A Mighty Ego

Celebrity, Film, Hollywood, Islam, Terrorism

Back when she had just lost her husband, Mariane Pearl declared superciliously that “revenge would be easy, but it is far more valuable … to address this problem of terrorism with enough honesty to question our own responsibility as nations and as individuals for the rise of terrorism.” She called on “our governments to work hand in hand,” and for “love, compassion, friendship and citizenship” to transcend the so-called “clash of civilizations.”

Yawn. The woman is a walking cliché. As is Angelina Jolie, who plays Mariane in “A Mighty Heart,” for which the media are conducting a blitzkrieg of publicity. Time and again, Jolie has appeared to tediously intone about this effort, puncturing every sentence with whispers about forgiveness and reconciliation.

The Muslim age-old Jew hatred played a large part in Daniel Pearl’s beheading. He was accused of being a spy and agent of the Mossad and made to recite a humiliating confession to that effect, before his head was lopped off. The jihadis released a video of his butchering titled, “The Slaughter of the Spy-Journalist, the Jew Daniel Pearl.”

So obviously aimed at consolidating Jolie and Mariane Pearl’s sainthood, the film shifts the focus away from such salient aspects. It concentrated instead on the heroism of journalists. Mariane calls herself a journalist. Like most, she is eager to celebrate herself (or, alternately, the Islamic hajj).

Such is Mariane’s ego that a colleague of Pearl has already lamented that the Daniel Pearl she knew was nowhere to be found in the film. A rather dashing man, Daniel is played by some unknown, Dan Futterman, whom Salon.com’s, no-doubt, feminist reviewer described approvingly as “grave and elfin.” That’s not good, believe me. Basically, the hero dwarfs alongside Mariane Pearl/Jolie.

In any event, to watch Angelina with an afro and an accent play a pregnant saint is not my idea of fun. Ever since she began to believe she was on earth to die for everyone else’s sins toward the poor “brown babies” of the world (in the words of the inimitable Ingrid Bergman, in “Murder On The Orient Express”), Jolie has lost whatever meager acting abilities she had. All I can see is an annoying, emoting activist.

The Palestinian Appetite For Destruction

Islam, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Middle East

Societies are only as good as the individuals they comprise. And individuals are only as good as their actions. Overall, Israeli society is superior to Palestinian society because, like America, it is peopled by individuals who make possible a thriving civil society. Yet to Bush, the latest chaotic chapter in the annals of the M.O.P.E (Most Oppressed People Ever) is an ‘exciting moment.’ It has inspired in him visions (or hallucinations) of “two states living side by side in peace.” Bush’s appetite for destruction must be even healthier than that of the Palestinians.”

In this week’s WND essay, which led the Commentary Page, “The Palestinian Appetite For Destruction,” you can read about how Abbas intends to consolidating his street cred with the Palestinians, why Carter has a point; Bush ought not to be favoring any of the Palestinian Black Shirts. There is also a juxtaposition of Israeli society and the savage society adjacent to it, and the manner in which the two Palestinians and Jews have responded to historical challenges.

Malkin Or Sailer?

Ethics, IMMIGRATION, Intelligence, Journalism, Media

My mouth dropped open in amazement: Malkin, on Fox News, mustered more than bare-bones, “enforce-immigration-law” mantra for her argument. When asked as to the purpose of immigration law, she unusually referred to the injunction in the Preamble to the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare.”

I was impressed, but also baffled. Malkin is a straightforward reporter, who very rarely is capable of jumping a level of abstraction, beyond the facts, to come up with an original angle. How did she suddenly galvanize a principle to bolster her case? What was going on? (Then I went back to eating, so I forgot the whole episode…drool.)

Today, as I was catching up on Steve Sailer’s latest, I found a possible explanation for Malkin’s buoyed brain. In attempting to answer the question of “What is it that immigration policy is supposed to achieve?”, Sailer quotes from the Preamble:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

He then adds this:

“In other words, American policy should be for the benefit of Americans and our descendents, not for the advantage of, say, the five billion potential immigrants who live in countries with average per capita GDPs lower than Mexico.”

Speaking of third-rate pundits who borrow from their betters without crediting, a line first used in this column, recently “found” its way into a new book by this pseudo-libertarian. The line is: “The National Education Association is the al-Qaida of education.” I wonder where he got it.

Update: In response to the legitimately wry comments hereunder by our reader, let me clarify: This space is generally not given over to speculation. When you have an uncreative, unoriginal, yet immensely popular “pundit,” come up with formulations and ideas a creative, original thinker came up with; when the time line indicates the good guy said it before the gimp did; when the parties are well-acquainted (in one case, the one party used to advertise reading this column, often commented on it, and in more honest moments even acknowledge using it); when there is a power differential between the parties, in other words, when the good guy is nowhere near as influential and as known as the gimp—well, then, it is not unreasonable to wonder out loud about the mysterious, osmotic diffusion at play, enunciated in this post.

Robert Rector Of the Heritage Foundation On the ‘Transfer State’

libertarianism, Political Economy, The State

Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, has this to say about the illiberal, lemming’s lunacy of open-border libertarianism:

“I very much enjoyed your column on WorldNetDaily today. You hit the nail on the head. As I pointed out in a recent response the Wall Street Journal, the issue is not merely the “welfare state,” narrowly defined, but the much broader transfer/redistribution state, and, more fundamentally, the right to use the ballot box to pillage other people’s bank accounts. When you confer citizenship on a low-skill immigrant, you are granting them the right to use the electoral process to access your income.

I had a recent debate with Dan Griswold of Cato in which he actually said that we should have amnesty and open borders now and then work on limiting welfare later. (Not that Cato has ever had the least practical effect in limiting welfare spending). I think we could borrow a concept from the recent debate about “enforcement first.”

If libertarians are intellectually serious, they should eliminate the transfer state first along with the right to use the ballot box as an instrument of pillage, and then talk about open borders. At present, there is one potential vote for eliminating the welfare state in the U.S. Congress, so they will have their work cut out for them.

Again, great column.

Robert Rector
Senior Research Fellow
The Heritage Foundation