Sunday, February 27, 2005

Squandering the good will of Democrats

Hey! I've got an idea for some fun! Let’s look at some of the basic lies repeated and essentially accepted as fact by even reasonably level-headed Americans.
Oh, sorry, I guess it won't be much fun. But it is necessary.

Regarding the post-9/11 era: “George Bush squandered the good will of the rest of the world”. Really? How did he accomplish this? That sounds like an awfully big task. If anything at all about this perception rings true, it is only because the “International Community” had very little good will towards America around that time, and after a brief period of natural sympathy upon seeing maniacs kill our civilians for no stated purpose, everyone went back to their deep-seated resentment of America, and even stepped up higher on their podiums to denounce us more vituperatively than before.
So what specifically did Bush do to “Squander” this “Good will”? Well, apparently, he responded to the terrorist attacks by unseating the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, bringing an end to their reign of terror, and shutting down the safe haven they had granted Osama Bin Laden. Since this was done without the permission or blessings of the European “Community”, it was therefore suspect. This is where the contempt comes in: Europe likes to consider itself our moral and intellectual superior, and when we decided to strike back, we made them uncomfortable with our unity of purpose and our display of power.
Do you still believe Bush “Squandered” this “Good will”? Oh, well, of course the Iraq war…but that’s not what we’re discussing. This phrase was put into play long before operation Enduring Freedom became a reality. So how did it acquire such legs and longevity? By endlessly repeating it until people came to accept it as truth.
Now, of course, with the initial war well behind us, other lies are given wings by perpetual utterance:

“Iraq is a quagmire” - It’s a war, not a party, and the rebuilding of society gets nowhere near as much attention as the sporadic battles.

“Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction” - Recently discovered Sarin gas was easily denied or explained away, but the main problem is that we have no idea where Saddam Hussein put his weapons programs, and the possibility that he hid them underground or in a nearby safe haven is somehow not even worth considering.

“There’s no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda” – not only has this not been proved, but given that Al-Qaeda cells have been discovered in such famously tolerant European countries such as Germany, France, Spain, and England, just how much of these possibilities are we supposed to put up with?
Perpetuating lies in order to convince people of your point of view is a fascinating game, but horribly dangerous. Before the Boxers, Kennedys, or Gores bury us in another blizzard of hyperbole, they’d do well to explain exactly how we should be fighting terrorism, rather than pretend that Bush hasn’t been doing so.

Sunday, February 20, 2005

Border Babble

Let’s face it: most people appear to support the idea that we should have open borders. They’ll deny it as such (at least, the more ‘reasonable’ ones), saying that they support security and protecting America from terrorists, but in fact, what they’re after is a de facto blanket amnesty for anyone who manages to cross the border, now and forever. These people are confusing the concept of legal immigration with illegal trespassing. They will adopt platitudes about the American Dream, and say that because our ancestors emigrated from wherever they were to America, that we thus have an obligation to allow anyone to come here who wants to.
They furthermore demand that such “Immigrants” – just as though they were on the same footing with those who went through the legal immigration process – are entitled to every government service that can be imagined. From universal medical insurance (oh, sorry: the touchy-feely name is “Health Care”) to government-subsidized college tuition, these noble people who supposedly only want to work and make a contribution to the country – never mind the thousands that immediately embark upon criminal careers and end up in our jails since the Mexican government refuses to take them back – are thought to be deserving of it all. Can people who are in this country illegally get welfare?
They certainly should, argue those who have no respect for the concept of American borders, since welfare is about “helping” the “poor”. The quotation marks here are intended to call into question certain long-held definitions which have achieved the status of fact. Apparently, having little money, regardless of whose fault it is entitles one to free money given by the state – meaning taxpayers. This is the concept behind welfare, and it is assumed to be “help”.
When Clinton very reluctantly signed onto welfare reform, he unwittingly helped launch a massive turnaround in welfare use and abuse. Let’s forget for a moment how much corruption and waste pervades the welfare program (as difficult as that is), and look at what the concept of this “help” provides. If I have no money, and you give me some, then I don’t need to go earn money. Sounds like a pretty good deal, doesn’t it? Because of basic economic principles, we can see that carrying this plan to its logical extent would bankrupt the country very quickly. Well, that’s not what we’re proposing, say the proponents of welfare. We just want to help people get on their feet, from where they can then find gainful employment. But how can that happen if we’re giving away free money? Through government-sponsored “Job Training” programs, say the advocates. If that’s the goal, then why not skip the welfare payments, and go directly to this step? The question is never even raised. And why are people who are here illegally even considered for this kind of government largesse? Again, it’s because to most people, there’s no such thing as an illegal immigrant. This is primarily because of the distortion and whitewashing perpetrated by the pro-illegal immigrant fringe, which has obfuscated the concept of law. According to this line of thought, you have no right to insist on limitation of illegals from Mexico because you are a member of a wealthy society, and therefore have an obligation to share your wealth with whoever shows up to take it. How different is this from communism? Not very, but those same folk who think that everyone in Mexico has a God-given right to come into America and take up residence are the same people who still think communism would be wonderful, and that it just hasn’t been “done right”. There’s far more of these people among us than you would think. If you have no concept of borders, law, or American jurisdiction, please do us a favor, and pursue your dream of moving to a different country. In fact, why not try Mexico? Let us know what sort of reception illegal immigrants get there.

Sunday, February 13, 2005

Licking the wounds of 2004

While the conspiracy theories about the outcome of last year’s elections continue even now, much of the crowd who wished John Kerry victory have retreated into a gloomy - if not hostile - anger towards their fellow Americans who returned George Bush to the highest office in the land. Most of the reaction has been predictable, although the San Francisco Chronicle once again outdid itself with a two-day, multi-page spread quoting the reflections of Bay Area artists who overwhelmingly just happened to be opposed to Bush. Their level of vitriol towards Bush and the electorate graduated to an unimaginably higher level of hyperbole, though this should surprise no one. The creator of the website punkvoter.com displayed an especially high intensity of froth with the pronouncement that anyone he hears in San Francisco who dares to speak with a Southern accent receives an exhortation from him to go back where they came from, and that they are unwelcome in the good old ultra-tolerant city by the Bay.
So much for not judging people based on outward appearances, but it’s the inward appearances that really ignite the flames of this super-blue region. Accusations presented as accepted truths by the cognoscenti such as “Iraq had no connection to Al-Qaeda”, “Bush disregarded the Geneva Conventions”, and of course, “Bush has led an assault on civil liberties” are doled out just as though they were factual statements. These assumptions masquerading as proven fact tip the scales of reality into fantasy, which is much easier for many to accept than the established numbers of voters who just said “Yes” to Bush.
It’s not difficult to understand this motivation; after all, who among us doesn’t wish for simple solutions to problems in the Middle East? The desire to elect John Kerry was to a great extent fueled by the simplistic notion that anyone who was not George Bush could, if not wave a magic wand of harmony, at least reassure the exalted leaders of Europe and the U.N. that the U.S. would from now on defer to “International opinion”, and go through a tortuous process of self-questioning before daring to make a move that might carry even the appearance of acting “Unilaterally”.
Unfortunately, we now know that the strategies undertaken by that “Centrist” darling of middle-ground liberalism, Bill Clinton, didn’t work. (What were those strategies again? Oh, right.) While America looked the other way, Bin Laden’s cult members underwent training in special terrorist camps, and carried out their initial attacks against military targets abroad in preparation for their holy grail of civilian slaughter, 9/11. This process wasn’t unknown to us, nor were the attacks completely unexpected, but trying to pin the blame on George Bush and Condoleeza Rice plays into a reassuring fantasy that leaders from the Democratic party are the morally pure ones, while Republicans openly embrace economic rape of the entire planet, “Causing” terrorism.
People, events, and history are far more complex than can ever be perceived by those who spoke admiringly of Kerry’s ability to act in a “Nuanced” manner – never mind that it was usually just incoherence - but acknowledging this reality is the hardest first step to take in finding one’s way out of the “Bush=Hitler” woods.Until the anti-Bush faction can offer better strategies than those employed by George Bush for fighting terrorism and promoting peace and stability around the globe, there will be no real reason to consider voting for their candidate. In fact, if you listen to their battle cries, they tend to employ the notion that Israel is simply a huge pain in the neck, and peace would reign if it would just go away – but that’s a therapy session most aren’t ready for yet.

Sunday, February 06, 2005

Why Al-Qaeda prayed for a Kerry victory

It is true that Americans can appear to have short memories - witness the national myopia regarding September 11th, 2001. Already a distant memory for many, causes of the events of that day have been spun into little more than temporary insanity. Questions about who did it and why are diluted into a harmless broth, whereby a handful of men who probably "hadn't been taking their medication" went off the deep end. The feel-good platitudes of American academia and Government have subsequently been immersed in discussions about the "Root causes of terrorism", "Why they hate us", and how to win "Arab hearts and minds". While these perspectives are primarily borne of childlike ignorance, they betray a much more grown-up propensity to danger, as they play right into the hands of those who seek not to raise questions regarding global diplomacy, but only to become martyrs to their fans.

An Osama Bin Laden, to his misled palestinian supporters, is not a hero in the way we would ordinarily think of a hero - that is, someone who triumphs against evil through the sheer force of his will - rather, he is more like a rock star - someone who emits an aura of wealth and power, but whose product is more or less imaginary. Thus we have "Solutions" such as blowing up American ships and property, and the murder of civilians as the ultimate prize. No one who was actually attempting to open a serious international dialogue or negotiate a treaty would resort to such tactics. It is all showmanship, the kind of instinct within a child to light a firecracker and then run away, lest he be discovered and held accountable. Left undeveloped, this instinct can grow and warp exponentially until the slaughter of innocent civilians can appear to be a splendid way to get one's point across.

This is the problem when it comes to strategies for dealing with Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda chorus: academic types, bureaucrats, and idealists who believe in the power of government to solve the world's problems, seem to think we should be analyzing the claims of our enemies, taking them seriously, and even (insert shudder here), attempting to comply with their demands. Our politicians praise Bin Laden for "Building day-care centers", and our institutions of higher learning offer seminars on "Fighting Terrorism with Empathy", where blame is laid with the U.S. for "The actions we take out of fear, hate, and retribution".

It should be more than a little disturbing that American responses to terrorism are viewed with more suspicion than the actions of terrorists - what in the world were the attacks of 9/11 besides actions taken "Out of fear, hate, and retribution"? The Chiracs, Schroeders, and Barbara Boxers of the world can present themselves as super-diplomats for begging "Patience" on behalf of a conniving and deceitful Saddam Hussein. (Never mind that a Chirac has a lot more to hide with regard to arms sales and oil-for-food cover-ups; it is his pose as a person who cares about "Peace" which is the most dangerous to us all.) According to this mindset, we are the ones who should be in the psychiatrist's chair for failing to empathize sufficiently with our muslim brothers and sisters; the murderers, as is so common in contemporary culture, are to be excused because of an abusive upbringing, with the U.S. cast as the dysfunctional parent.

What is more dangerous to us is the way the debates are framed: if one were to suppose, even for a moment, that the mainstream press in Europe and the U.S. were a serious representation of popular thought, one could be forgiven for thinking that Bush had already been formally pronounced the new Hitler. There isn't much time or opportunity for the common man to dig through all the rubbish, so he may well shrug his shoulders and get on the Bush-bashing bandwagon. With this development safely in hand, those in journalism who entered the field in the belief that their job was to mold public opinion toward the side of the righteous would congratulate themselves on a job well done.

Fortunately, they weren't able to deliver Kerry to the Oval Office, despite their superhuman efforts. (CBS, in particular, tipped its hand in a manner so odious and foul as to discredit its entire news organization, and yet it lumbers on in denial.) When the results were in, and it turned out that a majority of Americans had not been taken in with Kerry's frantic dance steps on every issue set before him, the media exploded with a tantrum not seen since the days of Reagan. Now we are treated to reports that Americans hoping for a Kerry win are so depressed they have sought medical attention. It must be a very disturbing time for them, as a psychosis penetrating so deeply and thoroughly will indeed be difficult to endure - but unbeknownst to them, they are in luck, as the Bin Ladens and Saddam Husseins, instead of receiving an early Christmas present in the form of a U.S. president who would have been far more accommodating to them, will have to burrow deeper and run faster.

Thursday, February 03, 2005

When Albright lied, no one cried

It came up again last night. "When Clinton lied, no one died" - that adorable yet vitriolic little piece of anti-Bush candy was uttered aloud, in all seriousness, just as though it had been established as incontrovertible evidence of Bush's evil. I had thought this to be the kind of quip one finds in speeches given to specially-selected audiences, but I had forgotten how easily people can adopt absurdities as war cries. So now that it has arrived in ordinary conversation, we'd better understand exactly what it means, and what's behind it.

The overwhelming supposition, presented as conclusion in this advertising jingle of the left, is that "Bush lied". "What did he lie about?" would be the logical follow-up question, but in this club, if you have to ask the price of something, it means you can't comprehend it. So in the spirit of full disclosure, here's how it goes: Bush lied about intelligence indicating the threat level of Iraq's WMD program had become sufficiently high to warrant military invasion, partly for oil, and partly to avenge his Dad's lack of success in getting rid of Saddam. It is never clear in this line of thinking whether Bush lied about the intelligence material he was given, or whether the intelligence material was wrong, which would mean that Bush didn't lie, but was misinformed. That's a key distinction, but most of those who toss around the new jingle prefer the more seductive hallucination of Bush gleefully misleading the American people for his own pernicious purposes.

The truth is much more complicated, but most people can't be bothered with such 'nuance'; Bush as demon is a much easier explanation for all the perceived failures of one's surroundings. Let's not forget that Clinton himself signed off on pronouncements of Saddam Hussein and his WMD program as highly dangerous and worthy of intervention. Let's also not forget that such tut-tutters as France agreed with the threat analyses. In fact - and this may surprise many of us, who have managed to ignore this reality since March, 2003 - the UNITED NATIONS, that paragon of international brotherhood and communication, issued resolution after resolution informing Saddam that he faced the prospect of being forcefully deposed, based on its very own findings.

In the righteous firestorm of Bush denunciations, the gyrations and contortions of the U.N. have been ignored, suppressed, repressed, willfully forgotten, never even acknowledged. John Kerry's incredibly childish description of the coalition as "Fraudulent" as well as "Bribed" and "Coerced" was willful ignorance at its most accomplished, and only further served to illustrate the ineptitude he hoped to bring to the White House. Barbara Boxer's recent attempt to indict Condoleeza Rice as a lying stooge of Bush contained a lie of its own ("WMD - period."), but it was consistent in its complete denial of reality.

Those of us who support the war in Iraq are accused of complicity in killing American military personnel; as always, the myopic view that waging peace is always better than waging war reigns supreme, no matter how compelling and disturbing the facts are. And no matter how readily everyone agrees that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein, no amount of American military deployment is ever justified, according to the anti-war types, unless it is given the blessing of the U.N. and our purported 'allies'.

Those who decry our efforts in Iraq also tend to be in denial about 9/11 itself, of course. It is much easier to imagine that the attacks that day were directed towards Bush himself - never mind the fact that the 1993 bomb was intended to accomplish the exact same thing. According to this view, the peace-loving American people who would never harm a fly agree that every action ever taken by America in the Middle East has been in the name of evil, and must be atoned for. When you take this view, it is even possible to live in New York, having witnessed the attacks, and instead of blaming madmen who hijacked airplanes, blame America for having provoked it all. I could scarcely have imagined this possible, until the media began trumpeting them and their corrupted thought processes. While the first round of reporting focused on the despair and horror of the victims and their families, these stories were quickly pushed aside in favor of those who found the blame to fall with America. I thought the compassion-at-all-costs type eschewed the strategy of "Blaming the victim", but apparently, it didn't jibe with their agenda this time.

So, "When Clinton lied, no one died" - now that we understand the fantastically backwards logic of the "George Bush LIED" juggernaut, let's look at the first portion of the jingle. Clinton's lie - which, it has been well established, was in fact a lie - is now presented as a comparison. Assuming you have swallowed the story that Bush "Lied" about the need to go to war, you can now reassure yourself of your righteousness by contrasting this with Clinton's antics in sworn testimony regarding his sexual escapades. Never mind that the comparison is absurd; if military intervention is the question, why is Clinton's bombing campaign ignored? You remember the one, undertaken wholly without the U.N. and with far more "Unilateralism" than anything Bush has done.

The proponents of this fun little rhyme like the feeling that they are conveying something of deep meaning; by demonstrating that Clinton's alleged shortcomings were far less serious than those of Bush, the case appears to be closed. Never mind that comparing these two "Lies" is meaningless at best, and fraudulent to the point of psychosis at worst. Like Clinton, feeling good about yourself and your views is the most important thing - never mind the ugliness of reality. Never mind that the adolescent mindset which calls for perpetual rebellion against Mom and Dad - and by extension, society - feeds much more readily on the conclusion that America is proven to be the bad guy because of the actions of a few wayward soldiers at Abu Ghraib, and completely ignores the horrors perpetrated by Saddam Hussein and his regime on so many ordinary Iraqi citizens, not to mention the cash prizes awarded to suicide bombers in Israel.

Never mind such complicated thoughts, for a good jingle erases the need for objectivity, as any witness of advertising knows. But if a meaningful comparison combined with a catchy slogan is what you crave, a better one might be:
"Clinton talked, Bush walked"
Or perhaps:
"Clinton ignored, Bush implored"
Or maybe:
"Clinton retracted, Bush acted"

Or maybe this is the wrong approach. Could it be that truth and reality are not well served by PR ditties?