Diplomaidiocy
So what's needed in Iraq? What's needed in the Middle East in general? Why, it's simple, according to the reasonable, sensible, and realistic pundits.Nuance. Sensitivity. Dialogue with Syria and Iran. A "Real Solution" to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.Sorry, I really meant to get through this without using the quotation marks, but I just couldn't stand it. The James Baker-led Iraq "Report" once again trots out these horses, which echo the exact same thought enunciated by our more ambitious politicians: If we just sit down and negotiate, we can solve this.Do you remember how badly Clinton wanted to become the man who resolved the Israel/Palestine situation? He practically tucked Arafat into bed at the White House, only to be rebuffed when - surprise! - the terms of the deal offered were deemed unsatisfactory by the Nobel-worthy, self-appointed, and thoroughly corrupt "Leader" of the Palestinian cause.The lesson here is that so many have yearned to be that person, and the inspiration - never mind that it's doomed to fail - consists of little more than: "If I were in charge, I could make them strike a deal, and then the whole planet would love me!"Unbeknownst to many of our would-be leaders, this is not "Let's make a deal", or any of its variants, such as "Who wants to acquire a homeland?". It has nothing to do with "Peace", and everything to do with exterminating Israel and its Jews - how many times must you be reminded of this by Ahmadinejad before you understand that he means what he says?So, mr. aspiring peacebroker - how will you negotiate a peace with those whose sole demand - which can't be negotiated - is the death of the other party? How will you, Mr. Kucinich or Kerry - or you, Ms. Clinton - make good on your fantasy that your superior negotiation skills by themselves will resolve the essential conflict?I hate to burst your bubble, but your pipe dream puts us all at risk.
Brain cuts for the stupid
Just in case it hasn't been translated for you lately, here's the story behind the veil:"TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH" - this concept is named this way to conceal the fact that the people who express it actually despise the notion of wealth in general. Wealth represents inequality, and as we all know, inequality must inherently mean that one person is oppressing another.Just look at Paul Krugman's latest road show, which is that the "Super-rich" are "Screwing" America. Such outbursts are common among those who subscribe to the capitalism-is-evil script, whether consciously or not. When pressed, many of these people would allow for the fact that they still believe in the notion that there is somwhere in the realm of possibility a more "fair" system than capitalism, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. Cloaked in a shroud of compassion, this disdain for free-market mechanisms represents the very serious threats imposed by communism, and the scorn and ridicule heaped on those who point out the failures of such thinking only underscores the fragility of what this country has achieved.By giving people the freedom to pursue their own level of success, they are automatically granted the responsibility for those results. Are those who choose to ignore the system and live off the handouts of others - or turn to crime - less deserving than the rest of us, or are they simply helpless victims of an uncaring society? Well, there are people with legitimate needs - orphans, cripples, and such, and then there are people who are just plain bums. The "Homeless" in the '80's occupied the same slot as "Undocumented" people today - another euphemism, deployed by the intelligentsia to indict the 'failings' of capitalism, because of course, anyone's plight is the fault of "all of us", just as your wealth that you earned must be redistributed to others "fairly".Yes, having wealth is unfair, as we all know, and the entire goal of society should be to move towards making people's level of wealth more similar, rather than less.So any reduction in taxes - even one enacted at the same exact rate for every income level - favors the wealthy. How? Simply because wealth favors the wealthy. To say that the rich do not "pay their fair share" is to actually dodge the argument over what "fair" is actually supposed to be. By simply painting any amount as "not enough", the idea is easily ingrained into everyone that no matter what portion of high levels of income are taxed, the fact that there are wealthy people is by itself an injustice.Those who place more emphasis on passion than reason generally see no connection between personal freedom and economic freedom, and that is such a terrible shame.
