Poor Man--History Has Passed Him By

Eric Foner, a leftist historian writing in the Nation:

RARELY HAS A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION produced such widespread despair on the left. By any objective standard, George W. Bush has been among the worst Presidents in American history. One of the main purposes of elections in a democracy is to act as a check on those in power by confronting them with the possibility of being removed from office. If Bush can be re-elected after having alienated virtually the entire world, brought the country into war on false pretenses and mortgaged the nation's future to provide economic benefits to the rich, what incentive will other Presidents have to act more reasonably?

Foner manages to summarize the contempt the Left feels toward anyone outside their elitist cocoon, and simultaneously, with breathtaking arrogance, demonstrates his "intellectual" superiority by asserting that whatever he thinks is the "objective standard" by which all of us should think! Isn't that nice?

This is the sort of drivel that passes for intellectual discussion in his circles, I imagine. Just for fun, let's look at his 'objective standards" that prove GWB is among the worse Presidents in American History.

1. He's "alienated virtually the entire world"
First of all, this assertion has been shown repeatedly to be completely false. The coalition that participated in Iraq was composed of even more countries than participated in the 1st Gulf War (see HERE for the facts). What Foner actually means is that so-called "progressives" like himself, and some countries (such as France and Germany and many of the totalitarian regimes of the Middle East) are not happy with the U.S. decision to oust Saddam Hussein (Security Council Resolution 1441 notwithstanding). I can understand Mr. Foner's anguish. But my response--like it is to every one of my patients who don't want to face reality-- is to grow up. Sometimes you have to do the RIGHT thing, even if it isn't the POPULAR thing. George Bush has done much that is RIGHT, and goodness--he's even popular, too. I mean 51% of the citizens of the US voted for him, didn't they? And here is an article from Damascus that suggests that a majority in Syria of all places, would have voted for him, too! Just because you don't like him, Mr. Foner, doesn't mean the entire world doesn't like him. That's sort of grandiose, don't you think?

2. He "brought the country into war on false pretenses"
Come on. Give me a break. False pretenses? How many articles have shown this to be false? How many times does this ridiculous assertion need to be debunked before reason seeps into the Bush-Haters' brains? GWB looked at the same intelligence that the rest of the world looked at. The same intelligence that every senator and congressman looked at. That John Kerry and John Edwards looked at. That France, Germany, Britain and virtually any country that has an intelligence service looked at. They ALL came to the same conclusion. Saddam's WMD's were thought to be real; AND even Saddam encouraged this widely held belief. Accept it.

3. "Mortgaged the nation's future to provide economic benefits to the rich"
OK. This is the old "class warfare" argument that jerks like this guy has been promulgating from time immemorial. They're all for "fairness" unless you happen to be rich. Then its OK be be unfair. Like the tax system of this country, which penalizes the rich to the extent that the top 5% of wage earners (of $120,000 or over) pay 55% of the income taxes (see here). Geesh. What could be fairer? Practically anything. GWB has given some of that money back, to EVERYONE who paid it. People like John Kerry or THK, or Hollywood celebrities . are free to give the government more of their money if they want to (and, btw, I don't notice that they have put their money where their mouths are), but I for one, was delighted to get some money back from the government.

This historical genius goes on to say:
I suspect that the attacks of September 11 and the sense of being engaged in a worldwide "war on terror" contributed substantially to Bush's victory. Generally speaking, Americans have not changed Presidents in the midst of a war. The Bush campaign consistently and successfully appealed to fear, with continuous warnings of imminent and future attacks. Land of the free? Perhaps. Home of the brave? Not anymore. (emphasis mine)

Yes, yes...I see it now! September 11 was a trivial incident and this "sense" I have that we are engaged in a worldwide war on terror must be a delusion of mine! Part of a vast rightwing conspiracy to keep the population of the U.S. (and probably the world!) fearful and controlled! Now, why didn't I figure that out? Clearly this man represents the best and brightest of his field!

For the record, I happen to think that--with all his flaws--history will be extremely kind to George W. Bush; and may even rank him among the greatest of U.S. Presidents. Now, wouldn't that be a kicker!

My only question is this: what incentive does anyone have to listen to the pseudointellectual rantings of an historian who has let history pass him by?

Weekly Insanity Roundup

Well, here is the weekly roundup of the insane, the unbelievable, the ridiculous and the pathetic. I don't know about you, but it really helps my mental health to collect these during the week!

1. "I could live forever without that visual." So could I.

2. A penis tree???

3. Is meatball eating the next Olympic sport?

4. He's not in Kansas anymore.

5. This is soooooo 21st century!

6. Emerging from the catacombs, they shall overcome!

7. Right. This is exactly what the Democrats need to get them in touch. (Actually, they should probably hire a psychiatrist. I'm available)

8. Who in the world is suprised that this person doesn't like Christmas? Halloween is more her cup of tea.

9. Cool, Dude!

10. Beating a really really dead horse.

11. I wonder who CAIR thinks IS responsible for terrorism? To find out, click HERE. Is anyone surprised? (Gasp! Maybe I've hurt their feelings! I hope so.)

UPDATE: This insanity just in: There's a right way and a wrong way to insult Islam! (via Betsy's Page)

Something to Be Proud Of

Hamid Karzai, on his inauguration as President of Afghanistan: (Read the story here)

Whatever we have achieved in Afghanistan--the peace, the election, the reconstruction, the life that the Afghans are living today in peace, the children going to school, the businesses, the fact that Afghanistan is again a respected member of the international community--is from the help that the United States of America gave us. Without that help Afghanistan would be in the hands of terrorists--destroyed, poverty-stricken, and without its children going to school or getting an education. We are very, very grateful, to put it in the simple words that we know, to the people of the United States of America for bringing us this day.

I don't know about you, but I am proud of my country; proud of my President; and proud of all the wonderful men and women of our military services who made this possible. I fervently hope that Iraq may also see the light of Liberty at the end of a long, dark tunnel.

Long Live Liberty!

Watch This Slide Show!

LGF has this fabulous, uplifting link to a slideshow that had me in tears. Go see it!

Depends On What You Mean By "Peace"

PowerLine takes issue with the latest Nobel Peace Prize winner. And for good cause. Wangari Maathai has stated for the record:

Do not be naive. AIDS is not a curse from God to Africans or the black people. It is a tool to control them designed by some evil-minded scientists.
I may not be able to say who developed the virus, but it was meant to wipe out the black race.

Clearly this Nobel Laureate has access to some new definitiion of the word "peace" that I am unfamiliar with (but apparently the Nobel Committee understands). I don't mean to whine, but wasn't there ANYONE else in the entire world who was worthy to receive this prize? Come on...ANYONE???

Well, Duh

Thomas Sowell has a new column on education in our nation's high schools. Here's an excerpt:

What about the ethics of using steroids? Kids can talk about this at home or on the streets or just about anywhere. What about the ethics of using up precious school time for such chatter when there are serious deficiencies in our children's ability to measure up to international standards in an increasingly competitive international economy? Presiding over classroom chatter is no doubt a lot easier than teaching the Pythagorean theorem or differential calculus. But teachers who indulge themselves like this, at the expense of their students' future, have no business conducting discussions of "ethics" about athletes using steroids -- or any other ethics issue. Jason Giambi may have done some damage to his own career, and to George Steinbrenner's pocketbook, by taking steroids. But that is nothing compared to the damage done to schoolchildren whose time is frittered away talking about it when there is serious work that remains undone.
With all the outcry about the "outsourcing" of American jobs, especially in computer work, there has been relatively little said about the importing of brains from foreign countries to do mentally challenging work here because the brains of our own students have simply not been adequately developed in our schools. For years, most of the Ph.D.s awarded by American universities in mathematics and engineering have gone to foreigners. We have the finest graduate schools in the world -- so fine that our own American students have trouble getting admitted in fields that require highly trained minds.

My daughter is taking a class in middle school on "recycling". This pisses me off to no end. While I am not opposed to recycling and other environmentally-friendly things, I am angered that this "class" takes up time that could be spent in science, history, language arts, or math. They are constantly increasing the amount of time students spend in schools and with classes like recycling wasting student's time, I can understand why. Especially in Ann Arbor there seems to be an inordinate amount of environmentalism is the K-12 curriculum. Again, no argument that it is something that is worth study--in college, maybe. But kindergardeners? Recycling for middle schoolers? My impression is that rather than study this as a science, it is being presented more as propaganda.

Just imagine if history topics or math and science topics were given such special consideration. Say a special class in WWII; or maybe a special class on the Greek mathematicians? Maybe students would know about Auschwitz; or understand some basic economic principles. Maybe they'd even score higher in science and math. Well, Duh.

The Council Has Spoken !

This week's winners in the Watcher's Council vote are:

BEST COUNCIL LINK:

Sex and Disease by King of Fools


BEST NON-COUNCIL LINK:

How Far We've Come Victor Davis Hanson's Private Papers

Be sure to read the two above, but check out all the entries over at the Watcher's site !

A Simple Question

Why is it "heroic", "principled", worthy of mention by the media, and a sure-fire path to fame if a person:

• Deserts their military obligation and flees to Canada? Or refuses to serve?
• Sues the military?
• Asks "tough" questions of the Secretary of Defense?
• Takes pictures that show our military in a negative light?
• Or is in any way critical of anything and everything the military does; predicting imminent disaster and doom? Or even says the military has "lost" in Iraq?

While at the same time:

Those who serve honorably, bravely, and without complaint are invisible to an indifferent mainstream media; who--believing that opposition to the military is a moral imperative-- make sure you will never encounter the names or hear the everyday heroic stories of the overwhelming majority of our incredible military men and women? Go figure.

UPDATE: This pattern applies, apparently, even if the "tough questions" are completely staged. And, the Watcher links to a story about a soldier who became known for his anti-Bush, anti-Iraq rhetoric--except that it was all a lie. I'm sure that heroic and principled individual will go into politics.

Polish the Boot

The Belmont Club today offers a discussion of Orwellian "psy-ops" in Great Britain concerning the increasing public fears about home invasion, in light of the murder of a well-known individual. For those of you who don't know about this, I refer you here and here. The basic point is that Britains who attempt to protect their homes against burglars and thugs have been the subject of intense legal prosecution to the point that homeowners are as frightened of going to jail for defending themselves as they are for being victimized by crime. As a result, home invasion is at an all-time high in Great Britain, where criminals have been emboldened to commit their crimes even when people are at home.

Now, back to the "psy-ops" being used by the British government. A psychological "expert", Dr. Ian Stephens offers the following advice:

When individuals are confronted by intruders there are some actions they should follow. Direct contact should be avoided whenever possible. If unavoidable, the victim should adopt a state of active passivity. In most cases the best form of defence is always avoidance. If this isn’t possible, act passively, be careful what you say or do and give up valuables without a struggle. This allows the victim to take charge of the situation, without the intruder’s awareness, through subtle and non-confrontational means. People can cooperate but initiate nothing. By doing nothing there is no chance of inadvertently initiating violence by saying something such as "Please don’t hurt me".

Sometimes the perpetrator of a burglary is even more terrified than the victim and in many cases when things go wrong it is the perpetrator of the crime who panics. Although they sometimes go equipped with weapons, in most cases they probably don’t intend to use them but in the heat of the moment, and the fear of either getting caught or attacked themselves, they use them. They don’t expect the person they are trying to hold up to retaliate or react. Mostly the knife is there simply for intimidation rather than intent to use it and they finish up killing somebody by accident rather than design.

As Wretchard correctly points out, this "expert advice" all but says, "It is YOUR fault if something bad happens." Those poor criminals didn't mean to hurt you! If you had only remained passive--instead of FORCING them to hurt or kill you!

I have two points to make as a psychiatrist. The first is that Dr. Stephen's advice is woefully shortsighted. He does not follow through. I would agree with him that acting passively--or, rather PRETENDING to act passively is a good idea. One should ALWAYS do what one has to in order to stay alive, and if acting passively is what is needed, then so be it. But that is where he and I part company. Passivity is a good strategy when there is nothing yet you are able to do to change a situation. But--and this is a BIG but--you should be ACTIVELY looking for an opportunity to 1) escape from the situation; or 2) take control of the situation. Neither of these may be viable options in a particular situation, but that does not mean you have to embrace the VICTIM role by default. It is morally and ethically sensible to lie, cheat and behave in a dishonest manner if you have to in order to survive. It is ethically and morally imperative that you protect yourself in whatever way you can from those whose intent is to harm you or your loved ones. Dr. Stephens' advice only works for a society of rabbits living in wolf country, who know they will get eaten anyway.

The second point is that--from a psychological perspective--a society that protects the criminal and prosecutes the innocent for self-defense against criminals is acting out of "identification with the aggressor". The government identifies with the criminal and is intent on protecting the criminal, because the government's own actions towards its citizens is morally equivalent to the actions of thieves and criminals. The officials of this society know that if you were allowed to protect yourself from those who would harm you, you might decide to act against the benevolent socialist government itself! Socialism IS the ultimate form of "home invasion", after all. It teaches that someone else is entitled to your work and effort; your property and life. In such a system, criminals naturally become the ruling class. On some subconscious level, the government knows this, and --just as the authorities did in Orwell's 1984--they will punish you for acting in your own interest and against the criminal interests of the State.

Wretchard quotes Orwell: If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- forever." Then adds his own pithy comment: "He forgot to add one thing: you will polish the boot." Read his entire analysis at the link above!

Delicious Blasphemy

I have always admired Tom Lehrer. Because I was raised as a Roman Catholic, one of my favorite songs of his has always been "The Vatican Rag". It always seemed so deliciously blasphemous and since all our elders disapproved it, we students embraced the lyrics with enthusiasm. What great fun it was to mock the ponderous and sober tenets of religion--especially the Catholic religion. What could the Pope do to us? The worse imaginable fate was excommunication, (even we couldn't imagine burning in Hell for something so light-hearted). Even Pontiffs must have had a sense of humor, though, and nothing happened to us. Lightening didn't come down and strike us dead (a good thing!), and in my heart I always imagined the Pope would smile at the clever lyrics. After all, God gave us Free Will and we must choose to believe--or not to believe. And if we believe, does that automatically mean there is nothing funny or joyful in the world?

OK. Here’s the question of the day. Can Islam tolerate being mocked like Catholicism? Surely the Taliban at least rate a Rag of their own (sorry, Tom!):

The Taliban Rag

First you open the Koran,
Listen to the crazed Imam,
Chant his mindless words from hell,
So you can kill the infidel!

Wear that hijab on your head!
Soon you’ll wish that you were dead!
Everybody go to war,
Allah, allahu akbar,
Doin' the Taliban Rag.

Women, get into that burkha,
You can’t learn and you can’t work-a,
'Cause the guy called ayatollah will
Issue fatwas that are meant to kill.
Do not dance or love your body,
Soon you'll be a true jihadi;
A-one and two and then a three-a,
Time to implement Shar’ia!

So go open that Koran,
Listen to that crazed Imam.
Learn his mindless words from hell,
So you can kill the infidel!

He is not a Dalai Llama,
When in caves do like Osama;
All praise be to Allah,
Shout aloud Inshallah!
Gettin' ecstatic an' sorta dramatic an
'Doin' the Taliban Rag!

Time To Support The Rebellion

"The more you tighten your grip, Mullahs, the more bloggers will slip through your fingers."

I think it is time to support the Rebellion.

Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941

Lest we forget....

Recessional
by Rudyard Kipling, 1879

God of our fathers, known of old—
Lord of our far-flung battle line—
Beneath whose awful hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

The tumult and the shouting dies—
The Captains and the Kings depart—
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

Far-called our navies melt away—
On dune and headland sinks the fire—
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe—
Such boastings as the Gentiles use,
Or lesser breeds without the Law—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

For heathen heart that puts her trust
In reeking tube and iron shard—
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
And guarding calls not Thee to guard.
For frantic boast and foolish word,
Thy Mercy on Thy People, Lord!
Amen.

This Is A Religion?

From a MEMRI transcript: (hat tip: Jim O)

The following are excerpts from a Friday sermon at Qom, Iran by Ayatollah 'Ali Meshkini, head of the Assembly of Experts:

Ayatollah 'Ali Meshkini: I recommend that the pilgrims [to Mecca and Al-Medina] pray there, that they be persistent in their prayer. Prayer is a very good way of worshiping God. They should not forget to pray. But for every prayer there should also be a curse. Your prayers should also include curses. Pray for the good and curse the evil. Say: "My Lord, end the lives of three people shortly – Bush, Sharon, and Blair. End their lives and the lives of their followers. Ask the Lord

Crowd: Death to America.

Ayatollah 'Ali Meshkini: Ask the Lord to end their lives and to remove their evil from us, the Muslims.I expect that the honorable pilgrims will not return from Mecca until the evil is removed from the Muslims. Ask the Lord for this. Say to the Lord: "My lord, they are not fighting against Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan. They are fighting against Islam."
Some of the world's renowned personalities wrote something marvelous about Bush. They wrote that Bush should be tried as a war criminal. They have written well, and that's the way it should be.
Allah Akbar
Allah Akbar
Allah Akbar
Khamenei is the leader
Death to those who oppose the rule of the jurisprudence.
Death to America
Death to Israel
Death to the hypocrites [Mojahedin-e Khalq]

Ayatollah 'Ali Meshkini: As an Iranian cleric I consider our statesmen and leaders to be part of the regime and I respect them. I demand that they promote, with all their might, the activation of the nuclear [fuel] cycle, the enrichment of uranium and development of Iran's nuclear capabilities. They must choose a logical path and not fear any power or threat.

Crowd:Allah Akbar
Allah Akbar
Allah Akbar
Khamenei is the leader
Death to those who oppose the rule of the jurisprudence.
Death to America
Death to Israel
Death to the hypocrites [Mojahedin-e Khalq]

This is a religion? It sounds more like a death/murder cult, and reminds me of the Kali worshippers in the Indiana Jones movie, Temple of Doom. We have the psychotic and obsessed leader; the blood lust and chants for death; hypnosis and enslavement; conformity and psychopathology. "Peace" is not the object of this so-called religion; nor is the worship of any loving or benevolent God. Theirs is a God of death, destruction, slavery, and oppression. With such a "religion" there is no need for a concept of "hell". Life would suffice.

A Visit To Hell

Read this description of a visit to North Korea. P.J. O'Rourke described places like this in his book Holidays in Hell some years ago.

A Hyundai executive half-jokingly says that his company's excursions are called "Don't Do It! Tours." Cellphones, laptops, telephoto lenses, and powerful binoculars are strictly verboten. Visitors must wear photo ID tags at all times. Photos are forbidden inside the DMZ and in the North. You are not to point at a North Korean, and, in the unlikely event you talk with a resident, you are to avoid any political statements.
Two years ago a South Korean woman reportedly asked a North Korean why President Kim Jong Il was the only fat man in the country, and was detained for several days as a result.

Just another totalitarian paradise, of the Communist variety.

Freedom is Spreading

This article by Arthur Chrenkoff in the Wall Street Journal is jam-packed with good news from Iraq. It seems that the Iraqis are eager for elections. Here's an excerpt:

It takes a lot to get a man of God annoyed, and Louis Sako, the Chaldean Archbishop of Kirkuk, is a very frustrated man these days. "It is not all death and destruction," says the archbishop. "Much is positive in Iraq today. . . . Universities are operating, schools are open, people go out onto the streets normally. . . . Where there's a kidnapping or a homicide the news gets out immediately, and this causes fear among the people. . . . Those who commit such violence are resisting against Iraqis who want to build their country."

It's not just the terrorists who, according to His Eminence, are creating problems for Iraq: Elections in January "will be a starting point for a new Iraq," he says. Yet "Western newspapers and broadcasters are simply peddling propaganda and misinformation. . . . Iraqis are happy to be having elections and are looking forward to them because they will be useful for national unity. . . . Perhaps not everything will go exactly to plan, but, with time, things will improve. Finally Iraqis will be given the chance to choose. Why is there so much noise and debate coming out from the West when before, under Saddam, there were no free elections, but no one said a thing?" (emphasis mine).

Why are the major news sources still emphasizing the negative? Not a day goes by that I don't read that someone, somewhere is recommending the elections should be postponed. This does not appear to be what the Iraqis want. Read Chrenkoff's entire article to learn about the 156 political parties that have been formed! Charles Krauthammer has an excellent op-ed piece that came out last week exactly on this topic:

In 1864, 11 of the 36 United States did not participate in the presidential election. Was Lincoln's election therefore illegitimate? In 1868, three years after the security situation had, shall we say, stabilized, three states (not insignificant ones: Texas, Virginia and Mississippi) did not participate in the election. Was Grant's election illegitimate?
There has been much talk that if the Iraqi election is held and some Sunni Arab provinces (perhaps 3 of the 18) do not participate, the election will be illegitimate. Nonsense. The election should be held. It should be open to everyone. If Iraq's Sunni Arabs -- barely 20 percent of the population -- decide they cannot abide giving up their 80 years of minority rule, ending with 30 years of Saddam's atrocious tyranny, then tough luck. They forfeit their chance to shape and participate in the new Iraq.

Exactly. Democracy is the future, and those who want to be part of the future of Iraq will vote in January. Those who are the enemies of the future won't. The media--by only focusing on the violence and the attempts to stop the future from unfolding--are missing a terrific story about the power of Freedom. They missed it in Afghanistan (heard anything about what's going on there lately??) and they are missing it in Iraq. People, this is a miraculous process. What happened in Afghanistan was unbelievable! Not perfect--but incredible all the same. Noone ever said it was going to be easy, BUT IT IS HAPPENING.

In spite of the propaganda and misinformation. In spite of the death, violence and intimidation. Freedom is spreading in the Middle East. Five years ago, who would have thought such a thing was possible?

Weekly Insanity Roundup

Well, another week has gone by and the insanities just keep rolling along. Here are just a few samples of the totally insane, ridiculous and unbelievable:

1. John Leo takes us Over the Top.

2. Government-sanctioned psychopathy. Isn't that nice?

3. Just plain DUmb.

4. An Unbelievable Obituary.

5. Guess who is totally OPPOSED to corruption? Who'd a thunk it?

6. Oliver is definitely stoned.

7. If Clinton becomes UN Secretary General maybe he can pardon this guy again?

8. The Palestinians really need another murderer as President, don't they?

9. Yes! There is JUSTICE in the world!

10. The mouse that didn't even roar and hardly squeeked.

11. Finally, how could a psychiatrist not mention these poor, traumatized PESTs? (Whoops...am I mocking them?? Well, yes actually)

Astronaut Appetites Force NASA to Draft Evacuation Plan!

Here's an interesting article (hat tip: Jim O) about how unusually high appetites on the part of the current space station crew have caused food supplies to dwindle and provoked NASA to plan for an emergency evacuation if new food supplies planned in a Russian Progress launch are unable to reach the crew by Christmas day! Of course, NASA says this is only a precaution...but one has to wonder why and how such a critical food shortage was allowed to develop in the first place? And, why is this particular crew so hungry? Are they bored? Are they overworked? Are they gaining or losing mass up there in space? What exactly is this crew accomplishing, and does anybody care?

Inquiring minds want to know.

The Violin and The Guitar

In my Weekly Insanity Roundup of last week, I Linked #14 ("The HORROR ") to a story about a poor Palestinian who was asked to take his violin out of its case and play it at a checkpoint to show it did not contain explosives. Human Rights activists were outraged and horrified at this obvious violation of the man's rights and demeaning of his dignity. I thought the entire thing was blown out of proportion. Silly me. The outrage has spread and there have been op-ed pieces and protests and conflicting reports and all the usual hoopla associated with the outraged sensitivities of Liberals all over the globe.

To give some perspective to this madness, I would like to point you to this article in the Israel Insider (hat tip: PowerLine):

The story of the soldier and the violinist has been blown way out of proportion to its significance. I too would like it removed from the media burner. But not before another musical instrument gets its deserved mention. I'm referring to a guitar. One that also grabbed a few headlines on 9th August, 2001.

On that morning, Izzadin Al-Masri, the newly-religious son of a well-to-do Palestinian restaurateur, passed through a machsom -- a checkpoint -- on the edge of West Jerusalem. Accompanied by a Palestinian women dressed as an Israeli to allay suspicions, he strode into the center of the city. A guitar case was slung over his shoulder. At 1:45 pm, he reached the intersection of King George and Jaffa streets. The restaurant was packed with mothers and children. This was lunch time, and the country's schools were closed for summer vacation. Al-Masri entered easily -- there was no security guard. Seconds later, he activated the explosives in his guitar and murdered fifteen Israelis in cold blood. My daughter Malki, 15, was one of them.

Has Machsom Watch forgotten that terror attack? Did Haaretz as well? And what about the apologetic IDF spokesperson? Or does the meddlesome Machsom Watch have them all shivering in their pants? The person who truly ought to make them shiver is Abdullah Barghouti. On Tuesday, this senior Hamas operative was sentenced to 67 life terms in prison for his responsibility in terror attacks that resulted in the deaths, by murder, of 66 Israelis. Barghouti lived in his native Kuwait until five years ago when he moved to Ramallah.

An engineer, he built the bomb that murdered the Sbarro fifteen as well as the victims of two other lethal attacks in Jerusalem and another in Rishon Letzion. I watched him on television confessing that, yes, he did fill a guitar with explosives. "In a guitar? Why in a guitar?" a shocked TV interviewer asked. "This is war," the stone-faced Barghouti answered.

It seems to me that far too many people have forgotten that basic truth. This is war. We are under attack. Machsom Watch volunteers have a problem acknowledging that. It is a dangerous problem.

I just don't get it, I guess. Why the bleeding hearts react with outrage, horror and condemnation over events like the Palestinian violinist; but are strangely silent about videotaped beheadings, suicide bombers, and children utilized as living bombs by terrorist masters? On the heirarchy of evil, where does telling a man at a checkpoint (a checkpoint whose purpose is to prevent suicide bombers from entering Israel) to take out a violin and play it; and where do savage killings, terrorizing, and mutilation of innocents rank? I have no doubt that in some minds the Israeli guard's actions in this case prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Israelis are a bunch of "terrorists"--just as Abu Grhaib "proved" that the U.S. was basically the source of evil in the world. But in making such assertions, all a person proves is that he or she is morally incapable of making a a distinction between inconvenience and murder (in the Israeli guard's case); and between the independent actions of a few which violated military policy versus a stated policy to attack and kill as many innocents as possible (in the Abu Grhaib case).

Remember what the confessed murderer Bhargouti says above (the same Bhargouti who now is running for Palestinian president from his jail cell- where is the outrage about that, I wonder?): "This is war." And we damn well better not forget it.

Oh Christmas Tree !

Today we're going to go out to one of the local tree farms and cut down our Christmas tree. Since I am a Christmas fanatic all year long, I really look forward to this day! The Boo will have several friends over to decorate it with the hundreds (my husband says thousands) of ornaments I have collected over the years. The place we go to is really cool. We get in a horse-drawn (sometimes tractor-drawn) wagon and ride out to the different fields and get dropped off to wander in the trees. We take our time and will pick one perfect tree out and use the saw to cut it down. Eventually the wagon will come by again to pick us up. There is hot chocolate waiting at the end. Temperature is in the 20's at the moment. We had snow a few days ago, but it mostly melted (darn!).

Fresh cut trees like this will last a long time if you water them. We have no problem keeping them fresh, with minimal needle loss for at least a month or more. Think of it this way--the trees you buy at the store were cut down somewhere up north (possibly Michigan or Washington state) about 6 weeks ago. When you buy them, they are often already dried out, and even with watering might only last 2 weeks before they drop most of their needles. The fresh- cut ones smell heavenly compared to the pre-cut.

I'd like the snow to build up to a foot or so by Christmas. IMHO, any snow up until about January 15 is a good thing. After about that time, I'm ready for warmer weather! Most people think I'm nuts, but I really love Winter about the best of the four seasons along with Fall.

Be back blogging later tonight! Meanwhile, check out Victor Davis Hanson's latest on "How Far We've Come." It is brilliant, as only VDH can be.

Intellectual Harassment

Jeff Jacoby today discusses the incredible liberal bias present on our University Campuses, where ideological diversity is mostly nonexistent. This is a problem that is not new, but was first documented by William F. Buckley back in 1951 when he wrote about his experiences at Yale. Jacoby notes:

So, for example, at Cornell, of the 172 faculty members whose party affiliation was recorded, 166 were liberal (Democrats or Greens) and six were conservative (Republicans or Libertarians). At Stanford the liberal-conservative ratio was 151-17. At San Diego State it was 80-11. At SUNY Binghamton, 35-1. At UCLA, 141-9. At the University of Colorado-Boulder, 116-5. Reflecting on these gross disparities, The American Enterprise's editor, Karl Zinsmeister, remarked: "Today's colleges and universities . . . do not, when it comes to political and cultural ideas, look like America."

When it comes to real diversity--diversity of thought--America's colleges and universities are uniformly bullshit-colored. Students who do not toe the liberal intellectual line are punished, excluded, and generally harassed. Newspapers that have articles or advertisements that go against current political thought disappear from campus. Dissent is crushed and humiliated. Censorship and discrimination are rampant. Saddam Hussein or Yasser Arafat would have been emotionally very comfortable as the Dean or Provost at many university campuses.

I have been on many academic faculties over the years--UCLA, University of Wisconsin, University of Texas, and University of Michigan. I can speak personally about the conformity of thought that is expected of faculty in the political arena. The term "liberal cocoon" is nowhere more applicable than on the university campus, where most faculty cannot even imagine that anyone could possibly have political views different from theirs. It is truly revolting to think of sending young minds to learn from the people at these places.

When I was a student, we were in the midst of Vietnam protests on the University campuses. My own university--UC Riverside--was small, but vocal in their protesting. I remember having some reservations about the Vietnam war, but I chose not to participate in the closing down of the campus. During one particular protest in the winter of 1970, I attempted to get to my Greek Literature class and was stopped by a mob of angry students and faculty. When I refused to participate in "solidarity", I was picked up by about a dozen students an summarily thrown into the closest fountain, with my books, notes and papers. While they laughed and cheered, I removed myself from the fountain, disheveled and wet, and-with as much dignity as I could muster- gathered my belongings and walked away. "Try going to class now!" someone jeered. Well I did go to class; and sat shivering and dripping while the only teacher I knew who was still teaching that day somberly discussed Achilles' hubris in the Iliad with me and one other student. He never asked me any questions about what had happened, but I think he knew. When I left, the Professor gravely thanked me for coming to his class.

I was less humiliated than furious by my fellow students' behavior; and I starkly remember the complete and total intolerance with which my dissenting views were greeted. I thought then, as I think now, that THEIR free speech and my tolerance of it ended when they assaulted me and tried to "drown" my free speech. I was perfectly content to let them do their thing, but they had no intention of supporting my freedom to go to class. This was my introduction to true intolerance. And now this type of intellectual harassment is the norm on many campuses.

I also think frequently about that Professor of Greek Literature, more than 30 years later. I think of him as exemplifying the absolute best of academia. Because he believed in ideas and the free expression of ideas--and isn't that the highest ideal of academia? Teaching class that day showed that he cared about the content of my mind and wanted to encourage me to think. His simple act of treating me with dignity and being in class for anyone who wanted to learn had a profound influence on me.

Now I am a professor and regularly teach students. When asked my opinion of current political matters I give it without apology, despite the many shocked expressions that I have had to contend with ("You support Bush?? How could you possibly?). I then try to remind students that they are here to learn to think, not to conform; and not to keep their thinking "inside the box". Some students appreciate my honesty and to their credit will ask me the reasons why I think the way I do. I can see them considering that there are people who think like me in the world. Hopefull it is an eye-opening experience for them. Of course, some students just see me as an aberration or someone just like their parents. Most of the time I try to keep politics out of the learning equation entirely.

Academic freedom is not only meant to protect professors; it is also supposed to ensure students' right to learn without being molested. When instructors use their classrooms to indoctrinate and propagandize, they cheat those students and betray the academic mission they are entrusted with. That should be intolerable to honest men and women of every stripe -- liberals and conservatives alike.
"If this were a survey of students reporting widespread sexual harassment," says ACTA's president, Anne Neal, "there would be an uproar." That is because universities take sexual harassment seriously. Intellectual harassment, on the other hand -- like the one-party conformity it flows from -- they ignore. Until that changes, the scandal of the campuses will only grow worse.

Let me be clear. I am talking about freedom of thought and speech and there is nowhere those concepts should be more sacred than on a university or college campus. I am NOT talking about the Dixie Chicks or Susan Sarandon'sor Hollywood actors' rights to free speech. Of course they have a right to free speech, but if they can't take the consequences of losing money because people like me don't like what they say at concerts or in movies and won't pay to see them, then they should keep their mouths shut. Free speech means you can talk, but I don' t have to pay to listen. Yet, these same people who whine about how people don't like what they're saying, would fully approve of the situation on campus--where ONLY their views are tolerated and promulgated.

If Academia wants to really be the learning environment they proclaim themelves to be, dedicated to the free and open discussion of ideas --even politically incorrect ideas--then they must not tolerate the crushing of dissent by faculty with political agendas. They must crush "political correctness" and tolerate viewpoints different from the majority with open minds. That is what intellectual freedom is all about. And if your feelings are hurt by my free speech--frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.