investigation of the assassination of Lebanese PM Hariri, a murder that as brought real anger and resentment from the Lebanese public. I think that Hezbollah is nothing more than a tool of the Iranian government, and Tehran will use that tool in whatever manner best suits its agenda, and their primary agenda is to take attention away from Iran's nuclear ambitions and the hostility those ambitions are drawing from the international community. If, by drawing the Israelis into a war with Lebanon, the Iranians (via Hezbollah) can ensure that international opinion against the Israelis is at an all-time low before Israel has a chance to make a first-strike attack against Iran's nuclear development facilities.
With yesterday's concerted insurgent attack on the NATO base at Kandahar, I think we can see that Iran was quite serious (and speaking literally) when it said that it would be fighting a "two-front" campaign in the coming weeks. Iran is one of the primary supporters of the Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan, and such attacks, coming on the very week that America increases its presence as the member-states of NATO withdraw from the theater (i.e. the Dutch), seem clear proof that Iran wants to see as much confusion and mayhem as possible to take attention away from their growing nuclear capability. The more the anti-war elements in the US and UK can see the cost of fighting, the less they are going to support anti-Iranian action by either power.
Monday, August 2, 2010
America's decline, pt II...
So, while drinking my morning joe, I'm reading a transcript of a Pelosi interview with former CNN host Amanpour (sp?), and Pelosi's portion of the interview was telling, indeed.
She seemingly doesn't feel there is all that much "partisanship" in Congress today... but, instead, that there is a real divide in the ideology of the two parties. While I can't say I have supported each and every GOP initiative to come down the pipe since 1994, I'd have to say that the fundamental "planks" of the GOP platform are not that much different than they were in 1980. In fact, I'd say that many of them are quite "watered down" from what they were when names like Dole, Gingrich, Reagan, and Quayle were still front-page names. People like Jindal, Paul Ryan, and Christie aren't saying anything that Reagan, Dole or Gingrich wouldn't have said (or didn't say, in fact).
So, if the ideology of the conservative movement in America is basically the same as it was 25 years ago... then what has changed?
I am convinced that Presidents like Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon all knew that lower taxes were good for the economy, and while none of these Presidents effectively lowered taxes across the board, all did their best to make the tax burden as one-sided as possible (with the burden always being highest with the largest earners). All were bent on growing the size and scope of the Fed (given their records), but none did so as openly or brazenly as today's DNC is doing. They did so out of a sense of necessity, while today's Dems are doing so out of the (seemingly) thought that the Fed can actually FIX what is wrong in America.
In short, I can't help but think that many Dems (and, in fact, many GOPs, too) in the 50s, 60s and 70s were working on the premise that much of what we today call "New Deal politics" was worth continuing... but not ALL of it, and not at the expense of basic, fundamental individual freedoms and liberties that have been a foundational aspect of the American "dream" since the nation was founded.
Today's Liberal Left is trying to fundamentally re-structure the manner in which our nation operates... and it is seeing success that it couldn't have imagined even 15 years ago. The basic concept that "less government is better government" is so antithetical to the liberal movement today, that even the sitting President of the United States is forced to repeat the phrase "Only government can fix this" over and over again... apparently in the hope that if it is said enough, it will become true.
Back to my original point... Pelosi's interview is a great example of this. In the entire interview, she didn't discuss what the Democratic Party's agenda was ONCE, outside of remaining in control of Congress through the 2010 midterm elections. That is IT, it seems... the whole agenda is to maintain their control of Congress, and the recovery from the current (or next) recession is secondary, at best. I can look to the failure of the Conservative Revolution in '94 and see a similar outline... but not to the point that Pelosi and the Dems have taken it since 2006. The scope here is truly mind-boggling.
She seemingly doesn't feel there is all that much "partisanship" in Congress today... but, instead, that there is a real divide in the ideology of the two parties. While I can't say I have supported each and every GOP initiative to come down the pipe since 1994, I'd have to say that the fundamental "planks" of the GOP platform are not that much different than they were in 1980. In fact, I'd say that many of them are quite "watered down" from what they were when names like Dole, Gingrich, Reagan, and Quayle were still front-page names. People like Jindal, Paul Ryan, and Christie aren't saying anything that Reagan, Dole or Gingrich wouldn't have said (or didn't say, in fact).
So, if the ideology of the conservative movement in America is basically the same as it was 25 years ago... then what has changed?
I am convinced that Presidents like Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon all knew that lower taxes were good for the economy, and while none of these Presidents effectively lowered taxes across the board, all did their best to make the tax burden as one-sided as possible (with the burden always being highest with the largest earners). All were bent on growing the size and scope of the Fed (given their records), but none did so as openly or brazenly as today's DNC is doing. They did so out of a sense of necessity, while today's Dems are doing so out of the (seemingly) thought that the Fed can actually FIX what is wrong in America.
In short, I can't help but think that many Dems (and, in fact, many GOPs, too) in the 50s, 60s and 70s were working on the premise that much of what we today call "New Deal politics" was worth continuing... but not ALL of it, and not at the expense of basic, fundamental individual freedoms and liberties that have been a foundational aspect of the American "dream" since the nation was founded.
Today's Liberal Left is trying to fundamentally re-structure the manner in which our nation operates... and it is seeing success that it couldn't have imagined even 15 years ago. The basic concept that "less government is better government" is so antithetical to the liberal movement today, that even the sitting President of the United States is forced to repeat the phrase "Only government can fix this" over and over again... apparently in the hope that if it is said enough, it will become true.
Back to my original point... Pelosi's interview is a great example of this. In the entire interview, she didn't discuss what the Democratic Party's agenda was ONCE, outside of remaining in control of Congress through the 2010 midterm elections. That is IT, it seems... the whole agenda is to maintain their control of Congress, and the recovery from the current (or next) recession is secondary, at best. I can look to the failure of the Conservative Revolution in '94 and see a similar outline... but not to the point that Pelosi and the Dems have taken it since 2006. The scope here is truly mind-boggling.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
America's decline...
There was a surprisingly good show on the radio on the way home from work today (Sundays usually suck for good talk radio), and the guest on the show was an Australian political/history expert (whose name escapes me completely) who had some shockingly good points to make.
That America is in a decline is unquestionable... no matter what area you wish to discuss. Economically, politically, strategically, diplomatically... we are no match for our former greatness of even 20 years ago. Let's touch on that topic first...
For the first time in history, America has a black President... yet the nation is more divided racially than it has been since the 1970s. Yes, we saw the "Rodney King" riots more than a decade ago, but that was an isolated incident that shocked both the black and white population of America when it happened. Now, talk that would never have been accepted as "mainstream" by the media even ten years ago is defended by the likes of the NAACP, the Democratic National Committee, and most of the major media outlets and their sponsors. People like Rev. Wright, who say almost the exact same racist things that David Duke and the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan said as recently as two decades ago, are held up as heroes of the age by the very institutions and organizations that came together to fight racism in all its manifestations.
Our ability to project force abroad to protect American interests has been compromised... not by nearly nine years of continuous warfare on two fronts (although that has cost us), but by a general movement from the Left that makes our soldiers and sailors less than heroic and more like criminal in their efforts. The goals and objectives they were directed to achieve are now questioned, found wanting, and discarded without a second thought by people with no contextual understanding of what took them there in the first place. This problem is compounded by a general tendency of the Left to allow national defense and security to lapse into mediocrity as the world becomes more and more dangerous around us. In a time when the US military should be the most feared and respected fighting force on the face of the earth because of the combat experience the vast majority of our service men and women have, it is seen as compromised and in decline for the very same reasons... not by our enemies, but by our own people.
Not all that long ago, nations and states would think twice about ANY foreign policy issue that might conflict with American interests. Now, many seem to employ or adopt policy specifically because it DOES conflict with American interest, and they know that nothing will come of it because the US doesn't back its words with actions anymore. Places like Iran, North Korea, China, Venezuela, Pakistan, the Sudan... all would have trembled at the thought of starting a policy or course of action that brought them into conflict with American interests... but since 2005, that hasn't been the case. China now dictates to the US where and when it will conduct military exercises with allies and partners in the region... not the Pentagon. North Korea threatens, and the US complies. Venezuela shouts, and the US cows down.
Now we see the ascendancy of the fundamentalist Muslim sects and states. Do we blame the American decline on the rise of fundamentalist Islam? Or is fundamentalist Islam rising because America is declining? The analogy made during my afore mentioned radio show was to the fall of Rome in the Fifth Century... Did Rome fall because the barbarians were getting stronger? No... the barbarians got stronger because Rome got weaker. The phrase "barbarians at the gates" stems from the works of Gibbon in the late 18th Century... but the barbarians he was writing about weren't sacking Rome because they hated it and wanted it destroyed. They sacked it because they wanted to be ROMANS... and they saw taking and destroying that which they couldn't have as the quickest way to getting what they wanted. They wanted the power and prestige that was ROME... and ended up destroying that which they most wanted.
That analogy doesn't work here, though. The "barbarians" we are facing are two-fold: 1) domestic barbarians that hate all that America stands for because we were SUCCESSFULL and RIGHT in our determined course, and 2) foreign barbarians that really do hate us because we stand as an example of all they cannot give their own people through their failed governments and societies. Obama and the Left are examples of the first, and radical Islam is an exmaple of the latter.
More later... must eat.
That America is in a decline is unquestionable... no matter what area you wish to discuss. Economically, politically, strategically, diplomatically... we are no match for our former greatness of even 20 years ago. Let's touch on that topic first...
For the first time in history, America has a black President... yet the nation is more divided racially than it has been since the 1970s. Yes, we saw the "Rodney King" riots more than a decade ago, but that was an isolated incident that shocked both the black and white population of America when it happened. Now, talk that would never have been accepted as "mainstream" by the media even ten years ago is defended by the likes of the NAACP, the Democratic National Committee, and most of the major media outlets and their sponsors. People like Rev. Wright, who say almost the exact same racist things that David Duke and the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan said as recently as two decades ago, are held up as heroes of the age by the very institutions and organizations that came together to fight racism in all its manifestations.
Our ability to project force abroad to protect American interests has been compromised... not by nearly nine years of continuous warfare on two fronts (although that has cost us), but by a general movement from the Left that makes our soldiers and sailors less than heroic and more like criminal in their efforts. The goals and objectives they were directed to achieve are now questioned, found wanting, and discarded without a second thought by people with no contextual understanding of what took them there in the first place. This problem is compounded by a general tendency of the Left to allow national defense and security to lapse into mediocrity as the world becomes more and more dangerous around us. In a time when the US military should be the most feared and respected fighting force on the face of the earth because of the combat experience the vast majority of our service men and women have, it is seen as compromised and in decline for the very same reasons... not by our enemies, but by our own people.
Not all that long ago, nations and states would think twice about ANY foreign policy issue that might conflict with American interests. Now, many seem to employ or adopt policy specifically because it DOES conflict with American interest, and they know that nothing will come of it because the US doesn't back its words with actions anymore. Places like Iran, North Korea, China, Venezuela, Pakistan, the Sudan... all would have trembled at the thought of starting a policy or course of action that brought them into conflict with American interests... but since 2005, that hasn't been the case. China now dictates to the US where and when it will conduct military exercises with allies and partners in the region... not the Pentagon. North Korea threatens, and the US complies. Venezuela shouts, and the US cows down.
Now we see the ascendancy of the fundamentalist Muslim sects and states. Do we blame the American decline on the rise of fundamentalist Islam? Or is fundamentalist Islam rising because America is declining? The analogy made during my afore mentioned radio show was to the fall of Rome in the Fifth Century... Did Rome fall because the barbarians were getting stronger? No... the barbarians got stronger because Rome got weaker. The phrase "barbarians at the gates" stems from the works of Gibbon in the late 18th Century... but the barbarians he was writing about weren't sacking Rome because they hated it and wanted it destroyed. They sacked it because they wanted to be ROMANS... and they saw taking and destroying that which they couldn't have as the quickest way to getting what they wanted. They wanted the power and prestige that was ROME... and ended up destroying that which they most wanted.
That analogy doesn't work here, though. The "barbarians" we are facing are two-fold: 1) domestic barbarians that hate all that America stands for because we were SUCCESSFULL and RIGHT in our determined course, and 2) foreign barbarians that really do hate us because we stand as an example of all they cannot give their own people through their failed governments and societies. Obama and the Left are examples of the first, and radical Islam is an exmaple of the latter.
More later... must eat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
