Ongoing Adventurers

You might notice I've been leaving Ben Shapiro (Boy Prognosticator) alone for a little while. Ben is Jewish, and he's been largely commenting on Israel. He obviously feels a personal stake in this and it's improved his writing a bit, up to a point.

But yesterday Shapiro made kind of a goofy argument. Apparently it's this; Islamic people, who as we know are the source of evil in the modern world, are trying to claim all the worlds Holy Sites as their own. Unfortunately for media commentator hoping to mock him, Ben then becomes more reasonable and informative.

His main comment is that the media choses to portray the wailing wall as the holiest spot in Judaism. In fact, the wailing wall is just the only part of the temple that remains on the temple mount, where the Dome of the Rock Mosque currently exists. Although Muslims have been allowed to retain the mosque for now--they will eventually have to clear out so that the Third Temple can be built. As Ben says, "When the Third Temple is built on the Temple Mount, the world must know that it is not Jewish usurpation of a Muslim holy site, but reclamation and redemption of the holiest site in Judaism."

And there is the rub, I suppose. Not much wiggle room there, and I suppose there can't be. It's ok as long as we are talking about things that will happen down the road when the Messiah comes--but it feels more like Ben is talking about something that can and must happen soon. And given the religious basis of his argument, its not something that is negotiable. Such arguments only point to continuing turmoil.

Quote of the Day

From Paul Craig Roberts, apparently a conservative, writing at Townhall.

"An invasion of Iraq is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history. It has the support of only two overlapping small groups: neoconservatives infused with the spirit of 18th century French Jacobins who want to impose American "exceptionalism" on the rest of the world, and foreign policy advisers who believe that the primary aim of U.S. foreign policy is to make the Middle East safe for Israel.

No one else sees the point of the pending conflict. Abroad, there is no meaningful support. Nuclear powers Russia and China are in opposition, as are NATO allies Germany and France. The Bush administration is reduced to boasting of support from Hungary and Poland."

Interesting commentary. Of course Roberts has to ruin it later in his essay by commenting, "Sooner or later, whites will wake up to the realization that they are being marginalized in their own country, and they will cease to support the two political parties that have marginalized them."

Sorry About This

Light Posting today probably--sorry about that after the exciting State of the Union, which I assure you, I do have strong feelings about. But have computer situation change here, so have to stay focused here.

Hang in there.

For those who missed the address and wish to read it or see it, here it is.

Iraq

Looks like a very firm resolve against Iraq, but no new information. Here's where he talked about how great the Armed Forces are. And they are.

Unilateralism

Well, Bush has made it clear that he will act unilaterally if he has to. So that's good news.

One Positive Thing

President Bush has heard of the African Aids Epidemic. He's talking about fighting it, and calling on the United States, as a "blessed nation," to do our part. I like hearing this.

He just asked for $15 billion over the next ten years i think? Interesting.

The State of the Union

So far he's focused on the economy. Essentially the tax cuts are great, and Government should do a lot less. Sen. Daschele looks pleased.

Headlines

If you visit Townhall today, you will see this headline.

Is now the time to act?
President Bush isn't sleeping at night, worrying about the Iraq situation. Is now the time to take care of Saddam?

Of all the reasons to invade Iraq, this has to be the dumbest--we need to invade because we're worried about the stress on President Bush? Anyway I'll go read the article and if it says anything interesting, I'll get back to you.

France and Germany and Sheryl Crow

Boy, conservatives sure love it when actors, comedians or rock stars take political positions. They must salivate every time Sheryl Crow or any other activist opens his or her big mouth. Of course they prefer dippy rock stars to eloquent and well researched speakers (such as Janeane Garofalo, who remains, in all honesty, a national treasure). So Sheryl Crow saying "I think war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow," is like mana from heaven.

You see it's so much easier to argue with Sheryl Crow who, in these quotes at least, sounds like she's maybe been in the sun to long. And commentators (especially me) are lazy.

Diana West, writing today at Townhall utilizes this tactic in discussing France and Germany. "Remember the "huge karmic retributions" Ms. Crow spoke of? Both France and Germany cite a potentially heightened risk of Islamic terrorism as a reason not to go to war in Iraq, a notion that should perplex the average citizen of the Free World now living with an already heightened risk (and reality) of Islamic terrorism -- without going to war in Iraq."

Of course many people have made sound reasoned arguments suggesting that the war on Iraq could increase the danger we face from Middle Eastern Terrorism. But those arguments are complicated and in some cases difficult to argue against. So instead Ms. West would rather pretend that there is no link between American Foreign Policy in the Middle East and Terrorism. The only link one could imagine, in her analysis, is "kharmic" (shorthand for non-existent.)

She also bizarrely fails to realize that things could get worse, both for us and Israel. Is she really that naive?

The war against Iraq may turn much of the Middle East further against the US, particularly if there are numerous Iraqi casualties (One of the architects of the current pentagon invasion plan, Harlan Ullman, stated that the goal of this war is; "We want them to quit. We want them not to fight. . . . you take the city down. You get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted." To this end the current plan put forward by the pentagon calls for us to launch 800 cruise missiles in the first day. Ullman also discussed the possibility of using Tactical Nuclear weapons, which the Pentagon has also suggested as a possibility. For more info see Ira Chernus's article today at Commondreams.).

What effect will this have on the middle east? It means policemen seeking out terrorists who target Israel and the west will be a little slower (except, presumably, in Israel. It means young men will see the United States and the West as having declared war on the middle east and will turn to the only weapons they believe they have. Is this definitely going to happen? No, but it doesn't take any sort of mystical kharma to believe it might.

Headlines

If you happen to visit Townhall today, you see the following headline.

Is now the time to act?
President Bush isn't sleeping at night, worrying about the Iraq situation. Is now the time to take care of Saddam?

This has to be the dumbest reason to invade yet. In essense we should invade to relieve the stress on President Bush? And maybe he should spend a minute or two worry about our economy while he's at it.

You might see a ghost post later on that looks like this one--sorry if you do.

Make Me A Commentator Revealed!!!

Here at Make Me A Commentator we've recently had a sit down interviewer with the founder and sole writer of Make Me a Commentator. Here it is.

Make me a Commentator : So what's your website all about, Mr. Know-It-All?

Bryant : Well, I think you have the gist of it right there. I like commenting on the news of the day in such a way as to make it clear that I'm smarter than pretty much everyone.

Make Me a Commentator : Oh yeah! If you're so smart, how come your not on TV?

Bryant : Well, that's a good question, but not one I can really answer--perhaps you should interview some TV news program executives?

Make Me a Commentator : You sound like one of those namby-pamby, brie-eating "journalists" who gets his marching orders from the Democratic National Committee.

Bryant : Oh my. That's not really a question. But I get my orders from a guy downtown who dresses like the Hamburgler, and he's never told me what party he's affiliated with. I thought it was the Hamburgler, but was shocked lately to find that the Hamburgler is a cartoon character and doesn't exist.

Make Me a Commentator : Ok, Bryant, lets get down to brass tacks. Are you a commie pinko?

Bryant : No, I'm just the regular kind of pinko.

Make Me a Commentator : Well, we'd like to thank you for your time. And before we let you go, please let me say that I oppose you and everything you stand for.

Bryant : Thanks, I get that a lot.

So there you have it. We hope this clears up any confusion as to what this website is all about. Sorry for the levity, but we will get to more serious issues later in the week--so stay tuned.

Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq

Three articles on Iraq (so far) today. One an editorial article (sans Author) borrows a leaf from Salon.com on why we should attack Iraq immediately. Because if we don't show Saddam how tough we are the rest of the Middle East will think we are wimps and will immediately begin building Nuclear Bombs and increasing terrorist activities. Hmmmm. So showing the middle east we don't care about international law and will invade any of them at any time will lesson terrorism? At any rate the main reason the article annoyed me was that it used the phrase, common in conservative circles right now, "the liberation of the Iraqi people." First of all there are dozens of nations around the world who deserve liberation just as much as Iraq, if that is going to be our new policy. And second, lets not forget we comfortably funded Iraq at the time when he was using weapons of mass destruction on the Kurds and the Iranians. I don't bring this up a lot, but it does fit if we are going to get all weepy about "the liberation of the Iraqi People."

That aside, I wish we would fight this war to liberate the Iraqi people. I wish I believed this war would result in better lives for them. But we all know it won't.

William F. Buckley has an interesting take on the exile proposal, discussed last week. "The value of an ultimatum does not rest solely on whether it is acceptable. It defines a position. The accommodationist forces are at high speed mobilizing opposition to a ground war conducted by the United States. One set of reasons against such a war is vivid and undeniable. There would be casualties, including civilian casualties. There would be reprisals, conceivably featuring Saddam's (to be sure, nonexistent) apocalyptic weapons.

So Saddam turns down the ultimatum. In reasonable moral arithmetic, it becomes Saddam who, by the single act of refusing to step down, brought on war."

This actually makes sense--it is unlikely that Saddam will accept it, but it would give a solid reason to go into war, and it would let the US act mercifully. If Saddam rejects our mercy, than what choice do we have? But nobody is taking exile seriously as near as I can tell.

Robert Novak has some kind words for Colin Powell, which I appreciate. It is common to read in Conservative articles or to hear on the radio how wrongheaded Powell is, and how needs to support his president. What they usually mean is that Powell needs to support what I think the president should believe in, out of deference for my view of what President Bush believes. So it's nice to see Novak acknowledging the valuable service Powell has provided as Secretary of State, by pushing the US towards a more multilateral solution in Iraq.

Two New Sites

Picked these up from This Modern World. It turns out the Republican Party has an apparatus where by they send out letters to various newspapers, getting the same "Letter to the Editor" in dozens of papers across the country. The letters are written by the Republican Party, and not by individual citizens as you might expect. This website has been tracking the phenomenon.

Then there is this website that is calling for a boycott of all the products that advertise on the Rush Limbaugh show. I don't know about that. I suppose if some people feel that way that's fine--but I suspect Rush will be fine in the long run, so I'm not going to worry about it. I wouldn't buy most of the products on the list anyway. So perhaps its a grey area.