Archive for April 24, 2009

Is this an episode of Yes Minister…

Posted: April 24, 2009 by datechguy in oddities
Tags:

…it sure sounds like one when you read this paragraph from Damian Thompson on the Anglican communion rescue:

What I didn’t know is that the proposals are tied to an intricate scale of “degrees of communion” – full, impaired, partial and broken – that will ascribed to different provinces by a Lambeth Communion Review Commission, which will itself be multi-layered, supervising Review Sub-Committees based on the Indaba model that will ascribe State of Communion Assessments to individual dioceses, non-territorial episcopal oversight areas and parishes. It would, of course, be inappropriate for the same Review Sub-Committees to cross the boundary between inner and outer circles of the Anglican Communion, and so – in a radical proposal drafted by Dr Rowan Williams himself – the Lambeth Communion Review Commission will divide into inner and outer circle Areas of Special Responsibility that will shadow each other’s assessments.

Well we can now conclude that Sir Humphrey Appleby didn’t die on Boxing Day 2001 after all, apparently he works for the Anglican communion.

Update: And like Sir Humphrey Appleby the paragraph above is a fictional parody of reality. The sad thing is if you read the real thing you really can’t tell the difference.

Ain’t nothing like the real thing

Posted: April 24, 2009 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags:

The captain has talked to the commander of the American Legion after meeting with Secretary Napolitano and apparently she has gotten the message:

Napolitano offered a much more complete apology for the accusation in the DHS report on right-wing extremism that came out earlier this month. He believes that Napolitano will withdraw that report in favor of a better, more specific, and narrower report on actual threats.

Although this news is quite welcome what followed was much more important:

I also asked him whether the Obama administration appears to have learned from this and the previous controversy over medical coverage of service-related injuries and illnesses, and he graciously acknowledged that they do seem to be learning — and to want to learn.

Part of a good administration is to learn from mistakes and act accordingly. Political victory is nice but an administration that does right by our vets is even better.

Charles’ post from yesterday bothered me a lot. The evidence he gave was pretty solid concerning associations and considering my own post yesterday on the Paulians and my response to comments it was something that was on my mind last night, I was trying to roll it through my head.

Since I’ve read Atlas I’m convinced her primary goal is to defend the lives of Jews, come what may. Right now in Europe the normal respectable people are not willing to defend Jews in a Europe that is quickly becoming Islamicised. The way to defend the Jews who are in actual physical danger is to have allies, but what do you do if your only allies are unacceptable?

Robert Stacy McCain writes a post that I wish I had answering the question to a pretty solid degree.

Whence these associations? I’ve explained it before, but I’ll explain it again: The mainstream “conservative” parties in Europe have refused to address effectively the issues of immigration and multiculturalism. (In Europe, multiculturalism takes the form of pandering to their massive number of Islamic immigrants.) Because mainstream politicians have forfeited leadership on these legitimate concerns of their citizens, the vacuum has been filled by the likes of Reitz and Worch. Ergo, if there is a conference in Europe addressing the question of whether Islamicization is a threat, it won’t be organized entirely by “respectable” types.

Thus, Johnson’s guilt-by-association attack on Geller highlights the real problem we face in America: If the Republican Party and the mainstream conservative movement don’t recognize and respond to our own citizens’ concerns about immigration and multiculturalism, then those issues will be taken over by similarly disreputable groups.

What should Geller do? Cancel her trip to Germany? I think not. Rather, she use the occasion to alert Germans to the consequences of cowardice by their leaders. Germans, perhaps better than any other people, are aware of the heinous results when democracy fails in a time of crisis.

If honorable people will not take up the cause then it will be left to the dishonorable. A great example of this is South Africa, because of the cold war, stratigic location and key resources the west was much more deferential to Apartheid then they morally should have been. It is true that the soviets were the greater evil and threat but that didn’t change the moral situation. The Soviets and their proxies took advantage of that situation to support the ANC and use the support of a moral case to buttress themselves. Like Prometheus it was the shining fat hiding the bones offered to the Gods.

Pam Gellar links to the other McCain, her response ends with this line:

And just for the record, nazis do not hang out with Jews, even pretty ones. Ever.

This is actually where I have to disagree with both Pam and Robert. I with John agree that these far right parties are filling the moral vacumn that the mainstream is ceeding to them, however I think that doesn’t make them any less what they are. I DO think think that the modern Nazi will hang out with jews, (particularly pretty ones) if it will gain them power and advantage. I think seeing a bigger (and legitimate) threat from Islamists they will defend the Jews in Europe and even in Israel in fact I think particularly in Israel since they wouldn’t mind in the end for the Jews to end up there instead of in Europe.

I think they are playing the Soviet South Africa game. I think they are exactly what Charles says they are, but I also think that if the European Jews want to survive they need allies and there doesn’t seem to be any others willing to stand up over there.

If Pam can persuade mainline Europeans that this is a threat they need to combat then it is worth the trip but I think Charles alarm is not only justified but needs to be shouted very loudly. If Pam thinks this has to be done then it should be done with eyes wide open. I think both Pam and Charles are acting with honor. I won’t make a lot of friends with that statement but that’s what I think.

Don Corleone may have kept the widow from losing her apartment but it didn’t make him any less mafia. He may have avenged the funeral director’s daughter but it didn’t make him unwilling to kill.
Michael Corleone did what he thought he had to do. It didn’t make him less of a murderer. In the three movies he is preferable to the other thugs he faces, but he is still a thug.

This is why we have to be very careful of the Paul people here in America when it comes to the tea parties. In Europe there might not an ethical good choice to make. We aren’t at that point here which is why we have to act with discretion. I think we ignore Charles warning at our peril but I think we fail to act as Pam is at our peril too.

That is why the title of this post is what it it. And I have the same answer as Tevye. “You know you are also right!”

This story at Big Hollywood struck me because of a something similar that happened to me. As the person in question was rather elderly I put it down to generational stuff but was still very taken aback. This guy didn’t have that excuse:

The brother-in-law started, “You people don’t care about the suffering, don’t care about the weak and under-privileged, you don’t give a rat’s ass what happens to them, because to you and your ilk they’re all just a bunch of Tiggers!”

I was shocked. Even more shocked was the black gentleman sitting at the bar who suddenly took a keen interest in the conversation. After all, this is a word so repulsive it can cut through the static of even the noisiest bar. My friends had their backs to him, so it was impossible for them to see they had attracted an audience.

Never being one to avoid a conflict, I feigned ignorance. “They’re just a bunch of what?”

My friend was happy to clarify, “Tiggers. You think they’re Tiggers. You don’t care about them because they’re just all Tiggers.”

Here were two long-time liberals demonstrating to me the privilege of language accorded only to those on the correct side of the aisle. I asked again, “They’re WHAT?”

The husband spoke, “TIGGERS TIGGERS TIGGERS! How plain do I have to say it for you? T-I-double GUH- ER!!!”

At this point the eavesdropping stranger could remain silent no longer, “Uh, excuse me…”

My liberal friends turned around, and I cannot find the words to describe the shade of red their faces took as their bravado sunk under the table. The moment of silence that followed, seemed to last an eternity. The husband broke, “Um, you don’t understand what’s going on here,” he pointed into my chest and indicted, “You see, he’s a REPUBLICAN!”

The gentleman pretended like he wasn’t listening, so when the husband rushed over to apologize, he had to say the word again, right to his face. It was a very embarrassing moment, almost too painful to watch. On the up side, the gentleman ended up getting a free drink out of the deal, as the husband was eager to put it behind him.

What is that old saying? There is truth in Wine. Give a person a few drinks and they will say what they actually think.