I have been remiss, as I have not reminded you lately that WOW! Magazine, the collaborative effort from the Watcher’s Council is an excellent resource for domestic and international political analysis, social observations, top-rate Second Amendment commentary, and just generally good stuff. If you were to go there now, you’d see all of these articles:
One of the things that maddens me about my children is how they refuse to take advantage of the cornucopia of information so readily available on the internet. In my day, I actually had to get out of my chair, go to my Dad’s office, get the encyclopedia off the shelf, riffle endlessly through the pages to find the correct entry, and then read that tiny, tiny print.
It was Hell, I tell you! Hell!
Now, all that the kids need to do is to activate their omnipresent smart phone or laptop, type in a few words and — badaboom, badabing — the world’s knowledge is at their fingertips. And still . . . they won’t do it.
Instead, they ask me to answer their questions, something they invariably regret. I either tell them to look it up themselves or, worse, I answer their question in my inimitable Mom style: “So you want to know about the revolution in Cuba and why Castro was such a terribly evil human being? As with all things, if you really want to understand it, we need to start with the Romans.”
In my narrations, everything starts with the Romans, unless I’m feeling particularly cruel and move further back to the Abraham, Moses, Pharaoh, etc. From ancient history, I move on to the early Christians who tried voluntary communal living, to the rise of the feudal state, to the Black Death and its effect on the European economy and peasant rights. That, of course, leads to Renaissance monarchies and, of course, to the Enlightenment, with its two pivotal revolutions (the American revolution, which focused on individual liberty; and the French revolution, which developed the modern idea of the commune); and only then do I really get going.
Most of these conversations end with me saying, “Why are you walking away? I haven’t finished answering your question yet!”
I’m not going to do that to all of you. Instead, I’ll just tip you off to some wonderful things I found on the internet and think you might enjoy. After that, you’re on your own!
The exquisite cognitive dissonance on the Left. I’ll just leave this Yahoo squiblet out here. I don’t need to add anything, do I?
If you’re interested, you can read more about this cruelly irony-unaware initiative here.
It’s time for the posters covering everything from the election to Castro’s death to the normal foolishness from the Left. I’ve got a bumper crop of 35 posters here that I know you’ll enjoy.
Obama made much of the fact that his father was an African immigrant from a small village with goats (or something like that). Few people have made anything of the flip side of that little bit of bio, which is the fact that the first black president has no connection to America’s slave culture. This is consistent with the fact that the blacks who get ahead in America tend to be the children of recent immigrants from Africa and the Carribean (think: Colin Powell), rather than from blacks who trace their American roots much further back than I can trace mine. I draw no conclusions from this; I just observe.
Obama’s decision to close Gitmo (sort of, maybe) in a year is nicely symbolic, but creates more problems than it solves (and what it solves is merely symbolic too, in that it placates the nutroots). Closing Gitmo means shutting down a physical site, but one is still left with the problem of the prisoners. American prisons don’t want them, especially because they’re already struggling with the rise of Islam in prisons, a rise that does not make for docile prison populations, but rather, one that increases the sense of aggression and entitlement. Releasing these prisoners who, in their own minds, continue to be at war with us, simply puts them back on the field. The 18th Century concept of a parole (which saw released prisoners promise to refrain from fighting for 18 months) really isn’t a workable concept today. The most logical option is to build a new facility that’s like Gitmo in all ways except that it’s not called Gitmo — which would be a perfect triumph of form over substance, something I suspect we’ll see with increasing frequency in the “image is everything” Obama presidency.
Also on the subject of Gitmo, this is precisely what John Kerry promised back in 2004 — we’ll turn this icky, politically incorrect war into a police action. Releasing Gitmo detainees into the criminal justice system is just the first step. But as many commented back in 2004, police actions are ex post facto. The person commits the crime and then you catch him. Bush’s system, mercifully for Americans for all these years, was pro active, stopping terror before it started. You’re right, Bob, about the inevitable consequences of Obama’s instant back-down.
One more thing: Suek is absolutely correct that this decision is going to give American troops a much greater incentive to “take no prisoners.” The POW concept, which is a fairly recent and humane one, removed fighters from the battlefield without killing them. If the battlefield is going to be turned into a revolving door, the only way American fighters can assure themselves that they won’t find themselves staring down the barrel of the same gun a second time is to disable that gun (and its operator) permanently.
Are any of you surprised the Obama is refusing to speak to the press? I’m not. He was able to leapfrog from being a nobody to being a president thanks to the gift the press gave him during the candidacy, which was their willingness not to make serious efforts to speak to him. He still has nothing to say, but he’s now in a position to impose the cone of silence from above, without being dependent on their slavering good will.
I notice that Obama is urging Israel to create a permeable barrier between itself and Gaza. In the same spirit, I think Obama should do away with the Secret Service. Indeed, to the extent no one has yet tried to kill Obama (and I pray that no one will), he’s actually in a better position security-wise than Israel, which actually has concrete proof that the people in Gaza mean to put their murderous threats into effect. To date, I’ve been less impressed with Obama’s much vaunted intelligence than others have been. I have absolutely no doubt that his is a feral, not a thoughtful, mental strength. This kind of stupid statement proves me right.
And on a totally un-Obama note, are you as impressed a I am with the progress they’re making in plastics (or is it wax) in Cuba?
UPDATE: I like Laer’s Gitmo solution, which is sort of the mirror image of my suggestion about Obama, Gaza and the Secret Service.
It’s gotten so that anything that is not pro-Obama is racist. The latest attack is that it’s racist to call his positions “socialist” (and this despite his affiliation with the socialist New Party). In the spirit of this attack, I hereby present a photo gallery of famous, black, self-admitted socialists:
Okay, I was just kidding. Not one of the really famous socialists is black. So, though I’ve said it before, I’ll still say it again: The only color that matters when it comes to Obama is RED.
UPDATE: Neo-neocon picked up on the flip side of this absurd new racism charge. She quotes verbatim from the Diuguid article making the charge that “socialism” is a racist term, and then adds what is obvious (I guess) only to those who actually like facts:
If Diuguid actually knew the meaning of the word “shame,” he might feel some himself—because three of the four civil rights leaders he mentioned were in fact Socialists or even Communists, and the fourth was intermittently sympathetic to the cause.
Please read the rest of neo’s post, since it explains that she’s not just playing around with racist name-calling when she makes that statement.