More Handwriting.

Below I noted that Panama is considering making Mandarin mandatory for their school children. Now Australia has elected a Labor PM, Kevin Rudd, who's fluent in Mandarin. Of course, that's not why he was elected. But Rudd, will likely seek a more "independent" course i.e. he won't act as Bush stooge like his predecessor.

One for the Sinophobes or Hating Carter All Over Again.

This is almost a month old but I just discovered it in an Indonesian-American newspaper while waiting for my spare-ribs:

PANAMA CITY -- Learning Mandarin could soon be compulsory for school children in Panama to ready the Spanish-speaking nation for China's growing importance as a trading partner.

Panama's National Assembly next week will debate a bill to make Mandarin lessons obligatory in all government-run primary schools in the trade-dependent canal nation.

Mandarin is the official language of China and Taiwan. Panama has no diplomatic relations with Beijing but China has major interests in its transport and shipping sectors.


http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=38757649-a220-4411-8130-ff26c8ffa143

I don't give a fig what Panamians speak but obviously this signals a u-turn away from El Norte. I'm surprised the Amero crowd hasn't jumped all over this one. It fits nicely into the crackpot realism worldview.

What is it with Dutch Zoos?

Last year visitors to Amsterdam's Beekse Bergen Safari park looked on in horror as sloth bears hunted down, slaughtered and ate a shrieking barbary macaque: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8HKETVO0&show_article=1

And now a Gorilla has escaped from the Diergaarde Blijdorp zoo* in Rotterdam: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273653,00.html

The non-proverbial 400lb gorrilla, Bokito, bit a woman, dragger her around and panicked visitors.

Can we make Dutch Zookeper coda for incompetent?

*An interesting note: the original AP story mentioned that the Diergaarde Blijdorp zoo is "one of the oldest in the Netherlands". I found that funny. It sounds like another one of those descriptions that's so heavily qualified as to have no meaning. I mean"one of the oldest" in a country smaller than West Virgini?

Turns out, according to this European Zoological Society - http://www.eaza.net/news/frameset_1news.html?page=1news_legbands - the Netherlands has 17 zoos. I guess being one of the oldest of 17 is noteworthy. I stand corrected.

And, for the record, West Virginia doesn't have any.

Ok I got it.

Bush is promising to veto the Iraqi authorization bill that Congress passed this past month. Here's what Pelosi/Reid should do after he does:

1. Remove all the earmarks that make for GOP talking points
2. Add a provision that increases combat pay from $225/month to $450.
3. Shorten the timetable for withdrawal from 18 months to 12 months.

I'd really like to see Bush/Rove try to say they "support the troops" after denying them a pay raise.

If you haven't had Harry and David's Mango Salsa, do yourself a favor, DON'T. Save yourself some money and open a can of fruit salad on your quesadilla.

There's probably no more baffling trend of the last 40 years than the Christian Right's embrace of neoliberal economics. I don't have much to add to this discussion but I did come across something interesting.

According to a recent report from Britain's Institute for Public Policy, British 15 year olds spend 45% of their evenings out with friends instead of their families. In France teens spend only 17% of their evenings out.

In other words, British teens spend 1/3 less time with their families than teens in "socialist" debauched France.

Furthermore, the UK and US ranked 22nd and 23rd, respectively out of 25 OECD nations in a UNICEF survey of how often 15 year-olds ate their main meal with their parents.

One would guess that "strengthening families" would entail family members actually spending time together. But its probably more complicated than the simple veil-lifting exercise many lefties wish it to be. This conflict is at the heart of the Yankee-Protestant code that extols both moral recititude and a masochistic work ethic. When these come into conflict, as they invariably do, the answer is...self-recrimination and redoubled perfection seeking. Always coming up short, the frazzled and shameful turn toward scapegoating and the politics of rage.

Banned from Redstate.com

Because I’m not a fan of amen choruses, I frequently post on the conservative website, redstate.com.....or I did until recently.

This past week as I posted a message in a thread entitled “Left is Devolving into a New Kind of Tyranny” in which the author, “LibertarianHawk” complains of ostracism and guilt over such things as smoking cigarettes, driving SUV’s or not eating organic.

Here’s my post:

Are scolds anything new? by ChampSummers
My problem with liberals is they rely too much on individual choices (organic foods, flourescent light bulbs, etc..) and not enough on change at the higher levels.
But you would limit even that because it makes you feel bad.
Talk about tyranny.


And here’s a response I got from “Moe Lane”, apparently a moderator:

IOW, your problem with liberals... (Read please, ChampSummers) by Moe Lane
...is that they're conservatives/libertarians.
Riiiiiight.
Moe
PS: Before I forget: I need a clarification on what, precisely, you meant by this. This is a moderator asking, so let's have the long answer this time


The “this” in the PS was a link to another thread, another topic unrelated to the discussion.

I replied:

Do I answer here or there? I'm confused. Did I miss someone asking me for clarification?

This is the response I got from another moderator, “Thomas”:

Yes. Here. No, you didn't. But two moderaters just did. (nt) by Thomas

Ok, I got it. You two are “moderators”. Before I could answer I also got this from Moe Lane:

You were told to *do* something, ChampSummers. by Moe Lane
Specifically, to explain what you meant by this. I suggest that you get cracking.

Lordy, I had better get cracking indeed. You just don’t wanna pussyfoot around with online hombres like these two - moderatin’ a bulletin board is man’s work. “Mods” are kind of like cops on the beat, except that instead of facing bodily harm they type.

What could so have stirred these strong-but-silent pillars of redstate decency to call me out in no uncertain terms?

Ta da:

The Fifth Column Strikes Again by ChampSummers
Why are politicians still going to AIPAC meetings after we caught them spying on us?

Would that be the Democrat fifth column ? by Joliphant
Or the communist fifth column that registers as democrats ?
Or the fifth column that calls itself the fourth estate ?
I'm a little confused here, lend a hand please.

Short Answer by ChampSummers
Yes.

The "Short Answer Yes" remark was what stirred "Moe Lane" and "Thomas" to "just do their duty, Ma'am." It came in a thread entitled, “Dems Blink on Iran Provision”.

The thread’s author “Mark I” excerpted an AP story about Democratic leaders removing a provision in an Iraq/Afghanistan appropriations bill that would have called for Bush to get Congressional approval before attacking Iran.

Of course this provision shouldn’t be necessary and nor controversial. In essence, it says “hey, don’t’ forget the freakin’ Constitution.” But it was removed nevertheless. From AP:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and other leaders agreed to remove the requirement concerning Iran after conservative Democrats as well as other lawmakers worried about its possible impact on Israel, officials said Monday.

The provision was dropped after intense lobbying from the American Israeli Political Committee (AIPAC) according to the Cleveland Jewish News website:

(JTA) - AIPAC lobbying helped remove a provision from a bill that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval for war against Iran.
A number of congressional sources confirmed that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) backed dropping the provision from the Iraq war spending bill introduced Tuesday by Democrats.

The stripping away of the Iran Provision comes at the same time as huge AIPAC conference in Washington. From the AIPAC website:

AIPAC's largest-ever Policy Conference featured addresses from leading Democrats and Republicans, including speeches by Vice President Dick Cheney, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH). In addition, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert spoke to the more than 6,000 attendees live via satellite from Jerusalem, and Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni traveled to Washington to address the record crowd.

Wow, that’s quite a coup: Pelosi, Cheney, Reid and McConnell, Olmert and Livni.

Of course, neither the muscle flexing of an interest group nor the grab-bagging of politicians i s new ……except when the ex-Executive Director and one of his deputies is under indictment for spying on the US.

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 - A federal judge sentenced a former Defense Department analyst, Lawrence A. Franklin, to more than 12 years in prison today after Mr. Franklin admitted passing classified military information to two pro-Israel lobbyists and an Israeli diplomat.

The lobbyists, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, were senior staff members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, a pro-Israel lobbying organization with close relationships to officials in the Bush administration.

Larry Franklin was considered one of the most strident proponents of war with Iran and also met with officials of the Israeli embassy in Washington. His sentence came down in January. Rosen and Weissman were indicted in 2005 and still away trial.

To recap, a defense official pushes for war with Iran, gives away secrets about the issue to a right-wing lobbying firm that's also pushing for with Iran and the Israeli goverment. That right-wing group gets a provision that prevents Bush from attacking Iran without Congression consent removed. Then Democrats and Republicans show up at a soiree at the group's headquarters.

Can you imagine the hue-and-cry if a Muslim group, say the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was caught receiving classified information, passing it to another government and then influencing US legislation?

Ceding to the moderators unusual demand, I explained myself further on redstate:

Wow. by ChampSummers
You guys ARE right-wingers. I meant that "yes" AIPAC has reached into the Democratic Party and the media.
Is that better?
To be clear, did I break a rule with a short answer?

And the response from Moe Lane:

Better? Very much so, Sparky. by Moe Lane
All I have to do is wait long enough with your crowd and at least one of you'll start going off on the Jews. That and depleted uranium.
You really thought that we were going to buy that "The Fifth Column Strikes Again / Why are politicians still going to AIPAC meetings after we caught them spying on us?" was supposed to be attacking the Democrats? How stupid do you think we are?
Blam, nudnik.

I have to answer, “very stupid”.

I’m guessing he’s interpreted my remarks as an attack on Jews disguised as an attack on Democrats when it was clearly an attack on AIPAC, Democrats, Republicans and the media disguised as an attack on AIPAC, Democrats, Republicans and the media. The only person to type the word “Jews” was Moe Lane.

AIPAC is a right-wing Israeli group that enjoys some support from right-wing Jewish-Americans. Attacking AIPAC is no more anti-semitic than attacking George Bush (or Bill Clinton) is anti-American.

I have since sent a request asking to tell me I’ve been banned. And, typical of these keyboarding chickenhawks, blam, nudnik.

"When"

To the chagrin of a sizeable portion of the American public, instead of just pulling the plug, Democrats are trying to politically "navigate" their opposition to the War in Iraq -- striking just the right notes to keep the antiwar base mollified while being careful not to...to....what?

Majority opinion has turned against the War decidedly. Most Democrats hate it, most independents don't like it and even some Republicans have jumped ship. So what are the Democrats afraid of? Here's what:

If the Democrats cut off funding or pass anything "binding" (and its hard to imagine the Bush Administration adhering to any such measure) then there are three possible political "blowbacks".

The first is the most immediate and the most commented upon -- that they'll be blamed for exposing the troops. Of course, thievery great and small in this war has already assured done this. But, Bush & Co. would love nothing better than to pin the lack of body armor on Democrats. So, politcally at least, its a real concern. But I think it might be overblown concern. If defunding is coupled with timelines for withdrawal and staunchly defended, I think the American public will get it. The Republican's attempts to confuse supporting the war with supporting our troops hasn't been gaining any traction. Only Republican circle-jerkers believe it .... or say they do.

The second is less commented upon. If troops are removed and there's another terrorist attack on US soil, then the GOP attack machine will swing into full gear -- blaming the Democrats for bringing the "War on Terror" back to American soil.

The "fly paper" theory of the War -- that the invasion of Iraq draws the terrorist to fight our well-armed soldiers over there instead of "fighting" our unarmed civilians over here -- has always been a stepchild "meme". After all, its pretty weak to argue that getting your boys killed in Bagdhad is the best way to stop terrorist attacks in New York. The death rolls for 9/11 and the War are roughly the same at this point, so as strategy, it sucks. But after a subway bombing, it won't matter. Republicans, conservative independents and self-styled "realists" will embrace the Administration with renewed vigor. The American public will overlook the Administration's poor execution of the war as a mere detail and embrace their strategy as something, anything. The GOP's attack machine will whir into a high wine as they conjure up handy "crazy like a fox" narratives quicker than Uncle Remus.

The last possible outcome is that Iran gets provocative. I'm guessing that most Americans don't realize (or have a hard time believing) that we've been more provocative toward Iran than they have toward us. In 2003, Iran's reformist Prime Minister Khatami offered the U.S. help in stabilizing Iraq and offered to de-fund Hamas and Hizbullah. Not only was that offer rejected (by Cheney) but the saber-rattling was intensified and Iran isolated, leading to the election of right-wing cook Mahmud Ahmadinejad. (See above point about threatened people turning to cooks). Ahmadinejad may indeed have designs on Iraq. I don't think anyone on either side of the debate claims to know what's on his mind. But if Iran even uses the tiniest bit of leverage in Iraq, you can expect, like scenario #2, the Republicans to use it to their advantage.

The point isnt' that any one of this will happen, the point is that when you end a war, you're saddled with the second guessing as much as the war's architects. And, sadly, you get no credit for the lives and fortunes saved. 35 years after we pulled the plug on Vietman we still have people who blame protestors, peacniks and uncommitted politicians for the "loss" of that war. Even the war's opponents, when they look back, are unlikely to focus on the sensible politicians who pulled the plug.

In the waning months of World War I, as it appeared that Germany was facing a disastrous loss, the German Imperial government that had led the country into war let the Social Democrats into the cabinet for the first time. Faced with shortages, mutinous soldiers and certain defeat the Social Democrats sued for a treaty and declared Germany a republic. During this new Weimar Republic of the 1920’s a fable developed in far right circles that victory (of varying sorts) was possible had the Social Democrats not so quickly. The overly burdensome Treaty of Versailles was a bad deal for Germany but its hard to believe that any German government could’ve done much better. And harder yet to believe that fighting on could’ve produced better results.

But there you go, the Universe is filled with bad ideas topedoed in meetings, bad plans tossed in the round file, bad paths not taken. But this isn't the stuff of hagiography, especially in our "just do it" culture. Think of the last movie you saw where the main character navigated his way to victory through hard work and the steady rejection of crazy schemes.

Walking away from the table with containable losses is never inspirational.