New York Republican

Moderation on Parade

2006-02-12T01:06:00.000-05:00

Great photo montage via The Jawa Report of moderate Muslims taking to the streets in support of free speech and tolerance. Check it out!

In the interest of fairness, here are some actual Muslim moderates. This is a group that really deserves all the support we can give them. Unfortunately, considering the wretched state of affairs that the rest of the Islamic world currently finds itself in, I doubt that the group will have much of an impact unless they get much bigger and louder. Nonetheless, I'm happy to see this group putting themselves out there at all.

UPDATE: More moderate muslims in London, via Michelle Malkin.

And so it begins (or ends, depending on how you look at it)...

2006-02-07T01:56:00.000-05:00

The inevitable chilling effect on free speech wrought by the savage Muslim rioting has already claimed it's first victim outside of the 'cartoon scandal'.

Czech artist David Cerny has made a sculpure of a captive Saddam Hussein submerged in a tank of water. Why, you ask? According to Cerny, it is intended as a "Criticism of American foregin policy".

This work was originally supposed to be installed at a museum in the Belgian costal town of Middelkerke, but was promptly banned by the mayor before it even arrived. Fearing "that certain population groups would find the work too provocative" the mayor told the Belgian newspaper De Standard: "You never know what could happen when you display such explosive stuff".

Well, actually, we pretty much do know what happens when you display something that could possibly offend the delicate sensabilites of the Muslim population. They go nuts and riot, blow up embassies, recall their diplomats, demand apologies, and generally make international specticles of themselves.

So better to ban a piece of artwork and stifle the free speech rights of a western artist than risk more violence on the part of insane fascists that want to kill us all anyway. The ultimate irony of course is that this particular artist was directing his criticism towards the USA and the occupation and not Saddam or Islam at all.

Man, that slope sure is slippery...

Nuke Mecca!

2006-02-05T10:57:00.000-05:00

Ok, not really. But that's sort of the point... I can write that, and while it may be offensive to some, I have a reasonable confidence that I won't find myself dragged in front of the local Imam and condemned to death by stoning.

It seems that the Muslims are rioting and blowing things up again. And what brutal injustice has the cowboy American neocon warmonger government wrought upon them this time to force such desperate action? Well, actually nothing at all. Actually, this time around, some Scandinavian (HA!) newspapers have had the utter gall to print--gasp!--political cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed. Imagine that! And to top it all off, they didn't even issue an immediate apology! Obviously this is completely unacceptable. Embassies are torched, flags are burned, citizens are ordered to flee, and angry rioters demand the blood (either figurative or literal) of those responsible. All for nothing more than a liberal western newspaper exercising it's liberal western right of press freedom in a liberal western democracy.

A few months ago, I wrote about the basic incompatibility between Islam as it is currently practiced, and the modern world. The recent riots over the Danish cartoons of Mohammed put a heavy underscore on this point. Can anyone honestly argue anymore that we 'create terrorists' through 'insensitive' foreign policy, the occupation of Iraq, Gitmo, or anything else on the liberal laundry list of supposed things that we are doing to inflame the delicate sensitivities of otherwise peaceful people? Of course not... but then again I've been saying that for quite some time now. What other offense against Islam has Denmark committed to push these peace-loving Muslims to the brink like this? Surely this must be the final straw in a long list of insensitivities committed by the Danes. None you can think of? Me neither.

No, the Iraq war is not to blame for terrorism, nor is 'Palestine', nor is anything else on the aforementioned list of the 'root causes' favored by liberal intelligentsia. No, the actual list is quite short. You see, not everyone is a Muslim, not everyone wants to be, and even fewer people want to live according to Muslim law. And there it is. The root cause of all terrorism in one sentence. Every terrorist act committed by Muslims in the last fifty years can be boiled down to that one sentence. Sure you have to strip away all of the political BS that has steadily accumulated over the last few decades to see it, but there it is. The fact that we've actually begun to fight back over the last five years has maybe caused more of these feelings to boil over, but mind you that does not in any way mean that we've created more terrorists, any more than the landing at Normandy created more Nazis. Make no mistake, until Islam sees a renaissance in it's very attitude towards the non-Muslim world, this is what we can expect.

The only thing more astonishing than the failure of Islam to evolve over the last thousand years or so has been the incomprehensible western compulsion to either ignore it or put an alternative spin on it somehow. But these riots are very difficult to spin. Said the Dutch foreign minister:

"Now it has become more than a case about the drawings: Now there are forces that wants a confrontation between our cultures..."

What a revelation! Isn't that what George W. Bush and the rest of us neocon warmongers have been saying since 9/11? Well, better late than never I suppose, though I'm not holding my breath for the Dutch or Danish army to arrive in Baghdad anytime soon. Yes, the point that the foreign minister has finally grasped is a simple but often ignored one, especially in European capitals; these people are seeking a clash of civilizations because they believe that it is their solemn religious duty to do so, and will seize upon any excuse to bring this about... be it feigned outrage over the Israel/Palestine situation, the Iraq war, or stupid political cartoons. There is nothing that we can do (or stop doing) to prevent this. They do, in fact, hate our freedom. Witness this editorial in the Syrian state-run daily Al-Thawra:

"It is unjustifiable under any kind of personal freedoms to allow a person or a group to insult the beliefs of millions of Muslims"

Wow... think about that statement for a minute, because it is a very telling window into the psyche of these people. 'Unjustifiable under any kind of personal freedoms'. So what this means is that the personal 'honor' of Muslims is to be held in higher regard than any other civil right or freedom, regardless of country or religion. We are all to bow down in deference to Islam, otherwise suffer the concequences.

It is fallacy of the highest order to continue to believe that if we simply ended support for Israel, pulled troops out of the middle east and apologized for whatever offenses we may or may not have committed, we will suddenly make these people stop wanting to kill us. We're not Muslims, and they just can't abide that. Period.

And, once again, where are the moderate Muslims to condemn the disgusting behavior being displayed by so many of their brothers? Well, thankfully, here's one. But once again, the so-called 'moderate' community is by and large silent, if not tacitly encouraging with regard to these outrageous riots. Of course it's impolite to publish potentially insulting pictures. But freedom is sometimes impolite. Sometimes it's downright messy and it can frequently turn ugly. But that is what we all deal with, every single day. Whether it's a neo-Nazi demonstration, a crucifix in a jar of urine, or Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, liberal freedom of expression is something sacred to our culture. We cannot compromise our values for the sake of keeping crazy fundamentalists temporarily appeased anymore.

Hopefully these riots will serve as a wake up call to the politically correct liberal drones which inhabit the western world. No longer can we afford to allow the politics of asymmetry to dictate our relationship with radical Islam, where the Saudi government can confiscate and burn the Bibles of anyone entering their country without so much as a peep from the west, but we cannot criticize Islam in our own press without apologies being demanded and diplomats being recalled.

Time for the Muslim world to grow up. Let them blow themselves up. Let them throw their tantrums. And like a spoiled 3 year old, they'll learn their lesson if we remain firm and never compromise what we know is right. Otherwise, we will only bring more grief upon ourselves in the long run, to the detriment of both our society and theirs.

Read this Article...

2006-02-04T00:44:00.000-05:00

Great article in National Review by Victor Davis Hanson.

Please check it out here if you have a bit of time.

Why the Islamic world hasn't achieved much of anything in the last thousand years, Part 11,234,351...

2006-01-17T03:29:00.000-05:00

Islamic Scholars: Nudity Invalidates Marriage

So, while the rest of the world works on developing faster computers, missions to Mars, cleaner energy, safer automobiles, and various other things to help make the planet a better place to live, Islamic scholars are hard at work debating whether or not being naked during sex invalidates a marriage. Seems like that is definitely what they need to be focused on right now. Well, that, and thinking up new ways to blame Israel for everything.

IED found in Bay Area Starbucks...

2006-01-10T00:36:00.000-05:00

The SF Gate is reporting that a deadly pipe bomb has just been diffused by police in a bay area Starbucks coffee shop.

Via Michelle Malkin.

I'm making a bet with myself that outside of the conservative blogosphere, this story goes absolutely nowhere. There are no apparent links to al Qaeda (far too small-scale), and this device was more than likely planted by a leftist/anarchist group looking to somehow take down the government (by killing lots of innocent civilians--sound familiar?).

So of course the mainstream media will pay no attention whatsoever, as they would not want to paint a leftist group in a poor light. In fact, it is now nearly five hours since Michelle Malkin reported this incident, and the only major news outlet that I can find giving it any coverage at all is CNN International, with a small article.

The silence on this matter speaks volumes about the media bias in this country. Can you imagine the coverage if a similar device was found at an abortion clinic? I guarantee that Katie Couric would be broadcasting live from there tomorrow morning. Likewise, had the bomb been planted by an Islamic terrorist cell, we'd also have wall-to-wall coverage... the headlines would read "Islamic terror cell plants bomb in starbucks... Bush anti-terror strategy called into question". Then Nancy Pelosi would give a speech about how dangerous our course of action has been, and how we need a 'new vision' or something like that.

But because there is no angle to make conservatives/republicans/George W. Bush look bad, the general public will not hear a peep on the subject. There will be no investigative reports into the leftist pro-terror groups that infest our college campuses. There will be no expose on radical environmentalists or the hardcore communists that run the anti-corporate and anti-war movements. And when the granola-eating hippies that planted the bomb are found, you won't hear a single word about that either. Left-leaning criminals are almost always given a free pass by our media. From Tookie to Mumia to the terrorists at the ELF and ALF, the mainstream media simply has no interest in exposing their intellectual fellow travelers to the harsh light of public scrutiny.

To me, and to most Americans, I think, a pipe bomb planted in a suburban Starbucks is a pretty big deal. It's certainly newsworthy. I'd like to know who did it. I'd like to hear more about their motivation and what kind of groups they belong to. I'd also like to see them brought to justice for their crimes. It's too bad that the media in this country is so far detached from mainstream thought that it can no longer bring itself to tell anything resembling the truth if it happens to compromise their own self-righteous political correctness.

For a liberal take on this article, and my response, please check out The Silicon Gadfly.

UPDATE: It appears the device was not a live bomb, but either a dummy device planted on purpose or a flashlight casing left there accidentaly. The news blackout on this continues.

Will somebody please shoot Hugo Chavez? And Fidel Castro?

2006-01-09T02:55:00.000-05:00

(And if they happen to hit Harry Belafonte and Danny Glover while they're at it, all the better.)

I've just about had it with rich, spoiled American celebrities kissing the asses of tyrannical Marxist dictators in Latin America. I could go on to list the many historical evils of communism, and how it is enjoying something of a renaissance in Latin America thanks to Fidel Castro and his well-moneyed lover, Hugo Chavez. But honestly, how many people have to be slaughtered; how many dissidents must be jailed; how many innocent citizens must be disappeared and worse in the name of 'revolution' before these useful idiots wake up and realize what they're supporting?

Or is it that they do know exactly what they're supporting? Either way it's disgraceful. And quite frankly, the spread of communism must be stopped... again. We spent 50 years ridding the world of the Soviet evil empire; now we need to stamp it out in our backyard once and for all. And when American citizens (and our most privileged at that) travel to these dictatorships to denounce our country on enemy soil and praise the communist 'revolution', then they must be dealt with in the most grave manner available. Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover, and the rest of their group should be promptly tried and shot for treason. And the UN should apologize for the anti-American sermonizing that they have allowed to occur during this 'goodwill mission' to Venezuela.

It's time to get tough with these people. If they wish to avoid a firing squad, why not just take up permanant residence in the revolutionary utopia they so adore?

Just in case anyone is wondering who the real base of the Democratic party is...

2006-01-06T09:10:00.000-05:00

Please see this.

Especially this.

These pictures have been seen around the internet, but they definitely warrant frequent reposting, as it cannot be stressed enough how dangerously radical the left in this country has become. And likewise, it also cannot be stressed enough how much influence these people carry in the mainstream of the democratic party. Be it through the tacit approval they get from left wing politicians in DC who refuse to criticize their vile message, or the mainstream media's absolute unwillingness to show them in anything but a positive light, or the way radical college professors are encouraged to indoctrinate their students into leftist ideology, these people are indeed the core of the modern democratic party.

I have a lot of personal experience with these people from my days as the NY leader of ProtestWarrior, and believe me, they are every bit as violent, intolerant, anti-semitic, unreasonable and downright frightening as these pictures make them out to be.

The argument has been made that they are a small minority; an ugly and vocal group that we focus on because of their outlandish messages and violent antics. And when I first got involved politically a couple of years ago, I basically believed that as well. After all, like most Americans, I had little experience with them firsthand. But, over time, I came to the realization that they are simply not the small, harmless minority in a vast sea of ideas that the media would have you believe. Quite simply, these people are everywhere, you just don't know about them because the media refuses to cover them.

Case in point; during the Republican Convention in NY, there was of course a massive anti-Bush protest that we attended. Some estimates put the crowd at nearly a million people overall. Our group broke up into 7 small teams and entered the march at 7 different places and times (about a half-hour apart). Logic would dictate that small groups of 8-10 people each in a crowd of a million would have a hard time finding the few troublemakers with hateful signs, if in fact they were such a minority. This, needless to say, was not the case. Each of our individual teams was violently assaulted and ejected from the crowd. Each of them did nothing more than show up in the march with their own signs, and without exception their signs were quickly destroyed by the crowd, and they were punched, kicked, tripped and removed by the 'peace' protestors. Without exception. And with the cheering approval of the rest of the crowd (see the ProtestWarrior site for the videos).

Alas, this is of course not an isolated incident by any means. There has literally never been a left-wing demonstration that I have seen or attended that has not included vile, hateful messages, and violence against those who would dare to utter an opinion contrary to what they believe. You don't have to take my word for it either. I would encourage everyone to attend a leftist rally if you can. Try talking to some of the people. Try disagreeing with them. See what happens. Money back guarantee that you will walk away from there with a whole new perspective on politics and the importance of ensuring that the left is never again allowed a degree of power in this country. Just remember, you may not like every republican out there, but these are the people you are helping by not being involved.

Its good to have priorities...

2005-12-17T12:05:00.000-05:00

"Armed Rangers Protect Butterflies in Mexico"

So while half their population streams illegally accross the border into the USA, and the other half lives in abject poverty, the Mexican government has seen fit to devote security resouces to... butterflies. And these are not even endangered butterflies. Just butterflies.

I guess at some point Mexico must have fixed all of it's other problems without the rest of us noticing, because that is the only thing I can think of which would justify a heavily armed security force to protect some non-endangered butterflies.

How many monkeys does it take to build a pyramid?

2005-08-26T14:34:00.000-04:00

Humans On Display at London Zoo

Apparently, as a both a stunt to increase attendance and social commentary about the place humans occupy in the animal kingdom, the London Zoo has opened a special exhibit called 'Humans in their natural habitat', in which eight scantily clad men and women prance around like morons for the viewing enjoyment of confused onlookers.

Now, I'm all for a dumb stunt. And there is certainly nothing wrong with some scantily clad women running around. So if the powers that be at the zoo think that some half-naked people will get more patrons through the gates, then more power to them. This aspect of the project, at least, seems innocent enough.

What I have a very serious problem with, however, is the attitude that seems to permeate this endeavor. It seems to be rather intentionally designed to both lower the value of humanity and elevate the value of the animal kingdom, as per the agenda of the radical environmental left and their footsoldiers at PETA and the ALF.

According to spokesman Patty Wills "Seeing people in a different environment, among other animals ... teaches members of the public that the human is just another primate." I see. Now if we take this logic to it's natural conclusion, then we are left with a moral dilemma of sorts. You see, if humans are 'just another primate', then why do we not bestow the same rights upon, say, chimpanzees that we do upon humans? And more nefariously, if humans are just another primate, why do we not experiment upon or clone humans? Both, coincidentally are goals of the radical left. However, before attaining these goals, the general public must be convinced that they are simply not that special, and that human life is no more special or deserving of protection than, say, a field mouse.

The message, it seems, is not lost upon it's participants, said one Tom Mahoney to the AP:

"A lot of people think humans are above other animals... When they see humans as animals, here, it kind of reminds us that we are not that special."

Not that special indeed. Except for things like, you know, the pyramids. Or the space program. Or the Sistine Chapel. Or indoor plumbing. Or just about everything else that rather obviously separates us from and elevates us above the rest of the animal kingdom. This fallacy is driven home by having the people prance around naked in a bear enclosure, calling it 'humans in their natural habitat', which in fact at this point for humans is about as natural as being underwater. But as long as people go around thinking that human life is special, then the radical animal rights, cloning and abortion agendas that these people are pushing will not win much general support.

The de-humanization of humans to further a leftist agenda is nothing new; they've been at it rather successfully for years in order to make abortion seem less like the brutal abomination that it is, and more like a simple medical procedure, akin to having a hangnail removed. Witness such terms used to describe an unborn infant as 'product of conception', 'fetal mass', etc., and you begin to understand what is at work here; the key to getting people to abandon their previously held values is to first convince them that they are not actually compromising their values at all, but rather that their values are separate and held intact from whatever they are being convinced of at the moment. Remember that not too long ago abortion was viewed with the same abhorration as, say, human cloning is today. However, after a couple of decades of convincing people that, morally speaking, they are not compromising their values (most people don't support killing a baby) by telling them in one way or another that they are not killing anything, then support becomes far easier to attain. A 'product of conception' is a much better target than a baby, despite the fact that they are the same thing.

The second step in this process of de-humanizing humanity is what we are now witnessing at the London Zoo. Most people at the moment do not support human cloning and other such experimentation involving humans, but have little problem overall with the same things involving animals. Nor do they support the granting of civil rights to the animal kingdom. However with a bit more convincing that humans are just another member of the animal kingdom, no more or less special than a cat or sheep despite all evidence to the contrary, than who knows where we'll be in another 10 years. After all, they've managed to convince a good number of people in a very short period of time that aborting an unborn baby on a whim is not much of a moral issue. In Scandinavia they've gone so far recently as to have open and serious discussion into when it is actually legal and ethical to kill a newborn infant (it seems that this is becoming a common, if so far unreported, practice in that part of the world). Unless we begin to fight back in a very real way on these issues involving our humanity, I shudder to think what this world will look like in the near future.

Peter Jennings Dies

2005-08-08T00:54:00.000-04:00

The major news outlets are reporting that Peter Jennings, who announced four months ago that he was stricken with lung cancer, has died at his home in NYC at the age of 67.

I'm sure that there will be a lot written about him in the next few days, but I do want to say that he was an excellent anchor, and regardless of politics, this is exremely sad. I always liked him, far more than most of the other MSM personalities. He will surely be missed.

"As you all know, Peter learned only this spring that the health problem he'd been struggling with was lung cancer. With Kayce, he moved straight into an aggressive chemotherapy treatment. He knew that it was an uphill struggle. But he faced it with realism, courage, and a firm hope that he would be one of the fortunate ones. In the end, he was not."

-David Westin, President of ABC News

ABC News

CNN

Fox News

MSNBC News

Don't Shoot! I Have Rights!

2005-08-06T11:13:00.000-04:00

Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent article in National Review yesterday about how, when one of the London bombers was captured, he proclaimed to the approaching police that he 'had rights'.

Ahh, the irony.

As I've said many times before, the terrorists are not impressed with our cultural sensitivity or our apparent willingness to act out of reason. They see these things as weaknesses to be exploited at every opportunity. I also find it extremely telling that all of the London bombers thus far have been second-generation, middle class Brits, who have likely not had to endure either poverty or oppressive racism in their generation living in liberal London.

Isn't poverty and racism what the liberals keep telling us are the 'root causes' of terrorism? That argument does not seem to be holding up very well. Or has it changed to 'anger' about the Iraq war now? Well, lots of people are 'angry' about the war in Iraq. Or is it 'Palestine'? Why, then, has Dennis Kucinich not strapped a bomb to his chest yet? He seems pretty angry about the war. Or the millions who have turned out in all their decadent glory to protest over the last few years? If 'anger' over the war were truly the key to what turns a middle class western kid into a human bomb, then theoretically, we should be seeing college students go boom at least three times a week (which may not be altogether bad -- I'm kidding).

No, these young men were touched with something a bit more pathological than just 'anger' about some foreign policy. Call it 'Islamic Chic', as they were not, in the strict sense of the word, adherents to pure Sharia (which is the purported goal of Bin Laden). They listened to rap music, wore western clothes, and did not have beards. They dated girls, and they were ostentably doing all of this not as a cover for their true identities, but because that is just what they did. And yet somehow, they thought that it would be truly a good idea to blow themselves and other people up on a crowded London subway; to 'sow terror' as one of the suspects bleated to the free attorney provided to him by the infidel western justice system. They are western by all externally identifiable means, but maintain a deep resentment towards the very nations that provide them with the freedom to live outside of the strict Islamic culture if they so choose (likely the reason their parents moved in the first place). The radical Imams that they listen to during Mosque services sow this sentiment and have become adept at exploiting it, to the point that they manage to get otherwise well off western men to become willing terrorists. They manage to convince that the ills of their homeland are the fault of the west, while simultaneously preaching that the western world must become more like their homeland. It is quite an act of semantic gymnastics, but often successful nonetheless.

The fact is, none of the London bombers would feel particularly comfortable in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan or even Saudi Arabia. They are, like spoiled children, lashing out at those that have offered opportunity and tolerance to them, for reasons of no more substance than 'because we're angry'. These were not people who thought very deeply about much of anything; they seem, in fact, to be idiots. Like the American kid who wears a Che Guevara T-shirt and can recite Marxist theory on request, then goes home to play Xbox for three hours, knowing little about the realities in communist Cuba; these men planned for the destruction of their adopted homes and fellow Brits, but when finally caught, instantly proclaimed their rights as British citizens and demanded legal council.

These are of course only the latest footsoldiers in the larger war against radical Islam. These men may not have really known what it's like to live under Sharia firsthand, but those that helped plan and fund their operations certainly do. The fact that they have such useful idiots among the western population should make us all the more vigilant in this conflict, and serve as a wake-up call to those who would allow such dangerous radicalism to continue on our very soil in the name of 'tolerance'.

'Grand Theft Auto', Hillary, and the downfall of civilization.

2005-08-01T11:21:00.000-04:00

In case you're over age 45, or are otherwise totally ignorant of pop culture, 'Grand Theft Auto' is a hyper-popular series of video games that allow you to participate as a violent criminal, walking through expansive digital cities committing crimes and random acts of violence with the ultimate goal of making money and climbing the ladder to the top rungs of the underworld.

I have to tell you that honestly, I am a huge fan of the series, and have spent much time and many brain cells in front of my playstation, hopelessly addicted to these truly well-produced and engrossing games.

Now, with that having been said, you may have heard in the news that the latest installment of the series, called 'San Andreas', has been taking a lot of heat from many people both here and abroad (it's been banned altogether in Australia), and quite frankly, I have no idea why. Sure the game is violent, it uses graphic language, depicts women and minorities in a demeaning manner, and it can probably be argued that it glorifies vice and crime. This is no secret; the game (and the genre) has been around for several years now, and it is rated MA - Mature Audiences (not suitable for children under 17). But this is not where the story ends; it seems that in the latest game, some hackers have unlocked (gasp) some hidden parts of the game which allow the main character to actually have graphic (as graphic as possible on a PS2) sex with his 'girlfriends'.

Now this is not too much of a shocker to fans of the series; in fact it's fairly tame when compared with some of the other scenes in the game, which have involved beating prostitutes to death with a bat, full scale gang warfare with automatic weapons, and killing police officers with a flamethrower or chainsaw (among other things).

Mind you, I don't advocate any of this in the real world, nor do the people at Rockstar Games (the firm that produces the series); no more so than Martin Scorcese and his audience advocate the mafia, or Quentin Tarantino advocates any of the twisted things you see in his films. It is simply a piece of entertainment, no better or worse than a movie. Is it somehow more reprehensible to make a character shoot a gang member in a video game than it is to watch Ray Liotta, Robert Deniro and Joe Pesci chop up a mafioso with meat cleavers in 'Goodfellas'?

Of course not; it cannot be reasonably argued that there is any significant difference between watching a violent movie or playing a violent game. The interactive nature of modern games, though engrossing, simply allows you to view what is in essence a theatrical experience from a different perspective.

Now enter Hillary Clinton and the nanny state who is calling for a federal investigation into this game. Quote:

"There is no doubting the fact that the widespread availability of sexually explicit and graphically violent video games makes the challenge of parenting much harder,"

Well thanks for that, Hillary. Glad to see that you're so concerned about morality and parenting. How about when your husband was having oral sex with an intern in the Oval Office, then lying under oath about it. How about speaking out against that? How much harder did THAT make parenting? But an even more salient point to be made on this issue revolves around the fact that highly explicit, real-world sex and violence permeates the under-18 pop culture so tremendously that it seems extraordinarily disingenuous, and somewhat silly to go after something like this. Hollywood, MTV and the music industry peddle sex and violence so shamelessly that a stupid (and appropriately rated) video game is nearly inconsequential, regardless of how realistic the graphics and storyline may be. All you need do is watch a half-hour of MTV (target age 12-19) and you will be exposed to everything from Gucci-clad gun waving rappers singing about smoking pot and killing people, to scantily-clad teen girls singing lyrics with a degree of sexual innuendo that would make Larry Flynt blush, to R&B and Hip-Hop artists vocally and visually glorifying any and all means of hedonistic gratification. On top-40 radio (also geared towards the young demographic), these same songs are played in heavy rotation, albeit the lyrics are minus the accompanying visuals. Hollywood does a little better, recently discovering that family-friendly fare (like 'Finding Nemo' etc.), can also make big box-office dollars, but still does more than it's fair share of polluting our pop culture with vacuous smut geared towards young people. These are not abstract video game characters, either. These are real-life flesh and blood individuals who exert tremendous influence on the youth culture of this nation. When 50-Cent waves a gun and talks about shooting people in his songs (or an interview), it's quite a different thing then hearing it from the mouth of a video game. When Christina Aguilara writhes around naked singing about how 'dirty' she is on MTV, is really seems to be much more impactful than badly animated sex scenes in a mature-rated video game. The list goes on.

So where is the Clinton outrage about these things? Where are the calls for federal intervention? Why are we not bringing Carson Daily and the Weinstein Brothers before congress?

The answer, of course, is simple. The video game industry is an easy target; sure they are a billion-dollar business, but they don't have nearly the political clout that the rest of the entertainment industry carries. Compound this with the fact that Hollywood acts as Hillary's private cash cow, and we have a set of circumstances that basically guarantee we will never hear such sharp and specific criticism leveled anywhere near the direction of the big Hollywood crowd.

Hillary is, of course, posturing for a 2008 presidential run, so she needs to score a few points with the morality demographic if she has any hope of being competitive, so she figures that bringing down Grand Theft Auto will help make her look like she has something that resembles a set of moral principals. Unfortunately, her track record thus far has not been stellar in that department, and it will take more than a video game to make all of that go away. Her attempt to seem more conservative by censoring an already mature-rated video game while ignoring the child-oriented smutfest that appears on every basic cable package in America will only serve to point out her continued, unabashed hypocrisy and the leignths she's willing to go to fulfill her boundless political ambition.

UPDATE: Irish John at Evil Conservative has written on this subject also; have a look.

Transformation at what cost?

2005-01-07T14:55:00.000-05:00

For those of you who may be unaware, 'transformation' is the latest buzzword amongst those in-the-know regarding issues of national defense and the military. Nominally, the word refers to the necessary processes involved in taking our armed forces and defense policy from a cold-war style 'traditional' force to a 21st-century force, one which is more capable of dealing with threats like terrorism, rogue states and regional crisis, rather than massive war against the Soviet Bloc. This is known as the 'objective' force. Generally speaking, this means the transformation from a fighting force comprised mainly of heavy divisions of battle tanks, long-range artillery cannons, arrayed fleets of warships, intercontinental bombers and nuclear weapons, to a force more suited for rapid deployment, urban combat, special operations, nation building and humanitarian assistance. It's been asserted that the military we've been left with since the fall of the Soviet Union is ill-equipped to deal with today's threats efficiently; our forces are too massive and cumbersome to be deployed rapidly, and the missions of the 21st century will be a far cry from the Cold War role our equipment was originally designed for.

Some of these criticisms are legitimate. It can indeed be argued that with the end of the Cold War, the geopolitical map has changed drastically, and with the initiation of the War on Terror, the demands on our military are indeed different from the role that was in mind when their purchase orders were written. However, this analysis is short sighted, and denies the robustness our existing systems have demonstrated in the last decade. Sure, the M1 tank was designed for the forests of Europe and not the deserts of Iraq, but it outperformed it's competition by several orders of magnitude, to the chagrin of it's many critics. The B2 bomber was designed to carry a nuclear payload over Moscow in a doomsday war scenario, but has proven to be a most valuable asset in deploying conventional precision munitions over high value targets in heavily defended airspace. The B52 was designed to fly in massive waves carrying nuclear bombs to targets deep within Russia; it has since been converted into a stable and reliable platform for the launch of stealthy, long range cruise missiles, vital to today's war efforts. The spy satellites launched by the CIA, originally meant to look deep behind the iron curtain and help us gauge the industrial and warfighting capabilities of our secretive communist enemy, now give our war planners the ability to map out a battlefield and know every twist and back alley in a city before sending a single troop out. Our aircraft carriers, originally designed as staging points for coordinated strikes on cold war targets, have arguably become the single most important unit in our arsenal, projecting a diverse force rapidly, exactly where and when it is needed, anywhere around the globe; and not just as a warship, most recently it has further proven it's versatility by providing unmatchable humanitarian aid to victims of the Asian tsunami. This is of course not to say that new technologies and doctrine shouldn't be explored, but let's not pretend that our current forces and equipment are useless or unable to adapt to changing missions. In fact, quite the opposite. In light of all that has happened in the last ten years, I think that our forces have by and large demonstrated a truly remarkable ability to adapt; 'transform' if you will, to an extremely diverse set of demands.

Furthermore, almost since it's inception as a concept, the term 'transformation' has been used (read: misused) to justify all manner of defense cuts, regardless of their relevance to the transformation doctrine as it has been intended. All a politician need do in order to kill a weapon system is brand it as being not 'transformational' enough and a dark cloud will hang over the entire project. In fact, ironically enough, 'transformation' has become the tool of choice for anti-military types in congress to slash the defense budget while at the simultaneously presenting themselves as though they have the best interests of our military at heart... "I'm all for spending money on national defense, but this program is a cold-war relic, so until we find a more transformational option, this system should be killed." Case in point, the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. This is one of the most revolutionary aircraft that the military has developed in the last 20 years. Put simply, it is an aircraft that can take off and land like a helicopter, but fly as fast and as long as an airplane, carrying over two dozen troops and their equipment, or 12,000lbs of payload to a range several times that of any helicopter. It was designed to replace our current fleet of cargo and special forces helicopters, some of which have been in use since the early 1960's, and if you remember correctly, were responsible for the deaths of many troops during the early days of the Iraq war (far more soldiers were killed in helicopter mishaps than from than enemy fire). It is designed specifically for the rapid and precise insertion and extraction of troops, especially special forces-- the transformational backbone of the 21st century anti-terror force. It is fast and efficient, and can be deployed from airbases, ships, small unprepared airfields, or dirt clearings in the middle of a war zone or city. What can be more 'transformational' than that? But there is one problem; the V-22 has been expensive. There have been some problems developing the technology along the way, primarily because nobody ever built anything like this before, ever. So it's development was costly, both in terms of money and lives lost during testing. As such, it has become a prime target for cancellation by the congressional liberals looking to slash defense spending regardless of need. Try telling the Marines riding on 30-year-old crash prone helicopters that the solution we just spent 15 years developing may be killed because it's work order happened to be drawn up before the Berlin Wall fell. The victims of this twisted logic are many; the Comanche stealth helicopter system, a multi-billion dollar program to develop a revolutionary attack chopper to replace the aging Cobra gunship (another 40-year-old design). The program spent billions in development and flight testing, and was ready to go into full production when it was cancelled without producing a single unit. The reason given was of course that the program was not 'transformational'. Another program to meet a similar fate was the Crusader artillery cannon, which was also fully developed and tested to the tune of $2 billion, and cancelled before a single unit was actually produced. This system would have replaced the current Paladin artillery cannon, which is not fast enough to keep up with our tank forces (that they need to support) and has a rate of fire lower than that of almost any other developed nation, including Russia. Currently, there is a battle brewing over the F/A-22 Raptor aircraft. The Raptor is, indisputably, the most advanced and capable aircraft ever conceived. It was designed to replace the F-15 Eagle, our current front line fighter which entered service in the early 1970's, and has never been shot down in combat. However, at this point in time several nations, including France, Russia and China, are currently developing aircraft that can take on the F-15, drastically reducing the chances that our forces will be able to enjoy the battlefield air dominance in future conflicts that have allowed them to operate with near-impunity in the last 10 years or so. The Raptor is faster, can carry more weapons and is far more maneuverable than the F-15, and is also about as stealthy as a B2 bomber. This all adds up to a system that will allow the US to easily control the airspace (and thus the battlefield) of any future conflict that we may find ourselves in. The Raptor is the best in the world, and if we are going to ask our soldiers to risk their lives, how can we do so without ensuring that they have the best equipment possible?

There are of course a number of answers to this question, some are political, some are financial, and some stem from misunderstanding and ignorance. Politically, there are forces within the government that don't see American sovereignty as necessarily a good thing, they've viewed America's emergence as the sole hyperpower as dangerous, and view the use of military power as immoral in almost every circumstance. They would like to see the playing field leveled, and they believe that by de-fanging the military, we will of course not be capable of launching what they view as immoral war, or even defending ourselves when attacked; instead forcing this country to consult and seek permission/help from the so-called world community before ever taking any action. This, of course, will ensure that almost nothing of a military nature will ever get done; but then that's the point. These are usually the same people who walk around with signs that read "Money for Jobs & Education, Not War and Occupation". These people of course don't recognize the one fatal flaw in their argument being that national defense is one of the few roles that the Framers of the constitution specifically designated as the role of the Federal Government, while 'Jobs' and 'Education' were never intended to be anywhere close to it's responsibility.

Financially, there are always governmental bean-counters, some of whom also have a political axe to grind (but not always), that simply look at the often-staggering cost of these weapon systems and then do all they can to stop them based solely on cost. This point of view is particularly problematic because it only accounts for a single factor; cost, without recognizing need. For these people, opposition is reflexive.

Finally, we come to ignorance, which is the most dangerous factor of all because it seems to have a grip on several of the very people who should know better, including secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. While I have no doubt that secretary Rumsfeld has the best interests of our armed forces at heart, he has presided over, and encouraged several of the cuts I mentioned earlier. In the face of all evidence to discourage these actions, Rumsfeld has nonetheless staunchly refused to grow the troop strength of the army, has slashed funding for new weapons systems that have already been developed and are ready to come on-line, and has even asked that one aircraft carrier be removed from the fleet next year to save money. Further, he has been a strong proponent of 'skipping a generation' in terms of military technology; i.e., forgoing investments in next generation hardware, in favor of redoubling efforts to develop future generation hardware(systems that otherwise wouldn't be available until 25 years from now), and rushing current, proven systems into retirement to help pay for this ...All in the name of transformation.

Mind you, that under different circumstances, these would not necessarily be all-bad ideas. Innovation is always important, and a big part of the reason our military is so powerful is due to technology that we've been willing to invest and experiment with, often at great cost and risk. However, we've never attempted to move the process along quite so briskly, nor during wartime, nor under such asphyxiating fiscal constraints. It seems a combination ripe for disaster. Mind you, I'm not talking about the need to rapidly develop technologies to fill the unforeseen needs of wartime soldiers, like the new laser being developed to shoot down mortar shells, but rather drastic change; for example, the rush to rid the Army of it's heavy weapons, like the battle-proven M1 Abrams tank, which is unmatched in the world for survivability and shock effect, for lighter, less protected (but more high-tech) systems like the FCS family of vehicles. In fact, it is the goal of Sec. Rumsfeld to eventually do away with the heavy force entirely and replace it with smaller, lighter, cheaper, and arguably less powerful systems, beginning in 2010. The theory being that speed, networking technology and superior tactical doctrine will compensate for the system's relative lack of firepower and armor. However, many defense experts are skeptical, pointing out obvious problems with such a system:

It is a virtual certainty that future conflicts in the 2025-era will find US forces opposing traditional massed heavy armor. There will be occasions where the MCS will encounter such enemy forces and direct fire engagements will be unavoidable. Under such circumstances, Overmatching Direct Fire Lethality (ODFL) will be essential to FCS survivability. For a vehicle as light as 20 tons, however, ODFL as protection reflects a last-ditch defensive measure of desperation to be called upon only after the vehicle has gotten itself into a situation that should have been avoided in the first place... Despite having an overmatching direct fire capability, the survivability of a 20-ton MCS will be severely threatened by close-in encounters with enemy main battle tanks.
-Globalsecurity.org

Most experts do agree that the US military will indeed see future 'traditional' engagements against opposing heavy armor-- exactly the situation we are being told is a relic of the Cold War. And it is the capability to overmatch a heavy armor threat under any circumstances that we are essentially forfeiting with the adoption of the lighter FCS forces, and the elimination of the heavy forces. This is, quite literally, a mistake of epic proportions. Depending on perfect tactical doctrine to keep our forces out of danger, lest they be easily destroyed by cheap, low-tech enemy tanks is folly of the highest order. Any military planner will tell you that rarely, if ever, do warplans unfold as anticipated; systems that lack the flexibility to survive impromptu or unexpected combat scenarios will quickly find themselves as smoking, multimillion dollar scrap heaps. Now, I am fully aware that the new FCS system, as it is currently imagined is only one part of a much larger, highly sophisticated, integrated warfighting system, combining sea, air, land, space and digital assets in a truly revolutionary manner, to achieve a capability that no other nation could ever hope to match. And don't get me wrong, I'm all for the development of these systems. But not to the extent that it eliminates the basic, traditional doctrine and equipment that has served our forces superbly for the last 100 years. Giving up all heavy force capability in order to simply afford the new technology more quickly is just plain foolish, especially when heavy forces are being expanded in nearly all adversary nations. In any case, the heavy force capability should always be kept to supplement the lighter, faster forces. Common sense dictates that anything can go wrong, especially when complex, high-tech computer systems and advanced networks are involved. Wouldn't prudence dictate that some relatively simple heavy armor/heavy firepower alternative be maintained in the force as a measure of insurance against catastrophic network failure or computer meltdown? Something that is able to slug it out in a close-in fight out without depending, nearly entirely, on networked fire control systems and complex threat avoidance techniques? In combat, there will simply never be a complete substitute for thick armor and a big gun. Alternatives, yes. And we should always have options and develop our technology to it's limits and beyond. But we should never, ever, let our dazzling technologies blind us to the realities of war.

Alas, I am afraid that this is what is already underway. The enthusiasm with which current Pentagon leadership is prematurely discarding proven technologies is frightening. They are all too eager to sign the death certificate on nearly any current or future weapon platform that does not meet the 'transformation' template. Put simply, we are mortgaging our present, proven military forces for a highly uncertain future. It may all work out for the best; but at this time, I cannot see how the potential future rewards could justify the very real danger we are putting ourselves --and our troops-- in today.

The Year In Pictures & Media Bias

2004-12-22T15:35:00.000-05:00

One of my favorite features on MSNBC.com is their 'Week in Pictures' segment. Every week they put together a slide show of some really beautiful work, some from the news, some just artistic. At the end of each slide show, you can vote on your favorite pictures. It's always an enjoyable way to spend 10 minutes or so.

Anyway, they now have the 50-odd readers choice pictures posted from the last years worth of pictures called, obviously, 'The Year in Pictures', which we can now also vote on, presumably for the readers choice picture of the year.

But there's a twist. In addition to the 'Readers Choice' pictures, voted on by the general public, there are also the 'Editors Choice' selections. Now, there is of course nothing wrong with that. But it is tremendously interesting to see what the people chose as their favorite images, and what the editors chose. Even the way they preface the selections is very telling. Under the 'Readers Choice' title, they write, "Your Favorities from The Week In Pictures". Under the 'Editors Choice' title they write "We Pick The Best Images Of The Year". Oh really? So only their trained eyes are qualified to pick the 'best' images (whatever that means), while the thousands of ordinary people who actually visit their site and took the time to vote on these same images somehow cannot recognize the 'Best'. Sheesh.

This may seem like nitpicking, and maybe it is, but it is also highly indicitave of the elitist attitude we find permeating our journalistic institutions. We the public simply cannot be trusted to decide things for ourselves... sure we can like whatever we want, but at the end of the day, it is of course best to defer the really important decisions to our educated betters in the chattering class.

And this is not even mentioning the stark contrast in content between the two categories (remember that both sets were chosen from the same pool of images). Sure there are a couple of overlaps (literally one or two) where the great unwashed masses chose correctly, but for the most part the difference between what we the people actually like, and what the editors think we should like are two very different things. For the most part, the people chose photos of beautiful landscapes, animals, families and other serene topics. The editiors, however, felt it necessary to emphasize war, conflict, and especially the American military under fire, in the worst possible light. Bloody Iraqi and Afghan civillians, scared young soldiers, the charred bodies of those brutally murdered Blackwater contractors, and of course Abu Ghraib made up a good chunk of what the editors consider to be the 'best pictures of the year', regardless of what the public thinks of them. No pictures of confident soldiers looking determined to carry out their mission. No proud Iraqi police, excited to finally try to take the reigns of security in their fragile country. Nothing like that.

Now of course the editors are entitled to their opinion, just as anyone else is. And they are more than welcome to use their website to show us what they consider to be important and worthy of our attention, but this whole think reeks of condecention and elitist smarm. And it also graphically points out the very real chasm that exists between mainstream thought and the attitudes of those who bring us our news and information in the big media.

Check it out for yourself:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6687413/

Burqas On The Subway & The Islamic Problem

2004-12-22T13:33:00.000-05:00

I am not a Muslim. I don't pretend to be an authority on Islam or Islamic culture. I have never visited a Muslim nation, nor have I even stepped foot inside a Mosque. I have little to no understanding of the nuance of the Koran or how it applies to the daily lives of Muslims.

I do however know some things for certain. I know that a good chunk of the problems around the world today, and a lions share of the violence --from stonings in Iran, to murder/suicide bombings in Israel, to genocide in the Sudan, and the list goes on-- stem from Muslim fundamentalism and it's incompatibility with the reality of modern life on this planet (including the very simple fact that not everyone is a Muslim). I know that all nations practicing fundamental Islamic law are backwards, 10th century hellholes, known best for slavery, beheadings, suicide murder, and the suppression of even the most basic civil rights. I know that Muslim leaders, regardless of where they reside, are all too often a voice of encouragement to such abominations, and rarely criticize even the most horrific acts carried out in the name of their religion (like 9/11), without also including some conspiratorial rant against Israel as a counterpoint. I know that even allegedly 'moderate' Muslims have been largely silent in the face of such dysfunction, preferring instead to seek victim status, and the protection which they know it affords them in this multicultural, 'sensitive' society we've developed (which, ironically, does not exist in Islam). It does not take an expert on Islamic culture or history to recognize that there is something very wrong here, on a very basic level.

Mind you, this is not an indictment of all people who call themselves Muslim, however it is a hard truth that these people need to come to terms with quickly, if they wish to save their faith from becoming even more of a pariah than it already has. Up to this point, we as a nation have been more than willing to give the so-called 'moderate' Muslims the benefit of the (rather large) doubt. Immediately after 9/11, president Bush made sure he was seen with Muslim leaders, and there has not been any real widespread persecution or violence against Muslims in America. Certainly nothing like the Japanese internment after Pearl Harbor (which was, in my opinion, wholly justifiable, however unfortunate and heavy handed it may seem today).

You see, most people in this country can identify with the plight of Muslims (and other immigrants) who come to America to seek a better life; nearly everyone here can trace most of their family back to relatives who did exactly the same thing. And we certainly sympathize with Muslims who come here to escape the tyranny and brutality of their home nations.

However, we find it very difficult to accept these people when they attempt to bring a part of those tyrannical and brutal regimes here with them. Case in point, the burqa. We all know it as the symbol of Taliban oppression used to help keep women as fourth class citizens in Afghanistan (just below the dog and goat), now no longer mandatory in that country (but old habits die hard, and many women still opt for the formless, top-to-bottom cover rather than risk a dirty look, or worse, from the local mullah ...baby steps I suppose). However, it is not uncommon here in NYC (at least, not as uncommon as it should be) to see women walking around in a full burqa, complete with the little mesh grate so that not even her eyes can be viewed by the lecherous infidel public, lest she excite a male to the extent that he cannot resist and takes her 'honor', (which would obviously be her fault for being such an eye-exposing whore) leading of course to death by stoning.

Now it has been argued that these women have the right to wear a burqa, which is obviously true. But honestly, when these people come to the United States and walk around in blatant symbols of oppression and hardship, one which we have fought a war in Afghanistan to help remove, it becomes very difficult for most Americans, myself included, to sympathize with their culture or plight as immigrants. More importantly, if they are so unwilling to adjust even slightly to our traditions and way of life, why should we have any respect at all for theirs? This of course recalls the case a couple of years ago of the Florida woman who wanted to have her drivers license photo taken in full burqa (which is odd, because if she has to wear a burqa, it's surprising that her male overseer allows her to drive... but I digress). Anyway, I believe that sanity prevailed in that case and she did in fact have to remove her veil for the photo (or not get a license), but the fact that anyone could argue on her behalf in that case was mind boggling. Aside from the obvious fact that wearing a burqa for an ID photo entirely defeats the purpose of an ID photo (and any security implications associated with such), what reasonable grounds can one have to justify something like that? Religious belief? What if a Klansman wanted to wear his white hood for his license photo? Or what if a nudist wanted to take the picture naked? Those are not religions, you say? Says who? Many Klansman and nudists regard their respective belief systems as religion, and with a bit of light paperwork, they'd have the tax status to prove it. So who decides what a legitimate religion is? The government? No, I don't think I want the government making those kinds of decisions, and neither did the founding fathers, as this is exactly what the establishment clause sought to prevent. So beyond that, what legal grounds would anyone have to argue for the diver-license-burqa? And no, for the record, feel-good, warm and fuzzy 'cultural sensitivity' does not trump the word of law.

But this is merely a symptom of a much larger issue. Historically, when most immigrants made their lives here in this country, for better or for worse, they did so because they saw this as a place where they could have a life better than the one they left behind. And it is also very true that most immigrant communities have had growing pains in their first few generations here. One only needs to look back upon 19th century Manhattan to realize this. But we have not seen anything like what has been happening with the Muslim community previously. You see, when the Irish came to America, they did not want to make the country like Ireland. And when the Italians came, they did not want to make the country like Italy. Nor the Germans, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans etc. Each brought a piece of their culture, but realized that America is a nation unto itself and different from the one which they left behind... and they were happy with that. That in turn led to a rich, diverse set of people who contributed their unique experiences and valuable cultures to the overall American tapestry, thus enhancing it for each and every citizen, and helped to make us the most successful nation in the history of the world. The crimes and acts of violence committed by Irish & Italian immigrants during their periods of adjustment, however despicable, were more often than not carried out for the rather simple goal of making fast money or otherwise 'getting ahead' in a world that they had yet to fully come to terms with. After a few generations, these tendencies had by and large faded into the background. In stark contrast, the violence we see Muslims committing around the western world today has the far more nefarious intent of actually changing the values of their host nations as they exist today, and imposing the fundamental belief system of Islam on the rest of the world. These are not 'immigrants' as we have come to know the term historically, but rather jihadist missionaries who take advantage of western tolerance and diversity to spread their beliefs by any means necessary (literally).

In fact, many of the western Muslim communities' more vocal members, openly state that it is the goal of Muslims to become the dominant, and eventually the sole faith in America and world. One only need to look at the recent Islamic violence in Amsterdam, arguably the most tolerant and liberal society in the world, to see that regardless of how open and understanding we try to be, fundamentalist Islam only seeks to either convert or kill. The murder of Theo Van Gogh puts an underscore on what conservatives have been asserting all along, and what liberals have been attempting to deny: that Islamic terrorism occurs not as a reaction to any foreign or domestic policy of this or any other western nation, but rather from very basic Islamic incompatibility with modern life. Here you have Amsterdam, a nation which has minded it's own business and not offended anyone in the last 500 years, is neutral in basically every global conflict, and welcomes people from all corners of the world with lax immigration and welfare laws. Yet somehow now finds itself with a very serious terrorism issue. It seems that the individual who brutally and publicly murdered Theo Van Gogh, then nailed a jihadist screed to his chest with a knife was not necessarily unique in his beliefs there.

Can anyone honestly argue at this point that we 'create' terrorism through 'insensitive' foreign and domestic policy? No, one cannot. As I said before, you cannot hope to find a more liberal/progressive society than that of Amsterdam, and even they are under attack. What are they being 'punished' for? Leftists will point out that Theo Van Gogh was of course involved with a controversial film project that took a critical look at fundamentalist Islam (as though this was some kind of legitimate rationalization), but it only further proves my point; when you allow fundamentalists of this sort to go totally unchecked in the name of 'tolerance', it will only serve to foment their fundamentalist tendencies and encourage ever-escalating acts of violence against their host nation, to the point where the basic freedom of speech rights of all citizens are steadily encroached upon for the sake of 'sensitivity' (which has become code for 'not wanting to upset those who may find it a religious duty to make a home movie of your decapitation'). I believe Ann Coulter put it best when she said "Ah, yes, we must seek to mollify those who hate us and want to kill us, otherwise they'll hate us and want to kill us". You see, Muslim fundamentalists are not impressed with our multiculturalism, tolerance or sensitivity to their culture. They do not come to America (or Amsterdam or Canada) with the intent of committing mass murder, only to have their hearts and minds won over by our liberal values. Quite the contrary. They view our value system as a weakness to be exploited at every possible opportunity. You can see this demonstrated on every level imaginable; from the Iraqi insurgents that hide weapons and ammo inside a mosque, to Palestinian terrorists that use children as runners to carry messages and explosives, and set up bomb factories in the middle of residential districts. The 9/11 hijackers themselves lived good, middle class lives here in the USA for several years, and yet had absolutely no qualms whatsoever with waking up one morning, getting dressed, driving to the airport, and flying jumbo jets into skyscrapers.

And where are the so-called 'moderate' Muslims? The ones who come here and love this country and work hard and build a family and go to school and have Jewish and Christian friends and think that burqas are an abomination and suicide bombing is the most horrific and cowardly act that a human could possibly commit (with no caveat about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians or American favoritism)? They're out there... you see them occasionally on Fox News, or Frontpagemag.com but they are not nearly loud enough. I think that some of that has to do with the liberal media not wanting to cover pro-America Muslims because that may translate into more widespread support for the Bush administration policy. But generally speaking, there simply are not enough loud voices from within the Muslim community speaking out about these issues. One has to wonder why... I know that if some group of crazies was out blowing up schoolbuses and airliners in the name of Jesus Christ, the outcry from Christians in this nation would be deafening. Surely, when a small taste of this occurred here in the form of Timothy McVeigh, he was one of the most hated men in the nation; swiftly and surely condemned by all and rapidly executed. Contrast this to Osama bin Laden, who has become a sort of pop hero even within the mainstream of Islam. One wouldn't have to look very hard to find a picture of Osama hanging in a classroom of a Madrasa, or even on a T-shirt sold on an Arab streetcorner. I wonder how many Sunday schools have a portrait of Tim McVeigh hanging up? When was the last time you saw a Tim McVeigh tee? Unless we begin to hear more from the moderate Muslim community around the world, and until they begin to take some actual, tangible steps to condemn and stamp out these murderous fundamentalists on their own, we must be left to conclude that either the so-called 'moderates' are not actually all that moderate, and actually do tacitly approve of the global 'jihad' against the west, or that they are such a small percentage of Muslims, that in fact Islam as a whole is simply too dangerous to continue to exist in it's current incarnation. Neither of those options are very pleasant to think about, but alas, those are the only two logical conclusions one can reach if the rather conspicuous silence continues.

So you'll have to excuse me if I'm a bit uncomfortable, and a touch offended when I see a burqa-clad female (presumably) trotting down the street as though this were Kabul. I can't help but wonder if she realizes exactly what freedom means, or if she is here to help stamp it out.

Why are New Yorkers so liberal?

2004-12-20T15:02:00.000-05:00

An appropriate topic for my first real post here, I think.

To start, we need to think about what liberalism and conservatism mean when applied to the real world, and the actual experiences of real people. Liberalism is a system which places an emphasis upon government to provide for the population, and for the individual to contribute to the 'greater good' with higher taxes and other means for distribution of wealth and services throughout the society. I hate to use the word 'communism', but liberalism as it exists today does in fact reflect communist theory in most of it's major points. This was not always the case, but nonetheless, today's liberals and the Democratic party as a whole are far closer to a communist party than we have ever had in this country previously.

Now, this of course begs the original question of why New Yorkers are so overwhelmingly liberal. If you ask the average New Yorker this question, they'll probably tell you that it has to do with their sophistication, education, tolerance or other elitist mumbo jumbo when compared to the rural philistines which inhabit the vast cornfields and trailer parks of red state America.Truly, much ink and bandwidth has been devoted to this very topic in the last several weeks since the end of the election, as stunned lefties try desperately to make themselves feel better about the election results. Even though they lost, it has been repeatedly rationalized, the results only prove what they had believed all along; i.e. the superiority of the urban intellectual class over the moronic Bible-thumping homophobic warmongers in the rest of the country.

However, up until this point, such feelings were kept carefully private; only spoken at cocktail parties and dinners amongst those of like mind, lest they make too much noise and alienate the poor sheep in the rest of the country whose vote they resent, yet nonetheless need to gain national political power. Fortunately, they have become so unhinged at their stunning loss, that these once-quiet thoughts are now being spoken out loud for all to hear, to the long term detriment of their party.

But I digress. The reason for such liberal/socialist/communist leanings is not out of some great intellectual enlightenment bestowed upon those who pay $3000 a month for a studio loft in SoHo. No, I am afraid that the reason is far more simple, and less existentially glamorous than that.

City dwellers, by definition, tend to live a far more communal existence than their rural counterparts. They live right on top of each other (literally), they travel together on buses and subways, they dine with each other at restaurants (I do not know a single resident of NYC who dines out fewer than three times a week...and orders in the rest of the time). They have public parks, not backyards; few own cars and drive anywhere themselves with any regularity. Personal space is at an absolute minimum, public space is the norm.

All of this adds up to a genuine feeling that the lives of all the citizens are intertwined to a degree that the individual needs should in fact give way to the needs of the collective society. After all, if you make life better for the next guy, it will inevitably be better for me, as I will likely have to deal with the next guy approximately five million times each day.

These feelings of course lead to massive local government (NY has the highest taxes in the nation). But people pay it because they see it as wholly necessary... their responsibility as citizens. And it's just the way it's always been (What are they going to do, NOT have a subway?). The idea of privatization has never been raised, for a number of reasons (powerful unions, bureaucratic momentum, corporate distrust, general complacency... pick one). It's ironic that the big business capitol of the world would have virtually no privatization of any public sector service, but alas, this is the current (and future) state of NYC. It's the same with welfare and education. Schools are meant to be public, and we need to do all we can to accommodate minorities... because we all live right on top of each other and we can't have angry minorities, now can we?

There is of course a better way, or at the very least another way, but this system has been so ingrained in the fabric of city life that all other ideas a viewed, at best, with tremendous suspicion. People here have simply become liberal drones. It is a near impossibility at this point for most New Yorkers to wrap their heads around any governmental concept that is not rooted in socialism and/or multiculturalism. People forget that Giulianni was mayor for eight years before 9/11 made him a hero of epic proportions. In those eight years he was truly one of the most hated men in the world in certain leftist circles. He got the Hitler-moustache treatment on protest signs long before George W. came on the scene. Why? Because he did things differently. He shook up the establishment (and believe me, New York is nothing if not an establishment city) and worked harder than anyone before him to make real, positive change (a somewhat laughable, somewhat scary thought to cynical New Yorkers). Eventually though, even before 9/11, he earned the respect of a good portion of the population. His results were basically impossible to argue against, and only the most hysterical leftist saw his overall administration as anything but a real turning point in the city, which had been well on the road to ruin after a truly disastrous term with Dinkins at the helm (who actually beat Rudy on his first time out, and even after ruining the city, came very close to winning reelection against him the second time). Yes, New Yorkers can see the light eventually, but the light has to basically be a ten-thousand watt stage lamp 5 feet from their face, and their eyes need to be held open with toothpicks for at least 3 years. But there is hope.

The larger problem arises, however, when those who reside in the city begin to feel that what they believe works for them must also work for the rest of the country. Add in a sense of hyper-superiority due to 'superior' education/culture/etc., and you have the situation we currently find ourselves in; Elitist east cost intellectuals believing that it is their entitlement to rule over those unfortunate enough to not live within walking distance to Cipriani and The Met.

Don't get me wrong... I love this city. I wouldn't trade it for anything. It truly is one of the greatest places to live in the world, and I am damn lucky to be here. But by virtue of my address, I am not somehow elevated to a level of cultural superiority over those who plant corn in Iowa or herd cattle in New Mexico. And I certanly do not believe that it is my right, or the right of any government to tell people how to live their lives. If I were in charge of this city, I would of course do things very differently, however, the people of NYC vote every four years, and ultimately the people are responsible for their government, especially at the local level. I have serious problems with certain laws here that I feel do not pass constitutional muster (the draconian gun control, for example), but beyond that, it's hard to deny the simple fact that this is a liberal city, and is likely to remain so for quite some time. It has nothing to do with tolerance or cultural superiority, and everything to do with habit and proximity. Trust me, I live here.

Welcome...

2004-12-20T14:40:00.000-05:00

It's about time that I got one of these... at least that's what everyone tells me.

So here I am, joining the blogosphere as part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. How exciting.

Anyway, before I begin, a little about me. I am a 27 year old marketing professional who was born and raised in New York City. I have identified myself as a conservative republican since the time I first became politically aware (around the 5th grade or so when my teacher was an avid Dukakisite), and it's been an uphill battle ever since. I have faced liberals of all stripes since then, some nice, some nasty and some that were just plain confused. It's not easy to be a conservative here in NYC, and I plan to share many stories on this blog. Believe me, I have a lot to say.

But that's enough about me for now... hope you enjoy.