Month: March 2006

5 Comments Posted on Uncategorized

more on rahman

update: abdul rahman has been released and as far we know, is still alive. hopefully we can keep him that way.

this is not just about abdul rahman. this is also about others in afghanistan who have chosen to reject islam and choose christianity. will we raise our voices just as loudly for those who follow a similar path to rahman? will we object to the denial of religious freedom to others in afghanistan and press for a permanent policy change? the answer to those questions has yet to be determined.

william f. buckley jr(editor of national review) :

Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns did not earn a medal of freedom for his public statement in the matter, but he was formally correct in saying, “This is a case that is not under the competence of the United States. It is under the competence of the Afghan authorities.”

That’s right. And the hell with Afghan supremacy. If an occupying military force whose presence every day continues to be critical to keep Afghanistan free cannot protect one citizen who embraces the faith of our fathers, then the government of Afghanistan should pause for a moment to worry not about the indignation of the Afghan people if Rahman is kept safe. Thought should be given to the indignation of the American people, who will stare in disbelief at the phenomenon of a country recently liberated by the expenditure of American lives and money failing to protect from the wrath of the mob a 41-year-old citizen whose crime was having chosen Christ.

couldn’t have said it better myself. read more.

more conflicting interpretations of the koran bring into question its “peaceful” nature. investor’s business daily has some tough queries for cair (council on american-islamic relations). what we would really like to know (and IMD dares to ask) is whether the koran actively promotes violence against infidels and those who choose to reject islam. i’m not an expert on the koran, but the evidence to support this seems to be there based on what i’ve read in the above article and others.

cair and others in muslim leadership owe it to those in their religion (who are not participating in acts of violence) to set the rest of us straight if we are misunderstanding islam. i don’t think we are. this doesn’t mean that i believe that all muslims are terrorists, or that they all support terrorists. what the rioters, suicide bombers, and spiritual leaders of islam are saying and doing does not represent the average muslim. that goes without saying. it’s harder to separate the koran from its own words about the appropriate punishment for unbelievers.

previous:
afghani democracy: a flaw in execution

Technorati Tags: ,

Posted on Editorials

maybe the world would be better off…

if the united states just left it alone to fend for itself. it’s not our problem that foreign dictators oppress people. it’s no business of ours if countries don’t get along with each other and make threats about destruction of their opposition with bombs and guns and shiny WMDs. why should we care if one country wants to invade another country, as long as we are not the target for possible invasion? after all, we have no right to tell other countries how they should act.

so don’t call the united states anymore. talk to the UN. see how well they help countries in need. why not just let the UN take charge of foreign affairs? after all, they have been so effective in controlling rogue elements in their membership and handling peacekeeping missions. why not let them handle military action in rebellious countries which may or may not have WMDs yet? this is a great idea. then none of the chaos happening in the world today can be blamed on president dubya or on the united states.

i would argue that the failures of the UN to deal with their own members have made US military action necessary in Iraq and elsewhere. maybe that’s just because i hate the UN and recognize how much they have screwed up their role in the international community. maybe not. in any case, i think the contributions made by the united states to the rest of the world have been generally positive, and that, while we have not handled every situation perfectly, we deserve much more credit that we could ever expect from the rest of the world. criticism of the united states is sometimes justified, and not entirely unexpected. i’m not asking for the international community as a whole to be our new best friends, just that they would say thanks for the help once in a while.

that’s all i have to say about that. comments return with future posts.

2 Comments Posted on Uncategorized

afghani democracy: a flaw in execution

Mark Steyn:

It’s not enough for Abdul Rahman to get off on a technicality. Afghanistan is supposed to be “the good war,” the one even the French supported, albeit notionally and mostly retrospectively. Karzai is kept alive by a bodyguard of foreigners. The fragile Afghan state is protected by American, British, Canadian, Australian, Italian and other troops, hundreds of whom have died. You cannot ask Americans or Britons to expend blood and treasure to build a society in which a man can be executed for his choice of religion. You cannot tell a Canadian soldier serving in Kandahar that he, as a Christian, must sacrifice his life to create a Muslim state in which his faith is a capital offense.

this is where the neo-con theory is tested. the new democracy that the united states helped to create with the sacrifice of many of our military men and women is still struggling with sharia law. i don’t think this is what we had in mind when we kicked out the taliban — that a man could be executed under this new government’s laws for converting to Christianity . the legitimate question that should be asked here is whether our sacrifice has produced the kind of democracy that we intended to bring to afghanistan. based on the current state of affairs, that’s a debatable question. we cannot allow the sacrifice of american lives to be trivialized by allowing an execution like this to take place.

at this moment, the case against abdul rahman has been dismissed. this isn’t the end of the story. he could still be put to death. there is still the possibility that islamic radicals could take their own vigilante action against rahman regardless of what the government decides about him. we cannot allow this. the united states and its allies have sacrificed the lives of their men and women to bring freedom as well as self-governance to afghanistan, and we have the right to object to the treatment of rahman.

more reading:
Afghan Christian Rejects Islam— the koran vs. christianity (california conservative)
Free Abdul Rahman–washington times op-ed
Steyn: Will we stick our necks out for his faith?
Michelle Malkin: ABDUL RAHMAN TO BE RELEASED

Technorati Tags: ,

4 Comments Posted on Democrats

these democrats can win

In 2004, the hand wringing was constant and it was difficult to watch. It was difficult to watch because the reason we lost became painfully clear. Somehow over the last 30 years, Democrats stopped being authentic.

We stopped being the party of the people, and only for the people. The public came to view us as “the Government Party” that was more interested in being part of government than in connecting with regular people. We stopped sharing our personal beliefs and only shared our policy proposals. We stopped giving people a reason to trust us and voters began to doubt our convictions. And we stopped believing that giving voters a sense of who we are and where we come from was a critical part of communicating. It never stopped being important to voters, but somehow it stopped being important to Democrats.

If Democrats are not in sync with what is important to voters, then how can we be authentic–how can we regain their trust?

–al quinlan (real clear politics)

that’s exactly the point. issues matter. authenticity also matters in elections. of course voters want candidates who agree with them on issues that are important to them, like abortion, religion, and guns…but i believe that we also want them to be people who are geniune in their words and their actions. we want people that we can respect and people that we can trust. credibility is more easily achievable when a candidate takes consistent positions and doesn’t just pander to the groups that are politically popular. (this applies to both republicans and democrats.)

at times i do enjoy watching the democrats struggle. i’m partisan like that. it’s just that i don’t think that the average democrat is satisfied with the way the democratic leadership is representing their views. i also think it’s sad that the democratic leadership doesn’t seem to be interested in listening to that average democrat, and instead takes its marching orders from daily kos and arianna huffington. it shouldn’t be that way. if we really want to have a debate on ideas, and not just on personality/charisma, then we must have two strong alternatives. that’s not where we are with the republicans and democrats, who are currently looking to polls for their principles.

anyway…enough of me. read a better argument. read more of quinlan’s post here.

Technorati Tags:

2 Comments Posted on Tony Blair, UK

new labour and david cameron–a perfect match?

meet the new boss….same as the old boss? when tony blair steps down as british PM, there will be a pitched battle to determine the next occupant of 10 downing street. the upcoming contest between david cameron (conservatives) and british PM tony blair’s hand-picked successor (chancellor of the exchequer gordon brown) may not be the fierce ideological struggle everyone may have expected. the message of “cameronism” sounds familiar– very similar in fact to blair’s “new labour”.

Cameron has put a stake through Margaret Thatcher’s legacy. New Labour has triumphed beyond its wildest dreams: this is Blair’s brilliant legacy – to be outflanked on the left is an extraordinary achievement he should mark as his glory moment. If anyone doubts that Cameron means it, just chortle with glee as the Daily Mail’s Melanie Phillips shrieks in pain: “This leaves millions of natural conservatives effectively disenfranchised – and, even worse, demonised as dinosaurs by the party that is supposed to represent them, but is now telling them to go hang while it tears up everything they believe in … The ideas in his advertisement appear to define ‘what is right’ as the distorted doctrines of leftwing propaganda.” Tebbit weighs in too. Imagine how the Cameron clan must be whooping as the Mail is left gasping and spluttering. This is exactly what it wants.

polly toynbee in the guardian

i think she’s right that cameron has “put a stake through margaret thatcher’s legacy”. many observers of british political history may see this as a good thing. the baroness would not have signed on to wealth re-distribution through government largesse, an emphasis on global warming, or the idea that “strict ideologies should be foresworn in favor of a flexible approach to politics”(cal thomas). we can argue the overall effectiveness of thatcher’s policies, but at the end of the day, politics will always be about ideology. those who ignore this and choose style over substance do not give the voters what they need, which is a debate on ideas, not on personality.

david cameron isn’t any different from tony blair, at least in any visible way. so maybe that kind of ideological debate can’t take place between blair and cameron. the real question here is whether gordon brown believes in continuing blair’s policies in a future labour government. if brown intends to stay with what has worked under new labour, then i don’t see how cameron provides much of an alternative.

if he really believed that the blair government was ruining the country, he wouldn’t go out of his way to help the PM get his school reforms passed. he talks about fighting global poverty, bridging the gap between rich and poor, and reducing carbon emissions to deal with global warming. the problem cameron has is that he has more in common with tony blair than margaret thatcher. we shall see if the conservatives will follow cameron to the left, or whether they will be resigned to re-electing new labour.
Technorati Tags: , , ,

2 Comments Posted on Republicans

political opportunists

reasonable people can disagree on what would result from the UAE managing (not controlling) some of our ports, and post 9/11, it makes sense to ask questions and give all deals like this a complete and thorough review. mccain was right when he advocated this approach, as I noted in an earlier post. the process of review was short-circuited for political advantage. it was to everyone’s advantage that we have an honest debate based on factual information, not on speculation. i was for the deal. i’m not going to re-argue it here, because it doesn’t matter now.

we were not wrong to ask questions about the deal, but the republicans didn’t really want to hear the answers. they couldn’t get past their overwhelming need for self-preservation to find out whether the president was actually right this time.

congratulations to the republicans. they effectively killed the ports deal. so what will they gain from this politically? will it guarantee re-election? that’s still to be determined. they still have some other issues to work out before we can support them in ’06. this party has stopped being principled. they have forgotten why we elected them to serve us. limited government? checks on spending? not for these republicans. when people like coburn and pence make the attempt to deal with spending, they are brutally rebuffed by their republican colleagues. it really makes one question whether the republicans are committed to small government. the clear answer to that question based on the evidence we have seen is that they are not.

related (UAE ports deal):

Choosing friends wisely–california conservative
We’re less safe thanks to furor over port deal –townhall.com
The Dangers of Ports (and Politicians)–washingtonpost.com
Technorati Tags: ,

6 Comments Posted on Democracy

something to keep in mind

There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without alternatives, finding fault but never favor, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking influence without responsibility.

John F. Kennedy

interpret for yourself.

Technorati Tags:

UPDATE: this was part of JFK’s prepared Dallas speech, which, as we all know, was never delivered. thanks to james for the link.

5 Comments Posted on Democrats, Liberals, Republicans

principles DO matter

“The Clinton era did not produce a stronger Democratic Party. To the contrary, it’s legacy is the philosophy that principles don’t matter, that what counts is reading the mood of the electorate and being nimble enough to adjust to changing voter preferences. This counsel probably cost Al Gore the Presidency. The former Vice-President, who’s a person of deep personal morality, got tragically bad advice. He ran a campaign based upon issues, rather than on principles. Surrounded by Clintonistas, Gore attempted to win with a Clinton-style campaign, forgetting that he lacked Bill’s charisma. Gore hid his true character from the electorate. Forgot that he is a values-based Democrat.”

bob burnett– “busting the clinton ghost“

in today’s political arena, i don’t think that the politics of expediency are exclusive to the democrats, although they seem to have perfected it. the truth is that it doesn’t work for anybody except for bill clinton. i can understand how the democrats (at least their current leadership anyway) are tempted by the idea that they should say and do anything they have to do to regain power in washington. it’s a flawed idea. principles do matter. the average voter wants a representative who will stand up and fight for their values. we want someone who navigates by beliefs, not by polls. we want someone who says what he or she will do, and keeps those promises to us. am i promoting some kind of idealistic alternative universe? i don’t think so…as long as we, the unelected, stay engaged in the process of accountability that is required of citizens taking part in this great democracy.

so, how are the democrats doing with reading the mood of the electorate? the polls suggest that many americans have an unfavorable view of president bush and specifically of the UAE ports deal, which is currently in danger of being ditched completely. everyone wants to be re-elected, and they are scared to death of any fallout from bush’s unpopularity. bush-bashing is politically popular, and as long as that continues to be true, they will continue to engage in it. the republicans are also complicit in helping the democrats torpedo the president. it doesn’t matter to any of them that the president may be absolutely right on some of the things he’s doing…all that matters is saving their own skin. this is deplorable.

the question is: what do the democrats believe in? what principles can they stand on? although their far-left fans may cheer as random drive-by attacks on the president are leveled at him, that’s no way to win elections. despite what the average moonbat may have you believe, bush won in 2004. he beat john kerry despite his unpopularity and despite the american people’s uncertainty about iraq. if the democrats think they can win back congress with a message of “i’m not bush”, they are sadly mistaken.

bill press is a smart guy, even though i disagree with him politically. that’s why i’m surprised that this is his advice to the democrats. just run as the anti-bush…and that will be enough to win, says press. press writes about some issues where he feels that the democrats can capitalize on perceived bush weaknesses, and then suggests that all they need to do is run against bush, instead of using some of those issues to promote better ideas. i disagree with bob burnett when he says that gore lost because he focused on issues, rather than principles. i think that issues and principles are not that far divorced from each other. what you believe determines what you will do and what you will say.

it’s not enough for republicans to say, “america is less screwed up with us in charge”. it’s not enough for democrats to invoke the scary spectre of how much they believe george w. bush has ruined this great country. it’s judgment time for both houses. the first party to have a platform other than saying “we are better than the other guys are” will be the party that wins in ’06 and ’08.

Technorati Tags: , , ,