Thursday, September 22, 2005

Just So We're Clear

Both the Washington Times and Washington Post have stories today on the "war protesters" who are coming to Washington DC this weekend. I put that in quotes because, just like during Vietnam, some of them are really quite pro-war, they just want the other side to win.

Just to be clear on who these groups are.

The Times pretty much tells it like it is:
The groups gathering in Washington this weekend to protest President Bush and the war in Iraq have ties to radical left-wing groups and communist organizations and have enjoyed the support of the left's biggest financial supporter, George Soros.

United for Peace and Justice (UPJ) and International Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) are the two main organizers of the weekend of events -- the first major public protest allowed to surround the White House in more than 10 years -- and expect 100,000 people from dozens of smaller left-wing and liberal organizations.

David Horowitz, of course has the full scoop on all these groups on his site. Unfortunately, it seems to be down as often as not. Try again later if you have trouble accessing it.

And of course the new face of the anti-war movement, Cindy Sheehan, will be in town, don't you know:
She's mulling book and movie deals. She has a press secretary, security and a tattoo on her left ankle. She doesn't have an agent yet, but there's someone to "handle" her schedule and field offers.

So far, mainstream Democrats have run from her like the plague. Good for them. We'll see who shows up at the rallies this weekend.

Today's online Post story doesn't really add much. Kind of disappointing.

I'll Be There

Unless something goes awry, I'll be there Saturday to join a pro-troops rally, and hopefully get close enough to the protesters to get some decent photographs etc. My understanding is that there will be a police line to separate the two groups, which is just as well.


P.S. There is a large pro-troops rally that will be held in front of the Capitol building on Sunday, but personal obligations preclude my attendance. Too bad, as this is the one I'd much rather attend.

Monday, September 19, 2005

Stalemate in Germany

Michael from Downeastblog earlier on did an excellent preview on the parliamentary elections in Germany. What can we say now that the elections have taken place?

The elections have turned out into a stalemate. The red-green majority has been broken, but a coalition between CDU-CSU and the pro-market FDP has no majority either.

The CDU-CSU doesn’t have the result that was predicted by the pollsters, it has even done worse than during the previous elections. The SPD has lost, as expected; the greens have lost a bit as well. The Linkspartei has performed well, like the pro-market FDP, which has again become the biggest of the smaller parties.

The traditional big parties have lost votes to the extremes of the political spectrum. The SPD has lost votes to a party that consists, on the one hand, of the PDS, the successor of the SED, the former East-German unity party, and, on the other hand, of a group of SPD-dissidents, led by former SPD bigwig Oskar Lafontaine. The CDU-CSU, headed by the uninspiring Angela Merkel has not managed to persuade the voters of its alternative, contrary to the more reform-minded FDP. Germany seems to be split between those that want to keep what they have at all cost and those that are aware of the need of reform.

What are the possibilities?

- The creation of a big coalition will be difficult: Merkel had excluded this before the elections and now chancellor Schröder says that his party will not participate in a government led by Merkel, although the CDU-CSU is the biggest formation and thus in principle has the right to deliver the chancellor. Both leaders have already claimed the post of chancellor.

- Adding the FDP to red-green or completing black-yellow with green. The FDP has already refused to help the current government out. Whether the greens want to form a Jamaica-coalition with black-yellow is not clear, but not straightforward.

- Another possibility is a minority government that seeks support where and whenever it can. A special variant of this scenario is a red-green minority government, supported by the Linkspartei. The Linkspartei has already ruled this out and has said that it will not vote for Schröder as chancellor.

- What is also possible if there is no government within a month is a new election. If this scenario repeats itself, then, after a third election, Merkel can be chosen as chancellor, if the Linkspartei abstains from voting, with a simple – not an absolute – majority of CDU-CSU and FDP. But by then the cards can be totally different of course.

It doesn’t have to come that way: what politicians say before the elections and on election night, should be taken with a grain of salt. It is part of the strategic power game that is being played. Now the parties are taking their positions to get as much as they can at the end. So it is too soon to rule out a big coalition or a multi-coloured coalition.

But what we can say with certainty, is that a black-yellow coalition is impossible. Such a coalition would have offered the best opportunity for more pro-market reform (including the introduction of a flat tax) and for a more pro-American stance. The accession of Turkey to the EU would also have been put in the freezer by now. Let’s wait and see now what happens. A return to a big coalition – the only time such a coalition ruled Germany, at the end of the sixties, was not a success – or the experiment of a three-coloured government. Both formulas do not carry a promise of stability and action which is just what Germany needs right now. So it hasn’t been a good election result for Germany ánd Europe.

PS. In the meantime, Michael has offered his own two cents about the election result.

Other highlights of the day:
- the successful parliamentary elections have hardly been overshadowed by Taliban-violence as the media seem to think.
- The hardly covered agreement with North Korea that, in exchange for oil and security guarantees, will dismantle its nuclear program. Much will depend on the execution of this agreement of course. Just ask former president Clinton.
- It has been said before: the evidence that the Palestinians have no scrupules to stage events is mounting. You start to wonder what you can believe.

Sunday, September 18, 2005

Race and Katrina

I think we've all seen the various statements made by liberals and assorted Democrats claiming that the delayed action by the Bush Administration during and immediatly after the Hurricane was due to racism, so I'm not going to republish them here. There are many news sites and various blogs and such which have posted them, so knock yourself out if you're in the mood for self-torture.

You know who we are talking about; people like Howard Dean, Jesse Jackson, Randall Robinson, Rep Elijah Cummings (head of the Congressional Black Caucus, no less), Rep. Diane Watson, Rep Cynthia McKinney, on and on. Others such as rapper Kayne West count also, since there are people who do listen to and believe rock stars and other entertainers.

Also, to me it is self-evident that the charge is absurd, so you won't find a "no Bush is not a racist" argument here.

Rather, I want to look at why we had such charges in the first place.

Yes, there is racism in America. But most of it is not white racism. It is black racism. It pains me greatly to type this, but there it is. Certainly most of the hate speech that I see on matter of race comes from the left in general, and liberal black leaders in particular. Former NAACP head Kwazi Mfume comes to mind in this regard.

The simple fact is that significant(hint; key word there) white racism is a thing of the past. If you don't believe me, look at how the left defines racism today; they claim it is "institutional" or "unconscious". In other words, we can't find any individual cases, in fact we can't prove anything at all, but we're going to claim it anyway.

It gets worse. It is bad enough that Al Sharpton is feted by mainstream Democrats, who have forgotten all about Freddies Fashion Mart, let along the Tawana Brawley affair. With the last election cycle we have seen that the Democrat party is so in bed with extremist groups like and America Coming Together, and individuals such as Michael Moore and George Soros, that they are utterly unable to sound reasonable on most issues at all (More on this when I review Byron York's latest book)

Back to the Hurricane.

What we saw in New Orleans, and the race-baiting that followed, is the result of forty years of liberal social programs.

It is absurd beyond reason to say that this country has not worked it's collective butt off to make life better for it's underclass from at least 1933 on. And it defied comprehension how anyone could say that we have not tried beyond trying to make the lives of black people in particular better since the mid-fifties, with the trend accelerating greating from 1964 on. Trillions of dollars, program after program, quota after quota(excuse me, "diversity").

So at this point we are entitled to ask a question:

If white racism is as big a problem as the left says it is, and they allege it runs all the way up to the president, then what does that say about all the liberal social programs to alleviate all this that we've followed?

I'll spare you the typing and answer the question myself; your policies have failed. The liberal welfare state, and the modern "diversity" and "multiculturalism" that have been forced on us, have not worked. Not nearly as much as their sponsors claim, at any rate.

The black citizens of New Orleans who were so impoverished that they didn't own cars, or have the money to get out, were not victims of racism. They were victims of the failed liberal welfare state.

And why do so many buy into the notion that federal government failures were the result of racism? I'll spare you the typing on this one too; because liberal leaders have done nothing but preach the gospel of victimhood to them.

We will no doubt hear that "both sides need to come together", that conservatives need to "reach out", blah blah blah. Sorry, but after listening to the insanities coming from the left on the issue of race after Katrina, I'm not in much mood for "coming together" with the likes of Al Sharpton, Howard Dean, most members of the Congressional Black Caucus, or, while we're at it, the NAACP. I have had it up to here with them.

Compassion? You bet. But it's going to be on the individual level, which for me means targeted donations and church mission/work trips. But these "leaders" have got to go.

P.S. I hated writing this post. This entire affair pains me greatly, and so wish things weren't as they were. But some things have to be said.


Thank you to the Watchers of Weasels blog for considering this post worthy of inclusion in their weekly contest. I did not win, but that's ok. I urge everyone to visit their site and read the posts that were submitted, as they are all very good.