The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘Most of the Miseries of the World Were Caused by Wars . . .’

Posted on | November 30, 2010 | 18 Comments

” . . and, when the wars were over, no one ever knew what they were about.”
— Ashley Wilkes, Gone With the Wind

Captain Wilkes might well have added that, the further wars recede from memory, the more difficult it becomes to explain them to people who only know what they were taught in school.

Why, for example, did “Remember the Maine!” serve as the spark for war fever against Spain in 1898? Or what inspired Argentina to invade the Falkland Islands in 1982?

When I was a kid growing up in the 1960s, every patriotic American knew that our troops were in Vietnam to fight the godless commies. But by the time I got to high school in the 1970s, we were evacuating troops from the roof of the embassy in Saigon because fighting the godless commies no longer seemed like a good idea to the folks in charge.

The experience of defeat in Vietnam was, and remains, a tender scar in the American soul, dividing us still.

Some people took from that experience the lesson that any foreign military operation by the United States was necessarily a bad thing, an imperialist quest for world domination undertaken on behalf of greedy corporations that stood to profit from supplying the war machine and exploiting the resources gained by conquest.

Others took from the Vietnam experience a quite different lesson, about how politicians attempting to micromanage military operations bring about disaster and about the folly of “limited” war undertaken without adequate appreciation of the enemy’s unwillingness to recognize such limits. And then there was the question of exactly when dissent in time of war crosses a line and becomes something far more sinister than mere dissent — but let’s not go there.

No, it’s best to fight one war at a time.

My experience of growing up during the Vietnam war, and seeing how it has been variously interpreted in the years since, instilled in me a deep skepticism about simplistic, politicized explanations for war.

Even World War II,  in which my own father was wounded within an inch of his life while fighting the Nazis, has been subjected to revisionism and critical scrutiny that somewhat debunks the gauzy idealism that has surrounded “The Last Good War.” And this skepticism about viewing war through a political prism was only increased by watching how, in 1990-91, the anti-war crowd leaped to the conclusion that the U.S. military response to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait — Operation Desert Shield, which became Desert Storm — was sure to be an endless bloody quagmire.

Fortunately, that war reached a quick and successful conclusion before the advocates of “peace” could do much more than make complete fools of themselves. But by the time the hawks began beating the war-drums in 2002, demanding the invasion and conquest of Iraq, the first Gulf War had been misinterpreted by many as proof that all future U.S. wars would be quick and successful — much to the subsequent chagrin of “Cakewalk Ken” Adelman and his friends.

As I say, however, it’s best to fight one war at a time and I’ve no more interest in arguing about Iraq than I have in arguing about Vietnam. My point is that every U.S. war in my lifetime has been subjected to endless arguments like this, the sturdy facts obscured by partisan politics and opinions having nothing to do with actual military operations.

This is all by way of explaining why I get so weary of the tendentiousness with which some people approach the study of the War Between the States. The New York Times sent a reporter to Atlanta to stir up trouble in this regard:

ATLANTA — The Civil War, the most wrenching and bloody episode in American history, may not seem like much of a cause for celebration, especially in the South.
And yet, as the 150th anniversary of the four-year conflict gets under way, some groups in the old Confederacy are planning at least a certain amount of hoopla, chiefly around the glory days of secession, when 11 states declared their sovereignty under a banner of states’ rights and broke from the union.
The events include a “secession ball” in the former slave port of Charleston (“a joyous night of music, dancing, food and drink,” says the invitation), which will be replicated on a smaller scale in other cities. A parade is being planned in Montgomery, Ala., along with a mock swearing-in of Jefferson Davis as president of the Confederacy. . . .

You can read the whole thing, if you wish, but let’s just say that no decent Southern gentleman would accept an invitation to discuss the War if he knew that Mark Potok would be invited to the discussion.

Might as well discuss sexual morality with Andrew Sullivan, or discuss democracy with Kim Jong Il.

Perhaps I’ll have more to say later, or perhaps not. There are enough idiots in the world to argue with, and enough topics on which such idiots claim expertise, without arguing with the New York Times about the War — or, as refined Southerners once called it, the Late Unpleasantness.

Category: History

From ‘Blame Bush’ to ‘It’s All Rigged’

Posted on | November 30, 2010 | 1 Comment

Wherein a Democratic senator complains that the agenda of Senate Democrats is un-democratic:

Via Hot Air and the Daily Caller. Sen. Bennett has discovered Hall’s Iron Law of Leadership: There are people who make lists, and there are people who are on lists. Bennett’s not a list-maker, so he’ll vote the way he’s told and be grateful for the opportunity.

Notice how getting their asses whupped in the mid-terms has awakened Democrats — not just Bennett, but a lot of liberal bloggers — to the fact that maybe their leaders are more interested in preserving their own power than in advancing the glorious progressive Cause. And the illusion of leadership omnicompetence evaporates pretty quickly after a world-historic ass-whupping.

Category: Colorado, Democrats, Senate

She’s Certainly Making the Right Enemies

Posted on | November 30, 2010 | 29 Comments

Congratulations, Governor Palin:

You can add the hatred of Charles Johnson, next to the pathological obsession of Andrew Sullivan, in your trophy case. As to Joe Scarborough’s accusation that Palin is a “cultural icon” of “anti-intellectualism” . . . Hey, let’s go to the video:

“To all you people who want to send me e-mails: Don’t waste your time. I’m not going to read it.”

In other words: “My mind’s made up. Don’t try to confuse me with your so-called ‘facts.'” An attitude we might call . . . uh, anti-intellectual. Read more

Category: Election 2012, MSNBC, Sarah Palin

Why Doesn’t the SPLC Just Go Ahead and Call the Republican Party a ‘Hate Group’?

Posted on | November 30, 2010 | 3 Comments

Both the American Family Association and Concerned Women for America — and four other groups that generally oppose the gay-rights agenda — have now taken notice of the “hate” tag placed on them by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

But why stop there? Why not the entire GOP? Why not the U.S. Marine Corps and the Boy Scouts of America? And as Mark Krikorian says, while we’re at it, how about the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention? Krikorian adds:

The gay-rights groups . . . have welcomed this appalling attempt at suppressing dissenting opinions; as one of them said, “There are no ‘two sides’ to the issues about gay and lesbian rights.”

Jesse Walker of Reason magazine has observed that the SPLC “would paint a box of Wheaties as an extremist threat if it thought that would help it raise funds.” And Rick Barber has called the SPLC “an extremist wolf in ‘watchdog’ clothing.”

The SPLC has now spent an entire decade warning America against the hate-menace of Robert Stacy McCain. And obviously the recent election results — and 5 million hits — are evidence that the menace is growing.

Today the blogosphere, tomorrow the world!

Category: Gays, The Flemish Menace

Keith Olbermann Now Becoming a Satire of a Parody of the Left-Wing Kook He Is

Posted on | November 30, 2010 | 9 Comments

“Julian Assange Exposed Thousands Of Sensitive US Documents, So The Worst Person In The World Is Obviously Bristol Palin,” says Rob Port at Say Anything, and who can argue with that perverse logic?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Category: Uncategorized

The Endless Delaware Post-Mortem

Posted on | November 30, 2010 | 11 Comments

The day after the Delaware primary, I asked, “Is this really about 2012?” It seemed to me that many ruling-class Republicans — especially those aboard the Mitt Romney 2012 bandwagon — were attacking Christine O’Donnell as a proxy for Sarah Palin.

Given the extraordinarily good news on the House side, with the GOP gaining 63 seats, it seems absurd that some conservatives continue to cry over spilled milk, endlessly rehashing the failure of Republicans to capture a Senate majority, and especially bemoaning the outcome in Delaware.

Even if this is not merely a proxy for arguments between pro-Palin and anti-Palin camps within the GOP, it has certainly turned into one of those Dougherty’s Law situations: “If it were more like me, the Republican Party would be better off. It’s failing because it’s like you.”

In other words, the elitist attacks on O’Donnell are a veiled way of attacking the supposedly unenlightened hicks who supported O’Donnell. Longtime O’Donnell supporter Jerry Wilson at Goldfish and Clowns is sick and tired of this argument:

[T]here was a ton of ammo used in the debate over the choice between Mike Castle and Christine O’Donnell in the Delaware senatorial primary. The division was sharp, with one side stating that no matter how liberal Castle’s voting record was, he was at least a Republican and apparently electable unlike krazee Christine, while the other insisted Castle was a no-go and O’Donnell was indeed a viable candidate. Neither side was inclined to give the other much credence, and the discussion became extremely toxic.
A seldom commented on element of this was how the Castle supporters had zero personal investment in him, while O’Donnell boosters often had a strong connection with her. . . .

You should go read the whole thing.

On a related topic: Who is Ned Ryun, and why is he attacking Tea Party candidates?

Category: Delaware, Election, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin

The Perils of Presidential Oratory

Posted on | November 30, 2010 | 2 Comments

After yesterday’s epic rant against Obama’s pay-freeze speech, I still had lots of snark left over, so I wrote a 1,700-word column for The American Spectator:

President Obama gave a speech Monday, which isn’t particularly newsworthy in itself, as part of the president’s job is to be Speechgiver-in-Chief. But this speech was different, at least for me, simply because I listened to part of it.
Not listening to presidential speeches is a habit I developed during the Clinton administration in an effort to preserve my sanity. It was my wife who suggested this non-listening policy after she watched me seething with fury and muttering curses throughout Bill Clinton’s 1996 State of the Union address.
Presidential historians will recall that as Clinton’s “era of big government is over” speech. For me, it was the “lying two-faced bastard” speech. To list and refute every falsehood in that speech would require more words than I’m willing to expend on the effort. It would be easier to say, as Mary McCarthy said of Lillian Hellman, that every word is a lie, including “and” and “the.” . . .

Please read the whole thing, including Page 2.

Category: American Spectator, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton

Muslim Columnist: U.K. Rape Gang Case Exposes ‘Disgusting Cultural Beliefs’

Posted on | November 30, 2010 | 41 Comments

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is a founding member of British Muslims for Secular Democracy. A native Ugandan of Indian ancestry, she came to England in 1972, shortly before the ruthless dictator Idi Amin officially expelled Uganda’s Asian population. She married a British man, Colin Brown, and is a popular author, journalist and lecturer.

Alibhai-Brown is a woman of the Left, who opposed the war in Iraq and has been called an avatar of political correctness. All that said, she is at least unwilling to tiptoe around controversy, including last week’s shocking news about the Derbyshire gang led by Abid ­Saddique and Mohammed Liaqat that sexually exploited dozens of girls as young as 12.

This was one of several similar cases in recent years, and a report on the case by a Derbyshire youth agency identified “culture, ethnicity and identity” as a “critical factor” in making the girls (most of whom were white) vulnerable to the predators. The report said those issues were “worthy of wider consideration, possibly on a national basis,” and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown addresses those issues in her latest column for the British Independent:

The official inquiry into the case concluded that the care agencies were ill-equipped to deal with the scale of the abuse being perpetrated by the gang. But it also concluded that there needs to be an honest national conversation about how exploitation in some places intersects with “culture, ethnicity and identity”.
Let’s begin then. Because without such an open conversation, prejudices fester and millions of Britons come to believe that serious offenders from certain ethnic and religious groups have protected status within our country.
The Cornwall and Derby villains who used girls as sex toys believed that their victims had “asked for it”, which in our permissive age is an easy excuse. Very young girls are sexualised in the social environment, so paedophiles must feel they are only helping themselves to the goodies that are on offer. But in the case of the Asian men, disgusting cultural beliefs further validate their acts and their uncontrollable lechery is, in part, a symptom of repressed sexuality and sick attitudes.
Most Asian men do not go around raping young white girls and women; many have happy and equal relationships with white partners. However, an alarming number of Asian individuals, families and communities do believe that white females have no morals, are free and available, deserving of no respect or protection.
Up in Bradford a few years back, I met Muslim pimps, some wearing mini Koran pendants on heavy, gold chains. “Not our girls,” they reassured me, “just them white girls from the estates, cheap girls. They love it man, all the money they make! What else will they do with their lives? We’re helping them make a career.”
Much laughter, until I asked them what they would do if a white pimp groomed their daughters. They would kill the pimp and the girls too, they said. They would too.

What Alibhai-Brown exposes here is not merely a sexual double-standard, but also an ethnic or religious double-standard, where Muslim men have one standard for “our girls” and another standard for white girls, who are categorically presumed to be immoral.

If Alibhai-Brown has been willing to address the vicious attitudes among (some) British Muslim men that helped foster the environment in which the Derbyshire rape-gang flourished, wouldn’t it behoove someone to examine the problems among British whites that contributed to this horror?

The pimps in Bradford who talked to Alibhai-Brown about “cheap” white girls from “the estates” — British vernacular for government low-income housing, what we Americans would call “the projects” — weren’t just making up a stereotype out of thin air. In 2008, 45% of British births were to unmarried women and, in some low-income areas, the illegitimacy rate was as high as 68%. Such figures certainly indicate that a casual attitude toward pre-marital sex is commonplace in the U.K.

It isn’t just Muslim men who regard promiscuous women as “cheap,” you know. Wouldn’t it be rather hypocritical to stigmatize as “cheap” the lower-class girls in the estates who drop their knickers for every Tom, Dick and Mohamed, when similarly immoral behavior is exhibited by those at the top of British society?

And I do mean, the top.

Prince Charles reportedly spent his 20s hopping from the bed of one mistress, Camilla Parker-Bowles, to another, Kanga Tryon — both of whom were married to friends of his — and kept up his extramarital affairs after he and Diana were wed in 1981. After Charles and Di divorced in 1996, Diana took up with Dodi Fayed, in whose limousine she was riding when she was killed in an accident the next year. Charles recently married Camilla. Princess Ann has been married, divorced and remarried, and let’s not even start with Andrew and Fergie, eh?

Well, what about the rising generation of royals? William recently announced his engagement to Kate Middleton, whom he’s been stringing along since 2003. The couple have been shacking up together for months. And, by all accounts, Wills is the quiet one. It’s Harry that’s the wild child — heaven knows how many notches on his belt by now. He recently split with his on-again-off-again girlfriend of six years, reportedly because of Harry’s “desire to stay a bachelor for many more years.”

Here, then, you have the spectacle of “Royals Gone Wild.” Queen Elizabeth’s four children have gone through three divorces, accumulating a total of six spouses among them, and the young scion of the House of Windsor is shacked up in Anglesey with his bride-to-be.

A fine example, don’t you think, for the poor girls in the estates?

So much, then, for the royals. What about British celebrities — pop singers, TV stars, footballers and the like? Are they less “cheap” than the girls pimped out in Bradford and Derby?

A fish rots from the head down, and if Britons aren’t concerned by the putrid odor of moral decay in their society, they should be.­ It’s all fine for Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to condemn the “disgusting cultural beliefs” of men like Abid Saddique and Mohammed Liaqat, but to what extent are those beliefs — “that white females have no morals,” as Alibhai-Brown says — an accurate reflection of 21-century British decadence?

And given that a quite similar decadence is evident in American culture, isn’t Bob Belvedere correct to warn that what’s happening now in the U.K. foreshadows what the future holds for us?

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers.

UPDATE II: Linked at My Pet Jawa, Lonely Conservative, James Board, Maurice Myth and “Quote of the Day” at the Hayride.

Our British friend The Aged P. suggests I should visit Ye Merry Olde and do some shoe-leather reporting, which he insists would disprove the contention that British lasses have become a lot of whorish man-traps. While I’d be glad to take him up on the offer, such a trip would require a massive input to the Shoe Leather Fund — but since it’s “Make My Wife Happy” Week, after all . . .

PREVIOUSLY:

Category: Crime, Culture, Great Britain, Sex
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin