Category Archives: Israel

Update V: NO Small 'r' republicans In The House

Barack Obama, Bush, Conservatism, Democrats, Israel, Media, Republicans, Ron Paul

It’s a chore to watch more than 60 seconds of this hypocrite unveil the carefully qualified Truth he never uttered while campaigning (and will forget if ever his faction is in power again). During his presidential campaign, Fred Thompson, and the rest of the Republican front runners, praised Bush’s three-trillion-dollar war.

Thompson and his ilk had no qualms about W’s warfare-welfare wantonness: his compassionate conservatism they touted endlessly, including Bush’s “ownership society” which amplified the mortgage meltdown. Where was cuddly Fred when,

To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the “zero-down-payment initiative,” which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment.

Those who still choose to cheer for the GOP (RIP), and saddle Obama with its travesties, might wish to commit to memory (if only fleetingly) the fact that in order to privilege Hispanics (mostly illegal), Bush not only pushed for their amnesty, but worked overtime to incorporate them into the “ownership society.” Easy credit for minorities unworthy of credit was par for the course during the Bush years.

While campaigning, did fuzzy Freddy denounce, or even mention, Bush’s prescription-drug benefit that has added trillions to the Medicare shortfall? The unconstitutional campaign finance-reform bill and “Sarbanes-Oxley Act” (a preemptive assault on CEOs and CFOs, prior to the fact of a crime)? The collusion with Kennedy on education?

What is it about establishment Republicans that they will cover up for each other and for the crimes of their Leader for 8 solid years, and are still begged to come back for encores by their followers, none of whom is the wiser? (That’s a rhetorical question).

Why do the party parrots have no curiosity about the one man who has been correct for 30 straight years? Or about the few columns that have been predictive and always spoken truth to power? (Stephen Moore, of the Wall Street Journal, wrote a book titled Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Is Making America Richer. This snake-oil merchant–and failed philosopher kings like him–are still touted as the crème de la crème of the American commentariat.)

Mencken explained this with reference to the genus called “Boobus Americanus,” but then today, in the Age of the Idiot, Mencken himself would be voiceless, unemployed.

Update III (Jan 25): Still fawning over Fred and the Republican phonies? In case you find it hard to believe Bush helped build the ownership society on quicksand, do read about the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003. Did know-it-all Fred protest that when he had a chance to? Not on his life. He ought to leave “Economics in One Lesson” to the great Henry Hazlitt, who, like Mencken, would be unemployed or underemployed in the Age of the Idiot.

Update IV (Jan. 26): About the convergence of the Demopublican duopoly, Vox Day, my WND colleague, writes:

“[W]hen in power, the differences between the two parties are mostly illusory. Republican and Democrat are simply two different factions of the same ruling party, and their congressional battles are primarily over political spoils, not political ideology. This is why a ‘conservative’ president will immediately tack left upon taking office, while a ‘liberal’ president will tend to move to the right. We’ve seen this with Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43, so there’s no reason to expect a massive difference between the previous administration and the current one.”

As I have written, “Antitrust laws ought to be deployed, not against business, but to bust this two-party monopoly, which subverts competition in government and rewards the colluding quislings with sinecures in perpetuity.”

I do, however, hope Vox tackles the mindlessness of the parties’ respective followers.

Update V: To Myron. I thought the point I was making was obvious–or has responsibility (as opposed expediency) become such a vague term? The point is not whether Fuzzy Fred was present in the flesh when Bush did what he did; but this: The onus was on FF to articulate the principles he has only now discovered while vying for the Party’s nomination for president. It was THEN that FF ought to have disavowed the violation of these principles by Bush. But Fred denounces spending and cheap credit only now that a Democrat has taken over where Bush left off. It goes without saying that had the Republicans not been dethroned, they’d be doing exactly what the Democrats are doing–stimulating their packages–and their followers would be doing the same. (With one hand held out for their share of the loot.)

Update V: NO Small ‘r’ republicans In The House

Barack Obama, Bush, Conservatism, Democrats, Economy, Israel, Media, Republicans, Ron Paul

It’s a chore to watch more than 60 seconds of this hypocrite unveil the carefully qualified Truth he never uttered while campaigning (and will forget if ever his faction is in power again). During his presidential campaign, Fred Thompson, and the rest of the Republican front runners, praised Bush’s three-trillion-dollar war.

Thompson and his ilk had no qualms about W’s warfare-welfare wantonness: his compassionate conservatism they touted endlessly, including Bush’s “ownership society” which amplified the mortgage meltdown. Where was cuddly Fred when,

To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the “zero-down-payment initiative,” which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment.

Those who still choose to cheer for the GOP (RIP), and saddle Obama with its travesties, might wish to commit to memory (if only fleetingly) the fact that in order to privilege Hispanics (mostly illegal), Bush not only pushed for their amnesty, but worked overtime to incorporate them into the “ownership society.” Easy credit for minorities unworthy of credit was par for the course during the Bush years.

While campaigning, did fuzzy Freddy denounce, or even mention, Bush’s prescription-drug benefit that has added trillions to the Medicare shortfall? The unconstitutional campaign finance-reform bill and “Sarbanes-Oxley Act” (a preemptive assault on CEOs and CFOs, prior to the fact of a crime)? The collusion with Kennedy on education?

What is it about establishment Republicans that they will cover up for each other and for the crimes of their Leader for 8 solid years, and are still begged to come back for encores by their followers, none of whom is the wiser? (That’s a rhetorical question).

Why do the party parrots have no curiosity about the one man who has been correct for 30 straight years? Or about the few columns that have been predictive and always spoken truth to power? (Stephen Moore, of the Wall Street Journal, wrote a book titled Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Is Making America Richer. This snake-oil merchant–and failed philosopher kings like him–are still touted as the crème de la crème of the American commentariat.)

Mencken explained this with reference to the genus called “Boobus Americanus,” but then today, in the Age of the Idiot, Mencken himself would be voiceless, unemployed.

Update III (Jan 25): Still fawning over Fred and the Republican phonies? In case you find it hard to believe Bush helped build the ownership society on quicksand, do read about the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003. Did know-it-all Fred protest that when he had a chance to? Not on his life. He ought to leave “Economics in One Lesson” to the great Henry Hazlitt, who, like Mencken, would be unemployed or underemployed in the Age of the Idiot.

Update IV (Jan. 26): About the convergence of the Demopublican duopoly, Vox Day, my WND colleague, writes:

“[W]hen in power, the differences between the two parties are mostly illusory. Republican and Democrat are simply two different factions of the same ruling party, and their congressional battles are primarily over political spoils, not political ideology. This is why a ‘conservative’ president will immediately tack left upon taking office, while a ‘liberal’ president will tend to move to the right. We’ve seen this with Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43, so there’s no reason to expect a massive difference between the previous administration and the current one.”

As I have written, “Antitrust laws ought to be deployed, not against business, but to bust this two-party monopoly, which subverts competition in government and rewards the colluding quislings with sinecures in perpetuity.”

I do, however, hope Vox tackles the mindlessness of the parties’ respective followers.

Update V: To Myron. I thought the point I was making was obvious–or has responsibility (as opposed expediency) become such a vague term? The point is not whether Fuzzy Fred was present in the flesh when Bush did what he did; but this: The onus was on FF to articulate the principles he has only now discovered while vying for the Party’s nomination for president. It was THEN that FF ought to have disavowed the violation of these principles by Bush. But Fred denounces spending and cheap credit only now that a Democrat has taken over where Bush left off. It goes without saying that had the Republicans not been dethroned, they’d be doing exactly what the Democrats are doing–stimulating their packages–and their followers would be doing the same. (With one hand held out for their share of the loot.)

'A' For Al Jazeera

Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Journalism, Media, Middle East, South-Africa, The West, War

I’ve said it before: The Al Jazeera news network practices better journalism than its American cable counterparts. Al Jazeera is as partisan as the local cable cretins, however, it does know news–the art of reporting.

Writes Eric Calderwood, for the Boston Globe:

[I]n a larger sense, Al-Jazeera’s graphic response to CNN-style “bloodless war journalism” is a stinging rebuke to the way we now see and talk about war in the United States. It suggests that bloodless coverage of war is the privilege of a country far from conflict. Al-Jazeera’s brand of news – you could call it “blood journalism” – takes war for what it is: a brutal loss of human life. The images they show put you in visceral contact with the violence of war in a way statistics never could.

For an American, to watch Al-Jazeera’s coverage of Gaza is to realize that you’ve become alienated not just from war, but even from the representation of war as a real thing. As Americans, we’re used to hearing the sound of heavy artillery, machine guns, and bombs in action films and video games. Yet here on the news, they seem strangely out of place. You could argue that Al-Jazeera uses images of civilian violence to foment public outrage against Israel. This might well be true. At the same time, these images acknowledge human suffering and civilian death and stand strongly against them – and in doing so, foment outrage against war itself.

The complete essay is well-worth reading.

Worth watching is Al Jazeera’s “Saving Soweto”, a superb report detailing the heroic work of Christian and Jewish medical men in ministering to the multitudes. What would South Africa do without such people?! (Scroll down to “DESPERATELY SEEKING BOLLYWOOD’S BRANGELINA”)

‘A’ For Al Jazeera

Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Journalism, Media, Middle East, South-Africa, The West, War

I’ve said it before: The Al Jazeera news network practices better journalism than its American cable counterparts. Al Jazeera is as partisan as the local cable cretins, however, it does know news–the art of reporting.

Writes Eric Calderwood, for the Boston Globe:

[I]n a larger sense, Al-Jazeera’s graphic response to CNN-style “bloodless war journalism” is a stinging rebuke to the way we now see and talk about war in the United States. It suggests that bloodless coverage of war is the privilege of a country far from conflict. Al-Jazeera’s brand of news – you could call it “blood journalism” – takes war for what it is: a brutal loss of human life. The images they show put you in visceral contact with the violence of war in a way statistics never could.

For an American, to watch Al-Jazeera’s coverage of Gaza is to realize that you’ve become alienated not just from war, but even from the representation of war as a real thing. As Americans, we’re used to hearing the sound of heavy artillery, machine guns, and bombs in action films and video games. Yet here on the news, they seem strangely out of place. You could argue that Al-Jazeera uses images of civilian violence to foment public outrage against Israel. This might well be true. At the same time, these images acknowledge human suffering and civilian death and stand strongly against them – and in doing so, foment outrage against war itself.

The complete essay is well-worth reading.

Worth watching is Al Jazeera’s “Saving Soweto”, a superb report detailing the heroic work of Christian and Jewish medical men in ministering to the multitudes. What would South Africa do without such people?! (Scroll down to “DESPERATELY SEEKING BOLLYWOOD’S BRANGELINA”)