demimasque

They Can Dish It Out …

by

Many highly visible members of the Democratic Party have, over the last few years, been more than ready to dish out venom and abuse, not only on their political opponents, but also on our men and women in uniform, who as an organization have not taken sides in the political wrangly. But, when called out on their own remarks, they are plenty eager to ignore the challenge and cast aspersions on the challenger.

Thus, after Senator Durbin referred to American soldiers as akin to the Nazis and Pol Pot, and stolidly refused to apologize for having made the comments (and only for people having been offended), the Democrats now are demanding the head of Karl Rove for criticizing the Democrats’ response to the 9/11 attacks:

Rove, in a speech Wednesday evening to the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, said, “Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” Conservatives, he said, “saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.”

He added that the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for “moderation and restraint” after the terrorist attacks.

During the 2004 campaign, Bush dismissed the notion of negotiating with terrorists and said, “You can’t sit back and hope that somehow therapy will work and they will change their ways.”

So, it’s alright and defensible for Democrats not only to disagree with the Administration’s policies, but also to denigrate and demonize any and all who agree with any portion of that policy, castigating them as the reincarnation of Hitler; but if anybody so much as criticizes the Democrats for their reactions, suddenly the Democrats have such thin skin?

Don’t think the Democrats have been behaving awfully rudely? Captain Ed has more on the thick-skinned Party of the Jackass (hey, I didn’t choose their mascot) and its tendency to become extremely thin-skinned when its own are being criticized.

[Cross-posted at Between Worlds]

Flag Burning Again?

by

When I was young, I was puzzled as to why we would pledge allegiance to a flag. So, once in a while, I’d “forget” to mention it, along with my more frequent pauses while others intoned “under God”. As I’ve grown older, I’ve come to appreciate the importance of symbols; and seeing re-enactments of the raising of the Stars and Stripes at Iwo Jima gave me the kind of chills that Francis Scott Key must’ve had while watching the shelling of Fort McHenry. Still, to my mind, America is an idea much more than a symbol, and symbols don’t always last forever. I have great respect for the flag, but even greater love for our Constitution, and the history and ideals that make us Americans.

So whenever politicians try to bring back some sort of flag-burning amendment, such as the one that recently passed the US House of Representatives, I become dismayed. Why? Because it goes against the very first amendment, which holds that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …”

But aren’t certain acts, certain speech, hateful by their nature? Yes, but not necessarily dangerous, as in the proverbial crying of fire! in a crowded theatre. Hatred is an emotion, and so long as it does not break out into discrimination or violence, is protected. It is part of the full spectrum of human feelings. To outlaw hatred is to outlaw humanity. Even when it galls, nay, pains us, to hear the contempt with which some people treat the symbol that has helped rally our people no less than our fighting men, the symbol which, simply by being there, through the perilous fight, gave us hope and the will to go on, it is nevertheless part of the very package, the very set of freedoms, for which it stands.

And, beyond the fact that such an amendment would undermine the very spirit of the Constitution, there are two benefits for continuing to allow people to burn or otherwise descrate the flag:

  1. The energy and calumny spent in attacking the flag takes away from energy spent in sabotage.

  2. It’s better to be able to figure out who the kooks are by their own words, so that one may treat them with the cold contempt they deserve.

But, of course, leave it to the Republicans to come up with this sort of amendment. For all the statist socialism of the Democrats, the Republicans are no better when it comes to attempting to foist their sensibilities upon the rest of the nation as an amendment to the Constitution.

[Cross-posted at Between Worlds]

Andrew the Excitable

by

Okay, so I laughed when I read James Taranto’s item mocking Andrew Sullivan. Why? Because it’s true: Andrew can be a little excitable at times, and goes with whatever the headlines are saying, pretty much. Mind, not that I expect bloggers always to be breaking news; the nature of the medium pretty much ensures that on most issues bloggers (as opposed to the diarists at LiveJournal, xanga.com, or Pitas.com) will be mostly reacting to headlines, i.e., the MSM still sets the agenda, for the most part. Andrew is no different, really, in this respect.

However, Andrew does have a tendency to get a little bit excitable, especially where it comes to his pet issues. His ideals are most laudable, but when human beings fall short of his ideals, he is quite willing to skewer them. Naturally, since the Bush administration is composed of human beings who are in the spotlight all the time, it takes no genius to cite a litany of grievances against their policies. Andrew, by dint of his passions, is wont to take such things personally, and extends this lack of courtesy also to fellow bloggers.

Take, for instance, his hyperventilating reaction to Glenn Reynolds’s use of the term “wing-wang” in discussing the issue of Lincoln’s sexual orientation. Seems to me that Andrew still isn’t comfortable enough with his sexuality to differentiate between flippant insouciance and real homophobia.

Also take a look at Andrew’s coverage of the 2004 presidential campaign. His dissatisfaction with the Bush administration’s policies, while understandable and worth debating on its own merits, morphed into support for an opportunist like John Kerry. Andrew’s position: We can’t do worse than return Bush to the White House. Fine, so far. And anyone who disagrees with me supports torture!

Those of us who persevere in reading Andrew’s blog have not been in doubt for the past year and a half (incidentally, right after he started taking up sponsorship) that Andrew has become much, much more excitable. Where he was once a voice of reason not unlike Christopher Hitchens (minus the rather entertaining bombast), he is now not much different than some of the lefties he has been reading lately. Occasionally, a beam of calm meditation shines through the cloud that his blog has become, and he can patiently discuss, in a reasonable manner, what policies he likes and dislikes. But touch on anything emotional and Andrew flies off the handle.

There’s a word we have for friends that can be a little emotional like that: excitable.

So, how does Andrew respond (second item)?

How is any of this spin? How is any of it illogical or internally incoherent? How is any of it “excitable”, unless it is somehow now unacceptable to be shocked to the core by what we have discovered about the treatment of many detainees by U.S. forces? There is a distinction between how we deal with the enemy in the field of battle and how we deal with prisoners of war captured in such a battle. You can be ruthless in the former and humane in the latter. In fact, this was once the defining characteristic of the western way of war. Now it is a subject of mockery from the defend-anything-smear-anyone right.

Poor Andrew is so infuriated by any perceived besmirchment that he doesn’t take the time to read how James Taranto (who of late is arguably a more consistent reader than Glenn) emphasized certain phrases within the entire body of quotations from Andrew’s own writings. Considering how often Andrew, like any other blogger, takes public figures to task for infelicitous choices of diction, you’d think he’d be more chastened and publish a clarification of his positions than to swipe at erstwhile supporters.

In a way, he reminds me of the depiction of John Adams. He’s got a pretty good grasp of the big picture, but he is exceedingly excitable, and prone to interpret disagreements with his words as attacks on his character. His sexuality and his ideological bent don’t help him. He’s shunned by the Left for having dared to support a war prosecuted by a Republican administration; he’s shunned by the Right for his social liberalism; and many in the middle, who share many of his views, become alienated as he moves beyond rhetoric on his pet issues, and into hyperventilation.

Mr. Excitable, indeed.

[Cross-posted at Between Worlds]

UN Groupies to US Congress: Don’t Review Their Performance!

by

Fast on the heels of yet another Republican-led attempt to withhold membership dues partially, should the UN not address some reforms that are of keen interest to its biggest underwriter, a bunch of former US ambassadors to the UN are saying, essentially, that pay should not be based on performance:

Eight former U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations sent a letter on Tuesday urging congressional leaders to reject a bill that would link reform of the world body to payment of American dues, warning that the legislation could actually strengthen opponents of reform.

The UN groupies cite the following precedence:

The United States is the biggest financial contributor to the United Nations, paying about 22 percent of its annual $2 billion general budget. After the U.S. government fell millions of dollars behind in arrears in the late 1990s, the United States almost lost its voting rights in the General Assembly.

The letter said that withholding money again would “create resentment, build animosity and actually strengthen opponents of reform.”

“The fact is reforms cost money and withholding dues impair the U.N.’s ability to make the changes needed,” it letter said.

So, let me get this straight: If the US pays up, reform will be had? Really? We’ve been paying for about 60 years now. Where’s the reform? The UN fell from the vision of its founders pretty much as soon as Uncle Joe decided that Eastern Europeans didn’t need human rights. “Great Leader” Kim Il-sung had no use for the UN, and the UN participated in the little chaos he started only because the Soviets thought an absence meant a veto, and Uncle Sam led the countercharge. The UN did nothing while Fidel flirted with fortune. The UN stood by while Israel was invaded on more than one occasion, and at every turn denounced Israel for fighting back. The UN did nothing for Afghanistan. Nothing for Tibet. Nothing for Kashmir. Nothing for Northern Ireland. Nothing for anyone unless some plucky nation had the courage to lead, like the Americans in Korea, the Americans in Kuwait, and the Australians in East Timor.

Read more

Miniter on Felt

by

Perhaps it’s because I was born after the events, and have some historical distance, but the whole Mark Felt case never meant that much to me. I was far more interested in the consequences it had on journalism, than in the man himself.

Brendan Miniter, assistant editor of OpinionJournal, weighs in with an essay chastising those on the Right who are being as unseemly as those on the Left trying to make Felt’s role into some sort of cause celébre and an object for hero worship.

But if Mr. Felt isn’t personally a hero, his actions look a lot more heroic than the actions of those who’ve had the most biting words for the now 91-year-old man who at the time was the No. 2 official at the FBI. Pat Buchanan, a former speechwriter for Richard Nixon, called Mr. Felt a “snake.” Charles Colson, another Nixon aide, who served seven months in prison for obstruction of justice, said Mr. Felt was “violating his oath to keep this nation’s secrets.” Watergate conspirator turned radio personality G. Gordon Liddy, who also served time, is quoted as saying bluntly that Mr. Felt “violated the ethics of the law enforcement profession.”

These are valid points, though they ring rather hollow coming from the defenders of a corrupt administration, two of whom spent time behind bars for their crimes. And in any case, even if Mr. Felt acted for the wrong reasons, his actions helped pull the nation out of a moral downward spiral.

Brendan even has a good note for Jimmy Carter, whose performance has been rather lackluster. The piece shows an ability to view history’s big picture, and thus is worth your attention.

[Cross-posted at Between Worlds]