A Letter to the Editor in the NYT (sorry, I lost the link):
Re “Republican Candidates Hold First Debate, Differing on Defining Party’s Future” (news article, May 4):
Most striking about the first Republican debate is not what the candidates said but what they looked like: 10 white men in dark suits arrayed across the stage. Their homogeneity does not reflect well on the diversity of the G.O.P. or its views.On the other hand, the Democratic lineup includes a woman, an African-American and a Hispanic. Say what you will about the chances of any of these three to be elected; at least the party’s moving in the right direction.
Robert J. Inlow
Charlottesville, Va., May 4, 2007
Following this "reasoning," I assume that if one African-American face in the "lineup" is good, two would be even better.
I've said it before and I suppose I'll have to say it again, but as someone who was a Democrat for decades and never voted for a Republican until 2004, I am appalled to find the Left still insisting that we see everyone and everything in terms of race, ethnicity, class and gender. Hullo, is anybody home? The civil rights movement was a success, the Sixties have been over for almost 40 years, and it's time to "move on."
It is simply not enough to Imagine a world without racism and sexism; one has to start inhabiting that world. I thought that's what liberals were all about, but they're not, not really.
When Palestinian terrorists started incinerating Jews by the busload twice or three times a week, there were very few voices raised in objection; most of those were conservative. I was very distressed to see and to learn that when push comes to shove, liberals are useless. They are good at imagining the world they want, but what they don't seem to understand is that a blanket response like that can be inappropriate, counter-productive, even dangerous, depending on the situation - which, unlike leftists, can be counted on to change.
Hence, in our post-9/11 world, they imagine that their peace narrative is still relevant, that the enemy is the President of the United States and that barbaric terrorist scum should be listened to and "understood," not defeated.
It's a lefty thing, and you see it playing out in Israel as well. Just read Caroline Glick on The fruits of Hizbullah's victory:
The [Winograd interim] report relates a notable exchange between Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and [former chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan] Halutz during the cabinet meeting on July 12 when the decision to go to war was made.Imagination, especially when it does not or cannot include victory, is not an adequate response to someone who's trying to kill you. The U.S. would do well to learn from Israel's mistakes. See more Glick:Livni asked Halutz, "What is victory?"
Halutz responded, "There is no victory here..."
The report further slammed the IDF's "Operational Concept" drafted under Halutz and according to which a war was not to be won by the conquering of territory or the destruction of an enemy but rather by "effects" such as massive firepower from the air force and the artillery corps. This concept, the report claimed, proved itself to be wrong during the war.
What are effects but appearances? Just as Halutz intended to prosecute a war by effects, the Democrats conduct a campaign based on appearances. They imagine they will be successful at this.
Oh dear, that wasn't where I meant to go at all. What I meant to do was to take off on the trivial nature of that letter to the editor and pose a couple of Trivial Pursuit questions to go with the photo of Obama with Al Sharpton.
So here they are, at long last.
Q: In 1997, Tawana Brawley changed her name. What did she change it to?
If you guessed, "Maryam Muhammed," you're right!
Now the next question is an easy Google.
Q: Who else carries this name?
A: Umm Nidal, one of Hamas's most popular candidates elected in 2006.
What a small world... full of funny little coincidences.
(Don't let your imagination run wild.)
Posted by: Winged Hussar 1683 | Sunday, 06 May 2007 at 02:47 PM