Month: October 2007

Hitch goes there. His task is made harder by some nuttiness of the Horowitz brigades. But his points are still valid, I’d say:

The most obvious points of comparison would be these: Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind. ("Death to the intellect! Long live death!" as Gen. Francisco Franco’s sidekick Gonzalo Queipo de Llano so pithily phrased it.) Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons), and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined "humiliations" and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia (interestingly, also, with its milder cousin, anti-Freemason paranoia). Both are inclined to leader worship and to the exclusive stress on the power of one great book. Both have a strong commitment to sexual repression—especially to the repression of any sexual "deviance"—and to its counterparts the subordination of the female and contempt for the feminine. Both despise art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence; both burn books and destroy museums and treasures.

The bigger analytic problem is the nation-state, which Hitch acknowledges. He’s also sharp on the desire for "purity" of various kinds. Then this:

Both these totalitarian systems of thought evidently suffer from a death wish. It is surely not an accident that both of them stress suicidal tactics and sacrificial ends, just as both of them would obviously rather see the destruction of their own societies than any compromise with infidels or any dilution of the joys of absolute doctrinal orthodoxy. Thus, while we have a duty to oppose and destroy these and any similar totalitarian movements, we can also be fairly sure that they will play an unconscious part in arranging for their own destruction, as well.

Yes! Which is why our strategy to defeat them cannot solely rely on our force. Their weakness is their fanaticism. They wear out their welcome in places like Jordan and Anbar. They’re losing the p.r. battle among Muslims. Our job – and it is not an easy one – is to attack them where they are weakest, facilitate divisions between them and other Muslims and refuse to be baited in self-defeating ways. I.e., I’m afraid, Iraq.

The NYT packs a lot of attention-grabbing content into this photo caption:

While most Kurds are Sunni Muslims, the guerrillas reject Islamic fundamentalism. Instead, they trace their roots to a Marxist past and still espouse what they call "scientific socialism" and promote women’s rights.

We never hear about Islamism from the Kurds, do we?

A classic from the Telegraph:

Sammy Duddy, who died on October 17 aged 62, had a rather unusual curriculum vitae for a member of the Loyalist paramilitary Ulster Defence Association in having been a drag artiste who went by the stage name of Samantha.

During the 1970s the self-styled "Dolly Parton of Belfast" became well known on Belfast’s cabaret circuit, presenting a risqué act in Loyalist pubs and clubs, dressed in fishnet tights, wig and heavy make-up. Once he even performed for British troops on tour.

"I wore a miniskirt many a time," Duddy remembered, "but it was usually a long dress, a straight black wig, a pair of falsies I bought in Blackpool and loads of make-up to cover my freckles. The darker the mascara the better, and scarlet lipstick, because I was a scarlet woman."

What is there about this that the president does not understand:

According to Judge Mukasey’s statement, as well as other parts of his testimony, the president’s authority “to defend the nation” trumps his obligation to obey the law. Take the federal statute governing military commissions in Guantánamo Bay. No one, including the president’s lawyers, argues that this statute is unconstitutional. The only question is whether the president is required to obey it even if in his judgment the statute is not the best way “to defend the nation.”

If he is not, we no longer live under the government the founders established.

Under the American Constitution, federal statutes, not executive decisions in the name of national security, are “the supreme law of the land.” It’s that simple. So long as a statute is constitutional, it is binding on everyone, including the president.

The president has no supreme, exclusive or trumping authority to “defend the nation.” In fact, the Constitution uses the words “provide for the common defense” in its list of the powers of Congress, not those of the president.

My italics. If you didn’t get a chance to see PBS’s "Cheney’s Law" about the vice-president’s and president’s assault on the Constitution they took an oath to defend, check it out online. Or DVR/Tivo it. Check out this new Guantanamo campaign as well. Get angry. Get angrier:

RedState has now done what the rest of the GOP establishment would like to do: they’ve banned all discussion of Ron Paul from their bulletin boards, comment threads and interactive forums. Money quote:

Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.

Now, I could offer a long-winded explanation for *why* this new policy is being instituted, but I’m guessing that most of you can probably guess. Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be.

Frightened much?

In the interests of airing the debate, I linked to a Wall Street Journal op-ed this morning airing some reasons to be skeptical of some of the hype. In the interests of further airing, here’s a pretty strong rebuttal.

St Paul, Minnesota, 10 am.