Reply to More Rants on Wounded Patriotism

Doug Wiken replies to last night's post with another mini-rant that is worthy of exegesis.  To recap, I said this:

It is an article of faith in the Democratic High Church that the Bush Administration, along with Republicans and conservatives in general, question the patriotism of anyone who questions the Iraq war. ...So far, I have not seen a single piece of evidence that anyone in the Administration or any other reputable Republican questioned anyone's patriotism because that person opposed the war.

Doug's second reply says this:

Is "wounded patriotism" a phrase you invented, or is that the latest RNC attack phrase? Has Newt Gingrich and pollsters decided to generate a new and revised dictionary of attack phrases?

This is what scholars in philosophy call an "ad hominem" argument.  My arguments must be wrong because I am one of "them."  The phrase "wounded patriotism" is in fact mine.  As far as I can tell, the suggestion that it is not is another product of Wiken's imagination, without a hint of evidence.  Wiken confesses that he is too busy to look for evidence for accusations that he was not too busy to make.

I really don't have time to dig around for examples of Republicans impugning the patriotism of their opponents directly or indirectly or with all the precision and finesse of a sledge hammer. While not directly related to the current Bush administration...

That he would have to dig for such examples concedes my point: that he has not a single example at hand.  He knows good and well that his view is true, he just can't cite any evidence for it (except for some rather dated examples that aren't "directly related to the current Bush administration").  That is what prejudice looks like.

Commenter Suarez has this:

Republican accusations that critics of the Iraq war are unpatriotic abound. I saw a plastic encased newspaper ad at a media forum that pictured Tom Daschle alongside of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden alleging that his opposition to the war allied him with the enemy. At the same forum, there was a video clip of a debate between Thune and Daschle where Thune accused Daschle of giving comfort to the enemy. There are innumberable clips of the President saying that opposition to the war is a betrayal of the troops and support for the enemy.

That's a little more on target, but might we ask: in what newspaper did the ad appear?  Who paid for it?  As for the Thune/Daschle debate, I think there was something there in a Thune remark about "aiding and abetting the enemy."  A few quoted words from the transcript might be my first real example of someone's patriotism questioned!  But I am still waiting.  If there really are "innumerable clips" of the President saying what Suarez says he says, surely Suarez could point us to at least one from YouTube.  I did a search on YouTube using Suarez's words, and nothing turned up. I do not for a moment question Suarez's honesty.  I am sure the "media forum" he describes took place.  But vague memories from an anonymous source are not enough to substantiate a serious allegation. 

I suppose this has gone on long enough.  I think it is clearly shameful to question someone's patriotism just because he or she criticizes the war in Iraq, or just because he or she defends the war in Iraq.  I pointed out that MoveOn did precisely the latter with the complicity of the New York Times.  I provided an image of the ad itself, and a link where the reader could view it in full.  I argue that the charge that Bush or Republicans in general did the former [see image above] is largely a canard, unsupported by any evidence.  My critics repeat the charge, flamboyantly, but fail to support it. Pending some new development, I am declaring victory and going on to other matters.   

 

Another Daschle v. Thune Review

Jon Lauck's new book Daschle Vs. Thune: Anatomy of a High-Plains Senate Race was highlighted by the Mitchell Daily Republic today.  Still nothing from the Argus Leader about the book.  I wonder why that could be?

Burma's Buddhists

Vaclav Havel, who knows a thing or two about tyranny, has this one Burma.

In Burma, the power of educated Buddhist monks - people who are unarmed and peace loving by their very nature - has risen up against the military regime. That monks are leading the protests is no great surprise to those who have taken a long-term interest in the situation in Burma.

An overwhelming number of Burma's Buddhist monks have found it difficult to bear the central and regional governments' efforts to corrupt their monastic orders, and to misuse the example of the monks' self-restraint to increase the pressure on other believers. Of course, without universal and coordinated international political, economic, and media support for these brave monks, all development in Burma may quickly be put back nearly 20 years.

On a daily basis, at a great many international and scholarly conferences all over the world, we can hear learned debates about human rights and emotional proclamations in their defense. So how is it possible that the international community remains incapable of responding effectively to dissuade Burma's military rulers from escalating the force that they have begun to unleash in Rangoon and its Buddhist temples?

For dozens of years, the international community has been arguing over how it should reform the United Nations so that it can better secure civic and human dignity in the face of conflicts such as those now taking place in Burma or Darfur, Sudan. It is not the innocent victims of repression who are losing their dignity, but rather the international community, whose failure to act means watching helplessly as the victims are consigned to their fate.

The world's dictators, of course, know exactly what to make of the international community's failure of will and inability to coordinate effective measures. How else can they explain it than as a complete confirmation of the status quo and of their own ability to act with impunity?

Reply to a Rant on Wounded Patriotism

Doug Wiken, whose blog I frequently enjoy and with whom I have exchanged pleasantries in the past, took exception to my post of yesterday.  I said this:

It is an article of faith in the Democratic High Church that the Bush Administration, along with Republicans and conservatives in general, question the patriotism of anyone who questions the Iraq war. ...So far, I have not seen a any piece of evidence that anyone in the Administration or any other reputable Republican questioned anyone's patriotism because that person opposed the war.

Doug's reply so thoroughly confirms my point that I can't resist going line by line.  Here is his opening:

Good Grief, Nearly every current GOP attack and projection all crammed into one post.  Quite an accomplishment.

Thank you.

No Bush administration attempts to paint war opposition as unpatriotic?  Where has Blanchard been sleeping?

I will ignore the second question as an unprovoked attack on my morality.  As for the first, I notice that when someone thinks he can back up an accusation he begins: "well just listen to this, and I quote..." That's what I did when I quoted the MoveOn add.  When someone doesn't think he can back up what he said, he begins: "everybody knows it, or where have you been sleeping," etc.  Well, I am awake now.  But I am from just south of Missouri, so you have to show me most of the time. 

"Patriot's Day" is one nice example and the use of it for purely partisan attacks was and is obvious. Bush,Inc. wraps its corporate greed in the flag.

Doug is a bit confused here.  "Patriot's Day" commemorates the battles of Lexington and Concord.  "Patriot Day" is Sept.11th, designated by Congress as a national day of remembrance for the dead of 9/11.  I fail to see how the fact of the holiday is an example of an attack on anyone's patriotism, except maybe Osama bin Laden, and I do question his love of America.  Whether or not "Bush, Inc." has abused the holiday, the above sentence is another allegation without evidence.  What did Bush or someone else say on Patriot Day that challenged someone's patriotism merely because that person criticized the war? 

And, [Blanchard] apparently missed the news that NY Times is billing MoveOn the full regular price for political ads. Some are wondering if the "Swiftboater" attack on Kerry were always purchased at the full rate. I hope Blanchard will dig right into that one.

What Doug misses is this: when the NYTimes sends MoveOn a corrected bill it confirmed the fact that the original bill was too low and amounted to a de facto political contribution, just as I said.  Much the same was true when the Clinton campaign returned the contributions of Mr. Hsu, it confirmed that at least the former considered the money to be tainted.  As for the legality of the Times' original bill, I am on their side.  I don't think that campaign contributions should be illegal.  But the fact that they corrected the bill doesn't get them off, just as bank robber doesn't get to walk if he returns the money.  I just think it's important to note that the paper of record was complicit in presenting the message of the MoveOn ad: that General Petraeus may be accused of treason because he defended the war.

As for the "Swift boat"  thing, this is more vague innuendo.  Kerry made his service in Vietnam a major item his case for the presidency, but he had padded his resume a bit.  The Swiftboat ads exploited the latter fact.  I can see why the success of that ad campaign still stings.

And then there were the Bush attacks on Max Cleland, who lost several limbs as a solder, as being unpatriotic.

The Cleland/Chambliss campaign is the most frequently mentioned evidence of wounded patriotism, but I have never seen it grounded in anything other than a single campaign commercial.  There is in fact not a single word in that commercial that questions Senator Cleland's patriotism.  What it did question was his voting record.  That is what campaigns are supposed to be about.

Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels and the Bush administration is full of them..starting at the top.

Actually, the last refuge of a scoundrel is for the scoundrel to announce he is suffering from some kind of addiction and then check himself into a clinic.  Another refuge is to treat any criticism whatsoever as an attack on one's patriotism.  It helps to build an image of wounded patriotism out of thin air by repeating over and over again the same charge without ever producing a shred of evidence. It doesn't help to do, flamboyantly, exactly what you accuse the other side of doing by accusing an American general of treason because you expect him to defend a war. 

I would be amazed if there were not, somewhere out there, cases where Republicans have attacked the patriotism of someone because he or she criticized the war, or the Bush Administration's terrorism policies.  Given the ineptitude of the latter on many fronts, you would expect them to make that mistake.  But if they have, Doug Wiken doesn't seem to know about it. 

Murtha Ordered to Testify in Defamation Case

John Bresnahan:  "A federal judge has ordered Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) to testify in a defamation case related to the deaths of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha in 2005, according to the Associated Press.  Murtha, a former Marine. accused Marines involved in the 'cold-blooded murder and war crimes' during the Haditha incident. Frank Wuterich, a Marine sergeant involved in the incident, has sued Murtha for defamation over his comments." 

Todd Is Right On The War

No, not the one in Iraq. Let's take a break from calling each other names and say that Todd has the goods on Ken Burns's The War, now being shown on PBS.  I have only caught parts of two episodes, but Todd's analysis seems right on: good not great television.  I agree that the series lacks the scholar to serve the analyst role Shelby Foote provided in The Civil War.  Too bad Stephen Ambrose is dead.  He was made for that role. 

Also, the music, provided by Wynton Marsalis, is a bit odd.  One episode I saw, the D-Day episode, had imagery of dead and dying men backed with groovy bebop jazz.  Talk about incongruous.  The series could be better served by period music as was successfully done in The Civil War. Todd suggests big band and I would include the greatest popular singer ever, Bing Crosby.  The best music in the show is the piano rendition of "It's Been A Long, Long Time" that is heard behind some scenes from the home front. 

I disagree with Todd that the series suffers from lack of perspective.  The point of the documentary is to show America during wartime.  It is not meant to be a history of the Second World War. 

It sounds like I am dumping on the film.  Do not get me wrong.  The subject matter itself is compelling and one cannot deny Burns's power as a story teller.  If you are like me and you have missed some episodes, PBS is replaying them in the coming weeks.  See The War.

Update: Todd, I see my comment is now on the KELO Blog. 

The $20 Billion Entitlement

In the midst of our debate over expanding the SCHIP to the middle class and adding billions of dollars of insurance subsidies, Hillary Clinton decided another entitlement program should be added to the nanny state.  Addressing the Congressional Black Caucus, Hillary said she'd like to spend $20 billion each year on checks to newborn infants.  Since 2000, the United States has had over four million births per year.  In 2004 with 4,121,000 births, and each of them receiving $5,000 under Hillary's plan, that would mean $20,605,000,000 for a single year.  To put that in perspective, that's nearly the equivalent to the budget for the entire Department of Justice in 2006, which topped out at $23.4 billion.  No word on where she would get the money from.  It's easy to talk about writing checks, but much harder to actually implement.

UPDATE:  John Hinderaker calls this the "second coming of George McGovern."  McGovern had proposed a similar plan in 1972 he called the "demogrant," in which every American would get a $1,000 check from the government.  The plan was loudly criticized as pandering and economically pointless, even by Hubert Humphrey, and McGovern quietly dropped the plan. 

Talk About Your Dead Horses

Read PP on the abortion follies within the South Dakota GOP.  And here is a bit from Mr. Kranz today:

The South Dakota Legislature isn't due to start work for more than three months, but there already is heated discussion over the next abortion legislation.

What some lawmakers are proposing is legislation that would send a bill straight to a vote of the people. That legislation would include all exceptions: rape, incest, life and health of the mother.
Jim Fry, director of the Legislative Research Council, explained the process, saying it would have to come in the form of a resolution but still pass through committees before going to a vote of both the House and Senate.

The advantage of that course, says Fry: It would not require a signature from the governor.

My free advice to the South Dakota Republicans: let the people of South Dakota know that you care about things other than abortion.  Let it rest for a year. 

Tales From The Resistance

Via Powerline:

The The New York Times, MoveOn, & Attacks on Patriotism

It is an article of faith in the Democratic High Church that the Bush Administration, along with Republicans and conservatives in general, question the patriotism of anyone who questions the Iraq war.  My Keloland and NSU Emeritus colleague, David Newquist, gives us a good example.

The B[ush]-Corps says that if presidential candidates do not denounce MoveOn.org, they are insulting every American soldier and harming America.  Do not doubt for a moment that their accusations of being unpatriotic and against the military are not effective.  The U.S. Senate bowed down and peed its collective pants.  At least 72 of the Senators did. 

Typically, Professor Newquist provides not a single citation to back up his claim.  So far, I have not seen a single piece of evidence that anyone in the Administration or any other reputable Republican questioned anyone's patriotism because that person opposed the war.  Sometimes faith is what Mark Twain said it was: believing in something you know ain't true. 

But we now have a pretty good example of a powerful group on the left questioning the patriotism of an American general because he was expected to defend the war. MoveOn.org, a major financial backer of the Democrats, placed an add in the New York Times in advance of General Petraeus' testimony before Congress.  The add ended with these words:

Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.

MoveOn is unambiguously, if in a goofy way, accusing General Petraeus of treason for offering a different view of the Iraq war from their own.  If that isn't an example of attacking someone's patriotism because of his view of the war, I can't imagine what one would look like.

But the story gets better.  The NYTimes has grudgingly admitted, according to the AP, that it violated its own policy by publishing an add  "involving attacks of a personal nature."  That is a matter of self-imposed standards and hypocrisy. It may well be a matter of legality that the Times also gave MoveOn a sweet deal, charging them $65,000 instead of the standard $142,000 for the add.  That $77,000 discount amounts to a de facto political contribution, and may have been illegal.  Now I am opposed to limits on campaign contributions, but the NYTimes is in favor of them.  Ain't politics entertaining? 

There is also the not so small matter that the NYTimes is going belly-up financially. But apparently they can still afford 77 big ones to attack the patriotism of an American general. 

Cleaning Todd's Wash

A response to Mr. Epp. 

First, I have never said Jim Abourezk is anti-semitic.  I have said he carelessly plays around with anti-semitic stereotypes.  I suspect Mr. Abourezk is more foolish than he is vicious. 

Todd says that Jim Abourezk is just criticizing Israel.  Of course, that is not all Mr. Abourezk is doing.  If Mr. Abourezk criticized Israel and the Palestinian terrorists, that would be faulty moral equivalence in my view, but defensible.  If he criticized Israel and remained silent on Palestinian terrorism, that too would be a dangerous silence, but perhaps forgivable.  Mr. Abourezk, though, does neither of these things.  Not only does he criticize Israel, he praises those who target and murder innocent Israelis and, in fact, appears on their television programs to do so.  Indeed, as I have noted, Hizbullah is considered responsible for murdering 241 American servicemen in Beirut in 1983, but Mr. Abourezk appears on Hizbullah television calling them "resistance fighters."

Let us use the free speech doctrine of "time, place and manner" as a useful rubric.  In First Amendment law, the state may not ban certain speech, but they might be able to restrict the time, place, and manner in which we speak.  I do not mean to apply the legal criteria to Mr. Abourezk, who certainly has the right to say whatever he wants, I simply want to use this doctrine as a tool to think about why Mr. Abourezk's actions are reprehensible. 

Time: There is the right time to speak out against one's country.  Mr. Abourezk, in time of war, chooses to praise those who are aligned against us while attacking in the most unreasonable manner an American ally, Israel.  This, in my view, is ill conceived, although the timing of Mr. Abourezk's statements is the least of my objections.

Place:  Mr. Abourezk chooses to denounce the American government and defend wild conspiracy theories through the media sources of terrorists and known state sponsors of terrorists. In the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran, where Mr. Abourezk has appeared on the radio, this includes a country which in 1979 committed an act of war against the United States by invading our embassy and is a known sponsor of international terrorism, including terrorists currently killing Americans in Iraq.  I wonder what Todd thinks of the fact that Mr. Abourezk feels compelled to denounce the Bush Administration on Iranian radio, but can't find any words on said radio program to question a theocratic Iranian regime where, for example, women are second class citizens and political dissent is severely punished? The larger point is this: if I travel to Germany now to denounce the United States government, that's one thing. If hop in my Way Back Machine and denounce the United States government from Germany in 1942, that's another.

Manner: Mr. Abourezk promotes conspiracy theories regarding Jews that one only finds in the fever swamps of the far left and right.  This is what I mean by foolishly toying with anti-semitic stereotypes, although Mr. Abourezk is careful to say "the Zionists" or "the Israeli lobby" as opposed to "the Jews."  Still, the most vile anti-semitic images regularly appear in Palestinian and Syrian media and commonplace in the schools. Go here for a small sample of the kind of anti-semitic cartoons that regularly appear in newspapers in Middle East.  Or follow this link to a transcript and a link to the video of a television program produced by Syria and, yes, Hizbullah, that repeats the infamous "blood libel" against the Jews, the myth that Jews kidnap young Palestinians, murder them, and use their blood for Passover matzo.  This film appeared on the same network on which Jim Abourezk appears spreading conspiracy theories that "the Zionists" and "the Israeli lobby" control the United States government and run our foreign policy.  Or watch Icon of Hatred (long download alert) to see how anti-Israel imagery is used in the schools to recruit young suicide bombers.  The events of this week should be enough to tell you the views of the current regime in Iran, which holds Holocaust denial conferences.  Yet Abourezk, in damnable irresponsibility, appears on Iranian and Hizbullah media confirming stereotypes of Jews as sneaks who surreptitiously run the world with secret plans akin to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
 

But this becomes tedious.  Readers do not need me or Mr. Epp to tell them what to think.  They can go to the interview Abourezk gave to Hizbullah television and decide for themselves.   And perhaps Todd and I can agree on one thing: the Minnesota Vikings suck. 

Kucinich Watch

I noted here and here Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) traveling to Syria to declare that murderous government a partner in peace while denouncing the American government on Syrian state television.  Syria, as we noted here, has been smuggling in nuclear material from North Korea.  Syria, as we know, has aided the terrorists who kill Americans in Iraq.  Syria is complicit in the murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and attempting to destabilize the Lebanese government through intimidation and violence.  Yet Dennis Kucinich believes they are a "partner in peace."  For more information on Syria, see this Council on Foreign Relations backgrounder, written last year before the latest revelations about nuclear material in Syria. 

I declared that if the Democrats are serious about American security they will denounce Kucinich for his wildly irresponsible actions and statements.  Well, they had a debate last night.  It looks like the only one getting criticized was Hillary Clinton, and this for her support of a bill that labels the Iranian Revolutionary guard a terrorist group.  So apparently being tough on terrorism is worse than coddling the terrorists. 

Clearly, Clinton is the front-runner while Kucinich is an also-ran. So it makes some sense that Clinton should get the attention of her rivals while Kucinich is ignored.  Yet this betrays a blind spot among all Democratic candidates.  One of their own, a member of Congress, can travel to an enemy country, denounce the United States government and praise a murderous dictatorship as a "partner in peace" and suffer not the slightest condemnation.  In fact, what he gets is a photo op with the contenders.

Update: I guess Kucinich was on the Tonight Show.  Let me say this. Can we dump Kucinich and keep his wife? 

The Wayward Wind Is A Democratic Wind

There is plenty of indication that next year is going to be a Democratic year.  When the public thinks that Democrats will do a better job of protecting it from foreign threats, it is not good for Republicans. 

One can look beyond polls.  Look at the behavior of candidates.  One can get a good indication of the attitudes of actual candidates based on candidate recruitment.  There are many retirements on the Republican side, notably John Warner and Chuck Hagel in the Senate, but even in the House a handful of Republicans, such as Minnesota's Jim Ramsted, are calling it quits.  There does not seem to be a similar movement on the Democratic side.  That is an indication that Republicans know they will be in the minority for some time, so they might as well bail, while Democrats thinking about retirement are hanging on to take advantage of their majority status. 

Similarly, the Democrats are recruiting good candidates.  Mark Warner in Virginia, Jean Shaheen in New Hampshire and perhaps Bob Kerrey in Nebraska.  If Warner and Kerrey were to win, that'd be two Republican states with two Democratic Senators. 

The presidential race is a different matter.  I still have a hard time envisioning Hillary Clinton winning a general election. On the other hand, like her husband, she is decidedly blessed by her enemies.  Some are suggesting that a Giuliani candidacy will so alienate conservative Christians that a third party movement will develop.  See Mark Gerson here, arguing that Hillary Clinton's strong religious convictions might attract some religious voters who normally vote Republican.  Responses by Joe Knippenberg and Patrick Deneen. This would create 1992 all over again: a Clinton in the White House thanks in part to the efforts of a third party candidate.

The Republican candidates have flaws.  Giuliani is too liberal for his party.  Romney reminds one of a game show host.  Fred Thompson seems to think he can win the nomination based on being famous.  Mike Huckabee still lags in polls and also strikes one as being a clever campaigner but perhaps not much of a leader.  This leaves John McCain.  Perhaps some Republican voters are deciding that, despite his apostasies from conservative orthodoxy, McCain is a strong leader who is serious about national security.  He also is a bastion of conservative consistency as compared to Rudy Giuliani.  He might be the candidate who can keep the GOP united and beat Hillary Clinton. 

Prediction: After the 2008 election we have a Republican president whose congressional party is even deeper in the minority.  But, as they say, this election will be determined by events that have yet to occur. 

An '08 Outlook

Last night, the Democratic candidates for President took the stage at Dartmouth for a debate.  The participants discussed a variety of issues including social security, supporting Israel, and the War in Iraq.  And the winner?  Well, it may not have been anyone on stage.  According to William Kristol of the Weekly Standard, the clear beneficiary of the event is the future Republican nominee:

Before last night, I thought it was 50-50 that the Republican nominee would win in November 2008.

Now I think it's 2 to 1. And if the Democrat is anyone but Hillary, it's 4 to 1.

Here, judging from the debate, is what the 2008 Democratic nominee is likely to be for. Abroad: ensuring defeat in Iraq and permitting a nuclear Iran. At home: more illegal immigration, higher taxes, more government control of health care, and more aggressive prosecution of the war on smoking than of the war on terror. And this is only a bit of an exaggeration. Going into last night, I had no great expectations of the Democratic field. But the level of routine irresponsibility demonstrated throughout the debate was jaw-dropping. Bush may remain unpopular, and the Republican "brand" unattractive. But I believe the toughness of Giuliani, the sobriety of Thompson, the gravitas of McCain--any of these would be very difficult for the Democratic nominee to overcome.

Here's the link.

Burma

Add this one to the list of places where people are struggling for liberty and liberty is being crushed.  You can cross-file it under places about which the rest of the world really doesn't care.  Buddhist monks have been leading mass protests against the criminal gang that governs "Myanmar."  I suppose it is a small act of protest that the Washington Post calls the place by the name it had before it was captured by thugs. 

BANGKOK, Sept. 26 -- After nine days of restraint, Burma's military rulers cracked down on protesting Buddhist monks Wednesday, with security forces firing warning shots, shooting tear gas canisters, swinging truncheons and making scores of arrests to suppress anti-government marchers.

The violence, despite appeals for negotiations from around the world, suggested that the junta has decided to put an end to what has become Burma's most serious political uprising since 1988, even at the price of more opprobrium from abroad.

Look at the bright side: the death toll so far can be counted on two hands, if you have all your fingers left.  The last time the Junta cracked down, they left 3 or 4 thousand corpses in the streets.  Seventeen years ago Burma held and election.  The National League for Democracy won decisively, but the military junta responded by arresting the legitimate government.  The leader of the NLD has spent most of the last 17 years under house arrest.  Aung San Suu Kyi, a Buddhist, could be the Nelson Mandela of Burma.  But the international left, which brought the force of the world against South Africa, can't spare a tear for Burma.  Don't hold your breath waiting for that to change. 

Reply to a Note on Homosexuals in Iran

For some reason I don't seem to be able to leave comments at my own blog on Keloland.  So I am posting a reply instead.  Intrepid reader STUDENT left this comment to my recent posts here and here:

Ken: Were the young men gay? Yes. Were they hanged for being gay? No. Of course, all the pro-gay organizations love to blow the story out of proportion and twist it to fuel their agendas. You've jumped on the band wagon as well with statements such as this one at the end of your 09/21 post: "This is the world of today's academic left. A respected academic who says something unfashionable is silenced. A man whose government actually murders homosexuals, he is allowed to speak." I disagree with you here. Ayaz Marhoni and Mahmoud Asgari were executed for taking part with at least three others in abducting and gang-raping a 13-year-old boy at knife point. You were correct in mentioning that the crimes involved homosexual intercourse. You forgot to mention that the crimes also involved gang-rape at knife point. Simple as that. Now, let's say a young man is gay and kills someone and is sentenced to the death penalty here in the United States, technically we would be murdering a homosexual wouldn't we? Yes we would, but not simply because he was gay. We would be murdering him for the crime of murder, not for being gay. Don't get me wrong, it is clear that officially and in practice, there is discrimination against gays in Iran. However, systematic repression of gays doesn't seem to be an issue. Iran does not systematically persecute gays anymore. In Iran right now, there are gay websites, there are parks and also cinemas where everyone knows that these venues are meeting places for gays. Furthermore, it is legal in Iran for a transsexual to apply and receive a sex change and it is fully accepted by the government. There are even some pro-gay medias that write about gay issues. Having said this, the Islamic law still states that the punishment for being gay is death. It is not followed by the regime these days. It is what you would call a lemon law. Similiar to some of ours here in South Dakota. I enjoy reading your blogs, please keep them up.

Yes, I confess, I jumped on the bandwagon.  That doesn't mean that the wagon wasn't going in the right direction. I gather that there is considerable doubt about the rape charge against the two young men, and reason to believe that their homosexuality left them guilty by default.  Given the state of judicial proceedings in Iran, it is impossible to tell.  While people must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the opposite is true of due process. 

It is probably fair to say that homosexuals have not been a major target of the regime.  How could they be, when "there are no homosexuals in Iran"?  On the other hand, the women stoned for adultery was sufficient to prove my case concerning double standards in the American academy. 

Thanks for the correction, and I intend to keep it up. 

Columbia’s Left Goes After Bollinger

...for being critical during the introduction of Ahmadinejad earlier this week.  Several professors and students are complaining that the university president practiced poor "diplomacy," did not treat the Iranian president with "courtesy," and made "untruthful" claims about Iran.  Jules Crittenden sees Bollinger set to receive the Larry Summers treatment.

Laugh of the Day

The Long Island New York-based Hofstra Law School is inviting Lynne Stewart to come speak at a legal-ethics conference entitled "Lawyering at the Edge: Unpopular Clients, Difficult Cases, Zealous Advocates."  The conference material describes her as a "high profile radical and human rights attorney" who will talk of the "attacks on lawyers" who represent "unpopular causes and clients."  Yeah.  They left out that bit about her being convicted of providing material aid to terrorists.  So Hofstra sees a disbarred criminal as an expert on legal ethics?  They see someone convicted of giving material support to mass murderers as a champion of human rights?

If you need a lawyer, stay clear of Hofstra graduates.

H/T to Glenn Reynolds.

UPDATE:  What a week we've had.  A dictator invited to Columbia University, a former state senator defending Hezbollah and criticizing the United States on a terrorist-controlled television station, and now the Lynne Stewart debacle.  What's next?

Edwards & Labor

Chris Suellentrop:  "How poorly is John Edwards faring in his bid to become president of the United States?"

Kranz

To add to my colleague Prof. Schaff's observations on David Kranz's journalistic malpractice, this is the problem with moral relativism.  Prof. Schaff documents several cases of terrorism and violence by Hezbollah, yet Senator Abourezk is willing to defend those acts in the worst ways: by ignoring and justifiying their activities, by making these statements on a foreign- and terrorist-run television program, and denouncing the United States. 

The old adage that "politics stops at the water's edge" has died.  Today, American politicians defame their country before the people in the homeland of America's enemies.  It's shameful to visit a foreign country and appear on terrorist-run television and denounce American policies in front of America's enemies.  That David Kranz would allow Abourezk to defend those statements in a local newspaper is abhorrent. 

What Kranz misses is that there's no defense for what Abourezk has done because he's undermining the United States during a time of war in front of an audience that hates America and Israel.  Kranz gives the illusion of balance by quoting Alan Dershowitz, but allows Abourezk to have the last word and judgement on Dershowitz as a source (a "liar and an unavowed propagandist.")  His appearance on Hezbollah television was both destructive and disloyal on Abourezk's part, not only because of its content but because of its location and target audience.  The Democratic Party and the Argus Leader ought to disavow Abourezk.  But they won't.

Kranz Serves As Abourezk's Mouth Piece

Dave Kranz, in an act of irresponsible journalism, essentially gives his column today to the despicable Jim Abourezk to spout his hateful views.  I urge readers to go back to this post of mine and to once again follow this link to Jim Abourezk appearing on the television network of the terrorist organization Hizbullah defending terrorism, attacking the American government,  and toying with the most vicious anti-semitism. 

Kranz, in a statement that defines obtuse, writes:

A transcript of Abourezk's comments recently poured onto the Internet, bringing either criticism or praise, depending on where the reader stands on the subject.

Yes, it does depend on where you stand.  If you think terrorism is wrong, then you find Abourezk's statements and actions abhorrent.  If you are a moral fool, then maybe aren't so sure where to stand.  If you think its wrong to play with anti-Jewish stereotypes on the network of an organization dedicated to eradicating the state of Israel and willing to kill innocents in order to achieve that goal, then you find Abourezk despicable.  If you are dangerously naive, then you are undecided.  If you observe that Hizbullah and Hamas hide among civilians and use violence directed at civilians as a strategy to gain political concessions and thus are justly called terrorist groups, then you think Abourezk's statements are damnable.  If you think the members of  Hizbullah and Hamas are "resistance fighters " and are called terrorists by our government only because of pressure from Israel, then you are a moral ignoramus.

Here is a list of suicide attacks by Hamas. Here is a story on the Sbarro bombing in Jerusalem, for which Hamas claimed responsibility.  Here is a story about the responsibility of Hizbullah (or Hezbollah) for the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.   Resistance fighters, indeed. It is common knowledge that Hizbullah is funded by the state of Iran, which hasn't got much good press in the last 48 hours, if you haven't noticed.  Of course, Abourezk has been happy to appear on Iranian state radio to bash the United States and Israel. Go here to find the latest Freedom House country report on Iran.  Needless to say, it's not pretty. 

I continue to say that Jim Abourezk should be excluded from polite political company.  In that light, it is journalistic malpractice for Dave Kranz to give Abourezk a venue to spout his "cleaned up for the Argus" shibboleths.  I hope Mr. Kranz enjoyed his meal. 

Update: Perhaps you are trying to access this post at KELO.  For some reason, it is here, but other places the link takes you to "dead air."  I did fiddle with the KELO post, and let's just say the KELO blog software is not as instantaneous at Typepad. 

Update II: I wrote the following on the KELO blog (available here) and forgot to insert it on the SDP post.  It should appear after the "Needless to say, it's not pretty" line: Of course now days Iran is famous for having a president that denies the Holocaust.  So doesn't it seem a wee bit irresponsible to be playing into "Jews control the world" stereotypes on Iranian radio and the television station of an Iranian sponsored terrorist group? According to Dave Kranz, that depends on where you stand. 

SCHIP Sets Sail

I discussed the SCHIPs program here yesterday.  Here is the American News article (of the AP) on the House passage of the bill increasing spending on the program by 300%. 

Bob Schwartz blogged in favor of that expansion and helpfully directs us to this site which counters some of the claims I made yesterday.  Granted, the Center for American Progress, to which Bob directs us, is a left-wing think tank, but  left-wing in the same way the sources I used are  right-wing .  So we have dueling numbers. 

Bob entitles his piece "Playing Politics With Children's Health," which is in line with the Democratic Mouth Piece who questions whether you can be for family values and oppose a 300% increase in a particular program. 

I reminded of a guy I once knew who used to say, "Whenever they say 'It's for the children,' hang on to your wallet."  Why do we automatically turn to the government, and to the federal government at that, when we see a problem? Instead of creating another federal entitlement that will create yet another long term pressure on the federal budget, why not enable families to take care of their own by not taking money from them in the first place?   And let's not saddle our children with even more debt that they'll have to pay for with exorbitantly high taxes.  Is that not "pro-family"? 

Reply to an noteworthy comment

Comments are welcome at my Keloland site, though just right now I don't seem to be able to leave a comment myself.  I did get this one comment on my first Ahmadinejad post. 

Homosexuality is wrong

Short and sweet, that one was.  The poster left not so much as pen name.  Here is my reply.

Dear Anonymous:

I suppose you mean that homosexual acts are wrong.  "Homosexuality," if it exists, indicates a strong sexual attraction to persons of one's own sex.  Some people think that such an attraction is itself the result of sin and separation from God.  I do not, but even if I did think so I would not regard the inclination itself as wrong.  Feeling the urge to have another drink is not wrong.  Giving in when you know you have to drive is wrong. 

I am much inclined to believe that homosexuality has biological causes.  I think that homosexuality, especially among males, is problematic for societies in the same way that teenage sexuality is problematic.  But I am not at all convinced that homosexual acts between consenting adults are wrong. 

Those things said, the real issue here is not whether homosexual acts are wrong, but whether hanging people for such acts is itself an act of murderous barbarism.  I hold that it is.  I happen to think that adultery is wrong, but stoning a woman to death for it is an atrocity.  That would be true even if the Iranians did not let the man run off unscathed. 

Whatever you and I might think about the morality of homosexual intercourse, the wrongness of hanging people for it is much worse, and much more clearly worse.  If you don't agree with that, I do not see how we will ever come to agreement. 

Springtime for Ahmadinejad

There is something approaching a consensus in the press that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia University was a victory for the Sultan of Swing.  You will find that confirmed by the Internet's most trusted voice, Dr. Schaff.

While I won't defend Columbia's decision to invite Ahmadinejad to speak, I don't agree that the outcome favored him, or the people who invited him.  It may be true, and Professor Schaff indicates, that some of the student audience were sympathetic to some of the things he said, but that puts on display the confusion rampant in that student body.  Public applause by the pro-Palestinian left for a man who wants to destroy Israel, well I think that is something we ought to have on public record.

As I indicated in my recent post, this incident is glaring example of the incoherence of the contemporary academic left.  Ahmadinejad, whose government hangs homosexuals, stones women to death for adultery, and regularly executes dissidents, is allowed to speak; Lawrence Summers, who merely said something unfashionable among good academic leftists, is not. Columbia President Bollinger's hostile introduction, satisfactory or not, is a sign that the incident was at least embarrassing. Let's call that therapy. 

Moreover, it is hardly a good thing for the Iranian President that he revealed himself to be more than a puppet for a barbaric theocracy.  He also revealed himself to be a buffoon.  Dana Milbank, at the Washington Post, paints the picture:

"Our people are the freest people in the world," said the man whose government executes dissidents, jails academics and stones people to death.

"The freest women in the world are women in Iran," he continued, neglecting to mention that Iranian law treats a woman as half of a man.

"In our country," judged the man who shuts down newspapers and imprisons journalists, "freedom is flowing at its highest level."

All that is pretty good theater.  But then there is the show stopper:

"In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country," he informed the Columbia audience.

I gather with that remark, the accidental Vaudeville comic brought the house down.  Even the  innocents who applauded the Palestine stuff could see, at least for a moment, that they were listening to a twenty-four karat ignoramus.

SCHIPs Ahoy

Bill Harlan at Mt. Blogmore comments on the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and the contest between Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin and the White House.  Mr. Harlan asks, "Still, shouldn’t ALL children have health insurance?"

Well, we'd like all children to have health care, and to the extent having health insurance is helpful to that end, well sure.  But then we have to ask the questions that those who oppose the Democratic expansion of SCHIP are asking:
1. Who pays for health insurance?  There is some dispute over the numbers, but it is clear that the SCHIP program is covering middle-class families and is expanding beyond that.  Shouldn't we first ask whether parents can afford to pay for their kids' health insurance before we ask the public to do it?  Abraham Lincoln once said that the purpose of government is to do for people that which they cannot do themselves.  If parents are capable of paying for health insurance, yet are not doing so, then it seems wrong to ask the public to make up for parental irresponsibility.
2. On a related note, as Peter Ferrara points out, 50-60% of the children who would become eligible if the Democrats get their way already have health insurance. Why do we do a blanket expansion of a program to cover those who are already covered?  Why not target those without health insurance? 
3. As Michael Cannon points out, even if we grant there is a federal role, are there more efficient ways to cover children than SCHIPs?  Why have tax payers send money to Washington just to have Washington send it back to the states after trimming off a good chunk for bureaucracy?  How about not taking the money in the first place?  There is already a healthy tax credit for children.  How about expanding it?  Or providing a tax credit to purchase health insurance for children? 
4. Cost.  Readers should know that President Bush is in favor of keeping this program. The difference is that House Democats, including Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, want to increase spending by 300% on SCHIPs, while Senate Dems, including Sen. Johnson, want to increase it 100%.  Here's Ferrara:

President Bush proposed to increase funding for SCHIP by $5 billion, from $25 billion to $30 billion. But House Democrats passed a bill tripling spending to $75 billion. The Senate bill merely increased spending by more than 100 percent to $60 billion.

In a time when the federal government is getting its fiscal house back in order, isn't it irresponsible to increase spending on programs by 300%?  Why not simply continue a the program as it is? The Bush administration is saying that states must cover 95% of children under 200% of poverty before they can start covering those over 250% of poverty.  That is hardly draconian. 

I'll let David Freddoso have the last word:

If the income threshold for SCHIP already sounds high for a family of four, it is more so for larger families. My father provided a pretty good life to our family of seven on his comfortable but modest university professor’s salary. He says he never even thought of going on welfare — but maybe he should have. Even Bush’s new “draconian” SCHIP rules would have allowed all five of us kids to go on government health insurance, as long as Dad was making $77,725 or less. The Democrats’ plan would have covered us all on a $93,000 salary, or even (had we lived in New York State) $124,000! (I have trouble imagining my own mother as a six-figure welfare queen.)

The Democrats’ SCHIP outrage, while perhaps politically savvy (who could oppose insuring children?), has nothing to do with the real problem of those poor and uninsured. There are several ways the government could make insurance affordable — President Bush has proposed a generous health-insurance tax deduction, and others have proposed a repeal or circumvention of burdensome state0insurance mandates that massively inflate prices.

But the Democrats’ expansion of SCHIP into the middle class is not a solution to any existing problem. It is welfare for those already faring well, and with an eye toward expanding government in the future.

Winner: Ahmadinejad

So Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has spoken to Columbia.  Perhaps you've read or seen some reports.  The tough introduction from Columbia President Lee Bollinger.  A'jad seemingly claiming that there are no homosexuals in Iran.  The consensus seems to be that Ahmadinejad gave a rambling talk and made an a bit of an ass of himself.

But that's not what is being reported in Iran.  As some predicted, it didn't matter what happened yesterday at Columbia.  The propaganda masters in Iran make sure that it looks like President A'jad was welcomed and supported by Americans.  He also gains the victory of being given a podium in America, demonstrating that Americans are so weak that they will allow their enemies to make their case on American soil.  As the icing on the cake, if one listened to the audio of the speech (I have not found a copy online yet), it is clear that a good portion of the audience (some estimate about 1/4 of the room) actually supported Ahmadinejad, most vociferously in Ahmadinejad's defense of Palestinian terrorism.  Interviews after the speech indicated that some students were impressed and convinced by some of his arguments.  It doesn't matter if most people think him a fool; he only needs a strong enough minority to undermine the confidence of Western democrats.  Anne Applebaum has more:

Ahmadinejad's agenda, though, differs from that of the traditional autocrat. His goal is not merely to hold power in Iran through sheer force, or even through a standard 20th-century personality cult: His goal is to undermine the American and Western democracy rhetoric that poses an ideological threat to the Iranian regime. Last winter, when he invited a host of dubious Holocaust-deniers to discuss the Holocaust in Tehran, he claimed that it was in order to provide shelter for the West's "dissidents" -- that is, for Western thinkers "who cannot express their views freely in Europe about the Holocaust." This week, he declared that his visit to New York would help the American people, who have "suffered in diverse ways and have been deprived of access to accurate information." Thus the speech at Columbia: Here he is, the allegedly undemocratic Ahmadinejad, taking questions from students! At an American university! Look who's the real democrat now!

Pres. Bollinger attacked Ahmadinejad as unreasonable, too cowardly to answer tough questions, and "either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated."  If this is the case, Pres. Bollinger, to have invited him serves no good.  It is simply to allow a murderous dictator a podium for vile propaganda. That's why you shouldn't have invited him in the first place.   

Update: Stanley Kurtz has a slightly different take.  While agreeing that Columbia should not have invited A'jad, Kurtz points out that A'Jad's presence at Columbia following the public outrage, mostly from the right, forced Lee Bollinger to do something many (most?) on the left are uneasy doing: clearly denounce the Iranian regime as evil.  By the way, if Ahmadinejad is so bad, why did Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote to slash money intended to go to promote democracy in Iran?  Luckily, the money was restored by the full Senate. 

Jena Chronicles

Have you been following the story of Jena, LA?  Jason Whitlock has, and he doesn't have much nice to say about anyone.  The school board has to explain why it overruled the school principal, reducing the punishment of white kids who hung nooses from a tree in a clear act of racial intimidation.  The principle wanted to expel them. The school board suspended them for three days. 

In an apparently unrelated event, six black kids then beat up a white kid.  One black kid was charged with attempted murder, which certainly was an excessive charge.  But then the protesters descended, including race whores Sharpton and Jackson, acting like this was an injustice of historic proportions.  Note to protesters: if you want to build sympathy for your cause, it is best to find a more noble act than defending a bunch of kids, some of whom already have extensive rap sheets, who just beat the crap out of someone for no reason. 

Heather McDonald has a provocative thesis: professional racial hucksters such as Sharpton and Jackson gin up protest to distract the public the real crisis of the black community.  The concern one has over arguments such as McDonald's is not that she has her facts wrong, read the article and you'll see she doesn't, but that it gives cause for the rest of us to be complacent. After all, it's all "those people's" fault.  These are our brothers and sisters (not to mention fellow citizens) and while we ask for them to get their house in order, we should ask what we are doing to help.

Update: Joel Rosenthal, writing well on the same subject, writes, "Overcoming prejudice takes time.  It is an understood fact that educated people do not hate." I must nitpick.  First, as we conventionally understand education, meaning education and schooling are the same thing, this is factually false.  I have spent my entire adult life around people with  a great deal of schooling and I can say they hate as much and as irrationally as anyone.  They might irrationally hate different things and different kinds of people, but they do indeed hate. Just look at the follies on campus, now including Stanford trying to deny Donald Rumsfeld a position at the Hoover Institute.   These people aren't interested in true education.  When they say they want to liberate their students from prejudice, what they really mean is they want to substitute their own prejudices for those currently held by students.  But even a truly educated person hates.  He hates ignorance.  And that notion, I suspect and hope, gets Mr. Rosenthal's firm approval. 

DvT

There's a new interview with Jon Lauck over at MySiouxFalls.com regarding his new book, Daschle Vs. Thune: Anatomy of a High Plains Senate Race.  The interview can be found in the News box on the right side of the page.  You may have to scroll down to find it.

UPDATE:  It looks like MySiouxFalls is currently having technical issues regarding their flash streams this morning, so you may have to check back later.

NY Legislature Pressures Columbia

The New York state legislature acts:  "As the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, prepares to address Columbia University today amid a storm of student protest, state and city lawmakers say they are considering withholding public funds from the school to protest its decision to invite the leader to campus. In an interview with The New York Sun, the speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, said lawmakers, outraged over Columbia's insistence on allowing the Iranian president to speak at its World Leaders Forum, would consider reducing capital aid and other financial assistance to the school." 

Here is NRO's editorial on the subject.  Also see this criticism:  "The issue we see with Columbia is deeper than freedom of speech but rather the inconsistency with which university faculties choose to support it. If men like Richard Bulliet and Lee Bollinger, and women like Lisa Marie Anderson cared about freedom of speech, they might want to enable those who don't have it, rather than celebrate the men who have taken it away."

Rather Pathetic

Bob Swartz at SouthDakotaModerate, one of my Keloland colleagues, left this comment after my post on Dan Rather. 

Bogus documents and blogosphere outing aside, I think Rather is doing this because to this day nothing in the story he reported has ever been debunked by Bush or anyone else for that matter. How he reported the story was wrong but apparently the facts he reported weren't. He doesn't need the money, he is just trying to re-gain some of his credibility. Will he succeed? Probably not, but not because he reported a lie. He just lied in his reporting.
Posted by: sdmoderate - Sep 23, 2007 12:54 PM

Here is my reply:

Dear Bob:

Thanks for the comment.  However, I cannot agree.  It was and now is again up to Rather to show that the facts are as he reported them, not up to Bush to debunk them. 

The only things new in the Sept. 2004 story were the claims that George Bush, as a national guard pilot, ignored an order to get a physical, and that his commanding officer felt pressured by the Bush family to go easy on George W.  Those claims rested solely on the documents that, Rather himself admitted, "cannot be authenticated."  The story collapsed.

Rather's news team allowed itself to be hoodwinked by two-bit Democratic hack.  CBS responded by canning him.  The ignominious end to his career obviously left a deep emotional wound that has not faded over the last three years.  He has coped by persuading himself that it was all someone else's fault.  That is the basis of his ludicrous law suit.  All this is rather pathetic, don't you think?

For a valuable update on the story (valuable because it largely supports me), see the Philadelphia Inquirer: 

In effect, [Rather's] suit says: "Hey, it wasn't just me. I'm not responsible."

Not true. As anchor, managing editor of CBS Evening News, and contributor to 60 Minutes, Rather presented himself constantly, tirelessly, as the man on the scene, the reporter, the boss, engaged, involved, directly responsible.

And he was: responsible for every word, sound, and image that met the viewer. When 60 Minutes aired its report on Bush's National Guard record at the height of a passionate, contentious national election, Rather was lead reporter; the story bore his stamp and credit. And it blew up.

Within hours, the credibility of memos that 60 Minutes reported as being written by one of Bush's Guard commanders was being attacked, trenchantly, on conservative blogs. In a few days, it was a national wildfire.

First, Kill The Academics

Read Ken Blanchard on the guest speaker follies in campuses these days.  In the name of diversity, former Harvard president Larry Summers cannot speak at UC Davis, because his questioning of feminist orthodoxy is beyond the pale.  Not that Summers openly disagrees with feminist orthodoxy, but he dared to publicly suggest that it be put to the test.  Meanwhile, also in the name of diversity, Iranian president Ahmadinejad, supporter of terrorists, killer of homosexuals, stoner of women, gets invited to Columbia University.  I think Dr. Pat says it best:

It seems to me that it's many of our own faculty who exhibit a "chronic impenetrability to reason," and maybe they should be the ones to be barred from campus. Anyone want to start a petition?

Sign me up. 

Strange Doings Going On In Middle East

Perhaps you read that on Sept. 6 Israeli war plans bombed certain targets in Syria.  It has not been publicly released what precisely Israel bombed and why.  Speculation is that the targets of attack were sites known to be storing nuclear material.  Now the Times of London is reporting that Israeli commandos captured nuclear material in Syria earlier this month.  As Charles Krauthammer notes, North Korean ships had recently traveled to Syria. According to ship manifests they were carrying cement.  Now, why one would ship cement from North Korea to Syria is a bit of a puzzle.  It seems almost certain that North Korea is supplying Syria with nuclear material.  Let us not forget the Democrat presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich recently appeared on Syrian television suggesting the the Syrian government was a sincere "partner for peace."  Kucinich looks like a greater fool every day. 

Couple Syria's pursuit of nuclear weaponry with Iran's well known desire to achieve the same goal, and you have a recipe for major conflict in the Middle East.  Krauthammer opines that Iranian President Ahmadinejad is openly preparing Iran's many proxy armies (read: terrorists) as a warning to any who oppose its nuclear ambitions.  The times in which we live are most interesting.