Well?
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
On Education
He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future. - Adolf Hitler
But the biggest hoax of the past two generations is still going strong -- namely, the hoax that statistical differences in outcomes for different groups are due to the way other people treat those groups.The latest example of this hoax is the joint crusade of the Department of Education and the Department of Justice against schools that discipline black males more often than other students. According to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, this disparity in punishment violates the "promise" of "equity."
Among the many serious problems of ghetto schools is the legal difficulty of getting rid of disruptive hoodlums, a mere handful of whom can be enough to destroy the education of a far larger number of other black students -- and with it destroy their chances for a better life.
The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother's care, shall be in state institutions at state expense. - Karl Marx
Those pesky things called laws George Will
What authors Eitel, Talbert and Evers call the Education Department’s “incremental march down the road to a national curriculum” begins with the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSS). It is an initiative not of any state legislature but of a governors association, state school officials and private foundations. This push advanced when the Race to the Top Fund (RTTT, part of the 2009 stimulus) said that peer reviewers of applications for money should favor those states that join a majority of states in developing and adopting common standards. The 11 states and the District of Columbia that won Race to the Top funding had adopted or indicated an intention to adopt the CCSS, which will require changes in curricula. An Education Department synopsis of discussions with members of the public about priorities in competition for RTTT money says “the goal of common K-12 standards is to replace the existing patchwork of state standards.” Progressives celebrate diversity in everything but thought.
The Obama administration is granting conditional waivers to states chafing under No Child Left Behind’s unrealistic accountability requirements. The waivers are contingent on each state adopting certain standards “that are common to a significant number of states,” or the state may adopt standards endorsed by its institutions of higher education — if those standards are consistent with the Education Department’s guidelines.
We have been warned. Joseph Califano, secretary of health, education and welfare in the Carter administration, noted that “in its most extreme form, national control of curriculum is a form of national control of ideas.”
Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed. - Joseph Stalin
“Jada Williams, a 13-year-old eighth grader who voluntarily took on some difficult extra work: reading Frederick Douglass’s Narrative of the Life and writing an essay on the subject. Frederick Douglass is dangerous reading, truly radical stuff. Miss Williams, like most of the students in her dysfunctional school, is black. Most of the people being paid to go through the motions of teaching them are white. Coming across the famous passage in which Douglass quotes the slavemaster Auld, Miss Williams was startled by the words: “If you teach that nigger (speaking of myself) how to read, there will be no keeping him. It will forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master.” The situation seemed to her familiar, and her essay was a blistering indictment of the failures of the largely white faculty of her school: “When I find myself sitting in a crowded classroom where no real instruction is taking place I can say history does repeat itself.”“Her teacher was so offended by the essay that she circulated copies of it to the rest of the faculty and to the principal. Miss Williams, an A student, suddenly began to receive Ds. According to accounts, her mother received harassing telephone calls from teachers who suggested that she was in some way disturbed rather than merely observant. She was forced eventually to withdraw from the school and enroll in an even worse one.”
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Academic Freedom is a One-Way Street
While surfing Facebook today, my attention was drawn to a CSPAN interview of Dr. Thomas Sowell, noted economist and professor who is currently a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The segment focused on a discussion of the late Prof. Derrick Bell. Bell has recently returned to the headlines thanks to a video of Barrack Obama speaking at a protest during his time as a student at Harvard Law School. Prof. Bell was a teacher and apparently somewhat of a mentor to Obama.
Sowell has a low opinion of Bell and his tactics: "what he is really saying is he wants ideological conformity in the people that are hired to fill this position [at Harvard Law School]"
Later in the interview, Dr. Sowell mentions another Black professor of Law at Harvard, Randall Kennedy: "He has launched a despicable attack on a young black professor at the law school who doesn't go along with this. A young man named Randall Kennedy, who has written a very thoughtful, intelligent article last June in the Harvard Law Review, questioning some of the assumptions that people are making, people like Derrick Bell and doing it in a very gentlemanly as well as very logical way, empirical way, and that's not what they want. They want the conclusion to be that -- they want him to march in lock step and he won't do it, and they're doing their best to make life impossible for him."
Pretty strong accusations. But thanks to the miracle of the Internet, bequeathed to us by that demi-god of Green, Al Gore, I was able to see what it is that Bell said about Kennedy. And, unsurprisingly, Sowell was accurate.
Bell: " I saw in Kennedy a comrade and an eventual successor in my racial battles with Harvard. In keeping with this expectation, I declined the dean's offer to again teach Race, Racism, and American Law, the civil rights course I had created when I joined the faculty years earlier. Kennedy had been teaching it in my absence. ... It was a decision I came to regret. Kennedy retained the course name, but dropped its advocacy orientation. Disgruntled students complained that Kennedy spent more time challenging and even denigrating civil rights positions than he did analyzing the continuing practices and policies of discrimination that made those policies, whatever their shortcomings, necessary.
[Oh dear! a class at the most prestigious Law school in the country being taught impartially rather than as indoctrination to racial advocacy! That is regrettable. lol]
While the Leftstream Media has tried to ignore, denigrate and downplay the import of the previously suppressed video of Obama cheering Bell and his racist Critical Race Theory, it does matter that Obama was taught Critical Race Theory by its creator, that he publicly praised the theory and its creator, that he participated in the sorts of demonstrations for racial and ideological preference that the theory advocates, that he spent 20 years at a church that taught Black Liberation Theology - which is to religion as Critical Race Theory is to Law - and that he has conducted his administration as an extension of those expressions of racist, Marxist ideologies.
Sowell has a low opinion of Bell and his tactics: "what he is really saying is he wants ideological conformity in the people that are hired to fill this position [at Harvard Law School]"
Later in the interview, Dr. Sowell mentions another Black professor of Law at Harvard, Randall Kennedy: "He has launched a despicable attack on a young black professor at the law school who doesn't go along with this. A young man named Randall Kennedy, who has written a very thoughtful, intelligent article last June in the Harvard Law Review, questioning some of the assumptions that people are making, people like Derrick Bell and doing it in a very gentlemanly as well as very logical way, empirical way, and that's not what they want. They want the conclusion to be that -- they want him to march in lock step and he won't do it, and they're doing their best to make life impossible for him."
Pretty strong accusations. But thanks to the miracle of the Internet, bequeathed to us by that demi-god of Green, Al Gore, I was able to see what it is that Bell said about Kennedy. And, unsurprisingly, Sowell was accurate.
Bell: " I saw in Kennedy a comrade and an eventual successor in my racial battles with Harvard. In keeping with this expectation, I declined the dean's offer to again teach Race, Racism, and American Law, the civil rights course I had created when I joined the faculty years earlier. Kennedy had been teaching it in my absence. ... It was a decision I came to regret. Kennedy retained the course name, but dropped its advocacy orientation. Disgruntled students complained that Kennedy spent more time challenging and even denigrating civil rights positions than he did analyzing the continuing practices and policies of discrimination that made those policies, whatever their shortcomings, necessary.
[Oh dear! a class at the most prestigious Law school in the country being taught impartially rather than as indoctrination to racial advocacy! That is regrettable. lol]
"Over the years, Professor Kennedy has become the impartial, black intellectual, commenting on our still benighted condition and as ready to criticize as commend. As self-appointed monitor of civil rights positions, he stands ever ready to balance even the most heinous racial abuse with criticism of blacks when, in his view, our accusations condemning racism in the criminal justice system go too far and are counter-productive. He interrupts attacks on racist practices by pointing out that blacks, too, sometimes abuse the criminal justice system. When advocates condemn a system that is filling the nation's jails and prisons with legions of young, black men, he responds with the non sequitur that these men are guilty of many of the crimes that lead to their imprisonment." [A reasonable person might read this paragraph as laudatory. Prof Kennedy discusses topics fairly, recognizing the sins of the oppressed even as he condemns the sins of the oppressor. But, Bell and his Critical Race Theory cannot admit that Blacks could be sinners. Bell calls it a non sequitur that men guilty of crimes are sent to prison. It doesn't matter to him, to his theory or to those who accept his theory (Obama, Holder, etc.) whether they are guilty, only that they are somehow oppressed.]
While the Leftstream Media has tried to ignore, denigrate and downplay the import of the previously suppressed video of Obama cheering Bell and his racist Critical Race Theory, it does matter that Obama was taught Critical Race Theory by its creator, that he publicly praised the theory and its creator, that he participated in the sorts of demonstrations for racial and ideological preference that the theory advocates, that he spent 20 years at a church that taught Black Liberation Theology - which is to religion as Critical Race Theory is to Law - and that he has conducted his administration as an extension of those expressions of racist, Marxist ideologies.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Obama: Wholly, Completely and Rabidly Anti-Life
Obama defunds ‘snowflake babies’
"The HHS report said the reason to end the $1.9 million embryo-adoption awareness program is “limited interest.” Only a “very small pool of applicants, many of whom are repeat recipients,” are seeking the grants, it said.Mailee Smith, staff counsel at Americans United for Life, said such a decision is more evidence of “the pro-abortion slant of this administration.”
“Why would the Obama administration cut $2 million for adoption awareness, but keep $1 million a day for Planned Parenthood?” she asked.
"But in March 2009, President Obama authorized more funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and federal guidelines now let couples donate unwanted frozen embryos to such researchers with the proviso that they cannot receive cash, services or special treatment in exchange for their donations."
Obama policy: No living Child left behind.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
I don't remember the punk's name, but wasn't there some American kid locked up in a detention facility a few years back who had been swept up from the battlefield and strongly suspected of firing on Americans?
As I recall, the Left protested mightily that he was being denied his Constitutional rights as an American citizen. And the Right objected that joining the enemy and shooting at Americans was a pretty clear declaration of denunciation of citizenship and the civil rights associated with citizenship.
Now, the Left is defending the assassination of Al Awlaki and the right are complaining that his Constitutional rights were violated.
Sheesh.
If in a just war, someone goes over to the other side, he makes himself an enemy combatant. He chooses to become a target. That's easy.
At the same time, I'm afraid that once the State justifies assassination of those the State deems to be enemies of the State, a dangerous line has been crossed. I don't think Attorney General Eric Holder is bright enough to see that the line applies to him and his boss just as much as it did to the previous president.
Holder is reported as saying, "The unfortunate reality is that our nation will likely continue to face terrorist threats that at times originate with our own citizens,"
True enough. But worrisome when connected with some of the DHS idiocy in defining what is a terrorist threat.
"Al-Awlaki's father sued to try to stop the government from killing his son, arguing he had to be afforded the constitutional right to due process. But U.S. District Judge John Bates in Washington refused to intervene in al-Awlaki's case because he said the courts do not have the authority to review the president's military decisions.
Holder pointed out that decision in his speech. "The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process," Holder said."
That's not what Holder was saying about military tribunals at Guantanamo. But hypocrisy is a defining attribute for this gang. I'd rather not depend upon Holder and Obama for what constitutes 'due process.'
I seldom agree with the ACLU, but I do this time:
"Few things are as dangerous to American liberty as the proposition that the government should be able to kill citizens anywhere in the world on the basis of legal standards and evidence that are never submitted to a court, either before or after the fact," Shamsi said. "Anyone willing to trust President Obama with the power to secretly declare an American citizen an enemy of the state and order his extrajudicial killing should ask whether they would be willing to trust the next president with that dangerous power."
And that is good advice to my friends on the Right: Anyone willing to trust President Bush with that sort of power should ask wether they would be willing to trust President Obama with that dangerous power.
As I recall, the Left protested mightily that he was being denied his Constitutional rights as an American citizen. And the Right objected that joining the enemy and shooting at Americans was a pretty clear declaration of denunciation of citizenship and the civil rights associated with citizenship.
Now, the Left is defending the assassination of Al Awlaki and the right are complaining that his Constitutional rights were violated.
Sheesh.
If in a just war, someone goes over to the other side, he makes himself an enemy combatant. He chooses to become a target. That's easy.
At the same time, I'm afraid that once the State justifies assassination of those the State deems to be enemies of the State, a dangerous line has been crossed. I don't think Attorney General Eric Holder is bright enough to see that the line applies to him and his boss just as much as it did to the previous president.
Holder is reported as saying, "The unfortunate reality is that our nation will likely continue to face terrorist threats that at times originate with our own citizens,"
True enough. But worrisome when connected with some of the DHS idiocy in defining what is a terrorist threat.
"Al-Awlaki's father sued to try to stop the government from killing his son, arguing he had to be afforded the constitutional right to due process. But U.S. District Judge John Bates in Washington refused to intervene in al-Awlaki's case because he said the courts do not have the authority to review the president's military decisions.
Holder pointed out that decision in his speech. "The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process," Holder said."
That's not what Holder was saying about military tribunals at Guantanamo. But hypocrisy is a defining attribute for this gang. I'd rather not depend upon Holder and Obama for what constitutes 'due process.'
I seldom agree with the ACLU, but I do this time:
"Few things are as dangerous to American liberty as the proposition that the government should be able to kill citizens anywhere in the world on the basis of legal standards and evidence that are never submitted to a court, either before or after the fact," Shamsi said. "Anyone willing to trust President Obama with the power to secretly declare an American citizen an enemy of the state and order his extrajudicial killing should ask whether they would be willing to trust the next president with that dangerous power."
And that is good advice to my friends on the Right: Anyone willing to trust President Bush with that sort of power should ask wether they would be willing to trust President Obama with that dangerous power.
USS Essex Unable to Fulfill Mission for 2nd Time in 7 Months
"For the second time in seven months, mechanical or maintenance issues have prevented the USS Essex from meeting a commitment at sea, Navy officials said Wednesday."
This is what a hollow force looks like. It is the result of shorting the Navy over the last several years in an attempt to rebuild and modernize ground combat forces while fighting 2 regional conflicts on the cheap.
Expect similar failures across the services once Obama's draconian defense cuts take effect.
This is what a hollow force looks like. It is the result of shorting the Navy over the last several years in an attempt to rebuild and modernize ground combat forces while fighting 2 regional conflicts on the cheap.
Expect similar failures across the services once Obama's draconian defense cuts take effect.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Dreams from Chairman Mao
The current artificial crisis over the draconian HHS mandate has been manufactured by the Administration even though or perhaps because it tramples 1st Amendment freedoms. It's difficult to believe that the Administration's conflict with the Catholic Church was unanticipated and unintentional; it is one more instance of them being either complete idiots or wholly evil. Of course, it's also possible that they're both.
In 2008, the majority of Catholics in the US voted for Obama. The Catholic hierarchy, though less blindly committed to Democratic policies than their predecessors, maintained a generally favorable view toward Democratic social welfare schemes. They have a long history of supporting the concept of universal healthcare. Until it became clear that Obamacare would be used to advance abortion and contraception, the bishops supported it. HHS could have easily crafted a regime of mandates that provided cover for Catholics and Catholic institutions who support Obama and Obamacare but who want to maintain the appearance of adherence to Catholic doctrine: Fr. Jenkins of Notre Dame, Sr. Keehan of the Catholic Health Association, the Campaign for Human Development, America and Commonweal magazines, etc. While events have shown that some members of this motley crew have placed allegiance to their Progressive ideology over their obedience to their bishops and the teachings of their church, the Administration could have gotten much broader support from prominent Catholics and Catholic organizations with little if any real cost in support from radical feminists and the Abortion industry.
Nevertheless, the Administration's political calculus and/or blind ideology led them to make a very public, very resolute and very radical stand on 'women's health issues,' AKA: contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs.
The Administration very publicly announced an extreme policy on the only issue that the bishops might balk at. And they left no room in it for sophistry or Jesuitry by the administration's Catholic lap-dogs. They refused to waver from a policy that directly puts the bishops and faithful Catholic organizations in a position where they must either choose to serve Caesar or to serve God.
So far, the bishops have hewn to St. Thomas More's example of being "the kings good servant, but God's first." Lord preserve us from having to follow too far in his footsteps.
On March 2nd, Cardinal Dolan of NY, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a letter to his brother bishops. He made it clear that the conflict is not about contraception but about religious freedom and the relationship between the secular society and religious associations in a free society:
"How fortunate that we as a body have had opportunities during our past plenary assemblies to manifest our strong unity in defense of religious freedom. We rely on that unity now more than ever as HHS seeks to define what constitutes church ministry and how it can be exercised." "Since January 20, when the final, restrictive HHS Rule was first announced, we have become certain of two things: religious freedom is under attack, and we will not cease our struggle to protect it. We recall the words of our Holy Father Benedict XVI to our brother bishops on their recent ad limina visit: 'Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion.'” "We have made it clear in no uncertain terms to the government that we are not at peace with its invasive attempt to curtail the religious freedom we cherish as Catholics and Americans. We did not ask for this fight, but we will not run from it."
Cardinal Dolan made one observation, however, that gave me pause - as if the Obama administration's assault on religious freedom and its radical anti-family and anti-life agenda weren't enough.
Cardinal Dolan described "a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff, our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom—that is,
revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the
table. They were informed that they are. So much for “working out the wrinkles.” Instead, they
advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of
accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in
America. The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand
Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has
nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers."(emphasis mine)
That remark reminded me of something: The Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association.
Nah, couldn't be. Certainly, in a country whose Constitution contains the explicit words, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor the free exercise thereof" the government would never consider mandating what is or isn't a religious organization, prescribing what religious organizations may or may not do or deciding who does or does not speak for a particular religion. That is too great a violation of the Constitution and the long tradition of religious freedom in this country. But that is exactly what Cardinal Dolan shows that the Obama administration is doing. That is also exactly the official policy of the Communist regime in Beijing.
But what would lead a reasonable person to suspect an American president of aspiring to have the sort of totalitarian control exercised by Hu Jintao?
Maybe the president's on comments?
Jonah Goldberg observed recently, "He's even reportedly expressed envy for Chinese President Hu Jintao. "Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China," the New York Times reported last year. "As one official put it, 'No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao's words in Tahrir Square.'"
I haven't read "Dreams from My Father," but I half expect to see a pocket-sized version with a red cover to hit the streets if Obama wins a second term.
In 2008, the majority of Catholics in the US voted for Obama. The Catholic hierarchy, though less blindly committed to Democratic policies than their predecessors, maintained a generally favorable view toward Democratic social welfare schemes. They have a long history of supporting the concept of universal healthcare. Until it became clear that Obamacare would be used to advance abortion and contraception, the bishops supported it. HHS could have easily crafted a regime of mandates that provided cover for Catholics and Catholic institutions who support Obama and Obamacare but who want to maintain the appearance of adherence to Catholic doctrine: Fr. Jenkins of Notre Dame, Sr. Keehan of the Catholic Health Association, the Campaign for Human Development, America and Commonweal magazines, etc. While events have shown that some members of this motley crew have placed allegiance to their Progressive ideology over their obedience to their bishops and the teachings of their church, the Administration could have gotten much broader support from prominent Catholics and Catholic organizations with little if any real cost in support from radical feminists and the Abortion industry.
Nevertheless, the Administration's political calculus and/or blind ideology led them to make a very public, very resolute and very radical stand on 'women's health issues,' AKA: contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs.
The Administration very publicly announced an extreme policy on the only issue that the bishops might balk at. And they left no room in it for sophistry or Jesuitry by the administration's Catholic lap-dogs. They refused to waver from a policy that directly puts the bishops and faithful Catholic organizations in a position where they must either choose to serve Caesar or to serve God.
So far, the bishops have hewn to St. Thomas More's example of being "the kings good servant, but God's first." Lord preserve us from having to follow too far in his footsteps.
On March 2nd, Cardinal Dolan of NY, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a letter to his brother bishops. He made it clear that the conflict is not about contraception but about religious freedom and the relationship between the secular society and religious associations in a free society:
"How fortunate that we as a body have had opportunities during our past plenary assemblies to manifest our strong unity in defense of religious freedom. We rely on that unity now more than ever as HHS seeks to define what constitutes church ministry and how it can be exercised." "Since January 20, when the final, restrictive HHS Rule was first announced, we have become certain of two things: religious freedom is under attack, and we will not cease our struggle to protect it. We recall the words of our Holy Father Benedict XVI to our brother bishops on their recent ad limina visit: 'Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion.'” "We have made it clear in no uncertain terms to the government that we are not at peace with its invasive attempt to curtail the religious freedom we cherish as Catholics and Americans. We did not ask for this fight, but we will not run from it."
Cardinal Dolan made one observation, however, that gave me pause - as if the Obama administration's assault on religious freedom and its radical anti-family and anti-life agenda weren't enough.
Cardinal Dolan described "a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff, our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom—that is,
revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the
table. They were informed that they are. So much for “working out the wrinkles.” Instead, they
advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of
accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in
America. The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand
Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has
nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers."(emphasis mine)
That remark reminded me of something: The Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association.
Nah, couldn't be. Certainly, in a country whose Constitution contains the explicit words, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor the free exercise thereof" the government would never consider mandating what is or isn't a religious organization, prescribing what religious organizations may or may not do or deciding who does or does not speak for a particular religion. That is too great a violation of the Constitution and the long tradition of religious freedom in this country. But that is exactly what Cardinal Dolan shows that the Obama administration is doing. That is also exactly the official policy of the Communist regime in Beijing.
But what would lead a reasonable person to suspect an American president of aspiring to have the sort of totalitarian control exercised by Hu Jintao?
Maybe the president's on comments?
Jonah Goldberg observed recently, "He's even reportedly expressed envy for Chinese President Hu Jintao. "Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China," the New York Times reported last year. "As one official put it, 'No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao's words in Tahrir Square.'"
I haven't read "Dreams from My Father," but I half expect to see a pocket-sized version with a red cover to hit the streets if Obama wins a second term.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Lex Talonis: A head for an eye and a jaw for a tooth
I don't know the details of the Koran burning in Afghanistan. From what I read, American Soldiers found defaced Korans in an internment facility that appeared to be used to spread radical Jihadist hate and perhaps coordinate resistance among the detainees. The Soldiers burned the Korans.
A few facts:
Soldiers had burned Bibles previously that were illegally in the country
The Korans had been defaced by Muslims
The proper way to dispose of certain items of veneration or respect in the West is by burning. Unservicable flags is an example.
This article indicates that the Korans were burned 'in a burn pit,' which leads me to believe they were burned along with other trash. If so, that was probably a serious Info Ops mistake. I think the effect of destroying the defaced holy books in a more reverent way would have been wise.
I don't think it would have prevented the violence. The burning is merely a convenient excuse for shooting and rioting and making the Americans look foolish.
Sadly, our leadership is aiding and abetting.
Now that six Soldiers have been killed in retaliation for burning a few books defaced by Muslim detainees, perhaps its time to realize that Christian (or, worse, Secular) charity and kindness will not work.
Time to go Old Testament on these people. Lex Talonis, or the Abramic, Mosaic law of retribution: an eye for an eye is something the Taliban and their fellow travellers understand very well.
They have not arrested the perpetrators of the first murder. Arrest my butt! I would hope that they have a pretty good idea of the networks in the area. Don Corleone would know what to do. Lorenzo Medici would know what to do. Joshua would know what to do.
Go do it. Kill the bosses. Kill their associates. Kill them in their sleep. Kill them in the broad daylight. Let them know that if the cockroaches stick their heads out they will be squashed.
Then crap or get off the pot. If we aren't going to go out and destroy the enemies of America -and the Afghan civilian population with great violence, then leave tomorrow and wipe the dust frorm our feet.
A few facts:
Soldiers had burned Bibles previously that were illegally in the country
The Korans had been defaced by Muslims
The proper way to dispose of certain items of veneration or respect in the West is by burning. Unservicable flags is an example.
This article indicates that the Korans were burned 'in a burn pit,' which leads me to believe they were burned along with other trash. If so, that was probably a serious Info Ops mistake. I think the effect of destroying the defaced holy books in a more reverent way would have been wise.
I don't think it would have prevented the violence. The burning is merely a convenient excuse for shooting and rioting and making the Americans look foolish.
Sadly, our leadership is aiding and abetting.
Now that six Soldiers have been killed in retaliation for burning a few books defaced by Muslim detainees, perhaps its time to realize that Christian (or, worse, Secular) charity and kindness will not work.
Time to go Old Testament on these people. Lex Talonis, or the Abramic, Mosaic law of retribution: an eye for an eye is something the Taliban and their fellow travellers understand very well.
They have not arrested the perpetrators of the first murder. Arrest my butt! I would hope that they have a pretty good idea of the networks in the area. Don Corleone would know what to do. Lorenzo Medici would know what to do. Joshua would know what to do.
Go do it. Kill the bosses. Kill their associates. Kill them in their sleep. Kill them in the broad daylight. Let them know that if the cockroaches stick their heads out they will be squashed.
Then crap or get off the pot. If we aren't going to go out and destroy the enemies of America -and the Afghan civilian population with great violence, then leave tomorrow and wipe the dust frorm our feet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)