Friday, August 06, 2004
Even a President Sharpton would respond after an attack.
To achieve bipartisan consensus, the 9/11 report softened many hard disputes, for example the Patriot Act. But compare the arguments and conclusions inside this report against the antiwar craziness of last year's Democratic presidential contest--the candidates' rhetoric and the marches in San Francisco and New York City. The 9/11 report is a reality check for any who take time to read it. It moves mainstream thinking toward a more activist response than our political elites would allow before the morning of September 11. (It pointedly cites the example of Pearl Harbor.) The report is most certainly not suggesting that we postpone acting until after another attack such as September 11.
"Once the danger has fully materialized, evident to all, mobilizing action is easier--but then it may be too late," the report says. Those last words are the new conventional wisdom: Waiting is deadly.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Should we only respond to attacks - Kerry
Should we attack first when we believe someone is a growing danger. - Bush
: the lie that you should attack first but only when you are sure of your intel is bs because you are never sure of your intel.
Where do you stand ?
Check out THE PENTAGON’S NEW MAP for a list of growing dangers.
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
I am surprised I have so little to say about the Democrats convention, I liked Sharptons speech. He gave his best, but his speech showed how he is a dinosaur.
He showed that the last time that the democrats did anything for black Americans was 40 years ago.
Kerry's speech was like an episode of Sienfeld except it was a hour of nothing instead of 20 minutes.
"40,000 more troops but not for Iraq". WFT, are we taking out France ?
And please talk to a shrink about your Vietnam experience. I understand it was the most traumatic 4 months of his life but please get over it. BTW fun article about his Vietnam experience over at counterpunch, "Hail, the Conquering War Criminal Comes!"
All I can say, in the hour, nothing at all for black America, nothing even for poor America (which black America is a disproportionate amount of). What good is 4k for college if your k-12 education left you innumerate. Lets not even talk about this problem where some colleges are 45k a year.
Monday, August 02, 2004
Lance Armstrong's European critics--even if they are not overtly anti-American--resent even more than his dominance of what has traditionally been a European sport his very American style of success. He trains too hard for them, plans too carefully, strives too relentlessly. He does not wear his talent lightly or camouflage his intense desire to win.
On one point, at least, Armstrong's European critics are right. Striving for success, like following one's dream, is a quintessentially American trait. Taken together, the two have made millionaire moguls of uneducated immigrants, powerful politicians of low-born nobodies, world-famous inventors of basement tinkerers, and great sports champions of disadvantaged youths like Armstrong. The natural home for ambitious dreamers, whatever their nationality, remains the United States.
As I was reading the excellent article from the Weekly Standard I was taken back to one puzzling thought I have always had about everyday Black Americans. We love kung-fu movies. Every great kung-fu movie is the same. Man/Woman meets defeat of some kind. The run away and lick their wounds, then they train, and train and train until their skills are better than their enemy. Then and only then do have the final show down. Good wins over evil because good works harder. Its a simple lesson. Its an important lesson. The most important lesson. What leaves me puzzled is why doesn't this seem to transfer into the academic world.
Maybe its "the soft bigotry of low expectations".
Anyway something to think about on a Monday morning.